Sitting of 6 June 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  UNION THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN IRELAND BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
  ABINGDON MARKET PLACE BILL [Lords]
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Unemployed Persons
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for unemployment; and how this compares with the percentage in each of the EEC countries.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): On 11th May there were 1,386,810 people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom—5·8 per cent. of all employees. No fully comparable rates of unemployment are available for all EEC countries. The Statistical Office of the EEC publishes rates that have been partially standardised, but the standardisation is not sufficient to permit totally reliable comparisons to be made.
    Mr. Rost: That is probably just as well. But how many more jobs will be lost over the coming months as a result of the Government's policy to push up interest rates again in order to sell enough gilts to finance their gross overspending?
    Mr. Booth: With respect to the hon. Gentleman's comments, the EEC's partially standardised rates are rather favourable to us and show us as having a lower rate of unemployment than that of a number of other EEC countries. As to the Government's interest rate policy, this must be decided in the light of a number of considerations and it would not necessarily help unemployment to pursue a policy of unrealistically low interest rates.
    Mr. Jay: Is my right hon Friend aware that unemployment in Norway now stands at about 1·5 per cent.?
    Mr. Booth: Yes, I am aware of that, and I greatly admire that achievement, but it was done through pursuing policies

    3
    which are not available to us in this country as a member of the EEC.
    Mr. Wigley: Although figures for unemployment in England have come down in recent months, for four of the last six months in Wales they have not. In view of this, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider regional policy in the European context as well as in the United Kingdom context in order to overcome the problems of unemployment in Wales?
    Mr. Booth: Yes, certainly, we are giving very careful consideration to regional policy and in the Department of Employment we seek special measures to strike a proper balance between those which we apply over the country as a whole and those which give preference to the regions. I have been in discussion with a number of Ministers of Labour in EEC countries with a view to seeing how far we can further this in EEC policies.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latest published figures from the EEC show that unemployment fell by more than the average in Germany, Denmark, Holland and Luxembourg and that the United Kingdom's fall was less than the average? Is he further aware that on 23rd May his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster stated quite categorically that the Government's legislation with regard to employment, particularly the Employment Protection Act, was inhibiting employers from taking on new labour, thus leading to further unemployment?
    Mr. Booth: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did not say that the Government's legislation or policy in respect of small firms was inhibiting employment. In fact, as the hon. Lady is well aware, I have announced in the House a small firms employment subsidy scheme which is designed to encourage small firms to increase the numbers that they employ. In fact, the rate of change of employment levels in EEC countries shows that in Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy and Luxembourg the rate of increase in unemployment has been very much higher than in the United Kingdom over the last 12 months.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that part of our un
    4
    employment problem arises from the flooding into this country of manufactures from EEC countries? Would he not further agree that some EEC countries have adopted a measure to reduce their unemployment problem which is anathema to us—that is, sending immigrant workers back?
    Mr. Booth: It is certainly the case, particularly in the Federal Republic of Germany, that in spite of sending many workers back, they have still suffered a considerable fall in the number of jobs available for the home population. With regard to the amount of manufactured goods coming into this country, my right hon. Friend will be aware that we have been concerned about the operation of EEC competition policy and a number of other policies which do not appear to us to have sufficient regard for employment consequences.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Is it not a fact that, through our membership of the EEC, we have had significant help concerning training and in dealing with redundancies in basic industries? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a substantial part of the unemployed in this country are under the ago of 30, including school leavers of last year and the year before? Although one welcomes the measures that the Government have in hand for dealing with school leavers later this year, can the right hon. Gentleman give some assurance that the school leavers of last year and the year before who are still unemployed will get particular attention?
    Mr. Skinner: Not if it is left to Nicholas Ridley.
    Mr. Booth: Certainly, in working with our EEC partners we have always supported policies of using EEC funds to support training schemes, particularly where they will improve the employment prospects of people in the EEC. As for the unemployed school leavers, 16 out of every 17 who left school in this country last year obtained employment. What we are seeking to do now, of course, is not only to improve upon that performance in the coming year but to give special attention to those who did not obtain jobs last year. That is why, in particular, we have provided within the special temporary employment programme for anyone unemployed for six

    5
    months or more to have first call on the places provided.
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are currently unemployed.
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present level of unemployment.
    Mr. Booth: At 11th May, 1,324,866 people were registered as unemployed in Great Britain. The seasonally adjusted level of unemployment has fallen for the eighth successive month. However, as I have told the House previously, the prospects for a major improvement depend in large part on international cooperation on economic growth. Concerted action by major industrial countries is needed, and the Government are working to achieve this. At home, the special measures are playing an important part in counteracting the worst effects of unemployment.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall call first those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered.
    Mr. Jessel: Does the Secretary of State agree that 1,324,866 is an appalling figure? Now that Britain is getting big revenue from North Sea oil, what possible excuse is there for the Government to run the economy so badly that there are still almost 1⅓ million people unemployed?
    Mr. Booth: Certainly the figure is appalling, and I welcome the hon. Member's support for the use of North Sea oil revenues for measures to increase employment levels. On the actual numbers employed in this country, the Government's record compares favourably with that of a number of other countries and it also compares favourably with the way in which this country was run between 1971 and 1973.
    Mr. Arnold: Nothwithstanding what the Secretary of State has said about
    6
    international factors, does he not agree that unless the Government give greater inducements to British industry to become more profitable we cannot reverse the underlying trend towards increasing unemployment in manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Booth: I certainly agree that the Government must give a great deal of direct support and encouragement to British industry, both to workers and to management. That is largely the purpose of developing the industrial strategy and of the Industry Act and a number of other measures to support that strategy.
    Mr. Knox: When will the unemployment level fall below 1 million, and when will it fall to the level at which it stood in February 1974?
    Mr. Booth: Like my predecessors, I do not engage in forecasts of unemployment levels, but if we achieve that level by December it will be very welcome and none too early.
    Mr. Watkinson: We all welcome the continued fall in the number of unemployed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the outlook for Western economies is not particularly bright in the immediate future and, therefore, it is all the more important to extend the measures that he has already introduced? What is his Department's present thinking on work-sharing programmes, and will he consider extending even further the job release scheme?
    Mr. Booth: I agree that the immediate outlook in a number of European countries is not particularly bright. This makes necessary the extension of special measures of support for employment. To that end, we have already announced measures which should bring the total support up to 400,000 jobs by next Easter.
    On work sharing, we agree that there is a real need for this in certain industries and we have introduced special measures of support for short-time working in the clothing, textile and footwear industries. We have recently extended the job release scheme so that it has nationwide application, and there is an increase in the payment of the job release allowance. All these are measures which have to be kept under continuous review and development

    7
    and which can play a very important part in reducing unemployment.
    Mr. John Evans: Will my right hon. Friend accept that some of us at least are delighted to see a small fall in the figures? We agree with him that it will take international co-operation to reduce these figures further.
    Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is precious little evidence that West Germany is prepared to go along with his opinion and take those steps which are absolutely necessary if we are to reduce the level of unemployment, not only in this country but throughout the Common Market?
    Mr. Booth: I agree that last month's fall was a relatively small one. The more significant thing is that it was a continuation of a fall which has been taking place for the seven previous months.
    I agree that the attitude of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is a very important factor in the EEC discussions. I had that very much in view in a whole day of talks with Dr. Ehrenberg last Thursday, which I hope will be reflected in a greater measure of agreement at the next tripartite confrence.
    Mr. Scott: Will the Secretary of State commission an independent inquiry into the effect of the Employment Protection Act 1975 on the present levels of unemployment? When its report is produced, will the right hon. Gentleman publish it?
    Mr. Booth: I have commissioned such a review of the effect of the Act, and I hope to have it available for publication by the end of this month.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I welcome the immense amount of money that the Government are making available to stimulate employment in the public as well as the private sector, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a paradox that so much money should be spent while there is underspending, particularly by some Tory local authorities which are refusing to spend money which has been allocated to them? Does he agree that where there are shortages of manpower in many of the public services we need to have a big increase in public spending in order to provide people with employment?
    Mr. Booth: I certainly agree that public expenditure must be planned with a view to our employment needs as well as the needs of the customers of the services. To this extent I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that it is tragic that local authorities, some of which are very critical of the Government, have underspent considerably in areas where there would be considerable scope for improving local services and increasing employment.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the multinational firm of National Cash Registers in Dundee has announced redundancies because of transfer of work to Augsburg in Germany? As this firm has reduced its manpower from about 7,000 to less than 1,000 over eight years, may I ask whether the Government have considered entering into any planning agreements with multinational firms in order to try to secure employment among workers in Scotland?
    Mr. Booth: The Government, as I think the hon. Gentleman is aware, have been very keen to secure planning agreements on a voluntary basis with a large number of companies, both national and multinational. I very much welcome what I take to be the hon. Gentleman's support for our seeking to press that policy with a view to protecting the interests of his constituents and many others whose jobs may be at stake.

    Workers' Safety Representatives
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the preparations being made for the implementation of the regulations concerning workers' safety representatives on 1st October 1978.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): I am informed by the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission that responsibility for the implementation of these regulations rests with employers and the independent trade unions they recognise. While I am aware that many are preparing themselves for their implementation and some have already reached agreement, the Commission, my right hon. Friend and I have been encouraging those who have not yet started to do so immediately.
    Mr. Rooker: Would my hon. Friend care to elaborate on that statement by

    9
    distinguishing between the preparations in the public sector and those in the private sector? Is he satisfied with the preparations being made for the implementation of these regulations in the public sector?
    Mr. Grant: I am certainly satisfied that all public sector bodies have now either reached agreement with their recognised unions about the arrangements to be made or else are in active consultation about them. If, as I think, my hon. Friend is concerned about the resources question, I would say that we believe that it can be done adequately within existing resources in the public sector—not without problems and some reordering of priorities—but we still have a constraint on resources and extra money spent here would mean less for other equally desirable activities.
    Mr. Madel: Since it is hoped that safety representatives will fulfil a vital role in reducing accidents, what information do the Government have about the amount of training that the newly appointed representatives will have received? Are the Government satisfied with the level of training being given?
    Mr. Grant: Most of the training is being done under the auspices of the TUC. The safety representatives will, of course, be officials of their unions, and the Employment Protection Act gives the TUC and the independent unions the right to determine the standards of training. The TUC is doing a great deal in this respect, so we need have no fears on that ground.

    USSR (Trade Unions)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what further discussion he has had with the International Labour Organisation since his reply to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South on 4th April—Official Report,c. 226—about the recognition by the International Labour Organisation of the Association of Free Trade Union Workers in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    Mr. John Grant: The ILO has confirmed that its established procedures are available for the examination of allegations of infringement of the right of workers to establish and join trade unions as expressly provided for in the Freedom
    10
    of Association and Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 87) which has been ratified by the USSR. An investigation under these procedures has now been initiated.
    Mr. Blaker: Does that carry us much further forward compared with the position two months ago when the Minister answered a Question on this subject? Since this matter is becoming more urgent because of the evidence which has come in of increasing harassment of the members of the association, is it not possible either for the TUC or for the Government to make sure that the matter is put on the agenda of the ILO meeting which is to take place this month?
    Mr. Grant: First of all, there is considerable progress in this matter; this is a positive step forward which has been taken. It would be wrong for the United Kingdom Government as a member of the ILO to try in any way to short circuit the procedures of the ILO and to prejudge the issue. In any part we play, particularly within the governing body, the United Kingdom representatives will be aware of the views expressed in this House and of the Government's total opposition to the suppression of human rights wherever that occurs, and will especially be aware of our fundamental rejection of the misuse of psychiatric treatment or other forms of punishment in the ways alleged in this case.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the National Union of Railwaymen, the National Union of Mineworkers, NALGO, the AUEW and other unions have raised this question and are very concerned about it? Is he also aware that this matter is on the agenda of the Labour Party national executive, that the TUC general council has written to the Soviet trade unions about it and that, whatever the reply is, we are deeply concerned about this whole question? But is my hon. Friend also aware that some Conservative Members are concerned to attack what happens in the Soviet Union but do not defend the rights of Chilean workers, Iranian workers or others in different parts of the world who are equally concerned with trade union rights in their countries?
    Mr. Grant: Yes, I am well aware of the facts that my hon. Friend mentioned at the start of his question. Also, the

    11
    TUC is a leading affiliate of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, which lodged a formal complaint with the ILO about this matter. I very much agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Ovendenasked the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he intends to take to reduce unemployment amongst disabled young people.
    Mr. John Grant: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that the measures previously announced to reduce unemployment among disabled people should benefit disabled young people equally. Specifically, consideration is being given to developing special projects for disabled young people under the new special programmes which came into force in April. It is also intended to expand the work preparation courses and short assessment courses provided especially for disabled young people at employment rehabilitation centres.
    Mr. Ovenden: Will my hon. Friend accept that, although we all welcome the special provision being made within the youth opportunities scheme for disabled young people, their employment opportunities can be significantly improved only if the Manpower Services Commission adopts a much more urgent attitude towards the implementation and enforcement of the disabled employment quota? Will he impress on the MSC that that is absolutely vital?
    Mr. Grant: I do not think that the quota is relevant here, although it is due for review in the fairly near future when the present positive policy has had rather more time to take effect. The MSC is particularly conscious of the importance of meeting the needs of disabled young people and has set up a special working group to look into ways in which their needs can be met and to try to develop more practical proposals for ensuring a fair share of job opportunities for disabled young people.
    Mrs. Bain: In a week which has been designated National Access Week for the disabled, can the Minister outline what is being done in Government Departments to employ young disabled people? Has any survey been done within the Depart-
    12
    ment of Employment itself which shows the level of its employment of disabled young people?
    Mr. Grant: On Government Departments, I do not think that I can add to what I have said before in relation to the quota. However, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning National Access Week, because it allows me to welcome the steps taken in this respect by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the disabled and to draw the attention of employers to the capital grants scheme, which has been sorely ignored by employers so far. We have spent only £11,000 out of nearly £500,000 allocated for the scheme. That would certainly afford further access to employment for disabled young people as well as other disabled people.
    Mr. Marten: Bearing in mind the fact that the aim of most countries is the integration of the disabled in normal life, may I ask the Minister what are the special projects to which he referred?
    Mr. Grant: There is a whole list of them. If I may, I should like to write to the hon. Gentleman with the details.
    Mr. Corbett: In view of the high number of disabled young people who are workless, when will the MSC's plans, good as they are, be translated into action?
    Mr. Grant: I could go on at length about the activities of the MSC in respect of the disabled, particularly disabled young people, and its proposals in respect of employment rehabilitation centres. However, it would take up too much time to deal with those matters now, and I should prefer to write to my hon. Friend.

    Closed Shop Agreements
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the procedures currently in operation in his Department for monitoring the extension of closed shop agreements in the public sector.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): My Department does not monitor the establishment or operation of closed shop agreements in either the public or private sectors.
    Mr. Gow: May we take it from the hon. Gentleman's reply that the Minister does not realise that 42 former employees of British Rail, some of them with more than 30 years' service, have been dismissed without compensation, solely because they refused to join a union? Will he take this opportunity of confirming that he agrees with what the Prime Minister said in the House on 4th April—namely that he would find it unacceptable that people should be dismissed from employment because of their political views, however objectionable those views might be?
    Mr. Walker: I would not dream of dissenting from anything my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. The employees to whom the hon. Gentleman referred have not been dismissed for their political views, nor is the situation as simple and crude as he makes out. There are difficulties, and I hope that where union membership agreements are entered into they will be operated flexibly and tolerantly.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my hon. Friend accept that the Opposition's constant harping on this subject is another indication of their cynical opportunism in that although, on the one hand, they assert in the name of freedom the right of an individual to be employed in a closed shop, on the other hand they condemn those workers and ask for the trade unions to impose discipline on those who go on unofficial strike?
    Mr. Walker: On the many occasions when we have discussed these matters relating to the closed shop, the House will have observed the Opposition's lack of concern about those who are denied the right to join a trade union and those who wish to exercise their functions as trade union members. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) will read the speech of Mr. David Basnett, who said that in pursuing the subject of the closed shop the Opposition are engaging in naked political opportunism.
    Mr. Aitken: Is the Minister aware that one very good reason for changing his staggeringly complacent attitude on this subject is the fact that the European Court of Human Rights has now agreed to hear what could be the tremendously historic case of Webster v. the United Kingdom on the grounds that a prima
    14
    facie case has now been made out that the closed shop dismissals of British Rail employees, to which my hon. Friend referred, may be a violation of fundamental human rights and perhaps of the treaty which Her Majesty's Government have now signed? Will the Minister think again?
    Mr. Walker: We are considering the implications of this narrow but complex matter. We are carefully studying the decision on the admissibility question, but so far the Court has not examined the merits of the issue. We must wait until we have seen the merits of the matter. Nobody has ever suggested that the Convention on Human Rights outlaws the closed shop in the way the Opposition sought to outlaw it in the Industrial Relations Act 1971, with such disastrous consequences.
    Mr. Gow: In view of the gravely unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Bulmerasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many workers are currently covered by closed shop agreements.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Dr. W. McCarthy's study of "The Closed Shop in Britain", published in 1964, estimated that at that time about 3¾ million workers were covered by closed shop agreements. Reliable estimates are not available for subsequent years, but my Department has recently commissioned research which is designed in part to provide up-to-date information about the present extent of closed shop agreements.
    Mr. Bulmer: Can the Minister confirm that in the negotiating arrangements for the closed shop with the Civil Service the Government are insisting on certain safeguards? Will the Government arrange for these safeguards to be put into a code of practice so that all employees, in both the public and the private sectors, can enjoy the same protection?
    Mr. Walker: I tell the hon. Member and the House for the umpteenth time—at great public expense—that we believe that the matter of the closed shop and the precise form of the arrangements are matters for agreement and negotiation

    15
    between the employer and the trade unions concerned. The Government are an employer, but it does not follow that the appropriate arrangements for a union membership agreement between the Government, as an employer, and their employees are of universal application. These arrangements are a matter for negotiation in the public sector, as in the private sector, and negotiations are currently continuing with the Lord Privy Seal and the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, who are responsible for the union arrangements in the Civil Service at present.
    Mr. Skinner: Did the figure of 3¾ million referred to in 1964 include lawyers, doctors and Church of England vicars?
    Mr. Walker: I must confess that I am not familiar with the details in the professions to which my hon. Friend has referred.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Is the Minister aware that the continuous weasel words that he uses on this issue and his failure still to show how his supposed neutrality varies from that of Pontius Pilate destroy any claim that his Government have of being concerned about the individual rights of workers? Is he aware that the contribution by Mr. David Basnett at his union conference yesterday about the Conservative policy on this issue was a gross and grave misrepresentation? We are concerned about protecting the rights of individuals who are caught up in such agreements.
    Mr. Walker: I think the House will feel that the role of a Roman governor is a most unlikely one for me. I try to handle this difficult and sensitive issue in an equally sensitive way, which contrasts with the crude approach of the Conservatives. They fail to face up to the inevitable consequences of the policy that they have openly declared of providing certain safeguards—a policy which must inevitably take them down the same road as had such disastrous consequences in 1972 and which produced the worst industrial relations record for any year since the General Strike. That is the road on which Conservatives want to embark yet again. Only fools fail to learn from their own experience.

    Manpower Services Commission
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he will meet next the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.
    Mr. Booth: I am in constant touch with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.
    Mr. Silvester: In one of the moments when the right hon. Gentleman is in touch, will he consider the problems of those over the age of 40 who are now unemployed? Much of the work of the Commission is related to young people out of work, but unemployment among the over-40s is a growing and considerable problem. Will he consider what is being done in that area?
    Mr. Booth: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that, with unusual foresight, I anticipated his question. I discussed the matter with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission two months ago. At my suggestion, the Commission has in hand a study of the problems of older unemployed people. It is attempting to implement a pilot scheme to see whether there are any counselling aids that can be brought to bear on the problem. I expect to have a report from the MSC, which has considered this subject in depth, by the early autumn.
    Mr. Madel: As labour shortages are beginning to appear in skillcentres in the electrical engineering section of the car industry, resulting in intense competition for labour, will the Secretary of State ask the chairman of the MSC how the Commission intends to overcome the shortage of technicians and supervisors in order that the youth opportunities programme can get off the ground in September?
    Mr. Booth: The chairman of the MSC has had discussions with the chairmen of

    17
    all the industrial training boards. I have considered with him the way in which the industrial training boards can best assess the future skill needs of the respective industries. We must accept that anything we can do in the next year will be by way of first aid to remedy failures and to make the decisions which should have been taken four or five years ago to step up industrial training at that time. We shall do as much as we can within the training opportunities scheme in particular, and we should extend current courses supported through the industrial training boards. But I am afraid that in respect of the higher skills such action will not have a great deal of bearing on immediate shortages.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the chairman of the MSC contingency plans for dealing with the situation under which young people, having undertaken the maximum of a year's course under the youth opportunities programme, may, as a result of factors such as the state of the economy and continuing trends towards automation, find themselves still largely unskilled and totally unemployed?
    Mr. Booth: That matter is within the area of the broader discussions with the Commission, but some of the measures we are taking to ensure jobs for young people when they complete their youth opportunities programme courses are the direct responsibility of my Department and are not run by the Commission. Such schemes as the job release scheme and the small firms employment subsidy, which will make more jobs available for young people, are a complement to the youth opportunities programme.
    Mr. Rooker: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Chairman of the MSC, will he ask what he is doing about those expensively situated job shops and jobcentres in city centre premises and what he intends to do to open them on Saturdays?
    Mr. Booth: The chairman of the MSC and all the commissioners are keeping under constant surveillance the way in which they can best serve those who are seeking to obtain or change jobs through the jobcentres. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that they have a much better record than the old exchanges which they replaced.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Since the by-elections a, Hamilton and Garscadden show that the people have more faith in the Labour Government in solving the problem of unemployment than they have in any other Government, will my right hon. Friend recognise that unemployment is still the main problem that faces the nation? Therefore, when he next meets the chairman of the MSC will he have a long discussion with him to get the youth opportunities programme off the ground so that we may make an immediate effort to get young people out of the dole queues and into jobs?
    Mr. Booth: Yes. This is a matter I have discussed with the chairman of the MSC. He spends a great deal of his time in ensuring that the various area boards of the youth opportunities programme have maximum support from the Commission and that they will achieve the very high targets which have been set for the programme.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: Will the Minister ask the chairman of the MSC to give serious consideration to the proposition which I put to him that the sea defences at the village of Salthouse and other places in the United Kingdom should qualify as projects suitable for job creation? Is he aware of the ludicrous situation which exists within one mile of Salthouse where the MSC is helping to re-lay a model steam railway yet refuses to assist in sea defence work?
    Mr. Booth: I shall look into the particular case that the hon. Member has mentioned. I shall do so with keen interest because I have a sea defences problem in my constituency which might be solved by the same means.
    The main reason why we distinguish in the new youth opportunities programme between job creation schemes which we are now reserving mainly for adults and schemes which are training projects is that we believe it is necessary to have a higher educational and training content in the schemes for unemployed school leavers.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problem of redundant middle-aged workers has been apparent for a long time? The Manpower Services Commission should be doing more than looking into it. It

    19
    should be taking action, particularly on the difficulties of contracts of employment, which often operate against middle-aged workers.
    Mr. Booth: I share my hon. Friend's concern. Because the Manpower Services Commission—for the best possible motive—does not want to label any particular group of people as long-term unemployed, it has hesitated in tackling this problem before. I have discussed this matter with the chairman. This is something upon which the Commission is acting with the facilities it has available and for which it will produce some proposals as a result of a full survey of the problem.

    Disabled Persons (Fares to Work)
    Mr. David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled persons received help in 1977 from the Manpower Services Commission in order to get to work; and what was the average amount of help given.
    Mr. John Grant: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that in 1977 210 applications were approved for help to be given with the cost of travel to work, at an average weekly amount of £10·20.
    Mr. Price: Is the Minister aware that, in the conditions of high unemployment that we have been discussing, the disabled worker is particularly disadvantaged? Is he aware that one of his biggest problems is that of getting to work and that the mobility allowance, welcome though it is, is not always adequate? Will he talk to the Manpower Services Commission and try to make better use of this facility, because the figures that he has given are frighteningly small?
    Mr. Grant: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member's point. There will be a revised fares-to-work scheme which will be introduced on 5th July to coincide with the next uprating in the mobility allowance. This will mean roughly a 75 per cent. contribution towards the cost of taxi travel to work, and it will not be means-tested like the present scheme. The new scheme will be much more flexible in its application, many more people will benefit and it
    20
    will be available to people in both open and sheltered employment. We intend that the spending on the scheme will be trebled between 1977–78 and 1978–79.

    Skilled Engineers
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take to further employment opportunities for skilled engineers.
    Mr. Harold Walker: The strengthening of a wide range of industry through the industrial strategy should improve employment prospects for skilled engineers. In addition, the temporary employment subsidy has done much to prevent the dispersal of skilled work forces. The small firms employment subsidy, which is to be extended in July, should also help to increase employment in small manufacturing firms.
    Mr. Adley: Is the Minister aware, however, that the industrial strategy and the Government's incomes policy, and all the other things he has mentioned, are having the effect of causing skilled engineers quite simply to seek work abroad and that the British aerospace industry has now become one of the primary recruiting grounds for this process?
    Is the Minister further aware that a silent crisis is developing among skilled engineers in this country? In spite of the Government's words today on various matters, what will the Minister do to protect the seed corn of the country's economic recovery, if and when it comes?
    Mr. Walker: I certainly would not accept what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his question. The industrial strategy and the pay policy have done much to bring about the available economic indicators, which I am sure the whole House welcomes.
    As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he will know that a commission has been set up by the Government and is looking into the engineering industry. In addition to that, the Engineering Industry Training Board has put forward new radical and far-reaching proposals for consideration by the engineering industry about ways to reduce apprenticeship periods and to step up the quality of training.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Maddenasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 6th June.
    The Prime Minister(Mr. James Callaghan): This morning I greeted the Prime Minister of India on is arrival for an official visit to this country. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall later today be having talks with Mr. Desai and tonight I shall be host at a dinner in his honour.
    Mr. Madden: Since his return to this country, has the Prime Minister had an opportunity of looking at last week's issue of The Economist, which published a Tory plan for conflict and confrontation in public industry? Does he not agree that the Leader of the Opposition owes it to the public and to workers in the public sector to make clear whether she supports those bizarre proposals?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the Opposition will make their position clear, but if they are drawing up battle plans for future industrial conflict I can only say that that is in contradistinction to what the Government are doing, namely, to try to promote industrial cooperation at all levels. That is why we are increasingly getting support from both sides of industry.
    Mrs. Thatcher: If the Prime Minister wishes to talk about party policy documents, will he say whether he endorses the Labour Party's programme, passed by his own Labour Party conference, to nationalise building, banking, insurance, land and 32 major private companies?
    The Prime Minister: There seems to be—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Answer 'Yes' or 'No'."] I shall answer in my own way and in my own time. There seems to be an early outbreak of party skirmishing now that we have come back. I was trying to divert it into the more peaceful channels of indicating what the Government were doing to promote cooperation. Our programme will appear in due course and it will utterly satisfy the nation. I have no doubt about that.
    Mrs. Thatcher: As usual, the Prime Minister is trying to avoid answering the
    22
    question. Will he now answer it? Does he endorse that document or not?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Lady well knows, I have no responsibility at this Dispatch Box for party documents, but I am very happy at any time to answer for Government policy. Government policy will be enunciated by me through the Cabinet at all times to the complete satisfaction of the right hon. Lady.
    Mr. Watkinson: Will my right hon. Friend contact the Soviet authorities today and indicate to them the continued sense of outrage about the trial and sentence of Yuri Orlov? Will he also indicate that the possible further trials of dissidents Shcharansky and Ginsburg will be in clear breach of the Helsinki Final Act and can do nothing but undermine the support in the West for detente?
    The Prime Minister: The NATO conference last week expressed its concern about human rights, the infringement of which is bound to jeopardise the improvement in detente. As my hon. Friend knows, I have expressed this view on behalf of the Government frequently and regularly. We are deeply concerned about the need for respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. But I do not believe that a public approach by me to the Soviet Union today would help in that matter.

    PRESIDENT HUSAK
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet President Husak of Czechoslovakia.
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to meet President Husak of Czechoslovakia.
    Mr. Whitehead: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Czech civil rights movement has appealed directly to the Socialist International for help and that we all hope that all leading members of the Socialist International will make their views know, even if privately, to President Husak? Is my right hon. Friend heartened, as I am, that those who have to fight for the classic human freedoms recognise who their friends are and are not taken in by the kinds of smears against Socialists in this country that we

    23
    constantly got from the gang of four on the Conservative Benches?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware that an approach has been made, with a direct appeal for support from Social Democrats who recently signed "A Hundred Years of Socialism in Czechoslovakia", although I have not received it directly. If I do so, I shall be happy to render what assistance I can.
    Mr. Blaker: Is the Prime Minister aware that his reluctance to criticise the Governments of the Soviet bloc in public contrasts very strikingly with his eagerness to criticise in public the Government of the United States?
    The Prime Minister: That is an unusual inversion of matters. In fact, had the hon. Gentleman been present at the NATO conference he would have heard everything that I said about the Soviet Union on that occasion. It was widely reported.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: May we on this side congratulate the Prime Minister upon the words of sense about Africa at the NATO conference which defused the hysteria which was becoming endemic in the Western world? As a result, that has made a significant contribution to peace in that continent.
    The Prime Minister: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. There is a clear attitude by all the countries of the West about affairs in Africa, but no clear policy has yet evolved. That is something which we must continue to work on.
    Mr. Rifkind: Does not the Prime Minister realise that, at a time when the United States, for the first time for some years, is becoming aware of the full responsibilities of the West to the African continent, it is unfortunate that it should be the British Prime Minister who appears to be the only Western leader trying to point the West in the opposite direction?
    The Prime Minister: In fact, my views received very widespread support from the members of NATO. They were not designed to close anyone's eyes to the threats in Africa that arise from forces from other countries, either actual or threatened. What I was trying to do, and
    24
    what I hope the Opposition may do, is to realise that some of the issues involved there go far deeper than that of an East-West confrontation. They arise out of basic problems in Africa which we left behind and problems which the French and the Belgians left behind. I think that the Organisation of African Unity was quite right to establish the principle—I hope it can carry it out—that there should be no outside interference, that the countries themselves should settle their own disputes and that as far as possible they should settle them peacefully. That is what I was concerned to point out, and it received widespread support in the United States and elsewhere.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of us on this side of the House will be absolutely delighted with the statement that he has made? Is he also aware that the CIA has played a very disreputable role with regard to Africa? Had the CIA not involved itself in Angola and had not Mr. Stockwell's references—now published in a book—been exposed to the world, it is quite clear that the Cubans would not have been in Africa. Therefore, the basic responsibility for what has happened with regard to the Cubans in Africa is that of the CIA.
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of these charges. In due course history will no doubt adjudicate upon them. At the moment, it should be in the interests of the whole of the world to avoid Africa becoming a scene of East-West collision leading to a third world war. It should be our policy not to encourage forces from both sides entering that continent again.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Ovendenasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 6th June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden).
    Mr. Ovenden: Will my right hon. Friend give some priority to considering what action the Government can take to avert an increase in building society mortgage rates? Does he accept that

    25
    such an increase would be very damaging to family budgets? Will the Government tell the building societies quite clearly that a rise in interest rates, at a time when they are holding very large reserves and when they are benefiting from tax cuts, would be quite unjustified and unacceptable?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise that any increase in building society rates would be unacceptable and an additional burden on householders. Nevertheless, if the building societies themselves reach this conclusion I would not wish to stop them from doing it, although I would regret it. It seems to me that it is important that they should maintain their own balances properly and take whatever steps are necessary to achieve that. That is in line with the Government's policy of keeping all these matters of interest rates and other things, such as monetary supply, under control.
    Mr. Tapsell: Among his official engagements today, will the Prime Minister give attention to the steady fall since Budget Day in the international value of the £ sterling and of our foreign exchange reserves? Will he tell us when the Government intend to announce the measures necessary to reverse these threatening trends?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is an expert on City matters. He therefore knows that it would be quite improper for me to make any statement of a general nature about the position of sterling. What is quite clear is that the Government's policy is to ensure that by a combination of fiscal and monetary measures there will be an insurance, together with some continued moderation in wage claims and settlements, to enable us to maintain the level of inflation where it is now. I would like to see it come down, but I doubt whether that is likely. It will range between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent. But if we follow the policy that we intend to follow I see no reason why it should ever get back to double figures.
    Mr. Dalyell: Since considerable sums of public money in relation to grant may be involved, can the Prime Minister in his own time and in his own way give his attention to the suspension of operations by the Cromarty Firth Development Company? Could a statement
    26
    perhaps be made tomorrow by a Government Minister?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend was kind enough to warn me that he would raise this matter. I have already apprised the Secretary of State for Scotland of his views and I am sure that he will take into account my hon. Friend's request.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: judging by the Prime Minister's earlier reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), he is an avid reader of The Economist. Presumably, therefore, he thinks that the opinions of that magazine are worth paying attention to. Can he say what action he intends to take in the light of the recent opinion poll published by The Economist which showed that the vast majority of the British public was in favour of proportional representation?
    The Prime Minister: I was very interested to read that. I look forward with interest to seeing whether it appears in the manifesto of the Conservative Party.

    SPLOTT
    Mr. Severasked the Prime Minister when he expects next to pay an official visit to Splott.
    The Prime Minister: I did so on 29th May and will do so again on 16th June.
    Mr. Sever: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. When he next goes to this particularly important part of the world, will he take the opportunity to make a speech—which will doubtless be widely reported and read and heard by the people of Ladywood in Birmingham—pointing out the dilemma with which this country may well be faced in the event of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition being asked to form a Government and how the economic policies being pursued by the Government reflect the views of the British people in contrast to those proposed by the right hon. Lady?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly do that. My constituents are well aware of the situation. On the whole, I do not think it is worth while spending too much time on the phantasmagoria that my hon. Friend conjures up.

    TUC
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Prime Minister when he last met the Trades Union Congress.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) on 25th May.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very helpful answer. Will he meet the TUC very soon and discuss with it the very serious problems of unemployment and the fact that the TUC believes that there ought to be a great increase in public expenditure in order to provide employment? Will he also take the opportunity to discuss with the TUC the ways in which local authorities have underspent on budgets for which money is already available, in order to ensure that they take up that money and provide more employment?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will have heard the answers given this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Employment in which he showed that unemployment was steadily decreasing, although it is far too high. With regard to local authorities, that is a question of finding the revenue. That is why I am glad to see production going ahead, because that will produce the dividend we need to finance the local authorities.
    Mr. David Steel: If the Prime Minister has a meeting soon with officials of the TUC, will he see whether they can use their good offices to help resolve the dispute which is delaying equipment to the Post Office and which in itself is having a serious effect on the installation of telephones in various parts of the country?
    The Prime Minister: I shall draw that matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for Industry.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that deep concern is being expressed by many trade union leaders over the confrontation policy being put forward by the Conservative Party? When he meets TUC leaders, will he tell them that the answer is to work for the return of a Labour Government with a good working majority when the opportunity arises?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the Opposition need to clarify the position a little, although that is not for me. I do not think that a policy of "If you have a weak union, bash it; if you have a strong union, surrender to it" is likely to commend itself to the British people.
    Mr. Tebbit: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC, will he discuss with it the reasons for the shortage of skilled labour which, despite his denial of it in January, it is now clear exists throughout the economy during a time when there are 11 million unemployed? Could it be that people do not believe that it pays, in this country, to acquire skills and work hard any more?
    The Prime Minister: There may be something in the hon. Gentleman's point. What we need to do is to intensify the training for skill. There is far more training for skill in this country today than there has ever been. In the past four years we have stepped it up. It does not look as if it is sufficient yet, and I am ready to consider proposals for increasing it further. As for rewards, certainly an incomes policy does not help differentials of that nature. We sometimes have to choose between varying evils, and overcoming inflation was the first priority of the Tories as well as of ourselves. The only difference is that we have been more successful.

    EARLY-DAY MOTIONS
    Mr. Speaker: In accordance with the undertaking which I gave to the House before we went into recess, I have a short statement to make about names added to Early-Day Motions.
    I have made a thorough inquiry into the two cases in which Members' names were added incorrectly to Early-Day Motions on the Notice Paper. I should say, first, that the mistakes were made not by the printers in Her Majesty's Stationery Office but in the course of the editorial preparation of the copy for printing. I am satisfied that the mistakes were in no way motivated by malice and that they were the result of simple, human error. I have been assured by the authorities concerned that new checking processes have been instituted which should prevent a recurrence of these mistakes.

    NATO AND UNITED NATIONS MEETINGS
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on my visits last week to Washington for the North Atlantic Council meeting, and to New York to address the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament. Copies of the NATO communiqué, with accompanying documents on the NATO study of East-West relations, and on the Long-Term Defence Programme, and of my speech to the United Nations, have been placed in the Library.
    The North Atlantic Council meeting took place against a background of concern about world economic problems and about the state of East-West relations. There was agreement that the strength of our defence in NATO is related to the strength of our economies, and on the need for the major industrial nations at the forthcoming summit at Bonn to stimulate economic recovery.
    Our discussion of East-West relations was based on a study undertaken since our meeting in London last year. The communiqué makes clear that we remain determined
    "to pursue as constructive and positive a relationship as possible with the Soviet Union and the other East European countries".
    We discussed the reasons for the decline in confidence since the Helsinki Conference in 1975. Among them are human rights and the unacceptability of continued Soviet and Cuban exploitation of particular factors of instability in Africa.
    I expressed my appreciation of the humanitarian operation which the French and Belgian Governments undertook to safeguard the lives of their and our citizens in the Shaba province of Zaire. But there is no intention that NATO should become involved in Africa. Instead, we emphasised that situations of instability and regional conflict in the developing world should not be viewed exclusively in an East-West context, and we reaffirmed the importance we attached to encouraging peaceful settlements through negotiation by the countries and regional organisations themselves.
    In response to the unremitting growth in Soviet military capability, the allied
    30
    leaders endorsed the results of work on the long-term defence programme which they had commissioned following President Carter's initiative at the London meeting a year ago. The alliance now has a clear guide to the improvements on which its members should concentrate and co-operate in defence plans for the years ahead. In our own case, the Government's decision, in line with others, to increase defence spending by 3 per cent. in real terms in each of the next two years enables us to play our full part in this programme, which should lead to greater co-operation in research and production between the allies.
    I emphasised that both our security and good economic sense give us the strongest interest in controlling increases in armaments and securing a measure of disarmament. The NATO countries are committed to following this approach. But progress depends on a positive attitude on the part of the Warsaw Pact countries. In this connection I proposed, and it was agreed, that we should be ready to give renewed political impetus to the MBFR negotiations, by lifting these long-drawn-out negotiations to Foreign Minister level at an appropriate moment. It was also agreed, on my suggestion, that we should make fuller use of the alliance machinery for consultation on arms control and disarmament issues. This will be valuable as a means of following up the results of the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament.
    In my speech to the United Nations I made clear that so long as it is necessary to strengthen our defences in the alliance we shall do so. But we should prefer, and will work for, maintaining security at diminishing levels of armed force by means of multilateral, balanced and verified agreements on arms control. We also need—and this can be done straight away —greater restraint by Governments in the use of armed force as an instrument of foreign policy. I emphasised the need for renewed efforts to bring existing negotiations to a successful conclusion.
    As an earnest of our own intentions I was able to tell the Assembly that in the interests of achieving early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty, we were ready to put forward new proposals in the tripartite negotiations in Geneva. In my view these should open up the way

    31
    to rapid progress on the outstanding issues. I stressed the central importance of a SALT II agreement if the world is to be saved from the risks of an uncontrolled nuclear arms race. I believe that such an agreement can be reached.
    I also gave an outline of the new initiatives which the Government consider could be taken. These include the provision, with other nuclear Powers, of far-reaching and permanent assurances to the non-nuclear States that nuclear weapons will not be used against them; the establishment of further nuclear weapon-free zones; the encouragement of those States which prefer not to adhere to the nonproliferation treaty to accept full-scale safeguards on their nuclear facilities and how to work towards restraint of nuclear armouries in Europe.
    I also put forward suggestions for improving the control of conventional armaments and for increasing regional security by such means as the further exchange of information and of observers, and technical means of surveillance; agreement on restricting conventional arms sales; and a United Nations study covering the problems of peace-keeping and of converting arms production facilities to civil purposes.
    Through these and other specific, practical steps the members of the United Nations could put into effect a programme of action on which we should be called to account at a further special session which, I suggested. should take place in 1981. I found a wide measure of support for this approach, and not only from close friends and allies. Our delegation to the special session will now work to achieve a consensus on a final document which will mark our commitment, state our objectives and provide machinery for achieving a safer world.
    Mrs. Thatcher: May I put two questions to the Prime Minister, one concerning the NATO summit and the other about the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament? Why, when the United States is beginning to take the lead in pursuing a more robust policy towards Soviet expansionism in Africa, does the Prime Minister fail so pointedly to support it? Is he not aware that, by playing down the Soviet threat and failing to support a determined Western response, he
    32
    is indirectly encouraging the Russians to continue their African incursions?
    Secondly, I refer to the Prime Minister's speech to the Special Session on Disarmament and to that part of it in which he referred to his preference for each Government reducing its armaments as it perceived its adversary reducing its. How does the right hon. Gentleman justify the action of his Government in reducing and unilaterally cutting the United Kingdom defence budget by nearly £10,000 million?
    The Prime Minister: We have already dealt with the first question during Question Time today. There is no question that the United States wishes to be directly involved in military intervention in Africa, and it is reckless of the right hon. Lady even to suggest that it might so wish. Our policies are closely related and both of us fully appreciate the nature of the Soviet threat and of the response that has to be made to it.
    As regards reducing United Kingdom armaments, we have done so over a period and now we have decided that it is necessary to increase them again by 3 per cent., in line with our NATO allies—
    Mr. Burden: That shows that you reduced them too much.
    The Prime Minister: It shows that over the past two or three years we have been able to make an economic gain by so doing. However, we are ready to meet whatever threat arises. The Soviet Union fully understands that, but it also understands that the Government are not anti-Soviet for its own sake. We intend to live with the Soviet Union in the world and not to set up an artificial confrontation with it.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is strong support from Labour Benches, at any rate, for his clear recognition of the dangers of a commitment to certain African societies merely because they seem to exhibit a strong anti-Soviet line?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. As I have pointed out—this was the only difference, I think, between myself and some of the American Administration, but not all of it by any means—these matters should not be construed in an East-West context

    33
    exclusively. It is obvious that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition has not read the NATO communiqué where my words are completely reproduced—namely, that these matters should not be viewed exclusively in an East-West context. If the Opposition persist in that line, they will be doing great damage to Britain as well as to their own prospects.
    Mr. Hooson: Was there any discussion between NATO leaders at the NATO summit with regard to Africa on the desirability of having a formal exchange of views with the Chinese on the Russian-Cuban involvement in Africa?
    As for the disarmament proposals at the United Nations, will the Prime Minister give the House his view on the real impediments to the total and complete implementation of the nuclear test ban treaty?
    The Prime Minister: There was no discussion about China at the NATO summit. As NATO does not propose to concern itself as an alliance with issues that are outside Europe and outside its present boundaries, whatever its involvement, there would clearly be no attempt on its part to have discussions with China.
    Two issues have been standing in the way of the conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty. One issue is whether the treaty should be for a period or should be permanent. The second issue is that of verification—whether there should be international inspection and the question of what can be done to ensure that the treaty is being carried out. I believe that the first issue can now be settled and that the second may be overcome.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of my right hon. Friend's statement that NATO will not get involved in outside issues as such, will he explain the status of the talks at official level under the French aegis about Zaire and state his views on the role of Western assistance to African nations by providing permanent forces there?
    The Prime Minister: The talks yesterday were called for the purpose of discussing what should be done to help Zaire's economic problems. That does not mean necessarily the existing regime, although at present that seems to be the only regime. The talks included such matters as food aid, fuel supplies, vehicles
    34
    spares, medicines and longer-term economic aid. There will be another meeting on 13th June and 14th June—it was planned some time ago—in respect of longer-term assistance to Zaire.
    There is no Western policy on general assistance to other African countries. There are Western attitudes, but that is a different matter. Each case will have to be considered on its merits when the time comes.
    Sir Frederic Bennett: Will the Prime Minister say a word or two more about the Paris talks? Surely the talks were concerned not merely with Zaire and short-term or even long-term assistance but with whether there were feasibilities of managing to arrange a more widely representative pan-African force that would be able to intervene in situations such as that which has arisen during the past few days? The Prime Minister's remarks did not seem to give any indication that that is what took place at Paris yesterday. Surely that did take place.
    The Prime Minister: I was reporting what was agreed. There was no agreement on the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises. One Government were concerned about the matter but there was no agreement on it.
    Mr. Watkinson: Was it generally accepted that there should be no linkage between problems in Africa and developments of the SALT II talks? Is there general agreement that the delay on MBFR talks is linked with the delay on SALT talks? Does my right hon. Friend's proposal to lift MBFR talks to Foreign Minister level have broad acceptance on the Western side? Has the proposal been put to the Russians?
    The Prime Minister: There is no linkage in Government policy between the general issue of detente and the completion of SALT II. The President of the United States has made clear to me and, I believe, has subsequently made public that he would not propose to delay an agreement on the present strategic arms limitation talks any longer than is necessary to iron out existing difficulties. I am sure that the House will approve of that. As for the relationship between MBFR talks and SALT II, it is fair to say that because of the concentration of the Soviet Union and the United States

    35
    upon their strategic arms limitation talks we have not been able to make much progress on MBFR. We are now reaching the prospect of a successful conclusion of SALT II, which I believe will happen this year. We may now begin to raise the level of the MBFR talks. That is why I suggested that Foreign Ministers should take that in hand. There was general agreement on that proposal, and that was reflected in the communiqué.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In emphasising that the situation in Africa must not be seen in terms of an East-West conflict—
    The Prime Minister: Exclusively.
    Mr. Macmillan: —exclusively, is the Prime Minister seeking to tell the House that Russian policy in Africa is not being carried out deliberately to weaken the European strength on which Africa largely depends and thus to threaten the whole Western economy?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will understand why I interpolated "exclusively". These matters are not mutually exclusive. It is clear that there are severe problems in Africa, as I explained earlier at Question Time. It is also clear that the Soviet Union and the Cubans will, as always, take opportunistic advantage of the problems. It is far better for the West and other friends of Africa to devote themselves to trying to help Africa solve the basic problems than to deal with the symptoms.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his support for the concept of a United Nations peacekeeping reserve will be much welcomed? However, is he aware that his rather half-apologetic excuse for British arms sales around the world was not so satisfactory? Will he review the Government's policy in that issue?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says about the peacekeeping force. I made no halfhearted statements about arms sales by Britain. We account for 5 per cent. of the world's arms sales. Let those who account for 95 per cent. of arms sales account for themselves. It is true and clear, as must be apparent to my hon. Friend, that to withdraw arms sales from
    36
    any particular area would not permanently leave a vacuum. It would encourage others to enter the vacuum. That is why I suggested that there should be a conference—I hope that it will be a technical conference, although it will have political overtones—between the major suppliers of arms and the recipients of arms, who are constantly asking for arms, to ascertain whether we can reach any agreement. It is a difficult matter, but we would be prepared to enter into it constructively. That is why I went on to say that we would welcome a study of how to convert some parts of our armaments production to civil uses throughout the world.
    Mr. Blaker: How does the Prime Minister believe that further Russian and Cuban aggression in Africa should be prevented? I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that we should pay attention to the basic causes and not to the symptoms. If that is to be our approach, may not further Cuban and Russian aggression deny us the opportunity of dealing with the basic cause?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is drawing attention to a real dilemma. It is one from which I do not try to escape. We need the help of all—I hope not especially on a party basis—to try to solve the problem. I am trying to get some balance into the argument—at times that has been singularly missing—and to suggest in discussion with African countries—not exclusively with European countries—how we can solve these problems. I have been alarmed at the reactions of some of the African countries at what has taken place so far. I am glad that we have been able to interpolate a note of sanity.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest obstacle preventing progress on balanced force reductions is the disagreement between the Powers about numbers? Therefore, will he now go all out to secure the appointment of official military observers so that there may be some basic agreement about the discussions and the numbers upon which those discussions should be based?
    The Prime Minister: There is a growing exchange of observers to promote

    37
    confidence building between the two sides—the Warsaw Pact and the NATO countries. We have been very glad to notify the Soviet Union of some of our own manoeuvres and it in turn has notified us of some of its. We must remember that we are living in a powder keg situation. There can be no room for taking propagandist attitudes.
    On the question of numbers, we have had disclosure by the Soviet Union of the total numbers of their troops, and we have disclosed ours. But there is an inevitable argument whether they are of the same categories. I suggested to the United Nations, as one of the issues which could be followed up, complete disclosure of military budgets as a start. I do not believe that the Soviet Union and others have disclosed their budgets completely. We have. I said that we were willing to take part in a test bed experiment if a number of countries would do so in order that we could have a complete exchange of our expenditure on these matters. I have been both impressed and depressed by the consequences—the possibilities—of another arms race unless we get some agreement on these issues. That is why I am trying not to raise the temperature with the Soviet Union or anybody else, but to lower it.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: At the NATO summit what emphasis did the Prime Minister put upon the threat to minerals in Southern Africa and to the sea routes round the continent of Africa?
    The Prime Minister: Both of these matters were referred to.
    Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend consider sympathetically the French proposals for a realistic and limited approach to disarmament based on a series of regional agreements, which some of us consider more likely to be successful than the prolonged and generalised discussions which have dragged on over the years?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the French proposal is that the present talks which are going on, which concern central Europe, should be extended to cover Europe from the Urals to the Atlantic. We are having enough problems at the moment with Central Europe. I should not by any means rule out the French proposal but I do not think that it should supplant what we are trying to do now. In my speech at the United Nations
    38
    I said that we should be glad to have further talks with the French Government on this matter.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is the chronic instability of many regimes in Africa that makes so dangerous the presence there of a Communist army which is prepared to intervene on one side or another? Apart from all that waffle, what are the Prime Minister and his colleagues going to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware that it is the chronic instability of a number of these regimes which is causing the problem, but it is much easier to analyse the problem than to prescribe the remedy. I should be very glad to have suggestions from the hon. Gentleman. We are continuing to study the matter.
    Mrs. Thatcher: When will you do something?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition frequently has instant solutions for problems. Perhaps we shall have a referendum on this subject. What I was anxious to do and succeeded in doing last week was to point out that these were extremely complex problems and that we needed a longer time in which to decide our attitude rather than to make an instant response. That is the view that the other countries take, and that is what our present discussions are concerned with. But let there be no doubt on the part of the Soviet Union—indeed, that there is no doubt has been conveyed both publicly and privately by me—that what is happening in Africa in the build up of arms and on human rights is bound to jeopardise further progress of detente. They understand that and they, too, must take this into account.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow questions until 4 o'clock. There are two Standing Order No. 9 applications to come and a Ten-Minute Bill before we get to the main business. If those who are called will ask quick questions, I can get others in.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: May not the Special Session of the United Nations be our last chance to halt the arms race? As the aim is disarmament, is it not distinctly unhelpful if, at the same moment, NATO

    39
    is calling for still greater arms expenditure and some of its leaders, like the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, are constantly sniping at detente?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not know whether this is the last chance, but certainly I see signs of an arms race developing. If we do not get a SALT II agreement, I think that it would be catastrophic for the economies both of the Soviet Union and of the United States. That is why I insist on the necessity for this agreement. I agree that it looks a little odd that we should be increasing our arms expenditure at this time, but the Russians understand perfectly why we are doing it. They know that there is a disparity, although they do not admit it. It is important that when we have a balance in the world, as we have at present, the Soviet Union should understand that we intend to maintain the balance, that we are willing to reduce that balance at any time, but that our will cannot be doubted about the necessity for maintaining a proper, defensive stance. We intend to do that.
    Mr. David Price: Will the Prime Minister reaffirm the view that he expressed earlier—that the problems of Africa should be solved solely by the Africans? If so, what proposals will he put forward either at the United Nations or at NATO for the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola and Soviet troops from Ethiopia?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. This is not only my view but the view of the Organisation of African Unity. It laid down this principle in the middle 1950s. I am interested to find that there is growing concern in Africa about the presence of Cuban troops. With respect, I do not need to say anything more this afternoon about my attitude on Cuban advisers or on troops in Africa. That has been made utterly clear to the Cuban Government and elsewhere. The question is, how do we persuade them to leave?
    Mr. Newens: In view of the need to make it clear that we have no intention whatsoever of returning to cold war postures, will my right hon. Friend make clear to the House that it is still our intention to reduce the percentage of our GNP spent on defence at least to the
    40
    average of that spent by our partners in NATO?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I should like to see us spending no more than the same percentage as our partners in NATO. Indeed, that has been one of the reasons why we have been reducing it. I cannot promise that this will continue. It depends, to some extent, on the nature of the threat. The United States, the Federal Republic of Germany and ourselves are the biggest suppliers of defence in Western Europe and we have a responsibility to bear there. But I think that the Soviet Union understands the British position on this matter, and I am happy that it does.
    Mr. Mayhew: When the Prime Minister announced in the United Nations last week that the United Kingdom Government had decided to extend their aid expenditure by 6 per cent. per annum in each of the next four years, did he have in mind the statement made by the Foreign Secretary on 12th December that the developing nations are already spending on armaments more than three times the value of what they receive in aid? When was that decision taken and will it be reconsidered?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of and said both of those things in my speech. I pointed out that the developing countries were spending three times as much on arms—and the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite correct—as they receive in aid. That was why I thought it important that we should go ahead with discussions between the suppliers of arms and those who wish to purchase them in order to get some agreement on this matter. We shall not reconsider our decision on aid. That has already been made clear to the House, and it is for the House to adjudicate upon it.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a dangerous illusion about, particularly in the minds of Opposition Members, that any African nation which is anti-Communist is automatically democratic and virtuous? Will he dispose of that illusion instantly and remind Opposition Members that it is to the long-term advantage of the Soviet Union if we are seen to support corrupt regimes in South Africa?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that it is important that we should not have, I repeat, an East-West confrontation. I do not think that either side would enjoy much long-term benefit out of it, but a lot of medium-term misery would be brought to the people of Africa.
    Our objective and policy—we do not yet have clear answers to all the questions—is to try to obviate the need for such confrontation by seeing how the basic causes can be removed. Some of them are long standing. It will require co-operation and initiative by the African countries themselves if we are to do that.
    Mr. Aitken: In the light of the successful French rescue operation of the civilians in Zaire, do the Government now have any plans to strengthen or expand Britain's paratroop capability?
    The Prime Minister: The operations that the French carried out could be repeated by us if it became necessary in most of the situations that I can envisage and have been asked about.
    Later—
    Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to raise this matter again, but again I was the only Scottish Member who stood through the entire time when questions were being asked of the Prime Minister and who was not called. We are not yet devolved and some of us are not even on drugs so perhaps more notice should be taken of the Scots.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) is suffering from an inferiority complex. It is by chance that the hon. and learned Member happened to be the last Member to be standing. I do not work out in my mind whether an hon. Member is Scottish Conservative or Scottish Labour. It is the first day back. I shall do my best for the hon. and learned Member in the distant future.

    NEW MEMBER
    The following Member made the Affirmation required by law:
    George Robertson Esq., for Hamilton.

    MRS. SAROJ KHULLAR
    Mr. Thorne: 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 deportation of Mrs. Saroj Khullar."
    She has a British-born child Julie, aged two years, who cannot be deported. The Home Secretary's decision to deport Mrs. Khullar after several representations gives the mother the choice between leaving her child in the United Kingdom or taking her with her to India at the State's expense.
    Mrs. Khullar came to the United Kingdom on 12th February 1975 as fiancée to Sorrinder Khullar, who arrived here on 25th April 1973. On 24th February 1975 they were married and on 17th May 1976 a daughter was born to the couple in Preston. Later investigations were conducted into the status of Mr Khullar. Subsequently the Preston Community Relations Council wrote to the Home Office indicating that he was an illegal immigrant. A decision was then taken to remove him in October 1976, and this was carried out.
    Mrs. Khullar had no knowledge that her husband was an illegal immigrant. She entered the United Kingdom to be married in good faith. She has maintained herself and her child by running a business as a trader in knitwear. She lives in a house which is fully paid for and she makes no charge on State funds.
    Mrs. Khullar cannot return to her husband even if she wished to because he cannot be traced. He is believed to be in Turkey. Mrs. Khullar has put a divorce petition into Preston Crown. Court. It is important and urgent that she be allowed to stay here. If she returned to India she would face considerable hardship. In my view she is an innocent victim of this sorry affair. I think that the Home Secretary's decision to deport her is bureaucratic, un-Christian and inhuman. His decision should be the subject of scrutiny by the House.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Preston South (Mr. Thorne) gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek to move the Adjournment of

    43
    the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely;
    "the deportation of Mrs. Saroj Khullar."
    As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision.
    I listened with great care to the hon. Member but I am afraid that I cannot rule that his submission falls within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

    COTSWOLDS AIRFIELDS (UNITED STATES AIRCRAFT)
    Mr. Kershaw: 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 proposal to station KC135 United States tanker aircraft in the Cotswolds."
    The proposal is to station KC 135 aircraft either at Fairford or at Brize Norton. Which of the two makes almost no difference because the airfields are close together.
    These aircraft are exceptionally and almost uniquely noisy and pollutant. They are old aircraft. None has been built for 13 years. Their jet engines are also old. They have to take off with a heavy load—90 tons with fuel—and consequently they have a slow angle of climb. I understand that it is less than three degrees when fully loaded. That means that their noise path is long.
    There can be no doubt that they will be harmful to an area of outstanding natural beauty and of high population. There is also a certain element of danger because the population is large and there are towns nearby. Another factor is that Greenham atomic station is not far away.
    The method of operation, which involves regular refuelling by these aircraft of others in the air, entails them flying night and day, especially during exercise periods.
    44
    I submit that the problem is specific. Ministers have said that the proposal to station these aircraft in the Cotswolds is one of the proposals that is before them. I submit that the matter is important for those living locally. But for three reasons it is also important nationally. First, it poses the usual dilemma between defence needs and environmental desirability. Secondly, other places in the United Kingdom are interested.
    It would be unworthy to propose that the aircraft be foisted on another area which does not want them, but, the Lincolnshire County Council, supported by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and local representatives, has said that it wants the aircraft to go there. The environmental and employment conditions are different in Lincolnshire from those in Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire. Thirdly, the matter is important because it involves the interests of our greatest ally, the United States, and NATO.
    There can be no doubt that the matter is urgent because Ministers have said that they propose to announce their decision this week. This is the last chance that the House has of debating the matter.
    Finally, there can be no doubt that this matter is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government because they have repeatedly said that that is so. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to permit this matter to be debated urgently.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek under Standing Order No. 9 to move the Adjournment of the House for the purposes of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely
    "the proposal to station KC135 United States tanker aircraft in the Cotswolds."
    I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument. He knows that I have to take into account several factors in deciding this matter. I am afraid that I have to rule that I cannot submit his application to the House.

    COTSWOLDS AIRFIELDS (UNITED STATES AIRCRAFT)

      STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
      Ordered,
      That the Offshore Installations (Fire-Fighting Equipment) Regulations 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 611) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr Foot.]

    JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ACT 1361 (AMENDMENT)
    4.12 p.m.
    Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I beg to move,
    That leave be given to bring a Bill to amend the Justices of the Peace Act 1361.
    This Act was passed in the reign of Edward III to deal with the problem of the unemployed in the drastic fashion of those days. In this case the unemployed were soldiers returning from the wars with France after Edward III's Poitiers campaign who had become "pillers and robbers" in the words of the statute. So far, so good. We are against pillage and robbery. However, the Act goes wider than that. It has been put to many strange uses over the centuries. Even now the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice does not consider the Act to be within its terms of reference. That might have been one opportunity for considering it and amending it.
    The Act charges the justices to restrain and arrest those who are called "rioters and barrators" and to take various other measures and levy fines and terms of imprisonment. To none of that would I object. Much of it has been consolidated into other statutes. But the Act then goes on—and the House will have to pardon my Norman French—
    "de pndre de touz ceux [qui sont] de bone fame, ou ils sront trovez, souffisant seurete & meinprise de lo bon port, devs le Roi & son poeple, & les cuts duement punir".
    That, approximately translated, means:
    "to take all of them that be of good fame,"—
    or not of good fame—
    "where they shall be found, sufficient surety and mainprise of their good behaviour towards the King and his people, and other duly to punish".
    No one seems to know exactly what is the official version. There is dispute whether the person described in the statute is of good fame or not. The word "not" does not appear in the official statute. But this person, whether of good fame or not, can be bound over to be of good behaviour or to keep the peace without any charge being brought against him in circumstances that I shall outline.
    Financial sureties can be demanded and anyone who refuses to be bound over can be sent to prison for up to six months, even though he has committed no crime.
    46
    This ancient power has been used by the justices against eavesdroppers, night walkers, and common scolds. It was used in the last century against Salvation Army marchers. It was used against the leader of the hunger marchers, Tom Mann, and, more recently, against a mixed bag of parking fine protesters, nuclear disarmament campaigners, transvestites and Left-wing politicians.
    One attempt to amend the Act in this House over 20 years ago was denounced by the present Lord Rawlinson as a charter for
    "those ugly gentlemen—and they are not so uncommon—whose practice it is to find a place from which they can watch a maiden lady disrobe."—[Official Report, 26th January 1960; Vol. 616, c. 55–6.]
    But such offenders can be charged with an offence. For example, they can be charged with conduct likely to lead to a breach of the peace and in such circumstances, if charged and convicted, they can still be bound over. The binding-over power in common law is not something I would wish to abolish, and this Bill does not seek to do that. It seeks to limit the power of the magistrates to confine or harass those whose conduct is not unlawful but of whom they may disapprove.
    Professor Glanville Williams, writing in the Modern Law Review, on cases where no breach of the law, actual or threatened, had taken place comments:
    "It is extraordinary that the humblest judicial functionaries should thus be able to indulge their fancy by formulating their own standards of behaviour for those who come before them."
    The case of Valerie Waters will be fresh in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members. On 13th November 1976, Mrs. Waters had been one of a number of antifoxhunting demonstrators at a meeting of the Atherstone Hunt. Driving away from the meet she was ambushed by a number of the hunting fraternity and physically attacked. Her car was damaged. As a result, four of the attackers were later charged with criminal damage and with conduct likely to lead to a breach of the peace. In court the following April they all pleaded guilty, were fined and bound over.
    Mrs. Waters was in court that day only as a prosecution witness, but the magistrates decided to bind her over, too. She refused and said that she was not on

    47
    trial. She was sent back into court and was sentenced to a month's imprisonment for refusing to be bound over. She lost her appeal and found herself in Risley as a criminal prisoner. I hope that hon. Members will agree with me that that procedure is neither right nor tolerable.
    In the Lansbury case many years ago the justices, on hearing the appeal, made much of Blackstone's phrase that
    "preventive justice consists in obliging those persons whom there is probable ground to suspect of future misbehaviour, to stipulate with and give full assurance to the public that such offence as is apprehended shall not happen."
    But is it seriously our view that the law should compel a person to abjure conduct that is not unlawful and the deep personal convictions that go with it, or face imprisonment without any charge whatever being brought against him?
    I hope that the House will agree with me that binding over should apply only to those who are brought into court and charged with an offence. That will be the effect of the Bill. It will leave, perfectly properly, the other powers for dealing with troublemakers involved in the 1361 Act and other related legislation. The 1361 Act will still end sonorously—and this time I shall speak in English—with
    "the intent that the people be not by such rioters or rebels troubled nor endamaged, nor the peace blemished."
    But the law would then operate according to the principle enunciated by Dicey, which I commend to Conservative Members who might have some atavistic urge to oppose this Bill. It is that
    "no man is punishable or can be made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land."
    That is what this Bill seeks to establish and I ask leave of the House to bring it in.
    4.18 p.m.
    Mr. Roger Sims—
    Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?
    Mr. Sims: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
    I have great respect for the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), and for the energy and dili-
    48
    gence that he applies to various causes that he espouses. I suggest, however, that on this occasion his enthusiasm is misplaced. He has produced, after 600 years of the operation of this Act, one unfortunate case. It has been well said that hard cases make had law. The hon. Gentleman quoted from the Act, and I intend to do tile same, but in English. The opening words of the Act explain that its purpose is to assign certain persons
    "for the keeping of the peace".
    The object of the Act in assigning justices of the peace and indicating their powers was not only to deal with offenders but to deal with potential breaches of the peace so that if the justices considered that such a breach was likely they would have the power to bind that person over.
    This has been an extremely useful power. On average it is used in some 10,000 cases a year, the vast majority in circumstances where no actual offence has been charged against the individual involved. It has been of value to the courts in dealing with quarrelling neighbours, one of whom has taken out proceedings against the other and where, when they come to court, both they and the court realise that, far better than go through all the various arguments and differences of opinion that have led to the quarrel, they should both be hound over to keep the peace.
    It is important to emphasise that if the justices are considering binding a person over, that person must be told what is going through the justices' minds and must be given an opportunity to make representations. Further, if he is bound over he has the right of appeal to a higher court.
    No law-abiding person would need much persuasion to agree to be bound over to keep the peace, but surely if he does refuse, the court must have some sort of sanction. As to the person being "of good fame" or "not of good fame", the justices must in any case consider whether the person appears likely to disturb tile peace, taking into account his or her past conduct and any threats that he or she may have made. Whether the person is considered to he "of good fame", as the Act puts it, may not be relevant if there is a possible threat to peace. If it is to be necessary, as the hon. Member for Derby, North suggests, to prove that the person is not "of good fame", without

    49
    which proof such a binding over could not be made, this would make it extremely difficult for the courts to implement this sort of legislation. It would make it impracticable to use the binding-over power in the domestic disputes proceedings to which I have referred.
    I oppose the Bill on the ground that the present powers serve a useful purpose. I also point out that the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure is at present sitting and may well have something to say on the matter. We should not anticipate its report. Any change, in any case, should not be made in a piecemeal fashion.
    This power has existed for 600 years. It has worked extremely well. It has given rise to very few causes for concern and should not be abolished in 10 minutes. On this ground, and on the ground that the Royal Commission's report is pending, I invite the House to deny the hon. Member for Derby, North the introduction of his Bill.
    Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—
    The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 117.

    Division No. 227

    AYES

    [4.23 p.m.

    Allaun, Frank

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Ashley, Jack

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

    Graham, Ted

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Bates, Alf

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Bell, Ronald

    Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Harper, Joseph

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Bradley, Tom

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Ryman, John

    Buchan, Norman

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

    Sever, John

    Cant, R. B.

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

    Cartwright, John

    Hunter, Adam

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Silverman, Julius

    Coleman, Donald

    Janner, Greville

    Skinner, Dennis

    Cowans, Harry

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Stott, Roger

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

    Lamborn, Harry

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

    Tilley, John

    Dalyell, Tam

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Watkinson, John

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Whitlock, William

    Dewar, Donald

    McNamara, Kevin

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Doig, Peter

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Eadle, Alex

    Molloy, William

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

    Newens, Stanley

    Woodall, Alec

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Noble, Mike

    Wrlgglesworth, Ian

    English, Michael

    Oakes, Gordon

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Orbacn, Maurice

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Mr. Max Madden and

    Faulds, Andrew

    Parker, John

    Mr. Stan Thorne.

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Prescott, John

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Beith, A. J.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

    Forman, Nigel

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Freud, Clement

    Lamont, Norman

    Blaker, Peter

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Lawson, Nigel

    Bottomley, Peter

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Brotherton, Michael

    Gray, Hamish

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Buchanan-Smith, Allck

    Grylls, Michael

    Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

    Buck, Antony

    Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    Hannam, John

    Marten, Nell

    Cope, John

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Mates, Michael

    Crouch, David

    Hastings, Stephen

    Mather, Carol

    Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

    Holland, Philip

    Mawby, Ray

    Dormand, J. D.

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Molyneaux, James

    Dunlop, John

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Monro, Hector

    Durant, Tony

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

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Jessel, Toby

    Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

    Elliott, Sir William

    Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

    Mudd, David

    Eyre, Reginald

    Jopling, Michael

    Neave, Airey

    Nelson, Anthony

    Rhys, Williams, Sir Brandon

    Tapsell, Peter

    Normanton, Tom

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Tebbit, Norman

    Nott, John

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Onslow, Cranley

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

    Trotter, Neville

    Page, John (Harrow West)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Ross, William (Londonderry)

    Walters, Dennis

    Page, Richard (Workington)

    Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Pardoe, John

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Whitney, Raymond

    Penhaligon, David

    Shepherd, Colin

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Percival, Ian

    Shersby, Michael

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Silvester, Fred

    Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Stainton, Keith

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Stanley, John

    Mr. Roger Sims and

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Mr. Nick Budgen.

    Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

    Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

    Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shiney

    Question according negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS AND ELECTRICITY (FINANCE) BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS AND ELECTRICITY (FINANCE) BILL

    Clause 5
    CONTRIBUTIONS BY SECRETARY OF STATE TOWARDS EXPENDITURE IN CON NECTION WITH STAGE TWO OF DRAX POWER STATION
    4.33 p.m.
    Mr. Hamish Gray: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 21, at beginning insert:
    'Subject to subsection (4) below'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take Amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 40, at end add:
    '(4) Before any money shall be defrayed under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report detailing the expenditure incurred by the CEGB as a result of commencing the Drax Works earlier than they might otherwise have done.'.
    Mr. Gray: In Committee we discussed the principle of the amendment in some detail, and I said:
    "If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, perhaps he would think about it and table an amendment on Report to cover the points that we make."
    The Minister acknowledged that and, later the same day, referring to what I had said, he replied:
    "He asked whether I would be prepared to think again about this matter. It would be a foolish Minister who ignored such a suggestion from the official Opposition. I like to persuade people. I have no hesitation in saying to the hon. Gentleman that I will look at the matter again. I can give no undertaking to the hon. Gentleman about the result, but I shall consider whether his doubts warrant fresh consideration."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11th May 1978; c. 48–51.]
    In view of that generous assurance by the Minister, it is appropriate that we should deploy some of the arguments again in order to freshen his memory in the hope that when he replies he may find it possible to accept the amendment.
    54
    The importance of the amendment is that it deals with the way in which public money is paid out. We pointed out in Committee that, as custodians of the public purse, it is important that we should ensure that, where a sum such as £50 million is likely to be paid to the Central Electricity Generating Board, the Board should justify such a payment before it is made.
    In Clause 5 we are advised that we might have to pay up to a maximum of £50 million. The principle is not in question. Some years ago, a Conservative Government found themselves in a position in relation to the Ince B power station not dissimilar to that in which this Government find themselves. At that time it was decided that compensation should be paid and that the order should be brought forward.
    It is obvious that without Government intervention no order would have been placed for Drax before 1980. There would have been seven years without an order for main generating plant, either by the CEGB or by the Scottish boards. This would have been a serious situation and there would have been many consequences. Some of the worst effects would have been the loss of skills that would have resulted from the order not being made and the number of apprenticeships available in the industry that would have been put at risk.
    In addition, there would have been serious unemployment problems in the areas most affected. As I said in Committee, I visited the Babcock and Wilcox works in the last Summer Recess and I was most impressed by the people I met and what I saw there. I was left in no doubt about the serious effect that the absence of an order would have in that part of the country. This fact was also represented by hon. Members from the North-East who explained on Second Reading the seriousness of the situation in that part of the country.
    It is a great pity that the Government were not able to seize the opportunity for rationalisation of the industry. Some progress has been made in the boiler-making sector. This was highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) on Second Reading, but much remains to be done and there is undoubtedly general dissatisfaction with the

    55
    organisation of the manufacturing side of the industry.
    On the turbine generator side one can go back as far as 24th April 1977, when the energy editor of The Sunday Times, Mr. Peter Rodgers, drew attention to the problem at that time and said in an article:
    "Meanwhile the political row over the other side of the power station problem—plans to merge the turbine generator subsidiaries of GEC and Reyrolle Parsons—is growing apace. At the last minute—at a meeting before Easter—the Cabinet appears to have abandoned a plan to push for a joint company, 40 per cent. GEC, 40 per cent. Parsons and 20 per cent. National Enterprise Board".
    We know that that was the case. It seems a great pity that the Government were not able to bring the various parties together and to effect a rationalisation.
    However, one does not want to inhibit what is being done and the efforts that are being made. Therefore, I shall not lay blame or offer criticisms but merely say that I hope that the situation will be resolved, because it will be to the long-term advantage of the industry if a rationalisation takes place.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: I share, as the hon. Gentleman knows—and I thank him—most of the concerns that he has about this matter. However, he will be aware that the 40/40/20 solution was unacceptable to only one party of the three or four that were then involved. Is he also aware that continued uncertainty on this front is not helpful to the industry? There is now no prospect whatsoever of a turbine generating merger, so would it not help if we stopped talking about it for a while and started getting on with selling turbine generators?
    Mr. Gray: That is a fair point, but I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that it would be wrong of us merely to take the attitude that because the attempts and negotiations so far have been unsuccessful we should just leave it at that. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that the long-term future of the industry would benefit by rationalisation. Whether the fact that this was not achieved is perhaps due to personalities involved or basic disagreement between the unions and the various par-
    56
    ties concerned is difficult to estimate. However, one can only hope that it will be overcome in future.
    How can the compensation which is suggested to be paid to the CEGB be justified? We believe that the Minister was not as forthcoming as he might have been when he replied to the debate in Committee. I said at that time that it was doubtful whether he had satisfied the Committee as such. We should like to hear a little more from him today as to how he believes that the moneys for the CEGB can be justified.
    Can we be certain, for example, that the £50 million will be the ceiling of what we are required to pay to the CEGB in compensation? Can the Minister be confident that in two or three years' time either he or whoever is sitting in the post he now occupies will not have to come forward and ask for some additional money?
    I refer again to the article that I mentioned earlier. On 24th April 1977, Peter Rodgers obviously had doubts about this. He said:
    "The Electricity Council, supreme body in the industry, believes Hawkins"—
    that is, the former chairman—
    "is exaggerating fourfold."
    Hawkins had estimated that the early ordering would cost the power consumers something between £140 million and £160 million. Peter Rodgers said:
    "the real cost would be £35 million to £45 million."
    Are the Government satisfied that Sir Arthur Hawkins was as far out as that? This is one of the matters that causes concern. If we are to approve £50 mil lion now, what will be the situation if we find that Sir Arthur Hawkins was nearer the truth than the writer of that Article thought he was? This is a serious matter. I should like the Minister to comment on it.
    Let us look at the situation regarding the power station delays. The delay in power stations coming on line over the past decade or thereabouts has been anything from three years to seven years. In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) quoted from an article in The Times of 2nd October. On Second Reading I quoted from the

    57
    same article. I should like to quote from it again. It said:
    "experience suggests that an early start is necessary merely to get Drax finished on time."
    We raised this point at some length in Committee. It is a significant point and one to which the Minister should pay a little more attention than he did in Committee.
    4.45 p.m.
    It seems to me that it would have been prudent for the CEGB to place the order early. If the situation that I have described is correct and these stations have been coming on line anything from three to seven years late, surely it would not have been unreasonable for the CEGB to take that into account when placing its order. If it were to do this, we again delve into the whole relativity of the compensation which it is to be paid.
    In Committee the Minister said that arrangements with the CEGB provide for payments to be made only after expenditure has been incurred. But, whatever these payments may be, should there not be another side to the balance sheet, on which could be estimated the expenditure in which the CEGB would be involved in the event of its going ahead with its normal ordering and then the power station not coming on line at the appropriate time? There must be another set of figures that should be considered in this context.
    What about delays? I know that certainly the CEGB believes that the new Drax power station will overcome all the previous difficulties that have been experienced concerning delays and that the new technology will be such that it will be able to start the project and complete it in the estimated time. But this has been the case with every power station that has been built. When a power station has been commenced, no one has ever expected that it would not be finished on time. Recent experience does not indicate that the present Drax order is any more likely to be completed on time than former power stations.
    These are all arguments that the Minister should consider very carefully. Frankly, I am disappointed that he did not find it possible to accept the amendments in Committee, and I am even more disappointed that in the weeks since the Committee stage he and his officials have
    58
    not managed to devise a form of words that would meet the points that we have raised.
    Concerning construction difficulties, in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter drew attention to the whole question of the cause of these delays. In his reply, the Minister said:
    "During the course of his remarks, the hon. Member for Exeter also asked about construction difficulties. This is an important point, but I must be frank with him and say that I am not briefed on that point. However, since the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, and since he may wish to return to the subject on Report, I will certainly look into it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11th May 1978; c. 48.]
    I hope that, between now and when he winds up this debate, the Minister will be able to get the information.
    Mr. Arthur Palmer: On the question of construction delays, I hope that the hon. Member is not suggesting that in these days, with coal-fired power stations of this kind—a fairly straightforward job—the real trouble is technical problems. The problems are labour problems and varying rates of pay, differentials and so on.
    Mr. Gray: I accept what the hon. Member says, but I have no doubt that there are also likely to be problems of design, for example. As a project continues, it is frequently found necessary to modify the design in some way, and this upsets the work scale and the work progress and can lead to the sort of difficulties that have been mentioned. The kind of construction problems that are likely in a project of this sort are varied, but perhaps the Minister can say something about that.
    We have thrashed out this principle fully in Committee, and I hope that what I have said will persuade the Minister that there is merit in our arguments. The amendment is intended not in a carping way but as a constructive suggestion. Labour Members are probably as anxious as we to ensure accountability in the spending of public money. I hope that the Minister will consider my arguments in that spirit and will be able to give a favourable reply.
    Mr. Palmer: I shall be brief, because we are anxious to dispose of the Bill as quickly as possible; in any case, as the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty

    59
    (Mr. Gray) said, we dealt with these matters fully in Committee.
    This quiet little debate has seen the emergence of the sensible face of the Conservative Party—for example, over the reorganisation of electrical manufacturing. The official Opposition spokesman talks of an amalgamation, creating one modern monopoly manufacturer, and concedes that 20 per cent. of public money should go into the combined enterprise. I cannot quarrel with that doctrine, but it clashes with many Conservative statements, which we shall hear again in the coming election, about the need for intense competition in British manufacturing, even when that is not domestically relevant or related to world conditions.
    Like the electricity supply management, I am all in favour of the reorganisation of manufacturing of conventional plant, but that cannot be separate from the reorganisation of the nuclear plant industry. The whole question of manufacturing organisation and employment needs in different areas of the country has to be looked at again as it affects both kinds of plant construction.
    I put down a Question recently about the nuclear side of the industry and changes now contemplated. There is a lot of secrecy and a lot of behind-the-scenes talk about coming changes, some of which will go deep, it is said. When public money is involved, as it is, we should have an early statement on these matters. It is long overdue and should be delayed no longer.
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I support the amendment, for a number of reasons. Ever since the Committee stage, a number of factors have changed the situation. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Bristol. North-East (Mr. Palmer) about the problem of delays. We need not fear the technical problems in a coal-fired plant, but the construction problems are gigantic. One has only to consider the delays at Dungeness B. There are 50 sub-contractors on the site. The targets for cost and completion were £89 million and 1970. That power station is likely now to be 10 years late—not seven years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) said—and the total cost will prob-
    60
    ably be £350 million. It is unreasonable to ask for up-to-date information, therefore, about Drax.
    Only an optimist would believe that we are clear of all these constructional problems even when building what might be called a "simple" coal-fired power station—though that description is not quite accurate. I hope that the Minister will say that this £50 million of taxpayers' money which is to be given to the Central Electricity Generating Board will be used to ensure that we eliminate as much as possible the kind of situation which exists on the Dungeness site. There are lessons to be learnt there.
    When talking about the Drax order, one is also talking inevitably about the coal industry. This power station is one of a group which will sit on the Yorkshire coalfield, particularly on the edge of the Selby field. It has been brought forward to help the plant manufacturers but also as part of the complete plan for electricity generation around that new coalfield.
    The new information, since Committee stage, about the provision of subsidies for coal from the European Commission makes me wonder whether the British taxpayer has to fork out this money and whether we could not have got it from Brussels. As recently as last month, the Commission provided £65 million to help the Selby project. It could be argued that some of that money could be given to the CEGB to build this station, which is all to do with Selby.
    We have also been told within the past month that the Government intend to subsidise substantially the additional burning of coal in power stations. Here again, we as taxpayers seem to be providing money which is available from other sources as well.
    We need detailed explanations of what this £50 million will be used for. I am beginning to believe that more than that is already available and that this sum is simply the cherry on the top of a fairly large and expensive cake.
    We talk about Selby, but I wonder how many hon. Members know that a major reconstruction of the London-Edinburgh railway line will be needed to get this coalfield on stream. A 14½-mile loop line will have to be built if we are not to lose the coal under the existing track.

    61
    5.0 p.m.
    I hope that the Minister will not merely explain the matter but will convince the House that this is the only way that can be found to subsidise the CEGB. I think that even without this Bill we now have the available cash to do the job for us. I am not sure that we need to put our hands in our pockets on this occasion. After all, the NCB is doing quite nicely; it is breaking even and is showing a small profit. Here we have £65 million out of the blue from Europe for Selby. Surely the NCB in its wisdom, and, indeed, in a spirit of generosity, could have said "This power station will help us. Let us make a contribution."
    Mr. Mike Thomas: Has the hon. Gentleman never heard of the concept of ultra vires?
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: That may be so, but I believe we should not part with this money without making sure that it is well and properly spent. We should keep a running tally of how the money is going, but my guess is that it will not be long before somebody comes back to ask for even more money. On the evidence that is now available to us, I do not feel that a further appeal would be justified.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I hope that the Minister will reject these amendments, however, well-meaning they may be. I appreciate that the large sum of £50 million is involved, and I am always conscious of the fact that hon. Members should carefully examine any figures that are put before them. However in this case it is not easy to examine these figures in detail.
    The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) pointed to the difficulties of delay and said that a figure should be written in to take account of that factor. The hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said that some of the dalays were due to complex labour problems. However, I do not know how my hon. Friend the Minister is expected to make such complex calculations. We all know that forecasting in these matters is a debatable exercise. Therefore, there is the general difficulty of providing meaningful figures.
    I do not believe it is possible for the House to be presented with figures show-
    62
    ing the economic advantages of bringing forward this project. In Committee the Minister said that some allowance would be made for interest, but I do not believe that the cost-effectiveness of the project in terms of its advantages to the generating industry and the coal industry can be measured. This is the difficulty of having to examine bare figures.
    We know that in the longer term a great deal of coal will be used in the production of oil and chemicals and that that process will continue for many years to come. A major proportion of our coal production will be used for electricity generation. In that respect, it is impossible to measure the advantages of bringing forward this project.
    I do not agree with the view of the hon. Member for New Forest about the bounty to be expected from the EEC. That is small beer compared with the amount of money which rightly must be spent on the expansion of the coal industry in the coming years. The recent disappointments flowed from conditions imposed by some of our EEC partners when considering further help. Clearly, there are insurmountable difficulties in presenting meaningful figures showing the advantages of the project.
    The second reason why my hon. Friend the Minister should reject these amendments lies in the fact that any delay in this project would undoubtedly be fatal. I am referring not only to the delay as it would affect the firm of C. A. Parsons, the generation industry or the North-East in general, but to the delay that would be crippling to the future of the coal industry. That is a further problem when considering the relevance of delay.
    Many of us regard the Drax B project as the first in a series of new coal-fired stations. I believe that there is a need to examine the whole of the generation industry. I know that Britain has moved more towards coal-burning capacity than is the case in many other countries. Many of the older stations are coal-fired, and there is a need to develop new ones in the future. We should refurbish the older plants, and I hope that we shall do nothing to delay this project. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will reject the amendments.
    Mr. Norman Buchan: I shall be brief. I, too, hope that

    63
    my hon. Friend the Minister will reject these proposals. The Opposition speeches have puzzled me on Amendment No. 3, because it refers to
    "expenditure incurred by the CEGB"
    in bringing forward Drax B. The truth is that other expenses not mentioned in this amendment are involved.
    I expected to hear at least one Opposition speech outlining the democratic necessity for proper investigations into public expenditure, and its proper deployment and scrutiny. The amendment contains no such general proposition, but is related exclusively to expenditure incurred by the CEGB. If the amendment had tried to make clear what expenditure would have been incurred if the project had not been brought forward, we could well have examined that proposition. The figure of £50 million must be offset against the social expenditure in which the community is involved in other ways.
    The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) was correct to mention in this context the boilermaking industry and he recalled his inspection of the Babcock and Wilcox factory a year ago and the impression that visit made upon him. He mentioned the loss of skills and the loss of apprenticeships. We all know that if this order had not been brought forward, it might well have led to the destruction of the boilermaking industry.
    The same argument applies to the other two AGR projects which are in the pipeline, and which are in the second stage of measures to preserve the industry. There is nothing in the amendment about the assessment of the cost of allowing an entire industry to go to the wall or about any attempt to resurrect it in five or 10 years' time. That is what would have happened if Drax B had not been brought forward. These amendments do not examine the social requirements or the social expenditure that is necessary, but refer only to the specific cost to the CEGB alone.
    Mr. Gray: I think that the hon. Gentleman misses the point. There is no difference between us on the principle. The amendment refers purely to the CEGB and lays down that that organisation should have to justify the extra costs which it has incurred by bringing for-
    64
    ward the order. The amendment is quite clear on that point.
    Mr. Buchan: The amendment is absolutely clear, but it ignores the entire cost of bringing forward the order, or of not bringing it forward. There is nothing in the amendment that says anything about the nature of the cost incurred in not bringing it forward. It is because of this that I am puzzled by the speech of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray). He recognised the deep problem involved in the loss of apprenticeships and skills—
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will my hon. Friend agree with me that the cost of not bringing it forward is really immeasurable, and that that is part of the problem?
    Mr. Buchan: In that sense, yes. I do not go along with all the technical arguments. Of course there will be a technical problem when we investigate any costs of this type of involvement. To that extent there is always an area of doubt about the accuracy of the figures that we get. If 10,000 men become unemployed we can total up the cost of benefits to the community, but there are a number of other costs which would be difficult to measure. Merely because it cannot be precisely measured is no argument for not scrutinising public expenditure.
    My objection is different—it is related to the reason for my being puzzled by the Opposition. We heard a speech from the Conservative Front Bench, much of which I agreed with. We then heard a speech from the Back Bench—from the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and it emerges that he is totally opposed to the whole concept. He is arguing the whole question of bringing forward the order at all. He camouflaged it his reference to this unknown sum that we are about to get from the EEC. All I can say is that I think our Government are pretty remiss if they cannot lay their hands on £150 million that is going begging as the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I made it very clear on Second Reading and subseqeuently that I support the ordering of the station ahead of time. All I am saying is that £65 million is available—it is not an unknown sum.

    65
    I really must try to clear the hon. Member's mind about our amendment. He knows that Clause 5 deals specifically with provisions of money to the CEGB. That is why our amendment is drawn as narrowly as it is. Will he now confirm that he believes that the CEGB, to which the clause refers, should explain to the Government why it needs £50 million, and £49 million or £51 million?
    Mr. Buchan: I accept that it goes without saying that this kind of figure is not produced out of a hat. It is an estimate of the cost of this kind of operation, and this is the ceiling that we have laid upon the costs that will be incurred. If the CEGB goes over that figure it will be up to our various Select Committees to investigate. The truth is that the hon. Member is willing to wound but afraid to strike. Of course he says that he is in favour of the project, but in fact all that he has said has suggested that he believes there is no need for it at all.
    The Government, unlike the CEGB, must have a much broader vision. The CEGB must be concerned with the technical, commercial and construction costs, while the Government must move into the wider field and make the decisions. I suspect that it is the objection to public decisions of this kind, which involve a wider social cost and understanding, which is behind the speech of the hon. Member for New Forest. He objects to public activity of this kind.
    I welcome the Bill and I hope that the Minister will reject the amendment. The Minister was very generous on this matter in Committee—to my mind, too generous. But re-reading it, I think that this proposition is even more delphic than I said it was in Committee. The Minister is not bound to anything; therefore, I hope that he will reject the amendment.
    5.15 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): I have caused all this trouble that we are discussing today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said, I had a delphic touch. I do not know whether that was a compliment or a criticism. He has assured me that it was a compliment.
    Certainly I do not in any way criticise the way in which the hon. Member for
    66
    Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) opened his speech. What he quoted was perfectly true. When he appealed to me in Committee—it was a very good Committee—I assured him that I would look at this matter again. Of course I did. I confess that having listened to the debate I feel that hon. Members have been sidetracked from the question of parliamentary accountability. However, I examined this whole aspect and, as the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty has suggested, I do like to persuade people, and now I shall try to persuade him.
    I am sure that the hon. Member will recollect that the Secretary of State informed the House during Second Reading that whatever happens to interest rates and power station costs, compensation will not exceed £50 million. However, it may be helpful at this stage if I explain how each annual instalment will be determined.
    Payments by the CEGB for Drax B began during the financial year 1977–78, because of the placing of design contracts last November. The rate of expenditure will increase with the signature of manufacturing and construction contracts until it reaches a maximum of about £200 million a year in the financial year 1982–83.
    As I indicated in Committee, we shall therefore deal with the problem of determining the Board's extra costs one year at a time. In the autumn of each year the CEGB will forecast the costs it will incur, mainly through making progress payments to the manufacturers on Drax. At the same time the Government will make a determination of what the cost of financing such payments is likely to be over that year. On this basis a forecast of compensation payable will be included in the estimates laid before Parliament.
    Because the station is being ordered two years early it might appear correct to pay compensation as two years' interest charges on the capital costs, just as the previous Administration agreed to pay 18 months' interest charges on the capital costs of Ince B. But, as I explained before, the Board obtains some benefits through the early ordering of Drax, and it is right that these expected benefits should in some way be offset against the costs. The compensation payment will, therefore, be determined as six months rather than two years interest charges.

    67
    Payment to the Board will not, however, automatically follow approval of the corresponding estimate by Parliament. We shall await production of a certificate by the Board's auditors each July of what has actually been paid over during the previous financial year for Drax, and we shall be able to recalculate the corresponding cost of finance. Thus, payments to the Board will be based on annual parliamentary approval and revision of the estimates based on calculations of costs that the Board incurred. The compensation payment will then be included in the estimate prepared for Parliament each autumn, showing what the next forecast annual payment will be.
    I have answered the point about parliamentary control. I was seized of the question. I think that I have answered the main points in the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I thought that he argued his case very fairly. As one of his hon. Friend's put it, we need Drax B and we shall have Drax B because there are so many people involved. That aspect was argued to some extent, but, of course, we have to will the means, and that is the nub of the argument that we are having on the amendment.
    I am conscious of the point about construction that was raised by other hon. Members, who asked whether the House could have an assurance about it. We must try to assure the House that the CEGB intends to make every effort to keep to the programme of construction of Drax B.
    The hon. Member for New Forest mentioned Dungeness. We have all made good speeches on that question from time to time. I have made some myself in the past. To this end, design contracts have been let with a view to freezing the design before commencement of construction. The mutual agreement between contractors on the site will be sought, and contracts will incorporate incentives for timely completion. I hope that I have ben able to assure the House that the construction aspect has not been ignored between the CEGB and the Government.
    Concerning rationalisation, I have to repeat what I said in Committee. I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) that this is a matter for the Department of Industry
    68
    and not for the Department of Energy, although I am quite sure that his points will be noted.
    The hon. Member for New Forest also mentioned the question of the £50 million compensation. The EEC is no dripping roast for Great Britain. He talked about money being available. It may be available some day. I do not want to say that there will not be money available. But we have to remember that the plant manufacturing industry is involved here, and we cannot stand still and wait for some day in the bye and bye when we shall be able to get money, and proceed to save our plant manufacturing industry. The industry needs work in order to provide employment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments were not meant in a destructive way, but I am afraid that the money is just not available at the moment to solve the problem in the way that he suggested.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) made a very powerful point—one that is continually being made—in relation to refurbishing power stations. There are continual arguments about refurbishing. It is suggested that if we have a site already in existence we do not have to go through the long process of site acquisition, planning, and so on, and that when we have a power station it is possible to step in and carry out a refurbishing programme. I cannot say on behalf of the Government that we are pursuing a refurbishing programme or that the Government have decided to pursue one. My hon. Friend's point has been made very substantially by the plant manufacturing industry, and I am sure that his point will be noted.
    I think that I have answered the major points made during the debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty will agree that I have answered the main point of the amendment, concerning parliamentary accountability. The House can rest assured that there is adequate parliamentary accountability. I hope, therefore, that he will ask leave to withdraw his amendment.
    Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for the way he replied to the debate. He went into considerable detail in explaining how the Government propose to scrutinise the whole exercise. I sincerely hope—I make no apology for mentioning it again—that the estimate of

    69
    £50 million will not be exceeded. I know that it cannot be exceeded under this legislation, but I sincerely hope that the Government will not at some future time come back and ask for more money. I hope that the estimate which was made by Sir Arthur Hawkins of £140 million to £160 million is way out, but we are not discussing that point at the moment.
    We are grateful to the Minister for what he said about the estimate of £50 million. We would still have liked him to concede something to us in regard to our amendment, but obviously it is not a matter on which we wish to press the House to a Division. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Peter Rost: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 31, at end insert—
    'Provided that no payment shall be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless he is satisfied that the Central Electricity Generating Board intends to make adequate provision for the utilisation of reject heat from the generating station either as industrial process steam or for district heating.'.
    The amendment proposes that the £50 million subsidy should be granted to the CEGB only if it makes provision for the use of reject heat from the power station for heating homes or for use in industry.
    The Government should welcome the amendment. First, it would help energy conservation. Secondly, it would make good financial sense. Thirdly, it would provide a longer-term future for the coal industry. Fourthly, it would be in the best interests of the consumer by providing cheaper heating. I believe that that is the most important consideration for the Government.
    I declare an interest as a non-executive director of a company which has produced feasibility studies on various aspects of energy conservation. Having declared that interest, I point out that my main concern here has always been in promoting the wider interests of energy conservation. It is for that reason that I am pressing the amendment.
    I notice that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) is chuckling. I point out to him that at no time have I benefited financially from the interest that I have just
    70
    declared, nor would I do so if my amendment were carried.
    With regard to the contribution to energy conservation which could be made by using the reject heat from Drax B, if we look at the national figures we find that the amount of our total energy consumed in the production of electricity is approximately a third. In other words, one-third of our energy goes into producing electricity. Two-thirds of that energy is rejected in hot water and not used. In other words, twice as much comes out of the power station in heat and is rejected in terms of fuel as is actually converted into useful electricity. We are throwing away every year about £2 billion worth of fuel. That is the equivalent of the whole of the North Sea gas contribution to our energy, or about half our total coal production.
    This might be an acceptable situation if the rest of the world were not doing something to stop this waste. Indeed, it has done so for a very long time. We know that elsewhere this energy is being conserved. Why is it not being done here? It is certainly not because it is uneconomic to do so. Studies made in this country have shown that combined heat and power stations are cost-effective. Such stations are being set up in other parts of the world on the basis of cost-effectiveness. They will become increasingly economical as the fuel price rises.
    The Government's study on combined heat and power—Energy Paper No. 20—headed by Dr. Walter Marshall claims that there are no insuperable difficulties in the way of the inclusion of combined heat and power district heating in a national energy policy.
    The Government-sponsored Building Research Establishment paper of June 1976 refers to
    "an economic assessment of long distance heat transport and the utilisation of power station heat for district heating."
    For large schemes, the break-even distance is reckoned to be 13 kilometres. Within that the consumer would get cheaper heat and there would be substantial savings in national energy consumption.
    5.30 p.m.
    That is the Government's own assessment of the economics of transporting the heat, but we know that in other countries

    71
    it has been shown to be economic to transport heat much longer distances from power stations. If it is cost-effective and in the national interest that the heat from power stations—particularly from Drax B—should be used rather than thrown away, and if others have been doing it for many years, then surely the Government should examine why it is not happening here. I therefore move this amendment in the most constructive way that I can.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we have considered this amendment almost word for word in Committee, and we have heard the speech almost word for word in the Chamber, is this in order?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: What happened in Committee is of no importance at the moment.
    Mr. Rost: If this is cost-effective, in the national interest, and has been done elsewhere, surely we should be asking ourselves why it is not happening here. The answers come from different authorities. I could not do better than quote the Plowden Report on the reorganisation of the electricity industry. Paragraph 4.22 of the Plowden Report on the structure of the electricity supply industy pointed out that the expansion of combined heat and power is impossible without the active collaboration of the electricity supply industry. The report added:
    "A good deal of evidence has been presented to us suggesting that the electricity industry could do more to secure the economic use of fuel".
    Paragraph 4.23, on "the industry's statutory duties" stated:
    "It has been suggested that the reference to 'the economical and efficient supply of electricity' in the Boards' statutory obligations might be held to prevent them from collaborating in schemes where an improvement in the overall use of energy required them to purchase electricity from a combined heat-and-power scheme at a price higher than the CEGB's marginal cost of generation. In future no room should be left for doubt about the industry's powers. Similarly, the most economic way of developing heat-and-power schemes may well involve providing only heat at the outset and adding electricity generation at a later date. At the moment, the industry is allowed by its statutes to sell waste heat from existing power stations but not to sell heat alone. In both cases, the statutes are an obstacle to the most economical use of all national resources. They should therefore be changed."
    72
    We are not, of course, debating a change in the statutes, but we are debating a public subsidy for Drax B, which could be an ideal example of implementing the recommendations of Plowden. A further restraint which has held up the development of co-generation is the criteria of the arbitrary discount rate of 10 per cent. in deciding whether or not the scheme is viable. Surely this is an unrealistic and inappropriate way of using such an arbitrary discount rate. Even the Government in their recent consultative paper have now admitted that a 10 per cent. rate may be unreasonable for such long term contracts. It is arbitrary and unrealistic because it is not weighted to take into account the declining availability of fossil fuels, the benefits to the balance of payments of the fuel savings that will arise from using combined heat and power, the likely rise in the price of fuels or the long lead times needed to develop a heat distribution network.
    Section 5.13 of the Government's recently published consultative document on energy policy admits that substantial savings are obtainable from combined heat and power. It also admits that it is being adopted on a substantial scale in foreign countries. It further admits that if we are to achieve a substantial contribution by the year 2000, we need a fairly early start on a full scale demonstration scheme in a large city.
    One is surely entitled to ask why, instead of making a start and using Drax B, we are proposing to subsidise with public funds the early construction of a power station for electricity capacity that we do not really need and use public funds to throw away 2½ million tonnes of coal a year in reject heat. According to the Minister's own answers to me, that could provide heating for 50,000 homes in the surrounding area.
    The thermal efficiency of Drax B, as it is apparently to be constructed, would be about 35 per cent., whereas it could be 80 per cent. if the residual heat were not dissipated. I regard that as a folly. It is perpetuating a wasteful system, which is being increasingly rejected by the rest of the world. It is because we are perpetuating this folly that we are bottom of the league in terms of thermal efficiency in electricity production as well as bottom of the league in terms of the amount

    73
    of combined heat and power that we produce from our power stations.
    However, the pressure for change is building up. I hope that we are contributing to it this afternoon. It is certainly building up elsewhere. We know that within the Carter energy programme there are strong incentives for more combined heat and power production. We know that pressure is coming from within the EEC, not so much by directives but by action that is already taking place. Individual EEC countries, almost without exception, have introduced, or are introducing, measures to promote district heating schemes and co-operation between public utilities and industries for cogeneration for district heating and industry. Apart from Scandinavia, where this has been going on for many years. countries where particular progress is taking place are Germany, France, Belgium and Italy. Even in those European countries which are building nuclear power stations, sites are being specifically provided where that heat can be used for district heating or industry.
    The British electricity plant industry, which has an important need for orders, has nothing to fear from combined heat and power. On the contrary, I believe that it will lose out if it does not catch up with the trend of the rest of the world. Increasingly that is where the market will be. We already have evidence that orders have had to be turned away from British manufacturers because they were not able to produce the combined heat plant that foreign customers wanted. Therefore, it would help the plant industry. If we do not move in this direction the danger is that we shall perpetuate an outdated technology for which there will be fewer orders in future at home and abroad.
    I maintain that this would also help the coal industry. It is my belief that in the long term electricity cannot remain competitive for space heating if two-thirds of the coal used in that space heating production is rejected in electricity power plants. The only way to preserve the long-term viability of the coal industry and maintain its competitive position is by doing what the rest of the world is doing and moving over towards a more efficient coal burn through combined heat and power stations. The long-term interests of the coal industry—the future of that industry—can be secured only if
    74
    it burns coal less wastefully than at present.
    There are plenty of experts from industry who advise me that there is little doubt that if Drax B were being built anywhere else in Europe it would be a combined heat and power station. There has been so much progress in the past few years in the rest of the world. I quote from an international consultant, a world expert, a founder and former president of the District Heating Association—someone who is an adviser to the Department of Energy, among other things—Mr. Ernest Haseler:
    "Of course Drax B should produce heat as well as power. As a combined heat and power station it will have a thermal efficiency of over 80 per cent. whereas, as an electricity-only station, two-thirds of the energy produced from the coal will be wasted. We want Drax B to be a shining example of Britain's skills in thermodynamic engineering and energy conservation, not an anachronism. The industry has already been overtaken by world progress, so, to survive, it will have to modernise. It will have to do so eventually so why not start now by using Drax B as Britain's first modern CHP station? Some of the £50 million could cover the industry's development costs."
    That is the view of one international expert. There are plenty of feasibility studies to show that although Drax B would not be an ideal site it would, nevertheless, be far more suitable than many others where combined heat and power has been developed.
    Within a 25-mile radius of the station there is a substantial heat load. Even within five to 15 miles there is more than enough heat load. Selby and Goole are five miles away, York, Castleford and Pontefract are within about 15 miles. There is plenty of potential heat demand. As we know, heat is transported far greater distances in other countries for use in heating homes—and transported in much less favourable circumstances.
    There need be no major technological problems nor can the CEGB say that there would necessarily be a loss of electricity if it marketed the heat. In the modern system available this need not be so. Nor do we have to accept the excuse that it cannot be done because it would not be economical. This could easily be disproved because there would be capital savings in all sorts of other directions. If less electricity is used for space heating we would not need to build

    75
    so many power stations. The infrastructure of the heat grid could become highly competitive as fuel prices rise.
    The studies that have been done in the United Kingdom show that it is in many ways better suited for using reject heat than other countries that have already developed the system. We have higher population density than anywhere else in Europe, apart from the Netherlands, with 80 per cent. of our population living in large urban centres suitable for using such heat. I maintain that if public money is to be spent on subsidising Drax B it should at least be spent in the best public interest. I suggest that that is achieved by spending the money in a way which can make a major contribution towards energy conservation, in a way which will help the plant industry in the long term and build future markets, in a way which will help the coal industry maintain its competitive share of the market by more efficient coal burn and in a way which will be of most benefit to the consumer.
    Surely in this way we can end the shameful situation whereby hundreds of thousands of our citizens have barely been able to survive the winter—particularly the lower income groups, pensioners and the housebound—because they could not afford to heat their homes, while we have been throwing away enough heat from our power stations to heat all of our homes.
    5.45 p.m.
    I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that he accepts in principle the case that I am making and will say that he will set up, if he has not done so already, an independent feasibility study to look into the possibility of using heat from Drax B rather than throwing it away. I hope that the Minister accepts the arguments which I have presented in a constructive way and will use this as an opportunity to do better than we have done in the past and ensure that we use our energy more rationally, for the benefit of industry and the consumer.
    Mr. Arthur Palmer: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) made broadly the same speech, of 40 minutes in length, in Committee. I am sure that he would not disagree. I make no complaint about that
    76
    but I say that he is not now putting forward anything particularly new within the memory of those who were present in the Committee. The whole subject of district heating in relation to the generation of electricity power is not new, either; some of the first electricity generation stations in this country were operated on this principle. The principle of district heating is now much more relevant in practice than it was, because of changing fuel costs.
    I suggest that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East is putting forward a perfectly sound idea in the wrong way in the wrong place. The proposed Drax B power station is a coal-fired station, designed to provide electricity as cheaply as possible, allowing for present costs. As the hon. Gentleman admitted, this is in furtherance of the statutory obligation placed upon the CEGB, which has as its primary task the production of electricity as cheaply as possible. If the Board had a different statutory obligation the situation would of course be different. Its primary job, given to it by Parliament, is to make electricity as cheaply as costs allow. Undoubtedly, to extract low grade waste heat—and it is low grade—from this particular station, designed in the way in which it will be, is bound to be expensive and lead inevitably to an increase in the cost of the electricity generated.
    I very much doubt whether there is a ready-made market for the heat. It cannot just be taken out into the wilds, away from Drax and then the CEGB say "Here is heat". It has to be marketed to potential customers who are probably already in possession of their own facilities for heating. It is a difficult matter commercially. I do not say that it cannot be done, but we cannot suppose that it could be done without a great deal of marketing preparation. If I doubt the feasibility of what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that does not mean that I am against the purpose-built joint heat-electricity station. Indeed, I had the honour, two or three years ago, of speaking to the District Heating Association at its annual conference on this. But it is not relevant, as it happens, to Drax B.
    I said in Committee that schemes of that sort are best developed by the area electricity boards. That is because the

    77
    local people are in touch with potential customers. They know the competitive commercial conditions. Surely that is the best way in which to proceed. It so happens that under the existing statute—it is a great pity that we have not been able to improve it in this Parliament—the area boards have the right, with the permission of the Minister, to build their own generation facilities. If opposed by the CEGB, the Minister may make the decision. Even with legislation as it now stands, there is nothing to prevent an area board developing a district heating scheme. As I have already said, the Midlands Electricity Board has such a scheme in mind but the CEGB is in a different position.
    The House should take careful note of what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East said. We sympathise with his broad crusading generalisations, but they have little to do with Drax B I am afraid.
    Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) has done the House a great service by moving the amendment and making contributions on the subject over the years. It is significant that he should be able to call in aid, for example, the Electrical Review of 10th February 1978, which has an interesting article on district heating. The article begins:
    "It might seem paradoxical that the nearer Britain comes to tackling combined heat and power seriously, the ideas of how to go about it become more and more diverse, not to say discordant."
    The article concludes:
    "As Sir William Hawthorne, chairman of the advisory council on energy conservation told the conference at Imperial College on local energy centres last year, eventually combined heat and power will make good economic sense as well as energy sense. But British plant manufacturers in an industry largely dependent on big orders for Drax B or the new AGRs are not yet alert to the demand for smaller sets that a combined heat and power programme will require. Their competitors overseas are alive to this potential market however."
    It is sensible of my hon. Friend persistently to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that that is the situation.
    As for the Central Electricity Generating Board and what was said by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), in page 29, paragraph 463, of
    78
    the CEGB's 1977 corporate plan A discussion document it is stated that
    "The Board's policy is to plan to retain the option to be able to adopt district heating and combined heat and power on a large scale in the longer term."
    To be fair, I should add that the paragraph goes on to state that
    "In order to be economically viable district heating networks would need to be introduced on a large scale".
    Therefore, there is some merit in the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East in criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East.
    My hon. Friend deployed his argument skilfully. I disagree with the argument of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East that my hon. Friend's argument has little to do with Drax B. My hon. Friend showed us exactly how it could be related to Drax B. I reread our debates in Committee and I was surprised that the assiduous hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) slipped up. The hon. Gentleman will recall that in Committee my hon. Friend spoke not to an amendment but on Clause 5 stand part. He was right on that occasion to rehearse the arguments that he has put forward today.
    It was significant that my hon. Friend observed that we are wasting £2 billion worth of fuel and that each year we waste 2½ million tons of coal with heat loss. That is a great waste and a great pity when energy is of such enormous importance and cost. The Government should be much more vigorous in their research on the subject. The Minister may say that the cost is such that combined heat and power schemes are not viable at present. That may be so and he may have figures to substantiate that argument, but that is no excuse for research and development not being intensified. We cannot be complacent when we are losing such a large amount of potential energy every year.
    In Committee my hon. Friend made the reasonable observation that where Drax B is located there are within a radius of 20 miles cites and towns such as Leeds, York, Hull, Castleford and Pontefract. Surely there is potential there for the development of a scheme such as that which he has suggested. When I reread our proceedings in Committee I paid special attention to the answers, if

    79
    such they can be called, that the Minister gave my hon. Friend. They were far from convincing. They did not begin to deal with the problem that my hon. Friend raised.
    The Opposition are sympathetic to the amendment. We are critical of the Government for not pursuing a more vigorous attitude towards research and development. We shall await with interest the Minister's reply.
    Mr. Palmer: In the unlikely event of a Conservative Government being elected as a result of the next election, would a Conservative Minister occupying the position of the Secretary of State for Energy use his powers to instruct the CEGB to turn Drax B into a district heating station?
    Mr. Gray: This a matter that should not be jumped upon. A Conservative Government would ensure that realistic sums were made available for research and development so that the CEGB could incorporate such a system in a station similar to Drax B.
    Mr. Eadie: I have been accused in the debate, as in Committee, of giving far from convincing answers. I hope at this stage even to satisfy the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), although I have been told that it is a difficult job to do so.
    The hon. Gentleman is well known for his consistent advocacy of combined heat and power schemes. I think that he must know that the Government are by no means inactive in that sphere. The combined heat and power group that was set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State some years ago has already published a report on district heating, which is listed as Energy Paper No. 20. In the next few months it is expected to produce a final report. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend and I are always ready to consider combined heat and power schemes that are put forward.
    The House will know that my right hon. Friend recently approved the scheme submitted by the Midlands Electricity Board for the supply of heat to industrial consumers in conjunction with the supply of electricity to the grid. The hon. Gentleman spoke at length in Committee—that is putting it mildly—and made a number of rather sweeping statements
    80
    about how far Britain is behind various Continental countries, particularly in the application of combined heat and power and in Government assistance for that purpose. The hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm may in some instances have led him to make slightly exaggerated claims. Nevertheless, I do not dispute that certain Continental countries, particularly Germany, Denmark and Sweden—I have seen some of them—are active in the encouragement of combined heat and power.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Rost: The Minister has accused me of making sweeping statements. I was quoting his own figures to me on the percentage of combined heat and power produced by different countries to show that, without any question whatsoever, we are bottom of the league. If the Minister wants me to quote the figures, I can do so. However, I do not want to waste any more of the time of the House. I simply point out that we are bottom of the league. For example, in Denmark 36 per cent. of electricity is produced from combined heat and power, whereas in this country the figure is only 6 per cent.
    Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman always chooses figures which suit him. I heard him chastised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer). It is not a question of my saying that some of the figures that he gives are of dubious origin. But let us try to be friendly about this matter. I said that I thought that I could satisfy the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, give him a great triumph. Apparently, he does not want any great triumph; he wants to continue to interrupt.
    Mr. Rost: I must object to the insinuation, first, that my figures were sweeping and, now, that they are dubious. I was quoting the Minister's replies to my questions. If he wants the full reference, I can give it. These are not selective figures. Presumably they are neither dubious nor sweeping figures. They just show that we are bottom of the league.
    Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman made that point before. I merely emphasise that he picks figures to suit himself. However, I shall leave it at that. I also quoted

    81
    what other Members said about the hon. Gentleman in Committee. Indeed, I even quoted some poetry on the last occasion. I am trying to be helpful.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: As we are correcting insinuations, will my hon. Friend confirm that British manufacturers can manufacture these schemes, that they are not losing orders because of their failure to do so and that in general terms they can apply these ideas to small as well as to large sets?
    Mr. Eadie: We are now coming to the dubious assumptions in the figures given by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East. However, the hon. Gentleman does not accept this argument, so I shall leave it at that. We may come back to it on another occasion. The hon. Gentleman and I have made many speeches across the Floor of the House, and at times we have given no quarter. However, as I said, we shall no doubt return to this matter.
    There is no question but that the amendment is unacceptable. I do not imagine that Opposition Members will go into the Division Lobby in support of it.
    Turning to some of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East, I think that I have to demonstrate to the House in particular, and certainly to the hon. Gentleman, that some discussion has gone on about power stations and combined heat and power. The Department of Energy has had the opportunity to discuss with the CEGB the extent to which heat from Drax B could be made available for industrial or domestic use if practical proposals were made. The design of the station is such that, although it is by no means a complete combined heat and power station—heat would be the main product and electricity a by-product—it would be possible, if practical proposals were made, for the reject heat to be made available for either domestic or industrial uses.
    Allowance will be made in the design of the steam pipework for suitable terminal points for the heat supply. If a suitable heat load became available after the plant were constructed, and provided that all safety aspects were clear, it would be possible to complete the scheme by the installation of additional steam pipework and control. That was the triumph that
    82
    I was trying to give to the hon. Gentleman, but he was not prepared to listen.
    Clearly, the economics of any proposal would need to be studied closely. I should emphasise that the modification would not mean any delay in the beginning of work on the station. At present, neither I nor the CEGB are aware of any proposals for a suitable heat load. Nevertheless, the Board would welcome such proposals. I believe that the House will agree that, in the light of what I have said, the Government and the Board are doing everything possible to ensure that use can be made of reject heat from Drax B.
    I do not think that it is necessary for the amendment to be written into the Bill. Therefore, I ask the House to support the Bill as it stands. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
    Mr. Rost: I think that the House will agree that on this occasion the Minister listened to the proceedings in Committee, because he went back to the CEGB and asked "For goodness sake, what shall I say when the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East comes at me again on Report?" Indeed, he has come back with something which I suggest is a move forward, in the sense that it could be the beginning of a real contribution towards energy conservation. I am sure that we all welcome that. I should naturally expect to hold the Minister to this vigilant approach and to ensure that we move forward, not just make provision for and talk about it. We must find an application for this reject heat.
    I think that the Minister accepts that my approach has not been critical of him so much. I was hoping that he would assume that we were on the same side on this matter. My criticism has been directed more at the intransigence of the public electricity supply industry, which has continuously attempted to resist any application for reject heat. Therefore, this is as much a victory for the Government as for Back Benchers such as myself who have been raising this matter for a considerable time.
    Mr. Eadie: I hoped that the triumph would be mine, because I did the work on the Bill.
    Mr. Rost: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6.7 p.m.
    Mr. Eadie: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I shall make no further comments at this stage. I understand that the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) wants to make some remarks.
    6.8 p.m.
    Mr. Tom King: I think the brief introduction by the Minister marks the Third Reading, rather appropriately, of a small and sad remnant of what should have been a major Bill for the reorganisation of the electricity industry. I well understood the sad reference to it by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) and his recognotion of what might have been. We referred to this matter on Second Reading. I do not propose to pursue the point now.
    In Committee, my hon. Friends diligently pursued the Minister on the issues that we said we would raise: certain aspects of nuclear safeguards, which we broadly welcome, and the compensation proposals about which we were keen to get further details.
    One issue which cannot be overlooked when giving a Third Reading to what has become a minor Bill is that it leaves one major aspect unresolved. Many feel that it has made the resolution of it more difficult. I am talking of the rationalisation of the power plant industry.
    The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) suggested that that was now a totally unobtainable objective and so everybody had better forget about it. But it is not as easy as that. During Second Reading the hon. Member intervened during my speech and said that it was a pity that the CPRS Report was published. I agree with him. But it is published. It is lying on the tables of the main potential export customers of the British power plant industry. It contains the recommendation that there is no real future for the industry unless it is rationalised.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) said that one of our overseas competitors is making great use of that report in its attempts to secure business in competition with British companies overseas. The Government understand the significance
    84
    of rationalisation. On Second Reading the Secretary of State said:
    "Although rationalisation remains the Government's long-term aim, and in our view would help the industy to remain internationally competitive, the problem as it finally emerged for a decision by the Government was that we had to act in advance of the rationalisation that we sought."—[Official Report, 24th April 1978; Col. 948, c. 1021–2.]
    The Secretary of State said that it remained the long-term aim, but it has not yet been achieved. The House should appreciate that the problem is more one for the turbine generator industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East will know because of their close interest in C. A. Parsons.
    It appears that there is more prospect for rationalisation in the boiler industry. The turbine generator position is acutely worrying. I have recently visited GEC and talked to the workers and management there. They have a point of view. It is important that the House should understand what that view is, because it has not been fully explained. It does not concern a battle between Sir Arnold Weinstock and many hard-pressed workers in Newcastle. The futures of workers in all the companies—in Newcastle, Rugby, Stafford and Trafford Park and at Larne in Northern Ireland—are tied up in the future of the industry.
    GEC has made a particular effort not only to obtain domestic orders but to obtain export orders. Over the last 10 years that company has obtained about 90 per cent. of such export orders, which amount to £370 million. The international market is intensely competitive. Anyone with any experience of these large construction contracts, which often involve Government intervention, all types of special arrangements and extremely tough terms, often without a good hedge against inflation, will know that it is an extremly competitive business.
    The workers at GEC feel that they have got business for this country, have taken on some competitive and sometimes risky orders and, by so doing, have in some way jeopardised the opportunities for a fair share of the home market. This is understandable. Any Government could be faced with that problem. All Governments are faced with the unemployment problem. It is understandable that they

    85
    will look at each firm's order books, see which is better loaded and be influenced to give domestic orders which are in their control to areas where the threat of unemployment is greatest.
    I do not say this in a pejorative sense. The whole House has an interest in the success of the generator industry. One can admire the success that GEC has had in the international export markets. That success is based on a successful home market. GEC claims that the export markets cannot of themselves justify the present work load in its factories. GEC is concerned because its future success in the export markets could prove a penalty to obtaining domestic orders.
    It is generally felt in the industry that domestic orders are more profitable than some of the more risky projects overseas. If that situation continued GEC could find that it could no longer sustain its activity in this area. Obviously, the nation would be the loser.
    I know that the view at Parsons is different. But there is a problem. The CPRS Report states that the British domestic load, or the ordering prospects, and the possible export contributions cannot sustain two manufacturing companies on a scale at which they would be able to compete in world markets. That is the view in the report which has been circulated to all our major customers overseas.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: The hon. Member has made his case articulately. I do not dispute that his account is accurate. But is he going to give the views of the workers at Parsons?
    Mr. King: I know that the hon. Member has fought hard for the people who work at Parsons. I understand the issues. I understand the problem of unemployment in Newcastle and the North-East. That is of concern to the Government, whichever party is in power. These are difficulties that we must all face.
    We are about to give a Third Reading to a Bill which will approve the funds for advancing the order for Drax, for which the turbines are to be allocated, unilaterally, to Parsons. Parsons gains on this occasion. That company will receive the order for the turbines. But that raises the question of what is to happen to the still unresolved question
    86
    which is being pre-empted, as the Secretary of State said, by this decision. In some ways the problem might have been made more difficult to resolve. What is now to happen about the ordering of the turbines for the two AGRs? How will those orders be allocated? Will they be split? Will they go to one company or to another?
    GEC has obtained the order for the China Power and Light Company in Hong Kong. That is a competitive order. The company has taken on that order to maintain its work load in the factories. But will that order count against the company when consideration is given to the allocation of AGR turbines? These problems go to the heart of an industrial strategy.
    Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Special pleading.
    Mr. King: Whatever the hon. Member says, this is GEC's argument. We have had much discussion about the problems in the North-East. But all the problems must be put on the table. The hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) will have read the CPRS Report. He will know that its recommendations have not been implemented and that the Bill ignores one of those recommendations. One of those recommendations was that the precondition of the order for Drax should be the rationalisation of the industry. The House is about to approve a Bill which ignores that recommendation.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: That is wrong.
    Mr. King: The Government do not think that it is wrong. The Secretary of State has made it clear that rationalisation remains the Government's long-term aim and that it would help the industry to remain internationally competitive.
    I am not sure that people fully understood what was meant by that. I am taking the opportunity to amplify one aspect of it. The hon. Member for Luton, West said earlier that I was indulging in special pleading. I am stating one case. It is a case which has not been made clearly. It has lost out by default under the Bill. I shall be visiting Parsons very shortly and I shall be discussing the other aspects of the case with the people there.
    However, our concern in this House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) said, is how we

    87
    retain the skills in the industry and how we maintain an internationally competitive turbine generator industry in this country with the maximum employment in all those areas where employment is at present offered for these skills. That is the challenge we face.
    We must recognise that that challenge has not been met by the Bill. The problem remains, and it would be quite wrong to let the Bill pass without recognising that fact. I understand why hon. Members who have partisan views based on the constituencies they represent feel obliged to fight every inch of the way for their constituents and for the factories in their constituencies, but we in this House have a national responsibility. The problem has not been resolved, and it would be wrong to give the Bill a Third Reading before we recognise that fact and before we recognise the problems that it can pose for us for the future.
    6.22 p.m.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: I should not allow the Third Reading to pass without paying tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for the way in which the Bill has been conducted and for the outcome of our discussions. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will already know the views of the coal mining industry. He is closely associated with it. He also should know of the gratitude of many people in my part of the world and of workers in the GEC factory at Larne in Northern Ireland who will also benefit from the work. I am sure that they are grateful also for the speedy way—Conservative Members are also due for some credit on this score—in which the Bill has passed through the House.
    I cannot allow the Third Reading to pass without making one or two comments which have been provoked by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). He is right to say that I feel strongly about these matters, but I am not purblind and partisan about these matters, neither am I unreasonable about them. I hope that he will accept that.
    We have seen a late conversion to the principle of the Bill, and I still doubt whether, if the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) had been occupying the Opposition Front Bench, we should have heard the same
    88
    sort of speeches and the same views from that Bench even now. I shall not go into that, however. I am glad at what I hear the hon. Member for Bridgwater and his hon. Friends say now.
    The hon. Member was right to refer to the CPRS report. He and I share a great many views about that, not least about its publication. I am not entirely sure that the commissioning of the report was helpful in the circumstances. It was, after all, in part the use of one of the traditional British democratic ways of delaying a decision—that is, to have a commission to look into the matter. We were pressing very hard to get the power station ordered long before the CPRS team was asked to look at the subject.
    The fact that the CPRS made a conclusion of one sort or another does not mean that that conclusion was necessarily right. In my view, it was wholly foolish for the CPRS to conclude that that power station order should be tied to the reorganisation of the industry. That was never a viable strategy for achieving an objective that may or may not have been desirable. It was nonsense ever to believe that it was. That demonstrates the political naivety of some of the people who were associated with the CPRS Report.
    I hope that the hon. Member for Bridgwater will enjoy his visit to Parsons. The company is in my constituency, although many of the workers there live in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) and others of my hon. Friends.
    I hope that the hon. Member for Bridgwater will forgive my saying that if he continues to make speeches such as the one he made in the House today he will be widely thought of in my part of the world as a spokesman for GEC. I know that that is not his intention, but he must be clear that that is the impression that his speeches create. I know that that is not his intention, as I said when I intervened, but if he is unaware of the impression he creates I am telling him of it now as someone who represents the feelings of the people in my part of the world.
    Mr. Tom King: I am glad the hon. Member recognises that I am in no sense a spokesman for one interest or another.

    89
    I have not made speeches of that kind. Today was the only time that I have spoken in that way. I did so because, as the hon. Member knows, this is an issue on which the benefits will be going to Parsons on this occasion. There is a GEC point of view here. It is a view that is strongly held by the workers at GEC. I am not sure that people have fully understood the background to their concern about the industrial implications of this decision. I thought it right to put that before the House.
    I thought I had made it quite clear that I was putting forward the views that were expressed to me by GEC. I look forward to visiting Parsons to hear its views on the matter. I am not in any sense an advocate of one side against another, and I am glad the hon. Gentleman recognises that.
    Mr. Thomas: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I accept it. I always have. However, he must be careful over the impression that he gives. I say to him humbly that we must also do a little more study. On the restructuring front, about which we are all concerned, it was unrealistic to suggest that there was the possibility of a solution. Let us consider the history of the matter. The 40-40-20 percentage arrangement was not acceptable to one party to the talks. Even 50-25-25 was unacceptable to the same party. If we are talking here about imposing upon what were 5,500 but are now 5,000 people in my constituency a solution of this kind which is wholly against their wishes and which they do not construe to be in any way in their best interests, we are not thinking in terms of practical politics. In this day and age, matters cannot be handled in that way. I know that Conservative Members representing my part of the world know that that is true.
    The hon. Member for Bridgwater must do his homework about the market. He speaks of this order as though it represents some mammoth distortion of the home ordering pattern in favour of Parsons. In fact, it is a small redress after a long period in which the home ordering pattern has been consistently biased against Parsons. Even if Parsons were to get the next two or three power station orders from the CEGB and the SSEB, that would only just achieve equalisation between
    90
    one part of the industry and the other. Let us have no mythology about this being an unfair division of the work available. Until this order came along, there was an extremely unfair division in favour of GEC.
    For the future we must consider a number of factors. The first is the level of work at home and abroad. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will tell us today that we shall get the two gigawatts of construction a year from the home market, of which the AGRs and Drax B are just the start. Secondly, there is the question of the export market. That depends almost entirely on the extent to which world trade picks up. I do not think that the electricity market can be treated separately. I hope that world trade will pick up generally, that this will filter back specifically to electricity supply and that we shall see a substantial increase in the export market.
    Again, however, the hon. Member for Bridgwater must do his homework more carefully. One can pick one's cut-off points where one likes, but in any decent, recent period Parsons' export record is not bad. It is nothing like as bad as getting only 10 per cent. of the orders. We must pick our dates more carefully and consider who is providing us with the dates and the cut-off points.
    We have to consider the sort of contracts that are and will be available in the future. The creation of one turbine generator company is not necessarily the most important thing. That CPRS conclusion was not necessarily the right one. It may well be that the creation of turnkey capacity, involving boiler-making, switchgear and other technical aspects and possibly civil and mechanical engineering of a more general kind, will be the way in which the market will go in the future. It may be that it is the company that can deliver that package that it is important for Britain to have rather than the company that happens to make turbine generators. Northern Engineering Industries, of which C. A. Parsons is a part, is far better placed to produce that type of package than GEC could possibly be.
    In the future we cannot guarantee parity of treatment in the international market place. There will be some parts of the world in which Parsons is well placed and some parts of the world in which GEC is well placed. Incidentally,

    91
    C. A. Parsons did not tender for the order in Hong Kong in part in order to give a fair wind to the GEC prospect, for the company seemed much more likely to get the business for Britain. I hope that we shall see that approach in reverse when the opportunity comes.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take back to his colleagues the fact that no one in Parsons will want to see anything other than parity of treatment in ECGD and on the question of Department of Trade and Department of Industry support for future export orders. I am not suggesting that there is less than parity at the moment. I am sure that there is not. However, should there be any sign of it, a number of us will become agitated.
    I wish the Bill well on its way. I hope that it will be out of this place as soon as possible and through the other place like a dose of salts.
    6.32 p.m.
    Sir William Elliott: I wish briefly to intervene and at once acquit my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) of any suggestion that he has been unfair to Parsons in what he said. There is no doubt that under the terms of the Bill Parsons will benefit.
    Of course, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) and I have a partisan interest here, and from the knowledge that we have gained from studying the problem it is fair to say that there has never been any reluctance on the part of C. A. Parsons about the possibility of rationalisation. There have been arguments and union intervention. A newspaper report of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions' conference in Scarborough last summer said:
    "Unions insist on NEB control in GEC-Parsons power merger".
    The Secretary of State at that time said that the majority decision in the conference was bound to hold up any possibility of rationalisation.
    In fairness to C. A. Parsons, it is right at this late stage of the passing of legislation which benefits C. A. Parsons and Tyneside to put on record that neither the management nor workers at Parsons have ever been against rationalisation, and
    92
    they remain of this view. Rationalisation of the industry must in due course come in the face of international competition.
    The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) asked earlier this afternoon whether cost-effectiveness with regard to Clause 5 of the Bill could be measured. I thought that the Minister's formula with regard to the £50 million, how it was to be spent and how there would be a parliamentary check upon it was reasonable. I hope that it can be adhered to, because it sounded perfectly all right to me.
    Can cost-effectiveness with regard to the keeping in being of C. A. Parsons and GEC be effectively measured? I doubt it in terms of money. In the time that I have been a Member of the House, I have done my best in advocating the North-East of England as an area not so much wanting subsidy and not so much suggesting—as it had been accused of doing from time to time—that the rest of the country owed it a living. That is not true. We are a proud area. What we have suggested over the years, and what I continue to suggest, is that the North-East of England wishes to play its full part in the national economic well-being. I therefore believe that, without the provision in the Bill of £50 million to the CEGB, Parsons would have had great difficulty in remaining in existence, as would Babcock and Wilcox.
    I suggest that Clause 5 will assist us greatly in solving our own problems in the North-East. Perhaps GEC has suffered through seeking export orders at the expense of home orders, but C. A. Parsons is, on the basis of the opportunity which has been given to it by the home order, seeking export orders and obtaining them. It will continue to do so. I therefore believe that the passage of the Bill will greatly assist the North-East of England to solve its own problems, as the Bill will keep in existence a centre of considerable skill without which our area would be much the poorer.
    6.38 p.m.
    Mr. Eadie: I want quickly to respond to the last point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott). We have to describe what the Bill has done. The Government's decision to ask the CEGB to proceed early with completion of Drax and the Board's response to that decision were

    93
    made with a view to meeting the immediate needs of the power plant industry. As a result of the Drax decision and the decision on the thermal reactor anounced in January, the industry has in prospect a work load of 4·6 gigawatts for Great Britain, in addition to any export orders that it might gain.
    GEC has recently won export orders for Hong Kong and South Korea after negotiations in which the Government did all they could to help. The Drax order will safeguard the substantial number of jobs at Parsons, at Babcock and Wilcox and their suppliers and in the construction industry.
    The Drax decision is a mark of the Government's confidence in the future of coal. I am pleased that in Committee and in the House there has been a wide measure of support for this part of the Bill. When the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) introduced this aspect of the debate, he said that this was a small Bill. It is a small Bill, but I believe, as I said in Committee, that although it may well be a small Bill it is an important one. In the Bill we are talking about people, work and wages and how we can sustain and retain a plant industry. It is a small Bill but it is important.
    I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) said, but I must say to him and to the hon. Member for Bridgwater that, when they start discussing rationalisation, the Bill and I have no locus in this matter. I am the Minister responsible for piloting the Bill through. It is urgently needed by people in the industry.
    If hon. Members want to debate rationalisation, that is a matter for the Secretary of State for industry. My Department has no locus in this aspect. I cannot assist the House, because the Bill does not deal with rationalisation.
    Mr. Tom King: I am rather shocked by what the Minister has said, because his right lion. Friend the Secretary of State specifically referred to this question on Second Reading. I was about to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he could give us any further news of developments. He now says that he cannot answer such a question. Given what the Secretary of State said, it is extraordinary that one of his colleagues is unable even to comment on the matter.
    Mr. Eadie: It is astonishing that an Opposition Front Bench spokesman should not know that the Department of Industry is concerned with the rationalisation of the industry. There may have been comments on Second Reading, but we are not debating that now and the Bill does not deal with rationalisation.
    The House is about to pass the Bill to another place, and it is fair for me to say that there is nothing in the Bill about rationalisation. The hon. Member for Bridgwater must accept what I am saying. He should not be so indignant or astonished. He quoted a Second Reading speech, but we are not debating the Second Reading.
    I commend the Bill in the confidence that hon. Members will support its purposes, which are to bring the United Kingdom's civil nuclear facilities under the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, thus fulfilling an undertaking that we have already given. It will provide for the CEGB to be compensated for the expenses incurred in the early ordering of the Drax B power station, thus lending its support to both the coal and the power plant industries in the United Kingdom.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  EMPLOYMENT (CONTINENTAL SHELF) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.43 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill will allow the Government to plug a small gap in the present coverage of employment law. At present, we have the power under Section 127 of the Employment Protection Act to extend by Order in Council certain enactments concerned with employment law to the territorial waters of the United Kingdom and to areas designated under the Continental Shelf Act 1964. We have a similar power under the Sex Discrimination and Race Relations Acts. But that power does not extend beyond the median lines that have been drawn in the North Sea between the United Kingdom sector of the Continental Shelf and the sectors of other countries.
  The oil and gas fields in the North Sea were there, of course, before anyone had heard of median lines; and they do not follow them. So there are some oil and gas fields that straddle the median lines, and it is to those fields that the powers concerned in this Bill are directed. The fields that we know about so far that are affected are Frigg, Statfjord and Murchison, all of which straddle the median line between this country and Norway.
  As hon. Members doubtless know, the Frigg gas field and the St. Fergus terminal in Scotland, which it serves, were recently opened by the King of Norway and Her Majesty the Queen. It will meet about one-quarter of this country's gas requirements by 1980, and it may be convenient if I deal with this Bill in relation to that field by way of illustration.
  It is essential that the Frigg field should be developed as a single unit. The main complex of platforms in the field itself straddles the median line and there are catwalks between three of them. It was thus essential to reach agreement with the Norwegian Government about how the field should be developed, and this was done in the Frigg Gas Field Agreement, concluded in 1976. Under that agreement, contracts of employment between the field unit or pipeline operator and his
  96
  employees will be governed by the law of the State of which the employer is a licensee, without prejudice to the freedom which exists in any case under international law of that employer and any of his employees to agree to the choice of another law. Other legislation for the protection of employees is, under the agreement, to be applied consistently with the operation of the field as a single unit.
  The Norwegians already have power under their domestic law to apply Norwegian employment law anywhere in the Frigg field, even on our side of the median line. We have no corresponding power to apply our employment law on the Norwegian side of the line. We would, of course, extend it to our side of the line, but that would make no sense in the Frigg field where employees of United Kingdom companies may work on either side of the boundary between our sector and the Norwegian sector.
  While the Norwegians have the power to apply their law on our side of the field, they have told us that they do not intend that it should apply to United Kingdom employers. We are seeking agreement with them about how employment legislation should work as a whole in the field. This bill is needed so that we can put into operation by Order in Council the arrangements we finally agree with the Norwegians.
  What we hope to agree with the Norwegians is that United Kingdom employment law should apply to United Kingdom-based firms working in the field and Norwegian employment law should apply to Norwegian-based firms. We think that that would be the most sensible result, since it will mean that firms are operating the law with which they are most familiar. We consulted organisations representing United Kingdom employers and unions working in the field some time ago and they agreed that this would be the most sensible outcome. If the Bill becomes law, and subject to our reaching a satisfactory agreement with the Norwegians, we shall then advise Her Majesty to make the necessary Order in Council. We shall, of course, consult the employers' and unions' organisations again at this stage.
  This is not a Bill that will affect many people. As I understand it, there is only one United Kingdom firm working in the Frigg field at present and only a very

  97
  few United Kingdom employees—not more than 40 or 50—are ever likely to be involved in Frigg. But the same principles will apply in future in Murchison and Statfjord and any future cross-boundary field. The administrative and financial costs will be negligible.
  I should add that our agreement with the Norwegians also covers health and safety standards, and the question of what those standards should be in the Frigg field is currently under active consideration. However, that question is not relevant to the purposes of the Bill, since the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 already contains powers which would enable us to extend the application of that Act to the Frigg field if necessary.
  6.48 p.m.
  Mr. Barney Hayhoe: The Opposition are not opposed to the provisions of the Bill and we think it reasonable that proper legislative action should be taken to cover those who are working across the boundaries in oil and gas exploration in the North Sea.
  We are grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the particular circumstances of the Frigg field and the discussions that have taken place with the Norwegians, the organisations concerned with the industries and the workers involved. It seems fairly clear from what the Minister has said and from what we know from advice we have taken elsewhere that there is a broad measure of agreement among all concerned that this enabling legislation should go forward.
  I am sure that it is right to seek agreement, where the boundaries where different nationalities working on the same project come together, to find a way of dealing with questions concerning employment law which will be seen as fair and reasonable by people working in the area concerned. If they saw unfairness in those provisions, it could lead to difficulties which would be exacerbated when one recognises the high skills and bounding courage of the people involved in working far out in the North Sea on these projects. One should pay tribute to those high skills.
  One should also pay tribute, in passing, to private enterprise and the much maligned multinationals which have made
  98
  such a great contribution to the exploration and exploitation of the North Sea. Without their contribution, heaven knows what our balance of payments deficit would be at present. It would be quite colossal. One must recognise the very great contribution that private enterprise and the multinationals have made in these areas and, indeed, the contribution, now growing, of the British National Oil Corporation, which is becoming greatly involved.
  As I have said, the Bill is an enabling Bill. It extends the Employment Protection Act. One can understand that. It also extends the Sex Discrimination Act, or makes provisions for that. I do not know whether the presence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) means that we shall hear a little more on that score. I am sure that the House looks forward to his contribution. When I saw the provision that allows Orders in Council to extend not only the employment protection legislation, which is set out in some detail in Section 127 of the Employment Protection Act, but also the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act, I had a question mark in my mind about why it was necessary for the Sex Discrimination Act to be included. The Minister did not comment upon this matter. Perhaps we shall hear more about it as the debate continues.
  It is important that it should be clearly on the record that the fact that we now give this measure a fair wind should not be taken in any sense as a change in our attitude to the Employment Protection Act. We are still critical of some of the provisions of that Act. We still believe that they are damaging to employment prospects.
  In passing, I thought that it was quite extraordinary this afternoon to hear the insensitivity of Ministers from the Department of Employment who still seek—the Secretary of State did this—to maintain that that legislation has had no effect on employment. I think that anyone who goes around and talks to people running small businesses or medium-sized businesses hears anecdote after anecdote which indicate that the measures are having a damaging effect. Therefore, the fact that we give a fair wind to this Bill does not indicate any change of attitude to what one might call the parent legislation.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Perhaps I may say that it is not "anecdote after anecdote" but solid figures that show that over 1 million people would be employed but for the legislation.
  The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): That is a load of nonsense.
  Mr. Hayhoe: I think that my hon. and learned Friend was citing a particular report by a particular body. I have seen no detailed research that would allow one to put numbers on this matter. I have not yet seen the research upon which that figure was based. All that I have seen, as has my hon. and learned Friend, are the Press reports. One is anxious to study this matter further. However, I do not believe that any one going around talking to people involved in businesses will not hear anecdote after anecdote and example after example of damage caused by that legislation. That alone is something which it is curious for Ministers of the Department of Employment to discount as they did today.
  I have one query about the details of the Bill, other than the inclusion of the Sex Discrimination Act. That is to question whether perhaps the Bill has been drawn wider than is necessary. It is always difficult to judge these matters, particularly when the esoteric art of the parliamentary draftsman is not easily understood by most of us.
  However, the Government have a track record for using legislation which has been passed for one specific purpose in a wholly different context for other purposes. One has only to mention the black list that followed phase 3 of the present Government's wages policy and the way in which that legislation was misused, or, indeed, to look at redundancy payments and what has been done in their name, to have at least the query that in this Bill there might be a widening of the provisions which could at some future time be used in a fashion different from that for which the House will now, I hope give support when the Bill gets a Second Reading later this evening. This may well be a point at which we should look in Committee. I hope that it is the Government's intention to keep the provisions as narrow as they reasonably can.
  100
  I do not seek to delay or to prevent the Second Reading of the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for the careful explanation that he has given. I hope that we shall hear a little more from him on some of the other points.
  6.56 p.m.
  Mr. John Prescott: I welcome any Bill that is put before the House to extend the protection to workers in what is a most difficult area of occupation—namely, that of the North Sea in the exploration of our Continental Shelf. However, I am bound to say, as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, that the Bill is rather an ad hoc measure. It is attempting to deal with an industrial problem that is continuing to expand, in this case into areas of exploration for mineral wealth, which are normally beyond the areas so designated within our areas of legislative control under the Continental Shelf Act.
  Therefore, to that extent it seems that one is faced with the difficulty of having two legislative bodies laying down different standards in the same areas of occupation and of where those two bodies—namely, Norway and the United Kingdom—come to some agreement by which vessels from the other country will be able to operate in areas over which they have legislative control operating different standards from those recognised in this case by the flag State. For example, if a British ship was in the Norwegian area, the British standard, as such, would be recognised.
  One can appreciate the difficulties of operators in having to attempt to observe standards that are very different in different countries. However, I think that the real answer is for countries bordering the North Sea—I have constantly called for this, whether it is in regard to pollution, to tankers or to safety standards for seafarers—to come to some kind of common standards which they can agree to implement within their own legislative frameworks. It is true that the Bill allows the Government to introduce an Order in Council, following discussions, and perhaps to arrive at that conclusion. I hope that that is given a great deal of consideration.
  Perhaps I should declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Seamen. It is known that the union is very

  101
  heavily involved in work in this area and is extremely concerned about the safety conditions and the disparities that exist in those conditions in this area. Therefore, I want to address some of my remarks to these problems. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider them during the passage of the Bill. I hope that he will consider how his Department may be able to deal with complaints from seamen, from people who work on the oil rigs and from people associated with this difficult area of operations. There is a very clear demand for uniformity of standards and for those standards to represent the best possible standards.
  Many years ago I was calling for legislation on this subject, on which there was none when I first became a Member of the House. I think that one of the first speeches I made here was about this very matter. Considerable advances have been made by Governments of both major parties since then in advancing those standards. But, frankly, we have still not really grasped the nettle, which is really to consider how we tackle the problems of safety in a much more uniform way.
  I have had discussions with Norwegian civil servants at various conferences discussing North Sea safety, particularly in regard to diving, in which I was heavily involved. I have found that it is not an easy procedure to get accepted, but it is one with which we must persevere and hope to get some further success.
  The Bill also mentions the application in this area of the Employment Protection Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act. I should like to know why the Sex Discrimination Act has to be included. Perhaps it is because it applies to all workers unless there are some special reasons. Such discrimination has never been as evident on ships as on shore. Through the insistent demands of the unions, women have always been paid the same rate as men for doing the same job.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the large number of pregnant Asian women who work on Norwegian oil rigs are regularly unfairly dismissed. Therefore, it is most important.
  Mr. Prescott: I was not aware of that, but it is relevant to my argument about
  102
  the Race Relations and Employment Protection Acts.
  It has always been a source of contention that we pay different wages to people on British ships according to the colour of their skin. Parliament said that that was illegal but made a special exemption for seafaring. Thus, those who do not have white European skins receive 25 per cent. of the normal wage on some British ships. The principle is made clear in Section 4 of the Act but Section 9 provides the exemption for seamen recruited abroad.
  We in the unions have demanded equal pay and the Labour Government set up an inquiry. That inquiry has now recommended that we take the first steps to implement equal pay on British ships. If one of these ships manned in this way comes into the North Sea and does work associated with the Bill instead of simply transporting cargo, will that exemption still apply? That is a curious anomaly—that an owner employing Indians on wages of 25 per cent. would not be exempted from the Race Relations Act if he did this work in the North Sea in oil exploration.
  Section 119(5) of the Employment Protection Act provides that most of the benefits in relation to pay, dismissal, union rights and redundancy should not apply to people working on ships. It is, therefore, a fallacy to talk of advances for workers in this respect. Norway gives such rights to workers doing this work. Thus, a British ship doing the same job as a Norwegian ship in a Norwegian area would have far lower employment standards for its workers.
  If it were merely a question of rights, it would be a matter of concern and of debate, but a much greater problem arises over safety. As we saw in the case of the "Amoco Cadiz", a tanker can be mechanically perfect while its crews are unable to manage sophisticated equipment. That is the main reason why these vessels collide and run aground and pour out millions of gallons of oil.
  Norwegian ships have smaller crews than British ships. By means of our recommended maritime notice, we have laid down standards for numbers of crew and their skills. This is not the case in Norway, Holland or Germany. In 1977, all 20 supply ships in Norway's area flew the Norwegian flag. In our waters, only

  103
  52 per cent. flew the British flag. The rest were Dutch, German and Norwegian.
  I recognises that membership of the Common Market makes it difficult for us to discriminate against Community nations, but safety standards vary among nations and that is relevant not only to the safe operation of vessels but also to the safety of the seamen involved. It is not lost on owners that the safety standards of other nations are more favourable economically than ours. It is no coincidence that many tankers involved in collisions are registered in Liberia, Cyprus or Panama, which do not enforce safety standards. Those vessels are sinking at twice and three times the rate of the vessels of traditional maritime countries. Panama and Singapore may be far from the North Sea, but their flags are becoming more and more common there. It is estimated that about 17,000 foreign seafarers are involved in the North Sea.
  It was a constant controversial issue in this House that the unions were made central to the enforcement of safety standards under the Employment Protection Act and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act rather than relying simply on the Factory Inspectorate.
  When we are dealing with North Sea oil rigs and vessels operating in that area, we always face the difficulty of obtaining union recognition and organisation. There is one group of unions which are recognised and established in Aberdeen. It comprises a number of the older unions involved in North Sea operations. Despite the statement by the owners four or five years ago that they would offer every co-operation to the trade unions, these unions have been fighting to obtain recognition of trade union negotiating rights on the rigs. Two or three cases which have arisen in the last few months have involved the services of ACAS, and the workers when balloted requested trade union recognition on rigs. To that extent, the recognition of the role of the trade unionist and the rights established in legislation are denied to the very workers with whom the Bill seeks to deal.
  I appreciate that there are difficulties for seafarers, particularly in an area such as the North Sea which has seen such massive industrial development. However, that enormous development should not be made an excuse for excluding wor-
  104
  kers from these activities. Such development should be seen as a reason for finding a separate method of advancing workers' rights in view of their difficulties. A close friend of mine, Mr. Harry Bygate, an official of the National Union of Seamen, has been actively involved in one group of unions for many years in the North Sea area. I am told of constant breaches of regulations, and it is obvious that many companies ignore those provisions with impugnity. They ignore standards which are recommended rather than enforced by statute. The Employment Protection Act sought to get away from the codes of recommended practice into statutory obligations, a process which I believe to be essential in seafaring terms.
  I appreciate that there must be flexibility in guaranteeing the various rights. One case that came to my attention yesterday involved a constituent of mine who had worked on a North Sea oil supply vessel. He served for five years on a vessel from Great Yarmouth which operated to and from the various rigs in that area. He then left that employment and obtained a job in a ship operating from Aberdeen. He undertook one trip on that ship, it returned to the United Kingdom and he was dismissed. He was given no reason why he was dismissed, but he was unable to appeal against unfair dismissal because he had not been 12 months in that employment.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Six months.
  Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for that correction. I should have said for a period of six months. It is very sad that the man should be penalised because, in the nature of the job, he changes from one ship to another or one rig to another. That man has been denied many of the advantages that are available in the normal course of events to shore workers.
  I must confess that the man to whom I refer had one peculiarity which amazed me. I tried to discover why he had lost his job and took up the matter with Mr. Harry Bygate, a trade union official. I discovered that the man had artificial legs. Since I served at sea for 10 years, that factor in the case amazed me, but I must point out that he had been carrying out that job for five years as a certificated cook on another ship. Although I appreciate the difficulties of the case, I discovered that the man was

  105
  anxious to take on work, but after service in a ship he was dismissed. Surely that man, even though he has artificial legs, has a right to work.
  I have spent a little time in explaining some of the difficulties which have been underlined to me by many seafarers and by officials such as Mr. Harry Bygate, who is involved constantly in these problems and is often the only source of protection for workers on ships and rigs. If the Minister wishes to see a uniform standard, he should be closely involved in negotiations—and no doubt he has been so involved—with the Norwegian authorities. I hope that as a result of negotiations with the Department of Trade and others a code of uniform standards will arise.
  There is one other factor to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention, and I have made this point on other occasions with little success. It is often said that legislation applies to the flag a vessel flies. This is the point to which regard is paid when provisions are being extended to the Norwegian area.
  If in this context the ship in question is not flying a British flag, these considerations will not apply to the rig—and in that sense our legislation will not apply to many of these rigs. At present we grant licences to all operators in the North Sea whether they are involved in oil production, exploration of mineral rights or whatever it may be. We should make it a condition of such licences that all our employment and safety standards and trade union rights are observed. Those who sub-contract should also observe those standards as a condition of their contract when operating on the Continental Shelf. That would overcome the difficulty that often arises where one nation's legislation does not apply to a ship operating from a different country. I believe that this process could be undertaken by contract obligation and that it should become a condition of such a contract.
  I am sorry to have detained the House so long in making these points, but I wish to underline the concern on these matters which has been expressed to me by many of those who are involved in North Sea oil operations. I welcome the fact that we have been able to discuss these matters and I also welcome the Bill. I hope that seafarers will soon be given the
  106
  same rights as those which have been won by workers in other industries.
  7.16 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has discussed very fully, as was his right on Second Reading, what is not in the Bill. There is nothing wrong in that. It is within the rules of order, the hon. Gentleman has a special interest, and he has deployed his case to the full.
  I am rather more concerned with what is in the Bill, which I find very little to my liking. The Minister, in a tactful and pacific speech, talked about the need for and the desirability of co-operation and agreement between ourselves and the Norwegians in developing these fields together—and that is a good cause. But there is not much one needs to do about that situation. The hon. Gentleman made clear that our national law applies to British-registered ships flying the British flag. If we examine the provisions of the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act, especially those which are relevant to the Bill, we see that those Acts are applied in a certain way.
  Mr. John Grant: Perhaps I should make clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill deals only with fixed installations.
  Mr. Bell: I am obliged to the Minister. I intend to make clear some of the things which he did not make clear in his speech. But to the extent that the Minister wishes to help me, I am grateful. The Minister's hon. Friend was pointing out that in regard to ships it was very much a question of the flag flown. If the Minister examines the provisions quoted in the Bill, he will see that they are a little more comprehensive than he thinks, especially in terms of the Race Relations Act, where the application is to three subsections and not to two. However, that is a small point and I do not wish to waste time on it.
  What did not emerge from the Minister's remarks was the fact that the sole purpose of the Bill is to extend the Employment Protection Act, the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act to oil rigs in the North Sea outside British waters. That is what it is all about. One would think from the Minister's speech—it is a natural error

  107
  for a Socialist Minister to fall into—that apart from those Acts, there is no employment law or custom in the British Isles. One wonders how the world managed before there was a Sex Discrimination Act, a Race Relation Act and an Employment Protection Act.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Much better.
  Mr. Bell: The answer, as my hon. and learned Friend says, is that it managed much better.
  The late Sir Henry Maine said, in his ancient law, that the progress of society appeared through the ages to have been from status to contract. The Employment Protection Act, on that judgment, is highly regressive, because it goes from contract to status.
  All that we are doing in the Bill is extending three of the most controversial and foolish pieces of modem legislation to those on the storm-tossed and remote sections of the North Sea. We are fouling what would otherwise be a nice clean landscape. There is no limit to the bureaucratic expansion once it has started.
  When it comes to extraordinary interventions into personal judgment and freedom to contract one would think that the Government would be content to confine this sort of legislation to the metropolitan area of the country and perhaps to ships registered in Britain. But as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, if these ships are trading beyond territorial waters the provisions of the Race Relations Act do not apply, on the whole.
  In the Bill we are pushing these provisions out to the oil rigs, and it seems an unnecessary piece of nonsensical legislation. I am sure that the people on the oil rigs are doing a wonderful job. Will they feel that they are being recognised and rewarded by having the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act applied to them? Will they feel a sense of well-being and confidence because of this Bill?
  Mr. Fairbairn: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) does not understand the logic of the situation. In order to apply the Employment Protection Act to those working on oil rigs one requires both the
  108
  Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act, because offences under these Acts are offences for employment purposes under the Employment Protection Act. Therefore, unless one can apply them, the ability of ACAS to infiltrate a dispute involving oil rigs is negatived.
  Mr. Bell: My hon. and learned Friend may be correct. I have not gone into the motivation for the Bill. That is not part of the argument that I am deploying. I do not see this as a deep-laid plot. I believe that it is a prime example of Government by pressure groups. The Minister has put these two Acts into the Bill because he dare not leave them out. Think of all the fuss if he does. The Equal Opportunities Commission will be on to him and will haul him before the courts for offensive discrimination.
  Almost anything is an offence today. Imagine some of those militant ladies or the race relations people attacking the Minister for discriminating on grounds of sex on oil rigs in the North Sea. I thought that those who worked on oil rigs were a pretty husky lot and they probably do discriminate anyway on grounds of sex. Some hon. Members seem to think that it is terrible that the Norwegians should dismiss Asiatic women from North Sea oil rigs on the ground of pregnancy. I can see no better reason for incurring dismissal. I think it is very undesirable to have pregnant women on oil rigs.
  All three of these Acts and the associated measures are Acts which, in my opinion and that of a great many people on the Opposition Benches are harmful. I do not think that many Labour Members would regard the Employment Protection Act as harmful, but I do think that many believe that the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act are exceedingly foolish pieces of legislation, which they would have liked to oppose but did not dare to. There are hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who felt just as strongly about these measures but did not like to oppose them. Not many had the courage of their convictions.
  One Labour Member told me during the passage of the Sex Discrimination Bill that I was right about the measure, and that it was a silly piece of legislation. I asked him why he did not say so in the Chamber. He replied that he had a lot of

  109
  women in his constituency. Here we have a Bill the sole purpose of which is to extend these Acts to oil rigs outside territorial waters in the North Sea. Of all the solemnly silly things that have been done in this House, this must surely be the solemnly silliest.
  The Bill is totally unnecessary. The Government can make their agreement with the Norwegians. Norwegian citizens will be governed according to their law and ours will continue as now. Why must we make this change? This is pure pressure group legislation. There was an agreement with the Norwegians, and someone said that if the Norwegians were applying their domestic law to their installations on our side, we had better introduce the Race Relations Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Employment Protection Act to our installations which overlap on their side otherwise we would be criticised. That is what this is all about.
  I regard this as one of the silliest Bills ever to come before the House. The silliest of all was the Sex Discrimination Act. I said so at the time, and its working has proved me right. There is no one in this country outside the pressure groups, who does not laugh at the Sex Discrimination Act, regarding it as absolute nonsense.
  The Race Relations Act is more emotionally fraught, but by and large people realise that it has done nothing but harm to race relations in this country, stimulating strong resentment among native inhabitants, who ask why there should be a law against them prescribing their behaviour which had previously been left to personal judgment.
  I do not think that this Bill will result in any flare-up on the North Sea installations. They will carry on as before and this Bill will not affect anything. It is just a political gesture, which probably will be quite harmless. Nevertheless, I believe that it is a bad Bill. I do not want to waste much time on it, because it is such a silly Bill, but if it does not go on too long I shall stay and I hope that other hon. Members will join me in voting against it.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I do not share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr.
  110
  Bell). I think that the Bill is a small but useful step forward.
  Criticism could be made that in terms of employment legislation it has taken far too long for British Governments to come into the arena to try to hold the balance in favour of those who are working in oil installations. Those of us who have been interested in the oil-related industries during the past five years have heard many worrying accounts about the way in which workers are treated in those industries. Britain is very late in extending some of the employment legislation to the Continental Shelf. It was not until 1975 that Statutory Instruments began extending certain aspects of employment law to the Continental Shelf. Many of these left gaps, and they have been filled slowly over a period of time.
  What worries me about the Bill is whether it will be very effective in its terms and how the two different standards which apply in Norway and the United Kingdom can best be made compatible. Although the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) dealt with the seafaring aspect, which is not really covered by the Bill, I thought that he made a good case. No doubt he was laying down a marker for the future.
  Mr. Prescott: I took the point that the Minister made about installations, but an installation can be a ship. When it is involved in exploration for oil it is an installation, but when it is moving from A to B it becomes a ship. It is not, therefore, totally unknown for such points as I was making to apply to the vessel concerned.
  Mr. Wilson: I accept that. I am not sure whether the Minister accepts it. I recollect that two years ago we had certain debates concerning hybridity and whether a fixed platform was a ship. I know that certain platforms can be uprooted and be converted into ships which are manned by seafaring officers and a crew. Indeed, some can go at about 12 knots under their own power. In different circumstances they can be fixed structures. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not simply marking out his case for the future but is intending to do something about this in Committee, to make quite sure that ships can be fixed structures and that those who go to sea on them shall be entitled to some of the benefits.

  111
  I can foresee certain problems arising under the Bill. It is very difficult to settle jurisdictions. I recently came across a letter which I had received on 22nd January 1976 from the then Minister of State, Home Office relating to immigration control on oil rigs. The Minister said that possibly the matter could be dealt with by legislation, but he did not think that it would be possible to exercise on the rigs the sophisticated control that we have at ports in the United Kingdom, save at unacceptable cost. Although some of the foreign workers on North Sea oil rigs travel to and via the United Kingdom and pass through controls at that stage, others travel direct from Continental ports.
  The Minister then went on to discuss the problems of work permits in situations of that kind. There has obviously been a degree of confusion in relation to the status of workers on rigs which straddle the boundary or, indeed, other rigs which may have been exclusively in the United Kingdom or Scottish sector of the North Sea but where crews have been brought in from the Continent direct.
  Certain problems are likely to arise, and I shall put them to the Minister in the form of questions. The first concerns unionisation. The Norwegians have been far ahead of us on this and have made more progress than has been made in the United Kingdom. It was only in February 1978 that I received details from the Department of Energy of the agreement which had been reached between the oil companies and the inter-union committee, based in Aberdeen, which allowed for the very first time the access of union officials to workers offshore.
  It might be thought that that was not a radical step forwards, but, nevertheless, it took about seven years and considerable pressure to achieve it. There had been some horrific stories of intimidation of workers who had sought to join a trade union or to recruit members for a trade union on board oil rigs. They were summarily removed from the rigs, and that was the end of the story.
  I have a summary of the agreement signed a numbers of years ago between the assocation of Norwegian rig owners and the Norwegian seamen's union. The
  112
  union played a strong role in relation to structures which are not ships but fixed platforms. Among the heads of agreement mentioned in the summary, it is stated that
  "Each crew shall elect a maximum of three shop stewards who shall be protected against unwarranted dismissal. The rig owner shall co-operate so that officials of the Norwegian seamen's union can visit rigs when possible."
  Paragraph 12 of the heads of agreement is concerned with union membership fees, and so on.
  Where is the compatibility to be when we have the rather timid approach contained in the memorandum of understanding on trade union access to offshore installations on the United Kingdom side, compared with the very definite rights which Norwegian workers have? I should like to hear from the Minister what he thinks will happen and whether he thinks that the higher or the lower standards are likely to be adopted. I wonder what will be the position when workers from Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland, serving aboard offshore rigs straddling the border, learn that their Norwegian colleagues have much stronger rights than they have themselves.
  With regard to safety, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East mentioned that under the Employment Protection Act 1975 certain obligations are laid on the trade unions. One of the weaknesses here is that the trade union position on the United Kingdom offshore rigs is much less strong. If we have not a strong trade union sector to start off with, the problems of the enforceability of safety obligations as laid upon trade unions will be almost insurmountable.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman remind me of any section under the Employment Protection Act which lays a duty on trade unions to deal with safety?
  Mr. Wilson: I cannot quote one off the cuff, obviously.
  Mr. Fairbairn: There are no such sections.
  Mr. Wilson: But it is clear, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows—I have come across it in practice on many industrial visits—that factories now try to work in co-operation with the trade unions in enforcing safety conditions. Indeed, in the

  113
  electrical power industry the primary obligation is laid upon the unions to achieve standards of safety on behalf of their members.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Those obligations are laid down in various sections of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which has nothing to do with the Employment Protection Act.
  Mr. Wilson: I was discussing the question of safety and, like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, I also reserve the right to go slightly outwith the Bill if necessary, because this is one of the difficulties which exist. Indeed, the Employment Protection Act laid down certain rights for union recognition. In relation to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, a role is also given to the unions. There is a connection between the two measures, whether it is stated explicitly or not. It still raises the question of how these obligations concerning safety, which are very important, are to be carried out. We must remember that offshore exploration is highly dangerous and that many people have been killed and injured in the course of the development of the oilfields.
  The Norwegian position is significant again in that direction, because the Norwegians provide that there shall be a right of those who work on shore to elect officers from among the work force who will be responsible for safety. It is a rather interesting agreement. Perhaps the Minister will say whether there have been any fruitful results arising from the negotiations and consultations which have been taking place with the Norwegian authorities. As we know, there has been a very close relationship, and the negotiations may help the position of those who work offshore.
  With regard to pay, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to the fact that lascars and others who serve aboard United Kingdom ships are sometimes paid at a lower rate than other people. It is perfectly true also that United Kingdom workers on the Continental Shelf are frequently paid less than other workers, particularly in comparison with Norwegian workers. I have some figures giving the comparative wage rates in sterling. As they are two years old they would be out of date now, but nevertheless they show a rough com-
  114
  parison. For example, a roughneck in the Scottish sector could hope to earn about £240 whereas the rate in the Norwegian sector was £366. There are different variations according to seniority and skill.
  If there is to be some form of provision for equal pay, it would be interesting to know whether the Government expect a problem to arise in future, especially if there is to be some form of comparable standard between two countries whose pay conditions seem to have considerable disparities, even allowing for the fact that the cost of living in Norway is very much more expensive than it is here.
  However, incomes for similar work done in two places within 50 yards of each other, or even less, are quite different. In many cases the same applies to the most senior of international oil workers, particularly expatriate Americans, who are paid the international rate for the job as part of the method of recruitment. That is an area of concern which has caused a terrific amount of resentment, particularly on the East Coast of Scotland, where workers involved in oil rig activity can see that they are being paid less for similar work.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman have evidence that this kind of discrimination exists with regard to wage levels and levels of reward?
  Mr. Wilson: The evidence is very difficult to come by. Whenever I have come across evidence of abuse in the offshore industry, I have sent the information to the Department of Employment or, more particularly, the Department of Energy. The Government have usually been very good in making investigations. However, in relation to wage levels it is extremely difficult to pin down what is happening, particulary if there are subsidiary companies which engage people at second, third and fourth hand and where pay may be made through the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas or wherever. These are legitimate methods of payment. I understand that the Inland Revenue has been carrying out certain investigations on this score during the last three or four months but has run up against a stone wall. What we know is that there are different rates for Norwegians who are working very close to our own

  115
  workers. We are now dealing with a Bill which is trying to handle the problems which stem from that proximity.
  I do not wish to say anything more with regard to the Bill. It is a very brief one. I welcome it as far as it goes. I see some difficulties with regard to the application of the Sex Discrimination Act, but they are probably not insuperable. The same applies to the Race Relations Act. I note the argument advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) that those Acts have been included in order to buttress the main provisions of the 1975 Employment Protection Act which are now to be extended.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I should like to be among those hon. Members who give a wholehearted welcome to the Bill. If there were to be any criticism at all it would be that we might have had a similar Bill a little earlier, especially when one considers the kind of problems that one comes up against. When one reflects on those areas of British industry where trade unions are needed more than they ever have been before, I think that there is no sector of British industry that needs trade union protection more than among those who work on oil rigs. It is high time that some kind of help was given for the protection of individuals who very often risk limb, and sometimes life itself, in order to win the riches of the North Sea. If any group deserves or needs trade union protection it is certainly the brave men who work in this area.
  I simply want to ask two questions. The first relates to divers. From a constituency experience of particular cases I should like to express a widespread feeling that although most companies, most of the time, look after the safety of their divers as well as can be expected—the record of many of those who take part is wholly creditable—nevertheless, from tragic cases from time to time there is the suspicion that not as much care has been taken as should have been. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I know of individual cases which have made us very unhappy about what has happened. We suspect that carelessness has taken place, but it is often very diffi-
  116
  cult to prove. Therefore, I believe that the presence of a trade union is wholly to be desired.
  Precisely under what sections of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act can a trade union be useful on an oil rig? Considering the concern that most unions show towards safety, my general impression is that it could be extremely helpful. I should like the Minister to expand on this aspect of the matter. I hope that he will have information which will be of interest to the House and to those of us who propose to go out in Scotland and argue for the merits of the Bill.
  My second question is the same as that of my hon. Friend—I should say the hon. Gentleman—the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). When I call him "my hon. Friend" we are coming to a pretty pass. I usually disagree with him, but on this occasion I absolutely agree that there are worries about pay rates. There are complaints. There is the feeling that some people are getting a great deal more than others. Very often this comes down to the question of tax.
  I wholly support the Government's recent action in making the tax position of divers more favourable. Like certain other people—dare I mention footballers? Perhaps this is not the week to do so for a Scot—their expectation of a working lifetime is such that they deserve favourable tax treatment when they are under 35 or 40. I am not complaining about that aspect. However, one does rather wonder about the sense of this labyrinth of wage rates. Are the Government satisfied that there is a system of reasonably equitable rewards for those who work on oil rigs? Can the Minister say something about the problems, some of which have been raised with his Department, relating to the seeming inequity of rewards among those who work in the North Sea?
  Having put those questions, I simply want to welcome the Government's action in this area.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I confirm what the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has said, that the men who work on oil rigs are brave men, who make large rewards—
  Mr. Dalyell: Not all of them.
  Mr. Fairbairn: They pit their skills against the elements to make those rewards. It is part of the fantasy of what I call the compulsion of indenticality that anyone should seriously suggest that a Norwegian national, a British national and an American national, all working on an oil rig, all governed by different tax systems—with the American being the beneficiary of a free enterprise system which enables his taxation to be much lower—should be compelled, in the interests of the Socialist concept of identicality, to be paid the same, regardless of the tax position, in case someone should get jealous. God Almighty! If a person gets that jealous he can emigrate and become an American citizen. If he is not that jealous—if he is so proud that he wants to live in a Socialist country with a Socialist tax system—he has to take the consequences. To suggest that they should all be equal because they happen to work within five yards of one another seems astonishing.
  Why is the Minister restricting this little Bill to the three Acts named in it? If we are engaged in creating a paradise on an oil rig in which Norwegians, Britons and Americans are all subject to some identical, universal and paradisical statute law, why is the Health and Safety at Work &c. Act not included? Why did the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), whose concern for the safety of the individual who works upon the sea, for those who
  "go down to the sea in ships: and occupy their business in great waters"
  is manifest and excellent, not ask the Minister about the Health and Safety at Work &c. Act? Why was that Act not included, rather than these three miserable, pointless and rotten pieces of statutory restriction?
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point. I was trying to say that I believe the Bill represents an adult way of dealing with the problem. There are all sorts of other pieces of legislation that I would like to put into the Bill. I said that the way to deal with this is to have a much more uniform approach in one piece of legislation, agreed by all the countries surrounding the North Sea.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I was interested to note that neither the hon. Member for Kings-
  118
  ton upon Hull, East, nor the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) apparently knew what is the Employment Protection Act. Neither did they know that the legislation affecting safety is in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act. Why have the three pieces of legislation been chosen? Why the Employment Protection Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act? There is a simple answer, which is also the answer to the question why this legislation is being enacted to provide for British workers on the other half of the rig, so to speak. The answer is that the unions have been extremely anxious to get on to the rigs. A lot of people who have been making a lot of money on the rigs have been anxious to keep them off.
  Under the Employment Protection Act, ACAS has the right to go on to a rig and recommend that unions shall be allowed on it. I can see no reason why this should be done if it is not to increase the numbers of those who, under Part I of the Employment Protection Act, are able to go on to the rig. I cannot believe that this part of the Employment Protection Act is there to protect pregnant Asian women and give them 40 weeks off before they have to say that they are going back to the rig. I cannot believe that it is to protect maternity benefits or to deal with the business of dismissal after 26 weeks—or 23 weeks and two days as it is under the Act. I cannot believe that the provision is there to obtain redundancy benefits for those who happen to have worked on rigs. This business arises solely because there is a difficulty for the unions in influencing those who work on the rigs. These people are entrepreneurs. They are rugged people who want a great deal of money and who want to make it without interference.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East struck an important seam when he spoke of safety on tankers, which has nothing to do with this Bill. Let me nevertheless—
  Mr. Ronald Bell: My hon. and learned Friend may have been misled by the Minister, who, when he intervened in my speech, said that the Bill did not apply to ships. I thought that it perhaps applied to ships in relation to the Sex Discrimination Act. In fact the Bill applies to ships in respect of the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination

  119
  Act. Perhaps the Minister did not read the Bill very carefully.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for that correction. I speak with more confidence on the matter raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. He said that there were different regulations and pointed out that these tankers were not safe because there were not sufficient trained people upon them. The unions have to face the fact squarely and sensibly, because it is their dilemma, that all the legislation which they have demanded tends to protect overmanning.
  Mr. Prescott: What about the courts?
  Mr. Fairbairn: I am absolutely certain that once unions are represented on these rigs more people will be required to do the same jobs and as a result those who are doing the jobs will receive less. That absolutely artificial protection of employment is in contrast with the other effect of the Employment Protection Act. As a result of artificially making it difficult to reduce the labour force, to dismiss someone who is no good, as a result of the fact that people do not know how to go about this in the right way, employers say "God damnit, I will have nobody else because I dare not run into the abominable dangers of a tribunal saying 'You will pay £13,200 or £5,200.'" Those are the penalties. That is the legislation which, above all, has done more in recent times to ensure that there are 1⅓ million unemployed. It was interesting to note that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East did not know the period during which someone can be dismissed while the hon. Member for Dundee, East did not even know the facts.
  Let me give a good example of this overmanning. I heard of a company this week which makes and hires forklift trucks. It requires only one man to service 14 of these trucks. Yet British Steel requires three men to service each forklift truck. This is abominable and silly overmanning. On the other side is the Employment Protection Act which, far from protecting employment, destroys it.
  Nothing can be more farcical than a Government, in their final stages, taking this attitude towards those on oil rigs. I do not know whether the Minister has
  120
  ever been on a rig. If there is one place where people are striving and fighting to earn a hell of a lot and do a good job and get on with it without regulations and interference it is on the oil rigs. To take these three insane Acts—intended to create paradise nowhere but to create hell everywhere—on to an oil rig, is quite fantastic.
  Mr. Prescott: I have listened with care to the thesis being put forward by the hon. and learned Member to the effect that massive amounts of legislation are causing difficulty and that some of us are not very well aware of the detail of this legislation. As a part-time Member of this House and a full-time practising barrister, it may be that the hon. and learned Member is more aware of the details and legislation. What he does not seem to have taken into account—I tried to deal with it at some length—is that in most of these areas the workers are exempt from major parts of this legislation. The central thesis of the hon. and learned Member's argument does not, therefore, apply.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Once again he has got everything wrong. I am a full-time Member of this House and a non-practising barrister. I do read the legislation that goes through this House and I lecture on it. I do so for the very good reason that I have discovered that no one in business, large or small, is capable of absorbing the nonsense that goes through this place. I have had to specialise to lecture on this subject. I understand it and I hear the implications. If the hon. Member heard these people to whom I lecture he might not vote so regularly for some of this legislation.
  This legislation does not happen to apply to ships at sea. If it did, there would not be any ships under the British flag. That is for the good reason that it is possible, for example, to pick up a good crew in Ceylon and not apply this damned silly legislation to it. If it were to apply to ships at sea, we should never get a ship with a British crew member on it. The union of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East would realise that.
  Mr. Prescott: It is because of the situation to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers that ships are colliding.
  Mr. Fairbairn: No, that is not why they are colliding. However, I shall not go into that. There was exemption by the Government so as to protect union members in Britain who would automatically be out of the pale in terms of employment on the high seas.
  I do not propose to say much more. It seems a stupid Bill, which is not aimed at the health and safety of those who work on rigs. It is a Bill designed purely to get the influence of ACAS on to the rigs. It is a Bill that will have the same inevitable effect on rigs as everywhere else. It will take the fantasy of identicality, of equality, of decency and of fairness and it will do everything to the opposite of those objectives, which similar legislation has done in every other works, in every other firm, and in every other home.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. John Grant: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to some of the points that have been made. I shall try to take them in sequence.
  First, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said that there is a broad measure of agreement between the two sides of the House on these matters. I was grateful for those remarks but sorry that he went on to stray into the now almost ritual criticism of the Employment Protection Act that we hear from the Opposition, and especially from the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn). For the hon. and learned Gentleman it was certainly a ritual. He used the word "fantasy" and, listening to his contribution, I thought that that was an apt description of his speech.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman talked earlier about research that has been carried out covering about I million jobs. It would be helpful if we could have details of that research. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said today in the House that the review of these matters that has ben carried out will be published in detail. It will be interesting to see whether the evidence to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred will be published in detail. If it is, it will be helpful to the Government.
  The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth said that the Conservative
  122
  Party is critical of some provisions of the Employment Protection Act. We are still waiting to hear the exact nature of that criticism. In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, he may say that he and his party are waiting for the results of the review. However, it would be better if he waited for the review before being critical of the provisions of the Act, unless he will tell us the nature of his criticisms. The Opposition never really spell out their critcisms of the Act.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his general support. He asked whether the Bill has been drawn wider than is necessary and wondered whether it could not be used in a different context. The hon. Gentleman was pressing me in that direction while my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has been pressing me in a different direction. The Bill will allow us to extend employment legislation to only the foreign sectors of the Continental Shelf that form part of the cross-boundary of petroleum fields. It would be done only by agreement with the foreign country controlling the other side of the field. It will allow us to give effect to the most sensible arrangement for extending employment legisaltion to such areas. We arc taking powers only to allow us after agreement to extend legislation in what is a rather special set of circumstances. I think that that is appreciated by the hon. Gentleman.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made an important contribution. It is fair to say that his points ranged far wider than the limited form of the Bill. Indeed, that was the nature of one of his complaints about the Bill. My hon. Friend talked about a comprehensive agreement for countries bordering the North Sea and the setting up of a common standard with all the countries concerned. Desirable as that may be, T suspect that it would be rather a long time coming. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that. The fact is that there is a special situation involving our relations with the Norwegians and the Bill is aimed primarily at dealing with it.
  Mr. Prescott: I must tell my hon. Friend that IMCO has agreed manning standards on vessels and we have said that drilling rigs can be vessels in certain situations. The present circumstances are

  123
  far more advanced than my hon. Friend seems to think. I refer to agreed standards of safety manning on rigs or drilling vessels.
  Mr. Grant: I was about to turn to safety aspects, to which many hon. Members have referred. I have said that the Bill applies only to oil rigs. That is how the powers in the Bill are intended to be used. However, there is no restriction in the Bill placed on the sort of employment to which the Order in Council may extend.
  There is a joint Norwegian-United Kingdom body considering safety standards for those working in the North Sea. The Health and Safety Commission has that very much on board. It is intended that there will be much more comprehensive legislation. That legislation is in the course of preparation. That is why the Bill is not dealing with health and safety aspects.
  Mr. Dalyell: What is the time scale involved for the more comprehensive legislation? Is it possible that it will be introduced in the next parliamentary Session, or will it be longer than that in reaching the House?
  Mr. Grant: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question because these matters are very much in the hands of the Commission. The Commission is an independent body. It will treat these matters as expeditiously as possible. We are all well aware that the dangers of the North Sea are considerable for those working in it and on it.
  The question of race relations legislation was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. As my hon. Friend said, there has been an inquiry into the rates paid to Asian seamen. Those are matters very much for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. However, the Government are considering how the exceptions may be phased out. I cannot go further than that.
  The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) seemed to imply that it did not emerge from my speech that the Bill is all about employment protection legislation, race relations legislation and sex discrimination legislation. I thought that that emerged clearly. I
  124
  made that clear in my opening remarks. The hon. and learned Gentleman brought his well-known antediluvian prejudices to the House on race relations and sex discrimination. It is a fact that the House has overwhelmingly rejected his views on those matters time and time again. None the less, he keeps going and he is fully entitled to do that.
  The hon. and learned Member talked about the Bill being nonsensical. I have said that the employers and the trade unionists who are involved consider the Bill to be a necessary change. If, as the hon. and learned Member said, the Bill will not affect anything, he made an extraordinary meal of his remarks dealing with it.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: The Government seem to be making an extraordinary meal of these matters if they are introducing a Bill to do nothing. I am merely criticising the Bill.
  Mr. Grant: We are not introducing a Bill that will do nothing. I did not imply that it will do nothing. I consider it to be a useful step forward. It rationalises a situation that needed that sort of attention. I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), in a thoughtful contribution, referred to unionisation. Unionisation is not high. That is a matter for regret. The Bill should be helpful in assisting the unions to increase unionisation. That is a matter that must be dealt with by the trade unions. It is not for the Government to deal with unionisation, at any rate at root.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that over the past seven years the trade unions have found it exceedingly difficult to deal with the offshore industry, and that even with the present memorandum of understanding that exists many trade unionists feel that there will still be considerable difficulties?
  Mr. Grant: I am sure that that is right. As employers are supporting the Bill—they have gone along with it so far—that is an encouraging sign for the future.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East also spoke of differing incomes. That is not a matter for the Government. That issue is not dealt with in the Bill. That has to be a matter for negotiation.

  125
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) talked about equity. He will apreciate that there are inequities throughout the British pay system. The inequities may be more glaring on oil rigs—I would not be certain—but there are many inequities. However, the Bill does not seek to deal with that situation.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the question of divers. Again, that will be a matter for the Health and Safety Commission to look at in its more comprehensive approach to health and safety legislation in future.
  Mr. Dalyell: As my hon. Friend knows, should there be the proposed Assembly in Edinburgh, health will be a devolved subject. May we have the assurance that responsibility for all these matters in relation to oil rigs will remain
  Question accordingly agreed to
  Bill read a Second time.
  with this House and not with a possible Assembly at the High School?
  Mr. Grant: I should have to check that point to be absolutely certain. However, I should be surprised if my hon. Friend were wrong.
  I do not need to refer to the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire because I have already covered them. We shall simply have to agree to differ. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave us an extravaganza—an incredibly distorted view of the results of the Employment Protection Act. I hope that in due course he will produce the evidence to support his case.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 13.

  Division No. 228]

  AYES

  [8.11 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tolt'ham)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Harper, Joseph

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Bates, Alf

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Rooker, J. W.

  Beith, A. J.

  Hooley, Frank

  Sandelson, Neville

  Bldwell, Sydney

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Hunter, Adam

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Janner, Greville

  Silverman, Julius

  Buchan, Norman

  John, Brynmor

  Skinner, Dennis

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Spearing Nigel

  Cant, R. B.

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Coleman, Donald

  Lamborn, Harry

  Stoddart, David

  Cowans, Harry

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Summersklll, Hon Dr Shirley

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  MacCormick, Iain

  Thompson, George

  Crawshaw, Richard

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  McElhone, Frank

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Cryer, Bob

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Watkinson, John

  Cunningham, 6. (Islington S)

  Madden, Max

  Weitzman, David

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

  Mikardo, Ian

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Dewar, Donald

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Dormand, J. D.

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Whitlock, William

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Morris, Altred (Wythenshawe)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Eadie, Alex

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  English, Michael

  Noble, Mike

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Flannery, Martin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Woodall, Alec

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Woof, Robert

  Forrester, John

  Pardoe, John

  Wrigglesworth, Alan

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Parker, John

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Penhaligon, David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  George, Bruce

  Perry, Ernest

  Mr. Ted Graham and

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Price, C. (Lewlsham W)

  Mr. James Tinn.

  NOES

  Dunlop, John

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Holland, Philip

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Mr. Ronald Bell and

  Moate, Roger

  Tebbit, Norman

  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn.

  Molyneaux, James

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  THEFT BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  8.21 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As those who know anything about the law are aware, the Bill deals with a difficult and complex area of the criminal law. It arises from the Criminal Law Revision Committee's Thirteenth Report on Section 16 of the Theft Act 1968. I am sure that the House would wish to join me in paying tribute to Lord Edmund-Davies and his colleagues on the CLRC for carrying out the review of the law.
  The story should have served as a warning to the Houses of Parliament about the way in which they amend Bills which have previously had careful consideration. Section 16 of the Theft Act came into being when the House was considering the Theft Bill generally and the original draft clause of the CLRC. In order to clarify the original clause which the House of Lords thought was not sufficiently clear, it introduced Section 16 in the form in which it appears in the law at present. It thought—and there was some evidence for this—that the original draft was too wide in the way that it defined a criminal. Unfortunately, because of difficulties in drafting, the provision did not introduce any certainty into the law and it has been redolent of controversy ever since. It has been not only a source of trouble for the courts but a source of fruitful discussion by academic textbook writers.
  Three cases illustrate the difficulties that we have had. In one year there were two cases, that of Turner and that of Ray, which involved the evasion of a debt. In 1976 there was also the case of Charles, which involved the fraudulent use of cheques at a gaming club. These cases were decided with difficulty by the courts. Several Law Lords described in the strongest language the difficulty which the legislature had given to the courts when dealing with this provision.
  Consequently, in August 1972, the Home Secretary referred the working of Section 16 to the CLRC. He asked the Committee to consider whether changes were necessary. On consideration of the
  128
  problem the Committee found that not only did it need to deal with the question of whether that section was aptly framed but whether the right line between criminal behaviour and non-criminal behaviour had been drawn in the original report. The Committee therefore studied the matter anew, issued a working paper and obtained a wide measure of comment on it. It is fair to say that no working paper of the Committee has attracted such wide comment.
  The Committee recommended that Section 16(2)(a)—which is the part which has caused all the difficulties in the law—should be replaced by new provisions which broadly cover the same ground as before, but in terms which are more clearly defined.
  In one respect the Committee decided that the law should be slightly narrower than at present, and in another respect that it should be slightly wider. The slightly narrower definition involved the stalling debtor and the slightly wider definition involved making off without payment.
  The Committee embodied the recommendations in a report which had a draft Bill appended to it. In substantial form that was the Bill which was introduced by the Government in the Lords. The slight changes which were made by the Government had the consent of the Committee and they made more clear what was meant.
  Clause 1 of the draft Bill concerned deception as to the prospect of payment and it was intended to cover the more common fraud under Section 16 where there is a deception at the outset of a transaction, and Clause 2 created an offence of
  "obtaining relief from liability by deception."
  Those were the original provisions introduced in the Lords. Unfortunately, although Parliament has a comparatively poor record in trying to put right the law on this subject, that did not deter the Lords. It again introduced amendments to Clauses 1 and 2 which, although slightly more successful, are not acceptable to the Government in this form.
  Clause 3 of the original Bill involved frauds in such places as restaurants and filling stations. At present there is a considerable loophole in the law. It is a well publicised loophole, which the

  129
  clause is designed to fill. This clause was not amended during its passage through the Lords and its appears in its original form in the Bill.
  In its present amended form Clause 1 creates an offence of obtaining dishonestly by deception services which are provided in return for payment or the promise of payment. In the Bill services are deemed to include the hire of any property.
  The point made by the critics of the original CLRC draft was that it was too complex. There is no cheaper way of making a point in Parliament than to say that it is time we returned to simplicity in drafting. People often ask why we cannot draft laws which people can understand at a glance, but in reality the search for simplicity often leads us into greater complexity. That is because complex ideas—and fraud is a complex idea—have to be enshrined in difficult phraseology. That is because the end result is that they are more clear to the courts which have to interpret them than a general phrase which leaves everything for the courts to decide and which spells out nothing for them.
  Unfortunately, the end result of the greater clarity that the other place sought in the now amended clause left the term "services" completely undefined. That creates a serious problem, because it leaves gaps in the law. Secondly, the phrasing, although this is by no means so important, would not work as it at present stands.
  But on the concept of obtaining services a strong feeling came through from the other place. We asked the Criminal Law Revision Committee to consider the possibility of redrafting Clause 1 in order to make it less ambiguous than the version which their Lordships passed. It kindly agreed to do so at extremely short notice, and it came up with an alternative draft clause for which we owe it a debt of gratitude. The Committee did a great deal of work on this matter, and it is not an easy concept.
  I believe it would be convenient to read out the new clause, not because this is the right place to discuss the detail of it but so that hon. Members can see what the CLRC is suggesting. I am bound to indicate on behalf of the Government that we intend to introduce an amendment in Committee to insert this clause in place
  130
  of the existing clause in the Bill. The clause reads

  "1.—(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another shall be guilty of an offence.

  (2) It is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to confer a benefit by doing some act, or causing or permitting some act to be done, on the understanding that the benefit has been or will be paid for."

  That is a far clearer draft and one which combines comparative brevity with clarity for the courts.
  The existing Clause 2 is not satisfactory in the amended version which the other place has introduced. It reproduces almost exactly the wording of Section 16 (2)(a) of the 1968 Act, and since that Act is the subject of heavy criticism, reproduction of the criticised section in the new Bill will cause uncertainty and lead to what Lord Edmund-Davies described as a "judicial nightmare". Since Section 16(2)(a) effectively deals with two clauses of the new Bill, it would make Clause 1 redundant if we retained the wording of the existing Clause 2.
  Thirdly, and most seriously, because this is an issue of principle, the Government do not agree with the balance that is struck by their Lordships in the present clause in the case of the stalling debtor. As the clause stands, any person making an untrue representation—for example, the housewife who in the time-honoured tradition falsely tells the rent collector that she cannot pay the rent one week because she has lost her purse, or because her husband is away, and promises to make up the money over the subsequent couple of weeks—would be guilty of a criminal offence even though the intention would be sincerely to make good the payment within the next two or three weeks.
  That is a needless intrusion of the criminal law into what is traditionally a matter of civil remedy. For that reason, as well as the other two reasons, we believe that an amendment to restore the original Clause 2 is right. The stalling debtor, who is a person who merely temporarily does not intend to pay but intends to pay before long, thus not intending permanently to avoid payment, should not be the subject of the criminal law.
  Clause 3, which deals with the conduct known as bilking, which is not paying for a meal that one obtains, or making

  131
  off having filled up one's car with petrol without paying, remains as it was in the original draft. It fulfils a great need, in the sense that there is a gap in the present law, in that there may be no offence committed. Hon. Members will remember a case in which it was held by the court that although a person intended to pay when he started to fill up his car with petrol, his intention changed subsequently while putting, say, the additional three gallons in his tank and he was, therefore, not guilty of an offence. That seems to be a great source of difficulty, particularly for ordinary people, in understanding the substance of the law.
  I believe that the Bill removes an unsatisfactory state of affairs in another respect. For example, there is the anomaly whereby a person who has had a meal and has formed the intention not t3 pay, and indicates to the waiter that he is going outside to make a telephone call, may be guilty of an offence, whereas in some circumstances a person who merely bolts from the table and runs away may not be guilty of an offence. That great gap in the law is covered by the Bill.
  The penalties are set out in Clause 4. It is our general policy, as hon. Members know—they share this intention— to reduce maximum sentences wherever appropriate. In Clauses 1 and 2 we have followed the recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, but in respect of Clause 3, since that effects a slight widening of criminal responsibilty, we have heeded the comments of, among others, Sir Rupert Cross and Professor Glanville Williams, who are both members of the CLRC, and have reduced the proposed maximum penalty under that clause from three years to two. The fines follow the pattern set by the Criminal Law Act and are, of course, inflation-proofed by virtue of the provisions of that Act.
  The three remaining clauses deal with supplementary and formal matters. Clause 5 secures that offences under the Bill are made extradictable—perhaps I anticipate here a Friday debate on extraditable offences in which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and I are interested—and they are brought within the scope of the Fugitives Offenders Act.
  132
  Clause 6 allows the changes made in England and Wales by the present Bill to be extended to Northern Ireland, where the relevant law at the moment is identical, by Order in Council subject to negative resolution. Clause 7 is concerned merely with formal matters and commencement.
  I have tried in a short time to outline the main provisions of the Bill and to explain how I think it will benefit us. In my view, it can do no good to perpetuate a state of affairs in our criminal law in which the offence of fraud is dealt with in a manner so complex that even the courts have the greatest difficulty in considering it. I believe that, when it becomes law, the Bill will effect a great benefit by clarifying the law and thereby giving certainty in terms of when people are liable and when they are not. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House. I believe that it will command wide support.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Percival: It will be no surprise to the Minister to know that we welcome the Bill and welcome what the Government suggest should be done to it. It is necessary to mention both because we are in an unusual situation here in that, at the same time as moving that the Bill be given a Second Reading, the Minister has informed the House that he proposes drastically to change the first two clauses.
  However, it will be no surprise to the Minister that we welcome what he intends to do, because the Home Secretary was courteous enough to inform my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) when that decision was taken, and my right hon. and learned Friend informed the Home Secretary that we welcomed what was proposed. Indeed, when at one point it looked as though the previous business might collapse and the Minister was not in the Chamber, I had in mind that I myself might move the Second Reading.
  The replacement of Section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act is badly needed. That is a matter of agreement all round. Indeed, the Minister will recall that, when the Criminal Law Bill was in Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend and I and others of our hon. Friends moved as amendments to that Bill the proposals

  133
  which had been put forward by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and we withdrew those amendments on the Government's assurance that in the next Session they would themselves introduce legislation. They did so in the other place, and we all thought that things would go through not only smoothly but quickly. Life is full of surprises. I hope in this case that what at one stage looked like a slightly unpleasant surprise may prove to have served a useful purpose.
  When those major amendments were made in the other place, it looked as though that might mean that progress that would otherwise be made could not be made. The debate in the other place had shown that there were some difficulties in Clause 1 as originally proposed. It is to the credit of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, although it is what one would expect, that when these matters were drawn to its attention it said that its own first suggestion could be improved. Had it not been improved, we would not have been in this position.
  Some difficulties, which none of us had spotted, arising from the original Clause 1 had been drawn to our attention. Because of those difficulties, the clause had been replaced in another place by a new Clause 1. Not everyone was happy with the new clause. Therefore, we might have had the choice of two clauses, neither of which was entirely satisfactory.
  That might have produced a position in which it would not have been possible to complete the progress of the Bill because it would not have been possible to reach the large measure of agreement necessary if the Bill is to go through in the time available. At that stage my right hon. and learned Friend and I had discussions with the Minister. My right hon. and learned Friend discussed with him the possibility of asking the Criminal Law Revision Committee to reconsider Clause 1. It gladly did so. The Easter Recess assisted in the matter of time. The Committee was not given very much time to respond to that request, and the time was slightly enlarged because of the Easter Recess. The matter was dealt with speedily and satisfactorily. I think that the House will say, having considered closely what is proposed, that the CLRC acted speedily.
  I echo the tribute paid by the Minister to Lord Edmund-Davies, who was the
  134
  chairman of the Committee when it initiated the report on which we are now basing our actions. I pay tribute also to the present chairman, Sir Frederick Lawton, who has been the chairman all through the period of time during which the matter has been referred back to the Committee. The Committee has speedily and helpfully produced another clause for us. It will prove to have been of great assistance to the House in arriving at a correct conclusion.
  It follows from that that we shall support the Government when they move in Committee to remove Clause 1 and substitute the new clause which has been put forward by the CLRC and which the Minister read to the House a moment ago. One of the clearest things about our system is that although we talk about the separation of powers and the complete separation of the legislature from the judiciary, we do not observe it. There are many members of this legislature who sit in a judicial capacity. It is a very good thing. In that capacity we find how silly was some of the legislation that we allowed through in our other capacity.
  Many Members in the House who sit as recorders have had to try cases brought under Section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968. I have presided over cases in which the deception involved was a deception in persuading the victim that he had already been paid. That was not covered by the orginal Section 16(2)(a), by the orginal Clause 1 or by Clause 1 as it stands, but it will be covered by the new Clause 1 to be moved in Committee. It is difficult for hon. Members to express a view on the new clause because no one has seen it. That creates problems, but it is not a matter for criticism. It is inevitable from the way the situation has arisen. That may be why the Minister said more about it than he would otherwise have done, and it is certainly why I am saying more than I would otherwise have done.
  I assure my hon. Friends that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon and I are both satisfied that the proposed new draft meets all the difficulties that have so far emerged in the various debates that have taken place on Clause 1.
  Unless something may yet be done about Clause 2, we shall support the Government in Committee in restoring

  135
  the original Clause 2—broadly for the reasons that the Minister has advanced. I do not want him to think that because I am agreeing with so much I am agreeing with everything. There are a number of Committee points on which there may be differences. There is nothing serious, but I do not want the Minister to think that I am agreeing with everything he says. I am dealing only with the main points and leaving aside the minor Committee points. Equally, I do not want him to think that I have in my pocket a long list of amendments for the Committee stage. I do not think that there will be much serious dispute about any part of the Bill, but there may be discussion on some parts because we all share the wish to get it right this time.
  I know that, so far, the time scale has been such that it has not been possible for the Criminal Law Revision Committee to give the same consideration to Clause 2 as it has given to Clause 1. If there had been sufficient time, the Committee would, ideally, have put before us not only a revised and improved version of Clause 1 but an improved version of Clause 2, but it may be that the time scale prevents that from being a possibility. I do not know whether the Minister has asked the Committee whether it could consider that or whether there is any possibility of its suggesting improvements. It is on the cards that its recommendations would be as helpful to us and to the improvement of the law as was its reconsideration of Clause 1.
  I hope that the door has not been closed on that possibility, though I accept that time may close that door. Subject to that one hope, we welcome the Bill and what the Government propose to do in Committee on Clauses 1 and 2. I regret, as do the Government, that it has been necessary on Second Reading to say that the Bill will not be the same Bill as that to which the Government are asking the House to give a Second Reading, but I ask my hon. Friends and my hon. and learned Friends to bear with both sides on that. I do not think that it was avoidable. I hope that the fact that that unusual situation has arisen will not prejudice anyone against what is proposed, because I think that what is proposed will result in a very real improvement in the law. Accordingly, I am
  136
  very happy to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. David Weitzman: This Bill, originally introduced in another place, was based, as the Minister has said, upon the draft Bill which emerged from the deliberations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, set out in Cmnd. 6733. It was the consideration given by a very powerful Committee to the necessity of dealing with Section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, which was described in the case of the Queen v. Royle as a "judicial nightmare". Cases brought under this Act have illustrated that this criticism is well justified.
  On Clauses 1 and 2 of the original Bill, the recommendations made by the Committee were, as we have heard, materially altered as a result of Divisions in another place, and we now have the present Clauses 1 and 2, which were substituted. I readily agree that in some respects the original clauses presented some real difficulties. I was troubled, for instance. by the words in Clause 2(1)(b):
  "in order to make permanent default."
  I have doubts about the way in which these words would be understood and interpreted by a jury.
  I am all in favour of simple language being used so that a layman, who is supposed to know the law, will understand the position. But as was said in another place, simplicity can be bought at too great a price, and brevity is not synonymous with clarity.
  I have read the arguments used by the mover of the amendments in another place which resulted in the present form of Clauses 1 and 2. I have also read the speech made by Lord Edmund-Davies, the chairman of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. I feel that it is exceedingly important that when the Bill is considered in Committee in this House, careful attention should be given to the arguments on each side.
  It seems to me that much more attention should be paid to what I believe are exceedingly persuasive grounds put forward by the chairman of the Committee in calling for the retention of the original draft. After all, it was the product of a specialist Committee of exceptional ability and knowledge. I am very glad,

  137
  therefore, to hear that the Minister proposes to put forward in Committee a new clause which the Criminal Law Revision Committee has dealt with, and I hope that that will be considered in the light of the criticisms that have been made.
  There is, however, one further point that I would raise which calls for consideration. In the case of the Queen v. Rigg, decided in 1892, it was held that an attempt to pick an empty pocket was an offence. That decision was followed for many years. In Haughton v. Smith, in 1973, however, it was held that an attempt to dispose of stolen goods where goods were in the possession of the police was not an offence, and in Partington v. Williams, in 1976, it was held that there was no offence where the defendent looked into a wallet and would have taken the money until he found that the wallet was empty. These cases, among others, have effectively overruled the decision in the Queen v. Rigg.
  I understand from many discussions that I have had with magistrates that they often have cases of that nature and that they are constrained to advise defendents in such cases to plead not guilty.
  Command 6733 says, on page 9, that
  "If a man's intentions are dishonest from the beginning of a transaction and he practises a deception on his victim, the nature of the offence committed depends upon the nature of the benefit which the rogue is seeking to obtain."
  The would-be thief should not escape punishment because the benefit was not there to be obtained. This is a good opportunity to deal with a point which I understand has troubled many magistrates. I hope that it will receive consideration in Committee.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: I assume that Clause 3 covers that type of offence which is alleged to be shoplifting—alleged by two categories of shopkeeper. The first comprises those shopkeepers who reduce staff until it is almost impossible to find a cash desk in operation and there are long queues at those which are. The second comprises those shopkeepers who deliberately tempt customers to purchase and also accidentally tempt them to steal attractive and expensive goods.
  Both types of shopkeeper expose shoppers to two risks—that of yielding to temptation and that of absent-mindedly
  138
  taking goods without payment. There are many examples in one's mailbag of this type of case. I hope that we shall be told that the Government will at a later stage look into this serious problem and do something to remove a great deal of suffering among innocent people.
  Clause 6 extends the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. Once again, we express our satisfaction at the inclusion rather than the exclusion of Northern Ireland. Admittedly, a special type of mechanism is employed, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) explained on 23rd May, we are prepared to accept such a device on the basis of the understanding which he then set out and which was accepted by the Minister from the Northern Ireland Office.
  We have no criticism of the Bill, although I expect that hon. and learned Members, with the benefit of their detailed legal knowledge, will have points to put forward which have escaped me. Broadly, however, the Theft Act 1968 and its parallel, the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, contain the same major defect, which the Bill seeks to remedy.
  It might be asked why we do not have a simple application clause to extend these provisions to Northern Ireland, but I understand that in that case the text of the change in the law would appear in the United Kingdom statutes instead of in the Northern Ireland statutes, alongside the Northern Ireland Act of 1969. Such a complication would create unnecessary difficulties for law practitioners in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that they could eventually overcome those difficulties, but perhaps at additional expense to their clients.
  Because of the existence of Clause 6, we representatives from Northern Ireland can legitimately debate the Bill and its application to Northern Ireland. However, the House will be relieved to know that political and legal opinion in Northern Ireland welcomes the proposed alterations. I have received no adverse comment, and such views as I have obtained from legal and lay persons have been favourable. I conclude by expressing our support for this legislation.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Adley: I am delighted to have the

  139
  opportunity to be called to speak in this debate following the remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). I am not sure whether he is a qualified lawyer.
  Mr. Molyneaux: No, I am not.
  Mr. Adley: That is good. He was the first non-lawyer to speak in the debate, since the Minister is a qualified solicitor and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) and the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) are eminent Queen's Counsel. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Antrim, South assumed—I think with every justification—that the Bill was intended in some way to deal with or relate to the problems of shoplifting.
  Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman will notice that the Long Title refers to
  "An Act to replace section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act".
  Therefore, what ground does the hon. Gentleman have for taking such a view?
  Mr. Adley: I have been on my feet for only a minute. I was referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, South and I was making the point that he felt that something in the Bill was in some way connected with shoplifting. When the hon. Gentleman mentioned that matter, the Minister of State grimaced.
  Mr. Molyneaux: What does the hon. Gentleman make of the side note "Making off without payment"? Surely that is a vindication of what we are both saying.
  Mr. Adley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are here tonight discussing a piece of legislation, and the Minister of State used the phrase "a matter of parliamentary intention". It is clear to the two non-lawyers who have taken part in this debate that our reading is different from the view taken by those in the debate who are legally qualified. I am explaining why I am speaking in this debate, and I apologise to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport, who is on the Opposition Front Bench, and to the Minister for objecting to the proposition that the Bill should be taken in a Second Reading Committee upstairs. I believe that the
  140
  Bill as amended in another place could be construed to be designed to deal with certain aspects of shoplifting.
  The Minister has clearly said that he wants to throw out the amendments that were made to the original Bill in another place. I hope that I shall have the agreement of the Chair that I am entitled to make my speech on the Bill as presented to the House in the Vote Office and not in relation to the Bill as it may be amended in Committee upstairs. On that basis, I wish to deal with one or two points in the Bill rather than to discuss matters on which I am not qualified to comment relating to the deliberations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. Some of us who are non-lawyers can examine pieces of legal legislation, if I may so term them, through different eyes from those used by qualified lawyers.
  The changed Bill, in Clause 2(1)(a), uses the expression "dishonestly evades". That begs the question of what is dishonest evasion. In order to find a text for my speech tonight, I went to the Library and turned to the dictionaries and in "Webster's Third New International Dictionary", under the heading "Dishonest", I found a quotation from that well-known American social critic and teacher Mr. Lewis Mumford. He said:
  "While it would be dishonest to gloss over this weakness, one must understand it in terms of the circumstances that conspired to produce it".
  This is where I relate my remarks to the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, South. What, indeed, is "conspiring" to produce an increase in theft in general and in shoplifting in particular? We must not just look at the law as it affects these matters but we must look at the activities of those who were referred to by Mr. Mumford as conspiring to produce it.
  The advent of self-service stores has been the greatest single factor in causing the increase in shoplifting that this country has ever known. The phrase has been used "the deliberate creation of temptation". I agree with this. Of course, if one sets out deliberately to encourage people to help themselves, one should not be surprised when they do just that. Therefore, what is the role of the owners of these chains of supermarkets in the increase in thefts and shoplifting which has taken place over the past 15 to 20 years?

  141
  The owners will, of course, deny to their dying breath that their trading methods have anything to do with the increase in theft. In fact, so adamant are they that they have now set up a propaganda organisation—the Association for the Prevention of Thefts in Shops—which is chaired by an eminent Member of another place. This organisation seems to spend a considerable amount of its time scouring through the newspapers dealing with points that I have made about theft and shoplifting and refuting them. But I believe that the Bill as presented to us tonight could be misused, certainly in a way not intended by Parliament.
  Clause 3(1) of the Bill relates to what I have been saying. It refers to a person who
  "knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected".
  Many people have been to Marks and Spencer and have scratched their heads trying to find where, how and when they should pay. I am grateful to have the nodded support of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson), who probably will be embarrassed by what I am saying, but any of us who are remotely in touch with our constituents know that a significant number of people get caught and ensnared and find themselves on serious criminal charges of theft or shoplifting directly as a result of the trading methods of self-service stores and modern shopping methods. I ask the Minister to accept the point that it is not the law's fault but is in many cases the store's fault.
  Another part of the Bill that is extremely topical is Clause 3(4). In today's newspapers, the Home Secretary is reported as having made a speech to a meeting of the International Professional Security Association. In today's edition of The Guardian, there is the phrase
  "the infiltration of criminals into private security companies."
  This must be a cause of alarm, particularly when related to Clause 3(4), which says:
  "Any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is, or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be, committing or attempting to commit an offence under this section."
  It is relevant to ask whether the Government believe that that clause in the
  142
  Bill could not be misused by people acting on behalf of security companies. According to the chairman of the International Profession Security Association, who was reported in The Guardian today, he would welcome a system of registration for personnel and companies to maintain high professional standards. The association's journal, "Security Protection", says:
  "even the best public relations cannot conceal the fact that far too many villains have found their way into the murkier sides of our industry, causing untold mischief."
  The Home Secretary was right to be worried about the activities of some security companies and about the so-called store detectives who may well find this clause of great benefit to them. What training is required of a store detective as far as the law is concerned? The answer is "None". How can one measure the productivity of a store detective? The answer is self-evident. If the store detective is unscrupulous—particularly one employed by one of the smaller security companies rather than by a large store—I am sure that many people will know perfectly well what I am getting at.
  I have no wish to destroy or oppose the principles behind the Bill, but I hope that the Minister of State will not mind if I say that I think we are entitled to probe a little further. If I am fortunate enough to find myself on the Committee, I should like to have the opportunity to suggest one or two admendments to the Bill. They may or may not be selected. We shall have to wait and see.
  Is it possible that we should be considering warnings, or fines on the spot? Could these be considered for incorporation in the Bill? I understand that warnings are common in juvenile courts and that thereafter a warning can be entered on a person's record but that this is rarely done in the case of adults. I wonder why it is considered appropriate to enter on the record of a juvenile the fact that he has received a warning for an offence when that is not done in the case of an adult? Perhaps this could be explored.
  Fines on the spot may be relevant to supermarkets. There is no need to pretend that there is not a high proportion of rogues operating in supermarkets. Fines on the spot were the subject of discussion recently on the Transport Bill,

  143
  I understand that the Home Office was alarmed at the proposals which were inserted in Committee and that the Government, having agreed to support the proposals for spot fines, subsequently removed the relevant clause from the Bill.
  I remind the Minister that Clause 288(a) of the Customs and Excise Act 1952—with which I am sure he will be immediately familiar—makes provision to allow Customs officers to fine people on the spot. The effect of that legislation is to enable people to pay a fine for not being taken to court. Perhaps this is an idea that we ought to explore further within the ambit of this Bill.
  The Minister knows about research being undertaken into shoplifting in my constituency. Indeed, the Home Secretary has been kind and courteous enough to take an interest in it. Together with three magistrates who live and work in or near my constituency, we have set up a study group to look into the question of shoplifting and the methods employed by stores in apprehending people. We have had meetings with lawyers, police, probation officers, security companies, store detectives, security officers and many other people, as well as with many people who have been involved in allegations of shoplifting.
  We are extremely perturbed about the trading methods of the stores and about the methods of apprehension used by some of these so-called store detectives. We believe that there is a need for a code of practice in dealing with these matters. I am concerned that some aspects of the Bill could be misused in a way that is not intended.
  I have no intention of seeking to oppose the passage of the Bill, but I hope that the Minister will bear with me if in Committee I have the opportunity to raise some of these matters in more detail.
  9.13 p.m.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I shall lay rather less stress than my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) did on the possibility of amending the Bill in order to secure the object which both he and I have in mind. I am not sure that what we wish to achieve can be effected by amending the legislation but, with due respect to what the Minister of State said
  144
  about the relevance to the Bill of what we are saying, I believe that to any layman the Bill, and particularly Clause 3, clearly covers a case of shoplifting.
  Our debates here are not just debates between legal experts arguing the niceties of law; they are also debates between laymen who take a less expert view of these matters and in which they seek by their contributions not merely to amend the law but to affect the climate of opinion in which the law operates. It is to that end that I shall be directing my brief remarks rather than to making suggestions about the way in which the law can be amended.
  If I am fortunate enough to serve on the Committee, and if it is possible to devise amendments, I shall certainly wish to support them, but my principal object in this brief intervention is to try to have some impact on the state of public opinion on this matter. If we are fortunate enough to extract a constructive and helpful comment from the Front Bench spokesmen, that will have an even larger impact on that section of public opinion which we are seeking to influence.
  I shall not go quite so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington in attacking the self-service stores, although often their arrangements are open to severe criticism. I go part of the way with my hon. Friend in his attack on them, but I am more concerned not with those who are led into temptation by the selling methods of retail stores but with those who, entirely inadvertently, expose themselves to charges in cases such as this. For example, there is the mother who goes out shopping with a small child and who slips something into her shopping bag, or the housewife who suddenly remembers when she gets to the meat counter that she has left the gas on and dashes out. There is also the person who, while queueing at the cash desk, suddenly sees a friend, dashes over to have a word, and clean forgets. It is only too easy to commit by inadvertence something which is a relatively trivial offence for which the penalty is not harsh. I am not suggesting for a minute that the penalties are harsh. But the real punishment is the appearance in court.
  There are a great many offences which nowadays one can commit by mistake. One can go through a red light, park in the wrong place, or exceed the speed

  145
  limit. I see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) on the Opposition Front Bench. I am well aware that these are offences which from time to time all of us commit. When one commits this sort of offence one is had up in front of the courts and perhaps fined. Perhaps one even has one's licence endorsed. But it is not a matter of disgrace. One's reputation is not thereby ruined. However, if a vicar doing some shopping for his wife and mentally composing his sermon as he goes around the shelves, leaves the store without having paid for a box of matches, he is liable to read in the local paper the following week "Vicar accused of shoplifting" or "Vicar accused of theft from store".
  Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the stores quite deliberately use the courts as a deterrent in this way? Therefore, through the massive cost of keeping the courts going, the taxpayer is helping to promote the claim of these stores that they reduce the price of food.
  Sir A. Meyer: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. He has led me on to the next stage of my argument, of which I had lost the thread. I am very concerned about the way in which certain stores use a policy of automatic prosecution in order to reinforce their inadequate security methods. One of the things that bothers me most is the conduct of certain stores. If a charge of shoplifting is brought by a store detective, who may be a person with no qualifications, or a person with a criminal record, certain stores automatically bring a prosecution. I have made several speeches and broadcasts about this sort of activity and a number of cases have been brought to my notice.
  Easily the most horrifying case was one about which I shall be specific. It concerns a Mrs. Fairbrother, a lady who lives in Aldershot and who went shopping at the Army and Navy stores in that town. At that time it was Messrs. Whites. Mrs. Fairbrother had been a regular customer there for many years. She was a lady in a delicate state of health, subject to some degree of nervous disability. She tried on a costume, liked it, bought it and put it down to her account. It was packed up for her and she left the shop with this costume in a shopping bag. As
  146
  she reached her car, waiting in the street outside, where her husband was, she was approached by two detectives, who said "We have reason to suppose that you have stolen something from the store." They turned the shopping bag upside down and out fell the lid of a plastic jar. I believe that the jar and the lid together were worth 45p.
  Unbelievably, the Army and Navy stores at Aldershot brought a case against this good lady which went to court. She was conditionally discharged. I found the case so incredible that I was not prepared to believe it. I wrote to the manager of the Army and Navy stores at Aldershot saying "I have had this story reported to me and I just do not believe it. If you will assure me that the circumstances are not as told to me, I will drop the matter." I had no answer. I know that the manager received my letter because he wote to Mr. Fairbrother saying that I had been in contact and was seeking to exert pressure on him over the matter.
  If these remarks of mine receive any publicity it may provide a further opportunity for the manager of the Army and Navy stores at Aldershot to explain why he decided to authorise so indefensible a prosecution. I do not think that there are many cases like that, although I had a not dissimilar one in my constituency not long ago. Changing the law will not stop such things, but I believe that our debates can do something to prevent such incidents from happening.
  There is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington said, a barrage of propaganda emanating from the organisation chaired by Baroness Phillips, the Association for the Prevention of Thefts from Stores. It is doing a job on behalf of its members. It sends out this barrage of propaganda which tends to cause people to believe that shoplifting is so prevalent, so uncheckable, that the courts ought to do everything in their power to stamp it out, even if that involves injustice to the individual.
  Mr. Adley: Has my hon. Friend noticed how the Association for the Prevention of Thefts from Stores describes goods alleged to have been taken by members of the public as "shoplifting" but describes the event when goods are taken by members of staff as "shrinkage"?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I have allowed a great deal of latitude to the hon. Member. Most of his remarks would have better formed the subject of an Adjournment debate. I do not think that we can pursue this matter of the trading methods of certain shop owners in great detail.
  Sir A. Meyer: I do not believe that we would safeguard the public by amending the law. I do believe that we can achieve something by attempting to change the climate of public opinion, by attempting to influence the attitude of the courts, by attempting to influence the attitude of the police in bringing prosecutions and, above all, by putting moral pressure on stores to consider each case and decide whether prosecution is justified instead of resorting to the totally unjustifiable policy of automatic prosecution. It is because Clause 3(1) tends to give some encouragement to the point of view that automatic prosecution is justifiable that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington and I will seek to examine this provision rather more carefully in Committee.
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am not sure whether the Bill is an optical illusion, but I know that I came prepared to deal with it and that a large part of it has disappeared. I suppose that that is one way of keeping my speech short.
  In general terms I welcome any attempt to clarify this area of judicial nightmare. I have had only a glimpse of the clauses and no opportunity to digest them, let alone study them. Therefore, I am not in a position to criticise what they may or may not do. However, I shall make one or two points that I believe are of general application to the debate.
  It is a shame that there are not more hon. Members present. It is a pity that the debate will not take longer. It is not my intention to delay the House, but we are dealing with the boundaries of criminality. If we are not careful, the judges will tend to make the law and to say what is criminal and what is not. It is when the boundaries of criminality are to be discussed that the laymen in the House should be in the Chamber taking part in the debate.
  The Minister referred to the width of existing legislation, which he suggested might be narrowed by the Bill's provi-
  148
  sions. He gave the example of the housewife who gives some sort of excuse, which is a deception, to delay the payment of a just debt. The hon. Gentleman thought that that should not be criminal. I beg leave to differ. There might be a fair number of other hon. Members who have a different view, but if we are to make that distinction and to say that someone who does something deliberately dishonest by way of deception should not come within the bounds of the criminal law, we might as well open up many other areas of the criminal law. For example, let us take the case of someone who is guilty of a crime who takes a step towards the doing of that act and changes his mind. Morally, he may be less to blame than the housewife who seeks only to gain a temporary pecuniary advantage or delay.
  Mr. John: There is a valid argument that may be put in opposition to the hon. Gentleman's point, namely, that the concept of permanent deprivation is already included in the law of larceny. For example, it may be that a person takes property without intending permanently to deprive the owner. Therefore, he is not guilty of an offence under Section 1 of the Theft Act. The distinction is already made. We are not seeking to introduce a new provision.
  Mr. Lawrence: I am not suggesting that it is new. However, once the intent permanently to deprive is established, the fact that the person's mind is subsequently changed, perhaps even moments afterwards, is not a defence to the criminal offence of dishonesty. I do not seek to delay the House over this rather abstruse point of argument on which I have caught myself. There is the wider and more important point that there comes a stage when we are talking about dishonesty and when ordinary people, not lawyers, should be drawing the line.
  For that reason, when the Minister makes a statement as though it is handed down from the High Court Bench, as well it might in some circumstances have been, it is something about which ordinary people, represented by ordinary non-lawyers in the House, might well want to form a view. It is dangerous when debates such as this take place in the House and only lawyers or those concerned—I say this with great respect—with one narrow aspect of the Bill, which

  149
  may or may not be rightly founded, take an interest and take part. The boundary of criminality is everybody's interest.
  The second general point is that the Bill is necessary because of the over-complexity of the law which has been built up not by a patchwork process but because, when the academics, the judges, the Law Commission, the Criminal Law Revision Committee and the lawyers got at it, they still could not get it right in the Theft Act 1968. With all the commentaries that have appeared from learned academics on the working of Section 16(2), it was only in the last few days that the Criminal Law Revision Committee had another look at it because the House of Lords made, as it sometimes does—perhaps deliberately—nonsense of the Bill.
  This endless definition and redefinition may have stopped with this clause. I do not know. However, I have never understood why it is so simple in the Theft Act for the ordinary layman, who has to know what the law is, as the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) said, to understand what theft is. He can look at the section which defines it, the sections which follow and explain what is meant when one dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention permanently to deprive, and see what the punishment is. All is clear and simple. If the ordinary person wants to know what constitutes burglary, aggravated burglary, taking and driving away, blackmail, and so on, and the penalties, they are all perfectly clear in the Theft Act. But in the case of fraud, for some reason it becomes muddled, unclear and intensely untidy.
  I have never understood why we could not define our deception offence very broadly by saying that where somebody deliberately—that is, dishonestly, not accidentally—deceives another by what he says or does, as a result of which deception he gains something to which he has no right and the other person loses, that is an offence. It would and could be seen to cover reduction of debts, deferment of debts, services and a whole catalogue of offences.
  When all is said and done, those who most frequently have to try the issue in serious cases are juries. Juries cannot be taken to understand what judges cannot
  150
  understand—the complexities of the law. A juryman asks himself "Is this action dishonest? Has that person dishonestly said something as a result of which somebody has lost and he has gained?" That decides the issue.
  It has never suited the conduct of our criminal law for these complexities to proliferate. The end result has been for judges—never mind the juries who acquit on countless occasions whenever there is a Section 16 type of offence because they do not understand what the lawyers are talking about—to say "Here is an offence which clearly has been committed, an offence for which Parliament no doubt intended there to be a criminal sanction but I do not understand it. It is not my job to administer to a jury a law which I do not understand." There have been countless acquittals of the guilty because of the preoccupation with over-definition and the lack of clarity that results.
  I shall want to look at the clause with great care to see that it does not proliferate unnecessary complexity and definition to any degree at all. Not only does the law have to be clear to judges and lawyers who advise; it must be clear to ordinary people. They must know what the law is and what they may and may not do. They must know not only so that they can avoid criminal wrongdoing but so that they can have confidence that the law is being correctly administered in their names. The whole sorry history of Section 16(2) shows the dangers of going away from that approach.
  What I am about to say follows upon the arguments that I have already made about the need for laymen in Parliament to decide the boundaries of criminality and the need for ordinary people to be able to understand the law thoroughly, but it is a point that has occurred to me only since I heard my hon. Friends raise the matter this evening. It involves shoplifting. The Minister knows that there is no intention to use Section 16(2) in a shoplifting case. I and my hon. Friends now know that there is no intention to use it, but Parliament's intention is not studied by the judges or by those who settle indictments or charges.
  It reminds me of the story of the postman who goes to a house and sees a sign on the gate saying "The clog only barks".

  151
  The postman will not go in. The housekeeper comes out and asks "Have you not seen that notice? Why do you not come in? The dog only barks." The postman replies "I know that, and you know that, but has the dog seen the notice?"
  Unless there is some clarification to put the matter beyond doubt so that the layman knows as well as the solicitor who might frame a charge that there is no scope intended by Parliament for the use of that section in any shoplifting case, there will not be the clarity and the simplification of purpose for which the Minister is striving as much as other hon. Members.
  I am sorry that we have not had more opportunity to study the new clause. I blame no one. I am surprised that what appears to have been achieved in a few days has not been achieved in years to clarify the section on deception. I shall look at the new provision with care and hope that it approximates to simplicity and clarity and reflects the needs of ordinary people.
  9.39 p.m.
  Mr. John: With the leave of the House, I should like to answer some of the questions which have been asked in the debate. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) speaks with all the confidence that led Parliament to get it wrong last time. I cannot understand the ease with which he thinks that issues can be resolved in the interval between scrapping one speech and writing another. His attitude is a recipe for error. I ask the hon. Member to reconsider his argument.
  When I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), I was not questioning his right to make a Second Reading speech. As a mark of my seriousness, I shall deal with the case made by him and by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). I have dealt with this on a number of occasions, and they have taken it up with one of my ministerial colleagues. In answer to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington said that it was entirely reasonable for it to be thought that Clause 3 dealt with shoplifting, and the hon. Member for Burton seemed to accept that.
  152
  On reflection, however, I believe that he will revise his view. If he considers Section 16 of the 1968 Act, he will see that we are talking about obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception. In other words, shoplifting is dealt with under Section 1 of the Theft Act.
  We are now dealing with the case known as bilking, which, for example, is the consumption of a meal and the evasion of payment for it. Another example which readily springs to mind is where a person fills his tank with petrol and leaves without the attendant being able to stop him in time to exact payment. Shoplifting is a charge under Section 1 of the Act and is dealt with by the need to prove dishonesty in the taking as much as in any other part of the Act.
  Mr. Adley: The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and I have read Clause 3(1) separately and we reached our conclusions without collusion. In view of what the Minister said, will he make it clear beyond peradventure that the Government do not intend that the Bill, which will replace Section 16 of the Theft Act, will in any way be used, or should be used by the courts, to deal with shoplifting cases? Will he give that assurance and bring in an amendment in Committee to this effect?
  Sir A. Meyer: Will the Minister explain why the subsection contains no reference to Section 16(2) of the Theft Act? There is a reference to it in the Long Title, but there is none in the subsection. Anyone looking at the Bill would think that this was an independent piece of legislation standing on its own feet.
  Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman is entering the realms of fantasy. One does not amend a Bill by quoting in the new section the section that is being repealed. That is a patent absurdity. We may not all be lawyers, but we are all legislators, and I wish that some hon. Members would understand the process of legislation a bit better than they appear to do at the moment.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington made an important point. The framing of charges is not a matter for the Government. I shall check this point between now and Committee, but at the moment I have no evidence that the previous section was used in shoplifting cases.

  153
  I therefore have no doubt that the new provisions will prove no more redolent of such charges.
  Both hon. Members made what amounted to a massive indictment of private enterprise in terms which, though I was reluctant to pass up the chance, I could not aspire to. We should not fall into the error of saying that because some people are wrongly charged—I confess that that must be so in some cases, because, of those who are charged with shoplifting and plead not guilty, 48 per cent. are acquitted—we can then proceed from that simple premise to the opposite conclusion of saying that no one is rightly charged. There are massive thefts which are dishonest in intent, and a prosecution policy is therefore necessary where it is proved that there is dishonesty and dishonest intent.
  The Home Office research unit is presently engaged in collecting information about the policy of stores towards shoplifting, with the aim, once it has collated the information, of making comparisons and drawing general conclusions from it, in the hope that firms will themselves draw therefrom certain lessons as to their own prosecution policies and will not needlessly invoke the criminal law. As I have said in answer to the hon. Member for Burton, I draw a line between what is a matter of recompense and what is a matter of true criminality.
  In addition, as both hon. Gentlemen will know, since they have heard about this many times, the working party on shoplifting which the Home Office set up has made a number of recommendations to the major stores and has taken up with the major stores certain suggestions—for example, the suggestion about having parking areas for bags and so on in order to avoid mistake.
  Perhaps it will go some way towards showing hon. Gentlemen that I take their point seriously if I say that I hope that no store or chain of stores will concentrate merely upon the apprehension of shoplifters in isolation from a review of their own trading practices so as to avoid the needless prosecution, the prosecution which occurs by accident. I hope that that assurance will satisfy hon. Gentlemen on that point.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke New-
  154
  ington (Mr. Weitzman) dealt with the question of the impossible attempt, impossible because the pocket or the wallet is empty. I have to tell him that the Law Commission is at the moment reviewing the law on attempts, and it will form a natural part of that review that the Law Commission should consider the cases of Rigg and Haughton v. Smith. But I shall see that my hon. and learned Friend's words are passed on to the Law Commission so that it pays due attention to them.
  The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) invited me to commit Clause 2 to the scrutiny of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. I have to tell him that I think that, at the stage we have now reached, it is probably too late. The next meeting of the CLRC does not come until 16th June, and, with the complexity of Clause 2, I believe that it would be impossible for the Committee to deal with it in the time available.
  However, the Clause 2 which we intend to put back into the Bill is the Clause 2 which was drafted by the CLRC itself, so that it has had not only the advantage of that Committee's initial consideration—I accept that it can have second thoughts, just as anyone else can—but the advantage of having been commented on by all those interested parties who were invited to comment upon the report of the working party. Although complex, the clause is the result of all that consideration.
  Mr. Lawrence: On the question of timing, will the Minister say something about how the implementation of the Bill will fit in with the work of the Law Commission on cheques and bankers' cards? Clearly the two are related, and some people have thought that there was little point in changing the law on deception until the Law Commission had produced some proposals on cheques and bankers' cards.
  Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the more general study by the Law Commission on conspiracy to cheat and defraud. If there were some people who did not think that there was much point in altering Section 16 in advance of that more general review, they were not members of the Law Commission itself, because the Law Commission said that there was urgent need to modify Section 16(2)(a) in advance of its study, and the Law Commission is quite content with the

  155
  terms in which it is proposed. I hope that that is of some assurance to the hon. Gentleman. There are some interesting points to be made in Committee.
  I come back to the central theme of the Bill. Section 16(2)(a) of the Act combines confusion of the law with confusion of the judiciary. Confusion of the judiciary will lead to confusion of the public because we are in an extremely complex era.
  The hon. Member for Burton said that certain crimes are easily encompassed and conceived. However, when one is considering deception one is considering evolution in human behaviour. Frauds become more complex. One has only to read the reports of the trials to see how much more complex commercial life has become and, therefore, how much more complex the frauds upon commercial life have become.
  It is not always easy to encapsulate concepts, however easy they are to imagine, in words which will cover every eventuality. I hope that the House wants to cover every major eventuality. We do not want the measure some years later to prove to be so inherently rickety that the House of Commons has to consider it again and amend it. By passing a Bill the terms of which the Government will commend to the Committee, the House will do a great deal to stop up loopholes in the law and to cover the cases which it ought to cover—those of permanent dishonesty.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

WAYS AND MEANS

  PAYMENTS FOR LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT & C.
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made for amending paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]
  Ordered,
  That it be an Instruction to the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.

  MR. AND MRS. KASSAMALI
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
  9.52 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House the case of the Kassamalis, against whom deportation orders have been issued. It is necessary to spell out in detail the substance of the case, with which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be familiar but not necessarily Members of the House.
  My hon. Friend knows the kind of constituency that I represent. She knows that many of my constituents are people of Asian origin, having come from the Punjab part of India or, as in this case, from East African States, or from many areas of the New Commonwealth. She knows from my consistent flow of correspondence with her on numerous cases that on some of those cases my view is different from my view on others. It is an unusual step for me to bring before the House in an Adjournment debate any one of these case. This is the first case since my hon. Friend has been Under-Secretary in which I have taken such a step. I have taken this step because three decent people are under serious threat of receiving less than justice from this country, which prides itself so much on its justice.
  Mr. Kassamali is 52 years of age. He looks much older. When I saw him I would have taken him for about 65. That may be because of the wear and tear of life, which has not affected me as much as it has apparently affected him.
  The Kassamalis have five children. The three elder children are permitted residents of the United Kingdom. They have come here over the years in various ways. Of these, two daughters, not the deportable daughters, are midwifery sisters in a local maternity hospital at Perivale, in Middlesex, which is next to my constituency. All their colleagues think very highly of them, and when I was chatting to one of them last night, I asked her how many babies she thought she had delivered while she had been serving in the National Health Service. She said that the number must run into hundreds. She has been doing a tremendously useful job for us, as has her

  157
  sister in the same hospital. They are a vital part of the family and have been here since 1971. There is no question of their leaving this country.
  The only son works as a computer operator with IBM. His studies here have been financed partly by money given by his father and partly by grants from the Ismali Council. He has been here for many years and holds a British passport. He is not deportable member of the family.
  The two younger daughters against whom deportation orders have been issued have been here for a total of six years. They came first as students and got work after that. Although they were not supposed to have been working under British law, it has been relatively easy for many years for overstayers to gain employment in Britain. Perhaps in the distant future, under Common Market arrangements and so on, it will not be so easy for people who have not achieved a right of stay in this country to get employment, but these young women have been working as secretaries and have been doing an important job in the British economy.
  These daughters came here as visitors with their mother and father. They were then aged 15 and 18. Having been here for six years, they have grown from girlhood into womanhood. I stress that because I shall quote later from a letter from the Home Secretary who says that he is not prepared to vary or revoke orders against these young women and their parents. I submit that the time factor is the essence of whether their removal from this country would be a profound hardship or not.
  One of the daughters has recently got married to a man who has settlement rights in this country, and representations have already been made on her behalf by her husband.
  Mr. Kassamali suffers from ill health. I have looked through the history of the case and I find that he has been dangled on a piece of string like a yoyo. It may be argued that, initially, he was the architect of his own misfortunes, but over the years during which I, his solicitor and a councillor for the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service have been taking an interest in the case, he has had every hope, at various stages through
  158
  our appeals system, that he would get the right of domicile in this country. But it has not come about, and it is necessary to go through that history in order to understand the full substance of the case.
  Mohammed Ali Kassamali was born in Bombay, India, in July 1925, the son of a British subject. Mrs. Kassamali was also at the date of her birth the daughter of a British subject. Mr. Kassamali applied for registration himself as a British subject in October 1953.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
  Mr. Bidwell: Mr. Kassamali applied for registration as a British subject in October 1953, and from 1953 to February 1966 he was employed by East African Railways—that is, in Crown service—as a clerk, which provided him with accommodation as part of his job.
  In 1962, after Tanzania became independent, Mr. Kassamali was advised by East African Railways that unless he were to renounce his British citizenship he would lose his job and the accommodation. I think that this is very important in understanding the whole sorry background of his circumstances. I bring this debate, but I am a former railway worker and I know all about the tied cottage system and how it affects railway employees in this country.
  On 3rd May 1962, under this duress, which is really what it was, Mr. Kassamali renounced his British citizenship and adopted Tanzanian nationality. Mrs. Kassamali also renounced her British citizenship on 2nd May 1963. The purpose of her renunciation was to make it possible for the daughters to be registered as Tanzanian citizens. I understand that that was quite important from the point of view of the daughter's education in Tanzania.
  On 31st July 1965 it had become the policy of East African Railways to replace Asian officers by African officers. The House will be familiar with the policies of Africanisation in Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania, which have been applied with varying degrees of severity. Mr. Kassamali was asked to retire and was

  159
  given six months' notice. He was also obliged to vacate the accommodation. However, he got some compensation from East African Railways and, with a small loan, was able to buy a plot of land at Iringa, which is a long distance from the capital, I understand, where he built a house consisting of two shops and two flats for the purpose of providing some additional income for him in his old age. But he had to move to Dares-Salaam for work, and he became a social welfare officer for the Ismailia Provincial Council. His house was rented and he used the rent to pay for accommodation while he was resident in the capital. Subsequently the property at Iringa was compulsorily acquired, and from then on he had only his pension from the railways, a very small one indeed, and some income from his work on which to support the family.
  The first member of the family to come to the United Kingdom was the son, who trained to be a computer systems analyst. He was then followed by the two elder girls, whom I have mentioned, who are now midwifery sisters, and then the two younger girls came in March 1972 to see their brother and sisters and were granted extension on their stay to pursue courses of study, and subsequently they took up employment.
  By this time, Mr. Kassamali considered that the circumstances in Tanzania were such that he had no choice but to try to gain entry to the United Kingdom to join his children. He always considered that, once here, he would be able to sustain application to remain in the United Kingdom because of the fact that in his view, although he had renounced his British citizenship under the conditions I have described, in his mind's eye he was really a British citizen. He had had a British passport. He had been in Crown service, and, of course, he knew that the absence of a British passport would mean that he could not be considered under the United Kingdom entry voucher system, which has applied since the Act of 1968.
  Mr. and Mrs. Kassamali then arrived in the United Kingdom as visitors in August 1973, and shortly after they came here they applied for leave to stay permanently. It was their right to apply to stay permanently. It was not unlawful
  160
  for them to seek to try to stay permanently.
  They were brought to me, and when I heard the whole sorry story about the family being split in half and all the background circumstances I was instantly sympathetic. I consider that I and the others who have tried to befriend them in this country have been partly responsible for their continuous stay here. They have done nothing underhand. Everything has been open and above board. None of them has sought to go to ground or to escape British law. They thought that they could fight for the right to stay here, and up to one point it looked as if they would be successful.
  During the six years that the younger daughters have been in this country and during the five and a half years or so that the parents have been here, none of them has imposed any burden on the social services. In every way, this entire family is fully able to support itself. All legal remedies have now been exhausted—that is to say, appeals to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and a hearing before an adjudicator. Representations to the Home Office, which I have been making over a long, period, have also been unsuccessful.
  The position of the Home Office is that, although Mr. and Mrs. Kassamali may have been under pressure to renounce their United Kingdom citizenship, their declarations of renunciation were valid. The Home Office therefore considers that the relative bargaining position of East African Railways and Mr. Kassamali at the time of independence was that of equitable parties. That is not true. It is a complete misunderstanding of the position, but that is how the Home Office has viewed it.
  This is a question not of pressure but of duress at the material time—indeed, one could argue, of coercion in so far as Mr. Kassamali was concerned. Mr. and Mrs. Kassamali clearly intended settlement from the outset of their arrival in the United Kingdom—and, it is true, to deceive the immigration officer at the point of entry. Mr. Kassamali would admit deception and say that he had no choice in the matter, having regard to all the circumstances of the family and his distrust of the country which had deprived him of his job, his accommodation and his savings.

  161
  Although the Home Office appreciates that the Kassamalis face difficulties on their return—if, indeed, they are going to return—those difficulties are not so important as the need to maintain an effective immigration control.
  Mr. Kassamali does not know what he will face on his return to Tanzania. He has neither family nor friends there. He has no income except his pension of £191 per annum and he has no accommodation for himself, his wife and daughters. He has little idea what employment he could obtain at his age. It is customary in nationalised enterprises in Tanzania, I understand, for people to retire at around the age of 50. It is difficult enough in this country to obtain employment or reemployment at that age, as every redundant worker knows. The chances of Mr Kassamali doing that in Tanzania are very remote.
  If they returned, the chances of Mr. Kassamali seeing his four children again would also be remote. Should those children in due course produce grandchildren, as would be natural, he would have little hope of seeing them either.
  The Home Office says that Mr Kassamali's former Crown Service has been taken into account and that this can give him no claim to remain. It does not seem to have been taken into account at all so far as I can tell. Although the two deportable daughters about whom I talked earlier—there is now a question about one of them—who arrived here in March 1972 did not enter Britain illegally—that is, not on a forged passport or by making any other false claim—they do not qualify for the amnesty announced on 29th November 1977.
  I point out that, peculiarly enough, that provision applies to those who entered clandestinely or with forged papers. A time factor has been involved in Home Office thinking over the years in regard to work permits, the length of time foreign workers are allowed to work under such permits, and, indeed, whether they need them. This also concerns the length of time in which amnesties are declared and the amount of time people have been in this country, not having achieved a right of abode.
  There is an additional worry which Mr. Kassamali has if he is forced to return to Tanzania in these circumstances.
  162
  He believes that he may risk being imprisoned when he returns, because when he was in that country he gave a bond to the authorities as security in respect of the departure to Iran of a niece who went there to pursue studies and did not return. I understand that in Tanzania that is regarded as a major offence. She went as a medical student and I have a telegram from her verifying this fact.
  Those of us who are concerned for this family contend that the compassionate and historic circumstances of the case are such that they do not threaten the maintenance of effective immigration control as a whole. This is an exceptional case, about which I feel most deeply. Those around the Kassamalis also feel deeply. The principles of an effective immigration control would not in any way be vitiated if Mr. and Mrs. Kassamali and their daughter Gulrose were allowed to remain in the United Kingdom. Who knows whether, before my right hon. Friend decides to implement the deportation order, that daughter also—I understand that she is a most attractive young lady—is likely to be married? I believe that the Home Secretary should exercise his discretion in their favour, or at least delay the implementation of the deportation orders until full examination or reconsideration of the case has been made.
  I ask my hon. Friend to take note of the fact that I took the unusual course of appealing not only to her from time to time but also to the Home Secretary. I say that despite the letter he sent me on 4th May in which he challenged my assertion about the time factor. My hon. Friend may remember that when I brought a delegation to see her from Ealing, Southall—a friendly delegation, which included representatives of the Ealing, Southall Constituency Labour Party, myself and the general secretary of the Indian Workers Association—we discussed the situation of visitors to this country. We also took a little time to discuss very briefly the thinking of the Home Office when it decides to deport somebody. When I argued the existence of a time factor, the Minister said that that had been taken into account, but that was expressly rejected in the Home Secretary's letter of 4th May. I do not know who wrote that letter, but I reject the surmise on which it was based.
  10.14 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I shall try in the time available to give my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) as full a reply as possible concerning the case he has raised.
  An Asian family named Kassamali were originally allowed to come to this country as visitors and then sought to convert their visit into an indefinite stay. I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about this case, and I have listened carefully to the points he has made, but I should like to set out some of the facts.
  I shall first set out the facts and explain the application of the Immigration Rules. The family comprises parents, a son and four daughters. The son and two of the daughters came here several years ago either to study or to train as nurses and have since been granted resident status, when they could no longer be required to leave the United Kingdom.
  In September 1972 one of the two daughters, who is now settled here but who was not at that time, inquired of the Home Office whether dependants' passes could be granted to her parents living in Tanzania with, she said, no one to look after them. In reply she was given general advice that people wishing to come here for such a purpose required entry clearance and should apply in the first instance to the British High Commission in Tanzania for entry certificates.
  Under the Immigration Rules elderly parents, of whom at least one is aged 65 or over, could be admitted for settlement if wholly or mainly dependent upon children settled in the United Kingdom who had the means to support their parents. However, Mr. and Mrs. Kassamali were well below the age limits to qualify for this concession and there was no evidence to show that their children, who were then in this country, were in fact settled here.
  In March 1972 Mr. and Mrs. Kassamali's remaining two daughters—Qamar and Gulrose—had arrived here from Tanzania for a visit to their brother and sisters. They were allowed by the immigration officer to stay for two months on the express understanding that they did not take employment. Just before the expiry of the period allowed
  164
  for their visit, their brother called at the Immigration and Nationality Department seeking an extension of his sister's stay in order to undertake O-level studies. This was granted and the girls were given leave to remain until the end of September 1973.
  In August 1973 Mr. and Mrs. Kassamali also arrived in the United Kingdom and told the immigration officer that they had come here to visit friends. They made no mention of the fact that all five of their children were already in the country. The immigration officer allowed them entry for one month, subject to a prohibition on their taking employment.
  In September 1973 Qamar, one of the two daughters who had arrived in 1972 and whose stay had been extended for studies, asked to be allowed to remain as a junior clerk-typist. Apart from the fact that her conditions of entry expressly forbade her from engaging in any form of employment, the Immigration Rules require a person wishing to take employment in the United Kingdom to have on arrival a work permit issued by the Department of Employment for a specific job. As the girl did not have such a permit, her application was refused in November 1973.
  As no application had been forthcoming in respect of Gulrose, the sister who had accompanied her from Tanzania, inquiries were made and it was found that she was already working without permission as a trainee shorthand-typist. A request to extend her stay was also refused in September 1974. Both girls had been given the right of appeal against the decisions—although in the case of the second girl it subsequently transpired that she had no such right in the light of the ruling by the Court of Appeal in 1976 in the case of Subramaniam. They exercised their rights of appeal, and their appeals were dismissed by an independent adjudicator in August 1975.
  Meanwhile, their parents had overstayed the period allowed them for their visit and an application for extension of their stay was refused on 31st May 1974. Mr. and Mrs. Kassamali appealed against the refusal to vary their stay on the grounds that Mr. Kassamali had worked for the Crown Agents since 1953 and that he and his wife had earlier been holders of United Kingdom passports and had been persuaded by the needs for

  165
  safe-guarding their employment in Tanzania to renounce, in 1962 and 1963 respectively, their citizenships of this country in favour of that of Tanzania.
  In August 1975 an adjudicator dismissed Mr. and Mrs. Kassamali's appeals against the refusal to extend their stay. They then sought leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal against the adjudicator's finding, but in May 1976 the tribunal ruled by virtue of the Court of Appeal's Subramaniam ruling, to which I have earlier referred, that neither the tribunal nor the adjudicator earlier had any jurisdiction to hear their appeals because their stay in the country had expired before they had sought to extend it.
  Mr. Bidwell Mr. Bidwell rose—
  Dr. Summerskill: I am sorry not to be able to give way, but I have a lot of important information to give in a short time.
  The tribunal said that, as Mr. and Mrs. Kassamali had been given to understand that they had a right of appeal and that this was now denied to them, they might feel that they had been denied natural justice. The vice-president recommended that in the circumstances my right hon. Friend might consider exercising his discretion in their favour outside the Immigration Rules.
  It is relevant here to note that as the Court of Appeal had given its ruling only two days before the vice-president of the tribunal was dealing with Mr. and Mrs. Kassamali's application, he did not at that time appreciate the impact or the extent of the court's ruling in terms of numbers. Many hundreds of people were similarly affected. A further point is that he did not consider the merits or otherwise of the appeal before the adjudicator in August 1975. Suffice it to say that the tribunal subsequently made very few similar recommendations.
  In the light of the vice-president's observations, however, representations were made to the Home Office by my hon. Friend that Mr. and Mrs. Kassamali had held British passports prior to 1962 and had surrendered their citizenship then only in the interests of keeping their job and accommodation. That employment, however, was terminated in February 1976 as a consequence of the Tanzanian Africanisation policy. Mr.
  166
  Kassamali then moved to Dar-es-Salaam and found alternative employment with the Ismailia Provincial Council. He resigned from this employment on deciding to come to the United Kingdom on his visit in 1973, which suggests the expectation of never going back.
  My hon. Friend claims that after deportation the family would be split. However, I must point out that such a split was caused voluntarily by the family before the parents came over here, when the children left home on their own initiative. I am also advised that the penalty for the offence which Mr. Kassamali is supposed to have committed abroad is unlikely to be anything more than a fine, and I remind my hon. Friend that it is open to a deported person to apply for revocation of the deportation order, when compassionate circumstances would be taken into account.
  After reviewing very carefully all aspects of the case again, I wrote and told my hon. Friend on 5th October 1976 that the family would be in no worse position than the many others who were at one time citizens of the United Kingdom and that it would be manifestly unfair to accord to them a privilege denied to others who were prepared to accept the limitations of our immigration control. I regretted that Mr. and Mrs. Kassamali and their two daughters, aged now 24 and 21 respectively, would have to arrange their departure.
  My hon. Friend made further representations. When the family made no arrangements to comply with the direction to leave, notice of intention to deport them was served in March 1977. They appealed against those decisions, but these appeals were dismissed by an adjudicator in October last year. In his written determination, the adjudicator commented that any deterioration of their circumstances on their return to Tanzania was largely of their own making and, while he accepted that they might experience some difficulty in resettling themselves in their own country, he did not feel that any compassionate factors outweighed the need to maintain an effective imigration control. Leave to appeal against the adjudicator's findings was refused by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal last November.
  My hon. Friend then asked me to exercise discretion in their favour. Given the

  167
  history of the case and the exhaustive way in which it had been fully considered at each stage over a number of years, I felt unable to accede to his request. When the family still made no move towards leaving the country, deportation orders were made against them on 10th February this year. My hon. Friend then made representations to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the exercise of his personal discretion. After reviewing the case very fully yet again, my right hon. Friend could find no grounds to warrant the exercise of discretion.
  It is evident that Mr. and Mrs. Kassamali and their two daughters have made a most determined effort to secure settlement in this country for which they do not qualify under the Immigration Rules. In fairness to all who are subject to control and are prepared to abide by the restrictions imposed by it, the control must be seen publicly to be applied equitably to all of them.
  168
  Since the deportation orders were made, one of Mr. and Mrs. Kassamali's daughters, Qamar, has married a man who is settled in this country. In these circumstances her position will shortly be reviewed, but otherwise action will now have to be taken to implement the deportation orders against Mr. and Mrs. Kassamali and their remaining daughter, Gulrose.
  I appreciate that my hon. Friend has made very strenuous efforts on behalf of his constituents, but I think he will agree, when he reviews the long history of this case, the very many representations which he has made and which have been carefully considered and the appeals which have taken place in front of an independent adjudicator, that the facts of the case make it very difficult for me not to authorise that the deportation should continue.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENERGY
  Internatonal Energy Agency (Review)
  Internatonal Energy Agency (Review)
  Severn Tidal Power Scheme
  Severn Tidal Power Scheme
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
SCOTLAND
  Youth Unemployment
  Youth Unemployment
  Elections (Polling Clerks)
  Elections (Polling Clerks)
  Murders
  Murders
  Forth and Tay Bridges
  Forth and Tay Bridges
  Secondary Schoolchildren
  Secondary Schoolchildren
  Higher Leaving Certificates
  Higher Leaving Certificates
  Education Costs
  Education Costs
  Strathclyde (Employment)
  Strathclyde (Employment)
  Schools (Books)
  Schools (Books)
  Drinking and Driving
  Drinking and Driving
  Fisheries (Faroes)
  Fisheries (Faroes)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Official Secrets Act
  Official Secrets Act
  Non-payment of Restitution (Prison Sentences)
  Non-payment of Restitution (Prison Sentences)
  Special Branch (Manpower)
  Special Branch (Manpower)
  Murder and Manslaughter
  Murder and Manslaughter
  Election (Polling Clerks)
  Election (Polling Clerks)
  Interpreters (Training Courses)
  Interpreters (Training Courses)
  Ward Boundaries
  Ward Boundaries
  Divorce
  Divorce
  European Community (Elections)
  European Community (Elections)
  Parkhurst (Prison Officers' dispute)
  Parkhurst (Prison Officers' dispute)
  Convicted Persons
  Convicted Persons
  Prisoners (Cost)
  Prisoners (Cost)
  Bristol Prison (Inmate's Death)
  Bristol Prison (Inmate's Death)
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Sixth-form School Conferences
  Sixth-form School Conferences
  University Teachers (Pensions)
  University Teachers (Pensions)
  Students
  Students
  Further Education (Awards)
  Further Education (Awards)
  Students' Accommodation (Fire Precautions)
  Students' Accommodation (Fire Precautions)
  Village Schools (Closures)
  Village Schools (Closures)
  Books and Teaching Aids (Expenditure)
  Books and Teaching Aids (Expenditure)
  Special Education
  Special Education
  Secondary School Pupils (Comprehensive Education)
  Secondary School Pupils (Comprehensive Education)
  DISARMAMENT
  DISARMAMENT
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  GLENROTHES
  GLENROTHES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
EMPLOYMENT
  Western Isles
  Western Isles
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Apprenticeship Training
  Apprenticeship Training
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Job Creation Scheme
  Job Creation Scheme
  Absenteeism
  Absenteeism
  Post Office (Industrial Dispute)
  Post Office (Industrial Dispute)
  European Community
  European Community
  Employed Persons
  Employed Persons
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Statistics
  Statistics
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Departmental Licences
  Departmental Licences
  Prohibition and Improvement Notices
  Prohibition and Improvement Notices
  Special Employment and Training Measures
  Special Employment and Training Measures
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  Niger
  Niger
  Ivory Coast
  Ivory Coast
  Multilateral Aid (Exports)
  Multilateral Aid (Exports)
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
  Bangladesh (Burmese Refugees)
  Bangladesh (Burmese Refugees)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Rabies Control (Shipping)
  Rabies Control (Shipping)
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  European Community Levies
  European Community Levies
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Architects' Fees
  Architects' Fees
  Proprietary Medicines
  Proprietary Medicines
  Railways
  Railways
  Retail Prices
  Retail Prices
  Price Commission Members
  Price Commission Members
  International Comparisons
  International Comparisons
  Glitter Lamps
  Glitter Lamps
  DIVORCE
  DIVORCE
ENVIRONMENT
  Estate Agents
  Estate Agents
  Flats (Co-ownership)
  Flats (Co-ownership)
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Local Councillors, Planning Law, and Housing Associations
  Local Councillors, Planning Law, and Housing Associations
  Councillor Arnold Fieldhouse
  Councillor Arnold Fieldhouse
  Slade Housing Association
  Slade Housing Association
  Oil Pollution (Advisory Committee's Report)
  Oil Pollution (Advisory Committee's Report)
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  Weather Damage (Compensation)
  Weather Damage (Compensation)
  Substandard Housing
  Substandard Housing
  Rate Fund Balances
  Rate Fund Balances
  Atmospheric Pollution
  Atmospheric Pollution
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Pay, Pensions and Allowances
  Members' Pay, Pensions and Allowances
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
  European Community Business
  European Community Business
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
TRADE
  Japanese Bearings
  Japanese Bearings
  Bankruptcies and Company Liquidations
  Bankruptcies and Company Liquidations
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  Departmental Licences
  Departmental Licences
TRANSPORT
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  M25 (Construction)
  M25 (Construction)
  Trains (Sleeping Accommodation)
  Trains (Sleeping Accommodation)
  Trunk Road Programme
  Trunk Road Programme
  Dual Carriageways
  Dual Carriageways
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Stroud Inner Ring Road
  Stroud Inner Ring Road
WALES
  Slaughterhouses (Closures)
  Slaughterhouses (Closures)
  Roads
  Roads
  Monetary Compensatory Amounts
  Monetary Compensatory Amounts
  North Wales Expressway
  North Wales Expressway
  Local Authority Projects
  Local Authority Projects
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  USSR (British Nationals)
  USSR (British Nationals)
  Republic of Ireland (Tax Relief Scheme)
  Republic of Ireland (Tax Relief Scheme)
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Caribbean Islands
  Caribbean Islands
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Unemployed Persons (Benefit Exhaustion)
  Unemployed Persons (Benefit Exhaustion)
  Disregards
  Disregards
  Adult Training Centres
  Adult Training Centres
  St. Nicholas Hospital, Plumstead
  St. Nicholas Hospital, Plumstead
  Brook Hospital, Woolwich
  Brook Hospital, Woolwich
  Medical Records (Confidentiality)
  Medical Records (Confidentiality)
  Pharmacists
  Pharmacists
  Accident Units (Greenwich and Bexley)
  Accident Units (Greenwich and Bexley)
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Good Neighbour Campaign
  Good Neighbour Campaign
  Trent Regional Health Authority (Resources)
  Trent Regional Health Authority (Resources)
  Road Casualties
  Road Casualties
  Hip Replacement Operations
  Hip Replacement Operations
  Midwives
  Midwives
  Nurses (Pay and Accommodation Charges)
  Nurses (Pay and Accommodation Charges)
  Pharmaceutical Services
  Pharmaceutical Services
  Hospitals (Plymouth)
  Hospitals (Plymouth)
  Bangladeshi Citizens
  Bangladeshi Citizens
  Hospitals (Leicestershire)
  Hospitals (Leicestershire)
  Geriatric Care (Leicestershire)
  Geriatric Care (Leicestershire)
  Personal Social Services
  Personal Social Services
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  Housewife's Invalidity Pension
  Housewife's Invalidity Pension
  Children (Day Care)
  Children (Day Care)
  Lord Mayor Treloar Hospital
  Lord Mayor Treloar Hospital
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Staff Ratios
  Staff Ratios
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Bank Loans (Interest)
  Bank Loans (Interest)
  New Commonwealth Immigrants
  New Commonwealth Immigrants
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Benorylate
  Benorylate
  Retirement Pensioners (Earnings Rule)
  Retirement Pensioners (Earnings Rule)
  Maidstone Health District (Hospital Facilities)
  Maidstone Health District (Hospital Facilities)
  Psychiatric and Geriatric Beds
  Psychiatric and Geriatric Beds
  Eltham and Mottingham Hospital
  Eltham and Mottingham Hospital
  Benefits
  Benefits
DEFENCE
  Wellington Barracks
  Wellington Barracks
  Cray/1 Computer
  Cray/1 Computer
  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital, Woolwich
  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital, Woolwich
  HMS "Achilles"
  HMS "Achilles"
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Armed Forces (Pensions)
  Armed Forces (Pensions)
  Armed Forces (Retirement)
  Armed Forces (Retirement)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  British Medical Association
  British Medical Association
  Student Grants (Parental Contributions)
  Student Grants (Parental Contributions)
  Family Income Supplement (Taxation)
  Family Income Supplement (Taxation)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Overseas Borrowings (Repayment)
  Overseas Borrowings (Repayment)
  Rates and National Insurance Contributions
  Rates and National Insurance Contributions
  Personal Allowances
  Personal Allowances
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Company Cars
  Company Cars
  Tax Thresholds
  Tax Thresholds
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Exchange Rates
  Exchange Rates
  Capital Allowances
  Capital Allowances
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  Building Society Mortgages
  Building Society Mortgages
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Inland Revenue (Investigations)
  Inland Revenue (Investigations)
  Prices
  Prices
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Employment Forecasts
  Employment Forecasts
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Dividend Control
  Dividend Control
  Departmental Licences
  Departmental Licences
  Inland Revenue Staff (Overtime)
  Inland Revenue Staff (Overtime)
  Value Added Tax (Departmental Staff)
  Value Added Tax (Departmental Staff)
  Church Commissioners
  Church Commissioners
  Travel to Work
  Travel to Work
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Liquor Licensing
  Liquor Licensing
  Pigs Marketing Board (Report)
  Pigs Marketing Board (Report)
  Voluntary Grammar Schools
  Voluntary Grammar Schools
  Community Workers' Research Project, Crossmaglen
  Community Workers' Research Project, Crossmaglen
  Employment (Fair Employment Agency Investigations)
  Employment (Fair Employment Agency Investigations)
  Intimidation
  Intimidation
  Dogs
  Dogs
  Cross-Border Economic Co-operation Group (Report)
  Cross-Border Economic Co-operation Group (Report)
  South Belfast (Redevelopment)
  South Belfast (Redevelopment)
  Larne (Port Security)
  Larne (Port Security)
  Grammar School Scholarships
  Grammar School Scholarships
  School Milk and Meals
  School Milk and Meals
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
  Tranquillisers
  Tranquillisers
  Republic of Ireland (Tax Relief Scheme)
  Republic of Ireland (Tax Relief Scheme)
INDUSTRY
  Departmental Assistance
  Departmental Assistance
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  East Midlands (Project Assistance)
  East Midlands (Project Assistance)
  Japanese Bearings
  Japanese Bearings
  Public Corporations (Security Personnel)
  Public Corporations (Security Personnel)
  Meriden Co-operative
  Meriden Co-operative
  Engineering (Finniston Committee)
  Engineering (Finniston Committee)

Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsun Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN URBAN AREAS
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to utilise for residential development, waste land and derelict houses in urban areas, some of which have remained vacant since war-time bombing; and what is the total acreage involved.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government's initiatives are aimed primarily at the inner city partnership areas where the problem is most serious. Each partnership is conducting a general review of its land problems. The nationalised industries are currently carrying out surveys of their land holdings to determine which sites could be either released for development or put to temporary use. It is, however, for the partnership authorities to decide the appropriate uses for sites, and not all sites are suitable for residential use. The recent extension of derelict land clearance areas to the West Midlands and London docklands will also help to tackle the problem of waste land, as indeed will the Inner Urban Areas Bill. A figure for total acreage is not available.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask her whether the Government are aware that some 40,000 to 50,000 acres of land are required each
1060
year for housing? Would it not be far better to try to utilise first the many areas now existing that are either derelict or are serving no useful purpose, rather than continually to expand, encroaching upon good agricultural land, or to enlarge country villages to the extent that the character of them is diminished?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, there really is no simple, uniform solution to this. Local authorities have been asked to look very carefully at each vacant site to determine whether it can be brought into housing use within the planning framework. So far as agricultural land is concerned, again it varies from place to place. There are farmers who wish to sell some of their land for development purposes.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, while I endorse the plea of the noble Viscount for a minimisation of the use of agricultural land, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware that, in some of the derelict areas, like the mining areas and salt mining areas, an injudicious use of derelict land might lead the local authorities into greater expense, as has occurred already in the city of Stoke-on-Trent, where modern buildings have been put on mining subsidence land and have cost the ratepayer many thousands of pounds more than if no buildings had been put there at all?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, this is perfectly true. This is why I have stressed that there is no single, uniform solution. In addition we have to look at the need to improve access to existing stocks. There is still room for improvement in the repair and rehabilitation of dilapidated dwellings, which, if properly treated, could provide lasting homes. There is a whole range of options which have to be taken up, and not just one or another.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, among the range of options, have the Government considered the necessity to make it incumbent upon local authorities and statutory bodies to declare annually the amounts of derelict, despoiled and otherwise unused land available for housing and other purposes?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to a registry of land, my

1061
right honourable friend the Secretary of State, in reply to a Question on 10th May, said that he did not intend at the present time to compel local authorities to publish registers. He went on to say:
"My immediate aim is to concentrate efforts to identify and secure early development of unused land in those areas where the problem of derelict and waste land is most serious".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/5/78; col. 1158.]
Quite frankly, we are more concerned that the land should be located and put to constructive use, rather than that local authorities should spend their time and money making lists which may not be very useful at the end of the day.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that in times of financial stringency dual carriageway schemes will use up extra agricultural land because the authorities cannot afford to straighten out the old wiggly bits? This may sound a slightly flippant remark. But is not the noble Baroness also aware that the Rothschild report, the Think Tank, pointed out that we were using 75,000 acres of good agricultural land each year? That land, which could be used for the benefit of feeding our people, is permanently lost.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I think that I have already covered that point. Without developing the debate into one on transport, may I say that transport is also part of the infrastructure which has to be considered in trying to make good use, residential and industrial use, of waste land. It is really not as simple as the noble Earl has indicated.
Lord GAINFORD: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that local authorities go into this business very considerably in pre-acquisition, where sites such as my noble friend was asking about are very carefully considered? Is she aware that the history of the sites, what lies around them and particularly under them, is carefully examined before purchase. I ask this question because I was involved in such work myself when I was working in County Hall.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his intervention, which is a great help.

TERRORISM AND HIJACKING
2.44 p.m.
Lord JANNER: 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 steps which have been taken in conjunction with other nations to combat the growing dangers of terrorism and of hijacking.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the Government are playing a full part with our partners in the European Community, in the United Nations and in other international organisations in improving the means to put an end to all forms of terrorism, including the hijacking of aircraft.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, is not my noble friend thoroughly upset about the present situation in view of what has happened in places like Italy and more recently, for example, in Jerusalem, where the PLO, which is one of the arch criminals in this connection, is boasting about the fact that it is blowing up passenger-carrying buses? Is he satisfied that we are taking all the necessary steps? Furthermore, as regards hijacking, is it not essential, in view of what happened at Orly Airport some little time ago, that the Montreal Convention should be strengthened to cover people who are travelling as passengers or crew towards an airport or towards the place where they have to embark an aircraft so that they also will come within the terms of the Convention itself?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I take note of what my noble friend has said about the inclusion within the intentions of the Convention of the steps which he has described. As to his expression of concern about the situation, we all share that. As regards the steps we are taking, we are taking all the possible steps that we can in association with our partners in the EEC and, indeed, through-out the world—through the United Nations and other organisations, including the ICAO—to secure the worldwide

1063
ratification and implementation of The Hague, Montreal and Tokyo Conventions, which between them would go a very long way to deal with the incidence of terrorism in all its forms. As regards the further steps which we are taking, we have instructed our embassies in every part of the world to talk to the Governments to which they are accredited with a view to the fullest possible implementation of the recommendations of British Airways as to safety in the airports of those countries.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would the Minister agree that international conventions and national legislation are quite useless unless the police forces are strengthened in our democratic countries and given support both by the Government and by the people?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, this is, of course, not the first time that the noble Baroness has inserted the question of the treatment of the police force of this country into somewhat recondite questions. She and her Party have not a monopoly of concern for the future of the police force of the United Kingdom. She can rest assured that this Government will deal honestly and fairly with the police force as with all other sections of the community.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, in answer to the previous question and the criticism of this Government, will my noble friend mention the actions of the previous Government in the case of the well-known terrorist, Leila Khaled?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I take what my noble friend has said as a supplementary answer to the noble Baroness.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, will the Minister say whether any progress has been made as regards a question that has been raised here before; namely, that the national airlines of countries that harbour hijackers should be prevented from landing at airports of democratic countries? In other words, would he not agree that it is not very popular with the majority of people in this country
1064
that Libyan Airlines should have a brand new airline office in Piccadilly, as Libya harbours terrorists?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that I am speaking for the entire House and most people throughout the country when I say that there is considerable sympathy with the view which the noble Earl has expressed. There are, however, very real difficulties. Anything which smacks of unilateral sanctions raises more problems than it seeks to solve. I shall not address myself at this moment to the specific case and the specific country to which the noble Earl has referred. However, I assure him that the point he made in the first part of his supplementary question continues to have our very serious consideration.
Lord HARVEY of PRESTBURY: My Lords, will the Minister say when the Government last had discussions with the British Airline Pilots' Association? Have its views been taken fully into account as regards this difficult problem?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as regards the second part of the noble Lord's very informed question, I assure him that we are in constant consultation with the airline pilots' organisation, especially regarding the steps which it is proposed should be taken for presumed security on aircraft. It has its expert views to which we have deferred. I need only refer to the suggestion, which has its superficial sanction, that personnel should be armed. The noble Lord will know that there are very grave difficulties and dangers attending on that matter. As to when we last had formal discussions with the Association, I could not answer. I think that we have very frequent discussions. I shall endeavour to let the noble Lord know when last we had an inclusive discussion with the Association.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider it in order, and helpful, if I suggested that perhaps in some suitable way the Government could insert the latest figures of ratifications of the Conventions in our record?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, yes, indeed. Among other things, my noble friend has experience of the

1065
technique of the Question for Written Answer. I invite him now to put down a Question for Written Answer which will elicit precisely and fully that information.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, while appreciating the anxiety and concern of my noble friend and all Members of this House and, indeed, all civilised people about this matter, is my noble friend aware of the fact that the PLO, which is one of the main international bodies for the purpose of creating terrorism throughout the world, has actually been given observer status at the ICAO? Will he ensure that this serious position is remedied in so far as he can help?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I shall certainly look into the reasons why the ICAO—which is a body of international reputation and neutralism —saw fit to do what my noble friend suggests. As to the role of the PLO, of course it is a matter for consideration precisely what activity of the PLO or its satellites comes within this Question. I take his point about the ICAO. I shall seek to elicit the information that he needs.

UN LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE: CONCLUSIONS
3.52 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached at the seventh session of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, final conclusions must await the concluding stages of the Conference. The negotiations in the seventh session concentrated mainly on aspects of deep seabed mining, vessel pollution and access to fisheries for States with limited fishing zones or none. We shall seek improvements to the negotiating texts on these and other matters of specific concern to the United Kingdom when the negotiations continue in August.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, although welcoming the progress towards agreement regarding tanker oil pollution, may I ask the Minister to say whether there has been any progress towards solving the claims of the land-locked countries, apart from the derisory concession of a share in unused fish? Also, has any progress been made in the control of seabed mining by multi-national companies rather than by the international authority?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the land-locked and geographically disadvantaged States have naturally come together at various stages of the Conference to press their claims to the right of transit to the sea for goods originating from or bound for land-locked States, the right to be regarded as having a special interest in the international seabed régime and also the right to share in the exploitation of the living resources of neighbouring States' exclusive economic zones.
On the question of transit and the question of their interests in the international seabed régime, I think that we can say that these two points have been broadly settled at this and earlier sittings of the conference. Access to the living resources of the economic zones of neighbouring States, however, is a slightly different and very much more difficult question. This has been discussed at length in the seventh session, but so far no agreement has been achieved. So my noble friend may feel that two-thirds of his objectives have been or are on the way to being achieved.
As to what he said about multinational companies, we are, of course, concerned that the international zone of the high seas should be properly exploited by a balance of initiative from private companies, public corporations, including State trading corporations, and also the international enterprise which is proposed. There will probably be a parallel procedure on this: a one-for-one division of the ocean as between national or private interests and the international enterprise. I should imagine that the role of the multinational companies would be subsumed in that of the private company interest. I see no danger from proceeding in this way; indeed, there is a good deal to be said for the parallel movement forward

1067
whereby private initiative and public purpose are united in the exploitation of the deep seabed.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, has the noble Lord been informed by the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, that during his absence we gave a Third Reading to the Tuvalu Bill, the territories of which extend for 360 miles—an axis about which they propose to throw a 200-mile limit—while their dry land area extends to only 10 square miles? As we have recently learned in Africa, that natural resources are a magnet for very considerable trouble, what thought will Her Majesty's Government give to preserve this sort of area from becoming the next cockpit of war?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are well aware of the point which the noble Lord has so properly made, especially in relation to developing countries, and he has given a very good example of this. Subject to the decisions of the UNLOSC, our view is that a limit of 200 miles would be reasonable for international acceptance. However, a number of countries —I shall not specify them—including developing countries, have already asserted or propose to assert a somewhat longer limit for their economic claims in the ocean. We shall seek to support the principle of the norm of 200 miles, which is reasonable, but will address ourselves to specific questions, problems and needs in various parts of the world. Without going much further than that at the moment, I think that the noble Lord will agree with me that, on the basis of a generally accepted 200-mile limit, it may be possible to vary the provisions of such a norm favourably to underdeveloped countries.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, do the Government think that the text, as it is coming along in UNLOSC, will give the Government sufficient power to enforce in our own offshore waters regulations and conventions which have already been internationally agreed?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think that we should
1068
proceed to the next Question. I detect that noble Lords have had an interesting discussion.

RHODESIA: AFRICAN ELECTORAL REGISTRATION
2.59 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: 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 consider offering to the Executive Council of Rhodesia a team of experts to help with the registration of approximately 3 million Africans in order that a General Election can fake place at the end of 1978 as proposed.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, such assistance might be appropriate following a transfer of power to a transitional Administration which had earlier been established under the Anglo-United States proposals or was other-wise impartial and acceptable to all. However, as we have made clear in the past, the Executive Council in Salisbury does not meet these criteria.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very unsatisfactory Answer. Does he not think that it would be a gracious act to put this proposal before the Executive Council and obtain its reply before actually turning down my, I hope, sensible suggestion?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness and most Members of your Lordships' House would agree that before we make such a suggestion we must be assured that it will be against the background of participation by the widest possible range of African opinion in Zimbabwe. That, unfortunately, is not the position at the moment. However Mr. Graham and Ambassador Low are in Southern and Central Africa at the moment endeavouring to achieve what we call a round table conference of all concerned, so that the Anglo-U.S. programme of transition,

1069
within which such assistance could effectively and properly be given, will he made possible.
I do not wish to argue too partisanly about this. I know the motivation of the noble Baroness. I sympathise with it. But we must bear in mind that the situation at the moment is not conducive of anything like a credible, efficient, effective, British form of assistance, as is suggested. Moreover, we hold a position of potential mediation. As the paramount Power we must very carefully guard that position. Once we lose that by, perhaps, a precipitate movement—and I make no criticism of the suggestion—then, indeed, the situation will become much more difficult. It may, indeed, lend itself to other external intervention in a way that at the moment it does not.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, since it is the position of all the parties concerned, including the Patriotic Front, that there must be an election before independence takes place, and since it is the declared intention at the moment of the interim Government in Rhodesia to have an election with complete adult suffrage, would it not be useful for the Government to offer to help this register along?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Lord would not put it quite so strongly. We are faced with the situation in which the United Kingdom might, for the best of reasons, intervene with assistance on registration. In what conditions?—A condition which at the moment is one of war, occupation and settlement in very many parts of Zimbabwe, involving the population and the potential electorate of those areas; a situation in which censorship of the Press and the media is a continuing fact. Do we intervene on that basis, and offer assistance on that basis, in a situation in which discrimination still persists and where political detention, although reduced, nevertheless persists?
I do not see that at this stage we can effectively and honestly offer assistance of the type suggested by the noble Baroness. As I said in my substantive Answer, it may become appropriate when the conditions I have mentioned, including the full implementation of the fifth principle, are a fact.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, when the Minister gave his substantive Answer he said that the Patriotic Front in Rhodesia was not prepared to enter into the proposed General Election of the interim Government. Is the Minister therefore saying that, because certain people will not take part in an election, therefore that election should not be given his maximum support?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I very much regret if anything I said suggested what the noble Earl said. Perhaps I was not so clear in my Answer. It is a fact that the Patriotic Front has said that it is in favour of free and fair elections. It is again a fact that it is prepared to attend a round table conference. It is equally a fact that, so far, the Salisbury régime has, at the least, reservations about joining such a round table conference. I hope that they will change their minds, after talking to Mr. Graham and Mr. Low, because the Patriotic Front is ready and willing to join in such talks, and, indeed, to join in free and fair elections.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, as long as the major instruments of power remain in the hands of the minority and illegal régime, no General Election held in those circumstances can reflect the will of the people? Would he further agree that the minimum conditions for such free and fair elections are the international guarantees and protections offered in the Anglo-American plan?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes. I think I agree entirely with what my noble friend said. I tried to put it as unabrasively as possible because there is a distinct chance that constructive sense will set in. We hope very much that the Anglo-American visit of Mr. Graham and Ambassador Low these days will assist the position. But I must repeat that the conditions at the moment are not conducive to our being helpfully involved in any way alongside the Salisbury régime. We would hope, I repeat, that that will become appropriate when certain things have been done. We are straining every nerve to see to it that there is a consensus —a round table conference—which will make that possible. I am not without hope that this will be done.

1071
I think that on all sides there is a growing realisation that the future of Zimbabwe depends upon everybody—Patriotic Front, Salisbury parties, and others—sitting down together to adopt substantially the Anglo-United States policy, which has stood the test, so that there is a properly organised transitional stage involving credible elections, in which we shall be delighted to assist as far as ever possible.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, would the Minister repudiate Dr. Andrew Young's extraordinary statement that the Cubans form a stabilising influence in Central Africa?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not aware of the precise terms of this statement. I am certainly not a contributor to it.
Lord BALLANTRAE: My Lords, I ask this question constructively and helpfully. Can the noble Lord think of a better means of ensuring fair, just and truly representative elections than by the system offered by the noble Baroness? I ask this question really trying to be constructive.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as always, the noble Lord is constructive about these matters. I am trying to emulate him in his virtues. I can never hope to emulate him in his vices; they are too picturesque for me. I do agree that there is in all these ideas —and particularly in the ideas put forward by the noble Baroness—the germ of helpful British assistance which we all deeply want to see effective in Africa.
However, the timing of this is everything. At the moment it would have only one effect: to make it clearer to the rest of Africa—all of Africa outside Smith and his coadjutors—that we have taken sides against them. We must not risk that. There are two practical reasons against it. The situation is not such that we could be effective in our assistance. Secondly, we must not, I repeat, as the paramount Power with specific duties, unwittingly throw away the very strong mediative position which we have and which we hope to exert—and I expect we will exert—for the permanent benefit of all the peoples of Zimbabwe.

NATO MEETING AND UN SPECIAL SESSION ON DISARMAMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will repeat a Statement on the North Atlantic Council Meeting and the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon.
DINNERS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, may I also remind the House that dinners will be available during evenings when the House is in Committee on the Wales Bill and also on days when the Scotland Bill is being considered on Report.
FILMS BILL [H.L.]
Report received.

WALES BILL
3.10 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Welsh Assembly]:
Lord HARLECH Lord HARLECH moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert ("the members of which shall be elected by that system of proportional voting specified under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and the noble Lord, Lord

1073
Lloyd of Kilgerran. In all essentials, this is the same Amendment as was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, on the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill on 4th April and to which your Lordships agreed by an overwhelming majority. It is designed to ensure that elections to the Welsh Assembly take place on a basis of proportional representation.
The issue is a simple one. Whatever merits or demerits there are to a proportional representation system for voting for the Westminster Parliament, opinion outside this House and inside this House sees the strongest possible reasons why this system of voting should be applied in the case of the devolved Assemblies—in this case, the Welsh Assembly. This was the unanimous view of the distinguished Royal Commission on the Constitution presided over by the noble and Learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. This was an all-Party Commission, and a non-Party Commission.
The fundamental reason for this was, and is, that such an Assembly should represent as nearly as possible opinion throughout the Principality as a whole, including minority opinion, and that it should generally act upon the consensus of a majority of the electorate. The first-past-the-post system which is enshrined in this Bill will not ensure that. Indeed, it must almost inevitably give a majority in the Assembly to one Party even though it has polled a minority of the votes. Only through the purest fluke could an election under that system represent the true division of opinion in Wales.
What this Amendment and its related Amendments will do is as follows: they will provide for 50 constituency Members elected by the first-past-the-post system. These will be joined in the Assembly by 25 additional Members to bring the Parties up to overall proportionality. The constituency Members will be elected for the first election on the basis of one per the 22 smallest Parliamentary constituencies, and two per the largest 14 constitutencies, making a total of 50 in all. This is to obviate the necessity of the Boundary Commission redrawing the constituencies, with consequent delay, and it employs the same principle of quota as has been adopted by the Government in this Bill.
Next, the 25 additional Members will be allocated to bring each Party with more than 5 per cent. of the popular vote up to as nearly as possible overall proportionality. This is achieved by the use of the largest average formula described in the Schedule to the Amendment, with additional Members allocated by region. The additional Members, under this Amendment and its related Amendments, would be drawn from a priority list, democratically drawn up, published by each Party in each region in Wales.
Each voter has two votes or, in the case of a two-Member constituency, three votes, as is the case under the system which operates in Western Germany. That is to say, you can vote for the single candidate, or the two candidates of your choice in two-Member constituencies, and then you have a further vote which you give to the Party of your choice. It is this vote—the Party preference vote—which is counted towards the total for the allocation of the additional Member seats.
During the debate on the similar Amendments to the Scottish Bill my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn attempted, in my view very bravely, to describe the method by which the calculation is made for the allocation of additional Member seats. I do not think that he was too confident that all the Members of your Lordships' House had clearly got the gist of it because he suggested that his speech be read in Hansard on the following day. If reading that speech also does not make it totally clear how the method operates, I would advise noble Lords to read Appendix 2 to the Hansard Society Commission's Report—presided over, remember, by the noble Lord, Lord Blake—in which the system of counting is set out. I followed it closely—and my mathematics are pretty rusty—and I came out with the right answer. I would not quite say that a child of six could do it, but I would suggest that a child of nine could.
However, I should like to emphasise here that, so far as the voter is concerned, the marking of the ballot paper is simplicity itself. As I have indicated, you vote for the one candidate, or the two candidates of your choice in a two-Member constituency, and then you have an additional vote which you give to the Party of your choice. I have gone into some detail about the voting system because it is sometimes

1075
suggested by opponents of proportional representation that it would confuse voters. I shall come back to this in a moment.
Supporters through thick and thin of the first-past-the-post system advance as their main argument that it provides a clear majority for a single Party, which, in turn, provides strong and stable Government. Recalling recent circumstances in this country I suppose that that argument sounds almost laughable today, and on another occasion and in a different context I should be prepared to demonstrate that it produces exactly the opposite effect. But there is no need to deploy this particular defence on this Amendment because we are not here talking about the formation of a sovereign Government. We are talking about electing Members to an Assembly with severely limited powers; fewer even than under the Scotland Bill. So much for that objection.
The second argument sometimes used is the "thin end of the wedge" argument, but, in my view, the case for proportional representation for the Welsh Assembly must, and I think can, stand on its own merits. If it seems the correct method for a devolved Assembly, as was unanimously concluded by Lord Kilbrandon's Royal Commission, and as was overwhelmingly concluded by a majority in your Lordships' House on the Scottish Bill, then it should be adopted. If it is the wrong method for electing MPs to Westminster, then it should be rejected for that purpose. Each must be judged on its merits.
I know there is a body, I hope a very small one, of conservative opinion which thinks that all change is bad—that the thing to do is to stick to old methods come hell and high water—but that is not my view; indeed, I think that is a recipe for political extinction. If clearly, in new circumstances, a new system should be adopted, so be it. It was a Conservative Government who introduced the principle of proportional representation for certain elections in Northern Ireland and it was a Labour Government who followed that example; it seemed to both of them that it was the best system to apply in Northern Ireland in those circumstances, although it could have been argued at the time that it was a new system and—a phrase I have heard from time to time—an unfamiliar one;
1076
but they thought it was the right system. We believe that the system proposed here is the right one for a Welsh Assembly and I hope it will receive your Lordships' wholehearted support. I reject the thin end of the wedge argument.
I return to the objection that the system is unfamiliar and confusing to the electorate. I have always regarded that argument as rather insulting to the intelligence of the English and Scottish people and, in this case, the Welsh people. Proportional representation was introduced into Northern Ireland and the people had no difficulty in understanding or operating it. A system of proportional representation is used in all Scandinavian countries, and they have no difficulty. It is used in Holland and Belgium, and they have no difficulty. It is used in the Irish Republic—I do not intend to make any jokes about that—and they have had no difficulty in understanding or operating it. It is used in Germany, Italy, Malta and Israel, and they have no difficulty.
More significantly, perhaps, it is the method that has been introduced for elections in those three countries which have recently emerged from dictatorships and have become democracies; namely, Portugal, Spain and Greece. Evidently the Governments of those countries did not think their voters were incapable of understanding it. We should therefore reject with a measure of contempt the argument that the people of Wales are so ill-educated and stupid that they would not be able to understand this system of elections.
A final word on the merits of proportional representation in the context of this Bill. It has the tremendous advantage of making every vote count. We all I think recognise that in the context of General Elections in the United Kingdom the complexion of the Government is decided in about 100 marginal seats; vast majorities piled up by the Conservative Party in South-East England, or by the Labour Party in, say, Durham, have not the slightest effect on the result of the Election. Similarly, Labour voters in a minority in the South-East of England or Conservative voters in Durham know that their vote will have not the slightest bearing on the number of MPs sent to Westminster.
If we adopt this proportional representation system for the Welsh Assembly, every voter in Wales will help to determine the result of the election and the composition of the Assembly. That, in my view, would be a great gain for political participation and true democracy. I therefore urge your Lordships to support this Amendment and its related Amendments.
3.25 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: As the third signatory to the Amendment, I intervene at this stage to support it. Its object has been clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech; the object is to change the electoral system of voting for a unique Welsh elected Assembly, the first that Wales has ever had in its long history, and so to obtain in a Welsh context a more accurate reflection of the wishes of the Welsh electorate than the present first-past-the-post system can do in that country.
I should perhaps at this stage apologise for not being present for the Second Reading of this very important Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, explained, I was abroad for some months prior to the fixing of the date for the Second Reading of the Wales Bill. I had been committed to forsake temporarily the modern problems of my country to study further the ancient and modern problems of Greece, Israel and Egypt.
As noble Lords will be aware, there are several proportional representation systems, though in this Bill we from these Benches support the added member system. It is, in our view, infinitely preferable to the first-past-the-post system, but I do not propose to deal with the system in any detail in view of the many discussions about the same kind of system before your Lordships during the past weeks in relation to the Scotland Bill. However, it may be interesting to noble Lords to note the unfair position which arose at the last election in Wales arising out of the first-past-the-post system, and if the Committee will bear with me I will recite a few statistics. The Labour Party received 49·5 per cent. of the votes in Wales and secured 23 seats; the Conservative Party had 23·9 per cent. of the votes and secured eight seats; the
1078
Liberal Party secured 15·5 per cent. and got two seats; and Plaid Cymru had l0·7 per cent. and obtained three seats.
The unfairness of the first-past-the-post system is reflected in those figures; the whole picture in Wales is distorted. Over 50 per cent. of Welsh voters voted for the Conservatives, the Liberals and Plaid Cymru, yet altogether they received well under 50 per cent. of the seats. Of course this anomalous position was even more acute in 1906 when the Liberal Party had all the MPs from Wales except for one, Keir Hardy, and there were no Conservative Members at all. Under the proposed system, the proportion of seats will be related to the number of votes and thus produce a more accurate and fair reflection of Welsh public opinion. As I have indicated, similar Amendments were passed by your Lordships when we debated the Scotland Bill. The proposed Amendments to the voting system are, in my view, even more appropriate for Wales, in the special circumstances in Wales, than indeed they are for Scotland.
I should like to try to take the matter a little further and endeavour to enlist the sympathy of the Government, and particularly of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who I see in his place on the Government Front Bench, for making at least some concession in a Welsh context. The characteristics of the Welsh and the history of Wales were reiterated by many noble Lords on Second Reading of this Bill. I have read with admiration the brilliant and moving speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, who has himself made such a splendid contribution to the life of the Welsh people. I endorse the observations of another of our great Welshmen, the Lord Chancellor, when he said that he could not over-praise that great speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, in support of this modest Bill. I have also read and admire the exciting and happy speech—if I may so refer to it—of the noble Lord, Lord Parry, steeped as he is in Welsh culture and history.
In the light, therefore, of the reception of these speeches about Wales may I presume to try and press the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to accept some concession, because these

1079
concessions will reflect to so many people in Wales what they recognise as fairness in the voting system. There is a real fear in Wales that this Welsh elected Assembly, the first that Wales has had in its history, may be dominated by one Party. These fears were expressed in strong terms and in detail by Welsh Members of Parliament at the recent Welsh Grand Committee, and again in the course of a debate on the Wales Bill in another place. It was felt by them that the first-past-the-post system of voting in Wales could be unfair.
The Welsh have a word which is usually translated into English as "fair play". It is the word chwarateg—a word very difficult to translate into English. It has a more domestic, more cultural, more persuasive significance in Welsh life than the rather stilted translation "fair play". A change in emphasis in parts of the Welsh word, a change in the euphony or the cadences in the pronunciation of part of this Welsh word introduce a different meaning and a sensitivity of language which cannot be obtained by the use of the English words "fair play". Fair play, in this sense, in Welsh, embodies a basic philosophy, and fair play for minorities has been a basic quality of Welsh life throughout its history.
May I also add this. Wales is a small community with only one-twenty-fifth of the population of the United Kingdom. In any small community kinship and friendship and family ties can play a large part in local and national Government, and where a community such as Wales may become dominated by one Party in a unique and new Assembly then the problems of kinship and friendship can appear more sinister. Minorities in the country can become increasingly restless unless they are recognised in some way in the voting system of the Welsh community. In my view, this can be done only by having a system of proportional representation. In my view, fair play in the voting system for Wales means a great deal to the Welsh community. As the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, pointed out, the Crowther and Kilbrandon Commissions were unanimous, after hearing all the evidence, that proportional representation was the most suitable system for a Welsh Assembly. I hope that the noble and
1080
learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can see his way to make at least a concession in the unique circumstances pertaining to Wales in relation to this Amendment.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I want very briefly to support this Amendment. In recent weeks I have been in Canada, and anyone who studies the situation there about the future of the Province of Quebec will understand how dangerous a situation can develop with a system of first-past-the-post elections where constitutional issues, even including separatism, divide the political Parties very acutely indeed. Although a Party with separatist intentions may not feel strong enough to carry separation through its Parliament, it feels strong enough to prepare for it. Coming into office with a Parliamentary strength out of proportion to its electoral support one finds that the governing Party, while promising a referendum on the subject of separatism of Quebec from the Confederation, begins to prepare for that step to be taken. The first thing it feels able to do is to draft and pass through its provincial Parliament the referendum Bill, which is not intended to make it more difficult to get a vote for separation—as we are doing in the case of Scotland—but rather less difficult.
I think that in any situation where separatist tendencies are part of the politics of the region concerned the case for proportional representation is much stronger than elsewhere. That is why, while being firmly in support of a change in our electoral system, I believe that the case for it in Scotland and in Wales for the new Assemblies to be created is far stronger than in the case of the Westminster Parliament. I believe that it is only by providing some entrenched interest in Parliamentary government in areas of that kind that efforts of a separatist Party can be curbed, which otherwise are given fairly free rein by the system of first-past-the-post election. I do not want to add to that. I was on the Kilbrandon Commission, not right to the end but long enough to associate myself with the comments that have been quoted by the two noble Lords who have spoken before me regarding proportional representation in the regional Assemblies. Therefore, as in the case of Scotland for which this House voted for a form of proportional representation, I believe that in the case of Wales it is justified too.

1081
My concluding words are these. I believe that certainly in the case of Scotland, and probably in the case of Wales, even though we begin with a first-past-the-post system, in the end we shall come to some form of proportional representation. There are some situations —Northern Ireland's is certainly one—where I believe it is highly dangerous to have a first-past-the-post system; political Parties are divided so deeply on the future constitutional position of the area concerned that there is no reconciliation to be found in the ordinary course of first-past-the-post. It can be either that a Government Party not supported by a majority of the votes of the electors forces the matter ahead and provides grounds for serious internal unrest, or alternatively, there is a failure, complete deadlock in Parliament, to achieve any worthwhile result. I support this Amendment.
3.39 p.m.
Lord PARRY: It seems to me that, in his peroration, the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, undermined the strength of what was a positive and balanced argument in support of proportional representation. Your Lordships will remember that he said that every voter in Wales will help to determine the issue, arguing that proportional representation automatically ensures that every voter in the nation where this system is introduced in fact takes part in the ensuing elections. I have made very careful inquiries from the Proportional Representation Society and other sources, and I find no evidence from anywhere where proportional representation has been introduced that the total number of people voting increases after the introduction of proportional representation. Indeed, what happens is much more nearly what my kindly and gracious friend the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said; that is, that a more accurate reflection of the views of the Welsh people who actually vote might follow from the introduction of proportional representation.
It seems to me that the real dilemma of democracy in Wales, in Britain, in the world, is a question of getting all the people in the democracy to involve themselves with their Government and involve themselves in the support of, or opposition to,
1082
the policies of that Government. What we are arguing about in introducing separate Assemblies for Wales and Scotland is precisely that—to give more government to the people at the level where it can be most effective. If, in fact, one is only sharing out in a different way the votes that are actually being cast, one can end up, as has happened in some of the cases of the nations quoted with rhetoric and truth by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, with a situation in which the vote is in itself stalemated, and in which there is a weakened democracy, and that in itself makes way for some other form of Government which is not acceptable to any of the democratic Parties previously taking part in the elections.
So, while there is considerable strength in the last words we have heard, relating as they do to a province with some similarities to Wales, I believe that if all the voters of Wales were to take part in an election, the voters of that nation are demonstrably so intelligent in the Government and in the Parties that they have so long supported—radical Governments in the past—that we would not be worrying at all about an Assembly for Wales. We are trying to establish from the beginning a policy supported by all those people who are interested enough, and sufficiently motivated, to vote. I could give a great many figures for the various constituencies of Wales which show that the third largest element in every constituency is that group of voters who do not vote at all. It seems to me that it is precisely these people whom we are wishing to involve by taking government closer to the people through a devolved Assembly, and to argue that we should have proportional representation from the beginning is, in my mind, begging that question.
Lord HARLECH: I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to intervene for a few moments. I do not know from where he got his statistics about the number of people who vote under a proportional representation system going down, while under a first-past-the-post system the number goes up, but in fact the direct opposite is the case. If one looks at the elections that have taken place in West Germany over the past 20 years, one sees that the number of people voting under a proportional representation system has consistently gone up, while in this country it has gone down.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I shall be brief. It is rather pathetic that we are trying to apply logic to politics. Just look at your Lordships' House. Just look at the system of Government that Britain has had over the last couple of centuries. It has been the most stable system of Government in the civilised world. It has made mistakes. It uses reason instead of logic. If noble Lords cannot follow the nuances of the difference between logic and reason, I must say that I cannot in this brief speech expand on the difference. Economists have made the same mistake. They have tried to make economics a science by introducing fractions, or binomial theorems and the calculus, but it does not make any difference. We are not dealing in a science, and this baby, this Assembly, is the wrong place for the neophiliacs. If noble Lords are worried about my use of the word "neophiliacs", I should say that a neophiliac is a lover of anything new; or to put the matter in a colloquialism, I should say that such a person "knocks" something because it is old.
We know that under the Bill there is to be a referendum and the Assembly will come into existence, but it seems that in this brief Bill we are trying to introduce a massive reform. I believe that one should wait if one wants to get proportional representation. Irrespective of the statistics, and of the broad canvas of the speech of my noble friend who has just spoken, I want to point out that proportional representation, and indeed all voting, applies only to the people who take the trouble to vote. Whether new people will be brought in under what is proposed is a moot point, and I believe that we should be very careful here. This type of Bill is the wrong place to try to introduce proportional representation. I believe that before we enter into that we should pay a tribute to the Hansard Society, and others, and have a full-dress debate on the issue of proportional representation, rather than try to slip it in at this juncture. This is the wrong moment to introduce it. Despite the three muskateers, and the noble Lord from the house of Harlech whose song led us into the Zulu wars, with the awards of Victoria Crosses, I shall go into the Lobby against the Amendment.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, in order to hear the Statement at present being made in another place, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

NATO MEETING AND UN SPECIAL SESSION ON DISARMAMENT
3.46 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on my visits last week to Washington for the North Atlantic Council meeting, and to New York to address the UN Special Session on Disarmament. Copies of the NATO communiqué (with accompanying documents on the NATO study of East/West relations, and on the Long-Term Defence Programme) and of my speech to the UN, have been placed in the Library.
"The North Atlantic Council meeting took place against a background of concern about world economic problems and about the state of East/West relations. There was agreement that the strength of our defence in NATO is related to the strength of our economies, and on the need for the major industrial nations at the forthcoming summit at Bonn to stimulate economic recovery.
"Our discussion of East/West relations was based on a study undertaken since our meeting in London last year. The communiqué makes clear that we remain determined
"to pursue as constructive and positive a relationship as possible with the Soviet Union and the other East European countries".
We discussed the reasons for the decline in confidence since the Helsinki Conference in 1975. Among them are human rights and the unacceptability of continued Soviet and Cuban exploitation of particular factors of instability

1085
in Africa. I expressed my appreciation of the humanitarian operation which the French and Belgian Governments undertook to safeguard the lives of their and our citizens in the Shaba province of Zaire. But there is no intention that NATO should become involved in Africa. Instead, we emphasised that situations of instability and regional conflict in the developing world should not be viewed exclusively in an East/West context, and we reaffirmed the importance we attached to encouraging peaceful settlements through negotiation by the countries and regional organisations themselves.
"In response to the unremitting growth in Soviet military capability, the allied leaders endorsed the results of work on the Long-Term Defence Programme which they had commissioned following President Carter's initiative at their London meeting a year ago. The Alliance now has a clear guide to the improvements on which its members should concentrate and co-operate in defence plans for the years ahead. In our own case, the Government's decision, in line with others, to increase defence spending by 3 per cent. in real terms in each of the next two years, enables us to play our full part in this programme, which should lead to greater co-operation in research and production between the allies.
"I emphasised that both our security and good economic sense give us the strongest interest in controlling increases in armaments and securing a measure of disarmament. The NATO countries are committed to following this approach. But progress depends on a positive attitude on the part of the Warsaw Pact countries. In this connection I proposed, and it was agreed, that we should be ready to give renewed political impetus to the MBFR negotiations by lifting these long drawn out negotiations to Foreign Minister level at an appropriate moment. It was also agreed, on my suggestion, that we should make fuller use of the Alliance machinery for consultation on arms control and disarmament issues. This will be valuable as a means of following up the results of the UN Special Session on Disarmament.
1086
"In my speech to the United Nations I made clear that so long as it is necessary to strengthen our defences in the Alliance we shall do so. But we should prefer and will work for maintaining security at diminishing levels of armed force by means of multilateral, balanced and verified agreements on arms control. We also need—and this can be done straightaway—greater restraint by Governments in the use of armed force as an instrument of foreign policy.
"I emphasised the need for renewed effort to bring existing negotiations to successful conclusions.
"As an earnest of our own intentions I was able to tell the Assembly that in the interests of achieving early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty we were ready to put forward new proposals in the tripartite negotiations in Geneva. In my view these should open up the way to rapid progress on the outstanding issues. I stressed the central importance of a SALT II agreement if the world is to be saved from the risks of an uncontrolled nuclear arms race. I believe such an agreement can be reached.
"I also gave an outline of the new initiatives which the Government consider could be taken. These include the provision, with other nuclear Powers, of far-reaching and permanent assurances to the non-nuclear States that nuclear weapons will not be used against them; the establishment of further nuclear weapon-free zones; the encouragement of those States which prefer not to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to accept full-scale safeguards on their nuclear facilities; and how to work towards restraint of nuclear armouries in Europe.
"I also put forward suggestions for improving the control of conventional armaments and for increasing regional security by such means as the further exchange of information and of observers, and technical means of surveillance; agreement on restricting conventional arms sales; and a United Nations study covering the problems of peace-keeping and of converting arms production facilities to civil purposes.
"Through these and other specific practical steps the members of the

1087
UN could put into effect a Programme of Action on which we should be called to account at a further Special Session which, I suggested, should take place in 1981. I found a wide measure of support for this approach, and not only from close friends and allies. Our delegation to the Special Session will now work to achieve a consensus on a final document which will mark our commitment, state our objectives and provide machinery for achieving a safer world."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.55 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement. I think all your Lordships who have read the Prime Minister's speech will welcome what he said to NATO. It sounded fine: I hope it was not just words. It is too easy to make fine speeches, and even easier to do nothing about it. But, my Lords, even if the Government spend 3 per cent. more on defence—and we shall look very carefully to see whether this is a genuine increase—they have a long way to go before we get back to the defence capabilities which this country had under a Conservative Government. Still, the sinner or the sinners opposite seem to be repenting, and that is something.
My Lords, so far as the Special Session on Disarmament is concerned. I think some small progress can be made, and I think we ought to welcome small progress. But do not let us assume that anything really significant can emerge from a session of this kind unless confidence and trust is created between the super-Powers and the two military treaty organisations; and it is, after all, ironic to notice, should anybody doubt what I have said, that the Prime Minister, in the week that he addressed the disarmament conference, made a point of reiterating that we were going to spend 3 per cent. more in real terms on defence. Of course, my Lords, no such confidence or trust is possible at the moment. We have only to look and see what is happening in Africa, and at the overt effort of the Soviet Union and Cuba to disrupt and to make trouble. We on these Benches have been warning
1088
of this for some time, and some of us have been particularly worried about some of the attitudes of the American Administration. I think it was a great pity that the Prime Minister should have spoken in what appeared to be such patronising terms about "new Christopher Columbuses" when Mr. Young, for the first time, has accepted, not that Cuba is a stabilising influence in Angola but is a real damage and danger to stability in the area as a whole. I think the Prime Minister was most unwise in what at any rate he appeared to say.
It may well be, as the Statement says, strictly speaking, that NATO is not going to be concerned and has no intention of being concerned with Africa; but if the West (and that, broadly speaking, is NATO) is going to ignore what happens in Africa, then I despair of its will or its ability to survive—and, thank goodness! there is someone in the West who has the courage to act. I applaud President Giscard d'Estaing for what he did. I hope very much that the Prime Minister did not mean what he appeared to say, and that he and the Government really do understand the importance of what is happening in Africa and are prepared to help to do something about it.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, speaking for those on these Benches I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this important, if to my mind slightly complacent, Statement. I have two questions to ask the Government. In the first place, I would not wish to give the impression of being at all defeatist, hut would the Government not agree that no real progress is likely to be achieved in the present disarmament talks unless there is some prior progress in SALT and, more especially, some change in the Soviet policy in Vienna on MBFR? For, if there is no progress here, will it not be inevitable that the two super-Powers will continue arming their various satellites?—in other words, that the wretched arms race will inevitably continue.
My second question is this. Do the Government believe that, pending some real progress in the establishment of what I would call a convincing Western conventional defensive system in Europe, the only way that NATO can, if necessary,

1089
defend itself successfully is by the first use of nuclear weapons, with all the appalling risks that that would of course involve? But if they have any doubts about this, would they think that an eventual East/West struggle, which we cannot dismiss as impossible, not involving the use of nuclear weapons is at least conceivable? If it is conceivable, is not this rather a compelling reason for pressing on with some common Community defence procurement policy within the framework of the North Atlantic Alliance?
4.1 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords who responded to this repeated Statement. Once more, I admired Lord Carrington's facility in damning with very faint praise what I regard as a very fine statement indeed of a very great achievement by our Prime Minister. It is a fact that his statement was received in a packed assembly hall with prolonged applause and practically universal agreement, not confined to our friends and allies but extending, very importantly, to the nonaligned neutrals and even into the ranks of the Eastern totalitarian countries. In that sense, I think that our Prime Minister has rendered a signal service not only to his country but to the cause of democracy.
The noble Lord referred to the question of words and then proceeded to prove that the words mean deeds when he referred to the genuine increase of 3 per cent. in real terms. This is the proof of the words. I agree with him, however, that confidence is of the essence and there must be confidence and, therefore, a feeling of balanced security, above all, between the two super-Powers. My right honourable friend said in his Statement that he expects that an agreement on SALT II will come about. I am delighted that he has used those words. Naturally, it is a point of anxiety among us all that the two super-Powers should come to an agreement on that vital point. I will not engage in any reference to my right honourable friend's friendly badinage about Christopher Columbus. All I will say is that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister so fortified the relationship between this country and North America during the period in which he has been Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister that that fortified alliance is well able to bear an occasional joke or two.
1090
In the first debate in which I engaged when I joined your Lordships' House, I tried to explain to your Lordships that as a consequence of the foreign policy conducted by another Party over the previous few years our relationship with the United States was not permanently imperilled. Nobody can make such a remark today, and the credit for that accrues mostly to Mr. James Callaghan. The noble Lord also referred to the question of ignoring Africa. Whoever thought of such a thing? We are profoundly involved in Africa. I take his point that NATO is not as involved as is this country. However, he will know that the Paris talks yesterday reputedly have resulted in a consensus as to policy for the future and, surely, we must all hope that the democracies of the West will, on the basis of those talks, be able to move together, and helpfully, in Africa. There is no question of ignoring Africa.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, rightly stressed that prior progress in SALT and MBFR, the talks in Vienna on conventional arms, are vital to the success of any move towards disarmament. This is very much a basis of my right honourable friend's Statement. He has expressed cautious optimism about the results of the SALT II talks. There are perhaps bases for optimism, equally cautious, about developments in Vienna in the talks on Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction. I believe that in the next few months, particularly if there is agreement about raising these talks to Foreign Minister level, we may see advances.
This takes me to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, made. Indeed, if we can achieve something like a symmetical relationship of conventional forces in Europe—which after all is the major point of concentration of conventional and other forces—the climate for further advances in the grey areas, as they are called, the neo-nuclear and nuclear areas, will be clearly improved. I take both points. I do not think I am in any profound disagreement with him even on the second point. I am grateful to him for having made those two points.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this: is it not obvious that the one thing that emerged from the Washington Conference, apart from the verbiage about disarmament, the revival

1091
of the SALT talks and balanced forces and all the beautiful and delightful phrases about humanitarianism, was the statement, clear and beyond any possibility of doubt, by General Haig that NATO is becoming comparatively weak against Moscow which is becoming comparatively stronger? That is the situation. When are we going to become realistic about this? It is not a question of unilateral action; that is out of the question. Anybody who has studied the problem realises that. This is a question of multilateral action vis-à-vis Europe and the United States.
Why does not the Foreign Office realise this? Why does not our new Foreign Secretary realise this?—he is still a bit of an apprentice, and I am not saying that offensively. He cannot help himself. Why does he not realise what is happening in the world at large? Why was it necessary to have emerged from the discussions at the Washington Conference that NATO would not intervene in the affairs of Africa? If ever there was a joke perpetuated in the context of military advance, that was it. There is an obvious reason why NATO would not intervene in the affairs of Africa which was demonstrated only recently when it was left to the Foreign Legion to intervene. They are not associated with NATO and not associated —so far as I know—with the Moscow Pact.
Will my noble friend realise that modern defence is terribly expensive and imposes sometimes excessive burdens on taxpayers, and that—apart from the possibility of nuclear war which I dismiss —with the possibility of conventional war, we, in Europe, have a larger population than the Moscow Pact, and combined with the United States could be overwhelming as far as conventional forces are concerned? Why do we not give our attention to the obvious facts of life? Is my noble friend aware that I am sorry that I have to speak in this fashion but that it is about time that we became realists and stopped indulging in shibboleths and beautiful phrases and got down to brass tacks?
4.11 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I regret to note that my noble friend today believes that discussions about disarmament are merely verbiage
1092
and useless talk about humanitarianism. I was brought up in my young days to listen intently to him speaking in a very different tone of voice indeed.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend—
Several Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I still listen with very great care and respect to my noble friend; but he must take it as well as give it. He referred to General Haig. The Prime Minister stated clearly in his Statement what are the intentions of this Government as a member of NATO in regard to defence. They are unequivocal and definite. My noble friend talked about realism and multilateral action vis-à-vis Europe and United States. This is exactly the basis of our foreign policy. I think that we have strengthened both political co-operation in Europe and our relationship with the United States. I wish to study his reference to NATO and Africa. There are other organisations more closely related to Africa, such as the Organisation of African Unity, to which NATO would quite properly give precedence in dealing with Africa, for the Organisation of African Unity is African. He described defence as expensive: indeed it is, but it is essential and should be effective. Expenditure on its own does not guarantee efficiency.
I do not want to detain the House by historical comparisons going back to Suez and similar incidents. It is not enough just to spend on defence, one must work very hard for it diplomatically. My noble friend accused somebody or other of shibboleths. We are all guilty of shibboleths from time to time. We are now, as the Prime Minister has made quite clear in a very realistic Statement, poised for a possibility of a new beginning in détente and disarmament, always basing those two objectives on the essentials of proper defence and security. It is in that sense that my right honourable friend's Statement should be welcomed.
4.13 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, while one can only welcome very many

1093
parts of the Prime Minister's Statement however much one may believe that the kind of policies which he has enunciated should have been adopted some while ago, I feel that I must most strongly support my noble friend and leader, Lord Carrington, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. One had great sympathy with what one supposed was the Government's position in moving rather slowly in relation to the Soviet and Cuban initiative in Africa. One had a feeling that it was vital for this country to move in line with others and particularly with the United States. We now find in the Prime Minister's public Statement a condemnation—and it was a condemnation—of the very tardy—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that this very partronising remark to the effect that the United States should not overdo things in relation to its attitude in Africa is not helpful to the development of a realistic attitude, even though that attitude comes late in the day?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with all respect, I cannot agree. I do not think it was a condemnation of anything said or done by our American allies. The remark was made in good nature and was received in that spirit—at least in the United States, if not in certain parts of this country. There is ample evidence of this and it is surely a proof of the firmness of friendship and, indeed, alliance that it will sustain good-natured remarks of this sort. As to the comments on the way to deal with Africa, there can be no doubt that there is total unity about the need to assert the Western democratic position and interest in Africa.
What my right honourable friend said —and it was right that he should do so — was that the East/West relationship, the presence of Cubans and Russians, was not the only factor which made the African situation one of difficulty. There are deeper historic, economic and social problems embedded in the African situation. My right honourable friend most sensibly recalled all those facts to our minds. Africans understand this. It was remarkable that when these remarks were made the greatest response to their wisdom came from Black Africa.
4.15 p.m.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how the Government reconcile their proposals at the United Nations disarmament conference with their sponsorship of the military equipment sales exhibition which is due to take place at Aldershot later this summer? The Statement which the noble Lord repeated spoke about restricting conventional arms sales by converting arms production to civil purposes. It seems a little strange to take that line at the same time as promoting some kind of arms bazaar at Aldershot. Would it not be rather more appropriate for the Government to promote the sales of the tools of peace?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that we would all wish that to happen as quickly as possible. Contrary to certain impressions, this country's part in arms transfers throughout the world is very small indeed, particularly compared with that of the super-Powers. We have a role: it springs to some extent—and I speak in the presence of distinguished former Ministers of Defence and Secretaries of State for Commonwealth Affairs —from our obligation to certain countries on their accession to independence. It springs in part from our desire so to balance the position in certain points of potential explosion in the world that we feel that we should intervene in this sense rather than that others should.
It is a question of very fine judgment. I in no way pour any scorn on this and in no way minimise the importance of the point which the noble Lord has made. He will have noticed that one of the major proposals that the British delegation and our Prime Minister have made to the Special Session on Disarmament is for a constructive study of the ways in which arms production can be converted into production for civil use.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I would not have intervened in this exchange if it had not been for the speech of my noble friend Lord Shinwell. He knows that when I say "friend" I mean it. I am perfectly sure that the great majority of our Party take the view that the Prime Minister delivered in America a balanced, broad speech of depth. We all welcome that fact. Three months ago the Disarmament Conference appeared to be

1095
very hopeful. It has been prejudiced by human rights, by Africa and by Europe. But surely the Minister will agree that disarmament itself is the best solution to these three problems.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I entirely endorse my noble friend's statement. Of course it is, and we shall endeavour in every way to obtain constructive, verifiable disarmament on a balanced basis. I can personally bear out what he said about my right honourable friend's efforts. There are no other Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary who have exerted themselves and studied this matter with such close attention as have our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. Indeed, the reception—and I repeat "reception"; we should be proud of this in all Parties—accorded to Mr. Callaghan's speech at the Special Session on Disarmament at the United Nations was one to warm the hearts of every Briton present on that occasion.

WALES BILL
4.20 p.m.
House again in Committee on Amendment No. 1.
Lord ELTON: I rise to speak at this juncture under the obligation of reminding your Lordships of what you already know: that there is no Whip on this particular matter and that I speak therefore as a private individual. I speak about an Amendment which is bearing down upon us like a ship under full sail borne by a fair wind from Scotland, with the noble Lords, Lord Harlech and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, harmoniously singing shanties on the poop and trimming the sails. I am much in favour of most of their efforts and I do not wish, as does the noble Lord, Lord Parry, to fling myself upon the tiller and turn it round about. However, I do wish to place my hand on the tiller and adjust the course of the ship so that it arrives with a full complement at the destination which it has in view.
Let me say first of all that this Amendment is one which suffers from the disability of not having been fully debated in another place. I know it is among
1096
those that were discussed and I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, with a shrewd and Scottish air, shaking his head; but if he will turn to the record in Hansard he will find that the debate started at 10 o'clock in the evening and finished at 11 o'clock. He will find that the first five minutes were devoted to procedural matters and the next 10 to discussing the remuneration which the Assembly-men, by whatever method they were returned, should receive. This great and fundamental constitutional issue, therefore, was the subject of some 45 minutes of rapid expression by five Members of another place. I do not think we could call that a full debate.
If we doubt that the first-past-the-post system produces unfairness, we need look no further than the examples produced by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. If we are still in doubt, let us look at Quebec, which has been referred to already by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who, however, did not mention, I think, that it was a vote of 41 per cent. which produced a Nationalist majority of 70 per cent. in the Chamber.
As has already been said, the political conditions in Wales have within them the elements of separatism within which it would be dangerous to blanket and smother minority Parties. Indeed, that is the ill which exists in this Bill and which the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Harlech sets out to remedy. But it sets out to do that in a way which itself I think suffers from a particular weakness, because it rests upon the use of a supplementary priority list from which alternative Members are drawn, to balance the composition of the Assembly so as to resemble as closely as possible the balance of votes cast during the election. That is an admirable aim, but I have put down an Amendment which I think I am under constraint to mention and to refer to now, since the fate I expect that Amendment to receive later will very largely determine the way in which I shall feel constrained to vote and advise my noble friends to vote on the Amendment we are now discussing, should it go to a Division.
For a Party to have in its hands patronage of the order which is here suggested seems to me to be dangerous. It is a considerable patronage, and I know that

1097
in sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 16 of Part V of Schedule 2, as it will be amended by this Bill, there is a protection. It is said that the priority list shall be arrved at by democratic means; but we have seen that sort of term exploded time and time again in the past. It is not an enforceable criterion and the fact is that, whether in the hands of an individual or of a committee, there will be the patronage which will allow the appointment of people to sit at the top of the list, in a position which means that inevitably, whatever they do —provided they stay out of prison or that the Party they represent does not get a whole majority of the seats in the Assembly —they will automatically become Members of the Assembly. For what? One hopes it will be in recognition of services rendered, but one fears that it will be in recognition of services to come.
This is a form of patronage which I should be reluctant to give to the members of any Party and indeed to the leadership of my own. That reluctance, I am sure, would be shared by those who would be expected to exercise the patronage. Therefore, I have placed, as Amendment No. 17A on the Marshalled List, an alternative paragraph to that put forward as sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 16 of Part V of Schedule 2, as listed in this Amendment. One argument that is often adduced against this method of selecting Members, which I shall describe, is that it results in placing "also rans" into the Assembly. I think I should explain to your Lordships what I have in mind. The priority list is to be made up of people who have stood and fought in the election but have not been elected. It is certainly possible to refer to them as people who have been beaten, because they have. But would your Lordships refer to Billie-Jean King as a "reject" because she was only runner-up at Wimbledon in 1963, in the finals in 1964 and runner-up again in 1965? To choose perhaps a more homely epithet, would your Lordships regard Sebastian V as an "also ran" in this year's National? He ran the race and she fought the sets. These people will have fought the election. They will have run the race and they are not simply being rewarded for services to come but are being put into the group of, if you like, horses that will be placed in the race. Therefore, to call them "beaten candidates", I think, verges on the facile.
1098
That is my principal reservation—indeed, I could say almost my only reservation—about this Amendment, and it would be interesting to me and useful to your Lordships if noble Lords who are to follow me could give some indication of where their intentions lie on this matter when they speak to this Amendment. But I do very warmly commend the Amendment itself to your Lordships. There is nothing more stultifying to democracy than when one Party remains in Office exclusively for too long; and noble Lords and their friends who can remember clamouring against "13 years of Tory misrule" are in no position to argue against that.
I have seen the effects of approaching Office, under interesting circumstances. Over the past three years I have spoken at the annual conference of the Norwegian Conservative Party, Hoyere—my Norwegian is a little better than my Welsh—and in the last year they have come from being a minority Party with no prospect of Office to a minority Party within one seat of coalition Office. It has been most marked how much more responsible have been the speeches and how much more mature have been the resolutions put before that Party. The prospect of Office wonderfully concentrates the mind. My noble friends on these Benches and noble Lords now opposite who have sat on them previously will remember that nagging voice, which impinges upon the ears somewhere half-way up from the Benches to the Box, which says "Yes, but I wonder, will I be able to act on the words that I am about to utter, if we win the next election?"
I have also, as it happens, nursed a Parliamentary constituency, in both 1966 and 1970. In the one case, I was constantly attacking a Government; in the other, I was as patiently defending it. They are different trades. But the one does give a certain skill in the other. If you are spending a lot of your time trying to push somebody into a hole in the road, with a friendly nudge, you come to know what to expect and where the holes in the road are. Equally, when you are devising stratagems to unhorse the other fellow, you remember that if you teach him tricks that are too nasty they may be turned against you all too soon.
Therefore, it is important that we should not generate in Wales a Chamber in which

1099
a significant group is knowing itself to be permanently in opposition and unable to influence events. We shall see, as our debates during the Committee stage unfold, that there is a certain concentration of authority—to which I and some of my noble friends referred in the Second Reading debate—into the Executive Committee, which itself tends to exclude contrary opinions from discussions on important decisions. This argument applies to the Assembly itself, and this Amendment commends itself as a way of overcoming that.
We have for a long time been very frightened of proportional representation and I claim no special ration of courage in this respect. On the other hand, it has for many years been advocated by Members of both Houses, not at all without distinction or intellect, who have given it a certain lustre. They have spoken of it as though it were some kind of panacea; others have spoken of it as though it contained within it hidden germs which might yet destroy the fragile frame of democracy in this country.
In any other context than a constitutional question we would long ago have embarked upon the normal procedure for such a situation. We should have conducted a controlled experiment. For a controlled experiment, you require a limited environment and limited effects. Wales is smaller than Scotland and so is its population. May I remind your Lordships that this Assembly is convoked for a purpose different from that of the Scottish Assembly. It is not a legislative Assembly; it is an executive Assembly. I myself see no difficulty in having for the Assembly a different form of Constitution in the latter case from what we have in the former. Therefore, if we are to have an experiment, this is a very convenient time to have it, and a convenient place as well. So that those of your Lordships who may hesitate about this should be reassured.
I have, I fear, spoken for longer than your Lordships would wish at the outset of a longish debate, but I ask you to bear these considerations in mind. The first is that the proportional representation principle, as such, seems to me better fitted for employment at this juncture than at any other we have yet encountered.
1100
But I personally find within it one fatal weakness, which would make me very unhappy to support it unless I had some kind of reassurance from those who bear the responsibility of piloting the principal Amendment through this Chamber—who will have to come to a decision about whether or not to press this Amendment—as to what will be their reaction when we come to Amendment No. 17A.
There may be a procedural means by which I could have tabled something to be discussed pari passu with this Amendment. But if there is I could not gain it, and all of us have been under the difficulty of trying to conduct in the Recess processes which would have been better conducted had we been able to lobby each other in the corridors in Westminster. But that said, and seeing that the noble Lord opposite is anxious to rise to his feet, I now give way to hear what others have to say.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: I intervene as one of the signatories of an Amendment to the Scotland Bill, which had so much support. I merely want to reinforce what has been said here about the value of also introducing this into the Welsh Assembly. To me there is no argument about it. My noble friend Lord Davies of Leek—and I mean that he is my noble friend, as Lord Brockway said about Lord Shinwell—talked about neophiles. There are such things as neophobes, and we see a lot of evidence of that in the conduct of this discussion; that is to say, we hate novelty. In the terms of the Welsh Assembly, as in the terms of the Scottish Assembly, I insist that this is an excellent opportunity to try an experiment.
4.35 p.m.
Lord ENERGLYN: I support this Amendment, if only to give some reassurance to the people—and I choose my words very carefully—who live in Wales, because what this Bill is destined to do is to govern the lives of the people who live in Wales. If you try to define as Welsh the people who live in Wales, you have an impossible problem. I ask your Lordships not to think, when we are talking about proportional representation, that you are pandering in one way or another to the extreme political views that are expressed in my country. I call it my country. What am I? My father is

1101
Welsh and my mother is a Scot. There are thousands of us like that and most of us speak Welsh—imperfectly, I admit. I might be regarded as Welsh. I suppose that being a Welshman means living in Wales, although I have happily resided in England for 30 years. But be that as it may, I should like the assurance embodied in this Amendment to get back to the people of Wales, because at the moment they need this assurance.
At the moment, what do they read? The first words in this Bill are "There shall be a Welsh Assembly", whether you like it or not. Then they go on to read in the Daily Telegraph:
"The Welsh Office decided nearly one month ago to use the Victorian Cardiff Exchange building, because of the need to have the Assembly ready by early 1978 "—
another accomplished fact. Then they go on to read:
"But whatever optimism there was then about the legislative timetable has since given way to realism. Preliminary work costing £258,000 was carried out on the Exchange, a listed building which coal and shipping brokers once made the city's commercial hub".
The article goes on:
"But the major £2·8 million contract has still not yet been allocated".
So in Wales they are asking questions. Who authorised the purchase of the leasehold of this building? Why was a building selected in a disreputable part of Cardiff called Tiger Bay? Was Swansea consulted about being the centre for the Welsh Assembly? Was Aberystwyth consulted? Were Machynlleth, Bangor or Newport consulted? If there is to be a democratic approach to the referendum, why were those places not consulted? Why was there not some kind of discussion as to the most suitable place for the Assembly of Wales? Certainly, the Exchange building will be no monument to the Welsh Assembly, surrounded as it is by the magnificence of the Cardiff Civic Centre.
The other questions which they will be asking are these. Who authorised the expenditure of over £200,000 on a building that was rapidly becoming derelict? In whose hands lies the power to allocate the eventual £2.8 million contracts? These are the questions that the people who live in Wales are asking, and they will want answers. They are not really interested in the overtones of the politicians, whether
1102
they be Conservatives, Liberals, Labour or Plaid Cymru. I support this Amendment, if only to bring home to the people who live in Wales that they should turn out at the referendum and stand up to be counted. Then they themselves will know what they have got, because all that they will get will be what they vote for.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: May I add a word from Scotland on the subject of the Amendment. I support the Amendment, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and other Members of your Lordships' Committee who are in favour of this form of proportional representation which was debated at great length during the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill and which received a very large majority. I should like to feel that we can do the same for Wales.
I agree with those speakers who said how important it was to bring home to the Welsh people the fact that their vote and their interest in the result will be of vital importance so that they are not swept aside by an enormous majority gained by one Party or another. This Amendment means that there will be much fairer representation in the Welsh Assembly, and I believe that it is one which we should most wholeheartedly support.
I am afraid that I do not support my noble friend Lord Elton. I believe that he is unnecessarily unhappy, or nervous, about so-called patronage. It is very important that there should be the opportunity to bring into the Welsh Assembly people who may make a very big contribution indeed but who might not necessarily have submitted themselves for election under the proportional representation system. In your Lordships' House there are a considerable number of Members who have been appointed by their Parties. Whether one calls that patronage I do not know, but those Members are in this House for that reason. They are not hereditary Peers but life Peers like myself. Perhaps we should not be here; I do not know, but, anyway, we are here. The same principle of appointment, on the basis described by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, should apply to the Welsh Assembly, and I most wholeheartedly support the proposals put forward by him in his speech.
4.45 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): We were told a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that this matter was discussed in another place over a period of one hour, and that perhaps some part of that time was taken up with points of order. That is perfectly true, but may I remind the Committee that the additional member system has been discussed three times in the context of devolution. It was discussed first in relation to the Scotland and Wales Bill in January, 1977; it was discussed fully in relation to the Scotland Bill in November, 1977; and it was discussed in relation to the Wales Bill, for the one hour which was mentioned by the noble Lord, in March, 1978. On those three occasions, the other place voted against this system by very substantial majorities indeed, and it is right that the Committee should know this. First, in January 1977, the voting was 244 to 62, a majority of 182 against. In November 1977, on the Scotland Bill, there was a majority of 183–290 to 107; and, in the context of the Wales Bill, the majority was 263 against, the voting being 377 to 114.
May I therefore ask noble Lords to draw these conclusions. First, there have been—and one expects that there will continue to be—massive votes against the additional member system in another place. Secondly, there is no reasonable chance that this Parliament will accept proportional representation for Wales or, indeed, for Scotland in the context of these Bills. Thirdly, the argument was frequently put forward in the course of the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill—and no doubt it will be repeated here—that the guillotine in the other place prevented the discussion of certain issues. That may be true, but it is certainly not true of proportional representation. The matter has been fully ventilated and fully voted upon, and your Lordships may think that in the face of these massive votes by the elected House it would be something of a waste of time to press on with the issue. Indeed, in the face of such votes, it may even be an impertinence on the part of this House to do so.
Lord ELTON: At this point may I quote one point which was made in the debate by the honourable Member for
1104
Aberdare, for it brings out exactly what I am trying to say: that the guillotine has operated against discussion. He said, "I voted for the guillotine. If I had known what was going to happen I should have voted differently". There is a feeling in the other place that an opportunity has not been given fully to discuss this matter, and it is not patronising of this Committee to respond to that feeling when it is so clearly expressed. May I ask the noble and learned Lord to bear with those of us who have not been so deeply involved as he has—and, indeed, as have my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood and many others—in the Scotland Bill. He cannot expect all of us to be apprised of arguments which have already been deployed, and the debate cannot be complete unless all of us know what the arguments are.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am indebted to the noble Lord for what he has said, but so far as the guillotine is concerned it did not truncate discussion of the issue of proportional representation, except perhaps on the occasion of which he spoke. May I explain why the Government have put into this Bill, as into the Scotland Bill, the system of first-past-the-post. The Government chose the traditional system because it is the traditional system; it has been applied for a long time, in both Parliamentary and local government elections; it is well known and well tried and it is perfectly understood; indeed, it grew out of our own political conditions and our own political traditions. In my submission, there would have to be powerful reasons for changing such a system.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said that the system contained in the series of Amendments was infinitely preferable, but he did not make good that assertion. Those who moved this Amendment would have to demonstrate tangible, certain benefits which would be derived from changing from the traditional system to this system. Are there such benefits? We have been reminded many times in the course of debates in this House, particularly in debates on the Scotland Bill, that large reforms often achieve the very opposite of what their sponsors and protagonists claim for them. One saw that in the

1105
reform of local government and one saw it in the abortive attempt by the previous Government to reform industrial relations by Statute.
May I ask whether the sponsors of proportional representation are really able to demonstrate that our political system will benefit from this importation? I can understand why the Liberal Party supports such a system. It hopes to benefit from it electorally. I understand to some extent why those who claim to be Unionists are drawn to it in the devolution context, because it seems to them to be a way in which they can "dish" the Nationalists. They can do them down. I can see why those who prefer weak governments to strong governments may support this system; undoubtedly it would tend to lead to compromises, to deals and to weakness in government.
To amplify one of these points, it has been argued that proportional representation is necessary in the Assemblies to prevent Nationalist parties from obtaining power on a minority vote. Indeed, that is the burden of the argument which refers to the Quebec experience. I would suggest to your Lordships, as I did in a similar debate in the context of the Scotland Bill, that such a short-term political consideration is not a sound basis for making such a major change in our well-tried electoral system, and I hope that in that respect I echo what my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek has said. Moreover, the danger does not seem to be so acute in Wales, and apparently it is receding in Scotland, as may be evidenced by certain recent election results of which noble Lords will be aware.
Other noble Lords have said in the course of this debate that proportional representation will somehow give a fair and a just result, whereas the first-past-the post system does not. But that, if I may suggest it—and I think I said something similar on a previous occasion when we discussed this matter during the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill—is altogether too stark a contrast. I am sure that the Committee will recognise that we are not dealing with a black and white situation.
Direct election systems, such as we now enjoy—the first-past-the-post system is one—do not necessarily produce a non-
1106
proportional result. They merely offer, in some circumstances, a higher probability of that result than proportional representation systems. Moreover, no workable PR system, and certainly not this one, gives an assurance of perfect proportionality. For practical reasons there always has to be some departure from arithmetical precision. Indeed, in this series of Amendments we see the 5 per cent. provision, which is in itself a departure from strict proportionality, for it recognises that there have to be some trade-offs and some compromises, and that principle is one which is valid for any kind of political system.
I should like to emphasise the point that was dismissed very lightly by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, but it is certainly a fair one; that is, that where there are a number of different political Parties and each political Party obtains a fraction of the votes but no political Party is able to command a majority of the seats, then what immediately follows the election is that the Parties have to meet together and start to make compromises and deals which might just scandalise the electorate, none of whom may have voted for the compromise programme which emerges. Of course that is a stronger argument when a Government or an Administration is being formed, as the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, has reminded us, and I acknowledge the force of that point in this context.
I wish also to respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said. He appealed to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, supposing perhaps that he might be replying to this. He will be replying on many other points but not on this one. The noble Lord appealed to the Government to make a concession, but I want to make a point which I am sure the Committee will accept as valid; that is, that the Government have conceded a free vote here for reasons that are well understood. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, reminded us that on his side of the Committee there is also a free vote.
So far as the Government are concerned, we can really do no more. It is unreal to suppose that the Government could impose a Whip and thus ensure that a vast majority of their supporters, either here or in another place, would troop

1107
through the Lobbies and support proportional representation. It cannot be done. Electoral reform, like constitutional reform, is the art of the possible. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked us to engage in an experiment. I should also like to make a point that I made, I think, validly, in the context of the Scotland Bill; it is that the whole business of devolution is itself an experiment about which many people are quite fearful. But it is a real experiment, and to complicate it and perhaps to endanger it by introducing a further experiment of something else new and untried is, in my submission, quite unwarrantable.
Others have said that one can look at proportional representation in the context of Wales and say that it is different from Scotland and that it is different from Westminster. I think that may be a very dangerous argument indeed. After all, one is now able to point to proportional representation being introduced into Northern Ireland more than once, and it is suggested that it should be introduced in Scotland and in Wales and also for the European elections. So it ultimately may happen that Westminster is sticking out like a sore thumb as the only assembly elected on a first-past-the-post system. Perhaps the weight of argument for changing the system at Westminster becomes very formidable indeed and, accordingly, I would say that we are not at the thin end of the wedge; we are very much halfway up the wedge on the way these arguments have been presented.
I do not want to take up an undue amount of time, but for various reasons when we first discussed this matter the arguments were somewhat truncated towards the end of the debate and I want to make the general point that I believe there is something academic, arid and unreal about the notion that electoral and democratic justice are attainable by switching from a first-past-the-post-system to a system of PR which is untried here and which does not grow out of our political traditions. I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said in the Scotland debate, and perhaps I might remind the Committee of it. He said:
"I do not believe it is possible to dogmatise and to say in advance This system is ideal and
1108
fair; that system is wrong and unfair'. I think that is pure will-o'-the-wisp".
Again, when people talk about PR and its advantages they speak as though the present political Parties were somehow immutable features of our democratic and political landscape. That is not so and I want again to emphasise what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said in the same debate. He reminded us that the existing Parties are to some extent at least the product of the electoral system: change the system and you will change the character, the strength and all the features of the political Parties. Is that something one wants to embark upon in this context?
I should like to remind the Committee of another argument that I used and which I believe has force. It is that the political Parties themselves are not monolithic single-minded institutions with all the unity of purpose that one finds in a Roman phalanx. It is simply not so. They are almost without exception broad coalitions themselves. Each Party has its Left and its Right; each Party has its radicals and its moderates; each Party has its idealists and its practical schemers, and each Party represents in some respect the thinking and the wishes of people who actually vote for other Parties in a general or other election.
There is one other point. Under the present system all the political Parties have to fight for the middle ground, and in office they have to fight to keep it. Therefore I believe that the present system, whatever its theoretical defects, actually delivers many of the benefits which the advocates of proportional representation assert—but assert with speculation—will be derived from proportional representation. I have taken up enough time in this debate. I would remind the Committee that we have a free vote and I ask your Lordships to think long and hard before voting for this system in this context. In my submission, what we are being offered here is something which is deceptively simple, but it is untried and it offers benefits which are speculative rather than real.
4.57 p.m.
Lord HARLECH: In my opening remarks in moving this Amendment I referred to a body of opinion which

1109
exists in the Conservative Party, and which I hoped was very much in a minority, which is against any change, irrespective of circumstances. I am bound to say that I thought the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was a rather good example of that particular type of opinion. Here we are not dealing with Westminster; here we are dealing with a new Assembly for Wales. In my view the circumstances are entirely different, as I tried to explain in my opening remarks, and I do not think that a change to an alternative system of voting would be bad in this instance. Indeed, I strongly urge it upon your Lordships.
The noble and learned Lord quoted a number of statistics to show what the feelings were in another place on this particular issue and therefore I think it is only right that I should remind the Committee what the figures were in your Lordships' House. On a very similar Amendment to the Scotland Bill your Lordships voted 155 in favour of the Amendment, and only 64 against. The question which arises in one's mind—and I do not think the noble and learned Lord really addressed himself to this point—is this: How is it that the Royal Commission, taking evidence over a long period of time, composed of members of all Parties and of none, unanimously came to the conclusion that proportional representation would be a better system in an Assembly of this kind? I am bound to say that, were I to consider whose opinion—unprejudiced opinion—I would follow in cases of this kind, I think it would be that of the Royal Commission rather than another place. The noble and learned Lord quoted certain sentences from speeches made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone in the debate on a similar Amendment to the Scotland Bill. What
he omitted to say was that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, did in fact vote for the Amendment which was similar to the one I am now proposing.
I should perhaps say something in answer to my noble friend Lord Elton. He indicated that his attitude on the first Amendment would be affected to some extent by anything that I or others might have to say on his Amendment No. 17. I am principally concerned that we should have a system of proportional representation for the voting for the Welsh Assembly. There are arguments, which I do not propose to put forward now, both for and against the particular method of selecting the additional Members which appears in the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. There are arguments in favour, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, indicated, for having a Party list system. My own feeling is that both of them are perfectly good systems in their own way, and if your Lordships were to vote in favour of the Amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and that was then added to the substantive Amendment which I have been moving, I would vote in favour of the substantive Amendment as amended by Lord Elton's Amendment. I personally do not set enormous store by which method the additional Members are selected. I think the important issue which is before your Lordships' Committee is whether or not there should be a system of proportional representation in the voting for a Welsh Assembly.
5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 151; Not-Contents, 66.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Banks, L.

Caithness, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Barnby, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Alport, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Carrington, L.

Amherst, E.

Berkeley, B.

Cathcart, E.

Ampthill, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cawley, L.

Atholl, D.

Bledisloe, V.

Chelwood, L.

Auckland, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Chesham, L.

Avebury, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Chitnis, L.

Avon, E.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Clancarty, E.

Balerno, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Byers, L.

Clwyd, L.

Ballantrae, L.

Caccia, L.

Cockfield, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton, L.

Sandys, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Seear, B.

Craigavon, L.

Ilchester, E.

Segal, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Selkirk, E.

Croft, L.

Kimberley, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Cromartie, E.

Kings Norton, L.

Sharples, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sherfield, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Shinwell, L.

De Ramsey, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. [Teller.]

Simon, V.

Denbigh, E.

Luke, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Sligo, M.

Digby, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Somers, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Stamp, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mancroft, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Marley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Elton, L.

Meston, L.

Strathspey, L.

Energlyn, L.

Middleton, L.

Swansea, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Swaythling, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Mottistone, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Foot, L.

Moyne, L.

Tenby, V.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Terrington, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Ogmore, L.

Teviot, L.

Gage, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Thurso, V.

Gainford, L.

Onslow, E.

Trenchard, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Perth, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Glasgow, E.

Platt, L.

Vernon, L.

Glendevon, L.

Rea, L.

Vickers, B.

Glenkinglas, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Vivian, L.

Gray, L.

Robbins, L.

Wade, L.

Grey, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Walston, L.

Gridley, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Hampden, V.

Rochester, L.

Willis, L.

Hampton, L.

Romney, E.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Hankey, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Harlech, L. [Teller.]

Saint Albans, Bp.

Winstanley, L.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alanbrooke, V.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Northfield, L.

Ardwick, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Oram, L.

Bacon, B.

Hale, L.

Parry, L.

Balogh, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birk, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Heycock, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Brimelow, L.

Janner, L.

Spens, L.

Brockway, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stone, L.

David, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Tranmire, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Ellenborough, L.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Wallace, of Coslany, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.

McCarthy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Emmet of Amberley, B.

McCluskey, L.

Wigg, L.

Ferrers, E.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Williamson, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Maelor, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gardiner, L.

Morris, L.

Young, B.

On Question, Amendment No. 17 agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.10 p.m.
Lord HARLECH Lord HARLECH moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, after ("initial") insert ("constituency").
The noble Lord said: If I may take them together, the next Amendments merely give expression to the indication of how the proportional representation system would in fact work. We must distinguish in the Bill between constituency Members and additional Members. Therefore, the word "constituency" is added in various places.

1113
Moreover, in order to bring the total number of elected Members down to 50, in those places where "three" is in the Bill we propose to insert "two". The other changes are consequential upon those two points, namely, reducing the number of elected Members to 50 and calling them constituency Members rather than additional Members. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, is able to help us by indicating which of those Amendments he regards as being consequential upon the one which has just been carried by a Division? I might be able to help him, but I should like to check my list against his.
Lord HARLECH: The Amendments which I think are consequential are numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Amendment No. 10 relates to the 25 initial additional Members. All of those Amendments come together. Amendment No. 12 inserts "constituency" after "initial". Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 16 are consequential. Therefore the Amendments up to No. 17 are, I think, to be inserted for the reasons which I have given the Committee.
Lord ELTON: I quite accept that grouping, but is it not normal—it certainly has been as regards the Bills upon which I have worked in the past—to have the groupings agreed and circulated in advance? This makes it easier for some people who in a hurry join in the discussion on the Bill to pick up the threads of the argument?
Lord McCLUSKEY: That may be usual, but as the noble Lord will appreciate there was not time to do that after the publication of the list and the numbers. That was why I thought it might help the Committee if the noble Lord were to explain the grouping, which we are happy to have from him.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: It seems to me that another consequential Amendment is No. 25.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I would ask the noble Lord when considering that matter to consider No. 9 as well.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): If it is your Lordships' wish, we shall take the next three Amendments together.
Lord HARLECH Lord HARLECH moved Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("three") and insert ("two")
Page 1, line 12, after ("initial") insert ("constituency")
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("125") and insert ("113").
5.16 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 14, after (" quota ") insert—
("( ) one initial member for each of those areas of which the electorate is less than 75 per cent. of the electoral quota").
The noble Lord said: This is by way of a small probing Amendment. We have not yet had adduced the reasons for the size of the Assembly which Her Majesty's Government have pitched upon, although I do not doubt that it has been discussed in some other place or in some other context. There are fairly strong arguments for keeping it smaller rather than larger. Obviously, if we get down to the fifties we shall have difficulty because if, as the Bill recommends, there are dozens of subject committees it will be difficult to man them without enormous overlaps and considerable inconvenience.
On the other hand, the number could become excessive, and obviously 250 would be too much. We have therefore tabled an Amendment which reduces the representation of the smaller constituencies where the electoral quota is 25 per cent. bigger than the electorate. In that case it seems to us that there are arguments within both the constituencies and the Assembly for favouring the reduction of representation. I know that I am in danger of appearing to argue against a case which I brought forward on Second Reading which was to avoid the giving of too much power to the urban and industrial South as against the rural and agricultural North.
The effect of the Amendment would be to reduce the representation of Merthyr Tydfil, Ebbw Vale and Abertillery. I

1115
do not think that those can be considered as widespread rural seats. Therefore, there is no inconsistency in what we are advancing. Moreover, there are interesting comparisons to be made with similar or comparable Assemblies elsewhere in the world. I have, as it happens, a rather formidable list but I propose to quote only two or three examples.
The Legislative Council and House of Assembly of South Australia runs to 69 Members for a population of 1·2 million. Alberta has 75 Members for a population of 1·8 million. However, I think that the closest example would be British Columbia which seems to cope extremely well with 55 Members managing the affairs for a population of just over 2 million people. That, of course, is very much the situation that the Welsh Assembly will be required to look after. On an occasion when there is an opportunity to redress imbalances of representation without waiting for the work of a Boundary Commission—which we are constantly being told will hold things up unacceptably—it would be interesting to know why the Government have not taken this opportunity to make this redress in the very small constituencies. I beg to move.
5.19 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we take Amendments Nos. 6 and 15 together. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that this was a probing Amendment. In fact, the Amendment which he has proposed would lead to a difference of only five in the size of the Assembly: it would be an Assembly of 74 Members rather than 79. The formula which is proposed by the noble Lord in the Amendment is, of course, for the initial Assembly, and it is obviously desirable to keep that particular point clearly in mind.
One of the principles underlying our proposals is to bring Government as close as possible to the people of Wales. That is why we propose that the Assembly Members should represent fewer constituencies than do Members of another place, and why, as a consequence, we responded to criticism, to which we were
1116
subjected, of the scheme set out in the White Paper and decided to drop the original proposal that the few constituencies—that is five on the basis of the 1977 electoral list—with less than 75 per cent. of the average electorate, should have only one Member.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has referred to three of the constituencies which would be affected by his Amendment. Let me mention the other two. They would be Merioneth and Montgomery, both of which are relatively large and thinly populated areas. I think that it would be difficult to justify giving them only one Member simply because of their relatively small population. That is indeed why we have come to the conclusion that it is appropriate to have two Members rather than one. Certainly I would concede at once that there is no right size for the Assembly. Some have suggested that 50 is the right number; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and his colleagues have suggested 100.
The Government have tried to strike a balance in the Bill which is based on the following rationale: first, that Assembly constituencies should be based on Parliamentary constituencies. In our view, any other system would give rise to severe practical difficulties. For example, local Party organisations are based on Parliamentary constituencies and a separate and different Assembly constituency pattern might inevitably lead to some confusion. Secondly, that each Member should represent fewer voters than do Members of Parliament; thirdly, that there should be some weighting arrangement to reduce disparities in the size of electorates; fourthly, that the 25 per cent. above the average entitlement to a third Member is justified because it represents the figure at which in straight arithmetical logic that area would become entitled to an additional Member. Lastly, that no comparable reduction should be made in constituencies 25 per cent. below the average, because some of them tend to be in rather thinly populated areas.
I would not argue for a moment that there is a simple figure which is clearly right and that all other figures are demonstrably wrong. But having explained the general principles under which we have worked, all I would say to the

1117
Committee is that this seems to be a reasonable basis for ensuring a reasonably representative Assembly—as reasonable, I think, as any formula possibly could be.
Lord ELTON: I should like to make a couple of observations. As we have got down to quoting individual constituencies, first, if we give to Monmouth the three Members at present proposed and distribute among them the 78,300 voters, each Member represents 29,000 people. If we give to Merioneth not the two Members but the one Member which this Amendment proposes, that one Member would still represent only 27,000 of the electorate. Therefore, there is really quite a considerable discrepancy there.
However, I am also interested in asking the noble Lord at what point—if at all—he proposes to deploy the rationale behind the size of Assembly that he has arrived at, beyond telling us that there is no perfect solution. I imagine that this should be—should it not?—when we have discussed the question of the committee structure. Obviously, the ideal size of membership is not related only to the number of voters who have to be represented; it is also strictly related to the amount of work that the representatives have to do. In one sense they are doing an enormous amount of work because they are representing 2 million people. In another sense, on the face of it they appear to be sharing out between them only part of the load of the Secretary of State for Wales, who has given them most of the functions which they are to perform. Therefore, there is an interesting reflection about how much they ought actually to do—not only about how much it ought actually to cost, but also about how many of them there actually ought to be. I take it that the noble Lord would prefer not to be drawn on this now, but that we should revert to the subject later when we have clarified our views. Therefore, unless any of my noble friends wish to intervene at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.25 p.m.
Lord HARLECH Lord HARLECH moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("two initial members") and insert ("one initial member").
The noble Lord said: This is what I call a consequential Amendment. If we have passed Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and, to some extent, Amendment No. 10 all follow in the same way.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Is it your Lordships' wish that I put Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 at the same time?
Lord RAGLAN: The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, said that he thought that Amendment No. 10 followed "to some extent". It either follows or it does not.
Lord HARLECH: It follows from the words I used in proposing the original Amendment. That is to say, these Amendments are designed to set up an Assembly composed of 50 elected Members by a first-past-the-post system and 25 additional Members.
Lord HARLECH Lord HARLECH moved Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10:
Page 1, line 16, after first ("The") insert ("constituency")
Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("constituency")
Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
(" (3A) Twenty-five initial additional members of the Assembly shall be elected by the system of proportional voting set out in Part V of Schedule 1 to this Act based upon the entitlement which each elector shall have at such election and all subsequent ordinary elections to cast a second vote, such votes being referred to in this Act as 'party votes'.
(3B) The number of additional members of the Assembly other than at the first ordinary election of members of the Assembly shall be half the number of constituency members at the ordinary election concerned (rounded up to the nearest whole number).").
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE The Marquess of TWEEDDALE moved Amendment No.11:
Page 1, leave out line 21.
The noble Marquess said: Perhaps I might speak for my noble friend Lord Morris. This being a probing Amendment, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can assure us that the Welsh people and the putative Members of the proposed Assembly will be fully aware of their legal standing. Are the Government aware that, should the Bill

1119
go through, all they will have achieved is another tier of Government; in fact, nothing more than a glorified county council? This Amendment was tabled because of the wording that,
"The Assembly shall be a body corporate".
I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is looking inquiringly at me. I should like enlightenment as to what, in fact, is the precise effect of making a body a body corporate. As I understand it, it means that it is a body that is regarded in law as though it were a person, and I believe that it can be sued. However, I am very likely wrong because I am not a lawyer. I should like to be informed about this.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The provision which this Amendment would leave out declares the Welsh Assembly to be a corporate body. There is no need for any particular mystery so far as this particular provision is concerned. It is virtually standard practice to give corporate status to any public body which possesses executive responsibilities. The body then has its own continuing identity, separate from the identities of its individual Members. This serves a number of useful and sensible purposes. For example, property can be vested in the Assembly, which is dealt with in Clause 66 of the Bill; and legal proceedings can be taken against the Assembly, which is dealt with in Clause 70 of the Bill.
There is a parallel provision in local government where Section 2(3) of the Local Government Act 1972 declares that county and district councils are bodies corporate. In our view, if we did not have this provision there would be a number of quite significant legal problems; for example, regarding the ownership of property. It would be very difficult indeed were the Assembly not to be a corporate body. That is why the provision is in the Bill as drafted and why we think that it should remain there.
Lord ELTON: In that case, am I to understand that the Scottish Assembly will not be able to own any property? We are always having the Scotland Bill quoted at us to explain things we ought to know already. I think I am right in
1120
saying that there is no equivalent provision in the Scotland Bill. This seems to be a case where we, having properly done our homework, have properly a question to ask. I should have thought that if the provision is necessary for the one, it must be necessary for the other. But if the Scotland Bill is the paradigm, then this Bill must in some way be defective—must it not?—or else the explanation must go further than that which the noble Lord has already given.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No. The position as regards the Scottish Assembly is considerably different. This Assembly is to be a legislative and deliberative body with no executive functions. All executive functions will, in fact, be vested in the Scottish Secretaries. They are not given any sort of corporate identity. The effect of the constitutional provision of the Scotland Bill will be to put them in much the same position as is the situation of ministerial office holders in the United Kingdom, where one can, of course, sue—if one is of a sufficiently disagreeable disposition—the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The same sitution will apply to Scotland in exactly the same way. Wales is a very different matter, for the reasons that I have given.
Lord ELTON: Does this mean that noble Lords, if they felt so disposed, would sue the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the Welsh Assembly, as a corporate body, but they might not sue the Scottish Assembly? The reasons for this are a little obscure to me. It is a fascinating area of interest, is it not? The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has revealed himself apparently as the owner of considerable properties. Many of us would like to know where they are, whether the noble Lord is maintaining the properties and what the tenants feel about him as landlord.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am grateful for the noble Lord's interest in my property. I am saddened that it has been reported that I have indeed been sued as a Minister. I am not sure what the result of the action is. The Treasury Solicitor has not seen fit to inform me. I believe that the action is at this moment awaiting adjudication in one of the courts. I had better be careful not to breach in any way the sub judice rule. The situation

1121
is different, for the reasons, that I have given, in the case of a United Kingdom Minister and a Scottish Secretary. When the Scottish devolution Act is on the Statute Book the Minister himself will be sued. The Welsh Assembly will be a very different type of body. It will be sued in exactly the same way as would a local authority.
Lord ELTON: Would the noble Lord pay more attention to the outcome of the case than he appears to have done in the past?
Lord MORRIS: I must apologise for not being in the Chamber when the Amendment in my name came up. It came up rather faster than I had anticipated. Clause 1(4) of the Bill provides the legal definition of the proposed Welsh Assembly, namely, that the Assembly shall be a body corporate. I believe it to be of fundamental importance that the Welsh people and future Members of the Assembly are sensible of the true nature of what they arc about to embrace.
The old and delightfully worded definition of a body corporate or politic is:
… an assembly and joining together of many into fellowship and brotherhood, whereof one is head or chief, and this head or body, knit together, makes the corporation. Also it is constituted of several members, like unto the natural body, and framed by a fixture of law to endure in perpetual succession".
Thus, we see that a body corporate is to be the legal personality of the Welsh Assembly. As with the natural person, or another type of corporation aggregate, or company, a body corporate can sue and be sued, can own, sell or otherwise divest itself of property, take upon itself obligations, and enforce its rights.
If we look to Clauses 26 and 27 of the Bill we see that these rights are partly entrenched in the Bill. Clause 26 of the Bill provides:
"Where it considers it expedient for promotion of protection of the public interest, the Assembly may institute in its own name, or appear in, any civil proceedings relating to matters with respect to which the powers of the Assembly are exercisable".
Clause 27 provides:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Assembly may do anything (whether or not involving the acquisition or disposal of property) which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of its functions".
1122
Similarly Clause 66(1) provides:
"The Secretary of State shall by order provide—
(a) for the transfer to and vesting in the Assembly of property vested in him and appearing to him to be property used or to be used solely or mainly for or in connection with the exercise of functions which by virtue of this Act have become or will become functions of the Assembly;".
May I ask the Minister, in the light of the foregoing, whether a person suing the Assembly in a civil action may join a Member or Members of the Assembly, jointly or severally, in such an action in law?
It is apparent to your Lordships that the Welsh Assembly is nothing other than a large, amorphous county council. Mr. Tom Ellis, Labour Member for Wrexham, in another place, stated that this Bill sets up a glorified county council. Similarly, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, in another place, said that the Government's plans for devolution would lead to a glorified county council in Wales. Indeed, my Lords, I believe that is the case.
In this context, it will be recalled that Clause 23 of the Bill gives privilege to Members of the Assembly from prosecution for defamation for statements made in the Assembly, subject to defamatory statements published in documents proved to be made with malice. May I ask the Minister why the Welsh Assembly is given privilege, where other public corporations and other county councils, are not?
Indeed, Section 69 of the Bill, which provides that the Welsh Assembly shall be a public body for the purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Acts, 1889 to 1916, further proves this point. In the Act the expression "public body" is defined as any council of a county or city or town, any council of a municipal borough, also any board, commissioners, select vestry, or other body which has power to act under and for the purposes of any Act relating to local government, et cetera. I think we should remind ourselves that each individual Member of the Assembly is covered under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889 and those of 1906 and 1916. In the light of that, may I ask the Minister whether he would make absolutely plain what is the nature of the Welsh Assembly? Will he

1123
consider that the Assembly should not be signified with a name, "Assembly", but rather should be called "Council"?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I do not think that the name of the organisation really relates directly to this particular Amendment.
I think that the noble Lord will find that some of the particular points which he raised were dealt with in the speech which I made when, unhappily, he was not with us. Certainly I shall look carefully at what he said. If there are any particular issues with which I have not dealt, I shall write to him before the next stage of the Bill. The answer to his specific question as to whether individual members of the authority could be joined in some form of action, is, No, they could not. Of course, the law applies to the Welsh Assembly in exactly the same way as it would to a local authority.
I think that I have answered the issues of principle raised in the noble Lord's Amendment. However, as I indicated, if there are any questions which he would like to have gone into rather more thoroughly before the next stage of the Bill, I shall gladly look at the matters between now and then.
Lord MORRIS: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I apologise for not being here when he spoke earlier. In the light of the noble Lord's remarks, I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.38 p.m.
Lord HARLECH Lord HARLECH moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 2, after ("initial") insert ("constituency").
The noble Lord said: This is another consequential Amendment relating to previous Amendments.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Assembly Constituencies]:
Lord HARLECH Lord HARLECH moved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Page 35, line 12, leave out ("125") and insert ("113" ).
Page 35, line 12, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are further consequential Amendments arising out of the previous Amendments that have been passed.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord HARLECH Lord HARLECH moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 35, line 14, leave out ("two Assembly constituencies") and insert ("one Assembly constituency").
The noble Lord said: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
5.41 p.m.
Lord HARLECH Lord HARLECH moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 36, line 22, at end insert—
("PART V
ELECTION OF ADDITIONAL MEMBERS
15.—(1) No person shall be eligible to be elected as an additional member unless his name was listed as an adopted list candidate at the ordinary election concerned.
(2) No party shall be an eligible party so as to be eligible for allocation of additional member seats to its adopted list candidates under this Schedule unless it secured 5 per cent. or more of the total of all party votes validly cast at the ordinary election concerned.
16. The process of election of additional members shall be as follows:
(1) The number of additional members to be returned at the ordinary election concerned shall be ascertained in accordance with section 1 of this Act.
(2) The constituencies at the first ordinary election shall be grouped into two Electoral Regions in accordance with Part VI of this Schedule and the initial additional members prescribed by section 1 (3A) of this Act shall be allocated between the Electoral Regions as shown in Part VI of this Schedule.
(3) The number, group and allocation of additional members at ordinary elections other than at the first ordinary election shall be those prescribed by this Schedule.
(4) In the event of any change in the number of constituencies after the first ordinary election the automatic increase or decrease in the number of additional members provided for by section 1(3B) of this Act shall be allocated between the Electoral Regions so that as a result the aggregate

1125
of the additional members and the constituency members for each Electoral Regional shall as between the Electoral Regions be proportional to the respective electorates of each Electoral Regional at the ordinary election concerned.
(5)Priority lists showing the priority as between adopted list candidates shall be democratically drawn up by each party for each Electoral Region and shall not contain more names than there are additional member seats to be allocated at the ordinary election concerned to the Electoral Region concerned. A person standing for election as a constituency member may be eligible for inclusion on one or more of his party's priority lists.
(6) The valid party votes cast at the ordinary election concerned for each eligible party in each Electoral Region shall be added and the total in each case divided by the sum (called the denominator sum) of the number of candidates of each eligible party returned as constituency members at that election for each Electoral Region plus one.
(7) The results of the calculations made in sub-paragraph (6) of this paragraph shall be compared and the first person to be elected an additional member in each Electoral Region shall be the first candidate on the relevant priority list of the eligible party obtaining the highest number as a result of those calculations who is not already a member.
(8) The calculations made in sub-paragraph (6) of this paragraph shall be repeated after adding the additional member elected in each Electoral Region in accordance with sub-paragraph (7) of this paragraph to the relevant denominator sum of the eligible party of which he was an adopted candidate.
(9) The results of the calculations made in sub-paragraph (8) of this paragraph shall be compared and the next persons respectively to be elected additional members for each Electoral Region shall be the first candidates on the respective priority lists of the respective eligible parties obtaining the highest numbers respectively as a result of those calculations who arc not already members.
(10) The remaining additional members shall be elected one by one by application of the same system of calculation and election to each Electoral Region as is prescribed in the preceding sub-paragraphs of this paragraph.
(11) In this paragraph "party" means a political party whose principal objects include the adoption of candidates for election to the Welsh Assembly.
(12) Her Majesty may be Order in Council make regulations for the drawing up and publication of priority lists by parties and the form of the ballot paper to be used for ordinary elections to the Assembly under this part of this Act but no recommendation shall he made to Her Majesty in Council to make such an Order until a draft of the Order has been laid before
1126
Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
PART VI
ELECTORAL REGIONS AND ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL MEMBERS
The two Electoral Regions shall be comprised of groups of constituencies and shall have allocated to them respectively the number of additional members as follows:

Constituency Additional

Electoral Region

Seats

Seats

Total

South Wales …

32

17

49

North, Mid and West Wales

18

8

26

50

25

75")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment spells out the method by which an additional Member is elected to the Assembly. I described it in my remarks when moving Amendment No. 1 on the Marshalled List. It is easiest to describe it briefly as the priority list system, as opposed to the system which is proposed in the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Elton.
I think that it is fairly straightforward. The reason we have proposed this particular method of appointing additional Members is that when there were debates on the additional-Member system in another place the strongest possible objection was raised to the idea of making additional Members out of those who had been defeated in the election. I know that there are arguments for and against that particular method. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, advanced the cases of the exploits of Billie-Jean King on the tennis court and Sebastian V on Aintree race course as examples of those who had performed well and therefore could hardly he regarded as failures.
Nevertheless, I think that the weight of opinion has been against this particular method, and that is why we propose the priority list system. I think it has advantages. It is said against it that it promotes further Party patronage and there is already enough of that. It seems to me that, if Parties feel strongly about this matter, it is within their own control to introduce a method of selection for the priority list system which they regard as democratic and free from undue Party patronage. The necessary action to do that lies under their own hand and is under their own control.
I think there are some advantages in the priority list system. I thought that they were well described in a speech by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn on the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill on 4th April at column 51, when he was discussing what distinctive contribution these additional Members could make to an Assembly. He said:
"Such Members should have been carefully chosen perhaps as possessing distinction and experience of the kind that we are wont to observe and welcome in newly-created Peers."
He went on to say:
"… these additional Members might well add a valuable complementary element to the Assembly which would compensate in some measure for the lack of a second Chamber."
It seemed to us on balance that this was the best system of providing the additional Members for the Assembly. I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 17 standing in my name and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, Amendment No. 17A:
Leave out sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 16 and insert—
(" (5) In each electoral region when the constituency members have been elected the names of the remaining candidates shall be placed upon Priority Lists. There shall be a Priority List for each eligible party as defined in paragraph 15(2) above. Subject to the provisions of that paragraph the name of every candidate standing in that election for a constituency in that Electoral Region but not elected shall appear on one or other of those Priority Lists. The names of the candidates shall appear upon the Priority Lists in an order determined by the number of votes received by them at the election, the name of the candidate receiving the most votes appearing first and that of the candidate receiving fewest votes appearing last.").
The noble Lord said: There is bound to he a certain feeling of déjà vu, and déjà recently vu too about this particular debate. None the less, I do not wish it to go entirely by default. Your Lordships will have detected, I hope, that I feel strongly on this Amendment. I believe that the strength of my feeling is shared by a great many members of our Party, and not all of them Members of this House. Therefore, I am constrained to take up your Lordships' time, first of all briefly to remind you of what I propose in Amendment No. 17A.
Accepting the proposal in the principal Amendment (which I think, has not yet been referred to) of the electoral region, and seeking in no way to interfere with the selective process applied to the priority lists, which come after it in the legislation, I wish to see whether it is possible to arrive at the priority lists by some means which do not give quite so much alarm and offence to a number of my friends in politics. You may think that this alarm is ill-founded, but none the less it exists, and of that it is necessary to take cognisance.
I do not doubt that many of these people are in fact Members of another place, and that alarm must be catered for if your Lordships wish this Amendment to go into the Bill in another place. I grant that its chances are pretty slim anyway, but they will be slightly less slim if we bring about this modest alteration. The alteration is that when in a region an election has been held and seats have been won, those candidates who have not successfully taken a place are placed upon priority lists proper to their Party, and they are placed on those lists in the order which is dictated by giving the first place to the candidate who acquired most votes and the last place to the candidate who acquired least votes.
Up to that point it is a straightforward electoral process, to which I can see few people taking exception. I hope I have already sufficiently explained that it is facile to regard them as also-rans; as people marked out by failure. Having been defeated twice—and once very narrowly—at the polls I take a certain personal resentment at that; but, that aside, I do not think that that is a valid argument against it. If we can bring this Amendment into the principal Amendment, I think there is a little more chance that the principal Amendment will survive in another place. I, unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, am anxious that an opportunity for that to happen should be given. I do not expect that what I have offered is perfect, and if noble Lords devise a better way of doing what I propose I shall be more than happy to consider it. But I ask your Lordships to be aware of opinion outside this Chamber which perhaps we ought to take into account. I beg to move.
5.48 p.m.
Lord BANKS: I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is trying to achieve with this Amendment, but it seems to me that there are four objections to it. May I put them in the order of importance, as they seem to me, starting with the least important. There is a case for saying that it would be unwise to send back to the other place at this time, in two similar Bills, two different systems of election aiming at the same purpose. It seems to me that there is a case to be made for consistency for following the line which we already agreed in the Scotland Bill.
The second objection is the objection to which the noble Lord referred, and which he has twice rebutted, but which nevertheless has some impact. That is the argument that it is rather strange to hold an election and, when that election is over, then to put those who have just been defeated on to the list of candidates for the additional Members. The third objection is that the system that the noble Lord proposes instead of the system which is in the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, is purely arbitrary. It has the outward appearance of being more democratic, but it is purely arbitrary.
We have no means of knowing who the next choice of all the voters in the region of the particular Party would have been if they had had the opportunity of declaring that choice. We have no means of knowing that, and just to put at the top of the list the candidate who happened to secure the largest vote is something of a lottery; he was the candidate who happened to be adopted for that constituency but he might have been adopted for one of the others, in which case he would not have been at the top of the list. He had the fortune to be adopted perhaps for a constituency where his Party was stronger than they were in the other case. And who knows whether one of the other candidates of his Party, if he had stood in that particular constituency, might not have done better? It is therefore a purely arbitrary way of selecting the list of priorities.
I come to the fourth objection. Under the system as proposed by Lord Harlech, you cast your second vote, your vote for the Party, knowing who the team are for the additional Members and knowing the order in which the Party has put them;
1130
so if you say, "I am going to vote for that particular Party with my Party vote", you do so knowing the order in which the candidates have been put and who they are. But if you cast your Party vote under the system proposed by Lord Elton, you do not know who the candidates will be because you do not know who will be adopted as a constituency Member—and this involves Members in constituencies other than the one in which you are in—and you do not know the order in which those candidates will appear, and that order will be determined quite likely by electors in another constituency.
It seems to me much better to vote knowing who the candidates are and knowing the order of priority to which you are committing yourself by that vote, rather than to enter into the rather arbitrary lottery which, with the best of intentions, Lord Elton is proposing. For these reasons I hope he will not press his Amendment but will give further thought to the quite difficult task which he set himself of seeking to improve on what Lord Harlech has set before us.
Lord HYLTON: I prefer the proposals put forward by my noble friends Lord Harlech and Lady Elliot of Harwood. My noble friend Lord Elton possibly exaggerated the scope for patronage; after all, there will be only 25 additional Members and they will probably be split up among three or four different Parties. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, pointed out, Lord Elton's system is slightly mechanistic; it might so happen that the weather was very much worse in one constituency than in another and therefore one got a very much lower poll. Finally, if we go for Lord Harlech's system, there will be scope for bringing into the Assembly people such as we have in your Lordships' House sitting on the "mobile bench" who might easily not be people who would want to stand in an election, canvas a very large constituency and deal with constituency matters thereafter if they were elected; nevertheless, the sort of people who could make a very valuable contribution to the proceedings.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think it right that I should say something on this issue. A vegetarian offered a choice between beef and pork might reply "nuts", and I am rather in that position because we do

1131
not like proportional representation, and indeed this present disagreement itself illustrates one of the defects of that kind of system, because one must support either the priority list system or the system contained in the version suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. There are of course objections to both, and it is not for me to adumbrate them. I have the feeling that it would perhaps be unfortunate if the Bill went back with a provision of this kind, different from the provision contained in the Scotland Bill— the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I also certainly have reservations about a system which envisages that people untainted by electioneering would somehow be brought in to instruct those who have been through the mill of the election on how they should conduct their affairs in the Assembly. That seems to be an extraordinary notion. One or other of the defects which has been outlined must be contained in one or other of the systems, and I shall advise my noble friends, as I would advise a vegetarian, to abstain.
Lord ELTON: Nobody could call that a warm welcome. On the one hand, I have a noble friend with a Welsh name and, on the other, I have a Member of a Party which has espoused the cause of Liberalism to the extent that every member of it must be an expert on the subject down to the first or second half century of its espousal; and then I have the noble and learned Lord who has experience of these matters far exceeding mine in the legal sense.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, began by putting out his arguments in ascending order of importance. He was right to put the first one first, but I was surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, giving strength to it. We are here discussing the Welsh with their small population and with an Assembly with a totally different declared purpose; perhaps we are smoking out something new. Perhaps the Welsh Assembly is, after all, in some sense legislative, but its declared purpose is not legislative and it is therefore different from the Scots. I see no objection to that as a matter of principle, and as we have been talking so much about racing I suggest that it is a matter of horses for courses, and the course in Wales is rather different from that in Scotland.
1132
Lord Banks went on to say it was strange to hold an election and then return those who had been defeated, and he thus betrayed the fact that he had totally misconceived my conception of this election. It is not an election for one place in each constituency; it is an election for 79 places in Wales divided up perhaps into two regions. You have not failed until you have not got in. It is a question of which sort of seat you are elected to. Lord Banks puts himself in the same sort of position as the parents of unfortunate children who sit the 11 plus, do not go to grammar school because they are more suitable for another sort of school, and are then told they have failed. That was not the object of the exercise. The object of the exercise in each case is selection for the appropriate seat, and therefore one cannot label these people as failures.
Lord BANKS: The noble Lord will be aware that it is possible for a person to be on both lists under the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, so people are able to enter themselves for both schools.
Lord ELTON: Yes, and that illustrates the danger of analogy in debate. I have perhaps opened up a difficulty which did not exist, and which does not exist, but is illusory. I am saying that the person who has come second in a constituency election and then gets himself, as a result, on to another list from which he gets a seat in the Assembly has not failed to become an Assembly Member; he has come by a different route and he is no longer a constituency Member; that is all.
The third difficulty which Lord Banks adduced was that this was an arbitrary system. He said there was no means of knowing who would get the most votes. I must say that if any of us ever knew that, Ladbrokes would be the poorer.
Lord BANKS: I am sorry to keep interrupting the noble Lord, but he said what I did not say. I did not say there was no way of knowing who would get the most votes. I said there was no way of knowing who would be the second choice if all the people of a particular Party in a particular region were given the opportunity of declaring it, and just to take the person who happened to be at the top of the poll in one particular area was no criterion at all.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord has now touched on a real, but I think solvable, difficulty, because he later went on to say —if he did not, then my noble friend Lord Hylton might have said it—that you would have the situation where the votes cast in one constituency would determine which person would be taken from a list claiming to provide representation for the whole of the Assembly region. That point I take, and it might be possible to work in some means of aggregation whereby the votes in all the constitutencies were taken into account, and I would need to look at that. It seems to me that the method of arriving at the proportion of seats already in some measure takes that aggregation into account.
Before returning to that, I should add a couple of points, one of which is that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said that it was a mechanistic method and that if it was reproduced in another place the "mobile bench" in this House would be lacking. Perhaps I ought to point out that he was gesturing towards my noble friend Lord Crawshaw who, though he doubtless could have been, is, I regret to say, here by no merit of his own other than paternity. Therefore, the illustration was perhaps not a good one.
I am saying—and I am sure that your Lordships are beginning to grasp it—that the answer to the question "beef or pork?" is not nuts. It is just possible that we might make it into fish if we tried hard enough, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, could stretch that point as a vegetarian. I should like to be able to stretch him to that point, and a great number of his friends, as well as my friends who have given me the reception they have this afternoon.
Upon reflection, I believe it should be possible to take some of these things into account and I shall therefore not bring your Lordships to a Division at this juncture. However, I wish to make it clear that I have not let the point go and that I hope we shall be able to reach an accommodation not too different from what I have suggested. I think that if we are going to get the sails of the ship, as I earlier called it, really filled, we have got to meet some of the objections in the quarters to which I referred earlier and we shall not do that with this Amendment as it
1134
stands. As for my own Amendment I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): We now return to Amendment No. 17, which has already been moved.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall be the first Schedule to the Bill?
Lord ELTON: May I raise a point at this stage? I wanted to give an opportunity to my noble friend Lord Harlech to expand, if he will, on the philosophy behind the electoral regions which appear as the last part of the last paragraph of his Amendment to Schedule 1, Part VI, where we have the division of Wales into South Wales and North, Mid and West Wales and an allocation of seats thereto which appears on page 5 of the Marshalled List. It seems to me that this is not necessarily controversial, but it is a large and important issue and I think it would be helpful, certainly to my own further cogitations, to know the reasoning behind this allocation.
Lord HARLECH: I understood that we had agreed this Amendment, but I am happy to give an explanation. The difficulty is that if there is one single region for the whole of Wales the priority list system would be drawn up on an all-Wales basis. By dividing it into two regions there would be a list which was particularly suitable for North, Mid and West Wales, and another which was particularly suitable for South Wales. It is the same principle as was contained in the Amendment to the Scotland Bill which we believe means that the additional Members are likely to have, and indeed will have, a closer association with a particular region of Wales than if they are appointed to represent Wales as a whole.
Viscount SIMON: Will the noble Lord explain how it comes about that in South Wales the number of additional seats is one more than half and in North and West Wales is one less than half the constituency seats?
Lord HARLECH: It is to do with the mathematics of the number of voters in the various constituencies which are put together in order to form the two regions.
Lord ELTON: This feature of the Amendment goes a little way to meet the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, to my own Amendment. It is not every Welsh seat the electors to which will feel they have not contributed; it is only half of them. Wales is not an enormous community. People are going to know each other, they will see each other's names in the papers. I think it would be improper to go on now, as I am beginning to speak to my own Amendment which I have withdrawn. I believe it is proper to be discussing this because this is now the Schedule to the Bill and we are discussing the Question that it stand part. Anyway, I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord HYLTON: Can the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, say whether Pembrokeshire would go with North Wales in the proposed regions? It is very often described as West Wales but it is a very long way from Anglesey and the North.
Lord HARLECH: I regret to say that I have not got the map which divides up the constituencies. I have an idea it goes with Mid and West Wales. Frankly, I think the attitude of mind in Pembrokeshire towards Cardiff and the rest of South Wales is more akin to the attitude of mind in North and Mid Wales than it is to that in South and Mid Glamorgan.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Time of election and term of office of Members]:
6.7 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("more than two months earlier nor").
The noble Lord said: Under Clause 2(1),
"The first ordinary election of Members of the Assembly shall be held on a day appointed by order of the Secretary of State …".
after it has been approved—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I apologise to the noble Lord. Would it
1136
be for his convenience if we took Amendments Nos. 18 and 20 together? I am entirely in his hands. As he knows, the two are related and it might save time.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I would rather take them separately. I had originally thought of taking them together but I was talked out of that. I was saying that,
"The first ordinary election of Members of the Assembly shall be held on a day appointed by order of the Secretary of State"
after it has been approved by each House of Parliament as provided in subsection (4). Subsequent elections will take place at four-yearly intervals, on the third Thursday in March, subject to the flexibility provided in subsection (2), under which the Secretary of State may order that subsequent elections take place up to two months earlier or two months later than the third Thursday in March.
I can think of reasons why elections might sensibly be postponed for a short time—a national disaster or a clash with a General Election—but I wonder for what reasons they might be brought forward. It may be that the Government can give good reasons for advancing the date of an election, but, as I shall try to persuade the Committee when we come to Amendment No. 20, I am convinced that any alteration should be subject to Parliamentary approval. Meanwhile I await the reply from the Government on the reasons why they think a provision to advance an election date by up to two months is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, asked a perfectly reasonable question and I shall do my best to answer it. Providing a power for the Secretary of State to vary Assembly elections by two months either way is intended to allow reasonable flexibility to avoid coincidence with, for example, a General Election, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, suggested in the debate on the corresponding clause in the Scotland Bill, a period of national mourning, a national emergency or something of that sort. The Government's view is that the sensible course is to provide elbow room, as has been done for the date of Assembly elections to be

1137
altered, within limits, to meet any particular circumstances which may arise.
In a new situation it seems prudent not to rule out anything in advance, especially where no issue of principle is involved—and I do not think that an issue of principle is involved here—but to provide sufficient flexibility to deal with particular problems as they may arise. Of course, I take the point that the election date is more likely to be delayed than to be brought forward. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, said on that particular point, since obviously by their very nature emergencies cannot be foreseen. Indeed, it is difficult to construct a hypothetical situation in which the power of advancement would be of practical use.
However, having said that, let me offer the following example. The five-year life of a United Kingdom Parliament could quite conceivably end in the period of two months following the third Thursday in March of a year in which an ordinary Assembly election is to take place. Parliament might not be dissolved until the very end of that five-year Parliament. As the noble Lord will recall, we had one fairly recent example of this in the 1959–64 Conservative Government, when Parliament went very nearly to the end of its full five-year statutory term. To allow reasonable flexibility as to the actual date on which an election were to be called the Government and the Assembly, fully recognising the difficulties inherent in too close a proximity between the two elections, might together agree that the fixed date of an ordinary Assembly election should be brought forward by up to two months. It need not necessarily be the full period of two months; it may be only a couple of weeks, and I believe that in many circumstances that might be appropriate in a situation of the kind that I have just put before the Committee. This is a situation in which the power to postpone the fixed date of an Assembly election might be of no practical use, and the power to bring it forward would in fact be of some advantage.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I see that his thought is that it is very unlikely that this power will actually ever be used. I shall be touching on the same matter when we come to
1138
Amendment No. 20. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.13 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 19, leave out ("elected to fill a casual vacancy") and insert ("otherwise").
The noble Lord said: It may be to your Lordships' convenience if, with this Amendment, we discuss Amendment No. 21. Your Lordships will have seen that, as at present constructed, the Assembly is wound up and set in to motion at the beginning of a four-year period, and the strength of the spring is such that it will finish within a few weeks of a given point at the end of the four years; in other words, to that extent it is a clockwork machine, and entirely inflexible. My noble friends and myself can also think of hypothetical cases with the freedom and imagination which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has just evinced. We can imagine, for instance, a hung Assembly in which the Members eventually all agreed that, whatever else they were to do, they could not go on as they were going on at present. The Assembly might wish for a dissolution, and find that it had two or three years of sterile argument before it before the hopeful day could be arrived at.
We felt that if the Assembly reached that conclusion it should be allowed to go to the country for a refreshing draught of electoral opinion and come back in a condition to do its job properly, but there is no provision for that in the Bill at the moment. If it was to be decided by a simple majority, I believe that many people would quite rightly say that we were suggesting that the person who is at present infelicitously described as the presiding officer of the Assembly—and that is a condition which I hope we shall change—would, by whatever name he comes to be known, be receiving Prime Ministerial powers in miniature for Wales, having a right to call an election. It may he that that was a matter which could be objected to, and therefore it will be seen that this procedure can be put in hand only by a two-thirds majority of the Assembly; so it is not really put into the hands of one Party. This may satisfy

1139
those who would require satisfaction upon this point.
There are other aspects of this matter which may have caught the attention of your Lordships, particularly the time scale of the dissolution and election. That is a matter on which I should be interested to hear observations which noble Lords may have to make. However, the principle on which the Amendment is based is, I believe, an important one, and I should like to know whether it is by intent or whether it is by omission, that the Government, have not made provision for the dissolution of the Assembly under any circumstances whatsoever. If, as I suspect, it is by error, or oversight, perhaps the Government will have something to say on how they would overcome this difficulty.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I should like to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, right at the outset. It is indeed the intention of the Government that this power should not be in the Bill, and therefore, so far as we are concerned, the Bill is wholly satisfactory. I shall do my best to explain to the noble Lord why we are taking a different view of this matter here than we did on the Scotland Bill, and I shall come to that point in a moment.
The, noble Lord, Lord Elton, made clear that he wants to know why the provision for premature dissolution is absent from the Bill. It is a matter of design, as I have indicated. There is advanced a mirror image of Clause 3 of the Scotland Bill which appears to command the official Opposition's unreserved approval, which I am sure will be welcomed when it is debated tomorrow. However, the distinction between the Government's proposals for Scotland and those for Wales, is that the Scottish Assembly is to be a legislative body from which a separate Executive is to be formed. The Welsh Assembly is not to have a legislative competence, and is itself to be the Executive. That is a distinction of which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is well aware.
In Scotland the Executive will need to secure a sufficient measure of support from the Assembly as a whole if it is to continue to ensure the progress of essential
1140
business. If a situation arose in which the Executive could not ensure the continuance of essential business, the good governance of devolved matters would clearly be imperilled. Such a situation might arise because of the aggressive effect of a number of by-elections, or because of some political realignments within the Assembly itself, and such a situation could persist as long as the Assembly remained constituted broadly as it had been at the time of the last Assembly election. Clearly the situation could be one of crisis, and that is why the Scotland Bill provides for the test of a two-thirds majority of all Members before a premature election is held.
A similar situation cannot reasonably be seen to arise in the case of Wales. There is to be no Executive dependent on majority support in the Assembly for any particular proposal, or for its policies as a whole. The logic of these Amendments would lead to a proposal for a Welsh Executive separate from, and dependent upon, the Assembly, but I rather suspect that that is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and his colleagues.
I do not want in any way to equate the very wide responsibilities and functions which are to be entrusted to the Welsh Assembly—and which will flow directly from the enactments which are listed in the Bill—and the other functions which it specifically devolves, with those of local authorities. But I would simply point out that there is no provision for premature dissolution in local government. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton will be aware, the last Conservative Government certainly did not favour any form of proposition, when they were undertaking the reform of local government, that there should be some arrangement where there could he a premature dissolution of a local authority. I take the point completely that very substantial powers are being given to the Welsh Assembly. Nevertheless, I think it perfectly reasonable to look at the situation as it relates to local government, and I have outlined what that is.
I suggest that the Amendments proposed rest on a basic misunderstanding of the differences in the Government's proposals so far as Scotland and Wales are concerned. I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed, for the reasons that I have given.

1141
I do not think that it is necessary to give the Welsh Assembly this particular power, which is necessary in the case of Scotland, because that has a legislative body with a separate Executive, and that distinguishes it from the case of the Welsh Assembly.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I am a little confused here. The Government seem to be speaking with two voices on this matter. On the one hand, they say that devolution for Wales is not a separate tier of local government; but we have just been invited to look at the case as it compares with local government. I am afraid that I just do not understand it.
Lord GRIDLEY: I wish to raise one point which occurs to me. There are to be considerable powers devolved to the Welsh Assembly from whatever Government are in power at Westminster. What would be the position if there was a dispute, misinterpretation, or disagreement between the Assembly and the powers devolved to it from here? How would that be settled if it came to a crisis where there was a disagreement between the Government at Westminster and the Assembly in Wales?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I do not think that it would be by dissolution. In answer to the previous question, as I indicated in my speech, I make the obvious point that the powers given to the Welsh Assembly are far greater than those given to any local authority. However, in one particular respect the Welsh Assembly is far closer to a local authority than is the case so far as Scotland is concerned; and that is because it is not a legislative body with a separate Executive. I suspect that the noble Lord, like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is not suggesting that there should be a separate Welsh Executive with legislative powers. I assume that is indeed his position. I see that, very kindly, he agrees with me. That being so, that is why we think there should be different treatment for Wales from that in the case of Scotland.
Lord HYLTON: Is it not the fact that the largest county councils, some of which administer a population much larger than that of Wales—for example, take a body like the Greater London Council—have always seemed to get on perfectly
1142
well with fixed-period elections? I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Elton whether he thinks that local authorities of that sort would benefit from having a two-thirds majority dissolution rule.
Lord ELTON: There are a number of things which need to be straightened out here, are there not? First, let us be quite clear that this Amendment was not tabled because it follows something in the Scotland Bill—that was a convenient model—but was tabled because it appears to answer a need which exists in the Welsh Assembly. The noble Lord wonders why we think it exists, and he believes that it is based on our misapprehension of the nature of the Assembly. I suspect that his reluctance to accept this Amendment may be based on the mirror image of that misunderstanding, because I think I have got it right and I think he has got it wrong.
The noble Lord says that there is no Executive separate from the Assembly but dependent upon it. But when we come to the debates on Clause 17 and Clause 22 I think we are going to decide that that is almost exactly what there is; because you have an executive committee to which a really very wide range of functions can be remitted by the Assembly, and, indeed, for convenience, certainly will be remitted. They are remitted via subject committees, which also have the power of remit. So here you have an executive committee which, in many areas, has all the powers possessed by the Assembly itself. Whether or not this is relevant to the question of what happens when you have a hung Assembly, I know not; but if it is an argument against having a dissolution by a two-thirds majority, then I think it must fall because the facts do not resemble as closely as they should the position which the noble Lord feels that the Bill ought to have given them.
I am not seeking to pronounce any views upon the present organisation of existing local government bodies. Indeed, I spent a good deal of my Second Reading speech, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, may recall, in saying that I thought that this was something which should not now be done; and I would not think that the analogy which he has drawn is a satisfactory one upon which we should be debating in the Wales Bill. What I am saying is that you have here an elected

1143
body which has to take decisions, and anybody with experience of local government will know that where you have deadlock you eventually end up with either stagnation or inefficiency. It would seem to me that it would be much better to have a way out of that deadlock than not to have one, and that the key to the door should rest in the hand of the Assembly, so that there can be no question whatever of anybody being accused of overruling them from outside or of having given too much authority to one of their Members; namely, the presiding officer.
I do not know whether this has answered some of the doubts which were in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, but I do not find myself altogether reassured by his assumption that things will go on quite well when you have a flaming and unproductive row going on in Cardiff and everybody is anxious to get out of the building. How is it to be done? He has not told us, and perhaps he will.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: We must at some stage bring this dialogue to an end, but all I would say to the noble Lord is this. He did, if he will forgive me saying so, advance an extraordinary, extreme proposition, which is most unusual for the noble Lord. He said that I had failed to recognise that this was an elected body which has to take decisions (I took his words down; I hope my note is a reasonable one) and, that being so, it was quite clear to him that there should be a power of dissolution. But, with great respect to him, he did not answer the point which was raised by his noble friend sitting behind him; because if that argument is going to be advanced it can be used in the case of every major local authority in this country. I have made the point already that the Welsh Assembly is going to have far greater powers, but the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is an extreme one, and I expect that on reflection he would not wish to press it.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: The Welsh Assembly is going to have far greater powers, but the one power that it seems to me, and to my noble friend on the Front Bench, it really does need is the power to dissolve itself, and this power it is not going to be given.
Lord ELTON: I also notice that again the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is treating it as though it is a local authority.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: With great respect, I quoted what the noble Lord said as justifying his position. What I pointed out to him was that in the words which he used—namely, that it is an elected body which has to take decisions, and therefore manifestly it should have a power to dissolve—that argument, his argument, could apply to every major local authority in this country. That was not done by his Party when they were in Government, and I am quite sure it would not be done in the future if they were in Government.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord has rightly said that we must at some stage draw this dialogue to a conclusion. I think both of us will do so with something less than satisfaction. It may be that we shall take it up when we both understand each other better, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.29 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 22, leave out ("An order under subsection (1) above shall not") and insert ("No order under this section shall").
The noble Lord said: As I understand the provisions of Clause 2, although the date of the first ordinary election needs the approval of Parliament subsequent elections take place at four-yearly intervals on the third Thursday in March, subject to flexibility through the Secretary of State but not requiring Parliamentary approval. So we have a situation in which the Secretary of State can alter by quite a considerable extent the election date which has been approved by Parliament. I have no doubt that such a decision would be taken only after careful consideration, but I would suggest that this could place an undue burden on the Secretary of State. He could be under strong pressure in Wales to advance or postpone an election, but it could well be that Parliament would in fact not agree that the reasons justify any departure from the prescribed date. It is to overcome what could result in a conflict between Wales and Westminster that I

1145
have tabled this Amendment, which would have the effect of ensuring that any alteration of the date of any election will be subject to Parliamentary approval. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The Scotland and Wales Bill required only the Negative Resolution procedure for the order fixing the first election. In the debate on that Bill in another place, the practical disadvantage of the Negative Resolution procedure in these circumstances was brought out. After an Instrument has been made and laid it is at risk, as the House is well aware, of being annulled for the next 40 sitting days; so that unless a gap of 40 sitting days (which, in practice, can span a period of something like three calendar months) is allowed between the laying date and the date fixed for the election, in theory the order could be annulled after the election and with obviously incalculable results. Therefore, we switch to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, bearing in mind it would be used only once and that Parliament would have a close interest in the date of such a special election.
Different considerations apply, in our view, to orders under Clause 2(2). The ordinary date for any second or subsequent election is fixed by the Bill itself. However, the Secretary of State has a very limited discretion under Clause 2(2). If he decides to exercise that discretion at all, he can move the date for a particular election not more than two months in either direction. We discussed this matter a few moments ago. The noble Lord's Amendment proposes Affirmative Resolution procedure for any such order. The Bill itself lays down the basic rules and provides limited flexibility. There is no issue of principle or otherwise in relation to subsequent election dates sufficient, I think, to justify any degree of Parliamentary involvement using up fairly scarce Parliamentary time. The ministerial powers are simple executive powers only likely to be used in known and understood circumstances and after consultation with the Assembly. Despite the importance of the subject matter, it should not, in our view, attract any Parliamentary procedure An Affirmative Resolution would be unwarranted and could be an unwelcome use of Parliamentary time. For that reason, we are not attracted by the noble Lord's Amendment.
Lord ELTON: The reception which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will get for his argument is coloured by the argument he advanced to Amendment No. 18 which he suggested might be taken with this. Amendment No. 18 sought to take out of subsection (2) the ability of the Secretary of State to bring forward an election. I must say that had that Amendment been accepted, there would be a great deal less argument in favour of the present one. If I heard him aright, he referred to a decision—which must be a very politically sensitive one at the end of an extended Parliament running against the buffer of the five-year rule, as in the illustration he gave—that the elections to the Welsh Assembly shall be drawn forward so that there is going to be some sort of prelude to the General Election, which is of enormous political interest and significance, I should have thought. To leave that decision in the hands of the Secretary of State to take, without the cognisance of Parliament until it has been made, seems very far from a waste of Parliamentary time. Nothing, surely, could interest the other place more acutely in the inevitable approach to a General Election than a decision to have a prelude to it which might well affect the result of the General Election itself. Does the noble Lord not agree that this would not be a waste of Parliamentary time?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: For the reasons that I have given, I fear that it would be. I do not believe that a marginal difference of this sort—be it bringing forward an election by, say, two weeks in the special circumstances which I indicated in connection with Amendment No. 18; or putting it off for a few weeks for a special reason after discussion with the Assembly—is a matter worthy of the Affirmative Resolution procedure. I say with no patronising sense, for at some stage in, no doubt, the very distant future our roles may be reversed, that Oppositions are more attracted to the Affirmative Resolution procedure than are Governments, for obvious reasons. It is, however, a mistake to introduce the Affirmative Resolution procedure unless it is absolutely necessary. There is tremendous pressure on Parliamentary time facing any Government in any Parliament. I do not believe it is necessary or appropriate in a case of this sort to have Affirmative

1147
Resolution procedure for what could be a matter of only marginal significance.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I think that Lord Harris, in producing his arguments for rejecting this Amendment, said something to the effect that, of course, the Secretary of State would consult with the Assembly. I do not see anything in the Bill which requires him to do so. Can he tell me why he made that statement and whether there is something in the Bill which underlines the need to consult the Assembly?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: It is obvious in a matter of this sort, if the Assembly came forward with a proposal that for a particular reason they thought there should be a delay—which is what is most likely; we agreed on that; and I think Lord Elton agreed that the most likely development would be in a case of delay rather than bringing the date forward—that it would be reasonable for the Government to listen to the Assembly. It is a matter of common sense that the Secretary of State would wish to discuss it with the Assembly. It is a reasonable matter for him to do so. I am not certain whether there is a statutory requirement on him to do so, and I will check on that, but it would be reasonable for him to do so. In many cases there could be special circumstances of the kind I referred to when speaking on Amendment No. 18 which would make it manifestly desirable and in the national interest to put off an election for a period of time. There could be a period of national emergency or some reason for which it was clearly desirable to do so. I do not think in a situation like that it is essential to have the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I hate to press this, but that was not a satisfactory answer to my question. As a substantive argument in favour of rejecting this Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, specifically said that the Secretary of State would consult with the Assembly. There is nothing in the Bill to that effect. I do not think it is good enough generally to say that this would be a sensible thing to do when it is being produced as a substantive argument in favour of the rejection of the Amendment. I must press him to give a more substantial answer to
1148
my query; otherwise one must assume that the argument that he produces is airy-fairy and not very positive.
Lord PARRY: I would not want to come between the noble Lord and the question and answer. I am sure that the apprehension expressed in such detailed terms here this evening is genuine. I would say that, in the many years that we have been debating this issue and in the many long months since we have had the Bill before us to discuss in detail, I have not heard these apprehensions expressed in Wales. The "dots and commas" approach is a commendable one constitutionally, but I cannot find a reflection in the public mind, or in the minds of those who may find themselves in the Assembly if this Bill becomes an Act, of this detailed apprehension being expressed here in hypothetical terms. This situation is most unlikely to arise. The Secretary of State will obviously, in almost every conceivable circumstance, work within the terms of the Assembly and in association with the Assembly. It is totally unlikely that any circumstance could ever arise in which there would be separate elections occurring, the one affecting the result of the other.
Lord GRAY: Does the noble Lord, Lord Parry, not accept, however, that there is quite clearly here the opportunity for a Secretary of State to act for any reason whatsoever to shorten or prolong the life of the Assembly without consulting the Assembly? It is all very well to say that he will or may. Surely, in the Bill what is there is something which could be used in consultation with the Assembly or something which could be used without consultation with the Assembly. It is an absent power as it stands at the moment.
Lord PARRY: As much as anyone in this Committee, I respect the legal ability of the noble Lord. I understand his legal apprehensions. The point that I was making was that in a political circumstance no Secretary of State is likely to go into conflict with a powerful Assembly of the people of a nation, and it will not arise in fact.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: If I may deal with the point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, there is no

1149
requirement for statutory consultation. I take the point of the noble Lord. The Bill steers clear of a statutory requirement and leaves the question of consultation to common sense which is not necessarily a bad idea. Obviously, the Assembly has an interest in the date of the election if it is to be deferred for two or three weeks. That is really what we are talking about. The maximum power is for two months and, in a situation of this kind, it would be perfectly reasonable for the Assembly to make certain representations to the Secretary of State in certain circumstances; or it might be that if there was a case of a national emergency the Secretary of State himself might come to the view that it was clearly desirable and in the national interest to do this. In such a situation, I suspect that there would be a great degree of support for that view in the Assembly. There is no statutory requirement, but I repeat that I do not think that common sense should necessarily be ruled out of a situation of this sort.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that Oppositions were apt to be rather fonder of affirmative orders than Governments. I take the point; and I take the generous inference he once made during this debate that we might find ourselves curtailed by that consideration. If we did not occasionally find ourselves regretting what we had done in Opposition, we would have been rather bad in Opposition in the House of Lords. We are supposed to be the restraining Chamber. I hope that the noble Lord will not cast those words in my teeth; but I hope that he will have the occasion to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, referred to a dot-and-comma proceeding. That is also the function of a revising Chamber. Not surprisingly, he said that he had not met this approach in Wales. He spends
more time in Wales than I do; but I recently completed a tour of Wales talking about this Bill and I am astonished by the fact that nobody in Wales that I met—even politically aware people—seemed to know what was in the Bill beyond the most general terms. Of course he has not heard alarm, because the people do not know what is there to be alarmed about. If the media do their job, the people will know when we have finished this Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that we were only talking about a couple of weeks. He actually let it out at the end: the period in each direction is two months and carrying forward is subject to Parliamentary control. There is no alternative Parliamentary voice to be raised other than the Secretary of State in the case of an order under Clause 2(2) as the Bill now stands. So we have a period of eight vital weeks with no supervision and there is this bracket of four months—a third of a year! The noble Lord, Lord Harris, frowns, but four months is a third of a year. During that time the Government of the day can vary the date on which the election is to be held. That is no mean tool in the hand of a Government which is faced with the necessity of a General Election. A guinea pig is a useful animal in battle, believe it or not. I fear that the Welsh would be in the position of guinea pigs in this respect, and Parliament should have an opportunity to express an opinion on it. If my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne agrees, I think that we should press this Amendment.
6.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not Contents, 63.

CONTENTS

Avon, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Falkland, V.

Balerno, L.

Crathorne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Belstead, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Fortescue, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Glasgow, E.

Caccia, L.

de Clifford, L.

Gowrie, E.

Cathcart, E.

De La Warr, E.

Gray, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Gridley, L.

Cockfield, L.

Digby, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hylton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Dundee, E.

Kimberley, E.

Colyton, L.

Elles, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Elton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Norfolk, D.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Margadale, L.

Northchurch, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

O'Hagan, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Renwick, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monson, L.

Romney, E.

Tranmire, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Morris, L.

Sandys, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Mottistone, L.

Selkirk, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Selsdon, L.

Vickers, B.

Sharples, B.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Moyne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Young, B.

Newall, L.

Somers, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Parry, L.

Avebury, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bacon, B.

Hale, L.

Platt, L.

Balogh, L.

Hampton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Banks, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Seear, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stone, L.

Brockway, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chitnis, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Croham, L.

Listowel, E.

Wade, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lovell-Davis, L.

White, B.

Evans of Claughton, J.

McCluskey, L.

Wigg, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Maelor, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gardiner, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Garner, L.

Northfield, L.

Glenamara, L.

Oram, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
6.54 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
Dissolution of the Assembly
(".—(1) The Assembly as constituted from time to time—

(a) shall stand dissolved on the eve of any ordinary election of members; and

(b) shall be dissolved by order of the Secretary of State if the Assembly resolves that it should be dissolved and, if the resolution is passed on a division, the members voting in favour of it number not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of the Assembly (including any whose seat is vacant).

(2) An order dissolving the Assembly shall require an election of members to be held on the day following the dissolution, and that day shall not be later than two months after the date of the resolution in pursuance of which the order is made.").
The noble Lord said: We have just been discussing this, have we not? It is the question of the dissolution. I do not
1152
think we wish to pursue it further at this stage.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Viscount Simon): We have first to take from the Supplementary List Amendment No. 21A: Lord Elton.
Lord ELTON: I am sorry: I had understood that the next Amendment to be called would be in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Have I been betrayed by the fact that there are two Marshalled Lists?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I think in fact that the Government Amendment is to be taken after the noble Lord's Amendment.
Lord ELTON: I am slightly taken aback by this because the message I had a moment ago was that we were going to take the Government Amendment. As it is some six minutes before we normally adjourn for supper, may I suggest that it might be sensible to adjourn now rather than in six minutes' time?
Lord STRABOLGI: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

INTERNATIONALLY PROTECTED PERSONS BILL
6.56 p.m.
Lord GARNER: 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 he discharged.—(Lord Garner.)
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
[The Sitting teas suspended from 6.57 p.m. until 8 p.m.]

WALES BILL
House again in Committee.
Clause 3 [Elections]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 21A:
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("an") and insert ("any").
The noble Lord said: I am better composed to deal with this Amendment than I was before dinner. It might be for the convenience of the Committee to take Amendments Nos. 21A and 22A together. They are, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will have grasped, an inquiry into the drafting of Clause 3. The purpose of an inquiry into the drafting of a clause is not purely of arid academic interest. It is made necessary by the fact that, of course, if I am wrong in my supposition about the drafting, there may be a reason concealed
1154
behind the drafting which I have not grasped.
As the Bill is drafted, it states in subsection (1):
"The persons entitled to vote as electors at an Assembly election in any Assembly constituency shall be—"
and then it proceeds to categorise them. Subsection (2) applies the provisions of subsection (1),
"with the necessary modifications to the election of initial members (within the meaning of section 1 above)."
What escapes me is the necessity of taking two bites at this apparently small cherry. I presume that there must be a difference in wording required in subsection (1), as applied to the initial election; otherwise, the clause would not be drafted in this manner. But I am not at all clear what the difference is.
Therefore, I have tabled an Amendment to delete subsection (2), and to insert in subsection (1) before the word "Assembly" where it first occurs in the first line, the word "any" intead of "an". That is how the Amendment would appear if there were no necessity for the modifications referred to in subsection (2). It follows that, if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is to object, the grounds of his objection will be that my drafting is at fault and must necessarily reveal, therefore, what are the purposes behind the drafting that he has presented to this House. It is to discover this that I now beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Even if it were a question of arid academic interest, I should do my best to satisfy the noble Lord. But he indicated that he moved this Amendment to probe the Government about their intentions, and I hope that what I say will persuade him that what is in the Bill is, in all the circumstances, reasonable. That being so, it will probably be helpful if I spell out the purpose of subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 3.
Subsection (1) specifies the people entitled to vote at elections. The same general qualifications as to eligibility to vote apply in Assembly elections as in Parliamentary Elections. Thus subsection (1)(a) provides that a person is entitled to vote if he (or she) has his name on the part of the Parliamentary register

1155
relating to the area of the Assembly constituency, and if he is entitled to vote at a Parliamentary election in the Parliamentary constituency. Subsection (1)(b) extends the Parliamentary franchise to enable Peers to vote in Assembly elections. Subsection (2) deals with the election of Members to the Assembly before Assembly constitituencies are established. These initial Members have to be returned for the same areas as Parliamentary constituencies. Accordingly, subsection (1), which is geared to Assembly constituencies, does not fit exactly for the election of initial Members. Subsection (2) therefore provides that for the election of initial Members, subsection (1) is to be applied with any necessary modifications.
I can assure noble Lords that there is no question of subsection (2) being used to modify the basic provisions describing the persons entitled to vote; in my judgment, such a change could not be read as a "necessary" modification in the application of subsection (1) to the election of initial Members. I hope that this explanation demonstrates that subsection (2) is necessary, and that the necessary modifications will relate only to the description of the constituencies and will not in any way affect a person's entitlement to vote.
Lord ELTON: I take it then that what the noble Lord is saying is that a constituency in the initial election will be different from a constituency in the ordinary election, and that it would be incorrect to describe the constituency in the initial election as though it were an Assembly constituency, although it will have one, two or three initial constituency Members, as the case may be, standing for it. So in that sense it would to the layman appear to be an Assembly constituency co-extensive with the Parliamentary constituency; that this would not be a definition that was correct in law, and that that difference of nature necessitates the addition of subsection (2). Can the noble Lord confirm that I have understood correctly?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes. We are dealing, first, with the initial election when, as the noble Lord will recognise, the constituency will be the Parliamentary constituency and there will be a certain number of members for that constituency. After the initial election,
1156
there will then be a different situation where Wales is divided up into Assembly constituencies, and the distinction that we are making is between the initial election and subsequent elections.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.9 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 34, after ("date") insert—

("(i) have their names on such parts of the register of local government electors as relate to the Assembly constituency; and

(ii)")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is identical to one put down by the Government for Report on the Scotland Bill, to correct a flaw which was detected by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, during Committee on the Scotland Bill. Clause 3, as it stands, makes it possible for a Peer living in a local government area which straddles two Assembly constituencies to choose in which Assembly constituency to cast his vote. As was made clear in the Scotland Bill Committee debate on this point, there is no possibility of a Peer being able to vote twice, because it is the Government's intention in the order made under subsection (3) to attract Section 48 of the Representation of the People Act 1949, which makes plural voting an offence.
The Amendment would correct the flaw by providing that Peers who are entitled to vote in any Assembly constituency shall be those who have their names on parts of the register of local government electors which relate to that Assembly constituency. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: My noble friend Lord Gray is not in the Chamber, but I am sure that if he were he would be glad to see that his labours have been doubly fruitful.
[Amendment No. 22A not moved.]
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved manuscript Amendment No. 22B in substitution for Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 10, leave out from ("officers") to ("and") in line 11.
The noble Lord said: I think that this refers to Amendment No. 23 which I put down and which has become garbled in the print. I do not know upon whom the responsibility for this rests. If it rests upon me, I apologise unreservedly to the Committee. If noble Lords will look at Amendment No. 23, they will see that at present it reads:
"Page 3, line 11, leave out from ("enactment") to the end of the line".
This leaves out the word "and" and nothing else. Devious as my approaches may be, noble Lords will recognise that that was not my intention. The intention, as is now shown in manuscript Amendment No. 22B, was that it should read:
"Page 3, line 10, leave out from ("officers") to ("and") in line 11".
That, I hope, coincides with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has in front of him?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, it does.
Lord ELTON: This is a slightly different but again a probing Amendment about drafting, and it interests me very much. If language is used in the normal manner, it appears that subsection (4) describes in two chunks what an order may apply. If we look at the first chunk, paragraph (a), everything that appears from the beginning of that paragraph to the word "officers", which I have drawn to the attention of noble Lords, is subsumed by the words "and any provision made under any enactment". If we were to leave in those words, it would read:
"An order under this section may—
(a) apply, with such modifications or exceptions as may be specified in it … any provision made under any enactment".
I cannot see how that power is in any way limited by including the words
"any provision of the Representation of the People Acts, any provision of the enactments relating to returning officers".
If it is already enabled to apply, with modifications, any provision made under any enactment, those words must be superfluous. If, on the other hand, it is not intended to apply any provision made under any enactment, then the words that I have moved to delete are superfluous. There must be a reason, but I have failed entirely to grasp it. I beg to move.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: If I could point out a minor flaw in the manuscript Amendment, the last "and" in line 11 must remain because we are joining two paragraphs.
Lord ELTON: We say that we should leave out the words from the last word which we are leaving in to the first word that we are leaving in again; so the word "and" in the manuscript Amendment should be there because it remains in the subsection, as redrafted.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The provision which this Amendment seeks to delete enables the order relating to the conduct and questioning of elections to apply with such modifications as necessary any provision made under any enactment. This, in our judgment, is a necessary provision. Without it, the order would be confined to applying the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts, and of enactments relating to returning officers. But there are other provisions made under other enactments which we may wish to apply.
Let me give an example. Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1969 removes the need for planning permission to be obtained for the display of election notices and posters. This Amendment would mean that we could not apply this provision, and every election notice and poster would require individual planning permission. I do not think—and I am absolutely certain that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will agree—that local authorities would relish the prospect of having to deal with the flood of applications which could arise in a situation of that kind.
If I may give another example, paragraph (a) enables us to apply provisions of the Representation of the People Acts, but there are enactments made under these Acts which we also need to apply but which we could not apply if this particular Amendment were made.
To give another example, the Representation of the People Regulations 1974, which were made under the 1949 Act, prescribe the form of the official poll card

1159
for Parliamentary elections. That is the purpose of these regulations. It will be necessary to apply these regulations, modified as necessary, to the Assembly elections.
This provision appears in the Scotland Bill and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, will no doubt recall, in the European Assembly Elections Act, where it appears in Schedule 1, paragraph 2. As the noble Lord and, indeed, the noble Baroness will recall, Amendments were not put down so far as either the Scotland Bill or the European Assembly Elections Act were concerned. If this Amendment were made, the Wales Bill would be the only one of the trio which would be out of step. With the explanation that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord ELTON: What the noble Lord has succeeded in convincing me of is that I have moved to leave out the wrong half of the subsection. Surely nothing is necessary in order to enable the Secretary of State to put into effect, or apply with modification, those powers under the Representation of the People Acts to which the noble Lord has just referred other than to say that an order under this Section may
"apply, with such modifications or exceptions as may be specified in it … any provision made under any enactment".
It seems to me that it is the first part which is superfluous. I cannot see the purpose of having both parts. I do not wish to appear to be obtuse, although often it is useful to do so because it means that one receives a better explanation, but I do not see why, if one already has the power to apply any provision made under any enactment, one needs to add to that specific powers under specific enactments, because one already has them all in one's hands.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: All I am saying to the noble Lord is what the effect of this Amendment would be. The noble Lord has made it clear that that is not his intention. If the noble Lord will put down a different type of Amendment at a later stage, we shall be delighted to look at it.
Lord ELTON: I think that will be the answer. I should have put down the
1160
other half of the clause. If time permits, no doubt we shall be able to do so at a later stage. In the meantime, let us not delay any further. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.19 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 18, after ("the") insert ("Welsh").
The noble Lord said: Ever hopeful of having discovered an oversight, it occurred to me and my friends that the fund to which the noble Lord was opening the door in subsection (5) of this clause must be the Welsh Consolidated Fund. It may be that we are wrong and that we shall be told that drafts will be needed before the Welsh Consolidated Fund has got anything in it. In that case, I suggest that the clause is inadequately drafted, because it will continue the power to draw on the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund at a time when the Welsh Assembly is supposed to be entirely subsistent upon the Welsh Consolidated Fund. Indeed, it would make a great nonsense of much that is intended in the Bill if the funds which are specifically for Welsh purposes should continue to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund. It would also make budgeting extremely difficult. I expect that there is an explanation of this, but that is what the situation appears to be at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The Government believe that electoral arrangements for the Assembly should as a matter of principle be reserved to the United Kingdom Government and to Parliament. The Assembly will have no discretion to alter the requirements laid down in the Bill about electoral arrangements, and will therefore have no control over the financial implications of meeting these requirements. In these circumstances we believe it is fair that the cost of elections should be borne by the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund. This is in line with the policy we have adopted throughout the Bill; namely, that only expenditure over which the Assembly will have discretion should be charged to the devolved Funds.
This is an issue of principle rather than practice. Whether the cost of elections

1161
is charged to the United Kingdom or to the Welsh Fund will make no difference to the allocation of resources between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. If the cost is borne by the Welsh Fund, the size of the annual block fund granted to the Assembly, which, as the noble Lord will know, has to be approved by Parliament, would in practice be adjusted to take account of the extra expenditure involved. But, although this has no practical consequences, the Government believe that it is an important issue of principle and that expenditure over which the Assembly has no discretion whatever should not come out of their block fund. That is the reason for the present form of words which appears in the Bill.
Lord ELTON: It is a very interesting reason and a very interesting principle. I should have thought that the cost of the elections would be part of the running costs of the Assembly and that a lot of people would want to know how much they were. Indeed, I hope that in a moment the noble Lord will tell us how much he expects it to be, in the first instance and subsequently. I think he may get some guidance from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum at the beginning of the Bill. I should also like to know whether this is the way in which the Scottish elections are to be charged. A number of the objections are based on financial grounds, and, as I have already said, it is going to cost the Welsh a dickens of a lot to have this particular form of devolution and it seems a pity to hide some of the cost and indeed to share it out over the United Kingdom as opposed to those who actually benefit from it. Can the noble Lord give us any enlightenment as to the scale of this?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: To answer the question whether this provision is the same as in the Scotland Bill, yes, it is precisely the same. I have tried as fairly as possible to deploy the argument and, as I have indicated, it is an issue of principle rather than practice. It is a matter which is reserved to the United Kingdom Government and to Parliament and in that situation we do not think it would be appropriate to follow the advice of the noble Lord so far as this Amendment is concerned.
1162
I will look into the question of the cost of the elections. I cannot off hand answer that particular question, but I will gladly let him have the information. Of course, it does not relate directly to the issue of principle involved, and, as I have indicated, it would not make a great deal of difference which way we did this in terms of its practical effects, but in the view of the Government it is quite clear that where a matter is manifestly one for the United Kingdom Government and Parliament it is right that this should not be charged to the devolved Fund, and that is why we maintain the position that I have indicated.
Lord ELTON: I see the argument that the noble Lord is putting before us, and doubtless in a moment we shall pass on from this point. I notice in a paragraph on page v, under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill", we are told that—and I quote:
"The costs of the referendum, the initial elections and the attendant publicity on both referendum and elections are estimated broadly at £1¼ million".
I should be grateful if the noble Lord could investigate and let us know the amount of the sum involved.
As to the other issue of principle, if one runs a motor car surely not only the petrol and the maintenance but also the road fund licence is part of the cost of running the car and something about which you want to know. So if the principle is broadly agreed I shall not dissent from it, but merely say that it is rather an odd one, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
8.26 p.m.
Lord ELTON: At this juncture I should like to ascertain something which perhaps I should have deduced from the Bill, but I have not done so. I regret that I have not given the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, notice of this, but we are all arriving pell-mell from the holidays and we shall be better organised next week. I should like to know what are the provisions for the election expenses of the candidates for the Assembly elections, both initial and ordinary? It may be that the answer lies in the Representation of the People Act, but if it does, will it be in the

1163

Parliamentary section or will it be in the local government section? Will the election expenses be adequate if they are not revised more frequently than they have been for Parliamentary Elections? This area may not be of much interest now, but it will be of considerable interest to candidates for election. It may indeed even influence the kind of people who will stand for election and it will be something which election agents will need to know in some detail. Therefore, it would be helpful if the noble Lord could give us some indication of what those proposals may be.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I hesitate to intervene in this most amusing dialogue which is taking place between the Front Benches and which has been going on for seven hours; but the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, mentioned the point of principle. May I, as a true Welshman, say that there is one great principle which should be adopted by the Government and I hope will be adopted by the Government; that is, that all expenses which can possibly be put on to the Consolidated Fund should be put on to it and not on to the Welsh Consolidated Fund which is referred to in Clauses 40 and 41.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: From that comment I take it that I have an ally in the noble Lord in resisting this impetuous Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The noble Lord has raised a very detailed question and I will gladly write to him before the next stage of the Bill, if that is convenient to him.
Lord ELTON: It is indeed. May I say as an Englishman, although I am acting as a Welshman, that I am also very anxious that there should be a just allocation between the Consolidated Funds of the two countries, and I do not join in this particular aspiration of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.
Lord RAGLAN: I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that under this Bill he will be classified as an Englishman and not a Welshman, and he will not have a note in the referendum.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am not sure about that.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [By-elections]:
8.29 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 26, at end insert ("constituency").
The noble Lord said: Clause 4 is concerned with the administrative procedure for dealing with by-elections. Since this Bill was drafted in its present form your Lordships have decided that some form of proportional representation should be introduced, and with the leave of the Committee in moving this Amendment I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 29.
Amendment No. 25 is merely designed to clarify the position as to where the seat of the Member of Assembly which falls vacant is to be dealt with, and we introduce the word "constituency" so that it is now the seat of a constituency Member. The by-election in the case of Amendment No. 29, concerns that other class of Member of the Assembly, the additional Member, and it is the procedure for dealing with the vacancy when it is created for an additional Member of the Assembly which falls in line with the provisions of Part V of Schedule 1 to this Bill, which was the subject of the lucid explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, when he was introducing Amendment No. 17. In view of the length of time that was taken in dealing with procedural matters arising from Amendment No. 17, perhaps I could leave it there. I should like to add this: as far as the ordinary constituency man is concerned the voting is very simple indeed. There are some problems in relation to the allocation of numbers of seats and that sort of thing, but that does not affect the simplicity of the procedure of proportional representation for the individual voter. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: Perhaps either the noble Lord, Lord Harris, when he replies, or the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, when he resumes his feet, will explain to me what happens if there happens to be no willing candidate left on the list. I think there is a danger that the Kilbrandon group of Amendments may leave a situation where they have deleted the normal method of holding a by-election,

1165
or alternatively left only a non-proportional representation method of holding a by-election, to be operated in the middle of what is otherwise PR procedure. One assumes there will be many people on the lists and that those towards the bottom will be less acceptable than those at the top. The same system operates in Norway, and I have always wondered what happens if there is nobody left. How do you have a PR by-election in a single constituency under the Amendment as it is now?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Again, I do not want to interrupt the dialogue, but the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was looking so deliberately at me; all I can say in answer to his hypothetical question is that I cannot conceive as a practical matter that there will not be a candidate available from Wales to fill the gap to which he refers.
Lord ELTON: I can. You have an electoral region with, let us say, 12 candidates on the list for a particular Party for that region. Suppose three of them are elected; that leaves you with nine. One has died, two have taken jobs that they cannot combine with representing the constituency, a fourth has gone to gaol, a fifth has disqualified himself. These things can quite easily happen. We have four years of hazardous life to get through, and life in Wales can be hazardous.
Baroness ELLES: It might at last give a chance for the women to get into the Welsh Assembly, because they are certain to be put at the bottom of every list, as they usually are.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am sorry if I suggested that I did not think, in the circumstances, that there would not be a man available in Wales; I should have said "man or woman".
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord has not replied to my question. These could be the circumstances, with no undue stretching of the imagination. What does he propose should be done to fill the seat? Should it stay vacant for two years?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Well, this is a hypothetical question, but from my practical knowledge of Wales the flexibility of all procedures in relation
1166
to Wales is so great that when that crisis arises, particularly when so many will be going to gaol according to the noble Lord, I am sure some adjustment will be able to be made and the problem solved.
Lord ELTON: I do not wish to be difficult, but we are treating a potentially serious matter with a certain levity. If the noble Lord is going to press this Amendment it is important that it should be right. If he is going to deal with it at a later stage, of course, it need not detain us quite so long. But we do not know what his intentions are. I am a friend of proportional representation, as I have already made clear, possibly to my own cost. In those circumstances, I should like it to work. I cannot see how it will work in the not altogether hypothetical circumstances I have adumbrated.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Perhaps at this stage I might invoke the help of the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am always anxious to spring to the assistance of either the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, or the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I do not want to go into these metaphors used by my noble friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland; he said it was a question of whether he was a pork or beef eater, or some metaphor of that sort. I find it difficult to give vigorous and unqualified advice to the Committee because this Amendment was carried against the view of the Government. That being so, in my view, it is not incumbent upon me to explain what it is supposed to mean. But I believe that this is consequential upon the earlier Amendment, and therefore this Amendment, together with Amendment No. 29, should be added to the Bill simply because it takes account of the decision made earlier by the Committee on this question.
Lord HUGHES: The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has referred to the ingenuity of the Welsh. If one looks at the three sets of circumstances which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, thought might arise—the death of a candidate, his getting a job somewhere else, or being in prison—I should have thought that there is only one of these the Welsh could not rectify in that they would be unable to resurrect

1167
the dead. I am quite sure they could get people back into Wales for the election, and it might well be within possibility to get them out of prison.
8.37 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("presiding officer") and insert ("President").
The noble Lord said: I am very sorry indeed not to see the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in his place, because the purpose of this Amendment is to remove what I think is the offending and misleading description of "presiding officer".
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: If the noble Lord will forgive me, perhaps we could take Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31 together, because I think they are inter-related.
Lord ELTON: Indeed we could, and the noble Lord, who has looked at it so carefully, will see that there is an occurrence earlier in the Bill which I missed. It seems to us that to call the person presiding over the Welsh Assembly, if that is what he is to do, its presiding officer is inevitably to confuse people as to his function, because an officer of local government is normally a paid, non-elected, full-time person, and we are talking, of course, of an elected person. We are talking of an elected person holding an office of, I would have thought, considerable importance, not only for its function but also as a figurehead. After all, this Bill is largely designed, is it not, to satisfy the understandable aspirations of Welsh nationhood?
The person who is at the titular head of that organisation ought to be called something that does not lead people, who are necessarily more ignorant on this side of the Border, to suppose that he is some glorified town clerk. The nearest that I could pitch upon to the phrase in the Bill, "the presiding officer", is "President". That is a term which is full of honour and honourable associations. I had hoped—and maybe I shall not be disappointed—that some Welsh Peers would come forward with perhaps more colourful and more appropriate terms than I can, and that between us we might choose one of
1168
them which Englishmen could spell and pronounce. However, in the absence of such assistance, I move that we substitute the name "President" with a capital "P", for the term "presiding officer" with a small "p" and a small "o".
Baroness VICKERS: I should like to support my noble friend in suggesting a different name from the one in the Bill. On Second Reading I suggested that the Assembly should not be called "Assembly", and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, was kind enough to suggest that they had the Pendragon and that was the official name. In Ireland they have been able to have the Dad, and the Taoiseach as their Chief Minister. I would suggest that the Welsh should be able to think of a name for their own leader, because to my mind "the presiding officer" means the chap who looks after the elections. We always have the "presiding officer" for elections, so we would have to find another name for him at election time. I do not like the word "President", because it is rather too continental to my mind. Moreover, we have a "President" in so many voluntary organisations. Therefore, in my view, the simplest and most satisfactory solution would be to have a Welsh name as this is to be a Welsh Assembly which, I understand, is to be bi-lingual. That would be a good way of getting this Assembly or whatever it will be called—the Pendragon—off to a happy start.
Lord GRIDLEY: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Elton in moving the Amendment. In my view it is so important when we are devolving responsibilities to the Assembly that we should get it off on the right foot and give the officer who is to preside over the Assembly a proper title. With my noble friend, I do not think that the term "presiding officer" fits the case in this instance. It is important that he should he given a proper terminology. I should like to support my noble friend in his Amendment.
Lord MOTTISTONE: May I add a few comments. The choice of words is most significant when describing an important matter. I have always been most impressed by the fact that a particular organisation of people at the beginning of the war were called the LDV, but

1169
in his wisdom Mr. Churchill changed that title to the "Home Guard"—a very important sounding name. All too frequently these days it is left to officials to construct a logical name which has no inspiration at all. I suggest to your Lordships that "presiding officer" is just such a logical uninspiring name. If Wales is to be given an Assembly which is meant to he something to Wales, what better than to have the term "President" unless, as my noble friend Lord Elton has said, the Welsh themselves can choose an even more inspiring name that we can all pronounce.
Viscount MONTGOMERY of ALAMEIN: I too support my noble friend, but I should like to add a slight variation. It has been suggested that the Assembly is a type of superior county council. Therefore, would it not be more appropriate to call the person in charge "the chairman", because that is used in another context?
Viscount LONG: I am absolutely amazed at where this name came from. To me "presiding officer" sounds extremely second rate and I believe that it is an insult to the Welsh people. As one looks around the world today other countries either have a Monarch or a President. I cannot see why the Welsh people should not have the term "President" applied to their Assembly.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): Is the noble Viscount suggesting that the Welsh people will not have a Monarch?
Viscount LONG: No, not at all. I am suggesting "President" rather than "presiding officer". They can have their Monarch. I am saying that in the Bill they are to have a "presiding officer", but in my view they need a "President" for their Assembly. I do not know how anyone could possibly use the term "presiding officer"; in my view this is an insult. "President" is a much stronger name for the Welsh people.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am always, I hope, very amiable when I follow the noble Viscount, but I am bound to say "an insult to the Welsh people" seems to be putting it rather
1170
strongly. Apparently there has also been an insult to the Scottish people because this went through, so far as the Scotland Bill was concerned, without any form of discussion at all.
Viscount LONG: I did not take part in the Scotland Bill: I am only interested in the Welsh and I do not think that the Welsh, at this stage, have been sufficiently defended by the Government.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I just draw the matter to the attention of the Committee which must have its own view of the matter. The fact is that this is exactly the same procedure as was followed in the Scotland Bill. Let me give an explanation which I hope will satisfy the Committee. I shall do my best not to be "too continental", to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, although I do not think, as I am sure she would agree, that that should always necessarily be considered a term of abuse.
As in the case of the Scotland Bill, the Government believe that we should leave it to the Assemblies to decide what specific title they should give to their equivalent of Mr. Speaker in another place. Both Bills deliberately adopt the neutral expression "presiding officer". I think that the Government would consider it altogether too paternalistic to seek to insist that any particular title such as "President", "Speaker" or indeed "chairman", were used. I very much hope that this issue will not he pressed. The Welsh Assembly can indeed adopt the form of words suggested by the noble Lord, but we think that this is a matter for the Assembly to decide. Perhaps I may finish with a final low blow: we do not believe that the gentleman in Whitehall necessarily knows best!
Lord MOTTISTONE: Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us where in the Bill there is provision for the Assembly to decide on the title of its chief officer? I think that we have had this problem on a previous occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, may remember that before the dinner break he was quoting an idea which I entirely applauded. Of course the Welsh decide, but there is nothing in the Bill about it. Perhaps the Government might care to put down an Amendment to make sure

1171
that there is something in the Bill to say that the title of the chief officer should be one for the Assembly to decide.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I have listened to the enthusiasm with which Conservative Members of this House are jumping up to deal with the very important question of what the Speaker in the Welsh Assembly should be called. I welcome the fact that the neutral term "presiding officer" is used. There may be a conflict, but I can assure Members of this Committee that the Welsh people will choose a suitable name in their own time. It is certainly not strictly necessary to have the term put into the Bill. To use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, before the dinner break, one must leave it to the common sense of the Members of this Welsh Assembly to choose the name they wish.
Lord STONE: Would it help at all if we simply put the letter "a" in front of "presiding officer", leaving it thereafter for the Welsh people to decide what "a presiding officer" should be called. "A presiding officer" gets us out of the difficulty.
Lord HUGHES: My noble friend Lord Harris referred to the fact that the same words were in the Scotland Bill and that no exception was taken to them. I can assure your Lordships that the reason why no exception was taken was that when the words appeared with small letters rather than capital letters they were not taken as being a title, but as a description of the office. Nothing in the Bill as it stands will stop the Assembly calling the "presiding officer" by such title as it considers appropriate. I am quite certain that the Welsh will do the same.
If we seek to put in the title it is almost certain that both the Scots and the Welsh would dislike what we put in. They will then abandon it and choose something of their own and be in conflict with the Act. It is much better to leave them with a totally unfettered discretion, as the Bills do at present.
Lord ELTON: This has been a fascinating exchange, which took a course quite different from that which I had
1172
expected, as is often the case. Plainly, there is much to digest between now and a later stage. If, during that time, attractive and acceptable suggestions are made, I am sure that they will find their way to the Marshalled List. I suspect that not all the Welsh are as neutral in their attitude to this matter as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. On the other hand, I have always thought of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who sits below the gangway, as being less than neutral, but he is taking a vehemently neutralistic attitude on this occasion. Therefore, I confess that I am sufficiently perplexed and desirable of hearing a better solution to withdraw the Amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.50 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").
The noble Lord said: I think that this Amendment may conveniently be taken with Amendment No. 28. It deals with the question of the lapse of time as regards a particular occasion. Clause 4, which we are now discussing, deals with the calling of a by-election. In line 35 there are the provisions which state when this is to happen. What concerns me is this. The chain of events which leads to the calling of a by-election is that, first, a vacancy occurs. However, even before that, the terms which actually entail a vacancy occurring are decided. When it is decided what constitutes a vacancy, that event has to be brought to the notice of this gentleman who is occupying the PO position. This may take some time to happen. Thereafter, there will be a delay of up to three months.
It seems to us that, if the vacancy does not come to the notice of the presiding officer within a month of it occurring, that is a rather strange circumstance, and that under all circumstances it should be possible for notice to have been given and steps to have been taken to set in motion a by-election so that it can take place at the end of four months from the vacancy occurring.
In the first instance, I should like to know what circumstances the Government

1173
foresee whereby a vacancy could occur and be concealed from the presiding officer for a period of more than a month. Furthermore, I should like to know how long that period might be extended before they would be surprised, because I think that there should be some terminus—some cut-off point—and that it should not be left as open as it is now. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The Amendments suggested seek to ensure that any by-election should be held within four months of the vacancy occurring, subject to the proximity of the next ordinary election. But what they seek to achieve might not, in fact, prove possible in practice in the most exceptional case, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just referred to that. Consider the position if an Assembly Member disappeared in mysterious circumstances. It could in exceptional circumstances be several months before the mystery was unveiled, though it could unfortunately prove to be the case that a vacancy had existed throughout the period he was missing. Let me give an illustration. He was not a Member of another place at the time, but the late Mr. Victor Grayson disappeared after he had been a Member of another place. Of course, he could have disappeared while he was a Member of another place. It is exactly this highly unusual situation that one is talking about. I do not expect there to be many such cases, but nevertheless the noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked for clarification on this point and, therefore, he cannot complain because he now has it.
As it stands, the clause has sufficient flexibility to meet this kind of case and the proposed Amendments would not. Of course, this is obviously a most exceptional case, but in the more normal course of events it can be expected that a delayed notification would be for more mundane reasons—such as the long vacation—and it seems reasonable to suppose that under the Bill as it stands by-elections will be held within about four months of the vacancy occurring, except in the most exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, the Bill must be capable of meeting such circumstances, and in the light of what I have said I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will take the particular point that I have endeavoured to make.
Lord ELTON: This actually raises a new consideration (does it not?) which was of considerable interest to the other place when Mr. Stonehouse was a Member thereof. It has been suggested to me that some requirement of attendance should be built into this Bill at some point. If someone is capable of not turning up for three, four, five or six months and everybody says, "That is very odd, perhaps he'll come along tomorrow", one wonders at what point it will stop. I rather think that not so long ago another place would also have liked to have had some regulation when one of its Members was, in fact, in Australia. It would surely do something towards achieving this if the terms upon which a vacancy was said to have occurred included reference to the number of possible attendances which a Member had failed to honour in either a committee or the Assembly.
But as the Bill now stands, so far as I can see we would have a mystery going on for perhaps six months—the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, suggested this. I do not think that that would be acceptable. I do not think that there is anything sacred about the four-month period that I have suggested. I think that there is something very unsatisfactory about having the possibility of a vacancy continuing indefinitely until someone becomes so embarrassed that something has to be done. The whole point of the law is that it is supposed to tell us at what point we should become embarrassed, and we are not embarrassed up to that point. I think that I have made this clear. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris, wants to say anything further. I think that he is seeking reinforcements and possibly if I dwell a moment longer on the point he will be able to contribute.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, I was just trying to recall the situation as regards members of local authorities. I say this with some caution because I received an embittered attack from one of the noble Lord's friends a few moments ago for having made the parallel with local government. However, there is a provision as far as local authorities are concerned. My noble friend agrees with me that there is a provision whereby if a person does not attend a meeting for six months, the authority concerned can take

1175
action. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will realise, this is obviously a rather different point though not "unadjacent" to the one which we have been discussing. I shall look into it before the next stage of the Bill to see whether it is appropriate to take any form of action. I do not know in which particular direction our researches will lead us.
Lord ELTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord for that explanation and also for the phrase "not unadjacent"; perhaps one could say "less than semidetached". I should have thought it was slightly closer than that. Perhaps we could digest what has transpired and, if necessary, return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
("(4A) Subject to subsection (4) of this section where the seat of an additional member of an Assembly is vacated the vacancy shall be filled by the first willing candidate of the party of the vacating member on the relevant party priority list as prepared at the preceding ordinary election under the provisions of Part V of Schedule I to this Act, such candidate not already being a member and having indicated his willingness to fill the vacancy in such manner as may be required by the standing orders of the Assembly.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this Amendment. It is consequential upon Amendment No. 17, which the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, dealt with earlier. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Disqualification for membership]:
8.58 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 4, leave out ("(e)") and insert ("(f)").
The noble Baroness said: A series of Amendments have been put down to
1176
Clause 5 because I think it is vital when we are setting up a new body like the Welsh Assembly that people who want to become members of it should know if they will be entitled to do so. Regrettably, I find that Clause 5 is singularly indefinite and unclear. If I was a housewife in Carmarthen wishing to stand for the Welsh Assembly, I should find it very difficult to know whether or not I would be eligible.
Clause 5 seems to fall somewhere halfway between Sections 80 and 81 of the Local Government Act, which sets out very clearly what disqualifies a person from being a member of a local authority. On the other hand, we have the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which also sets out very clearly the disqualifications. I agree that in Section 1(1) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 paragraphs (a) to (e) are perfectly legitimate disqualifications and we agree with them. But I think that paragraph (f) should also be included in the Bill.
Paragraph (f), as the noble Lord will know, sets out in Parts II and III of Schedule 1 over 200 bodies and offices, membership of which disqualifies people from standing as Members of the House of Commons. This was discussed during the debate on the Scotland Bill on 12th April. The reply of the Government appears in cols. 664 and 665, to which I shall refer, because the arguments there do not seem to be relevant to the case of the Welsh Assembly. In any case, this is a subject which it is vital should be debated—not just because it happens to have been already debated for Scotland, but because the Welsh body that is to be set up is a completely different issue.
As regards the Schedule which has been omitted from this Bill, the Government's argument was, first, that in that Schedule there were bodies which did not deal with devolved matters. However, the fact of the matter is that many of the bodies which are listed in the Schedule deal with matters which are of influence and cover many of the aspects which will be devolved to the Welsh Assembly. We only have to take, for instance, in Part 2 of the Schedule, the Land Authority for Wales, the Commission for Racial Equality, or the Health Services Board. These are all bodies which must, in exercising their powers and functions, have an effect on

1177
matters which may affect the decisions of the Welsh Assembly. I think therefore it is vital that these bodies should be included in any list which concerns disqualification for sitting in the Welsh Assembly.
Another argument that was put forward by the Government was that many of these bodies operate exclusively outside Scotland. But here we are not dealing with Scotland. We are dealing with Wales. Many of the bodies listed in this Schedule deal not only with England and Wales as a whole but with Wales specifically. We only have to turn to Parts 2 and 3 of the Schedule to see, first, the Area Electricity Board in England and Wales and the Commission for Local Administration in Wales. There are many of these bodies listed which obviously should be included in this particular Bill.
However, there was an even less acceptable argument. I was surprised that somebody so democratic as the noble Lord, Lord McCluskey, should have given it as a reason why it was not necessary to include this Schedule in the Scotland Bill, but using this argument that it should be included in the Wales Bill. The noble Lord said:
"It is not essential that the public should be able to have instant access to these matters". [Official Report, 12/4/78; col. 665.]
I think this is exactly the kind of information that should be available to the public, particularly the Welsh public, if they want to know whether or not they may stand for this Assembly. This is a new body. It is not something that has been going on for centuries and gradually evolved its own practice, standards and regulations. This is something new for which both Houses of Parliament are responsible in setting up and getting off on the right foot.
I should have thought it absolutely vital that the public should be able to have instant access and to know who is available to stand for membership, and whom they could be looking out for as Members for their constituencies, or whether any individuals themselves would have the right to stand. It may well be that one of the noble Lords opposite is about to be offered a chairmanship of a public body. Noble Lords may wonder whether it would be rather nice to draw £1,000 a year or whether they should risk waiting
1178
for the chance of standing for the Welsh Assembly. I think that noble Lords have as much right as anybody else to know what the position is. After all, the great cry today is, "We have the right to know". I would think that noble Lords would have the right to know whether it is worth while taking up a new chairmanship, or waiting and being able to stand for the Welsh Assembly—which many of them support most strongly.
Lord RAGLAN: It is interesting that the noble Baroness should refer to noble Lords on the Government side being offered appointments to public bodies. In fact I think I am the only person in this Chamber at this moment who has been for quite a long time—except possibly for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest—actually resident in Wales, and who is therefore classified as being Welsh under the Bill. I should like to let the noble Baroness know that I am already the chairman of a public body, so she has no need to offer me anything.
Baroness ELLES: I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord is so fortunate. As he well knows, I am not in any position to offer anybody anything. I think that closes that matter. If we are talking of public bodies, I would draw the attention of noble Lords to two very interesting documents which set out the kind of body which I think should be included in such a Schedule. One deals with public boards, Cmnd. 6803, which lists all the names of persons who have been appointed—I repeat the word, "appointed"—as chairmen and members of various boards of a commercial character. An even more interesting document is the Directory of Paid Public Appointments made by Ministers, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Under the Welsh Office alone there are something like 14 boards and councils which I think should be included in a list of boards which should disqualify members from standing for the Welsh Assembly. I shall not take up the time of the Committee in reading them all out. I shall just give one or two: the Area Health Authority, Wales, the Land Authority for Wales, the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales, the Rent Assessment Panel for Wales.

1179
These are all boards whose officers and chairmen are holding paid public appointments.
In normal parlance I presume it would be referred to as holding office of profit under the Crown. All these should be listed in a Schedule which should be available, particularly to the Welsh people, so that they may know whether or not they are able to stand. That would be of great benefit to everyone. It would also clear up the fact that the reason for the exclusion would not necessarily be that the functions overlapped, because that, as I understand it, is of secondary importance. What are of importance are posts available as a result of patronage. It is the patronage element which I think would be worrying. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether lie would consider agreeing to the fact that we should have subparagraph (f) of the relevant Schedule to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 included in this Bill.
9.8 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Perhaps I may begin by saying that I am unhappily not in a position to say that we have been altogether persuaded by the noble Baroness in moving these particular Amendments, for reasons which I shall try to give. I fear I am going to take a little time, but this covers a substantial amount of territory, as the noble Baroness has indicated. I shall take the issues one by one. Dealing first with Amendments Nos. 32 and 35, may I begin by saying that I think it necessary when looking at Amendments to Clause 5 to consider them as a whole. I think that that is the only sensible way in which to approach this matter.
Baroness ELLES: If that is the case—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I fear I am going to take a fair amount of time, but I should be glad to give way to the noble Baroness and then I could deploy my arguments.
Baroness ELLES: If the noble Lord is going to take them all in one would he rather that I spoke to all the Amendments now?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: It would be helpful if that could be done. It is difficult to pick and choose between these Amendments. If the noble Baroness would like to deal with any of the other Amendments, it might be more sensible for me to then deal with them and try to wrap the whole thing up together.
Baroness ELLES: With the permission of your Lordships I shall deal with these Amendments together: that is, Amendments Nos. 33, 35, 36 and 37. These are presumably the Amendments in question.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The trouble is that we have two lists of Amendments before us. The Amendments I am advised it would be sensible to take together would be Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 35A, 36A and 36B, 37, 38A and 40.
Baroness ELLES: Then of course, as the noble Lord will understand, I shall also take rather a long time in going into some of these matters, and I apologise in advance for taking up the time of the Committee. However, it is important that while we are dealing with them we should clarify the matter and know where we stand, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for dealing with it in this way.
I have already dealt with Amendment No. 32. May we take Amendment No. 33, which is to remove the words,
"or is disqualified otherwise than under that Act for membership of that House or for sitting and voting in it;"
Here again, I am perturbed by the fact that an ordinary citizen of Wales is not likely to have let alone the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 but a copy of Erskine May on his bookshelf. He is likely to have his Bible and a good many other useful books of reference but I very much doubt whether Erskine May would be one of them.
If you take the disqualifications which are set out in Erskine May, apart from those under the House of Commons Disqualification Act, they include subjects such as aliens and persons under 21. Are we sure, or do we know, that the Welsh would not rather like to have an opportunity of having Members of their Assembly aged 19 or 20 rather than 21? Have they been given a chance to discuss this, or to consider it? I think they would

1181
probably agree on the question of bankruptcy or treason. They would probably also agree on lunacy. I see that "Peers", who usually happily go with "lunacy", are being removed from disqualification under Clause 6, but certainly the question of a person under 21 is a matter for discussion at some stage, and is a consideraation which should be put before your Lordships.
The other point I should like to raise is also on Clause 5, where it says,
"is disqualified otherwise than under that Act for membership of that House or for sitting and voting in it".
Can the Minister say in his reply whether there is any difference between a disqualification for membership and a disqualification for sitting and voting? If there is no difference, why put in the words "for sitting and voting"? If there are differences, may we know what they are? It would be helpful to the Committee to know that.
With regard to Clause 5(1)(c), this comes back to my original argument under Amendment No. 52 which refers to an Order in Council being proposed by the Secretary of State to say who are the people who are to be disqualified. I would ask the noble Lord to consider this matter of having a list which is published in some form or another and which will be available to the Welsh people, or indeed to anybody who wishes to stand. The noble Lord will agree that at present it is very difficult for the ordinary citizen, however intelligent, to discover from the Bill whether or not he is disqualified. There is no schedule of offices which debar him from standing and there is no elaboration of disqualification other than as referred to in the House of Commons Act. It would therefore be of considerable benefit to the public in general, and prospective candidates in particular to know whether they are eligible.
Coming to Amendment No. 36A—I apologise for the fact that in the original list of Amendments some of the Amendments were not well drafted—this deals with Ministers of the Crown. Nowhere in the Bill does it say that a Minister of the Crown is not eligible to stand for the Welsh Assembly. I think the Committee will agree that it is totally unsuitable that anybody who holds a position in Cabinet or as a Minister of the Crown should be allowed to stand for the Welsh Assembly.
1182
I appreciate that in your Lordships' House this would immediately disqualify the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and even the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, both of whom have a great love of Wales. Perhaps I might say from this side that they will soon be eligible to stand for the Welsh Assembly, but that is in no sense derogatory of the excellent contribution they make to your Lordships' House.
Nevertheless, for the time being I think it would be suitable that they should be considered ineligible to stand for the Welsh Assembly. It is a kind of dual mandate, a duplication of work, and it would be totally unacceptable, in view of the functions and powers which they exert and hold as Ministers of the Crown, to expect them to make decisions in a Welsh Assembly as an elected Member of part of Wales. Again, there would be the patronage element because as Ministers of the Crown—I have referred to the directory of paid public appointments—they have powers to appoint people to paid jobs, and indeed it is their duty to do so for the functioning of these various bodies. I believe it would be wrong that people to hold such powers should also be able to stand for election to the Welsh Assembly.
Similar arguments would apply to membership of the House of Commons. As Lord Harris will be aware, one of the many matters that come up when we discuss the European Assembly elections is the question of dual mandate. We did not discuss it in your Lordships' House but it is a matter which has been exercising all Parties; how can one fulfil the role as a representative of a constituency or a group of constituencies, or as in this case part of a constituency, properly and do one's duty to the people who elected one if one is sitting in two democratically elected bodies? For that reason, disqualification of Members of the House of Commons should also apply.
I regard Amendment No. 37 as very important. It is designed to draw the attention of the Welsh people to the way in which the Bill has been drafted; this is a sloppily drafted clause. There is no way for the Welsh people to know who might be elected to be a Member of the Welsh Assembly. The people who want a Welsh Assembly, the people of Wales

1183
who live in Wales, imagine they will get people from their local community who are Welsh and who are concerned with the Welsh culture, tradition and interests. But as the Bill stands—I say this subject to correction by the Minister —any of the 600 million British subjects scattered throughout the world are entitled to stand for the Welsh Assembly. Of course, some of them might make excellent Members, but one can imagine that many people in Wales would feel that they would not necessarily make good representatives. I am not saying they would be elected; that is another matter. The fact remains that, under the Bill as drafted, a British subject anywhere in the world could stand for election to the Welsh Assembly, in precisely the same way as one can stand for the Westminster House of Commons.
As the Committee knows, it is one of the anomalies of the House of Commons that one must be a resident of the United Kingdom to vote, but one does not have to be a resident of the United Kingdom to stand for election. And in this case, where the whole point of devolution and of having a Welsh Assembly for the Welsh people is to have people who have lived in Wales, who know the Welsh people and their problems and who understand their attitudes to life, at least the Welsh people should be represented by people from Wales. I therefore submit that Amendment No. 37 would assist in selecting people for the Welsh Assembly who would be best suited to the task. This would mean that only those people who are entitled to elect Members to the Assembly under Clause 3 would be eligible to stand for a Welsh Assembly. Of course, having only local people is localising the problem, but I think this is within the spirit of the Welsh Assembly Bill. Therefore, I think it is essential that at least a period of residence should be accepted before anybody has the right to stand for election to a Welsh Assembly.
Perhaps I may now speak to Amendment No. 38A, which seeks to draw attention to various anomalies with regard to convicted persons and their right to stand. Here again it might be said that a person convicted of a serious offence would not be selected as a candidate. But in the Bill the conviction and sentence have to have been in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or
1184
the Irish Republic. But as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, knows, in the light of our exchanges over the Suppression of Terrorism Bill, that new arrangements for dealing with terrorist cases would enable a person to commit a crime in one country and be convicted and sentenced in another. A person who committed an act of terrorism in the United Kingdom could be convicted and sentenced in, say, Western Germany, and would be eligible under this Bill. On the other hand, a person who committed a similar act of terrorism in West Germany and who was not extradited to West Germany but was convicted in the United Kingdom and received a sentence of imprisonment of a period of not less than three months without the option of a fine would be ineligible. This surely is a nonsense. Of course, I may not have drafted the Amendment correctly, but with increasing international elements in crime and increasing interdependence of States, and as a Member of the European Community, one has to take into account that we are a much closer-knit society than when the original disqualification on conviction was drafted.
I think this question should be looked at. Not only is there this international element of committing a crime in one country and being sentenced and imprisoned in another, but there is the ridiculous situation where a person could be convicted of any criminal offence across the Channel, in Northern France for example, or of a serious crime within the last five years. There could be a sentence of two years' imprisonment and the person might then come and settle in Wales. That might be a very nice thing to do. Nobody would necessarily know. That person could stand although he had committed a really serious crime which would disqualify him automatically from being allowed to stand as a candidate. It may well be said that it would be difficult. How would one know whether this was so? The fact is that nobody may find out, but if the Bill is so drafted that if and when it is found out this would then retrospectively disqualify a person from continuing as a Member of the Assembly, this would be to the advantage of those who are standing.
Similarly, a person may stand as an independent, and so would not be dependent on any political Party adopting

1185
him. He might have committed a criminal offence abroad, and yet be able to stand as an independent candidate for the Welsh Assembly. That would be totally unacceptable to the Welsh people. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would comment on that particular aspect.
Finally in this group of Amendments, we come to Amendment No. 40, which I think was the last one. What is proposed in this Amendment was also debated during consideration of the Scotland Bill, but it has a slightly different effect in relation to the Wales Bill. The Amendment seeks to delete that part of the subsection which empowers the Welsh Assembly to change the list of offices disqualified from membership of the Assembly if a request is made to the Secretary of State.
There is a similarity here to the situation in Scotland, though it is not entirely identical. It seems that an order can be varied in only three ways so far as the Welsh are concerned. This is because they do not form a legislative body and so, unlike the position in Scotland, cannot pass an Assembly Act. However, the variation could take place by United Kingdom Act of Parliament, or by Order in Council as provided under Clause 5(1)(c), if that remains, or under Clause 5(5), if that remains.
To my mind, the citizens of Wales are here being denied the right to know at any one time who can stand for election to the Assembly. It is a situation which would lead to confusion and to a certain amount of ignorance as to who can or cannot stand for election. There is no necessity to have any publicity at all for the order. At least if the proposal is laid before Parliament the document in question has to be published; it is available if one knows where to look for it. But here I do not see anything in the Bill which says that orders which are made by the Welsh Assembly must be made public. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to say that I am wrong, and I shall be glad if I am. As the Bill stands at the moment, the Assembly could request the Secretary of State to make an order recommending that certain offices should be either removed from, or added to, a list of disqualification from membership, but this need not be known to the general public. This is a bad way to start a public body
1186
of this nature. I think that I have gone through most of the points relating to what we are proposing, and I shall try to clarify any points which I may not have made clear. I should be very grateful for a reply from the Minister.
Lord HYLTON: I feel sure that there must be some pithy Welsh equivalent of the cry, "No placemen and no carpetbaggers." That, I think, is what my noble friend is asking for, and I should like to support her most strongly. We need to remember that we are legislating for a brand new Assembly—one which has no tradition of the kind we have in this House of being a self-regulating place. I hope that my noble friend will press the Amendments, if necessary.
9.29 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I think that in certain respects some of the noble Baroness's honourable friends in another place might be rather surprised if she did press some of her Amendments. I say this for reasons I shall come to in a moment. I repeat the point that I made in my introductory remarks a little while ago, arid I think that the speech of the noble Baroness has emphasised the need for this. The point is that it is necessary to look at the totality of the issues involved in Clause 5 in the way in which the noble Baroness, if I may say so, has just done.
I think our approach to this is fairly straightforward. It picks up certain major group disqualifications—and I am talking now particularly in respect of Amendments Nos. 32 and 35—which apply in the other place and adds Lords of Appeal (who, of course, would otherwise qualify under Clause 6) and, to take a rather different group, persons recently convicted of an offence. I do not bracket the two together except in terms of presenting the argument in as intelligible a form as possible. Then it provides for disqualifying offices to be designated by Order in Council. It does not rely on the long list of disqualifying offices contained in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. We do not regard all of those offices as necessarily disqualifying for the Welsh Assembly; and, moreover, we do not propose to clutter the Bill with any list of its own. We regard the matter as appropriate for subordinate

1187
legislation, and that is the purpose of Clause 5(1)(c).
By contrast, Amendments Nos. 32 and 35 would adopt the 1975 Act list and add to the Bill a Schedule which apparently does not exist as yet. The result of the Amendments would be to disqualify some people who should not be disqualified, and then to saddle the Bill with a Schedule which requires constant amendment. The Government consider that for these reasons the technique proposed is mistaken, and we believe that our own is more appropriate in all the circumstances. I should add that the corresponding Scottish clauses have not been similarly questioned, and it is difficult to see how one could justify one set of criteria for Scotland and a totally different set so far as Wales is concerned.
Now I come to Amendment No. 33. So far, the Committee has been concerned with the case of disqualification through holding a particular office. There is, so far as we are aware, no dispute about this underlying principle. We now come to disqualification by reasons of individual circumstances. Here it becomes difficult, sometimes, to see what is the right principle to apply in all the circumstances. The Government believe in one principle for certain: that anyone disqualified for membership of the other place otherwise than under the 1975 Act should be disqualified likewise for the Assembly. There is no reason for having two different codes: and, in any event, these other disqualifications, although a motley collection, are all, I think, easily understood. They are explained beyond fear of ambiguity in Erskine May from page 36 onwards, and I shall just read the paragraph headings because I think they illustrate the point. They are: "Aliens", "Persons under 21", "Lunacy", "Peers"—who, as we know, are always very adjacent to lunacy—"Bankruptcy", "Treason", "Other Crimes", "Corrupt Practices at Elections", "Clergy" and "Returning Officers". Those are the paragraph headings in Erskine May. Amendment No. 33 would qualify all those who are potentially disqualified by the provision now in the Bill. I should point out in passing, of course, on these Amendments, that we do not need Clause 6(1), which qualifies Peers and clergy.
1188
But there is more to come. Amendment No. 37 would disqualify anyone not entitled to vote as an elector at an Assembly election. Under Clause 3 there are two groups: first, those who are on the relevant part of the register and would be entitled to vote as electors in a Parliamentary Election ; and, second, Peers who would be entitled to vote at a local government election in the relevant area. I am omitting, in order to speed things up a little, some detail which is not, I think, in all the circumstances material. But we have to go on to consider who is entitled to vote as electors at a Parliamentary Election. Erskine May, on page 19, puts it in a couple of lines as those who are:
"resident there on the qualifying date for inclusion in the electoral register, who are not subject to any legal incapacity to vote, are either British subjects or citizens of the Republic of Ireland, are on the date of the poll of the age of 18 years or over and are registered in the electors' register".
I think we could perhaps be forgiven for misunderstanding the effect of all this, but one major and critical difference exists between the Government's list of disqualifications and the list proposed by these Amendments. As a result of the noble Baroness's Amendment—and I think she very fairly indicated this in her speech—persons aged between 18 and 21 would be eligible for membership of the Assembly; and this is the point, if I may say so, that I was making in respect of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The noble Baroness—and I make no Party point about this—has proposed these Amendments from the Opposition Front Bench. I do not know whether this commands the support of the Opposition. If so, it is an interesting development which I think that we would wish to study carefully. But I do not see that it would necessarily be very sensible to make a decision so far as the Welsh Assembly is concerned in isolation from the situation in the United Kingdom Parliament.
Why, if it is right to have 18 to 21 year-olds as Members of the Welsh Assembly should it be wrong to have them—as it is at the moment impossible to have them—as Members of another place? I do not see that it would be sensible to make provisions of this sort to take the Welsh Assembly in isolation. That is the reason why I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that I should be

1189
mildly surprised if this Amendment were pressed to a Division because it seems to me to be making a major policy decision on this matter which I suspect would interest the friends of the noble Baroness in another place considerably. Our view is that a major change in the law as to the qualifications for membership of a major elected body should not be made by what is, in effect, a side wind in a Bill relating only to the Welsh Assembly. The law as to Parliament and Assemblies and local authorities, should, we think, be considered in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole.
We come now to the case of Ministers and Members of another place. The Government in this Bill have tried not to put in provisions to regulate the obvious. It is inconceivable that a Minister in this Administration, or, probably, in any other Administration, would be allowed to moonlight and to sit as an Assembly Member. Therefore, we see no reason for an express prohibition. The matter could be dealt with speedily. If a Minister felt constrained to sit as a Member of the Welsh Assembly, the Prime Minister of the day might consider it appropriate to remove him from office. I should be surprised if any Prime Minister took any other decision. There is always a case for arguing as the noble Baroness has to some extent argued this evening that what we want is greater clarification. That is a very understandable position, when we listen to her noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham talking about the sheer size of the Statute Book. One cannot have it both ways. If we want to start concerning ourselves about the sheer weight of the Statute Book, it is incumbent upon us not to add unnecessary provisions to the Statute Book. That is why we have come to the conclusion that there is no point in regulating the obvious, if I may so describe it. We do not see any case for saying that Ministers should be prohibited by Statute; because the Prime Minister of the day could deal with this slight local difficulty and would do so.
Now we come to membership of another place, which raises a different question. The Government can see no inconsistency between membership of Parliament and membership of the Welsh Assembly and it would be surprising if we
1190
were to do so because, as the noble Baroness had indictaed, we did not rule out a dual mandate so far as membership of the European Assembly is concerned. It seems to me—and I suspect I would carry with me the noble Baroness, whose experience in this matter is substantially greater than mine—that, although the Welsh Assembly will have substantial powers, there is no doubt that the weight of responsibility on the individual Member of the European Assembly, taking into account not only his responsibilities in Strasbourg and Luxembourg but also the sheer physical problem of getting over there, is a very substantial one indeed. If we did not think it right to rule out the mandate so far as the European Assembly was concerned, I do not see that there is an argument for ruling it out so far as the Welsh Assembly was concerned.
It may be that local constituency organisations will be extremely hesitant about agreeing to a person's candidature if he is a Member of another place and wishes to stand for the Assembly, but we should not rule it out so far as this piece of legislation is concerned. I should point out that there is no corresponding disqualification for Members of your Lordships' House. I wonder whether we are all that different from Members of another place. If we rule out one, I am not quite clear why we do not rule out the other. As I have indicated, our view is a straightforward one. We do not think that anyone should be ruled out so far as this section of the Bill is concerned. That deals with Amendments Nos. 36A and 36B.
I come now to Amendment No. 37. What I said on Amendment No. 33 covers most of the relevant ground. I am saving up one major point which is I hope calculated to appeal to opponents of devolution as well as to some of its supporters. This Amendment would require a species of residential qualification for a candidate in an election to the Assembly. There is in local government a string of qualifications—the noble Baroness is well aware of this—intended to ensure a local connection. But as regards Parliament, there is no restriction; and it would be difficult to argue plausibly for any restriction. As the noble Baroness is aware, there are certain restrictions so far as the United States is concerned. We

1191
have not thought it appropriate to adopt that method in this country.
It may be suggested that the nature of the Welsh Assembly is such that a local connection is necessary, indeed essential. Having considered this matter, we do not accept that view. We are not talking here simply about local government. We went over this ground an hour or so ago. In regard to the Welsh Assembly, we are talking about a body of a national character. The Government do not consider that the Assembly should be treated as a species of local authority. We accept that at Westminster there is no call for a residential qualification of Members. Indeed, the nature of the duty to be carried out by Members could sometimes make it remarkably difficult to frame a rule without causing a great deal of inconvenience all round.
I ask the Committee to consider exactly how the rule proposed by the Amendment would work in practice. One simply has to take a map and look where the border comes down between Wales and England to realise the absurdity—and I put it as strongly as that—of disqualifying automatically anyone who lived just over the border in England. Not only would it be simply absurd to make a provision of this sort, it would also be divisive in that it would throw the Assembly back on a membership which has to be drawn exclusively from people resident in Wales.
It may be that Welsh constituencies will, perfectly naturally in many circumstances, prefer local men. So be it; let it be their decision rather than a statutory requirement. It does not follow that I think we should elevate any preference of that sort regarding a group of people in the constituency Party into what would be a rigid principle. For that reason, we are not persuaded that it would be right to debar anyone automatically, even those who happened to be over the border in England by a mere hundred yards or so.
We now come to the question in Amendment No. 38A of a person convicted of offences abroad. I can perfectly well understand the case which the noble Baroness put so persuasively. Unfortunately, we have had the opportunity
1192
of studying this matter only fairly recently. I understand the idea to keep criminals—possibly dangerous ones—out of office. But how can one know for sure without hiring English lawyers, and lawyers expert in the relevant foreign law, what offences committed abroad could be said to correspond with offences committed in the United Kingdom?
Let us take one or two examples. What about the person convicted in a court in the Soviet Union? It might be described in all sorts of ways. Would we automatically accept an assertion of that sort from any other country in Eastern Europe? We do not have to look at Eastern Europe. There are other countries in the world where I suspect we would be very hesitant to make a judgment of that kind. It would require a massive amount of research in order to find out the answer to this particular question and I frankly do not consider, although I wholly understand the motives of the noble Baroness, that the Amendment is workable. I am sure she would agree with me, having confidence in the judgment of the people of Wales, that it is not likely that many members of the Baader Meinhof group are actually likely to be elected in Welsh constituencies—a rather small proportion of them is likely to be successful at the polls.
I would commend to your Lordships the provision which is contained in Section 80, subsection (1)(d) of the Local Government Act 1972. That is the model for Clause 5, subsection (1)(d). That was enacted by the Government of the noble Baroness and her colleagues and I think those thoughts are rather better than this attempt to shut out the doubtless small and select band of Welshmen who have carved out for themselves a criminal career outside Wales—a career in crime which, by definition, has been an unsuccessful one. Therefore, I would repeat that, although I understand the motives of the noble Baroness very clearly, I do not believe we could possibly introduce this concept into the Bill because I do not believe it would be even remotely workable.
Lastly, as regards the Order in Council, in connection with Amendment No. 40, the Government's scheme puts the list of disqualifying officers into an Order in Council. When the Government amend the order the amending order requires,

1193
as the noble Baroness is aware, an Affirmative Resolution. But if the Assembly itself proposes the Amendment and the Secretary of State endorses it, the amending order requires no Parliamentary procedure. We deliberately give the Assembly this important role, and we do the same in Scotland. It is a compromise between keeping the list solely under the Government's control and placing it under Assembly control. I apologise for having spoken at some length, as did the noble Baroness in speaking to these Amendments. I hope I have in the time available dealt as comprehensively as possible with the many questions that she put to me.
9.48 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: The noble Lord who spoke from the Government Front Bench did have the courtesy to apologise to us for his very long exposition, but I would address all your Lordships by saying that it seems to me that in the last 20 minutes, 30 minutes or whatever it is, we have been subjected to a procedure which, to my mind, is quite contrary to the principles of a Committee stage of a Bill. The noble Lord on the Government Front Bench invited my noble friend to take a whole series of Amendments—virtually a whole clause—in one section. Many of these details were admittedly comprehensive and they dealt with the same subject; and that is the way that Bills are constructed. Every clause contains a whole series of things dealing with the same subject. But many of the individual Amendments had different points about them, and although my noble friend and the noble Lord on the Front Bench had their clear view of the total picture, many of the Back-Benchers—and I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has not got much respect for Back-Benchers—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I do not know why that rather absurd statement should be made by the noble Lord. I try always to behave with courtesy to Members in any part of this Chamber, and I would ask him to withdraw that statement.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Perhaps the noble Lord addresses us with superior courtesy. The fact of the matter is that I am talking about the technicalities and I would ask your Lordships to forgive me if I get a little carried away in doing this,
1194
because I think the noble Lord has his own interest in this. The technicalities of it are that I do not think that this particular stage of our Committee proceedings has been properly dealt with. Many individual Back-Benchers would have had a contribution to make on certain of the Amendments, though not on others. We listened to my noble friend making a long exposition about the reason for the Amendments and then we listened to a long exposition by the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench, making his comments. One became quite out of touch with all the points, and it would have required a brief of one's own—not a Committee stage process—in order to be able to rise to pick up all the points on the individual Amendments, which is what a Committee stage is all about.
I press both Front Benches, if I may do so from this very inferior position, not to allow this kind of process ever to occur again. If it were possible—I do not suppose that it is, according to our procedure—to have the whole thing all over again, that would be very much better. But, in the event, I personally feel that some of these Amendments are more important than others. In the usual way, when we take several Amendments together, we do it on the basis that they are withdrawn together or voted upon and then made consequential. I trust that this wide range of Amendments is not treated in that fashion, and that each Amendment is tackled in its own right, so that we can at least make our decision as to whether or not we want to accept it, even if we have been made to hear a conglomeration of a speech to explain the whole lot to us.
Baroness ELLES: In view of the remarks of my noble friend, perhaps I may say a word from these Benches. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I take full responsibility for having dealt with these Amendments in this way. I accept the remarks of my noble friend and that it may have been unacceptable to him, in which case I apologise to him and to all other noble Lords in the Committee. But I am certain that the noble Lord opposite will also agree that any Back-Bencher is entitled to get up and make any comments on any of these Amendments about which we have spoken. I absolutely appreciate what my noble friend has said, and I quite see why he has said

1195
it. But I hope that he and other noble Lords will feel completely free to make any comment on each one of the Amendments that we have now discussed.
Lord RAGLAN: I am not accusing my noble friend Lord Harris, or the noble Baroness, of any discourtesy at all. It is not a matter of courtesy; it is a matter of form. I have been in this Chamber for a long time, and I have never heard a series of Amendments on separate subjects discussed like this, one after the other. Earlier this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, discussed a series of connected Amendments which were, for convenience sake, all spoken to together. Then, when the Amendments arose later, and the Chairman read out the number and so on, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said "I beg to move" and we all knew what it was about. But to take, I think, five Amendments all on different subjects did not give any of us a chance. I wanted to say something when my noble friend Lord Harris was on his feet, and I was just about to get up and refer to the subject that he was talking about when he switched to something completely different. It is very difficult for what I might call lay Members of the Committee to discuss Amendments in this fashion. It is also very unhelpful.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I should like to come to the defence of the Minister. To me, this is as clear as daylight. We are discussing qualifications or disqualifications for membership of the Assembly. As a Sudeten Welshman, I am delighted to know that I can stand and that I need not be living in Pembrokeshire or Gwent. I have been following the discussion all the time. I did not want to interrupt, because I interrupt too often. But I certainly feel that this is absolutely clear and elementary, and I was hoping that we could come to a quick decision. Having said that, I had better sit down.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said, if any noble Lord in any part of your Lordships' House wishes to raise a question on any of these Amendments, he can do so. But as my noble friend
1196
Lord Davies of Leek has pointed out, all these Amendments are extremely closely related to one another, which is why they were discussed together. However, if anybody wishes to raise an individual point, he can do so. If I can have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone—I apologise to him but I want to refer to what he said—he indicated that he had been carried away. I assume that that is his definition of an apology, and I accept it.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I should not like to accept that sort of position. It was no apology. If the noble Lord would like me to apologise for something, perhaps it might be something which could be responded to by an apology for having, I think, misused the procedures of the House. I will certainly apologise to the noble Lord for saying nasty things about him, but I would rather expect him to make some kind of an apology to the Committee and not to me.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I think that the noble Lord and I have exchanged sufficient gracious remarks to satisfy the convenience of most people. The noble Lord may recall his reference to my attitude to private Members of the House. That remark was totally uncalled for. I am surprised that he has been so ungracious as not to withdraw it without reservation, as I hope I should have done if I had made that allegation against the noble Lord.
Lord GRIDLEY: I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord said that when it came to the elections for the Welsh Assembly it would not matter, give or take 100 yards or 200 yards, whether somebody was resident in England; he would be eligible to vote for the Welsh Assembly. This is a point which worries certain Back-Benchers and laymen on this side of the Committee. If it is said that 100 yards or 200 yards either way do not matter, why should it not matter whether it is one, two or three miles? It may be that some of us are rather pernickety—I cannot think of a better word—but, in devolving these powers to the Welsh Assembly, we feel that we have a duty to adopt a constructive attitude towards the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will consider the

1197
matter in that light, because that is what we on this side of the Committee are trying to do.
Baroness ELLES: I wonder whether I may reply to some of the comments of the noble Lord the Minister on these various matters, upon which I take a middle line; all of them are connected with disqualification. Some of the matters are more related to one another than certain other of the Amendments with which we have dealt, and I accept the criticism which I have justly received from my noble friend.
With regard to certain aspects of the matters to which the noble Lord the Minister replied, there is, first, the question of the size of the Bill. Anybody who has to go through Schedule 2 will not be perturbed if he has to look at a list of offices, if it is added. We accept that a list of offices contained in another schedule would be far more legible, understandable and useful than the appalling contents of Schedule 2, which we shall no doubt reach, so I do not think that that argument holds water.
I very much hope that before we reach the end of all stages of this Bill the noble Lord will be able to prepare a schedule so that we may know which offices the Government consider should be disqualified when it comes to standing for the Welsh Assembly. The noble Lord said that such a list is not being prepared for the Scotland Bill. If, however, I remember correctly the words of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, he at least threatened the Minister who was dealing with the subject that if a Government schedule was not forthcoming before we reached the end of all stages of the Bill, he would prepare one in order to show the people who would be disqualified. I know that the question of who should be eligible to stand has caused considerable concern in both Bills. At col. 667 of the Official Report on 12th April my noble friend asked:
"is it really not possible for the noble Lord to tell us at this stage what the Cabinet office or the Privy Council Office has decided is the list of offices? Have they not made up their minds yet?"
My noble friend pressed the noble Lord to give a list of the offices, and I feel that this should also be done for the Wales Bill.
1198
The noble Lord made great play of the fact that people should not necessarily he resident in Wales. I thought the whole point of devolution was that the Welsh people did not want to be governed any more by the English and the Scots, but perhaps I have got it wrong. Perhaps they do. Perhaps the English and the Scots will now rush to have a nice holiday in Wales in one of those delightful little cottages referred to so touchingly, if I may say so, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, in his Second Reading speech. I can think of nothing nicer than standing for a constituency in Wales, so I think that perhaps the Welsh Assembly will not be the answer to the aspirations of the Welsh people that we thought was intended
However, we are very glad to hear it from the lips of the Minister and not coming from this side of the Committee, and as to the noble Lord's words about the borders of England and Wales, I think we shall hear a very different argument when it comes to devolved matters and planning and the Town and Country Planning Act and the Community Land Act. There will be a great difference then when it comes to borders and as to the rivers; that will be another matter again. So I think that an argument on borders between England and Wales and the point of 100 yards here or there works very well in this particular argument, but it will not work quite so well when we get to the rather more difficult parts of this Bill.
So, to conclude, I am not satisfied with the answers given by the Minister. He seemed to be rather pleased because I believe he thought he had caught me out on the question of the age of 18 and he thought that my colleagues in another place might not be very pleased with me. But I hope I am happy to tell him that he is wrong because my Amendment No. 37 in fact says that he is not entitled under Section 3. This means that he will still be disqualified for being under 21 under Clause 5(1)(a), but nevertheless he must also be resident. He would be entitled to vote under Clause 3 but he would of course be disqualified for being under 21. So the two would work together. My answer would be that he would be over 21 but he would have to be resident. Perhaps the noble Lord does not read it

1199
in that way but that is certainly my intention. If the Minister does not accept Amendment No. 37 I should like to press it to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 32.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
10.4 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 4, line 6, after ("or") insert ("(aa) he").
[Amendment No. 35A not moved.]
Lord RAGLAN: Before the Committee continues, I am not sure whether Amendment No. 36 has been dealt with.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Viscount Hood): Amendment No. 36 has been withdrawn and in substitution we have Amendments 36A and 36B which I am now calling. Does the noble Baroness wish to move them?
Baroness ELLES: If the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, wishes to speak on Amendment No. 36A, would it assist him if I were to move it? I understood, from the ad hoc arrangement that I had heard from across the Table, that despite what might be termed the "bloc speech", Back-Benchers would certainly have the right and privilege to speak on any of these Amendments, and if the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, wishes to speak on Amendment No. 36 I assume that he would be entitled to do so under this procedure. I therefore move Amendment No. 36A:
Page 4, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) he is a Minister of the Crown; or").
Lord RAGLAN: I was instancing this as the kind of difficulty one can get into through speaking to a whole series of Amendments at once; one is not sure which Amendments are being moved, which are being withdrawn, et cetera. It is a matter of form. If we do this, we can get very confused indeed. That is all I wanted to say. I thank the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman.
Baroness ELLES: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 36B:
Page 4, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) he is a member of the House of Commons; or").
The noble Baroness said: I had spoken already to this Amendment, but I nevertheless wish to move it in order to allow other noble Lords to speak upon it.
Baroness VICKERS: I am not at all happy with this. I know that a Member of the House of Commons can be a member of local government, but I feel that this Assembly is not a local government body and not a legislative body, either. I consider it would be very unfortunate if a Member of the House of Commons, who is used to dealing with legislation, were a member of this body. I would prefer that he or she did not stand. A great many other people will be equally qualified. Surely a Member of the House of Commons has sufficient work to do. Members of Parliament already complain about the late hours and the amount of work they have to do. If an MP is also a Member of the Assembly, I do not think he will be able to undertake both jobs satisfactorily.
I do not think it has anything to do with being a member of the Parliament of the EEC. At the moment that is not a legislative body, but I assume eventually it will be. So I do not want to compare this with being a Member of the House of Commons and the European Parliament. Perhaps the noble Lord on the Front Bench will give further reasons why he thinks it is a good idea, and why they have particularly recommended that someone could be a Member of the House of Commons and of the Assembly at the same time.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Baroness is absolutely right; the European Assembly is not a legislative body, but, of course, nor is the Welsh Assembly.
Baroness VICKERS: It will be.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, with great respect, it will not be a legislative body. We have discussed this matter some few hours ago. I made the point that it is different from the Scottish Assembly which is a legislative body. That, I think, is probably the case the noble Baroness has in mind. There is this distinction between the powers of the Welsh Assembly and the position of the Scottish Assembly; it is a very different matter indeed. I think it would be quite impossible to defend a situation where this House had cheerfully agreed that there could be a dual mandate so far as the European Assembly is concerned, that a Member of the House of Commons could be a Member of the European Assembly if he could get selected, which is a very important proviso, but that it would be wholly wrong to have a Member of another place also a Member of the Welsh Assembly. I do not, with great respect, see how one could justify one's stand on that question. That is why I think it is wrong to legislate in this particular way.
There would probably be real difficulties in the path of a person who did try to become a Member of both organisations; I think the physical strain would be very substantial. Also, I think that it would be very difficult to persuade a constituency organisation that one would have time both to do one's job in Westminster and to fulfil one's responsibility in Cardiff. It is, with great respect, better to leave it at that, rather than to write this provision into the Statute.
Baroness ELLES: I should like the noble Lord to answer one query. Is there anything which would prevent a Member of the House of Commons from drawing his salary as a Member of the House of Commons and also drawing a salary as a Member of the Welsh Assembly? This is a completely non-Party point.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, I think that it would be exactly as for the European Assembly. I think that a Member could undoubtedly draw both salaries. Indeed, I should be very surprised if he were debarred from doing so. He would be a Member of both organisations. This particular point has been made more in relation to the European
1202
Assembly, because of the discussions of which the noble Baroness is aware about the pay of Members of the European Assembly, than in regard to the situation as regards the Welsh Assembly. I think that if a person is a Member of two organisations, both of which entitle him to a salary, expenses or whatever it may be, he is undoubtedly entitled to obtain both salaries.
Baroness ELLES: Surely it would be a different situation. The salary of a Member of the European Parliament, when settled—it has not been settled yet—would certainly be paid from the European Community and not from the United Kingdom budget. But in the case of the Welsh Assembly, both salaries would come from the Consolidated Fund.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: If the noble Baroness will forgive me for saying so, I admire her ingenuity in creating a distinction, but British taxpayers will be making a contribution to the salaries of Members of the European Assembly, as I am sure she will recognise. It is an absolutely inescapable proposition that, if a person is a Member of two bodies, both of which entitle other Members to a salary, he is entitled to obtain both salaries. I do not think that there is any way in which one could possibly deny that proposition.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I do not want Members of Parliament, whether in the Assembly, the EEC or the other place, to appear like professional footballers before the electorate competing for salaries. There is a certain decency in having the privilege of serving the public. Some of us are old-fashioned enough to have come into the other place many years ago for the ridiculous salary of £400 a year. I do not want that to be the standard. Nevertheless, I believe that if we consider this matter, many members of the public will think that we are talking of farming salaries. I believe that a Member of the other place should be paid and worthy of his hire and do that job well and not expect to represent his constituency in any other phase. He must be one, two, or three—Assembly, the other place, or EEC. However, as for triple serving, it is sheer acquisitiveness, which is not of the nature of a Member of Parliament, whatever Party he

1203
may have belonged to in the past or may belong to in the future. I hope that that caveat is noted.
Lord PARRY: I would never dream of crossing swords with my noble friend, colleague and compatriot at this hour of the night or at any other stage of the day, but there is a positive point to be made and that is that there could be positive value in people having dual membership. As regards the point he made about the salary, of course all of us here in this ancient House are foolish enough to attend for no salary at all, so the service goes without saying. The point that needs to be made is that, as in the EEC and as with local government—although the Assembly is not local government—there is certainly advantage in the odd case here and there of duality, even, I would think, of triplicate membership of an Assembly if it were physically
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.23 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 37:
("( ) he is not entitled under section 3 above to vote as an elector at the Assembly election concerned; or").
1204
possible. Moreover, the Assembly itself will be dictated by the electorate and the electorate must make the judgment. During this debate we are rather prone to assume that the electorate will not make the appropriate judgments in arguing these points.
Baroness ELLES: There seems to be a rather interesting division on this. I seem to have a colleague on the other side of the Committee who also agrees that one should not be a Member of the Welsh Assembly and a Member of the House of Commons. In view of the support that I have had from my noble friend on the Back-Benches, I should like to press this Amendment to a Division.
10.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 36B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Balerno, L.

Gowrie, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gridley, L.

Romney, E.

Chelwood, L.

Henley, L.

Sandford, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Hylton, L.

Sandys, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Killearn, L.

Selkirk, E.

De La Warr, E.

Long, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Margadale, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Elles, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Tranmire, L.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Tweeddale, M.

Ferrers, E.

Vickers, B.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Raglan, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Seear, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Stone, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Northfield, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Oram, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Parry, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hood, V.

Peart, L. (L, Privy Seal.)

Winstanley, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

The noble Baroness said: We have discussed Amendment No. 37. It refers to the fact that somebody who is over 21 must qualify by residence in Wales in accordance with Clause 3. Should any other Member of your Lordships' Committee wishes to speak on this Amendment, I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I should like to remind the Committee on what we shall vote if the noble Baroness presses this Amendment. I would particularly ask those who are opposed to devolution to consider exactly what they are voting on. What they would be saying is, "Even if it is the desire of a group of people in a Welsh Assembly constituency to have a person resident in England as their candidate, they would be debarred from having such a candidate". I suggest that that is a very remarkable doctrine indeed. I suggest
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.34 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 4, line 13, leave out from ("has") to ("been") in line 14.
The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 39. It is the custom and practice of your Lordships' House that any Member may object to Amendments being taken together, and if any Member so objects then Amendments will not be taken together. Unhappily, some of
1206
to the noble Baroness, if she presses this Amendment, that some of her colleagues who pronounce themselves to be wholly opposed to devolution might just consider exactly how they would justify their position intellectually.
10.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Balerno, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gray, L.

Romney, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Gridley, L.

Sandford, L.

Chelwood, L.

Henley, L.

Sandys, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Hylton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Killearn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

De La Warr, E.

Long, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Margadale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Elles, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Tranmire, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vickers, B.

Ferrers, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Raglan, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Stedman, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McGregor of Durris, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Camden, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hall, V.

Oram, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Parry, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hood, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

those who took the point are no longer in their places; let us hope they read this in Hansard.
During the Committee stage debate on the corresponding clause of the Scotland Bill the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked how the clause conformed with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The Government's reply explained that the clause, for all practical purposes, conformed with Section 7(1)(d) of the 1974 Act since five years was the minimum rehabilitation period for an offence invoked by Clause 5(1)(d). The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, then went on to suggest that to link a Member's disqualification to the date of the last

1207
ordinary election effectively debarred an offender for up to nine years, rather than up to the five years that had been intended.
After consideration, the Government have concluded that the provision—which is identical in both the Scotland and Wales Bills—was indeed more restrictive than had been intended. These Amendments therefore correct the position, so that an offender can stand for any Assembly election or by-election held more than five years after the date of his conviction. Identical Amendments have been put down to Clause 8 of the Scotland Bill.
Baroness ELLES: I should like to thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I think it clarifies this point about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 38A not moved.]
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 4, line 19, at end insert ("and a period of less than five years has elapsed since the date of that conviction").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Exceptions and power to grant relief from disqualification]:
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 40A:
Page 5, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing Amendment, somewhat similar to the one put down during the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill. Clause 6(2) gives the right of the Assembly to consider it proper to waiver a disqualification for a Member. We should like to have from the Minister some guidance as to the kind of situation or circumstance likely to arise when the Assembly would, in fact, deem it proper to waiver this disqualification. I think the subsection itself gives rise to a certain questioning. If it did not appear proper to the Assembly to waiver a disqualification, could the Minister tell us whether the individual Member would have any
1208
right of appeal against the decision of the Assembly?
The other question I should like to ask the Minister—I do not know whether he is listening; we have had a rather funny evening and I wonder whether he is. I am putting questions to him. The first one is this. Where the Assembly decided it was proper not to waiver a disqualification, would that individual Member—or ex-Member in the case of someone being already disqualified—have any right of appeal against this decision? Secondly, could the Minister inform the Committee whether this is a matter which could be given to a committee to decide and thereby go to the leader of that committee? I think we shall be debating this matter later on in dealing with the Bill. There is considerable concern that many matters which deal with the rights of an individual will be decided by one person. In this case concerning the rights of a Member, the matter should be clarified, and it may be necessary to put something in the Bill at a later stage to protect the right of that individual from any arbitrary decision, possibly a political decision, by one Member of the Assembly.
In this particular case, when the matter was debated during the Scotland Bill, there was some suggestion that the procedure was exactly the same as in the case of a Member of the House of Commons. But it is not quite the same, because a person objecting to this disqualification would, in a case involving the House of Commons, have to go to the Privy Council, whereas in this case, as I read Clause 8, judicial proceedings would go to the High Court. So the situation is not quite the same. Therefore, I should like some comments from the Minister on these points. I also wish to know from the Minister, if it is not to be the leader of a committee who decides these matters, what kind of machinery the Government are considering should be set up to deal with this kind of matter. Although a small point in practice, it is a very important one in principle: any rights of individuals should be protected, if necessary statutorily, rather than just by the standing orders of this body.
10.42 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Using the formula that I used on the

1209
last Amendment, I propose, with the permission of the Committee, to discuss this Amendment at the same time as Amendments Nos. 41 and 42, which are related to the same question. The Government regard subsection (2) of Clause 6 as a necessary provision, although we now recognise that the subsection as it stands at the moment is not entirely satisfactory, which is why we have put down Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 which I hope we will be taking in a few moments.
Let me explain the position in detail. As it stands, Clause 6 enables the Assembly to grant relief from disqualification if it considers that the ground has been removed, and also that it is proper to do so. Those are the criteria. This might appear to permit the Assembly to grant relief in certain circumstances from any of the grounds listed in Clause 5. If this were so, then the Assembly would appear to have wider powers than are now available to Parliament. The Government do not now think this would be right.
The purpose of the Government Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 is therefore to restrict the Assembly's power. It will be able to grant relief in proper circumstances only where disqualification has arisen through tenure of an office which the holder inadvertently—an important qualification—failed to resign in due time. An obvious example is that of a member of an area electricity board who, as a result of an act of inadvertence, got the time-scale wrong regarding resignation, and found himself in a very difficult position.
There are two categories of disqualification which the Government Amendments explicitly remove from the Assembly's ambit of relief. First, there is the example of common law disqualifications from the House of Commons; that is, disqualifications other than those arising from the holding of the offices listed in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Secondly, there are disqualifications arising from crimes for which the person has been sentenced to a prison sentence of not less than three months within the last five years, as provided for by Government Amendments Nos. 38 and 39, to which the Committee has agreed.
1210
In practice, it would rarely, if ever, have been possible for the Assembly to grant relief from these disqualifications, since the ground for their imposition can never be removed. The common law disqualifications arising from, say, treason remain valid for life. Similarly, it is a matter of fact whether a prison sentence of at least three months without the option of a fine has been imposed within the last five years. There can be no question of that ground being removed. Nevertheless, on reconsidering this clause the Government concluded that, as it stands, it could be misleading and convey the impression that there is some way to remove grounds which are inherently irremovable; and, as I have indicated, the Government Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 put the position beyond peradventure.
So far as concerns the point about the leader or an individual Member having, as it were, delegated powers in this particular matter, I should like to look at the point raised by the noble Baroness, and I will communicate with her before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question before we depart from this issue, because it occurs to me that there might be a particular point of view. First, we have no clear idea of whether there will be personalities of the standard of Ministers, or what terms will be applied. We know that if a certain post is held and a Government income arises—and there is a list of these—it must be declared and the monies therefrom given up. This has happened to many of us in another place when we have become Ministers there. We may be directors of companies; or I may be the holder of a directorship in a bus company in Caerphilly or Cardiff. If I am a Member of the Assembly, what happens to me? Do I have to give up my directorship of the Cardiff bus company, for instance, when I become a leading personality or an officer speaking from the Front Bench in the Assembly? I do not think that my short question is irrelevant.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: It would depend on the nature of the employment whether a person would be disqualified or not. I gave one particular example—the area electricity board. There is no doubt at all about the position

1211
so far as that is concerned. It is obviously difficult to answer a detailed question without devoting a great deal more attention to it, but there could undoubtedly be inadvertent error, and what we are anxious to do is to ensure some machinery whereby the problem created by inadvertent error call be dealt with expeditiously. But so far as the much more serious question is concerned—namely, a person who has been convicted of a criminal offence within a relatively recent space of time—there should, in our view, be no doubt at all about disqualification in a case of that sort; and that is why, as I have indicated, the Government Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 deal with this particular question.
Baroness ELLES: I should be grateful if, when the noble Lord writes to me about the point of the leader or the committee or who else deals with this matter, he would also answer my question as to whether some right of appeal will be given to the individual Member. I am happy to see that the noble Lord has already pre-empted at least one office in the Schedule, when he referred to a member of an area electricity board as one that will be listed as an office which will entail disqualification from membership. At least we have one line of a list from him, and we hope that some more will come out during the course of the debates that we shall be having on this Bill.
I think that the question of office which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has raised precisely indicated my worry in regard to Clause 5—the lack of a Schedule, the lack of a list, the inability to know what the position of any individual is via-á-vis the Assembly. I go back to that, because I think this is something we shall have to look at on Report, if only, as I say, to protect the individual and enable him to know exactly where he is and whether or not he is liable to be disqualified. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would write to me on the two points he has mentioned. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 41 and 42:
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("on any ground").
Page 5, line 3, after ("constituency") insert ("on any ground other than one falling within section 5(1)(aa) or (d) of this Act").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 and they have been discussed. With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move the two Amendments en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

  UN SECURITY COUNCIL: VETOES
  UN SECURITY COUNCIL: VETOES
  ZAMBIA: AID CRITERIA
  ZAMBIA: AID CRITERIA
  ECC: SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY GUIDELINES
  ECC: SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY GUIDELINES
  UNFIT DWELLINGS: HOUSING AUTHORITY STATUTORY DUTIES
  UNFIT DWELLINGS: HOUSING AUTHORITY STATUTORY DUTIES
  EEC MEMBERSHIP AND HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION
  EEC MEMBERSHIP AND HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION
  WEALTH TAX: ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS
  WEALTH TAX: ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS
  HOLLOWAY PRISON: NEWSPAPER ARTICLE
  HOLLOWAY PRISON: NEWSPAPER ARTICLE
  CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON AREA HEALTH AUTHORITY: CONSULTATIONS
  CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON AREA HEALTH AUTHORITY: CONSULTATIONS
  OIL POLLUTION: SEABIRDS
  OIL POLLUTION: SEABIRDS
  PUBLIC SERVICE: EMPLOYED LABOUR FORCE
  PUBLIC SERVICE: EMPLOYED LABOUR FORCE