Sitting of 21 June 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  Mr. Speaker: Before we begin Question Time, may I make an appeal to the House for briefer supplementary questions, otherwise I shall have to call fewer supplementaries?
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
    SCOTLAND

      Domestic Rates
      Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the average domestic rate payment per householder in the current financial year; and what were the comparable amounts five and 10 years previously.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milan): I estimate that the average domestic rate payment per householder in Scotland in 1978–79 will be about £119, excluding domestic water rate, which is a decrease of £9 compared with about £128 last year. The comparable figures for 1973–74 and 1968–69 were £65 and £41 respectively.
      Mr. Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that rates have now become an intolerable burden for many families, particularly in areas hard hit by revaluation which have not had the advantage of the overall reduction to which he referred? Since the Government have now had the Layfield Report for a considerable time, can he say whether there are any plans to review the rating system?
      Mr. Milian: We have already said that there are certain aspects of the rating system which we shall continue to examine, but we have no plans to replace or modify it in a significant way.
      440
      I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge the reduction in domestic rates in the current year. If he is worried, as no doubt he is, about the burden of rates on householders, I am sure he will welcome the reduction.
      Mr. Grimond: Does the Secretary of State agree that his figures show huge discrepancies in the rate burden in Scotland? Certainly in my constituency there has been a steep increase in rates. When the Government examine the Layfield Report, will they look at alternative methods of raising local government finance, as suggested in that report?
      Mr. Milian: That subject has been gone over in a detailed fashion in recent years. The Layfield Committee came to the conclusion that the rating system should continue. I am aware that in different parts of Scotland revaluation has had varying consequences, including the consequences experienced in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. However, domestic ratepayers overall are paying less this year than they paid last year.
      Mr. Lambie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain business men in Troon have stated that the Strathclyde assessor has acted illegally in using capital values instead of rental values in determining the valuation of properties in Troon? In view of that fact, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his previous decision not to hold a public inquiry into the rate position in areas such as Cunninghame, and especially in the town of Troon?
      Mr. Millan: I do not see the need for a public inquiry. I repeat what I have said on numerous occasions previously—that those who are dissatisfied with their valuations should appeal. There is a statutory appeal procedure, and that is the way to go about the matter. I hope that those who are dissatisfied will use the procedure.
      Mr. MacCormick: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his answer to the question put to him by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) will make sick reading to the people of Argyll, whose rates have increased hugely, partly as a consequence of the current revaluation? Does he appreciate that his answer is akin to the posture

      441
      adopted by Nero who fiddled while Rome burned?
      Mr. Milan: The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) has a Question on this subject later on the Order Paper, namely, Question No. 19. We should wait until then and save time.

      Scottish TUC
      Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to discuss unemployment with the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
      Mr. Milan: I attended the STUC conference in April, but I have no arrangements at present for a further meeting with the genearl council.
      Mr. Monro: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that unemployment in Scotland has risen by over 100,000 since October 1974 and that in the last month it has gone up by 530 a day? Is he blind to the fact that this is basically because of the Government's mishandling of the economy? Welcome though temporary employment schemes are, does he not agree that they are not a long-term cure?
      Mr. Milian: I have said on numerous occasions that unemployment is too high. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the current year in Scotland the seasonally adjusted figures have fallen considerably. Although last month's figure showed some stabilisation, I hope that we shall achieve further improvements.
      Mr. David Steel: In view of the present totally unsatisfactory level of unemployment in Scotland, has the Secretary of State made any estimate of what would be the additional unemployment if the 51 per cent. take-over powers of the Scottish Development Agency were removed, as promised by the Conservative Party? Will he take it from me that in the Borders the non-availability of these powers would have had a very serious effect in four towns?
      Mr. Milan: I am glad to hear that from the right hon. Gentleman, because the SDA is involved with companies in Scotland which are employing thousands of people, many of whom would not be in employment but for the activities of the SDA. Anyone who seeks to damage the powers of the SDA, as does the Con-
      442
      servative Party, is doing a grave disservice to the people of Scotland.
      Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Conservative Party looks increasingly absurd by seeking to blame the Government for unemployment in Scotland and elsewhere? Is it not obvious that this unemployment is due entirely to the international crisis and that the electors of Hamilton and Garscadden have given a definite answer to the Opposition in the last few months?
      Mr. Milan: I agree with my hon. Friend, particularly on his latter point. I do not believe that anyone in Scotland thinks that the Conservative Party or the SNP has an answer to the unemployment problem.
      Mr. Crawford: Does the Secretary of State agree that the scandalous unemployment figures in Scotland would be greatly reduced if the Government told the British Steel Corporation that it must not cut back its production targets at Ravenscraig from 3·2 million tons to 2·2 million tons, as is currently proposed?
      Mr. Milian: The investment at Ravenscraig will take the present capacity of 1·5 million tons up to 3·2 million tons. The hon. Gentleman is careful to avoid mentioning that fact and is guilty of indulging in the most tendentious and misleading propaganda in Scotland on the whole steel industry. Only parliamentary convention prevents my saying what I really think about the hon. Gentleman and his statements on the steel industry.
      Mr. Sillars: Is not the most appalling feature of the present situation the Government's complacency in the face of unemployment figures of the current magnitude? Has the Secretary of State forgotten everything he ever learned in the Socialist movement about the destructive and corrosive effects of 100 per cent. unemployment on each individual personality? Is it not the case that, aided and abetted by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), the objective of the Government is not to produce full employment but to get the people of Scotland to accept the present unacceptable levels?
      Mr. Milian: I repudiate that. It is the Government's aim to get the level

      443
      of unemployment in Scotland significantly reduced. I am not in the least bit complacent about unemployment.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Has not the Secretary of State got a nerve to answer as he has on unemployment when his Government were elected on a manifesto which stated that we could not tolerate the high levels of unemployment from which Scotland has suffered in the last 20 years? Does he agree that unemployment has more than doubled since he took office and that he has sat in the Cabinet and agreed to policies, such as the increased national insurance contributions, that will further increase unemployment in Scotland?
      Mr. Milan: It is the hon. Gentleman who has a nerve considering that he voted against the plans for Chrysler, which employs 8,000 workers at Linwood, and the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry, without which we would have lost between 10,000 and 20,000 jobs in Scotland. He and his party have voted against virtually every action taken by the Government to reduce unemployment.

      Land Reform (Legislation)
      Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the effectiveness of present legislation on land reform.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): The Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 and the Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Act 1974 have operated well.
      Mr. Henderson: Has the Minister been following the articles in The Scotsman about the purchase of Scottish land by other interests, particularly Dutch interests? Do the Government, in general, favour this or disagree with it?
      Mr. Ewing: I have been following with great interest the articles in The Scotsman, not only those written by journalists on the paper but the contributions made to the discussion by various members of the SNP. I noticed that the SNP has claimed that Scotland is the only country in Europe which allows what they describe as the indiscriminate purchase of land and that a nationality qualification should be attached to the ability to purchase land. In fact, there is only
      444
      one country in Europe with a nationality qualification for the purchase of land. That is Southern Ireland, which is reconsidering its position.
      Mr. Buchan: On the question of ownership of land, would it not be helpful if we distinguished between land that belongs to the people and land that belongs to those who are prepared to exploit the people? If we look at it in this light, is there any difference between exploitation by a Dutchman and exploitation by the wealthy landowners, Scottish-born and with strong Scottish traditions and names? Is not the solution, particularly in regard to these large estates in the Highlands, a policy of public ownership and proper land reclamation?
      Mr. Ewing: In the not-too-distant future—I am not sure of the date—the Highlands and Islands Development Board will be publishing its views on what should happen to land in the North and North-East of Scotland. I agree that exploitation by anyone, whether, as my hon. Friend has said, he wears a kilt or clogs, is exploitation of people, and it always surprises me that the SNP is prepared to defend those who wear the kilt and attack those who wear clogs.

      A92, Dundee-Arbroath (Traffic)
      Mr. Welshasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give figures to show the volume of traffic on the A92 Dundee to Arbroath road; what was the date of this survey; and when he intends to institute a more up-to-date traffic survey on the road.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank N1cElhone): A total of 7,475 vehicles per day in May of this year, of which 13 per cent. were heavy goods vehicles. A further count will be taken in August.
      Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware that local surveys have shown that his wrongheaded policy of detrunking the Dundee to Arbroath road will create massive problems for local road users and will mean that while the Government are grabbing the oil revenues, they are forcing their financial commitments on to the shoulders of local government? Can he now give a positive starting date for the Forfar by-pass, on the inland route which he prefers?
      Mr. McElhone: That is not a fair description of the position. The hon. Gentleman must know that a public inquiry was held last year, when the reporter recommended that the inland route should be the trunk route and that the coastal route should be detrunked, though it will remain a trunk route until 1st April 1979. That is a fair compromise.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Leaving aside the trunk route choice considerations, may I point out that the oil industry, particularly in Montrose, is generating an enormous amount of traffic on this route, which led the reporter to describe the situation in Montrose as intolerable? Can the Minister give an assurance that in relation to developments on the coastal route, money will be available from oil-related funds to help meet the traffic problem that is being created by oil?
      Mr. McElhone: Expenditure on roads in Scotland in 1976–77 was £192 million. That is not an inconsiderable sum. As for the position of Montrose, the hon. Gentleman has met my noble Friend who deals with this matter on a day-to-day basis, and a letter was sent to the local authorities concerned on 30th March indicating that consideration would be given to oil-related expenditure.

      Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
      Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has had any representations regarding the operation of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act by the district councils in Scotland.
      Mr. Milan: A number of local authorities have made representations about the working of the Act, but there is no evidence to suggest, given the sensitivity of the problems that can arise, that the Act is giving rise to undue difficulty.
      Mr. Gourlay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there appear to be wide discrepancies in the operation of the Act between several district authorities? Is he further aware that a number of my hon. Friends and I have received phone calls late on Saturday evenings from people who allege that they are walking the streets in our constituencies? Will he therefore consider providing national publicity to indicate the categories of home-
      446
      less people who are not covered by the Act?
      Mr. Millan: I shall consider that, but I am not sure that this is a matter that should be dealt with by national publicity. I have already sent a circular of guidance to local authorities and we shall consider further guidance. The Act has been in operation for only about three months and one would expect a certain number of teething problems. I hope that the operation of the Act will settle down. I should also make the further simple point that before the Act came into operation there was widespread concern about the previous position. We did not move from a perfect position to an imperfect one—rather the opposite.
      Mr. Rifkind: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of district councils are now interpreting the Act as allowing them to say that tenants who have been evicted for rent arrears have, in effect, made themselves homeless and should not benefit from the provisions of the Act? Does he believe that to be a correct interpretation of the Act?
      Mr. Milan: I do not like to give legal interpretations on the Floor of the House, as the hon. Gentleman, who is a lawyer, will probably appreciate. There are a number of difficulties about certain categories of homelessness. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) and the hon. Gentle, man have said, I shall consider the matter to ascertain whether we need to issue more guidance to local authorities.
      Mr. Dewar: I accept the overriding priority of housing the homeless, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there are genuine anxieties that certain areas may be used as reception areas or, as those in such areas might more crudely put it, dumping grounds, for families with considerable social problems? Will he give strict instructions to local authorities that the burden must be fairly shared and that there can be no question of areas that are already victimised or disadvantaged by having difficult-to-let housing stock having the problems aggravated by the operation of the Act?
      Mr. Milian: Some of these problems predated the Act. The sort of problem to which my hon. Friend is referring has

      447
      been with us for some time. The social work department cannot contract out of its responsibilities. It no longer has the direct housing responsibility that it once had, but any Act of Parliament of this nature can operate successfully only if there is the closest co-ordination between the housing and social work departments. Emphasis has been placed upon that factor in the circular that we have issued.
      Mr. Alexander Fletcher: To what extent is the problem of homelessness in Scotland due to the fact that under the Government house building has slumped to the lowest level since 1962?
      Mr. Milan: That is a silly comment for the hon. Gentleman to make in this context.
      Mr. Fletcher: It is true.

      Nigg Refinery project
      Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public money from all Government sources has been spent on Cromarty Petroleum's Nigg refinery project; and whether, in view of the fact that less than 70 per cent. of United Kingdom refinery capacity is being used, he will reconsider any plans, whereby the Nigg petrochemical project can attract Government grant.
      The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): No public money has so far been spent on his project.
      Mr. Dalyell: That is all right.
      Mr. Gray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that commercial confidentiality has prevented any statement being made by the company, or by those likely to be associated with it in future ventures, on the Nigg Bay project? Will he confirm that there will be no discrimination against any company that wishes to make massive capital investment in Easter Ross in the national interest, so that we may properly proceed with the development of the area? Finally, will he pay scant attention to the comments of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who seems somewhat confused by his triple role—that of European parliamentarian, United Kingdom parliamentarian and a mouthpiece for British Petroleum at Grangemouth?
      Mr. MacKenzie: It has already been made clear by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself that we consider this to be a growth area within Scotland. Until such time as we have had applications from the company for regional development grants, which are dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, or for selective financial assistance, which is dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, it would not be proper for me to anticipate any such applications.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is it not appropriate for the Minister in general terms to indicate what positive proposals he has for building up the petrochemical industry in Scotland, bearing in mind that there is a smaller proportion of employees in the industry in Scotland than in other parts of the United Kingdom?
      Mr. MacKenzie: Ministers in the Department of Energy and in the Scottish Office have already made it clear that we see the project as an important development within Scotland. The studies that have already been made, which are now being examined by the Government, are an indication of the attitude that we are adopting to the work of the petrochemical industry.
      Mr. Dalyell: Now that I am the mouthpiece for BP, may I confess that I am rather in favour of nationalised industries, as opposed to the Daniel K. Ludwig organisation of the United States?
      Mr. Speaker: Confession is over.

      Bathing Beaches (Sea Pollution)
      Mr. Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the water off popular beaches in Scotland is polluted; and if he will make a statement.
      Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: The extent to which popular bathing waters in Scotland are polluted is limited. Where conditions are not as good as they should be, improvement is being pursued by the relevant river purification board and sewerage authority.
      Mr. Galbraith: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why his Department is seeking to obtain exemption from EEC directives to create cleaner beaches? Surely a country such as Scotland which

      449
      depends so much on tourism should be leading the way instead of dragging its feet. Will the Minister care to come on a fact-finding mission with me and engage in a bathing party to see and to feel the degree of pollution that now exists?
      Mr. MacKenzie: First, it is not true that we are seeking to avoid the consequences of any directives. It would be necessary to decide whether a directive applies to any Scottish beaches and, if so, what improvements are required under it. As for the hon. Gentleman's kindly invitation, I assure him that I am well aware of what is happening off the Ayrshire coast. I should point out that the Strathclyde Regional Council is now engaged on a major sewerage scheme costing well over £50 million, which will be beneficial to Ayrshire beaches.
      Mr. Watt: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that his Department is closely monitoring the insidious pollution that is taking place on both shores of the Forth? What is his Department prepared to do to stop oil constantly being spilt at Hunters Point?
      Mr. MacKenzie: My Department, in conjunction with the Department of Trade, is conscious of the problems and we have teams that are working closely with the local authorities.

      Mussels
      Sir John Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that sufficient steps are being taken to increase the production of mussels in Scottish waters.
      Mr. Millan: I am aware of the difficulties affecting production from Scottish waters but I believe there is scope for development of the market and improved returns to producers. This is primarily a matter for the shellfish industry.
      Sir J. Gilmour: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in spite of the difficulty that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) has in finding clean beaches in Ayrshire, the majority of the waters of Scotland are exceptionally clean and suitable for shellfish cultivation? Is he satisfied that we do not need legislation to protect the rights of those who rear mussels artificially?
      Mr. Millan: Yes, reasonably satisfied. I do not say that the position is completely free from doubt. However, I do not think that that is a major factor. The problem is that the prices fetched for mussels in the market are extremely low. I am not aware that I can do anything about that at present.

      Scottish Assembly
      Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in converting the Royal High School in Edinburgh for the proposed Scottish Assembly.
      Mr. Millan: Progress is satisfactory. The second stage of the work described in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White) on 10th March 1978 is about to be put in hand.
      Mr. Knox: On present plans, what is the earliest date on which the building could be ready for sittings of the Scottish Assembly?
      Mr. Milan: We are aiming for the spring of 1979.
      Mr. David Steel: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the oval shape of the chamber is to be retained following the conversion work? If so, does he confirm that it is entirely suitable for a multiparty Assembly? Will he take account of what another place has done to the devolution Bill and ensure that the electoral system matches the shape of the new chamber?
      Mr. Milan: The chamber is being retained in its present form. It will be suitable for all sorts of representation but I would not care to predict whether it will be multi-party.
      Mr. Dalyell: If there is not a Labour majority, with which party does the Labour Party go into collision, the Tories or the SNP?
      Mr. Milan: That is not likely to arise. Of course there will be a Labour majority.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: As a considerable sum of public money is involved, have the Government given any consideration to what use might be made of the building in the event of Scotland's rejecting the Assembly plan?
      Mr. Milan: No, we have not given any consideration to that, because we do not think that it will arise.

      Devolution (Scottish Executive)
      Mr. Rifkindasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the likely period after the proposed referendum on the Scotland Bill before he will transfer his powers to the new Scottish Executive in the event of an affirmative vote in the referendum.
      Mr. Milan: Elections to the Scottish Assembly will first have to be held. Thereafter, once the Scottish Executive is in being, the period to elapse until the transfer of full responsibilities will be for discussion with the Executive.
      Mr. Rifkind: Will the Secretary of State confirm that if, as we now expect, there is a General Election in the autumn, there will be no possibility of the referendum taking place until some time next year? In those circumstances, will he indicate the earliest date at which the Assembly could begin functioning?
      Mr. Millan: I do not think that I should speculate on these matters, not every one of which is within my control. After the elections for the Assembly have been held, we envisage the take-over being quite a short period. I mean a period of a few months. I cannot be absolutely firm on that because we would have to discuss the arrangements with the Scottish Executive.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the House of Lords is still up to its dirty work of mutilating the Scotland Bill? Does he realise that this House could take advantage of the changes in the referendum proposals which the House of Lords is making by suggesting that in the course of the campaign there should be some restriction over the amount of English money which is brought from London and elsewhere to be put to work in Scotland against the Assembly?
      Mr. Milian: I am paying close attention to what is happening to the Bill in the other place. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is still taking an interest in it, especially as, last week, he voted to kill the Bill.
      Mr. Dewar: Does my right hon. Friend recall that there was a tandem period—
      452
      a running-in period—of about a year for the new regional councils? As the resettlement which will be required when the Assembly comes into being will be considerably more complicated, does he accept that something of that order will be necessary?
      Mr. Milan: No. I have looked into this matter very carefully. I think that we can do it in less than a year. That may seem odd, given the local government experience, but I have to wait to talk to the Executive about it. I think that we can do it in considerably less than a year.
      Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Edinburgh it is considered that the Scottish Office is now planning the referendum for April next year? How does that fit in with his plans for March?
      Mr. Milian: I do not know who is considering it. I am not.

      Rheumatic Diseases
      Mrs. Bainasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on the treatment of rheumatic diseases in Scotland; and what action he intends to take in the light of the recently published report "Arthritis and Rheumatism, Everybody's Problem".
      Mr. Harry Ewing: My right hon. Friend has received no general representations recently. The report is being studied by my Department.
      Mrs. Bain: As the report indicates that the absence rate from work is 20 per cent. higher in Scotland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom as a result of these debilitating diseases and that 4 million working days are lost each year, do the Government see any way of increasing the grants made available for research into the causes and cure of rheumatism and arthritis? Will the Minister particularly consider the future of the Baird Street Clinic, in Glasgow, which has an international reputation in this area?
      Mr. Ewing: It is well known that the eventual plan is to transfer the beds from the Baird Street Clinic to the new Royal Infirmary when that building is completed. Obviously that will be to everyone's advantage.

      453
      Research is the responsibility of the Medical Research Council. My Department finances research projects into the causes of rheumatism. Indeed, we have one or two research projects going at the moment. I shall certainly look at what the hon. Lady said.

      Thalidomide Victims (Y List)
      Mr. Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons in Scotland are now on the Y list of thalidomide victims.
      Mr. Harry Ewing: Seven young people resident in Scotland are at present on the Y list.
      Mr. Thompson: As the number of persons on the list is so small, as this is a once-for-all matter, and as the Distillers Company makes profits, what action is the Minister taking to help towards a generous settlement without any more needless legal and medical nit-picking?
      Mr. Ewing: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman really understands the problem here. It is a matter between the parents of the young people and those who represent them and the Distillers Company Limited. It is a legal matter. The Government have little or no part to play in it. Those who were on the Y list have not yet had their cases decided by the court. Those are cases in which there is some dispute. There is no point in the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) nodding his head, because I strongly suspect that he does not know anything about the problem either.

      Sporting Activities (Drug Taking)
      Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will conduct an investigation into the use of drugs in Scottish football and other sports.
      Mr. Dewarasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consult the Scottish Football Association, the Scottish Sports Council and other interested bodies with a view to introducing safeguards to eliminate any use of artificial stimulants in Scottish football and other sports.
      Mr. McElhone: Responsibility for controlling the use of drugs in sport lies with the governing bodies of sport, including
      454
      the Scottish Football Association, acting in accordance with the rules of the appropriate international sports federation. The Scottish Sports Council will continue to advise governing bodies on drug testing procedures, and I am sure that the governing bodies are fully aware of the importance of measures to detect and prevent the use of drugs.
      Mr. Canavan: As the recent incident involving the use of drugs in Argentina brought Scottish football into even more disrepute than the team's pathetic performance on the field, does my hon. Friend agree that it is now up to the Scottish Football Association and other appropriate authorities in Scotland to try to rescue Scotland's good name by insisting on the highest standards, including strict regulations and, if necessary, the use of spot checks to enforce those regulations?
      Mr. McElhone: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend said. Indeed, FIFA—the international organisation for football—has asked the Football Association and the SFA to conduct inquiries into drug taking in football. I hope that governing bodies will take firm action and ensure that persons caught taking drugs are dealt with severely. It is important not only for the good name of Scotland but in terms of setting an example to the many young people who idolise football stars.
      Mr. Dewar: Does my hon. Friend accept that sometimes brave words are spoken by the football authorities but action is remarkably sparse thereafter? Will he check in the near future to ensure that action is being taken and that Scotland's football house has been put in order? Will he also bear in mind that the Scottish Highland Games circuit, for example, manages checks on drug taking? Surely it is not beyond the resources of the Scottish Football Association to clear its name and to establish proper controls very quickly.
      Mr. McElhone: Again, I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that testing will take place in the near future for the good name of football and all other sports. Through the working party on football crowd behaviour and other experiments aimed at helping young people, I have had the fullest support from the SPA and the football clubs. I have no reason

      455
      to think otherwise than that they will give full support to this proposal.
      Mr. Fairbairn: Does the Minister agree that if the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) took a perpetual sleeping draught none of us would want that to be objected to?
      Mr. McElhone: No. The loss of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) would make the House a very dull place indeed.
      Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister tell us whether there is any truth in the rumour that stimulants were used by the journalists and tranquillisers by the players?
      Mr. McElhone: I think that there is a great deal of stimulus here today. The only good thing that came out of the whole exercise was that my right hon. Friend went to see Scotland play Holland. I think that his magnetic influence on the players brought about the good result. We are all sorry that he did not go to the first two games.
      Mr. Monro: Is the Minister aware that I agree with his responsible attitude to this matter? Over and above that, does he agree that we should ensure that the reputation of Scotland's sportsmen and sportswomen is absolutely free from any hint of drug taking in future? Will he bring to the notice of the Scottish Sports Council and the governing bodies in sport the recent work published by Canada subsequent to the Olympic Games, covering this matter in great detail, and the work now under preparation by the Sports Council in London?
      Mr. McElhone: I certainly undertake to do that. The British Sports Council, which has supported research into detection methods, recently announced the spending of £75,000 over three years to help deal with this matter. Action is being taken, but I realise that there is some urgency about it to get back the good name of football.

      Teaching Appointments
      Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the employment restrictions placed on students leaving colleges under the special temporary employment programme, if he will relax the provisions of circular 819 in order to create more teaching
      456
      appointments; and if he will make a statement.
      Mr. Millan: Provision has already been made in the rate support grant settlement for 1978–79 for the employment of more teachers than are required to meet the staffing standards recommended in circular 819 and the Red Book. Additional posts have also been made available under the schemes for the creation of extra teaching posts in urban areas of deprivation and for the secondment of teachers in special schools to take further training.
      Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that competent education opinion in Scotland has publicly stated that were the curbs on staffing levels in schools to be removed it would lead to considerable employment opportunities? Has he noticed that, among a number of suggestions which have been made, a reduction in the size of composite classes to 25 and a general reduction in primary classes from 33 to 30 per class would result in many students being employed in the profession for which they have been educated and trained?
      Mr. Millan: The figures quoted by my hon. Friend might be a little misleading. For example, in September 1977 the pupil-teacher ratio in the primary sector was 22·4. Therefore, the figures are comparatively favourable. We are already providing for something above that standard. I am not sure that I can go any further at the moment. I am very much aware of the problem that we shall have this year with the output from the colleges, as I anticipated that we would. I have been getting the intake figures reduced to eliminate this problem as soon as possible.
      Mrs. Bain: When he is studying the implications of the special temporary employment programme for youngsters leaving Scottish colleges of education, will the Secretary of State pay particular attention to applications from local authorities for the establishment of nursery classes in schools where classrooms have been closed? Teachers may then be employed to establish these nursery classes, to meet the high demand, particularly in the West of Scotland, for preschool facilities.
      Mr. Millan: I am not aware that my Department is holding back nursery class

      457
      provision. I shall certainly check on that. The fact is that the authorities, for reasons of their own—financial stringency and the rest—have not been enthusiastic about expanding this sector of education as rapidly as some people would like, but if one compares the situation with what it was three or four years ago one sees that there has been a substantial expansion. As school accommodation not otherwise needed becomes available, the opportunities for further expansion will arise.
      Dr. Bray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the widening of tasks for which teachers can be recruited is welcome, but that there is scope for going a great deal further in this direction? The in-service training of teachers could be extended to special schools and secondary education generally. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a very serious need for the extension of remedial education?
      Mr. Millan: With special schools one runs into the factor of securing basic qualifications. There has been a tremendous expansion of in-service training in secondary education generally over the last few years. My proposals for the colleges of education assume a continuing growth in in-service training. We are therefore already providing a tremendous amount of such training.

      Rating Levels
      Lord James Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the difference between the rate increase in the Lothian Region of 16·8 per cent. and the decrease in Strathclyde of 0·1 per cent. is attributable to the varying levels of rate support grant awarded to each authority.
      Mr. Millan: Rate poundages are determined by each local authority in the light of its expenditure proposals as well as grant entitlement and other factors. The effects of grant variations on rate levels cannot be isolated.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the level of rate support grant for the Lothian Regional Council has decreased by at least 1 per cent. this year while that for the Strathclyde Regional Council has increased by at least 1 per cent.? Is he aware that if this trend continues it will
      458
      be virtually impossible for the Lothian Regional Council to build the outer city bypass with maximum speed and efficiency? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that this project is supported by every political party on the regional council?
      Mr. Millan: I do not think that I can accept the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. He is referring to the results of revaluation. It is well known that Lothian's increase in rateable value was greater than the Scottish average, whereas in Strathclyde it was less than the Scottish average. That inevitably works its way through the resources element of rate support grant. The basis of these calculations is agreed with COSLA.

      Fishing Industry
      Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the fishing industry.
      Mr. Milan: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be making a statement to the House later this week on the Council of Ministers' meeting which he and I attended in Luxembourg yesterday and which is still in progress.
      Mr. Sproat: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that hon. Members from all parts of the House strongly support the fight which his right hon. Friend is making on behalf of justice for the British fishing industry? Does he also realise that it would be far more welcome to the House and the industry as a whole to have no agreement now rather than a bad agreement now, and that if no agreement is reached we look forward to the Minister coming to the House and announcing a comprehensive package of non-discriminatory conservation measures to apply in British waters as soon as possible?
      Mr. Millan: No agreement was reached yesterday about the internal regime. I was present at the meeting. Today's agenda relates to a number of important detailed matters, including conservation. We must wait to see what comes out of today's meeting, but we have already said that in the absence of Community conservation measures we feel free and intend

      459
      to introduce further national conservation measures.
      Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that the whole House will congratulate the Government on the stand they are taking on fishing? Will he confirm that they have no intention of recognising the so-called agreement which was said to have been made in Berlin in our absence?
      Mr. Milan: There is no question of our recognising that so-called agreement. It is impossible to have an agreement without our participation, and informal understandings are not recognised by us.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scottish fishermen's leaders—namely, Gilbert Buchan and Willie Hay—last night said how much they apreciate the work done by my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Is he further aware that they believe—this view is widely shared, and I share it myself—that we may have to go further than nondiscriminatory unilateral measures if we are to save certain parts of the Scottish fishing fleet, especially that engaged in herring fishing?
      Mr. Millan: I know the views of the industry on conservaion because I met the two gentlemen mentioned and many others in Luxembourg yesterday. As I have said, we must await the outcome of today's meeting, where these matters are specifically under discussion. We have stated, however, that we have the right, which we intend to exercise, to introduce national conservation measures if we consider that to be necessary. Of course, there are a number of areas where we consider them necessary.
      Mr. Watt: Does the Secretary of State recognise that there are now considerable shoals of herring to be found off the East Coast? As he imposes a ban on West Coast herring fishing, will he allow a gradual lifting of the ban on East Coast herring fishing so that the factories round the Scottish coast may have some supplies to keep their doors open?
      Mr. Millan: I do not think I can promise that because the scientific evidence, which is accepted by the industry, confirms that we should continue with the North Sea ban at least until the end of this year. It would be foolish to attempt
      460
      to negotiate minor quotas for different parts of Scotland. For example, the Shetlanders have asked me for that. Such quotas would be the thin end of a very large wedge and would be detrimental to Scottish fishermen.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that off the West Coast the haddock quota of 9,000 tons is nearly exhausted and that there is therefore liable to be a diversion of effort to the North Sea for the rest of the year? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government have in mind measures to cope with that increased concentration of effort in the North Sea?
      Mr. Milan: We are already talking to the industry about that problem. There was a meeting last week. Something will have to be done if we are not to fish out the year's quota long before the end of the year. Both sides recognise the problem, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, solutions are not very easy.
      Mr. Sillars: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the worst service we could do to the fishing industry would be to repeat the performance of the Conservative Government which negotiated entry—that is, to pretend that any national fishing agreement reached now would provide a long-term safeguard for the industry? Is it not the case that, although we can employ national discrimination now, in 1982 the superiority of the Community legislation will be the overriding factor?
      Mr. Milan: Unless, as I hope, we are able to negotiate something better, by 1982 the rest of the Community will literally be able to fish up to our beaches without national restrictions. That was the mistake of the Conservative Government, but I have no intention of compounding that mistake by agreeing to an internal regime settlement which is unsatisfactory for the United Kingdom generally and for Scotland in particular.
      Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that if the suggested ban on West Coast herring fishing is eventually imposed he will use his influence to secure exemption for the one or two vessels that confine themselves to drift-net fishing?
      Mr. Milan: I shall certainly look at that problem, which arose last year as

      461
      well. There were difficulties even then about getting these very limited exceptions to the rule. I do not want to say any more at this moment because the discussions are literally going on today, and I should like to know what has happened at them. However, we have an interest in excluding, for example, the Clyde fishery, which is a significant local fishery, from any ban on the West Coast. We have been talking about that in Luxembourg today. I should like to consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said when we see what happens today.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is it not rather silly of the Secretary of State, in his last reply, to destroy the unanimity in the House about the importance of arriving at a satisfactory agreement, particularly bearing in mind that if he wishes to talk about the regional negotiations there are many people who wonder why on earth a Labour Government failed apparently even to attempt to resolve the matter in the alleged renegotiation in Dublin? Does the Secretary of State agree that the important thing is to arrive at a satisfactory permanent solution? As long as the Government go along these lines, they will get full backing from the House.
      On a particular point, can the Secretary of State give us any guidance as to what will be the position of Scottish vessels fishing off Norway and the Faroes when the agreements between the EEC and Norway and the Farces terminate quite shortly?
      Mr. Milian: Again, these are matters which are literally being discussed today. I would expect, however, that if there is no more substantive agreement there will at least be some kind of roll-over arrangement. But I honestly cannot answer that particular point today. On the first point, we are grateful for the Opposition's support of the Government's efforts. I do not know whether it arises from a guilty conscience, but we are grateful for their support.

      Tourism (Continental Ferry Connections)
      Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies have been made of the advantages to the Scottish tourist industry of a roll-on/roll-
      462
      off ferry connection with the Continent of Europe.
      Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: The contribution of a direct ferry connection between Scotland and Northern Europe to the development of tourism is not in question. The Scottish Tourist Board is assessing the market for such a service with a view to persuading possible operators of its potential viability.
      Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that I find that answer reasonably assuring, but will he also note that the nearest access point to Scotland for seagoing passenger traffic is Newcastle, and that that traffic has built up in recent years? Will he consider the possibility of helping to steer that access to Dundee, because it would be a tremendous boost to the port and city of Dundee if he were able to do so?
      Mr. MacKenzie: I should be very glad, and so would the Scottish Tourist Board, to see a regular ferry service between Scotland and a port in Northern Europe, but the Government do not have power to steer that. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman and others who are interested in this aspect of affairs that the Scottish Tourist Board has been making considerable efforts to persuade the ferry companies involved to consider ports in Scotland and, indeed, to ask major liner companies also to consider ports in Scotland, and that will continue.
      Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister agree that such a roll-on/roll-off ferry would be of great assistance to local industry and could help to create jobs in an area of very high unemployment?
      Mr. MacKenzie: I am conscious of the problems of Dundee, as is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman that there are other ports in Scotland which would have a claim, and I am sure he would agree that they should all be considered.

      EX-POLICE SERGEANT WILLIAM JAMIESON
      Mr. Dalyellasked the Lord Advocate why he has offered the hon. Member for West Lothian a sight of the Crown Agent's report on the case of ex-Sergeant

      463
      William Jamieson of Bo'ness Police, conditional on confidentiality; whether he will allow the report to be seen by Sergeant Jamieson, Sergeant Jamieson's lawyers, and the lawyers of the Police Federation; and whether he is satisfied that a Crown Agent's conditional inquiry is a satisfactory method of dealing with the circumstances of such a case.
      The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): The Crown Agent's report proceeded upon the statements of witnesses given in confidence. Accordingly, the report must remain confidential and it would not be appropriate to show it to any interested party. However, it seemed to me to be reasonable that my hon. Friend should have an opportunity to see in confidence the results of an inquiry affecting persons most of whom are his constituents.
      Mr. Dalyell: May I acknowledge the hard work that the Lord Advocate has given to the Jamieson case and, indeed, to so many other cases, and take the opportunity to regret his decision not to seek re-election in Leith? Does he recognise that his offer puts a non-lawyer Member of Parliament into a dilemma? Should I be satisfied, having seen it, though my qualifications to pass such judgment are somewhat limited? Should I not be satisfied, I can do nothing without shattering confidence and breaching faith. Frankly, does this not once again emphasise the urgent need to look closely at the whole stated case procedure in such instances?
      The Lord Advocate: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that you may see me at the Dispatch Box for more than another year yet.
      Concerning my hon. Friend's remarks, certainly we are looking at the stated case procedure. This must be looked at in a broader context than any one hard case.
      In regard to the opportunity that I gave to my hon. Friend, which still stands, I realise that it is a difficult matter for him because he has a conflict of interests, perhaps, in his own mind. However, I offered my hon. Friend the opportunity on the basis that he is a trustee for all of his constituents rather than an advocate of the interests of a single
      464
      constituent. I hope that my hon. Friend will resolve the conflict, because it seems a pity that he has not yet availed himself of this opportunity.

      SOUTH AFRICAN IMMIGRATION ORGANISATION (PTY) LTD.
      Mr. Canavanasked the Lord Advocate whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for West Stirling-shire on 17th May, he is now able to make a statement about his investigation into the South African Immigration Organisation (Pty) Ltd., Glasgow.
      The Lord AdvocateThe South African Immigration Organisation (Pty) Ltd. has intimated to the Department of Employment that it ceased to carry on business in the United Kingdom on 31st May 1978.
      Mr. Canavan: Is it not a bit of a coincidence that this illegal racialist organisation should suddenly do a moonlight flit after I raised on the Floor of the House of Commons the possibility of prosecution? If at some future date sufficient evidence crops up, will my right hon. and learned Friend prosecute the organisation for breaking the law with the same efficiency as the South African authorities would prosecute it if it broke the law in its own rotten country?
      The Lord Advocate: It would be wrong for me to comment on the earlier part of my hon. Friend's remarks. However, I can tell him that the Department of Employment had not made available to me facts upon which a prosecution could be brought before this organisation intimated its cessation of business. If facts are presented to me showing that an offence has been committed, I shall examine them with a view to prosecution.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: We in the House know that we should not take seriously the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), but does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that it would be right to say that on the basis of information available to him no prosecution was in fact taken?
      The Lord Advocate: It is certainly the case that no prosecution was taken in this case.

      GLASGOW SHERIFF COURT
      Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Lord Advocate when he next intends to visit the Glasgow Sheriff Court.
      The Lord Advocate: I hope to visit Glasgow Sheriff Court in the near future.
      Mr. Taylor: I am grateful for the interest that the Lord Advocate is taking in the position of the Glasgow Sheriff Court, but dues he agree that one of the most unsatisfactory aspects of the present difficult situation is the housing of witnesses for both defence and prosecution in one room, particularly in cases involving violence'? Will he be prepared to look at this point? I appreciate the steps that he is taking to improve the position for the longer term, but will he look at matters such as this in the short term?
      The Lord Advocate: I am happy to respond to that. The hon. Member has raised an important issue. I have endeavoured to see that witnesses for the Crown and for the defence are accommodated in separate rooms, particularly since the hon. Gentleman raised the point on a previous occasion.
      Shortage of accommodation has made this difficult in the past in certain cases. There has been some improvement in the accommodation arrangements. I hope to inspect the up-to-date position for myself when I visit Glasgow Sheriff Court soon.
      Mr. Henderson: When the Lord Advocate visits Glasgow Sheriff Court, will he ask for the views of those there on the success of the policies advocated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) in Saudi Arabia?
      The Lord Advocate: I shall certainly put that question. I doubt whether I shall get an answer.
      Mr. Buchanan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say what efforts are being made to cut down the backlog of cases at the sheriff court? One of the great disadvantages of the present overcrowding in the sheriff court is the ever-increasing backlog of cases. What success is my right hon. and learned Friend having in cutting that down?
      The Lord Advocate: On the last occasion I was able to tell the House that the setting up of two additional
      466
      courts for sheriff and jury cases had started to make some impact. I can now tell the House that at the end of last month the backlog of sheriff and jury cases in Glasgow—that is, cases awaiting preparation—amounted to 248. This compares with 275 cases at the end of the previous month. That is a modest improvement, but none the less it is an improvement—of about 10 per cent.—and I think that it is significant.
      Mr. Galbraith: When the Lord Advocate visits Glasgow Sheriff Court, will he also visit the proposed site of the new sheriff court, and then consider whether it is really wise to move the sheriff court to the south side of the river when most of the legal offices are on the north side?
      The Lord Advocate: I shall certainly be glad to visit the site of the new sheriff court. However, the shortage of accommodation has been such an acute difficulty for the administration of justice that I think that any chopping and changing on merely geographical grounds would really be quite inappropriate.
      Mr. Fairbairn: When the Lord Adovcate next visits Glasgow Sheriff Court, knowing the sensitivity that exists between the Glasgow Bar Association and the profession in Edinburgh, will he take the opportunity to correct the statement in The Scotsman newspaper announcing his regretted resignation, or his intention not to stand again, and saying that there were no vacancies at present on the Court of Session bench? Will he say that there is one of his own creation, and that when the General Election comes he will not recommend to the Secretary of State, or accept a recommendation from the Secretary of State, that he should fill it?
      The Lord Advocate: I think that I know what the hon. and learned Gentleman means, but he has chosen a very long way to put it. I am not sure that I can answer him.

      PRECOGNITION OFFICERS
      Lord James Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Lord Advocate what arrangements he is making for the employment of more persons to take precognitions in order to assist the procurator-fiscal service.
      The Lord Advocate: The Civil Service Department has approved the appointment of 13 additional legal staff and seven additional precognition officers.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that nothing is more depressing for procurators-fiscal in Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland than to be overloaded with paperwork when they have to appear all day in court? Will he do everything within his power to make certain that they have the necessary back-up to support, so that they can perform their tasks with maximum efficiency and speed?
      The Lord Advocate: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has stressed the importance of back-up support. The increase of 20 in the staff, which has been authorised by the Civil Service Department, includes deputy fiscals as well as precognition officers. I am happy to say that of the total of 20, six will be allocated to Glasgow.
      However, in allocating additional staff one has to bear in mind the need for back-up. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, it is not enough to have highly qualified legal personnel to do the work in court. One has to back them up with shorthand-typists and other people who can give them the necessary material when it is needed to go into court.

PRESCRIBED DRUGS (REGULATION OF PROMOTION)
3.31 p.m.
Mr. Mike Thomas: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the promotion and advertisement of prescribed drugs; to remove prescription charges in respect of certain classes of prescribed drugs; and for purposes connected therewith.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for taking the trouble to be with us today.
My Bill proposes to do two things: first, to abolish prescription charges on a wide range of drugs, which, as many right hon. and hon. Members know, is an important component of Labour Party policy; secondly, to put an end to bogus trials of drugs, in which both general practitioners and patients are
468
misled as to the real purposes of the drug companies in advocating the trials.
I want to make it clear at the outset that I have no prejudice against the pharmaceutical industry. I believe that the benefits of a vigorous, inventive and productive pharmaceutical industry to the National Health Service and to the economy as a whole are clear, and I have no wish to damage that industry.
However, there are two marketing practices in which the industry is now engaging in which the State should take a hand and which Parliament should take powers to control. They are, first, an old practice, that of branding drugs, which frankly has no merit for the patient, no merit for the doctor and no merit for the NHS. Its only merit is one for the drug companies, in that it enables them to promote the sales of their drugs after the patent life has been used up. They promote sales to doctors through branding in much the same way as soap powder manufacturers seek to promote the sales of their own products to the consumer.
The other practice that I wish to regulate is a new one and is in some ways much more sinister. It is the practice of bogus clinical trials, in which large numbers of patients are induced, through their doctors, to transfer to a drug, not because they may get any benefit from so doing, not because doctors, the medical profession or academia at large will learn anything from the rudimentary study that is made of the transfer of the patient to that drug, but simply because it will promote the drug company's market share in sales of that preparation. I regard those trials, which have been widely criticised in the Press and elsewhere, as reprehensible, and I hope to say a little more about that as I make my speech.
First, I turn to the question of branding. As I said, it is designed for one purpose only and that is to prolong the sales life of a product, and it leads to almost all the bad practices in which drug companies indulge. It is branding that leads to extensive advertising and to representatives expensively calling upon doctors and bothering and cajoling them about the use of their company's drugs.
I do not object to the drug companies, in common with others, being given the protection of the patent laws. Indeed,

469
in this Parliament we propose—I am not sure whether the Bill has become law yet—to extend patent life from 16 to 20 years, and that will give companies substantial benefits which may well be deserved. But to prolong the benefit beyond the patent life by having got the doctor indoctrinated into using a brand name rather than the chemical, the generic or the official name in the pharmacopoeia is in my view, a quite unjustified practice.
I should make clear that it is also a practice that results in great cost to the National Health Service. For example —if I may just give one—the drug tetracycline is available in dozens of varieties, all chemically identical, and those who say that I am advocating that patients should be given an inferior or different drug are wrong, because the Pharmacopoeia Commission lays down that drugs must be formulated in an identical way for them to be able to take the chemical name. As I have said, there are dozens of varieties of tetracycline and some, while several times more expensive than others, in their effect on the patient are identical.
There is a simple way to stop that, and I propose it in my Bill. I have to say that it is not my own idea but the idea of a magazine published by the Consumers Association, entitled the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin. It says, and I believe it to be right, that a practical means of dealing with this problem would be to mark on all prescription forms "Please dispense non-proprietary equivalent", which the doctor could cross out or leave. That would be at the bottom of every prescription form, and if the doctor did not delete those words, thereby leaving the chemist free to dispense the cheapest drug of that kind, I propose in my Bill that no prescription charge would be made.
The purpose of that is to provide a small incentive to doctors and to patients to give some thought to the massive drug bill which they impose on the NHS, which now extends to £400 million or £500 million. To those who say that that could not work, I say that it is already working, and that it works for large numbers of my constituents, because in all of the hospitals of the Newcastle Area Health Authority that is already the case. No matter what the doctor writes on the pres-
470
cription form in hospital, the patient is dispensed the cheapest equivalent.
Let me give just one example. If the doctor writes "aldomet", which is the Merck, Sharpe and Dohme variety of the drug methyldopa, the patient is given methyldopa in the cheapest form that is available. There is no question of that being inferior or different. It is the same drug and the only difference is a saving to the NHS. On a slightly different basis, in Australia, New Zealand and a number of other countries precisely that arrangement is pursued with general practitioners.
I want to put in one reserve caveat because I am well aware of the remuneration problem of retail pharmacists. The formula for rewarding chemists would need to be adjusted so that they did not suffer because of the lower turnover that would result from the cheapest drugs being prescribed. I also propose that as well as getting a formula to make sure that their rewards stayed broadly the same they would get a more interesting job, for the simple reason that they would be relieved of the boring process of taking a drug from a shelf and putting it in a bottle. They would have to give some thought to which brand of the drug was to be provided in response to the prescription. They would not, of course, decide which type of drug; that would he decided by the doctor.
I come now to the question of bogus clinical trials. These are reprehensible in the extreme. There is an increasing public and professional concern about them, and it has been expressed by clinical pharmacologists, by the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin and by a number of other people, including the British Pharmacological Society.
The basis on which the trials are operated is as follows. A pseudo trial is designed by a pharmaceutical company, often by its marketing division with little or no guidance from its medical department. The trial protocols, the rules by which it is run, usually have characteristic features. They generally aim to recruit enormous numbers of patients. A total of 20,000 to 30,000 is common, and one study hoped to recruit 100,000.
Either the drug has been introduced recently and is competing with a lot of other drugs designed for the same purpose, or sometimes it is a drug whose patent life is about to run out and the

471
company hopes to get the patient transferred to a drug which still has a long patent life. The disease being treated is frequently one where drugs may have to be taken for a considerable period of time.
The methods for assessing the benefits of the trial are usually crude, the duration of observation is minimal, and the methods for recognising adverse drug reactions are very much over-simplified. Usually, the doctors concerned are provided with some small pecuniary reward, although it must be made clear that in my view in the vast majority of cases general practitioners are well motivated in participating in these trials and often are misled by the drug companies concerned as to their value.
The trial is analysed by the company's own personnel. The results are published in some obscure scientific or pseudoscientific journal in which often the rule of economy is reversed. The contributors are not paid. The drug companies which wish to have articles placed in the journals actually pay the journals. According to The Sunday Times earlier this year, as much as £85 per page is paid by the drug companies to get the results written up.
The real aims of the trials are threefold. They make sure that large numbers of patients go on to the drugs, and the sponsoring companies hope that they will stay on the drugs after the trials have ended. They are a means of drawing attention—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will come to a conclusion, will he not? He has had a Welsh 10 minutes already.
Mr. Thomas: Forgive me, Mr. Speaker. As I began my speech, I noticed the time. It was 3.32 precisely. I have still a minute to go.
Mr. Speaker: No. It was 3.31 when the hon. Member began.
Mr. Thomas: I shall get my spectacles adjusted, perhaps by consulting your optician Mr. Speaker.
I shall bring my remarks to a rapid conclusion. The purpose of the trials is as I have described them. No British-based research company indulges in these trials. They are indulged in entirely by multinationals.
In conclusion, I quote from the evidence by the British Pharmacological Society to the Royal Commission on the National Health Service, which spells out the matter very clearly. It said:
"Most of these studies are at best useless from a scientific point of view, and at worst they amount to little more than buying of prescriptions."
I believe that by involving the Medicines Commission and the ethical committee of the area health authority concerned, which my Bill proposes, we could control these trials.
The object of my Bill is very simple. It will not affect research. It will not affect exports. It will not affect the freedom of doctors to prescribe what they wish. However, it will abolish charges on most prescriptions at no cost to the National Health Service. It will stop wasteful expenditure on promotion. It will make the best use of doctors' and chemists' talents.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mike Thomas, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, Mr. Jack Ashley, Miss Betty Boothroyd and Mr. John Cartwright.

PRESCRIBED DRUGS (REGULATION OF PROMOTION)
  PRESCRIBED DRUGS (REGULATION OF PROMOTION)
  Mr. Mike Thomas accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the promotion and advertisement of prescribed drugs; to remove prescription charges in respect of certain classes of prescribed dugs; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 151.]
  ORDERS OF THE DAY
    SUPPLY
    [23RD ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

  HOUSING
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]
  Mr. Speaker: Before the debate begins, may I tell the House that there are more than 30 right hon. and hon. Members who have already indicated to me that they wish to participate? I make a very sincere and earnest appeal to right hon. and hon. Members who are called to exercise self-discipline and to remember that I also have a memory for those who do not co-operate.
  3.44 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: It is of obvious importance that we should come back again to the subject of housing on this Adjournment motion, for it it at the centre of the social preoccupation with politics.
  Every time that we have debated housing in recent months, we have done so against a deteriorating set of statistics in one way or another, and every time Ministers have sought to explain that there will be an improvement if only we give them a little longer for their policies to work their way through.
  But as this Government have now had some four years in which their policies have had time to work through, it is important for us to start at the beginning and to remember that they came to office committed to reversing what they called the serious fall in the housing programme under the previous Conservative Government.
  The fact is that there is a glaring distinction between what this Government have achieved and what they implied in their manifestos. Their best year in private sector housing completions is not even as good as the worst year under the last Conservative Government. The overall position of housing under this Government shows a very similar pattern. Last year. in 1977, fewer houses were
  474
  started than in any Conservative year, including the difficult year of 1973. Last year, completions under this Government exceeded only the worst year under the last Conservative Administration.
  Taking the average results of the four years of the last Conservative Government and the four years of this Government in each year this Government have on average seen the completion of 40,000 fewer houses than was achieved under the last Conservative Administration. Far from reversing what they described as the serious fall, the Government have made that serious fall a permanent feature of housing policy.
  The housing industry, which was suffering, as all other industries were suffering, from a temporary relapse as a result of the oil crisis, has now turned into a permanent cripple.
  Within that continuing and persistent decline, the Labour Government have sought to switch the emphasis of house building away from the private sector, which is in practice what the overwhelming majority of people wish to encourage, in favour of local authority housing. We have now reached the stage where the cost of subsidising local authority housing is so heavy that it has forced the Government to adopt economies in other areas of the housing programme where better value for money unquestionably could have been obtained and also in areas where the real hardship and difficulty is to be found. I am, of course, thinking of the older and unmodernised housing.
  Let me give one example. In order to help finance the increased council house programme, improvement grants have fallen from 361 in 1973 to only 113 in 1977. In other words, as part of the price of getting the public sector housing programme up by some 30,000, 250,000 houses in a year go unmodernised.
  No one could seriously reckon that that was an economic or a social tradeoff which a responsible Government should pursue.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it not a fact that although Labour supports both owner-occupation and council housing, most Conservative Members of Parliament are the enemies of council tenants? If the hon. Member denies that, will he give the House an undertaking that a Conservative Government would

  475
  not cut council house building and subsidies? I ask that question because, on a previous occasion, the hon. Member avoided giving the answer. We want an answer to that question.
  Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Member will understand that the level of housing support has been cut very significantly under this Government in every direction. Therefore, for me to suggest that it will be possible for a Conservative Government automatically to reverse that trend on coming to power is irresponsible, and I am not prepared to do it.
  However, the policies which we shall pursue for council tenants are incomparably more generous and realistic than anything that the present Government have on offer. I shall come back to this very important aspect of policy later in my speech.
  In housing, we have found that in order to pursue the most expensive and, I argue, the most doctrinal aspects of housing policy, the Labour Government have been prepared to witness an overriding decline in the level of housing provision. In other words, the easy promises of the General Election have produced, as so often under Socialist administrations, dramatically worse results than the previous Conservative Government were achieving.
  Mr. John Ovenden: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: I must obey Mr. Speaker's ruling. I am normally very generous in giving way but, as Mr. Speaker said, there are more than 30 right hon. and hon. Members who wish to contribute to the debate.
  I want to look at the Government's policies as they are reflected in both the demand for housing and, on the other side of the coin, the construction industry's ability to provide houses. On both counts, the Government's policies have undoubtedly contributed to the wider problems of the home construction industry. The demand for housing, like the demand for everything else, obviously is a reflection of people's ability to pay. As the real take-home pay of the average industrial worker is 3 per cent. lower than it was in 1973–74, it inevitably follows that the building industry and the
  476
  demand for new homes have suffered along with all other investment areas.
  Until there is a significant return to a rising real standard of living, it is cloud-cuckoo land to pretend that the home construction industry will be singled out for preferment and will see an upsurge in consistent demand for its products. The reality is that the moment there is any significant improvement in demand, as there was in the first quarter of this year, because the house-building programme in recent years has been so much lower than in previous years, there is a rapid increase in prices of the sort which created such panic in the Secretary of State's mind only a few weeks ago.
  The Conservatives got houses built on an increasing scale incomparably better. Far more people bought their new homes under the last Conservative Government than this Government have achieved by their administration. That is the fundamental justification for what went on.
  Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Prices?
  Mr. Heseltine: The prices relate to the incomes. The critical question is the level of real take-home pay. For the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) to barrack me when he has sat behind the Government, of which he was once a member, who have presided over a consistent decline in the standard of living of the British working people is an affront if ever there was one. Let us agree upon one thing that is certain. Until there is a genuine improvement in the real standard of living of the British people, the demand for new homes will remain at a relatively sluggish level.
  The Secretary of State of course faces the inevitable dilemma of the inadequate building programmes under his responsibility, for he saw that instant reaction in rising prices very dramatically the moment there appeared to be an increase in people's disposable income. He took the short-term expedient of choking off the supply of building society money by rationing mortgages. I would not deny that this is bound to have an effect in keeping prices under control in the short term. But equally, of course, it has the long-term effect of diminishing the construction industry's confidence in building new homes, and therefore one has a vicious circle of decline.

  477
  Until there is an adjustment of house prices, there will not be an increase in the number of houses coming on to construction stream. In practice, of course, the right hon. Gentleman need not have bothered to take the action he took to ration the level of mortgage provision, for it became apparent within a few weeks of that panic action that the Government's so-called recovery, so short lived, was already at an end, and the increase in the level of money supply and today's figures indicating the level of inflationary wage increases show that the economic strategy will have to be corrected in the relatively near future, which in itself will choke off any increase in houses prices anyway.
  The Secretary of State's technique in bringing house prices under control has had the effect of once again reducing the demand for houses but has also in the short term caused an increase in their price levels dramatically faster than the rate at which real take-home pay was rising.
  Not only has the Government's overall economic policy gravely weakened the housing situation, as all statistics indicate, but the detailed specific decisions taken by the Secretary of State within the environs of his own Department have consistently added to the problems created by the overall economic situation.
  First, the Community Land Act is recognised widely as a major deterrent to the provision of land for new housing and to the confidence of the industry. It is without question the most oversold feature of the Government's housing programme. In its first year of operation, 32 acres of land were released. In the second year, between 350 and 400 acres were released. I calculate that, at 10 houses to the acre, that would enable in two years an additional 3,000 houses to be built when the overall housing construction programme for the country in that period was about 600,000. To suggest that the Community Land Act had anything other than an irritant effect in the provision of new houses is not borne out by the statistics.
  I was surprised that the Government have become so concerned at the charges being made against the Act that only on 19th June they issued a circular claiming that Liverpool is to get 1,000 more homes thanks to the Act. If one reads
  478
  behind the sensationalised healdines produced by the Department, one discovers that 87 acres of disused British Rail land have been rescued from dereliction and transferred to the local authority. Because that is claimed to have been done by the Community Land Act, it is claimed as a triumph for the Act.
  But the fact is that there was nothing to stop the transfer of the land from British Rail to the local authority long before the Act was a gleam in a Socialist eye. What it proves is not that the Act is necessary but that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has been consistently right in pointing out that there is far too much land in the city centres in the ownership of local authorities and nationalised industries, that too little of it is being released, that too little is known of the scale of the ownership, that the process of developing it should and could have been dramatically speeded up, and that that did not need the Community Land Act from beginning to end.
  Mr. Heifer: This piece of land is in my constituency. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for many years I conducted correspondence with the then Conservative local authority and British Rail urging them to come to an agreement about it? The local authority was dragging its feet, and eventually there had to be Government-supported intervention before the land was transferred.
  Mr. Heseltine: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Liverpool has not been under Conservative control for many years. There has been nothing to stop a Labour Minister from intervening at any time since 1974, but it took until 1978. It is unrealistic to suggest that the Community Land Act was in any way necessary in that process. The Press release sent out by the Department is a deliberate attempt to try to give credit to the Act for a piece of administration by the Department and nothing more.
  Mr. Heller: Why did not the local Tory authority do it?
  Mr. Heseitine: The hon. Gentleman does not understand the situation. There have been four years during which the Tories were not responsible for the Liverpool authority at all. I am arguing that the Community Land Act was not in any way essential for the transfer of that land,

  479
  despite what the Press release suggests. What we have argued consistently is that what is needed is not the Community Land Act but a very much greater sense of realism and urgency about the need to release inner city land. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman should have used his good offices to get that land in Liverpool transferred, but it is a drop in the ocean compared with the land owned in the public sector, a great deal of which should be put on offer for development, particularly in the private sector.
  The second feature of the Government's policies which undoubtedly is already aggravating the house-building industry and will make the position worse is the proposal to move the development land tax up to 80 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the concern in the building industry over the provision of land is growing, and that the large-scale building companies believe that by 1980. unless there is a significant increase in the stream of land, it will adversely affect the industry's capacity to provide new houses. The Government should announce at once that they have no intention of moving up to that level of taxation and ensure that under the taxation of gains the rate of the tax is pitched at a level acceptable both to those who own the land and those who seek to buy it.
  Thirdly, the Government will argue that their new legislation to provide loans and grants for house purchasers is a significant contribution to young people's ability to buy their own homes. It is worth checking the facts.
  The Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Bill to provide these incentives to young people was introduced last February. Five months later, the price of the average new house has risen by well over £1,000 since February—the period that it has taken to get the legislation through the parliamentary processes so far.
  What would the Government scheme contribute to anyone now wanting to buy those homes? A maximum grant of £100 and a loan of £600. Therefore, the Government's incentive scheme, and the time it took to get it through the processes of the parliamentary system, actually leaves average purchasers hundreds of
  480
  pounds worse off at the end of the process than they were had they bought their home at the beginning of the process. The fact is that if someone manages to scramble together the resources to buy, it is almost certain that he will need to take out a substantial mortgage. Such a person will find that the average mortgage today costs about an extra £2 a week than is did a few weeks ago.
  But, of course, mortgages always cost more under a Labour Government. If one takes the average level of mortgage interest rates under the whole of the four years of the previous Conservative Government and under the whole of the four years of this Government, one finds that approximately 2 per cent. extra is having to be found by everyone who has an average mortgage on a house.
  The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The mortgage rate came down under this Government.
  Mr. Heseltine: Mortgage rates have just started going up under this Government. I would be fascinated to hear the Secretary of State tell us whether he sees mortgage interest rates coming down in the near future.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): What were they in 1974?
  Mr. Heseltine: I gave the figures for a four-year average and not during the period of the oil crisis.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Nonsense.
  Mr. Heseltine: The averages are not nonsense. If the hon. Gentleman seriously intends to tell the people of this country that four years of Labour Government is worth an extra 2 per cent. on their mortgage interest rates, persistently year in and year out, I am afraid that he will find a very different response from the electorate. In other words, for every week in which this Government have been in power everyone who has an average mortgage has been paying an additional £2·50, simply for the extra cost of borrowing under a Labour Government.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what the mortgage rates

  481
  were at the time when the Conservatives came into office in 1970 and at the time when they left? To what level have they now come down?
  Mr. Heseltine: The only thing of importance to someone paying off a mortgage, which is a long-term exercise, is the average cost of borrowing over any period of time. The important statistic is that for every week of this Labour Government £2·50 extra has been the cost of interest rates alone for every average mortgage holder.
  The fourth decision for which this Government are responsible affects the future of the building industry itself. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Walton is present. If that industry did not have problems enough as a result of the Government's economic policies, in practice it now faces the uncertainties with regard to the State threat to nationalise companies within the industry.
  I know that the House will be familiar with the campaign which is being launched by the construction industry under the name of CABIN, about which we have all seen Press coverage this week. I do not intend to argue the merits one way or another in this debate, because we can do that another time. What I do say to the Government is that if they think that they will get co-operation and enthusiasm from those responsible for the construction industry by allowing the impression to gain ground that nationalisation is always on the agenda, they have no concept whatever of the diversion of management time which is now being committed in order to persuade people in Britain that they should allow that industry to remain in the free enterprise sector.
  The pattern is familiar. We have seen it happen in industry after industry, where the Labour Party is prepared to pursue its narrow doctrinal purpose regardless of the efficiency of the industry or the service which it can provide to the country at large. Regrettably, it has now moved on across the whole industrial spectrum to the construction industry and the material supplies industry.
  Mr. Helier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? [HON. MEMBERS "Not again."] The hon. Gentleman referred
  482
  to me and surely I am entitled to ask a question on that basis. Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by "nationalisation of the construction industry" in view of the fact that the document in front of him—"Building Britain's Future" produced by the Labour Party, and which I hope all hon. Members read rather than just take from the employers' Press—does not propose nationalisation? What it proposes is the setting up of a national construction company based upon two major companies. That initially means that one begins with two and from then onwards that company expands and develops, but not taking over other companies. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that his view is the same as it was when we set up the National Enterprise Board? Time and again he repeated in this House and throughout the country that the Labour Government intended to nationalise 100 firms. That was a lie, and it is a lie to say that we intend to nationalise the construction industry.
  Mr. Heseltine: What the hon. Gentleman does not understand is that if we are misrepresenting the nationalisation plans of the Labour Government, it is in the gift of Cabinet Ministers to deny that there is to be any nationalisation of any companies in the construction industry. If the Prime Minister, when asked whether these plans are realistic, accepts that nationalisation is always on the agenda of the Labour Party, then it is realistic that we in the Conservative Party who are opposed to it will never cease to draw the attention of the country to the dangers involved. If we are distorting the Labour Party's plans, then all I ask the Secretary of State to say is that he does not believe in the policy. I ask him to explain why the Prime Minister, or any of his colleagues, did not deny its value at the Labour Party conference which opposed it.
  I would be most grateful to understand why an unidentified Cabinet Minister had to go off to Sir Maurice Laing in order to try to persuade him—of course, behind closed doors—to drop the campaign. Why has that been done now that we are running up to a General Election campaign, when traditionally the Labour Party understands that nationalisation as an issue is widely unpopular with the

  483
  public and will, therefore, do everything it can to suppress the contents?
  Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: No, I shall not give way.
  Mr. Heller: That is a lie.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is not giving way.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was tolerant last Thursday of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). He is using the expression "liar" of too many hon. Members of this House too frequently. I think that it is time that he was called to withdraw it or to leave the Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has called anyone in this Chamber a liar, he must withdraw it.
  Mr. Heffer: If you, Mr. Speaker, insist that under parliamentary rules I withdraw it, I shall withdraw it, but only under parliamentary rules.
  Mr. Speaker: Those are the rules under which we all operate.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) asked me about the view we hold about council tenants.
  Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps I can help both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Walton. As it happens, a fortnight today I shall be addressing an anti-nationalisation rally in Durham. If the hon. Gentleman or the Secretary of State would like to join me there, to assure everyone that the Labour Party is not proposing any nationalisation in the building industry, I am sure that either of them would be very welcome. I should like a statement from the Secretary of State right now.
  Mr. Heseltine: I have no doubt that if they care to give my hon. Friend a letter he will read it out for them in order to save them the trouble of going there.
  If the hon. Member for Walton will calm down for a moment perhaps we can get on with the debate. As I want
  484
  to talk about council tenants, who are of importance to his constituency, perhaps we can move to that part of what I want to say. The fact is that the economic growth climate of today will lead to an extension of the property-owning democracy on a scale slower than that which we first saw when it was first developed in the 1950s, simply because the real disposable income of the people will not permit the dramatic increase in private ownership on the scale which history once provided. But the council tenant and new town tenant give us the opportunity of extending the property-owning democracy perhaps faster than we have done even under the development of the privately owned house.
  The first point is that a large number of council tenants want to own their own homes. The second point is that they understand that if they own their own homes they are likely to share in the rising prosperity of the country in a tangible way which is identifiable with themselves, their families and the saving which their homes represent. It is therefore obviously a major preoccupation, certainly of our party, that council tenants and new town tenants should have the right to buy the home in which they live. I cannot understand why, when my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Smith) introduced a Bill to give council tenants that right, the Labour Party and the Liberal Party voted against it.
  It is a curious anachronism that the Labour Party always talks about transferring power to working people but that the moment someone actually proposes to let them own their own homes and enjoy the power that that gives in the most real and tangible way, thus enfranchising working people on a scale never attempted before, the Labour Party is determined that the closest that power will come to the British working people is the office of some bureaucrat up the road.
  Therefore, let me repeat that we in the Conservative Party will give council and new town tenants a statutory right to buy their own homes if they choose to do so. We shall also encourage a flexible range of part-purchase and co-ownership schemes for those in the twilight position—not able to buy but wanting to start on the process of having a stake.
  Mr. David Penhaligon: Will the hon. Gentleman give that statutory right in seaside resorts, many of which are represented by members of his party and where already there is a vast transfer of housing out of normal use and into summer lets? Does he recognise this difficulty? Would he give council tenants the right to buy at 20 per cent. off and then to sell to whom they choose? Does he recognise that seaside resorts will become void of housing for working people if such a policy is enacted?
  Mr. Heseltine: What a curious thing. The hon. Gentleman wants to deprive the council tenants in his area of the right to become owners because otherwise housing could not be provided for tourist accommodation. What one should do is encourage those tenants to own and if necessary to sell their houses so that they move to areas where there are jobs, perhaps leaving houses which can be used to encourage tourists, thus bringing more jobs and prosperity to the people the hon. Gentleman represents. So the answer to his question is yes—our statutory right will apply to the very people included in his question.
  Of course, our policy will not only give an identifiable stake to council tenants; it will also release resources which the local authority or the Government or wherever we decide the money should be allocated to concentrate on the areas of stress, which are or should be our prime concern. Thus, not only do we enhance the position of the council tenant himself but we encourage the community to provide solutions for areas where there are real problems.
  Council estates are looking for new initiatives to change the type of life which so many people there have had to lead. It is obvious and accepted that large numbers of council tenants will not want to buy and cannot buy, and we must not neglect them. We want them to be much more involved in administering and playing a part in the management of their estates. There is a powerful argument for experimenting with co-ownership schemes on council estates to give the tenants a much greater identity of interest.
  Above all else, as an act of priority—I cannot understand why the Secretary of State has delayed this so long—there should be a tenants' charter to set out
  486
  their rights. That is a long overdue provision which this Parliament should put on the statute book. We shall do that, because we believe that it is necessary to involve those tenants more and more in the decisions which affect their lives. In reality, those decisions are so often taken by the bureaucrats who do not live on the estates on which the tenants have to live.
  Therefore, my charge against the Government is twofold. First of all, with their policies on taxation and high Government expenditure, they have significantly damaged the provision of new homes. In every year that they have been in office, an average of 40,000 fewer houses have been built than were built by the Conservatives when in power. Secondly by their policy initiatives, their objectives and their administrative decisions, they have demoralised the construction industry, witnessed a dramatic increase in unemployment in the industry, and managed an inadequate programme of housing. On any of those grounds they would deserve criticism but on the combination of all of them, they cannot resist censure.
  4.15 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): I greatly welcome this debate, which provides us with an opportunity to review the progress of housing policies. On this occasion it enables me to inform the House of our main conclusions on the housing Green Paper that we published just over a year ago and to outline the general aspect of the legislation that we intend to introduce.
  I also welcome of course—one always does—the speech of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). His speeches are always lively. I sometimes find them a little difficult to follow, because he and I study the same mass of data and information and I sometimes puzzle how it is that we draw such different conclusions from them. Nevertheless, that is what we do. I should therefore begin by describing some of the matters on which we disagree. This is right, because it is almost a year to the day since we last debated housing on an Opposition Supply Day motion, in the context of reviewing the main developments of the past 12 months and the present outlook

  487
  I am glad to say—I do not see how anyone could fail to be equally glad if he was interested in housing and in people—that in nearly every sphere of housing policy there has been a considerable improvement since our last debate.
  First, we have been able to increase capital expenditure on housing. In the construction package of last October, the Chancellor announced a substantial increase in public expenditure. As part of that, we were able to allocate an additional £170 million to housing investment for 1978–79 and a further £100 million for 1979–80. As those who have studied this year's public expenditure White Paper will know, the housing investment programme is now rising again and the new level will be maintained over the whole period.
  Secondly, we have enjoyed another year of moderation in rent increases in the public sector. On average, rents rose by just on 60p a week in 1977–78 and all the signs are that the rise is likely to be less in the current year.
  Thirdly, in spite of the setback of 9th June, we have seen over the past 12 months a most welcome fall in mortgage interest rates. When the hon. Member addressed the House on 20th June 1977, the mortgage rate stood at 11¼ per cent. When the latest increase comes into effect, it will be 9¾; per cent. Of course I regret that increase, but 9¾ per cent. is a welcome change from the 1l¾ per cent. of a year ago and the 11 per cent. at which the rate stood when we took office from the previous Administration at the beginning of 1974.
  Many millions of owner-occupiers have been helped in the past year by falling mortgage rates. They have been helped, too how the hon. Gentleman can deny this I do not know—by the growing number of building society mortgages which have been available. There were 786,000 mortgage commitments in 1977 and no fewer than 858,000 in the 12 months ending May this year. Both are record figures for mortgage advances.
  Fourthly, we have introduced a new and valuable measure to assist first-time purchasers. It will provide for those qualifying—and we expect about 200,000 buyers a year to qualify—an interest-free loan of £600. This will be added to the normal mortgage advance. For many
  488
  first-time buyers this will make all the difference in assembling the necessary deposit. Because the loan is interest free for five years, buyers will find their mortgage payments reduced by about £4 a month. On top of this, savers can also qualify for bonus of up to £110—which is cash.
  Young couples setting up their first home will understand and appreciate the help they are getting—even if hon. Members opposite continue to lack both comprehension and appreciation. If, as I hope, we shall obtain Royal Assent in the next few weeks, the two-year saving period can begin in the autumn. From that date, prospective buyers can make their plans in the knowledge of the conditions they must fulfil and the help they will receive.
  Mr. Tebbit: As the Secretary of State knows, we welcome these proposals, but would he put them in context? Would he agree with me that the £600 loan is rather less than the aggregate amount by which the net take-home pay of the average industrial worker has fallen from the levels at which it stood in February 1974? The net result of the Government's period in office, therefore, is that the average worker gets a loan of £600, having lost that much in cash.
  Mr. Shore: The figure that we had in mind for the loan to be available to assist first-time purchasers was conceived only when we announced the measure—just eight or nine months ago. The real relevance of the figure is to the cost of house price increases. This is the significant thing—the relationship between the help that we are giving and the actual prices of houses for sale.
  Fifthly, we introduced last year the system of local housing strategies and investment programmes. It requires authorities to prepare capital investment programmes in the light of a comprehensive assesment of their housing needs. These then serve as the basis for the allocation of capital resources by the Government, having regard to national priorities and the resources available.
  The new system has only just started. With the help of the new Housing Consultative Council and the input of housing information from the national dwelling and housing survey we shall refine and improve it.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it not a fact that among the bigger local authorities. such Conservative-controlled councils as Leeds and Bradford have viciously axed their council house building programmes, whereas the Labour-controlled authorities, such as Sheffield and Manchester have maintained theirs? Since most councils are now Conservative-controlled, can my right hon. Friend do anything to prevent their cutting their housing programmes?
  Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has hit upon a difficult problem. I shall say something later about this. The ability of central government to persuade elected local authorities to build when they have not the will to do so, is extremely limited.
  Mr. Heseltine: But is the Secretary of State aware that he has approved only 69 per cent. of the applications from local authorities to spend on council building'? In these circumstances, it is his Department—not the local authorities—that is remiss.
  Mr. Shore: That will not do. I saw the astonishing Association of Metropolitan Authorities' release. It was astonishing for two reasons. First, I know for certain that the chairman of the AMA had not seen it, and he has since issued a statement repudiating it. That is quite remarkable in itself. Secondly, the use of figures in the release is so tendentious as to be beyond belief. The bids put in by all local authorities for the first round was for a total sum greater than has ever been spent in any single year on housing. Quite clearly, no Government will simply accept, as it were, the first-off bid of the local authorities. These have to be looked at and pruned down to a sensible size. In addition to that, when we actually know that they are under-spending what we have already allocated, we can only conclude that they have turned the whole thing into a propaganda exercise.
  I was talking about the benefits that we have seen already from housing investment programmes. In fact £40 million of the additional £100 million allocation made to local authorities this year went to the North-West Region, in particular to Manchester and Liverpool—the great conurbations. I believe that this system will prove to be an increasingly valuable tool for local and central government
  490
  alike in helping us to make the maximum impact on housing needs where they are greatest and where they can be most clearly defined.
  Sixthly, we have taken two specific initiatives to increase the rate of home improvement. In August we made very substantial increases in the eligible expense limits for the various improvement grants. At the same time we increased the rateable value limits for discretionary grants for owner-occupiers. These improvements are being buttressed by a major publicity campaign which we launched in March.
  I want now to comment on the level of new house building. The house builders' own recent Great Britain forecast for 1978 is for a figure of starts in the private sector totalling 165,000—a considerable increase over the 135,000 private sector houses started in 1977. In the last four months, private sector starts were 15 per cent. up on the same period of last year—not quite the miserable picture that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  In the public sector, however, while completions in 1977 were unaffected and totalled 162,000—almost exactly the same as the totals achieved in 1975 and 1976—starts and still more approvals both fell substantially.
  Some of this was unavoidable last year given the measures and new procedures that we had to introduce in July and December of 1976. But what worries me is that, having substantially increased the allocations for housing investment this year, there is still no evidence—in spite of the tendentious stuff that has been quoted—that local authorities are actually increasing the rate of starts and approvals. I have strongly urged them to bring forward schemes, to programme ahead and to take account of the tolerance arrangements.
  I do not dismiss the possibility that we are beginning to see a considerable switch into improvement and out of new building in some areas where housing stress is beginning to ease. But I have more than a suspicion that in some other areas where need is still manifestly high—including the Greater London area—unjustified, doctrinally motivated cuts are being made. We have certainly not been helped by the fact that the majority of all housing authorities are under the control

  491
  of Conservative councils, many of whom have heeded the advice of the hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does the Secretary of State mean to say that the failure of the Welsh local authorities three years running to take up the moneys allocated by the Government is doctrinally motivated? And what does he mean by doctrinally motivated, anyway?
  Mr. Shore: I mean policy-dominated—a policy which, in the circumstances of housing stress, denies the relevance of public sector building for meeting the need for housing to rent. I am not saying that this is the case with all local authorities, but on the record and evidence of what has been said by the leaders of the various Conservative-controlled councils, no one can dispute that this is precisely what they intend.
  Mr. Heseltine: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that when Labour councillors take action it amounts to economic prudence, but that when Conservative councillors take similar action it is doctrinal obsession?
  Mr. Shore: I am glad to say that there is evidence that although, unfortunately, we control a considerably smaller number of councils than the Conservative Party controls, they account for a disproportionate percentage of starts.
  I have been concerned about evidence of acceleration of house prices earlier this year. Therefore, with the agreement of the Building Societies Association the exceptionally high volume of mortgage lending was cut back from April of this year. There is now evidence that the acceleration of prices is decreasing. I do not believe we shall see the house price explosion feared by many people a few months ago. However, we shall continue to monitor the situation closely with the building societies and be prepared to adjust the volume of lending as events demand. I do not intend to sit on my hands, as my Conservative predecessors did, while house prices rocket beyond the reach of so many would-be purchasers.
  Taking the longer period of the past four years—and I have spoken so far of all that has happened since we last
  492
  debated this matter a year ago—we have undoubtedly made real progress in housing policy. One of our major national concerns throughout the whole of this period has been the defeat of hyperinflation. It is noteworthy that since March 1974 rents in both private and public sectors, mortgage repayments and house prices have all increased at a substantially lower rate than has the cost of living generally, and well below the increase in average earnings.
  Let me give the House one vivid example. House prices have risen by an average of 8 per cent. per year—32 per cent. in four years from the spring of 1974 to the spring of this year. What a contrast that is with the experience of the four preceding years of Conservative Government when house prices more than doubled. If we are accused of not making adequate provision in our measures to assist first-time purchase, I must point out that if the country were to experience again the house price explosion of the kind that occurred when the Conservatives were last in power, no measure to assist first-time purchasers could stand the strain.
  That is by no means all. During this four-year period over 1,200,000 new homes have been completed and a further 800,000 have been substantially improved. There are now 750,000 more owner-occupiers than there were four years ago and, with the co-operation of the building societies, we have during a period of general money instability avoided the feasts and famines of mortgage supply which characterised the period of office of the Conservative Administration.
  At the same time we have eased the shortage of rented housing by a substantially increased supply of local authority and Housing Corporation houses. More than 600,000 have been completed in our four-year period. By extending security of tenure in the private rented sector through the 1974 Rent Act—which the Opposition did not vote against either on Second or Third Reading, despite all their carping since—we have substantially cut back on the number of people rendered homeless by eviction from furnished premises.
  Last but not least, we have halted the dangerous and damaging land price boom. I do not know whether these

  493
  figures have been quoted before, but I would point out that private sector housing land prices rose by over 200 per cent. between March 1970 and March 1974. Between March 1974 and March 1978 they fell by over 20 per cent. That is the measure of the difference between the attitudes of the two parties.
  All this adds up to a formidable achievement. When I add, as I should, the provisions of the Housing Act 1974, which gave a new impetus to housing association activity, the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975, which repealed the Housing Act 1972 and restored to local authorities the right to determine reasonable but non-profit rents, the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, which remedied a long-standing injustice suffered by farm workers, the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, on which the Government gave full support to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), and our Homes Insulation Bill, which is now under discussion in Parliament, it will be seen that our legislative record is most impressive.
  Mr. Michael Latham: Is that all the Secretary of State intends to say on the subject of land—namely the jejeune comments he made a moment ago? Has he nothing to say about the failure of the Community Land Act?
  Mr. Shore: A great deal has been said about the Community Land Act, and not least about the excellent Press conference held yesterday by my ministerial colleague. The truth about the Community Land Act, contrary to the absurd charges which have been made, is that we have had just two years of its operation. In the second year of that period, for reasons I very much regret, we have had to reduce its activities. We are now setting aside substantial new resources for that Act and we expect it to be able to fulfil many of the purposes orginally set out for it.
  Against that background of achievement, what have the Opposition to say? Of course they carp and crib, but what are the distinctive alternative policies of the Conservative Party? Encouragement of owner-occupation is not a distinctive policy. The fact that the majority of households are owner-occupied and that the number is constantly growing owes just as much to the Labour side of the
  494
  House as to the Conservative Benches and gives equal satisfaction. Indeed, since we are the authors of the Home Purchase Assistance Bill, I do not think our credentials can be doubted.
  It is not a one-off measure. As anybody who has attended debates and Question Times on housing matters will know, one of the main matters of concern repeatedly expressed on this side of the House is mortgage availability in general and a special concern for the supply of mortgage money for low income families. Indeed, it is no accident that the last major piece of legislation extending owner-occupation was the option mortgage scheme introduced by my late colleague and friend, Richard Crossman, when he was Minister of Housing. Therefore, there is nothing between the two sides of the House in the wish to extend owner-occupation.
  What then does divide us? It came out clearly from the remarks of the hon. Member for Henley. It is the Opposition's manifest and obsessive dislike of local authority council housing. The origins are clear enough. It is their long-held belief that the taxpayer and the ratepayer contribute too much and the council tenant too little to the cost of council housing. Is that not the case?
  Mr. Heseltine: If the right hon. Gentleman is looking for an immediate answer, my answer will be different from his. The reason why I personally and my party are preoccupied with enfranchising the council tenants is that we believe that the owner-occupier has achieved a real personal stake in the value of his home. That gives him a degree of power and involvement which has been denied to the council tenant.
  Let me give the Secretary of State one statistic. A man who bought an average-priced new house 20 years ago paid £2,500 for it. That house is now worth £13,000. That has opened a gap between the achievement of the owner-occupier and the council tenant that is becoming unbridgeable. That is why I want to give council tenants the right to own their own homes.
  Mr. Shore: I am very much in favour of council tenants being able to become owner-occupiers, and I am glad to say that between 40,000 and 60,000 a year become owner-occupiers. The issue is not

  495
  whether they should become owner-occupiers. We are to extend the provisions of our Home Purchase Bill so that council tenants can also make use of it. The issue is whether they should become owner-occupiers and take their houses out of the pool of rented properties. The hon. Member for Henley said that this is what he wants to do.
  I have said that the major belief of the Opposition was that the taxpayer and the ratepayer contribute too much and the council tenant too little to the cost of council housing. So strongly was this view held in the last Conservative Administration that they took the extraordinary legislative powers in the Housing Finance Act 1972 to remove the right of local authorities to determine their own rent levels.
  The same attitude is there today. No statement of Conservative economic policy is complete without a reference to the inordinate cost of council housing and the inclusion of housing subsidies in any short list of retrenchment measures to savage public expenditure. It is time that the country knew what the Conservative Party has in mind. I have heard a figure of £500 million mentioned. No doubt the hon. Member for Henley can confirm whether this is the order of magnitude of saving that they wish to make. Let me tell him that such a drop in housing subsidies would be equivalent to an increase of £2 a week in unrebated rents.
  Let me tell the hon. Gentleman this too: it is simply not on for him to contemplate major reductions in subsidies to council tenants while, at the same time, the Conservatives pledge themselves to new and still more costly subsidies to owner-occupiers. I do not know whether the 91 per cent. building society mortgage rate ceiling which the Leader of the Opposition offered the nation at the last General Election is still Tory policy. Is it?
  Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful for the chance to point out that if one wanted to save money on housing subsidies, as the right hon. Gentleman charges us with wanting to do, the most effective way of doing it would be to encourage council tenants to buy their own homes. I believe that it is statistically accurate to
  496
  say that if every council house were sold for £2,500, no subsidies would be required.
  Mr. Shore: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. I gave way to enable him to answer a specific question and he refused to answer it. He need not have bothered to intervene.
  The cost of the Opposition's proposal for a 9½ per cent. mortgage rate ceiling would have been about £600 million in the last four years and their grant proposals, offered as an alternative to our loans proposal for first-time purchasers, would cost at least an extra £350 million a year.
  I can well understand why, as we approach the last Session of this Parliament, the Opposition should wish to say as little as possible about cutting housing subsidies and raising rents and I can see why the idea of mass sales of local authority dwellings appears to be rather more attractive. The hon. Member for Henley gave us his views today and reports of his speech to the annual Conservative Women's conference in London on 22nd May said that the hon. Gentleman told the conference that
  "people on council estates had to be attracted to the Tory party … Tories had to communicate with people on council estates and in new towns."
  That is sage advice.
  What are they now proposing? They propose a policy of large-scale and indiscriminate sales of council houses. They intend, they say, to introduce a right to buy which will be available to all council tenants. Indeed, such is their enthusiasm for this policy that we now have the hon. Member for Henley appearing, somewhat improbably, as the defender of the council tenant, solemnly proclaiming not that he is paying too little—the old and familiar cry—but rather that he is paying too much and is getting a raw deal.
  I need to say only three things about this. First, I believe that the alleged financial gains to the Exchequer would prove to be illusory. The fact is that over time, the loss of rent income to the local authority and the cost of increased mortgage relief to the Exchequer would more than cancel out any supposed advantages in terms of reduced housing management cost and housing subsidy.

  497
  Secondly, I do not believe that, in practice, substantial sales would be achieved—certainly not on the basis of a reasonable selling price including the present discounts. Well over half of the housing authorities are in Conservative hands and yet they managed to sell only just over 12,000 houses in 1977.
  Mr. Joseph Dean: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for every 1,000 council houses sold, the cost to councils of replacing them over the 60-year loan repayment period within which local authorities buy their houses would be a minimum of £70 million?
  Mr. Shore: If the local authority had to start building new houses, it would lose all the advantages of historic cost and pooling and it would be much more expensive. My hon. Friend has made an important point.
  I want to make plain that a policy of selling off council houses in areas of housing shortage—and they will inevitably be those most sought after because of their situation, their gardens and their amenities—would be socially irresponsible.
  I think the hon. Member for Henley knows this to be true, which is why his hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) recently went so far as to suggest that council houses should be sold at a 50 per cent. discount. They have almost caught up with the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) who thought that they should be given away. I do not believe they have seriously reflected on what these proposals involve.
  We do not intend to enter into a Dutch auction with the Conservative Party. We have pursued since the beginning of this Parliament a policy that local authorities, which have a duty to provide for the housing needs in their areas, should exercise responsibly the freedom given them to make decisions about the sale of council houses. We expect those in areas of housing stress to use that power with the utmost restraint.
  Mr. Reginald Eyre: Has the Secretary of State realised that the problems of council tenants, particularly in the large towns and cities, are the area of housing policy most neglected by the Government? Can
  498
  he explain why Labour Members last year voted against my Council Tenants' Charter Bill and why this year, after I had introduced such a Bill, from which no one dissented, the Government Whips repeatedly blocked it every Friday so that we have never had the chance to debate those problems? That is real neglect of the people living in council houses.
  Mr. Shore: I am a great admirer of the hon. Gentleman, but I did not think that his proposal was one of the better proposals that he has put forward. We have been working hard on a tenants' charter and it would have been absurd for us to attempt to erect what we wish to erect on a rather inadequate foundation.
  I want to return from the rather dismal world of Opposition housing policies to the real world of housing and serious policy making. A year ago, the Government published a Green Paper on housing policy in England and Wales and issued a series of consultation papers on particular topics.
  The Green Paper has attracted many responses from those concerned with housing throughout the country. I want to thank all those who have put so much effort into preparing the responses. We have given them serious study and it is right that I should now, before dealing with our specific proposals, tell the House the conclusions that the Government have reached.
  First, and very important, we shall continue to provide general Exchequer assistance to both main housing sectors. We shall continue to subsidise local authority housing, and we shall continue to afford tax relief on mortgage interest to owner-occupiers. These are tried arrangements and have been the foundation of the major housing achievement that Britain has had under successive Administrations in the post-war era. Thus we oppose the pseudo-radical alternatives of market pricing and the doctrine of shared misery for home buyers and council tenants alike, both deprived of Exchequer support. Of course, we oppose the Opposition's proposals for a one-sided assault on public sector subsidies. In short, we shall not see millions of household budgets disrupted by rising rents and net mortgage payments through savage cuts in either subsidies or tax relief. Our approach is an even-handed one,

  499
  because we genuinely recognise the value and importance of both sectors.
  Secondly, we reaffirm the need for a more selective and discerning approach to housing policy designed to concentrate resources where needs are greatest—both as regards people and places—and the need to widen individual choice.
  Thirdly, we reaffirm the importance of the public sector to the steady improvement of housing conditions.
  Fourthly, we support the increasing and broadening desire for home ownership. We shall work with the financial institutions to ensure as stable and adequate a flow of mortgage funds as economic circumstances permit.
  Finally, we shall increase our efforts to improve both the quality of the housing stock and the balance between rehabilitation and new construction.
  The House will realise that a number of these proposals call for legislation and I want to say a word about the wide-ranging legislative proposals that we are currently preparing. There will be a new subsidy system resting on three cardinal principles. These will be the retention of the non-profit rule, the right of local authorities to settle their own rent levels and the extent of any contribution from the rate fund, and that average rents should rise no faster than average income.
  Our aim is to recast the present subsidy system in order gradually to provide a more adequate share of resources for those authorities confronted with the most pressing needs and the highest costs. In doing so, we shall ensure that tenants are not faced with savage and unexpected increases in rents. The amount of subsidy that an authority receives would be based on the subsidy paid to it for the preceding year. That sum would then be increased or decreased by taking into account changes in their qualifying expenditure and the increase in their local contribution from rent and rates.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: It would be helpful in the context of some matters that I wish to raise in the debate if my right hon. Friend gave some indication of what he regards as a savage and unacceptable increase in rent.
  Mr. Shore: I have indicated that we have in mind a ceiling. That ceiling
  500
  would be an increase in rent equal to the increase in average earnings. That is the main test, as it were.
  We shall also take the opportunity to make appropriate adjustments to the subsidy arrangements for new towns and housing associations.
  Mr. Michael Morris rose—
  Mr. Shore: No, I shall not give way.
  The new legislation will also provide a package—it is a matter of particular interest to many others—of legal rights for public sector tenants. The first of these is security of tenure, which the Government are already pledged to extend to public sector tenants. The second is a statutory right of tenants to carry out improvements and to apply for the same grants as are available to home owners. In addition tenants will have a right to a written tenancy agreement. We are also considering an obligation on the local authority to provide a framework for participation with their tenants on matters which affect their interests.
  I also propose to safeguard the interests of people seeking council housing by requiring local authorities to publish their allocation schemes, as many do, and, in the interests of mobility, to ease but not abolish residential qualifications.
  Statutory rights for public sector tenants must be supported with better management and better upkeep. The quality of the immediate environment of all our council estates needs continuing attention and we want a particular effort to be made to improve the management of our older housing estates and of the less successful of our newer estates, especially in our hard-pressed inner urban areas. I intend to make sure that the new subsidy system will give local authorities more scope to devote resources to management and maintenance and to concentrate them where the need is greatest. We shall be encouraging local authorities in these areas to consider new initiatives, including the linking of housing management with wider community and neighbourhood schemes.
  For owner-occupiers I have already mentioned the Home Purchase Assistance Bill. We now envisage two further measures. First, we shall enable local authorities to keep their mortgage interest

  501
  rates in line with those charged by building societies. At the same time we propose to strengthen the power of local authorities to provide guarantees to building societies where they lend to people on lower incomes or those who are buying cheaper, older houses.
  I have already touched on some aspects of the private rented sector but the House will wish to know what progress we have made in our review of the Rent Acts.
  As we said in the Green Paper, there is a long-established and deep-seated trend in the contraction of the private rented sector. However, there are some 2 million households still living in privately rented accommodation and so the sector will be of importance for a considerable period ahead. In particular, the sector is still an important source of accommodation for the young mobile as well as for certain other groups. There are wide-ranging and interlocking issues to be considered. The Rent Acts, as consolidated in 1977—a consolidation measure—run to nearly 200 pages of text. Well over 2,000 decided legal cases bear on the Acts' interpretation, and they continue to come in thick and fast. In spite of their origins as a temporary measure, the Acts have been part of the code of social legislation in this country for over 60 years under Administrations of all parties. I make no apology therefore—I say this to some critics on the Opposition Benches—for rejecting facile answers, or for considering with care what effect on people and homes any changes might have.
  When I have reached my conclusions I shall, of course, report to the House. Meanwhile, I can give an assurance on two major points of immediate concern to all who live in private rented housing.
  The first assurance is that on the weight of evidence I have seen I am certain that the principle of rent regulation should remain intact. It is basically sound and it contributes to a stability that we all want in family budgets.
  Secondly, I remain committed to the principle of security of tenure for the tenant of what I might call the professional or non-resident landlord, though I believe there is scope for marginal adjustments designed to bring accommodation let with a business, such as flats over shops, back into use. I am also con-
  502
  vinced that there is a considerable potential reserve of accommodation for letting available in owner-occupied homes. We must encourage its use. This is why I want to speed up the procedures under which resident landlords and owner-occupiers, who have moved temporarily away, sometimes abroad, may regain possession. I would add that I am giving closer consideration to means of stopping the loopholes which some professional landlords appear to be using to thwart the basic principles of the Acts.
  I am also considering what further steps may be taken to improve the physical state of the private rented stock and ensure that necessary repairs are carried out.
  Finally, on the general question of rehabilitation we now propose to take further statutory measures to make grants more readily available, to extend to both private and public sector tenants the right to grant aid for improvement works and to extend the availability of repair grants.
  As the House will recognise, a substantial measure is in preparation and I want to introduce it at the earliest opportunity. We have done much, but there is still clearly much to do.
  Good housing and choice of housing are essential to the contentment and wellbeing of our people. We shall not abandon those in greatest housing need to a market in which they cannot compete. We shall steer resources where they can do most good—to ensure that the needs of the weakest and most often overlooked are systematically catered for and to spread the benefits of good and reasonably priced housing as widely throughout this country as we can. We promised, in the very first chapter of the Housing Green Paper, to continue to give the high priority to housing that its importance merits. We have done so throughout this Parliament, and we shall continue to do so in the Parliament that is to follow.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I understand that Mr. Speaker made an appeal for short speeches. Some 30 right hon. and hon. Members hope to catch the eye of the

  503
  Chair. It will be in the interests of the House if they pay heed to what Mr. Speaker said.
  5.1 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Amery: I think that the whole House is grateful to the Secretary of State for the frankness with which he set forth the yardstick by which he proposes to measure the rate of increase in council house rents. He said that it should be roughly in line with the rate of increase in wages. I take that to mean that in the current year 15 per cent. will be about the minimum increase which we can expect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ceiling."] If we had gone back to 1974–75, we would have been facing 30 to 40 per cent. increases.
  Mr. Shore: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to misquote what I said. I actually used the word "ceiling", and I meant it.
  Mr. Amery: The House will draw its own conclusions from what the Secretary of State said.
  I want to concentrate on the sale of council houses. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State pay tribute to the importance of home ownership. That is one of the main aspirations of the majority of people in this country. There is at last a majority of home owners. It is to the Government's credit that that majority has become clearly established during their tenure of office.
  When I was Minister for Housing and Construction I concentrated largely on the private sector and advanced the proposition, and secured acceptance from my colleagues, that council houses could be sold at a discount of up to 30 per cent. I did so primarily for social reasons. I thought it tremendously important that the individual should be given the opportunity to own his own home. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) pointed out, there is no better way of achieving a major transfer of wealth than the transfer of property owned by local authorities to individuals. I refer to the social reason for the sale of council houses. But they are not the only reasons.
  Since my time at the Department of the Environment, we have come into a much deeper economic crisis. We all
  504
  understand that increased productivity is the key to our economic recovery. We also understand that the one key to increased productivity is mobility. We shall get mobility of labour only if the working man in one part of the country is able to move easily to another area.
  At the moment, the tenant of a council house is in a sense, a serf. He cannot lightly abandon the home in which he lives as a tenant, because he has no certainty of securing a home anywhere else. If he had a home to sell and he lived in the South, he could get a home in the North cheaper than he had in the South. If he lived in the North, he could get a home in the South but would probably have to spend a little more. However, he would have complete freedom of movement.
  The United Kingdom has one of the highest tenanted populations in Europe, if not in the world—even including the other side of the Iron Curtain. I think that only Czechoslovakia is behind us in this respect.
  It is clear from the figures which I have obtained that if there were no council housing at all the saving would be about £500 million to taxpayers and ratepayers.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: Rubbish.
  Mr. Amery: It is not rubbish. I can substantiate that figure if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so. I have the figures here. At the moment, total rebated rents bring in £923 million. Management costs are £244 million, repairs £377 million and social security over and above the rebate £380 million. That leaves a deficit of £78 million on the overall account.
  If we adopted the scheme advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker)—I am not saying, at this stage, that we should—rents would be £850 million in the first year, going down to about £800 million in subsequent years. The collection costs would be £43 million and the social security costs would be £350 million—almost as much as before. Therefore, there would be a saving of £457 million on my right hon. Friend's calculations, coming down to £406 million after 10 years.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: I do not want to be unkind to a former Minister for Housing and Construction. However, dies he

  505
  appreciate that the rental income from council housing rises each year? With any given stock of housing and with any degree of inflation, that income continues to increase. If we sell those council houses, there will be a subsidy on mortgage which, every time a house is sold—and a house is sold on average every seven years—will rise to a new level. That subsidy will continue into the future, growing greater and greater. If we built no further council houses, we would gradually move into a consistent level of profit from council housing. The right hon. Gentleman's figures are totally fallacious. I am surprised that he should present them.
  Mr. Amery: We shall never make a profit on council houses. There is already a heavy deficit and there is every indication that it will continue.
  How should we proceed to sell more council houses? I address myself more particularly to my right hon. and hon. Friends. Considering today's valuations, the 30 per cent. discount which I introduced would be quite inadequate to produce large-scale buying of council houses by council tenants. It is out of their reach in most cases, except at the lower end of the council housing scale.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester has produced his plan. His proposal is that anyone who has lived in a council house for 30 years should get it free and that other tenants should have their rents converted into mortgages. He claims that that would produce a national saving on taxes and rates of about £450 million, reducing to £406 million over 10 years. That would be an important relief in taxation and rates. It is about the figure for which the Chancellor is looking as a result of amendments that the Opposition have made to the Finance Bill. It would also make an important contribution to the increased expenditure to which the Opposition are committed on defence.
  Would it be a burden on councils? It does not look like it. As I pointed out in reply to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), there is an existing annual deficit of about £80 million on council house rents.
  The main objection to the proposal put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester is one of equity.
  506
  Some people say that it is unfair on those who have been saving with building societies to buy their own homes that council house tenants should be allowed overnight, by a stroke of the pen, either to possess their houses free because they have lived in them for 30 years or to possess them as if they were their own, their rents being regarded as mortgage payments. That would be something of a dog-in-the-manger attitude, because if, as my right hon. Friend argues, there would be a saving of £450 million in terms of rates and taxation, clearly the public as a whole would benefit from it, and that would include mortgage holders. I recognise, however, that the contrary view is strongly held and that politics is the art of the possible.
  We should, therefore, go as far as is practicable along the road that my right hon. Friend has indicated. Whether we do that by giving a much bigger discount—60 or 70 per cent.—on the sale of a house or whether we do it by some increase in rents for those who choose to adopt them as mortgages instead of rents, I do not know. That is something that my right hon. and hon. Friends can work out between now and the General Election. It is a matter for them. I am not dogmatic about how we do it. What I care about is that we should aim to make house purchase not merely attractive, but irresistibly attractive to the council house tenant.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester on having launched his idea. Whether his policy in total is acceptable is another question. The important thing is that we as a party should make it clear that a policy for the sale of council houses which is undoubtedly in itself popular in the country should not only be right in principle but should be practical. The policy today is not practical. The cost is too great. I therefore want my hon. Friend the Member for Homsey (Mr. Rossi), who is to reply to the debate for the Opposition, to indicate that we are committed to finding a way of making a policy which is not only right in principle but practical in application.
  5.12 p.m.
  Miss Joan Lestor: My constituency is well known for several features, an outstanding one of which is that it has a huge and thriving trading

  507
  estate which, over the years, has attracted from many parts of this country and from abroad large numbers of people seeking, and, happily, finding work. Unfortunately, for various reasons the constituency has never been able to meet the demands that being a magnet of labour has put upon it.
  We are also fortunate in being an area of very high employment. We do not have the problems experienced by Merseyside and other areas of large-scale unemployment. It is therefore understandable that many people should come to Slough looking for work. Clearly, that places enormous strains upon the housing resources of the local authority, and it would do so even if the authority were hell-bent on solving its housing problems. The fact that it is working in the opposite direction makes increasingly difficulty the plight both of people who have lived in Slough for many years and those who have come there more recently. I have been to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about this matter more than once.
  I was struck by the strength of advocacy of the sale of council houses advanced by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I have noticed no clamour by my constituents to buy the council houses in which they live, but perhaps that is another story. The sale of council houses in an area such as mine is indefensible.
  I should be interested to hear the views of the right hon. Member and his hon. Friend about a local authority that builds council houses for sale and then advertises them outside its own area. That is what has been happening in Slough. Few people, even among those who live in council houses, have taken the opportunity of buying council houses in the area. But even given Tory Party policy on the sale of council houses I should have thought that the activities of the Slough Council merited a few sharp words from the Opposition. In spite of our housing problems, the only houses being built in Slough for the local authority are those that were started when the authority was under Labour control.
  Because of the peculiarities and difficulties of my constituency I welcomed
  508
  the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill when it was introduced by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). That Bill subsequently became part and parcel of Government policy. When it became law one of the local newspapers in my constituency carried a headline which, in effect said, in quoting one of the councillors, "New Dehli, Heathrow Airport and a No. 81 Bus to a Slough Council House." I sent a copy of that headline to my right hon. Friend and he wrote to me about it.
  The intention of the person who made that statement and of the sad reproduction of it by the local Press was to give the impression that people coming to this country would automatically qualify for a council house. It was designed to drive a wedge between the sections of the community in my constituency.
  When the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill became law the Slough council passed a resolution to the effect that the borough council should adopt a restricted interpretation of the Act in order to protect the interests of all the residents of the borough. Since it adopted that strict interpretation the council has been censured by the local government ombudsman for trying to avoid its responsibilities towards one family that came before it. Ultimately it had to rehouse that family. The authority has also got itself into great difficulties with Shelter, an organisation for which I have a great deal of respect and time, because of the way in which it dealt with a number of cases that Shelter had brought to its notice.
  The local authority in my area is behaving in a way that will make a bad situation much worse. Because of the effect of industry in attracting labour to the area it should be pursuing a policy that will solve the local housing problems. The passing of the homeless persons Act is being ignored in my area, an area where it could have greater application than anywhere else in the country because of the number of people who come there looking for jobs.
  Many people have come forward, either because of the activities of various agencies or of their own free will, seeking rehousing. They believe that they qualify, but judgment has been passed upon them that they do not. In some respects that judgment is correct, while in

  509
  others it blatantly is not so. Although the numbers seeking rehousing have increased, since the Act was passed, the numbers being rehoused have not. It is pointless for the House to pass legislation to protect people such as these—people who, through no fault of their own, become homeless in an area where they are seeking work—if the local authority in question is determined to apply a restrictive interpretation to the application of the Act. My local authority has taken the best legal advice it could get in order to avoid its responsibilities under that Act, and is is avoiding those responsibilities.
  This leads me to suggest that my right hon. Friend should be monitoring the working of the Act because it is not doing anything like the job it was intended to do. He should give some time and thought to the problems of areas such as mine, which have a strong industrial base and which will continue to attract labour from all over the country for many years—no one is quarrelling with that—but which need an urgent housing policy to cope with the problems that that situation is bound to throw up. If something is not done in respect of both of these things, I fear the consequences.
  There is a company in my constituency which wishes to expand its activities in the area, which would provide an increasing number of jobs. If the expansion ultimately takes place, obviously it will attract labour from other parts of the country, because we do not have enough labour in Slough. The company has said to me "If we cannot find the means whereby we can see that these people will be able to be rehoused, rather than increase the incredible number of people who will be homeless in the area we shall seek to expand our activities in one of our subsidiaries in the EEC".
  I do not want to see that happen, nor do I think anyone else does. However, given the activities of the Slough Corporation and the expansion of the industrial base of Slough, on which we have built our whole economic buoyancy and which has done such a great deal for the economic well-being of the surrounding area, I believe that urgent consideration needs to be given to the future
  510
  housing policy of Slough, to couple it with the expansion of its industry.
  5.21 p.m.
  Mr. Iain MacCormick: Nothing which has transpired so far in the debate has changed my view that one of the most divisive aspects of society in the United Kingdom today is housing and the way in which society is divided into those who live in council housing and those who live in privately owned houses.
  This is very sad. It has been shown already during the debate. It was instanced by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) in his exchange with the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun). I am very glad that it is part and parcel of the Scottish National Party's policy on housing that
  "Housing should not be used to further any ideological end, or to punish or bribe particular groups or as a weapon in the Treasury's armoury of demand management."
  I feel quite certain that this is the atmosphere in which we should be tackling the problem. From what has been said today, I am not convinced that the Conservative Party has a real and ideal counter to what it sees as being the present situation in council housing.
  However, as I do not imagine that many speakers representing Scottish seats will be speaking in this debate, I should like to look briefly at the housing situation in Scotland. I suppose it must be obvious to anyone in the House, regardless of the part of Great Britain he represents, that the housing problem in Scotland is much worse than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is not only very much worse; it is of a slightly different nature.
  The Secretary of State said that the majority of people are home owners. That is not so in Scotland. I believe I am correct in saying that in Scotland the proportion of the housing stock that is publicly owned as council housing is higher than it is in any other country in Europe, this side of the Iron Curtain. That is not something in which we in Scotland take pride but it is something that we have to examine carefully if we are to find the right way to tackle the problem.
  Not only is the nature of the problem in Scotland slightly different; the degree is certainly frightening in its intensity. I

  511
  believe that there are still about 250,000 houses in Scotland lacking in the basic amenities. I believe there are still about 180,000 that are below the minimum tolerable standards. These are things in which, regardless of party, no one who represents Scotland or has the interests of Scotland at heart can take any pride whatsoever.
  It is obvious to hon. Members that many of these conditions are often to be found particularly in urban areas. However, in view of one of the comments made earlier by the hon. Member for Henley about holiday resorts and rural areas, one ought to bear in mind that one of the things that the Cullingworth Report showed was that, regardless of how beautiful a facade a community might have or an individual house might have, often what lies behind that facade presents an entirely different picture and that, indeed, in some of the rural areas of Scotland, as is the case in some other parts of the United Kingdom as well, there are extremely bad conditions. In my own constituency of Argyll far too many houses are below the minimum tolerable standards.
  As for council housing, it is a fact, sadly, that it is not just old council houses—those built prior to the Second World War—that are often below standard; even new council housing in Scotland, certainly in at least one instance in my constituency, falls far below what I should regard as being a proper environment for any person in this part of the twentieth century to live in.
  I am probably correct in saying that Argyll is one of the most sparsely populated counties in one of the most sparsely populated countries in Europe, yet in my own home town of Oban there is a council housing estate, built just a few years ago, on which the density of people per acre is higher than in any similar project that has been carried out in Western Europe virtually within living memory. This is the sort of thing that is utterly wrong. If we as a society are using large sums of money to help in the provision of housing, we must be sure that we provide the right kind of housing—housing that people would want to buy. No one would dream of wanting to buy one of the houses to which I am referring, even if
  512
  they were being put up for sale much more freely than is at present the case.
  I want to make a few comments about home ownership and council housing. I believe, as I think everyone present believes, that as many people as possible should be encouraged to own their own houses, but I am not at all convinced that what the Conservative Party, through the medium of the hon. Member for Henley, says about the sale of council houses is either practicable or just. Clearly, in every place where council housing exists there are some extremely nice council houses, in what are called high amenity areas, and there are some simply awful council houses. It is a matter of common sense that were we to pursue a policy of simply saying "Right. We shall sell any house that anyone wants to buy," we would certainly be left with a situation in which local authorities would be lumbered with the worst houses and with deteriorating housing. That would offend my instincts of justice in the whole matter of the provision of what is, after all, the most important thing that any family is likely either to own or to rent.
  There are all kinds of ways by which we can arrive at a happy medium concerning the sale of council houses, but there is no magic solution. There is no wand that anyone, be he a member of the Conservative Party or any other party, can wave to find an instant answer.
  Indeed, I must say, in parenthesis, that one of the less educating aspects of the Conservative Party these days is that its members seem to believe that they can make instant policies for any given situation that arises, regardless of the cost in either financial or social terms.
  The Secretary of State spoke about "savage and unacceptable increases in rent," and took pride in having avoided those savage and unacceptable increases, but we must remember that we are not all talking in terms of rent. In my part of Scotland, in the constituency of Argyll, many householders have recently been faced with savage and utterly unacceptable increases in rates. No debate on the subject of housing can ignore that situation. If, on the one hand, we are trying to encourage people to own their own homes, we must, on the other hand, make quite certain that we do not impose

  513
  intolerable financial burdens on people who achieve that happy state of affairs.
  Clearly, as a spokesman for the Scottish National Party, I look forward to the day when a Scottish Assembly is set up. I look forward to a time when we shall genuinely see the whole question of housing policy in Scotland removed from the worst aspects of political confrontation. I look forward with confidence to the setting up of a Ministry of Housing in Scotland which will be able to pay much closer attention to the problem than is paid at present.
  5.29 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: I ask my right hon. Friend to make at least some passing reference to the current issue of the transfer of London housing estates from the GLC to the London boroughs. The London Labour Party conference early this year decisively expressed a view against the transfer of such estates, because it believe that this will militate against the interests of the inner London boroughs and that outer London has a moral obligation to play a part in London's strategic housing as a whole.
  Is it still the Secretary of State's view that the transfer of such estates should not be on a piecemeal basis? If that is his view, can my right hon. Friend clarify what he would regard as piecemeal transfers? Secondly, can he agree that he would wish to safeguard the opportunities for mobility of labour and of tenancies within the Greater London area, and that any transfer must have adequate safeguards for the staff involved?
  The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) referred to differences in the kinds of housing that might be sold; some might be good purchases by tenants, and some might not be such good propositions. Given that there is equality of opportunity to buy property—which is not the case—if housing in London is sold it will mean that those who are now flat dwellers, particularly those in high-rise blocks, will have no prospect whatsoever of obtaining a house near the ground or with a garden.
  One of the worries in inner London is that in its anxiety to opt out of its overall housing responsibilities the now Tory-controlled GLC will apply pressure, which will mean that if London boroughs
  514
  do not readily take over the stock the GLC will try to sell off its existing housing stock to any comers, such as housing associations, squatting groups, and so on, which have been interested in such purchases.
  The consequence of that will be the creation of an additional problem for inner London, and I am advised that whilst the Secretary of State is considering proposals that come before him the GLC may do its best to sell off what housing stock it can, on either a collective or an individual basis, before a decision is made by the Secretary of State about the transfer of estates under the London Government Act. If my right hon. Friend will not place a total embargo on council house sales in the London area, I ask him at least to call a halt to sales until the issue of the transfer of estates has been determined, so that the GLC does not get the opportunity to sell off property—and some of the best property—before a transfer takes place.
  The right hon. Gentleman who has left the Chamber and whose constituency I cannot remember—I think he will he recognised if I say that he is the right hon. Gentleman who, when he was Minister for Housing and Construction, sounded for all the world as though he was still at the Foreign Office, and still does—spoke of the lack of equity in selling off council accommodation. The one question that is never answered is this: what responsibility does the present-day council tenant have to others who are on the waiting list? Is it not the simple fact that an average of 5 per cent, of council dwellings become vacant in the course of a year and contribute to meet the needs of those on the waiting list? It means that for every 20 council houses sold, one more family is deprived of the opportunity of which those purchasing the council houses were glad to avail themselves when they were on the waiting list. It is that moral question that needs to be answered in this argument.
  I take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend on two matters. One relates to the security of tenure given to my constituents in furnished, privately rented accommodation. The evictions, in numbers and in circumstances, were appalling before the passing of the 1974 legislation. Secondly, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and

  515
  Construction for his chivvying of Westminster City Council over the inadequacy of its housing improvement programme and its general housing provision. I place on record—I think that my right hon. Friend will agree with me—the tremendous service done to the homeless and badly housed in Paddington by the Paddington federation of tenants and residents in its publication "Home Truths", which I know was of great assistance to my right hon. Friend in trying to pursue the interests of those on the waiting list and in housing need in my constituency.
  However, I remain extremely disappointed that the Government have still not responded to the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) in the Private Member's Bill which he sought to promote and which I had the opportunity to present on his behalf on one occasion. The Government have not responded to the tremendous scandal of the number of empty properties that still remain in the London area. I know that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) argues that this is somehow a consequence of giving security of tenure. All I say is that if the supply of homes that was previously available as a consequence of evicting people has dried up, that is no loss.
  In the areas of London with which I am familiar I have not seen the proof of cause and effect which the hon. Member for Hornsey claims. My understanding is that many properties remain empty simply because that enhances the selling price, especially of blocks of flats. If there are a few empty flats it enhances the market value considerably during a period of inflation. That is the motivation for keeping the properties empty, because the appreciation in value is greater than any rental income that is lost for the period during which the properties remain empty. Because of the desperate housing situation in London, one answer is to provide a system of compulsorily letting that accommodation so that we do not have this ghastly situation in which people are homeless, while nearby there are hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of empty properties which they could occupy.
  The major matter to which I am obliged to draw attention in this debate is
  516
  the problem of the tenants of privately rented properties in my constituency and in similar areas. The Secretary of State may rightly say that he believes that the Rent Act is basically sound, but I can tell him—he has had much evidence from me in past years—that in my constituency the Rent Acts are working extremely badly against the interests of ordinary people. It is a problem that is not common to the country as a whole; it is peculiar to London, and only to some parts of London, at that.
  I know that Kensington and Chelsea are similarly affected, as are Marylebone, South Westminster, some parts of Islington, some parts of Camden, and some parts of Battersea. I may not have identified all the areas. I have recently had some evidence from Streatham. It is a problem which affects certain areas which are subject to abnormal pressures. The pressures to which I am referring are those of the West End, of Central London, of creeping hotelisation, the demand for holiday lets, and the general explosion of the Oxford Street area to the west and north-west.
  Another factor which cannot be ignored is the influence of Arab oil money coming into the southern part of my constituency, and Kensington and Chelsea, which has also helped to force up rent levels. The evidence is pragmatic, because one can drive round those areas, where, nowadays, one will see estate agents' notice boards outside properties with advertisements in both English and Arabic as a matter of course. This is the nature of the market and a measure of the demand. These are some of the pressures that are pushing up the levels of private rents to an excessive extent.
  I ask for some kind of comfort, even if it be cold comfort, that there will be recognition in the course of the Rent Act review of the fact that within the London area there are some rent stress areas where the normal provisions of the Rent Acts do not adequately safeguard tenants.
  I remind my right hon. Friend and tell the House of some of the examples. There are small properties which have been let until recently at £10 a week exclusive of rates—one room with a bathroom and a kitchen in Little Venice. Their rents are going up immediately to £30—a threefold increase.

  517
  A tenant who lives in moderate property came to see me last night. Previously, he paid £800 a year. He faces a rent increase proposal of £1,700 a year. It would have meant, under phasing, that he would have paid an additional £300 a year for each of the next three years. His immediate rent rise would have been from £800 to £1,100. He had the rent officer in to see the property. He fixed a rent of £1,525. The tenant assumed from that that he would be paying one-third of the increase in each year, which would have been £242 a year—in other words, his immediate increase would have been from £800 to £1,042— but, no. For the first time, there is a service element of £278 calculated in that registered rent, which applies immediately, and it is only the difference between that service element and the total increase which is phased over three years.
  Although getting a reduction of £175 from the rent officer, that tenant will now be paying, because of that service element, not the £800 which he is paying now and not the £1,100 that he would have paid as the first instalment of a three-phase increase, but £1,227. His rent is jumping more than 50 per cent. at once, even under the phasing proposals.
  I cannot accept that the Secretary of State and the Government can argue that the Rent Act is working satisfactorily when tenants face enormously excessive rent increases of that kind, and it does not make sense to try to explain to tenants how they can find this compatible with the current 10 per cent. pay policy, how they can find it compatible with the cumulative effect of pay policy over the past three years, or how this kind of increase can be justified even in relation to a cumulative rate of inflation over a three-year period. The experience in my constituency is that the £300, the £600 and the £900 increase over three years is far too common, and is not just the exception that can be quoted.
  The problem now is that some of the biggest culprits in this situation are those from whom I hoped better, namely, the Church Commissioners. One would have assumed that they would have been less avaricious than some private landlords and that they would have had more regard to the social consequences and the break-up of the community as a result of increases of this kind, and would
  518
  not have gone for the maximum permitted under the law. But, sadly, if someone asks me what is the difference between Freshwaters and the Church Commissioners, I have to answer "About £15 a year". There is that marginal difference between the rents that the two will charge and the increases that they will demand.
  I have been making representations to the Church Commissioners, many of whom are members of the Government. Among the ex officio Church Commissioners are the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and Mr. Speaker himself. I have made representations to them all. On a recent Friday, I asked each of them whether he would resign as a Church Commissioner because of his clear inability to apply any pressure over the rent levels being charged. With one exception, each of them explained that he was an ex officio Church Commissioner, as though that were the beginning and end of the whole matter. I had one little ray of hope, in that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would reply to my question when he had considered the matter. Apparently, someone told him that he was an ex officio Church Commissioner, with the result that, 48 hours later, he gave me exactly the same reply as all the others.
  What happens is that constituents and tenants say "Here are these Ministers, members of the Cabinet, who are Church Commissioners. Why are they standing to one side and allowing this to happen?". The truth is that there are about 100 Church Commissioners. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker), for his sins—perhaps that is an inappropriate expression in this context—is a Church Commissioner. The Archbishop of Canterbury is a Church Commissioner. I have been to Lambeth Palace to see him. It would be a marvellous place for squatters.
  All the representations that I have made, all my pleas on behalf of tenants, have fallen on stony ground. What happens is that Church Commissioners, along with all the other private commercial landlords, put the blame back at the door of the Government and say "They are responsible for the Rent Acts. Therefore, they have responsibility for these increases."

  519
  I ask my right hon. Friend at least to say something that will reassure tenants that the Labour Government know about these special problems in these rent stress areas and that they intend to take some action.
  Finally, I mention the possibility of the establishment of tenants' co-operatives. We find all the enthusiasm for selling off public housing stock on the Conservative Benches but less enthusiasm for the statutory right of the private tenant to buy from his landlord, especially on a co-operative basis. I gathered from the answer to a parliamentary Question which I tabled some time ago that the Government are thinking sympathetically in this direction.
  It would at least offer a ray of hope to private tenants in my constituency and elsewhere if they could see the prospect of getting out of this rat race of rents, with landlords ranging from Freshwaters to the Church Commissioners fleecing them, and the opportunity of having some kind of democratic control of and accountability for the homes in which they live. I hope that my right hon. Friend will respond positively to that suggestion.
  5.47 p.m.
  Mr. David Penhaligon: It is interesting to note that this is one of the better attended debates that we have had for some time, and I suspect that that reflects the importance of housing in most of our constituencies and the sheer volume of people who come to see us about the difficulties which they are experiencing.
  At least one reference has been made to the quality of housing in some rural areas, and I should like to take this opportunity to underline it. It is not so long ago that a constituent of mine came to one of my surgeries to explain his problem. It seemed to revolve round the fact that his Elsan, which was his modern sanitation, had a hole in the bottom of it. I remember asking him, with a wry smile on my face, how he managed. He replied "It's all right, I 'ad an ol' milk chum at 'ome and I 'acked the top off 'e." He did not seem desperately worried for himself, but his wife thought that there was a rare chance of there being an accident. I recollect
  520
  writing a letter to the landlord. My constituent got a new Elsan and, to an extent, that was one minor problem solved. My constituent was not expecting to be connected to modern sanitation; he was in some ways quite satisfied with the existing state of affairs. But for a while he could not even get for himself an Elsan without a hole in the bottom of it.
  Rural housing looks picturesque, but in many ways it causes great difficulties, and I want to take the opportunity today to point out a specific problem which is peculiar to rural areas, especially tourist areas. Certainly it affects my constituency. I refer to what are known locally as "summer lets".
  Summer lets are not second homes. When I first came to this House, I remember tabling a Question asking the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he was satisfied with the number of summer lets in Cornwall. The Department rang me up to ask me what a summer let was. I was asked "Do you mean a second home?" I replied "I do not mean a second home. I mean a summer let." It is property let by the week for a very high rent in a seaside resort which has a large tourist trade.
  There is a great deal of money in this. It is not easy to find accommodation for four or five people in August in a resort such as Mevagissey. A great many people are prepared to sleep several to a room during their holidays in conditions that they would not be prepared to put up with during the rest of the year. A property in Mevagissey in August can fetch between £100 and £140 a week. There are many places where people are delighted to receive payment in cash—and we all know why.
  One is made continuously aware of this trend. If one goes canvassing in my constituency and knocks at a door where someone lived whom one knew, one will often get no reply, but a neighbour will say "There is no point in going there now, Mr. Penhaligon. It is a summer let." There is no control over this situation. To pile insult on injury, these people even get domestic rate relief. I am not claiming that if that relief were abolished it would make all that much difference, but it is there.
  The amount of property used for summer let purposes in my area is one of

  521
  the main causes of the housing difficulties there, yet such property is actually given domestic rate relief. There is simply no control. I have had a lot of correspondence with the Minister about it, but he merely says that it is up to the local authorities to act. I have written to the housing officers of my local authorities and they say that they have no power or control. It is true that if they give planning permission for new houses they have some control over the use of those houses, and they may specifically allocate a house for summer let purposes or they may not, but they have no control over property that was built many years ago.
  My view is that before this property can be used for summer lets it should be subject to planning permission for such a purpose. Someone owns a house, and wishes to change it to a shop. In such a case he has to apply to the local authority for permission to make that change of use. Very often the local authority in my part of the country—I suspect that this is true of others—will turn the application down on the specific ground that it is not prepared to see a reduction in the local housing stock because it has a housing problem. I often applaud a local authority for taking that line. But the use of that self-same property, owned by the self-same person, can be changed for ever and a day, for summer lets, without any planning permission being required.
  In my eyes, there is no difference between using a property for selling chocolate or children's plastic buckets or cabbages and selling property by the week in summer as accommodation. I must try to convey the sheer magnitude of the problem. I can think of one village in my constituency where over 25 per cent. of the property is used for summer lets. This type of letting is spreading like a cancer—that is what it is in areas like mine. It destroys the community. The town becomes a winter ghost town—no one lives there, no one is seen there. This cancer is gradually spreading from the more attractive areas into the villages. It is happening throughout the West Country and Cornwall in particular.
  I shall listen with great interest to what the Minister says about this situation, about which we have corresponded over the years. The situation is not acceptable. There will never be a solution to the
  522
  housing problem in Cornwall if we allow the mass transfer of property from ordinary letting to summer let. There is no way in which my ordinary constituent who works in the clay industry, or worked until recently in the tin mines, can compete for properties used for this purpose. Rents in August in Mevagissey are, as I have said, between £100 an £140 a week, and the ordinary Cornishman cannot compete with that.
  Now, to compound that great difficulty the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), speaking for the Conservative Opposition, today clearly stated that the Conservatives will give an inalienable right to anyone in my constituency or anyone else in tourist areas to buy council houses in which they live. If he gives council tenants the right to buy he also, quite rightly, gives them the right to sell to whomever they choose. In Portscatho there is a row of 20 houses overlooking the harbour. I cannot imagine my ordinary constituents being, able to compete in buying those properties. So there will be yet more people down from London and taking summer lets, occupying that important part of our community. I assure those who enjoy holidays in my part of the country that they will not be so keen then, because there will be no one left to make the beds in the morning or to man the shops or to clean the streets or to make the place pleasant, because there will be nowhere where ordinary Cornish people can live in these Cornish seaside resorts.
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I assume that the hon. Gentleman wishes to continue the situation in which the only ordinary Cornish people who cannot let their homes when they themselves go on holiday are those who are unfortunate enough to live in council houses.
  Mr. Penhaligon: I do not see the relevance of that intervention to what I am saying. I want properties that are to be permanently used as a business concern for summer let to be subject to planning permission. That is all I am asking for, and is all that I have ever asked for. In Cornwall, we are not talking about the odd property in a case where, say, the husband has been sent abroad for a time and decides to make sensible use of his property while the family is away. We are not talking about the sort of property which becomes vacant for a year

  523
  or so. The local council would clearly understand the background and would give permission for it to be occupied while the family was absent. We are talking about a real commercial enterprise in which there is real money, real profit and a real movement of property. I am talking of 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. of the properties in a town of 15,000 people.
  If the Conservative Party gets its way and allows local authority properties in such areas to be too easily buyable by the tenants—the tenants are not fools, and will buy them because they will have a capital gain on their hands—in the long-term interests of the Cornish resorts and their communities, it will be nonsense. That is why I have always supported the argument that local authorities should have the right to decide whether council houses are to be sold. They are the ones that know the local situation. The Cornish local authority will know that the situation I have described will happen in Portscatho whereas if one sells the houses off in St. Austell it will not happen.
  That is the logical way to make the decision. Each case should be looked at on its individual merit. It is for the local community to discuss the situation. There is no one in Cornwall who does not realise that, under this Conservative proposal, that is what will happen to the properties. People might desire that situation but no one in Cornwall does not recognise that that is what will happen.
  Mr. David Mudd: I am trying to follow this new philosophy of Liberal control and I am amazed to find that my constituents who happen to live in Portreath or in Falmouth are, because they live in attractive seaside resorts, to have no rights as council tenants to purchase their own properties, whereas those who live in such places as St. Day are to have such rights. Are we really to create a subdivided community of council tenants, some with more rights than others, by the pure geography or the appeal of the area in which they happen to live?
  Mr. Penhaligon: That is precisely what we are going to have to do if we wish to maintain these communities as living
  524
  communities, in which the people who have been born and brought up there are able to get properties they can afford to rent. I agree that it is a tragic and miserable choice, but I think that it is one that has to be made in Cornwall in the fairly near future.
  Mr. Joseph Dean: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it peculiar that the Conservative Opposition talk only about forcing local authorities to put their houses up for sale but say nothing about the private landlords, although, if they are to be consistent in their argument, they should apply the same prescription to them?
  Mr. Penhaligon: That would be quite a popular policy in parts of my constituency. It is true that if one does it for one side one ought to do it for the other side. It is local choice which is required, and local authorities should be given the power to make their own decision within their own area, after considerable local debate.
  The point that I was making related to the control of summer lets. I know that that does not directly relate to the council house issue. I am now talking about the properties to which the hon. Member for Falmouth and Cambourne (Mr. Mudd) referred. What happens is that, for reasons which we all understand, properties become vacant and the landlord regains possession. But in Cornwall the last thing he ever does, if the property is anywhere near the sea, is to advertise it as being let for anyone else. Instead, it joins the enormous number of properties which are used for summer lets.
  When it comes to deciding the way which Liberal Members will vote tonight, I shall be listening very carefully to what the Minister says on this point.
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. Terry Walker: Being mindful of Mr. Speaker's ruling about the length of speeches, much of what I want to say will be about the practicalities of the situation relating to public sector housing. As for the private sector, suffice it to say that many of us are disappointed with what has been achieved over the last four years. It was rather hypocritical of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to condemn the

  525
  Government and in the same breath to say that the reason why the figures for 1973 were bad was the oil crisis. The situation that we inherited was something about which we had no idea when we talked about what we proposed in our manifesto.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction shares the frustration which I and others feel about the things that we have been able to achieve over the last four years, but the economic situation has made it very difficult for funds to be readily available for all the things which we believed were necessary as a result of the situation which we inherited. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave some helpful and hopeful signs in his speech. I hope that the Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Bill will help many first-time buyers to obtain a home more quickly than they otherwise would. I also hope that his suggestions about making grant aid for improvement work more readily available will reach fruition very quickly.
  Over the past few years the main complaint which I have had from constituents with regard to local authority mortgage rates is that when building society rates have fallen they have found themselves paying a higher rate to the local authority. Some means of regularising the situation is necessary, because on the face of it this appears to be rather unfair.
  In the public sector, the problem faced by smaller housing authorities, such as that in the Kingswood district, which has the same boundaries as the parliamentary constituency, has been more noticeable during the last 12 months. The effects of the reorganisation of local government has been felt. I suppose that has been the case for many local authorities throughout the country. In Kingswood, the building plans which came to fruition last year were those which were left over by the previous housing authority. That left us with housing units which had been planned by smaller authorities to fill a very different need. It is true that people on housing waiting list now have a broader choice of where to live, but often the flats and maisonettes planned by the previous authority were either situated in the wrong place or were not required by the people
  526
  on the combined waiting list of the new authority of Kingswood.
  The districts where flats and maisonettes were provided have proved to be unpopular. Nevertheless, the district council has let over 400 of these properties. Some difficulty has been experienced, because many of the homes which were planned were for elderly people and were unsuitable for families, despite the fact that the majority of applications on the housing waiting list were from families. In order to accommodate those families I believe that in future we must concentrate on family units. I believe this is a problem which is similar to the problem of neighbouring authorities.
  I understand that the Department of the Environment has approved new housing for the coming year, but that housing is mainly for the elderly. In Kingswood that is a cause for concern, because much of the land owned by the council is not in a suitable position for old people. That in itself will create a problem. Another problem is that those now on the waiting list, which is growing all the time, are young families who have to join the end of the queue. There seems to be a problem in that regard.
  The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act was mentioned earlier. My impression is that it is an Act which enables quick and effective help to be given to many homeless people. I would not want it to be felt that any remarks I now make are against the Bill, because I am strongly in favour of it. I am sorry that the misrepresentation of facts about the Bill in remarks which have been made outside has made some people worried. Nevertheless, the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, welcome though it is, has put pressure on local authorities to provide for people who find themselves homeless and has resulted in such people jumping the queue. That is a difficulty. Over the last six months, the Kingswood district has housed nine homeless families per month, on average, and only 11 families have come off the housing waiting list. There was also the odd special case, such as someone moving into the district for reasons of work, and so on.
  That means that half the homes available were taken up as a result of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. I believe that the Act has made more remote

  527
  the chances of ordinary local people on the waiting list getting a home. I should like my right hon. Friend to say something about this, because resources need to be given to smaller local authorities such as Kingswood in order that they can avoid being faced with this kind of problem. It creates a difficulty when half the houses available to a smaller authority are allocated to families as a result of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act.
  I should like to mention briefly two other points. The modernisation programme is something which needs special attention. In my own area, many council houses were built 30 years ago, just after the war. They now need to be modernised as a matter of urgency. The policy of the council in accepting the lowest tender has not always resulted in the work being done in the best possible way. Perhaps there is a need to look at the policy of the Department of the Environment with regard to the problems of modernisation of properties.
  There has been a growth of private housing associations in the Kingswood district. They perform a valuable function in providing homes to let, but there have been problems with high rents and heating costs in some of their properties. Many tenants have complained to me about condensation. The housing association said that the reason was lack of heating, but when the heating was turned on people faced bills of £120 per quarter. This often meant that they fell into rent arrears, were evicted, and had to be rehoused by the local authority. I hope that this trend does not grow. Housing associations are new in our area, but we have come to suspect them because of these difficulties.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: I should like to address a question to my hon. Friend as a constituency Member but also wearing his other hat as the Second Church Estates Commissioner representing the Church Commissioners. Do the Church Commissioners have properties in the neighbourhood that he is describing? Are the private housing association rents comparable with those levied by the Church Commissioners, and are the associations obliged to charge a maximum rent, as, I understand, the Church Commissioners are not?
  Mr. Walker: I think that I should be out of order in answering questions during a speech, but the answer is that there is no Church Commissioners' property in my constituency.
  The Departments will have to consider relaxing the yardstick for many of these projects. In Kingswood, things like landscaping have been cut out to keep down the costs of new estates. Many of us want much more expenditure on housing. The attendance at this debate shows the importance of the subject. In the more tranquil economic times to which we look forward the Government should inject a large amount of capital into housing. That is where the future lies. Housing is the right of all our people, and we must ensure that everyone has a home to dwell in.
  6.14 p.m.
  Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: It is my intention, for which I trust I shall have the forbearance of the House, to try to put the purely Scottish Conservative viewpoint on the vital subject of housing. Before going into the nuts and bolts of what our housing policy should be, it is right to remember our overall objectives.
  The first objective must be to ensure that all our people have homes of a certain minimum standard. In this the record is good, although we must not be complacent. In 1971, 14 per cent. of households in Scotland still did not have the use of hot water, a fixed bath and an inside toilet. Perhaps 160,000 houses are of sub-tolerable standard. I would remind the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), because of what he has just said about the Scottish housing position being worse than in the rest of the United Kingdom, of one or two facts.
  The housing situation in Scotland is not worse than in the rest of the United Kingdom. In Scotland, by April 1971 the number of dwellings was larger than the number of households by 125,000. Scotland's homes are more modern than those elsewhere. Fifty per cent. of them were built after the war—a higher percentage than in any other EEC country except Germany and Holland and 5 per cent. more than in Britain as a whole. In comparison with 14 per cent. of Scottish households lacking the three basic

  529
  amenities. 18 per cent. lack them in England and Wales. We can therefore be proud of our record.
  The implication is that we no longer need to concentrate resources on building houses simply to house people but should concentrate on building homes to rectify those deficiencies. That involves bringing sub-standard houses up to standard, particularly by the use of housing improvement grants and also building houses for specialist requirements such as those of the elderly and the disabled.
  Our second objective must be to ensure that houses are available where the jobs are available. In part, this is a matter of ensuring that workers in one part of the country can move to another. This is a particular problem in Scotland because of our high proportion of public sector housing, sometimes at low rents.
  In Scotland, 54 per cent. of our people live in public sector housing, compared with 29 per cent. in England. But that is not the only consideration. There is no point in replacing houses in Glasgow in the hope that industry will follow in their wake, only to find that industry cannot expand where it wants to do so because the labour force is too small and there are no houses for incoming workers.
  The North-East is the most obvious example of how a lack of houses is holding back development and forcing prices sky high, although I recognise the contribution of the Scottish Special Housing Association, which is providing almost 5,000 of the 10,000 homes that it is estimated will be required over the next few years.
  This is particularly apposite in the North-East of Scotland, where my constituency of Aberdeenshire, West lies and where we have had probably the biggest increase in the electorate in the United Kingdom since 1974—about 10,000 people in the new communities in my constituency at Bridge-of-Don, Dyce, the fastest-growing airport in Britain, and Bucksburn, where houses are now required in both the private and the public sectors. Naturally, we are glad of the expansion of employment, but that brings its housing problems.
  The third objective is to ensure a balanced mixture of types of houses. This is necessary in part to give people a genuine choice, but it is more important than just that. Different types of housing tend to meet different needs. The
  530
  private rented sector caters for the young single person, moving away from home to find a job. The private housing sector appeals especially to young married couples who want to make an investment in their future and who might otherwise have to wait several years for a council house, perhaps living with their parents in the meanwhile.
  Council housing will continue to be of value to those who cannot afford a home of their own, but even within the public sector we must have a mixture of types of house so that, for example the old widow is not left alone in a large house simply because nothing more suitable is available.
  The fourth objective is to give people as much control as possible over their own houses. If they cannot even control the home in which they live, they have little real freedom. That is why we believe in home ownership and in tenants' participation in the management of estates.
  While the first of these objectives has been substantially achieved, the others have not—largely as a result of Labour's desire to control the lives and votes of tenants in large, soulless council estates. So we have based our policies on two pivots—increasing home ownership and increasing the control of people over their own lives on their own estates.
  We support home ownership because we believe that if people want to own their own homes they should be able to do so. All the evidence over the years shows that people want to own their own homes. In late 1965, an Opinion Research Centre survey found that 54 per cent. of Scots, given a choice, would prefer owner-occupation. In 1976 The Guardian reported that a survey for the NEDC building committee showed that nearly 80 per cent. of the younger age groups would ideally like to own their own homes.
  Mr. John Lee: Does the hon. Member's solicitude for private ownership extend to the tenants of private landlords?
  Mr. Fairgrieve: Yes, as I shall explain later. Only 15 per cent. of the people in the survey chose to be council tenants. Given that sort of evidence, the fact that owner-occupation in Scotland is only 34 per cent. is a matter of great concern.

  531
  It compares with 68 per cent. in Ireland, 56 per cent. in Luxembourg, 52 per cent. in Italy 48 per cent. in Denmark, 46 per cent. in France, 53 per cent. in Belgium and 53 per cent. in Great Britain as a whole.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): In the surveys of which the hon. Member has spoken, it is not accurate to say that 80 per cent. of those who wanted to be home owners were saying that they would like to buy the house in which they resided. Nearly 70 per cent. said that they would like to buy someone else's council house, not their own. It is all right to talk about selling council houses, but when one asks the tenants in the houses if they want to buy the house in which they live the answer is invariably "No". Therefore, the solution to the problem is not as simple as the hon. Member presents it.
  Mr. Fairgrieve: I am not saying it is simple. I shall come later to other surveys and to what the Minister responsible for housing in Scotland has said. Once a person owns his house, it is his property and the market is bound to loosen and become freer. There can then be no objection to buying and selling between people who own their own homes.
  There are two other reasons why we believe in increasing home ownership. First, it helps to improve labour mobility between different parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole. Secondly, it gives people a stake in the community in which they live. This is of itself of value, but as a by-product it tends to discourage vandalism, which is a serious problem in Scotland. The incidence of vandalism is much lower on private estates than on public estates, because people have a vested interest in their properties.
  Having been an elected member of a Scottish local authority for many years and for some years chairman of its housing committee, I remember those who came to us and asked why Scotland was so out of step with the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe over the proportion of State as against private housing. The answer is, of course, the predominance in Scotland of Labour-controlled local authorities.
  532
  One way to increase home ownership is to build more private sector houses. The only way to meet people's genuine aspirations is to give public authority tenants the right to buy the home in which they live.
  The Scottish Minister concerned claimed:
  "There is no great demand from council tenants to buy their houses."—[Official Report, 17th May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 453.]
  He cited the fact that in 1977 he received 406 applications to sell council houses and approved 350 leading to 59 sales. But that is not a realistic assessment. In 1973, 2,248 public sector houses were sold, including 708 local authority houses, 204 SSHA houses and 1,336 new town houses.
  It is no good saying that people do not want to buy if the whole system is geared to discouraging them. For example circular SDD36 /1974 rescinded the previous circular of 1972 which gave local authorities a general consent to sell to sitting tenants. From then on, the Secretary of State's personal permission had to be obtained for each individual sale. What a job for the Secretary of State. That is hardly an encouragement. There would be quite a difference if mortgages were available readily. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) discussed this and mentioned some difference in England which I am unable to accept or understand.
  I suggest that local authorities should submit schemes for sales to the Secretary of State as they did for comprehensive schools. If a discount were given to take account of a certain number of years' rent, a very different picture would emerge. Rents could also be turned into more or less mortgage payments.
  The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) referred to two types of amenity. This is why we have asked for a tenants' charter and tenants' control. It amuses me to hear from the Liberals and the Scottish nationalists this talk of instant politics. We have heard one speech from the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) which was concerned mainly with summer lets. Is the Cornish summer holiday letting situation basically the way in which to treat the British housing problem?

  533
  It should be emphasised that not one person on the housing waiting list would be adversely affected by the sale of council houses. There is no evidence to show that if people did not buy they would vacate their houses for someone else.
  Mr. Ovenden: The hon. Member has referred on a number of occasions to people buying the houses in which they live. He must know that a lot of Conservative authorities south of the border do not exactly apply that rule. They tend to transfer tenants into other council accommodation so that they can buy that accommodation. This means that a lot of tenants who are waiting in high-rise blocks for a transfer to better accommodation cannot get that accommodation because it has been sold. That really gives the lie to the point that the hon. Member has made.
  Mr. Fairgrieve: I am sorry, I cannot accept that. There is no evidence at all that if people did not buy their houses they would vacate them for somebody else. That is the point that I have made.
  We who believe in a property-owning democracy believe that when a person owns this or that council house he is entitled to sell it, swap it, change it or do what he wants with it. That is what it is all about—giving people choice, individuality and a stake in their own property. We Conservatives are determined to do this.
  Of course a large number of people will stay as council tenants, and it is vital that they be encouraged to form schemes by which they can participate in the management of their estates. That will encourage them to take some pride in their estate and give them a sense of belonging. Too often housing managers, however good, are far too hard-pressed to have all the interests of the tenants at heart. It is too easy for them to become remote and bureaucratic. Once things start to slip, the sense of pride in the community is lost. Furthermore, it is important that transfers and exchanges should be simple so that people can move to more appropriate flats as their families grow up.
  A fair and balanced policy on these lines is more likely to meet the real aspirations of our people than any lopsided, bureaucratic, centralist emphasis on one type of housing. Housing is about
  534
  people, about life, about families, about the most cherished and personal values in life and our standard of living. My party in Scotland is determined to give our people real opportunities to achieve their aspirations in this field, and we believe that with our ideas and policies we are much better equipped to do this than the Labour Party can ever be with its doctrinaire approach to these human problems and hopes.
  6.32 p.m.
  Mr. Joseph Dean: I wish to refer to one facet of the housing problem which has not been mentioned so far in the debate. This problem has arisen because of the massive post-war building programme. More than 4 million council house units of various types have been built since the war. The overwhelming majority of these properties are of a good standard that the tenants value and most of the buildings are of a high standard. However, I wish to talk about the "twilight" houses which are already showing serious defects not only in construction but in the social problems which they create.
  Whether Labour or Conservatives form the next Government, they will not be able to turn their back on some of the problems which we as a nation have created in building those housing units. I am not blaming any particular Government, because successive Governments have been guilty in this respect.
  I am aware that once the building programme got under way the target was set at about 300,000 houses a year. However, in order to inflate that figure industrialised housing was brought in with ministerial encouragement. I was involved at a local level at that time and I was bitterly opposed to the introduction of such development. I did not see the logic of industrialised housing unless it was brought in to meet a specific shortage of building workers in a particular area. I saw no reason for such a massive programme of industrialised building. The programme involved 100,000 units of low, medium and high-rise development.
  I could not see the logic of that policy when there was such a huge reservoir of unemployed building trade workers on which to draw—and that is still the case. Furthermore, except for one short period, there has always been an adequate

  535
  supply of building materials to top up the traditional house building programme. However, because of the pressures on local authorities and the way in which subsidies were offered for high density developments, those of us who were opposed to industrialised building lost the argument and it went ahead.
  We have now reached a situation where in almost every city we see monolithic, concrete developments which are hideous to look at and which people do not want to continue to inhabit. I accuse the architects and planners of creating this position. I am referring to deck access type of accommodation. There is one such development in Leeds which is not in my constituency but in the area of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I told my right hon. Friend that I intended to raise the matter in this debate, and he was delighted that I intended to mention these problems.
  There is a similar development in Manchester, the Hulme 5 development, which has been featured on television. That development is undesirable and has created massive social problems. Nobody wants to live there. What has happened is that the social problems have been moved from slums at ground level to roadways in the sky. We install lifts in those developments and we regard that as progress.
  These developments are monuments of shame to the architects who designed them and to the planning officers who accepted the briefs. I believe that this country will carry the stigma of those developments for a very long time and the cost has been so enormous that it is impossible to demolish them, although that is what should happen. Wherever plans for industrialised buildings were put in, the figure always came out 20 per cent. higher than for conventional buildings.
  When I knew that this debate was scheduled to take place, I contacted the director of housing in Leeds—a large authority responsible for over 100,000 properties, varying in quality from very good buildings to undesirable ones. The director of housing said in his report to me:
  "Basically, like many other authorities in the mid-60s, we embarked on building programmes which relied heavily on industrialised building
  536
  methods, new forms of construction, high density schemes, either in low rise or multi-storey form, all with the intention of increasing the flow of new properties to meet the housing shortage. With the benefit of hindsight, one can now say that what we did was to sacrifice quality for quantity and we are now paying, in more sense than merely financial, for our involvement in these types of development which, might I stress, were all subject to the blessing of central government in the striving for the attainment of new building targets."
  The bills in respect of the maintenance of these industrialised houses and flats are astronomical. The director refers to a development at Hunslet Grange, and a low-rise development of 1,500 houses industrially built, and gives a figure for remedial treatment for these and similar developments of £8 million, which is the cost to the Leeds housing revenue account. The housing investment programme at present contains no calculation of the amount of money required for remedial treatment. When authorities are battling with this type of problem, will the Minister in future policies take account of their position? Obviously, this problem will be with the nation for many years and will increase in proportion. Indeed, I believe that it will assume a larger proportion even than the renovation of older housing stock. The capital cost involved in these developments is huge by any standards.
  I am trying to be brief in my remarks and, in line with the requirements of the Chair I shall rapidly draw my speech to a conclusion. Before I leave the subject of industrialised building, I wish to make clear that because other schemes are under way we should treat them with care. They should be given low priority in building terms unless there are reasons of geographical shortage of labour and materials. There is no question but that, pound for pound, traditional building in bricks and mortar—and there is an ample supply of labour and material to do this work—is better value and the house-building figures would improve substantially if the finance were made available.
  Last week, the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) introduced a Bill on direct labour under the Ten Minutes Rule. Having listened to his speech, I conclude that he is probably the most ill-informed and uninformed hon. Member on direct labour. I do not go along with those who think that direct labour is a panacea and the answer to

  537
  everything or that it should be given contracts on a plate, but in some of our cities which have large building departments working in competition with the private sector those departments have made an immense contribution to the 4 million houses that I referred to earlier.
  I ask the Minister to ensure that the private sector is made to toe the line in future in the way that private firms tender for contracts. The answer to a Question that I tabled some time ago showed that the overwhelming number of contracts for building council houses are not subject to open tender. They are overwhelmingly issued on the basis of the selected tenderers procedure. Local authorities have three or four builders of repute which build for them and one of those firms usually gets the contract.
  I hope that Conservative authorities will not behave stupidly because of political dogma and attempt to damage the successful direct labour organisations which are making an immense contribution in the building of good quality council housing, good quality public buildings and even schools.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: In view of the shortage of time, I shall not comment on what has been said by other Members except to assure the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) that I would support him strongly in moving to disestablish the Church of England.
  I should like to concentrate on expenditure on housing within Wales and on the related issue of the expenditure being allocated to the Welsh Office for its housing needs. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), will be familiar with my quoting statistics of public expenditure on housing per head by country in the United Kingdom and the fact that for the last year Wales was still £10 per head lower in its housing expenditure than the average per capita expenditure in the United Kingdom.
  My major complaint is that the Welsh Office, instead of accepting the responsibility for the under-allocation of resources to Wales from the Treasury, has been conducting a well-organised campaign in the past year to blame Welsh local authorities for the housing position in Wales by accusing them of under-spending.
  538
  In reality, if we do a calculation of the real housing needs of Wales in terms of the amount of expenditure, we see that for the current financial year local authority capital expenditure on housing is just over £100 million. But if we calculate on the basis of the Department of the Environment's own indicators—namely, the need for house building, the number of houses unfit for human habitation, the extent of homelessness and overcrowding, the need for council mortgages on pre-1919 houses and the number of inner city programmes and partnership areas, and if we apply those six indicators to Wales, the calculation indicates that Wales should have received about £175 million in the current financial year's allocation.
  Wales received only 4·1 per cent. of the total housing allocation for England and Wales although it needs about 180,000 new houses over the next 10 years. Whenever Plaid Cymru Members criticise the Government on their housing record and produce targets for the number of new houses, either new buildings or rehabilitations, needed in Wales over the next 10 years, we are always told that this figure cannot be quantified. When we came up with a figure four years ago of 25,000 new houses a year being needed in Wales, I was told by the Secretary of State that it was an interesting proposition from the point of view of research but that it was the sort of problem that could not be quantified.
  I put it to the Government that on our calculations we need 180,000 new houses over the next 10 years if we are to tackle our housing needs. At present, we have 8 per cent. of the total number of pre-1919 houses in England and Wales and about 100,000 unfit houses—despite the boasting of the Secretary of State in a Press release on 2nd June which accompanied the belated publication of the house condition survey. We still have the appalling statistics of our major county, Mid-Glamorgan, where 20 per cent. of the population do not have an indoor toilet, 18 per cent. do not have a fixed bath in the bathroom and 18·4 per cent. have no wash basin. That is the position in the county represented by the Under-Secretary.
  Not only do we have a failure by the Welsh Office to predict its housing need, but we have a failure to allocate resources from the Treasury to meet that need.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): Can the hon. Gentleman explain how the Welsh Office can be said to have failed to allocate sufficient money when there is clear evidence that for two consecutive years Wales has failed to spend the money made available to it? It is not the lack of funds which is the problem but the inability to build the houses to match those funds.
  Mr. Thomas: I thought that the Under-Secretary would say that, and I was about to deal with that aspect. I shall do so now. It depends whether one takes the view that the Welsh Office housing division is a passive or aggressive department. If it is a passive department, the Under-Secretary, his ministerial colleagues and their civil servants sit back in Cardiff and wait for bids to land from Heaven—or, rather, from the 37 district councils. However, if, as my party suggests, there is a need for an aggressive drive in housing in Wales, we need an aggressive department which will take its programme to the housing authorities. We need an aggressive department which will get increases in the figures in the public expenditure White Papers for projected expenditure in Wales. No local authority will make bids when it is faced with public expenditure cuts in the total housing allocation from the Treasury in London to Wales.
  Wales has 5·9 per cent. of the population of Great Britain, but we have never reached even 5 per cent. of British expenditure on housing in the present decade. The projections to 1980–81 indicate that there will be a decline in the total public housing expenditure in Britain as a whole and that Wales will receive a smaller share of the diminishing cake. By 1978–79 it will be reduced to about 80 per cent. of the 1974 level.
  We have had a cut in the global allocation from the Treasury to the Welsh Office, and individual programmes within Wales have been more severely cut than in Britain. Local authority mortgage lending has been cut. The projections of the public expenditure White Paper indicate that local authority lending has been cut from £30·2 million to £3·8 million, a reduction of 87 per cent. Improvement grants have been reduced by 74 per cent. Expenditure on new council
  540
  housing has fallen from £61·8 million to £54·5 million over the decade. I am projecting from the present through to 1981.
  There is a continual reduction in new building and in the allocations being made available for other housing provision. For that reason, the housing policy of the Welsh Office was, for once, adequately described by the Western Mail. If I can avoid it I never quote the Western Mail in our debates, but on 31st January the housing policy of the Welsh Office was described in a strong editorial as
  "A tumbledown policy for tumbledown homes."
  A major feature article in the Western Mail enumerated the facts on housing deprivation in Wales and the failure of the Welsh Office to tackle that need.
  We talk about a lack of finance from the Treasury to the Welsh Office for new building, but we must stress the lack of finance for housing improvement. As Wales has such a preponderance of older property, we might expect increased expenditure on housing improvement allocated to Welsh district councils. Gwynedd, into which falls most of my constituency, is the only county in England and Wales which, on a calculation based on indicators and needs, is found to need more than six times the expenditure on house improvement that has been allocated by the Welsh Office. It is run close by Mid-Glamorgan, in which, on the indicators, all the districts need more housing improvement expenditure than is allowed by the Welsh Office. The Cynon Valley, Merthyr Tydfil, Rhondda, Rhymey Valley and Taff Ely districts in the county need six times more than the expenditure provided by the Welsh Office. The same applies in the county of Clwyd. The district of Glyndwr, which falls within my constituency, and all the districts in Clwyd need more. Glyndwr appears on the indicators to need six times the expenditure that the Government have allowed.
  The allocation being made centrally by the Treasury to the Welsh Office is inadequate, and the Welsh Office accuses the authorities of underspending. I referred at the beginning of my remarks to the propaganda campaign waged by the Welsh Office to try to persuade the public that it is not the Government Department that is short of resources and

  541
  that the local authorities are not spending their allocations. We have heard that again today from the Under-Secretary of State. What he does not tell us is why the underspend took place.
  I shall not quote from the appalling document—it is one of the worst documents to emerge from even the Welsh Office—entitled "First Report of the Working Party on Housing Finance in Wales", but it suggests that the main reason for underspending was the heavy rainfall during 1976–77. However, the factor that caused the underspend was the telephone calls made from the hon. Gentleman's Department on 23rd July 1976 to every one of the 37 district councils in Wales telling them to stop everything, to stop all their programmes. It was a moratorium or a freeze on the total expenditure on housing in Wales. That is what caused the underspend.
  Mr. Alec Jones: The hon. Gentleman should be careful with his choice of words. It is not true—he knows it—that the moratorium, which lasted for three weeks, asked any council in Wales to stop anything. All it did for a three-week period was to say to councils "Do not let any new contracts, but continue with all the building that is in mind." The hon. Gentleman also knows that the report to which he refers did not emanate from the Welsh Office. It was a report to the Welsh Office, and 50 per cent. of those who made it were members of local authorities in Wales.
  Mr. Thomas: I still suspect that the Welsh Office had a working majority on the working party.
  The hon. Gentleman says that the moratorium did not have the effect of preventing programmes from going ahead, but what housing authority can operate in an atmosphere in which in December 1974 the Under-Secretary of State's hon. Friend, the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), who is now Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, spoke at the North Wales housing conference urging local authorities to spend, only to he followed by the stop-go housing policy of the Welsh Office? As a result of the cuts, it was impossible in July 1976 for district councils to plan properly.
  542
  I ask the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for the Environment to cease trying to put the blame on Welsh local authorities for the failure to allocate public expenditure to meet the deepening Welsh housing crisis and to accept the responsibility themselves.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has had to leave the Chamber. I did my best to detain him. I did tell him that it was my intention to refer to some of the things that he said, or did not say.
  When I heard that the Opposition had chosen to have a debate on housing I had every expectation that we would hear from them some of the things that they would do if they were returned to office after the General Election. We know one of the threats held over us. We know that we would have the hon. Member for Henley as Secretary of State for the Environment. That is had enough, but we still have no knowledge of what he would carry out as Conservative housing policy in the event of a Conservative Government.
  We had instead a pathetic mixture of misleading populist rubbish from the Shadow Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman said that Conservatives would release resources through council house sales. When we hear the Conservative Party talking about council house sales, they appear to be taking place in cloud-cuckoo-land, in which everyone wins from the transaction. It is true that the tenant will gain who has the opportunity of buying a publicly owned asset at 20 per cent. below the market price. We heard the hon. Gentleman talking of selling at £2,500. That would not be a 20 per cent discount but a 66 per cent. discount.
  Mr. Sainsbury: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), he would appreciate that he said that if all the council houses in Britain fetched an average price of £2,500 there would be a total elimination of public sector debts in respect of those houses.
  Mr. Ernest G. Perry: The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) did not say that. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) was asleep.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Meyer Galpern): Order. Hansard will tell us tomorrow exactly what was said.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: That is an average price of £2,500. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) has confirmed what I understood the hon. Member for Henley to say. I believe that the average mortgage is over £7,500. Clearly the hon. Member for Henley is talking about a 66 per cent. discount. It is clear that the person who buys a public asset at a substantial discount is able to make money if he sells it and that he at least makes a gain. But no one else gains.
  The local authority is unlikely to gain. So far as I am aware, the only serious statistical analysis of the effects of selling council houses was prepared by the Leeds City Council. This was perceptively analysed in "Roof" for May 1977. Leeds City Council was able to show a very small gain by comparing the amount that it would receive from sales and offsetting it against the rents and subsidies that it would lose. But it was able to achieve that gain only by working on the assumption that rents would rise at 5 per cent. per annum over the life of a house whereas repairs were estimated to rise at 10 per cent. In practice, rents rose by an average of over 25 per cent. the following year. That was cooking the books in a manner which is characteristic of the fashion in which the Conservative Opposition presented their case. However, it is no basis upon which a housing policy for the country should be prepared.
  The local authorities' gain would be even less if, as would almost certainly be the case, the only people who were prepared to lend on the scale required were the local authorities themselves. They would be transferring from one pocket to another, and the extent of the debt would be increased.
  If the balance for local authorities is fine—though the evidence is compelling that local authorities would lose rather than gain from the sale of council houses—the Exchequer would lose at a tremendous rate. The Opposition pointed out, on the basis of first-year figures, that they can show that the cost of the subsidy to a mortgagee is less than the cost of the subsidy to a local authority tenant in a new house; but the subsidy
  544
  on a mortgage goes on for as long as the house exists. Each time that the house is sold in a period of inflation, the subsidy starts again at a new higher rate.
  Council houses built 10 or 15 years ago are now showing profits to local authorities. If such a house were sold, there would be a subsidy on the mortgage, and when the house was sold again, on the basis of the rates at which house prices inflate—say, 30 per cent. over four years—the subsidy would start again 30 per cent. higher. On average, houses are sold once every seven years. Therefore, the subsidies from the Exchequer would be renewed repeatedly. Many people live in houses which were built in the nineteenth century and they are still being subsidised from the Exchequer through mortgage tax relief.
  The Conservative Party's irresponsible and misleading proposal would impose on the Exchequer an endless and increasing burden. The proposal to sell council houses, far from providing financial rewards, would be financially disastrous.
  Looking at the social effects, it is obvious that they would be even worse, in practice only the better-off tenants could hope to buy and only the better houses with gardens would be sold. Council tenants who could not afford to buy would be left cooped up in high-rise blocks and the poorer quality council accommodation. There would be a substantial reduction in the number of new lettings which could be made. Approximately three out of every five lettings are of houses which have been vacated. Even if those were the only houses to be sold, there would be no new lettings from transfers.
  In my constituency I have had recent experience of a husband and wife and five daughters living in a GLC flat consisting of two bedrooms and a box-room. Four of the girls were in one small room. It had inadequate ventilation. Medical certificates were provided. The flat was damp, there were mice, and plaster was falling down. The family applied to the GLC for a transfer. A GLC official, in response to the application, wrote:
  "I very much regret that the position as far as houses are concerned has become more difficult in recent months because general properties are required to meet the Council's commitments under the 'Homesteading Scheme' and we are also required to set aside 50 per cent. of newly vacated estate houses for sale.

  545
  We do try to keep the larger ones for our tenants but four bedroomed estate houses are few and far between."
  The Opposition would sell them all off and give a statutory right to tenants to compel reluctant authorities to sell such properties. The social effects of their policy—the only bit of policy that we heard today—would make our housing situation worse and the cost of meeting housing problems would be enormous. That was all that we heard from the hon. Member for Henley.
  We did not hear what the Opposition would do about the Rent Acts. We constantly hear snide remarks by Conservative Members to the effect that the Rent Act 1974 dried up the supply of privately rented property. They are unable to produce any evidence to support that claim, because it does not exist.
  Mr. Sainsbury: There are fewer properties to let.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: I agree with the hon. Member for Hove that there are probably fewer properties now being offered to let, though not many fewer. Indeed, if he reads technical volume III of the Green Paper, he will find that confirmed. There may be fewer properties offered to let at the high rents which would be demanded, because families are still living in that accommodation.
  I appeared on a television programme recently. The manager of a pop group who was moving into London said that he was willing to pay £50 a week for a flat, but he could not find one anywhere. I am sure that he did find one, but it was probably more difficult than it used to be because families which would have been evicted to make room for him were still living in their homes, thanks to the 1974 Act. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) knows that very well. I accept that on occasions he has made clear in public that it would not be his intention to remove the security of tenure granted under the Rent Act. However, it is difficult to get him to say it in public now. I wish that he would.
  Mr. Hugh Rossi: I shall say it. Wait for my speech.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: I shall listen to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. The Conservative Opposition always give the impression to those who do not look
  546
  carefully at the small print that they will sweep away the rotten Rent Act—except when they are talking to private tenants, of course. The Opposition have not given us an inkling of their policies. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hornsey will do that in his winding-up speech.
  This debate has given my right hon. Friend the opportunity to announce a policy which I have been urging and anxious to see for a long time—a policy for an effective tenants' charter. The points made by my right hon. Friend which would be included in that charter were security of tenure, the right to carry out improvements, the right to improvement grants, the right to a tenancy agreement and the right to participate in and to have some influence over management. Those are rights of which council tenants have been deprived for too long. I hope that we shall be able to implement them in the near future.
  I suggest that we should also include—this point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham)—the right of enfranchisement for private tenants of self-contained property. I also urge my right hon. Friend, in his review of the Rent Acts, to consider the need to review the definition of the scarcity factor in the assessment of rents.
  We heard from the hon. Members for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and Aberdeen, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) about the impact which a large influx of people into an area can have on local housing conditions. That applies to central London and many other areas. The scarcity factor is by no means adequately taken into account by rent officers and rent assessment committees in offsetting the market rent assessed under the provisions of the Rent Act. There is an urgent need for that to be done.
  I should like to see the elimination of abuses because of loopholes in the law. There is scope for abuse by both landlords and tenants. That problem needs to be put right.
  The policies announced by my right hon. Friend, in contrast with the emptiness of the Opposition's proposals, make clear to anyone who has any concern about the standard and provision of housing for those in need and the provision of reasonably priced houses for those who wish to buy that it is very much in their interest

  547
  that we should retain a Labour Government in office.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) saw something in the Secretary of State's speech that I was unable to see—that is, a policy. I saw 45 minutes of platitudes. The Secretary of State excelled on his own Green Paper in terms of length without content. I was unable to detect any policy proposals, however.
  I felt at moments that he exceeded even the answer that I received when I asked about the replacement of a much out-of-date circular on housing standards and costs for accommodation specifically designed for old people. I received the electrifying answer:
  "We intend soon to consult local authority associations".—[Official Report. 11th May 1978; Vol. 949 c. 616.]
  I thought that today's speech was well up to the standard of his intention soon to consult, to bring forward, to review and to have under consideration. That approach is an excuse for a policy and a programme, and by it the Government have failed to deliver the sort of housing that people want.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) pointed out, the objectives of housing policy should be to provide for people the opportunity to have, to live in, to buy or to rent the sort of homes they want while obtaining value for money for the massive expenditure in which the Government are involved. There are many ways of obtaining better value for money. One about which the Secretary of State was invited to comment but failed to do so was nationalisation of the building industry and getting direct labour organisations under some proper form of cost control and scrutiny. I did not hear much in the Secretary of State's speech on those important subjects.
  I wish to confine my remarks to the first objective that my hon. Friend outlined, which is giving people the chance to live in the sort of homes they want. People who make the sort of speech that we heard from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden have no interest in providing the sort of home that fami-
  548
  lies want to live in. They can see only that the selling of council houses takes something away from the public sector. They totally ignore the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) that the surveys show that people want to own their own homes, that people who live in council houses want to own their own homes and that newly married young couples setting out on family life want to own their own homes. They do not want to live in a council house, tied up with all the bureaucratic red tape and dependent on the council for repairs and approvals. When Labour Members speak of the sale of council houses, they show no appreciation of these facts.
  On the basis of the statistics, it is at least arguable that there are far too many council houses, whichever way one looks at the matter. I refer particularly to the two- and three- bedroom accommodation in the council sector. We know that there is a crude housing surplus. There are nearly 500,000 more dwellings than householders. It is because there are other factors such as vacancies and second homes.
  But we must bear in mind that there is an imbalance between the size of dwellings in the housing stock and the size of households. The imbalance is even more pronounced in the public sector. It is not easy to measure, but paragraph II.13 of technical volume part 1 of the housing policy Green Paper shows that in 1971, for which we had accurate figures, 61·2 per cent. of households were above the bedroom standard. Only 6 per cent. were below it. It shows that 22·1 per cent. of households were two or more bedrooms above the bedroom standard, and later evidence, such as it is, indicates that the disparity between the size of household and the size of dwellings in the housing stock has become even greater.
  Paragraph 38 points out:
  "Although the totals for 1975 are rather uncertain since a firm…total of households is lacking, there is no doubt that there has been a considerable reduction since 1971 in the number of households that are short of space…there has been a further increase in the number of households with two or more spare rooms in terms of the bedroom standard".
  This disparity is more pronounced in the public sector than in the private sector.

  549
  and yet councils, especially Labour-controlled councils, are still seeking to place all the emphasis on providing more and more two- and three-bedroom parlour and non-parlour houses, instead of directing their efforts, as the public sector should, at the areas where they are most needed, which is surely in providing accommodation for the elderly, especially accommodation with a warden and other special facilities, accommodation for the disabled and accommodation for single-person households. Those should be the priorities for the public sector.
  I admit, and I think my hon. Friends will agree, that the private sector will not provide adequately in this area. It is abundantly clear, however, that the private sector can provide the family housing that the country needs, and it can do so far more efficiently than the public sector in terms of construction and maintenance.
  We then come to the Rent Acts. They are carefully designed, reinforced and buttressed by the Government to deter anyone with spare accommodation from letting it off. In 1971 there were 1·5 million pensioners in one- or two-person households living in dwellings with five rooms or more. The general household survey of 1975 showed that 31 per cent. of one-person households lived in dwellings with two or more bedrooms.
  The evidence, such as it is, shows that there is enormous potential for making use of under-occupied space, and yet we know—I certainly know from experience in my constituency—that, if someone has spare accommodation to let and seeks advice as to whether to let it, he will be told "Do not risk it." He will be told that if there is trouble with a tenant he will never be certain that he will get the tenant out, certainly not quickly and certainly not without a lot of cost. He will be told that if the tenant does not pay the rent he, the landlord, will stand no chance of getting the money back, and that if everything goes well the rent he will get will be kept down and he will be allowed to increase it only every third year—and even then there is no certainty. He will be faced only with discouragement.
  Yet what did we have from the Secretary of State today? We had more platitudes about what might be done in the future. Did we hear about the review of
  550
  the Rent Act 1974? If the right hon. Gentleman really cared, surely we would by now have seen that.
  The Government's housing policy has totally failed to provide the numbers and the right sort of accommodation. They have wasted the public's money, and, above all, they have failed to provide encouragement for the country's householders to make the best use of the housing stock that is available to the advantage of those who are seeking accommodation.
  7.19 p.m.
  Dr. Oonagh McDonald: This evening's debate has ranged widely over many of the aspects of the housing problem, but there is one matter to which I do not think attention has been drawn. I have not been here for the whole debate because, unfortunately, I had to be in attendance on the Finance Bill Standing Committee.
  The subject which I am concerned about is gazumping. Governments of both major parties have regretted the existence of gazumping in the past but, regrettably, they have done very little about it. We now find that, as the housing market is becoming a seller's market, gazumping seems to be on the increase. I should like to give a particularly bad example from my constituency to support my contention.
  A couple had arranged to buy a house from a building company. The company had completed the house last November. The company, P. T. Elimore Ltd., wrote to my constituents on 5th April accepting their £50 deposit as a sign of their intent to buy the property at a price of £16,925. The couple then received a letter on 19th May saying that the price of the house had been increased to £19,950—an increase of over £3,000 in a matter of a few weeks.
  Obviously, it is a difficult problem for Governments to deal with, but part of the problem involves the length of time taken in actually completing the purchase and the fact that the price agreed between the buyer and seller when the property is under offer can be changed.
  This is a problem which the Law Commission has considered twice—in a working paper in 1973 and again in the Law Commission's report in 1975. Having considered this matter, and having duly

  551
  expressed its regret at the practice of gazumping, it simply recommended that no change in the law should be made, that no legal effect should be given to subject-to-contract agreements and that no civil or criminal liability should be imposed on the person who withdraws from such an agreement.
  This is in spite of the fact that for most ordinary people—I am surprised that the Conservative Party does not attend sufficiently to this kind of problem—buying a house is a very expensive proposition indeed. To have to pay surveyor's fees for one's own surveyor and then, perhaps, surveyor's fees for the building society, and possibly to have to pay some legal fees to one's solicitor, only to find that the purchase has fallen through, can leave a person a couple of hundred pounds worse off. It can mean that a person is not in a position to buy the house that he had in mind, and it means, of course, that he has less resources at his disposal to buy the next house that he considers as a possibility.
  The problem is that the Law Commission, which, of course, involves those who command a monopoly in conveyancing—the solicitors—is far too complacent. The solicitors not only command a monopoly but are themselves a closed shop, and all their efforts seem to be directed not towards providing a better service to the public but towards preserving their own position in the housing market and making sure that fees for conveyancing continue to flow into their pockets and to subsidise—it is alleged—other aspects of their legal work.
  The Law Commission was much too complacent. It had plenty of other examples from other countries, some very near to home, of much quicker processes for conveyancing. In Scotland, for example, the average length of a completion is a week to 10 days. It can sometimes be done even more quickly than that. In the United States, at least in some of the states, I understand that a purchase can be completed in even less than one week.
  When one looks at what a solicitor actually does in the process of conveyancing—apart from charging high fees—one finds that much of his work must surely be a repetition of work that has
  552
  already been done. We have already heard that houses tend to be sold again, on average, within seven years Much of the information for which a solicitor looks must be the same information as was found by a previous solicitor when the house last changed hands.
  The Law Commission did not really take seriously into account the possibility of speeding up the process of conveyancing. It did not really take into account the possibility of restricting and simplifying the way in which the solicitor got the relevant information together for completion of the contract. Nothing like that was done. Therefore, the evil of gazumping continues. Ordinary people, whom the Conservative Party particularly wants to be the people who buy their own houses—I certainly support that sort of freedom—suffer from the activities of the gazumper, and they suffer from the activities—or, rather, the inertia—of the legal profession, which is unwilling to change any of its ways and unwilling to find a speedier and more efficient method of house purchase in order to ensure that the possibility of altering the price before completion does not arise.
  No doubt the Government, too, will have their part to play and ought to take more seriously the problem of gazumping. It is becoming widespread yet again. We suffered from it in 1972–73, the period of the last property boom, and now, as real incomes are beginning to rise and people are turning to house purchase, they are finding that once again they are bedevilled by this problem and that the resources for buying a new house can all too often be reduced or obliterated altogether when they find that yet again they have been gazumped.
  Mr. Eyre: In mentioning the problems of gazumping, has the hon. Lady also borne in mind that people sometimes say that they are going on to buy houses and then withdraw, and that this leaves the vendor in a difficult position? What has she to say about that? How would she deal with that aspect of the problem?
  Dr. McDonald: With other methods of setting about buying and selling a house—in Scotland, for example—obligations are imposed on both the buyer and the seller. The point is that the amount of time taken to complete the purchase must be reduced to prevent this

  553
  sort of situation. I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
  This is an area that could be made much more efficient and much less costly to the would-be house purchaser. The Government should look again at this whole matter and should again press the Law Commission this time not only to look at it but to come up with a solution.
  7.27 p.m.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) into the byways of gazumping, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) was right to point out to her that a very different situation obtains in a falling market for houses, in which case the owner of a house can be gazumped, as it were, in reverse.
  I wish to speak about housing in Wales. I have every justification for doing so, as the situation there is particularly grim, largely because of our high preponderance of old housing stock. Of the many housing problems in Wales, the one that has been concerning us most over the last two years or so is the apparent and, indeed, almost incredible inability of local authorities to use moneys allocated to them for housing, with the result that there has been serious underspending in this area of vital need.
  I refer to the inability of local authorities to spend as "apparent" because I do not believe that the Welsh Office is as innocent in this matter as it would have us think it is. It simply does not appear to be able adequately to monitor housing expenditure in Wales. That is the crux of the matter. Consequently, housing starts last year were lower than they have been in any year since 1959 and 30 per cent. below the Conservative peak of 1972, which is a damning indictment of a Government who, shortly after coming to office, stated that their immediate aim "must be to get a crash house building programme going."
  Those were the words used by the Secretary of State for Wales in the Welsh Grand Committee on 8th May 1974, as reported at column 13 of Hansard. We are still waiting for that programme, and the prospects for this year are hardly better.
  554
  This underspending has occurred when housing in Wales is receiving far less priority than it requires. Shelter argues—I was surprised that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) did not credit Shelter with the authorship of this argument—that if the total funds for England and Wales had been allocated according to an index of housing needs, such as that used by the Department of the Environment, Wales should have had a far bigger allocation of money for house building, improvements and loans in 1978–79. Over the preceding three years our expenditure per head on housing was noticeably lower than expenditure per head in England or Scotland. The problem is that we cannot, apparently, spend the little that we have for housing.
  To give the Government their due, they did establish a working party on housing finance to investigate underspending, and it has just produced its second report, which is rather more illuminating than the first. One of the first points made is that the Welsh Office
  "should notify each authority of its allocations as early as possible".
  The report goes on to say:
  "They were not able to do this for 1977–78 until 23rd December 1976 and the position for 1978–79 was only marginally better."
  I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is worried that there might be an underspend yet again this year. There was an underspend of £28 million—that is about one-quarter of the total budget—in 1976–77 "despite all evidence to the contrary", said the Under-Secretary of State on 1st June. I should like to know what that evidence to the contrary was, and how on earth the Government could have misinterpreted that evidence so badly. On top of that £28 million underspend in 1976–77, there was an underspend of £16 million in 1977–78 and, as I said, a further underspend is to be expected in 1978–79. Three consecutive years of underspending in an area of crying need really takes some explaining.
  The Government blame the local authorities, and of course the local authorities blame the Government. Why should there be this continuing problem? The working party refers again and again to "slippage" in the housebuilding programme and to various ways of dealing with it, but one has to go to the individual housing authority to see what are

  555
  the causes of slippage. One major cause in a particular authority's case was the Government's ban on new starts in the summer of 1976. Another was cash flow problems encountered by contractors owing to delays and increased costs. Another cause of slippage was the delay in the granting of Welsh Office approval for schemes.
  It is difficult not to suspect the Welsh Office of speaking with a forked tongue on this subject. I suspect, too, that the Secretary of State has been weeping crocodile tears over this underspending because, according to "The Government's Expenditure Plans, 1978–79 to 1981–82" Cmnd. 7049, Government expenditure on housing in Wales was scheduled to fall from a peak of £239 million in 1974–75, to £179 million in 1978–79. If one were being cynical, one would say that the fall was being engineered to the accompaniment of loud wailing from Ministers, such as one heard in the speech of the Under-Secretary of State to the National Housing and Town Planning Council at the Metropole Hotel, Llandrindod Wells on 1st June when he said:
  "I am very worried about the apparent inability of local authorities to spend the financial allocations given to them. John Morris is equally worried, particularly as he has to bear the brunt of the arguments with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the size of the provisions to be made for housing in Wales."
  Is that worry genuine, I ask the Under-Secretary of State, or is it just smartalec talk?
  The verdict of Mr. David Page, secretary of the Welsh housing associations committee, delivered in the Western Mail in January of this year is, I think, a fair one on the Government's housing record in Wales. He said:
  "There is no strategy. What policy there is has been ad hoc. Meanwhile a quarter of a million Welsh people are living in houses unfit for human habitation. If present policies are pursued this will still be the situation by the time we reach the next century."
  The Government may point to the decline in the number of unfit houses—houses without one or more of the standard amenities and houses in disrepair—between the 1968 and 1976 Welsh house condition surveys. There was a decline from 32 per cent. to 18 per cent., which was a 14 per cent. decline over eight
  556
  years. The Government introduced a new category in the 1976 survey which reduced the number of unfit houses from 147,000 in 1973 to 100,000 in 1976. That large difference was out of line with expectations, and
  "it is hardly conceivable that 47,000 houses were either demolished or made fit in a three-year period."
  Those words are from the survey itself.
  Be that as it may, the previous Conservative Government's improvement grant policy undoubtedly contributed a great deal to what betterment there has been in housing conditions in Wales. In 1972, a record number of 27,855 improvement schemes were approved, and 31,586 schemes were approved the following year. But, alas, the present Government have failed abysmally to keep up with the pace that we set. The number of such schemes in 1976 was just on 7,000, and in 1977 it was 6,808—a fall of 78·5 per cent. since the Conservative peak of 1973. But I understand that the Government did increase the limit of eligible expense for improvement grants to private house owners last August, and they claim to have conducted a vigorous publicity campaign this spring, although I cannot say that I, personally, have been vividly aware of it.
  Both the house condition survey and the Government point the finger of unfitness—somewhat unfairly in the way that it is stated and in view of the Rent Acts and the Government's poor record on improvement grants—at the private sector where, according to the Secretary of State,
  "97 per cent. of the problem lies".
  That may be true, but I should not like the Secretary of State to run away with the idea that life is heavenly in the many mansions in the council estates in Wales, and those Welsh Members—alas I cannot see any here other than the Under-Secretary of State—who hold consultative sessions with their constituents will bear me out on this.
  There may not be a high percentage of council houses that are unfit according to the Government's criteria, but there are many whose tenants say that their houses are uninhabitable because of damp and disrepair. This is the staple diet of complaints which most Members have to digest at surgery after surgery, and of course the councils are unable to

  557
  carry out their repairs because of the position with regard to the rate support grant.
  Of our 100,000 unfit dwellings, representing 9·8 per cent. of our total housing stock, just under half are owner-occupied—47,500—while the remainder are largely privately rented.
  Owner occupation is very high in Wales, especially in the Rhondda, and the need for a vigorous improvement grant policy is obvious. So, too, is the need to make unfit houses fit. Here again, the Government's record is very poor—824 were made fit last year, compared with more than 8,000 in 1971.
  With regard to the privately rented sector, what is really needed is a cost covering rent policy such as I believe exists in West Germany. It is a rent which allows for a reasonable return on capital outlay to the owner and which allows him to carry out repairs and maintenance and to recover the cost. Where subsidy is necessary, it should take the form of a housing allowance to the tenant. In this area, I thought that today's statement by the Secretary of State was very disappointing.
  There is plenty of demand for privately rented accommodation in the real world about us, even if there is little room for it in the philosophy of the Labour Party.
  We in Wales want to get rid of our unsatisfactory housing as soon as possible. I believe that we can do it if we direct sufficient help to those who need it and can make use of it. Our problem has been that the help was not directed to those who could make use of it. Therefore, let the Government put new life into their house improvement policy. Not only would an active policy of improvement improve the housing stock. It would also improve the employment position in the construction industry.
  Meanwhile, confronted with the problem of old housing stock, the Government have engineered a slump in the number of house starts, in the number of houses made fit, and in projected Government expenditure on housing in Wales. Their housing record is a mean and miserable one, and it is high time that it was rammed down their throats.
  Mr. Alec Jones: The hon. Member said that this was a slump engineered by the Government. Can he explain why my
  558
  right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has told every local authority in Wales "You complete your practical programme for house building and repairs as submitted to us, and we will finance the whole of that programme"? I do not regard that as engineering a slump.
  Mr. Roberts: I am sure that the Minister is aware of what I said earlier about planned Government expenditure on housing in Wales being due to fall. There is no doubt that the Welsh Office and its Ministers took steps to assist in engineering that fall. The fact is that the fall went further than they thought it would, and now they are busy trying to retrace their steps.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: It has always seemed to me that housing was the one social problem that this country faced which could be remedied easily if the parties were willing to give it the kind of priority that it required.
  It is difficult, perhaps, to overcome the problems of low-income families. It is difficult, perhaps, to overcome the problems of the disabled and the sick. It may, in present economic circumstances in the world, be difficult to overcome the problems of unemployment. To overcome the problems of housing, however, we need land, we need cash to finance the building or the improvement of houses, and we need a building industry which is capable of responding to the demands made of it.
  The building industry at present is clearly under-employed and under-utilised. The land is there, depending upon the policy of the Government in making that land available and the willingness or otherwise of owners to bring it forward. The money is almost entirely a matter of Government policy. It seems to me that that really indicates a very high responsibility on the Government to engineer a position in which everyone lives in a decent home.
  This debate is taking place in a much less controversial atmosphere than it would have done in 1951. We are discussing the subject in circumstances in which over the last two years there have been reductions in the amount of money allocated to housing in successive public expenditure cuts, which shows that the

  559
  priority given to housing in Government policy generally—it applies equally to the Conservative Party—has fallen as against other areas of social spending.
  If we decided that we would crack this problem, we are now nearing a position where it could be cracked. We have reached a position of crude surplus. It is true that the crude surplus does not indicate that the problems are ending, but it indicates that we are getting near to that position. The reason why this issue is now so much less controversial than it used to be is that we have got near to that position.
  There are now more houses—it is true that they are not always well spread and it is true that they are not always adequate—than householders. The result is that we have come near to a position in which we can engineer the resources in such a way that they go to fill the gaps rather than toiling, as we were in the early 1950s and 1960s, to meet the absolute need for houses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) said, that had repercussions on the kinds of houses that were built and on the quality of houses which we are suffering from now and shall continue to suffer from in the future.
  We ought now to consider seriously whether it is not right to allocate more of the gross national product and more of the resources in terms of the building industry and of labour to solving this problem once and for all, because it is capable of being solved.
  Not only do we have a crude balance of housing. It is clear that, in the period between the 1971 census returns and the latest household survey, the quality of housing has improved immeasurably and that the number of houses which lack basic amenities has fallen considerably. Therefore, there is not only a crude surplus but better housing is available for our people.
  If there is still a problem of housing, it is in specific geographic areas and in relation to specific kinds of demand in the country as a whole and it calls for a degree of sophistication in allocating resources. We have only just begun to tackle this.
  I want to stress the importance of the new technique of the housing investment
  560
  programme and what that means in allocating resources to the real areas of need, geographic and otherwise. What happened in the past was that subsidies were given by the Government on the basis of the local authority recouping money from the Government when it decided that it would build or improve. The housing investment programme now means that some kind of calculated judgment has to be made by the central Government about how to divide the cake between different local authorities. The first year's trial was obviously crude and to some extent was not entirely happy. A number of authorities thought that they were entitled to a good deal more than they got. There were some who got more than they asked for. The upshot of the exercise has been that everyone recognises that we need more sophistication in the way in which the investment programme is ordered and the way in which the allocation is made.
  I listened with interest to what the Secretary of State said about the statement made by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and I am glad that it was repudiated. It is absurd to suggest that this new technique is a regression. It is seeking to make sure that the resources go to the right place, to the right kinds of housing and to the right developments in housing in a given local authority area. If we did not have it, the prospect of solving the housing problem would be even worse.
  My point is that the sophistication ought to be increased. What the present housing strategy proposals do for a local authority is to outline the nature of its stock, the quality and the proposals for increasing or improving the stock. It is all an indication of information about the physical reality of the housing in a local authority area. But that is not necessarily what dictates the housing demand. Merely to know that there is a four-bedroom house available is not an indication that Mr. and Mrs. Bloggs, or Miss Bloggs or Master Bloggs, want that kind of house. The needs are sometimes dictated by requirements which are not capable of being assessed by the information which is available to the Government from censuses or that kind of enumeration.
  What we need is some indication of what people want and how that is related

  561
  to the housing stock in their area. I do not suggest that it is the only way of doing it, but the basis must be the housing waiting list. If people are waiting for a council house, this indicates that they at least have the view that they want to go into council accommodation. It may be that their need is paramount; it may be that their wishes are not urgent; it may be that they will be willing to wait a few years rather than take the first offer that comes. But it is an indication of the general requirements in that area.
  The real difficulty, as I see it, of the housing investment programme as it is at present geared is that this kind of information is not fed into the totals and proposals of the local authority to the Government, and, therefore, the Government cannot take account of that kind of subjective need in the areas to which they are allocating. If one does not do that, I do not see how one can make a sensible allocation of resources.
  To do it, one will have to act on criteria which are objective, and to be objective they must apply to every local authority area. To do that, the housing waiting list must be assessed by the same objective criteria in each area. That is not to say, of course, that the local authority needs to allocate its houses according to the waiting list in any way other than that by which it has decided by its own policy. But the way in which it assesses the need ought to be the same in every local authority area. Otherwise, to say that in York there is a waiting list of 1,000 whereas in Wandsworth there is a list of 16,000 is not to compare like with like.
  The real difficulty is that at the moment that kind of uniformity does not exist. For instance, in York one cannot go on to the housing waiting list unless one lives in the city and has been there for six months. One cannot stay on the housing waiting list if one moves over the border to find a place in which to wait; one is immediately taken off the list. A married couple cannot go on to the list unless the wife is pregnant. It is not enough simply to be a married couple hoping to get a council house before starting a family.
  That kind of restriction is not unique to York, but it is rare in the country as a whole. Perhaps the most alarming feature of our waiting list is that, if one refuses
  562
  once, one goes to the bottom of the list. If that situation were applied in some of the London boroughs, there would be a howl of horror because in those places people can go on refusing for quite a long time until they get the house they want. It is not so in York. There, one takes the house that the director of housing offers, or one gets nothing and goes back to the bottom of the list.
  I make no particular complaint here about my own local authority, because I make it in York, but it indicates the nature of the difference between one housing list and another. If the Government, looking at the information available, do not compare like with like, there is a real sense of injustice when one area gets more money than it seems it should get when balanced against the need of another area.
  Therefore, I suggest that, contrary to the statement of the AMA, the Government should be pressing the local authorities to have comparable standards for the waiting lists, leaving it to them to decide how they will allocate their own stock. That is the next stage. I do not regard it as taking over local authority autonomy, because it is available only in order that the Government can exercise their responsibilities better and, in that sense, in a fairer way to the local authorities concerned. The local authority can still have the power of deciding to whom it shall allocate its stock, and that is its proper role. If we do that, we shall be a great deal nearer to eliminating this social problem, so that we can turn our attention more effectively to other poblems.
  7.56 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Irving: I want to concentrate on the appalling situation of the single homeless person. The matter has been referred to hardly at all during the debate. The agencies dealing with this problem believe that it is now greater than at any time since the First World War. A decade or so ago, a high proportion of the single homeless were homeless men, many of whom passed through a revolving door involving prison, psychiatric hospitals, Salvation Army hostels, night shelters, sleeping rough and then back to prison, for the cycle to begin again.
  Today, this hard core of homeless men has been joined by many people who have become homeless for many other reasons,

  563
  including reasons connected with the present economic situation. With 1½ million unemployed, it is inevitable that some of these will have lost their accommodation through difficulties in keeping up with the rent. Moreover, the tendency of many single people in a time of high unemployment is to move around in search of work, using hostels or cheap lodging-house rooms. A number of these men and women have joined the ranks of the single homeless and more seem likely to do so in the future.
  The position has been worsened over the past 10 years by the very rapid decrease in the amount of cheap single-person accommodation available. Before the Second World War, there were over 300 reception centres throughout the country where a homeless person could obtain a bed for the night. Today, there are 21 reception centres, and in any event many single homeless people avoid using them because of the nature of the accommodation.
  Cheap commercial lodging-house accommodation has been reduced tremendously. City centre redevelopment schemes and the building of inner city ring roads have led to the knocking down of many dwellings where landladies would take in a number of men for a few shillings a night. The Rowton Houses, which used to provide cheap, clean rooms for thousands of single people, have been upgraded into hotels to met the demands of the tourist industry. In London alone, this has led to the disappearance of about 2,000 cheap rooms.
  As a result, a great deal has been left to voluntary organisations. I cannot mention them without referring to the Salvation Army, which provides about 6,000 beds nationally, and the Church Army, which provides another 2,000. But many homeless people try to avoid using such provision, being understandably reluctant to spend the night in a vast dormitory in the company of coughing, spluttering, alcoholic older men.
  Apart from the Salvation Army and the Church Army, most help by voluntary organisations is of a specialist nature, aimed at specific sections of the homeless population. For example, I am pleased to be associated, though the
  564
  National Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders and the Stonham Housing Association, with the aftercare hostel movement for ex-offenders. I would also like to commend the excellent work of the Lifeline organisation, in the provision of accommodation for women and girls who are pregnant and in difficulties.
  The problem of homeless young people remains every bit as serious today as it was in 1975, at the time of Yorkshire Television's brilliant documentary "Johnny go home". Teenagers leaving school have faced increased employment problems and many have left home for the big cities. For instance, in one year, Centrepoint, an agency providing temporary accommodation in the centre of London, gave shelter to nearly 6,000 youngsters and even then had to turn away over 2,000. More young people are sleeping rough, and many later join squats as the only form of accommodation they can find which they can afford, which results in physical and moral dangers.
  There has also been a sharp increase in the proportion of girls in this group. The agencies working with homeless girls find that most of them have run away from home or, alternatively, have left home to find work or accommodation and have failed to find either. Runaway girls often say that they have been thrown out by their parents, but on investigation it often turns out that reasons such as pregnancy, family disruption, a new stepfather or stepmother with whom the young person does not get on, or a resistance to discipline by parents have led to the young person running away from home rather than being thrown out.
  In 1976, the DHSS established an interdepartmental working party, which reported in July 1976. Its recommendations included an increased provision of hostel and other accommodation for homeless young people; local co-ordination of services to achieve concerted action for the homeless; the establishment of information services and youth advisory centres, and an adjustment of public expenditure priorities within existing resources to accommodate the requirements. Those recommendations are, if anything, even more urgent today than they were two years ago, and I should like to see very much speedier progress

  565
  with regard to the recommendations of that interdepartmental working party.
  Several hon. Members referred to local authorities. Few local authorities maintain waiting lists for single people and sources of information on the single homeless are, therefore, varied and fragmented. Such information, however, suggests that the scale of the single homeless is far greater than is generally acknowledged, especially for those estranged from their families and at risk in one form or another. For example, a spot check earlier in the year in a youth club in Slough revealed that of the 70 youngsters present, 23 had nowhere to sleep that night. The period of homelessness varied between three weeks and five years. This is really an appalling situation.
  Housing associations are particularly well suited to provide hostels and similar accommodation and, indeed, social support along with the accommodation, yet the Housing Corporation has earmarked only 5 per cent. of its total budget for this type of housing for 1978–79. I very much hope that it will reconsider the serious position that exists and substantially increase that amount for 1979–80. Local authorities should also be persuaded to contribute in this area, through their housing investment programmes. Single people have just as much right to a roof over their heads as have a family.
  Finally, I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that sheltered housing schemes under warden control, and residential homes for the elderly are, as he will know, bursting at the seams, with residents becoming increasingly frail and needy and requiring more care and attention. Unless a way can be found to finance additional care, local authorities will begin to waver at providing this invaluable type of accommodation.
  In view of the national shortage of geriatric beds, I should like to feel that the Minister will ensure that close discussions are held with the parties concerned in order to develop such schemes, because I believe that the sheltered housing schemes, which could provide additional care and aid for the residents, are probably one of the most humane and dignified ways in which we can accommodate elderly people.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. John Sever: The main reason which prompted me to join the Labour Party, while I was still a schoolboy, centered around my view of the housing situation in Birmingham. At that time, capitalism's unacceptable face was in evidence everywhere. We had urban squalor, housing overcrowding, slums, condemned notices stuck on to rows of miserable streets which were long overdue for the bulldozer, Rachmanism, and little immediate hope for those in greatest need living in the courtyards and alleyways of our central areas.
  The philosophy of the Labour Party was, and fortunately remains, that it should demand, and when in office work for, the provision of a home for every family provided by either the public or private sectors at a cost which could reasonably be afforded. During my maiden speech to the House, I made considerable reference to the problems confronting many of my constituents, with particular regard to housing and environmental matters. It is on those subjects that I have attempted to show a particular interest in my work in this place.
  Within the Ladywood constituency—indeed, within the Ladywood ward itself—I have a situation where to the best of my knowledge no families are living in owner-occupation. There are all, save for a very small number who are tenants of private landlords, within accommodation owned by the local authority. That area was selected by the city council, along with four others, to be one of Birmingham's original post-war redevelopment areas. That redevelopment is now virtually complete. Only the unknowing or the ill-advised would disagree that as a result of that development my city remedied some of the poorest housing conditions in Britain.
  In so doing, it was of the utmost importance to provide a great volume of municipal housing, and, in accord with the fashion of the times, large, impersonal high-rise flatted developments were under taken. In some neighbourhoods, the densities of habitable rooms to the acre were from 100 to 150, and even 200-plus in one extreme case.

  567
  Now, 20 years later, local social workers, housing officers, councillors, the present hon. Member for Birmingham, Lady-wood and previous Members of Parliament have concluded that that situation should be improved upon and that the situation of people living in that sort of density is unacceptable. In the light of our experience, some of those schemes now seem in some respects to have been ill advised.
  Modern thinking leads many, including Ministers, to the conclusion that a density of about 60 habitable rooms to the acre is now the level that we should aim for. Birmingham and other authorities are being encouraged to develop housing at that density.
  From those, including myself, who live in the inner city areas, there is a demand for environmental improvements, which will be undertaken only with great difficulty. For example, given that too many people live in too small an area, the need for open space, leisure facilities, sport and recreation is apparent. But the overriding difficulty is that no development space is available for these provisions, save in what now, in modern times, are regarded as small infill sites.
  Local tenants' groups such as those in my constituency feel frustrated—justifiably—about the demands for improvements made upon them by local residents when at the same time all the land which would have been available has been used up and little is left on which the sort of environmental and leisure facility improvements which are demanded can be situated. Therefore, those municipal tenants seek tranfers to more satisfactory housing, which, paradoxically, often means properties far older than those they seek to leave.
  The attraction of these older, often pre-war, houses is that they have gardens back and front in which their children can play, generally lower rents which they can more readily afford and a neighbourhood which will probably have a better allocation of open space and parks. The hopes and dreams of families desperately waiting to transfer to such housing are being dashed against the rocks of despair by the present, though temporary, Tory administration in Birmingham, through its policy of selling off the very properties to which these people seek to transfer.
  568
  Every corporation-owned house sold means that those waiting on the application lists for a first home have a longer wait, particularly if they are looking for a house, and that those on the transfer list living in high-rise developments will have to wait longer for a home of their choice.
  I welcome the modifications made by my right hon. Friend to the structure plan. The plans were drawn up after considerable investigation in the various metropolitan areas. Birmingham's was the result of a lengthy process, which produced a worthwhile plan. My right hon. Friend has amended it, first, to show that the city should specify the general location of the major areas for residential development. That is long overdue, but the snag is that in the past two or three years the 20-acre sites referred to in structure plans have virtually dried up. The city has few such sites for development and most of the areas available when the list was compiled have now gone. I ask Ministers to look again at the problems of big cities in relation to available sites.
  Secondly, my right hon. Friend has said that a policy related to the incorporation of housing in city centres should be considered favourably. That is obviously in line with the general proposal that life should come back to the centres of the big cities. Where it exists, very often the lack of leisure facilities and other amenities also exists. If we are to bring life back to city centres, we shall have to provide not only the housing but the general environmental facilities.
  Birmingham's structure plan calls for the provision of about 38,000 dwellings in the area of the former county borough of Birmingham in the period 1971–81. The city is falling slowly behind that figure. With the details so far known, I suspect that the years 1981–86, which are the remaining years covered by he structure plan, will not see the development of the balance—8,000 or 10,000 houses—for which the plan called.
  It is likely that the city will shortly be blessed again with a Labour administration, who will of course step up the housing programme. In the interests of those languishing on the housing lists now—who, to the best of my information, now number 11,500 for applications and 29,000 for transfers—who will obviously see their opportunity come

  569
  along, I therefore welcome the observations in paragraph 12.2 of the Secretary of State's submission to the Secretary of the West Midlands County Council. It refers particularly to the exchange arrangements which should be available in the area covered by the county plan. The Secretary of State says:
  "Structure plans should allow scope for the provision of a range of house types and tenures taking full account of the contribution that can be made by the voluntary housing movement. The policy on densities should help to ensure that the Plan has the necessary flexibility. The Secretary of State further agrees with the Panel that housing management measures could help to reduce the housing problems in the Six Plans area by minimising under occupation and by such measures as improved exchange arrangements for tenants in public sector housing both within and between housing authorities. But these are not strategic land use matters requiring his approval in the individual structure plans."
  Therefore, there will be considerable local flexibility in the administration of exchanges and transfers. It is to that end that many people look to local authorities like Birmingham to do something for their particularly difficult housing cases.
  Environment and Housing Ministers have greatly assisted those in Ladywood and similar inner city areas by calling upon housing authorities to produce submissions for the housing investment programmes. Birmingham's submission says that 100,000 dwellings—almost 30 per cent. of the stock—were built before the First World War and that there are now 50,000 substandard dwellings. It is to these matters that I am sure Ministers will give attention when considering the housing investment programmes for the big cities.
  I think that Ministers have realised the importance of extending the consumer demand in housing and, I hope, will adopt a flexible approach, offering public and private tenants the widest possible choice of options in home provision.
  Paragraph 12.1 of the housing Green Paper says:
  "There are quite large numbers of people who may face special difficulties in getting suitable housing. They include lower income households, homeless people, one parent families, battered women, the physically disabled, the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, old people, single people, mobile workers, ethnic minorities. In the last analysis, the effectiveness of any national housing policy and local housing strategy is likely to be judged by how
  570
  far it helps those facing the most pressing housing problems."
  I am confident that this Government will continue to bear in mind those observations when they formulate a future housing policy. In so doing they will maintain the confidence and support not only of my right hon. and hon. Friends but of the British people.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. W. Benyon: I declare my interest as the owner of unfurnished rented property. I am sorry that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) has left the Chamber. He said that this problem could be cracked. I agree with him, but the tragedy is that it could be cracked so much more quickly if we had a bipartisan policy on housing. However, after eight years in this place I have given up all hope of that.
  I begin by taking up the statement by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities which was so savaged by the Secretary of State. There are two very relevant points in that statement. The first is that Government approvals of improvements are roughly half those on new buildings. On the second, I quote from a report in today's edition of The Times:
  "If we are to get the housing programme moving again, local authorities must have the ability to plan for four years ahead, and have the freedom to determine their spending priorities within overall totals set by central government."
  I do not believe that we shall get any further with the Labour Party on this issue. Therefore, I say to my own Front Bench that this must be our first priority when we take office. We must cut through the bureaucracy and red tape that at present surround the consideration of housing programmes by the Department of the Environment.
  Mr. William Molloy rose—
  Mr. Benyon: No, I will not give way. Perhaps if we had more co-operation from the other side of the House I would, but I cannot do so because we have too little time.
  The yardstick and the application of it are the central point of the argument. I deal with two local authorities and one development corporation. The development corporation deals with roughly 2 per cent. of the entire local authority

  571
  housing programme for the current year. It is the biggest in the country. The excellent officials in these 3 authorities run backwards and forwards to the Department ironing out details which it should not have to deal with at all. If these councils were given a set allocation and it was then monitored afterwards, the situation would be much quicker, easier and more efficient.
  Now the Housing Corporation is getting in on the act as well. This corporation was envisaged as an organisation to control the voluntary housing movement. It was thought that it would operate on a shoestring to match the voluntary effort of the movement. It has now become a mirror image of the Department of the Environment. The voluntary housing movement has to go through two stages. It has to go to the Housing Corporation and then, in addition, it must go through the bureaucracy of the Department of the Environment. Therefore, it seems that the sole object of too many people who do not build one single house is to stop other people building them. At one point 18 months ago when the new scheme was started, I really thought that the Minister had got the message, but it seems that he is a prisoner of his own Department and the Treasury.
  One can imagine the conversation going on at the Department with officials saying "Minister, you cannot do this, you cannot cut the yardstick because new building will drop away entirely and the Tories will be after you." That was why I was so sorry to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) playing the numbers game this afternoon. The fact is that very few statistics in housing are of any use at all. The only ones that are of any possible use are the improvement statistics. But all the easy rehabilitation has been done and only the difficult bits remain to be done now. So, naturally, the figures will go down because of that.
  When we have 20 million homes and 18 million families and, therefore, we are in crude surplus, the problem is becoming more and more localised and specialised. The statistics do not show this. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) has just been talking about his problems. They are totally different from mine, which are in a very large new town. That is why it is so necessary to give local
  572
  authorities far greater freedom of action. They have the specialised staffs and the knowledge of the local area and, hopefully, they are responsive to local opinion.
  On the sale of council houses, I listened very closely to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley. Nobody wants to see houses sold to tenants more than I do, if those tenants want to buy them. But I cannot contemplate or support this being done on a statutory basis. There seems very little difference between statutory comprehensive education being imposed by the Labour Party and the statutory sale of council houses being imposed by this side of the House. I am all for the greatest amount of inducement being given to councils to sell and to tenants to buy, but let us leave it at that. One can only hope that the example set by the more enlightened councils will be seen by the electors of the more bigoted councils. They will be green with envy and will take the appropriate action.
  I turn to the private rented sector. I was most depressed to hear what the Secretary of State said about the review of the Rent Acts. This must be as a result of evidence given to the review by the Labour Party. It really makes most depressing reading. This review is not really necessary, because we all know what is wrong. We all know that the private rented sector is very unattractive and that there is no encouragement to let property except at the very top of the market.
  There are two reasons why it is unattractive. The first is the unlimited security of tenure that is now granted, and the second is that the return given by fair rents is too low in relation to the investment value of the property. Therefore, as soon as the property becomes vacant most owners sell.
  The Secretary of State and his Ministers are the only people in Britain who, at a stroke, could bring over 1 million more units on to the market today by agreeing to proposals for short-term tenancies. That one thing, done by the Labour Government—we would not get the same response if we did it—overnight would bring over 1 million units on to the private rented market and would help to solve the bad position in our large cities.
  Secondly, it is very necessary in these inflationary times to move towards a

  573
  more frequent review of fair rents, and to ensure that the return is brought nearer to the investment return.
  I shall not bore the House with my ideas about registration of landlords but it appears that the Press has now been told in three different ways. First, there is the housing association aspect in which registration has been demanded. Then there are housing improvement grants, under which the landlord has, in effect, to register, and there is the Rent Act, itself under which cases must go before a rent officer and the tribunal. This process could be extended to include registration of landlords with local authorities so that they could be afforded special conditions and thereby extend the availability of rented property.
  Municipalisation has failed. I shall not quote what was said in the Labour Party evidence to the review body, but that policy can succeed only by confiscation. I do not believe that even the Labour Party would opt for such a policy.
  It is not a bad rule to go for what people want. The vast majority of people want to own their own homes and must be given that chance. The rest need choice and availability. At the moment they are locked into council accommodation. In this process the councils have a part to play, as do housing associations, co-ownership and the private sector. All have a part to play, and if one sector is neglected it will be to the detriment of the whole.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. John Ovenden: There are two points in the remarks of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) with which I agree. I share his scepticism about any statistics advanced by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and I agree with him that both the public and private sectors have a part to play in solving our housing problems.
  Having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Henley and the echo of its sentiments in the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), we wonder whether we were listening to Conservative Party policy. So often the Opposition appear to feel that there is a conflict between the public and the private sector. They appear to take the view that it is impossible for
  574
  Labour Members to support owner-occupation or to give help to owner-occupiers, but the facts speak for themselves and the record is there for all to see.
  Labour Governments have given more help and support to owner-occupiers than Conservatives have ever afforded to such people. It was a Labour Government who introduced the option mortgage scheme, and it was a Labour Government who introduced the Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Bill. In 1974 the Labour Government stepped in to stop interest rates rising from 11 per cent. to 11½ per cent., and thus avoid the crippling effect which such a move would have had on young married couples who wished to buy their first homes. In contrast, it was a Conservative Government who sat idly by while house prices rocketed and millions of young couples were forced out of the housing market altogether. The record is there for all to see and we do not need to apologise for our stand on this issue.
  The Government's prime responsibility rests in the public sector. It is the area in which the Government have the most direct responsibility and control. Those who find themselves in greatest need will continue to look to the public sector for lie solution of their problems. They look to that sector because they are unable to solve their problems in any other way. Therefore, the Opposition's attitude on public sector housing is disturbing. We have yet to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Homsey (Mr. Rossi), but when he spoke a year and a day ago in a similar debate on 20th June 1977 he said—I take it he was speaking on behalf of the official Opposition:
  "We believe that local authorities should concentrate new building on the sectors of the community that are not able to help themselves—the elderly, the disabled and those in need."—[Official Report, 20th June 1977 Vol. 933, c. 1010.]
  I do not know to what "need" the hon. Gentleman was referring; he did not say. Presumably, he was not referring to people in need of housing. I suppose he was referring to the deserving poor—the needy. This appears to be the Conservatives' attitude to public sector housing. They believe that it should play only a residual role. They see no place for the public sector in making a major

  575
  contribution to this country's housing problems.
  It is evident from the hon. Gentleman's statement, and from similar statements made by the Opposition, that the re-election of a Conservative Government would mean a drastic reduction in the level of public sector house building. In a previous housing debate the hon. Member for Henley went almost so far as to admit that that was the case. The only figure on which he would not be drawn was the target figure at which a Conservative Government would aim.
  It has long been the policy of Conservative Governments to support the rundown of local authority building. That was effectively demonstrated in the period between 1970 and 1974. It was the only area in which that Conservative Government demonstrated any great success. Their policy was extremely effective. They managed to reduce public sector house building to what was almost a postwar record low. That was the situation in which the Labour Government took over our affairs.
  I congratulate the Government on their achievements in the first two years of office, when there was an enormous increase in the level of public sector building, but lately the trend has been somewhat disturbing. Last year public sector starts were the lowest since 1973, and the first four months of this year do not give many of us much cause for optimism. The reasons are debatable. I believe that the heavy hand of the Treasury, having descended a year ago on the building programme, had a more drastic effect than some of my hon. Friends are prepared to accept. I also believe that the advent of Conservative councils in many stress areas had an undeniable effect, in terms of cutting back the level of house building.
  These issues are debatable, but the facts are inescapable. The fact is that we are allowing our building programme to slump. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will not sit idly by and allow their policies to be undermined either by indefference or by sabotage on the part of Conservative authorities, but that they will try to get the nation back to a level of public sector building which we man-
  576
  aged to achieve in the first two years of the present Labour Government.
  This debate has been somewhat disappointing. It was called on the initiative of the Official Opposition and we thought that they would put forward some positive ideas. However, apart from a valuable contribution by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), to whom I must pay tribute, we have heard little in the way of positive suggestions.
  The hardy annual involving the sale of council houses has been trotted out. Whatever else the sale of council houses does or does not achieve, it must be said that it does not add one house to our stock. All it does is to transfer houses from the public to the private sector. In doing so, it undermines and gravely damages the prospects of those in greatest housing need. It is ludicrous for Conservative Members to argue that one can reduce the stock of public sector housing without its having an effect on the housing chances of those on the waiting lists.
  I heard the hon. Member for Henley, in an unusually frank intervention, admit that the Conservatives are no longer claiming that they will use the money gained from sales to replace the properties that are sold. Few of us ever thought that they would, but that was their line until recently. The Conservative Party is committed to a reduction in the overall stock of public sector housing. That is an irresponsible and cynical attitude, which shows a total disregard for the interests of people in housing need. It is obvious that the only intention of their policy is to pick up a few cheap votes. That is what has seemed to motivate every suggestion from the Conservatives in the last few months.
  I hope that tenants who may be tempted by that policy will ask themselves what would have happened if the Conservative municipal asset strippers had been in business 10 or 20 years ago, when those tenants were waiting on the housing lists in the hope of getting a council house. I can assure those tenants that if the asset strippers had been unloading council houses as quickly as they could, there would be no council houses for people to move into. Those who may be tempted to buy their council houses can rest assured that if they had been born 10 or 20 years later they would not

  577
  have had the chance of even renting a council house, let alone buying one. I hope that tenants will respond and realise that the Conservatives' policy is a cheap, vote-catching gimmick, which undermines the hope of a decent housing policy and a decent chance for those in housing need.
  The Conservatives' policy not only reduces the stock of council houses; it affects the balance of the housing stock. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) referred to the problems caused to those in high-rise blocks by the indiscriminate sale of council houses. Of course the Conservatives are no longer talking just about sales to sitting tenants. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) did not seem to understand this point when I intervened in his speech. Tory councils are putting into practice policies that involve the transfer of tenants from one property to another which they can purchase.
  This policy will mean that all the best and most attractive council property will be sold and the older houses and high-rise blocks will be left. The Medway Borough Council, which includes part of my constituency, has said that it will put on the open market all council houses that become vacant and will leave them on the market empty for weeks before offering them to tenants on the waiting list. That is a gross insult to people in great housing need and to those who wish to transfer to other accommodation.
  Mr. Sever: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have been asked by a constituent to investigate the ludicrous situation in Birmingham, where it is alleged that a lady aged at least 75 has recently been granted a 30-year mortgage in order to buy a local authority property? That is how desperate the Tories are to sell properties in Birmingham.
  Mr. Ovenden: The sale of council houses will never involve a recognition of housing need. Those with money and the ability to buy will benefit and those who do not have the ability to buy will suffer. However, the rest of the council tenants will also suffer from this policy as they have to meet the financial burdens outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann).
  578
  I should like to see a ban on the sale of all council houses in areas where there is an unsatisfied demand for rented accommodation. The Government should act on those lines. They have stated in a circular that they believe it wrong that council houses should be sold in those circumstances. It is totally wrong for the Government, having stated that, to sit back and see their policy completely ignored by Conservative authorities that have no regard for housing needs.
  If the Government feel that they cannot go that far, at least they should say that sales must be restricted to genuine sitting tenants. We should not have the auction of council houses that is taking place in many authorities. At least the Government should withdraw the 20 per cent. discount. It is irresponsible for a Government to say that the policy of certain authorities is undesirable and irresponsible, and yet to allow local authorities to subsidise that irresponsible policy. It is about time the Government came off the fence to make it clear where they stand. They have said where they stand, but they should put some action behind their words.
  I welcomed the announcement of future policy made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I especially welcomed his statement about the ceiling on rents. It will be based upon the increase in average earnings, and rents will be kept below that level. That will be good news for council tenants, especially for those who have read the statements of the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer and know what is in store for them if a Conservative Government come to power. They now know what sort of rent increases are on the way for them.
  The Government's record of looking after council house tenants and keeping rents down to realistic levels is one of which they can be rightly proud. The Secretary of State's statement will be widely welcomed throughout the country. However, I ask my right hon. Friend further to consider rents. Even with the ceiling in force, there are still many ways in which council tenants can be treated unfairly.
  Council tenants can be faced with unnecessary rent increases because of the unfair burdens that in many areas are placed on the housing revenue accounts.

  579
  I refer especially to the placing on the accounts of the whole cost of sheltered accommodation, which should be a charge against the community as a whole. The whole cost of the provision of community halls, open spaces, playgrounds and other such facilities are generally provided by the general rate fund but in some instances are loaded on to the housing revenue account when they cover council areas. Council tenants are paying for these services when paying their rates, as are other ratepayers. They should not be faced with having to pay for them twice as a result of the attitude of Conservative authorities that are placing unnecessary and unjustified burdens upon them.
  I give a warm welcome to my right hon. Friend's announcement that councils will be enabled to tie their mortgage rates to those of the building societies. Many borrowers from local authorities have faced heavy burdens over recent years because of the level of interest charges that they have had to pay. Many of us have made representations to the Secretary of State and other Ministers. We are glad that the Secretary of State has listened.
  We are talking mainly about those who are on lower incomes—those buying the lower range of property in terms of value. Those are the borrowers who have local authority mortgages. Those are the borrowers who have been bearing an unnecessary burden. I am glad that my right hon. Friend will give the local authorities the chance to put matters right. I hope that the local authorities that have been shouting so much over the past few years will take the opportunity and act to reduce the burden.
  We have much to be proud of in our housing record over the past few years and months. However, we have nothing to be complacent about. If the Minister answers no other points that I have made, I hope that he will say a few words about the decline in public sector house building, which many of us find extremely disturbing.
  8.44 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Latham: As a director of a house building company I wish to talk about land, which has not been discussed so far. I take that course in taking up the remarks of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden).
  580
  The core of the Government's land policy is the community land scheme. The late Mr. Anthony Crosland described it in 1974 as
  "the beginning of the end of a lone crusade."
  We know now what the crusade achieved in the first year of State trading—namely, 1976–77. In that year English local authorities bought 1,571 acres of land, of which 832 acres was for housing. They paid £12·1 million for that land. They resold 32·2 acres for housing for £295,000. They sold 0·75 acres for industry at an unrevealed price and resold one commercial property in Hampshire at an undisclosed price.
  In Scotland 66·5 acres were bought for £427,000, none of it for housing, and none was resold. Meanwhile, 97 English and Scottish circulars, orders, directions and letters were issued by Ministers about the Act. That is a ratio of three to one in favour of paper transactions as opposed to sales of land.
  Until last Monday, the Secretary of State had not favoured us with any figures for 1977–78, except for his estimate in the House on 21st March that a further 350 to 400 acres would be resold in England. We now know that the Department got that figure wrong. Only 800 acres was bought in 1977–78—half the total for the previous year—and only 100 acres was resold, of which 75 acres was for housing. The estimate on 21st March of 350 to 400 acres has thus become 100 acres by June. There is no apology and no mention of this in any guidance note to the Press.
  All that one can say about the 100 acres is that it is three times as good as 33, and the total of 133 acres so far disposed of just about equals the number of Whitehall circulars and letters so far produced. We have good parity under this Government: one acre, one circular in the Marsham Street paper-chase. In any case, 133 acres is a pathetic contribution towards land needs. Of course, 75 acres of housing land resold this year is enough for 750 houses.
  Unfortunately, it might take 221½ years, on the Goverment's estimate, to develop the land on which those houses will be built, because the Minister's brand new circular on land on Monday admits that
  "typical annual production on a large site is unlikely to exceed 30 houses."

  581
  So we have a net loss this year of £6½ million under the community land scheme and another £20 million loss in the previous two years to provide 133 acres of land in England, which is about the size of one-medium sized Wimpey site. But I should bet that if Wimpey had bought and sold 133 acres it would not have lost £26½ million on the deal and it certainly would not have lost £26½ million of taxpayers' money. That is the core of what it is all about.
  Developers do not naturally look to local authorities to provide land for them. That is the vital flaw in the Government's land scheme. It is failing not solely because the Government cut back the finance in December 1976, nor is it failing because of the abysmally slow procedure of the structure planning system which is already so late. Certainly they are contributory factors, but they are not vital. The land scheme is failing because the only efficient and speedy way for land to come on to the market and to be developed is for the builder or developer to use his commercial expertise, to identify a possible site, to go to the landowner, to negotiate a price, to buy the land and then to put houses on it. If the price is right, a deal can be struck in days—sometimes hours—and the land is conveyed and work begins.
  It is not like that with local government. With local government we have the full panoply of committees, investigations, councils, the district auditor and all the necessary requirements of public accountability.
  The basic fallacy of the land scheme has always been the same—that the public sector could assist and expedite the flow of land by coming between the vendor and the purchaser. That is a contradiction in terms. That is why the duties imposed on local authorities under the Act to do their best to bring more land into public ownership or control are fundamentally hostile to private development, as their authors probably intended them to be.
  There can be no progress that way. It is a blind alley—as blind as the Land Commission, which the late Mr. Richard Crossman rightly called "a total failure" and which his diaries reveal that he knew to be a failure from the very start of the scheme.
  582
  The main role of local government should not be to initiate land purchase for private development. It may have a useful back-up function in voluntary co-operation with private developers, just as it has done for many years in city centre redevelopment. Industrial sites in particular may also be assembled in that way. But it is undesirable in principle and unworkable in practice that the organisation to which Parliament has given the duty of deciding whether to grant planning permission should also seek to be the dominant force in the market for buying land. That is why the Community Land Act is failing and that is why it will continue to fail. That way—the State trading way—lies bad planning, slow development, the risk of corruption and the certainty of increased bureaucracy and expense.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. Jahn Lee: The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) has given us a dissertation on the Community Land Act. My view is that the more I see Labour local authorities slapping compulsory purchase orders on properties the happier I shall be. We might be able to avoid some of the ramifications and difficulties that are inherent in that admirable Act if there is an absolute plethora of compulsory purchase orders.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) raised the question of gazumping. That same subject featured in a debate on the Estate Agents Bill, which is being reluctantly processed through the House at the moment. The hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) raised the matter on that occasion. Both he and my hon. Friend in different ways have drawn attention to a problem that has exercised many of us for a long time.
  It is a curious historic survival of an Act that was passed in the seventeenth century—the Statute of Frauds—whereby, at total variance with the position in contract law as a whole, the consideration of the stakeholder, being such as it is, does not represent a binding contract in the sale of a house.
  This matter has been the source of no end of heartache, of disappointment and of considerable loss for many people. I have been the victim of gazumping in the past. We all know of people who have

  583
  suffered in this way. It is the more extraordinary because it is clearly something that could be easily rectified by a simple Act.
  It is worth remembering that as a general principle of contract law, if there is consideration for a promise, and the consideration moves against the promise, there is a binding and therefore actionable contract in the event of breach.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) is well known as a practising lawyer. It is wrong of him to give the impression that legislation preventing gazumping could easily be entered into and that it is only the bias and incompetence of this House that prevents our passing such legislation. If we had any sort of legislation which did away with the necessity for evidence in writing the contract would be binding on both sides, and very great hardship would be done to many people who are prepared to make an offer on a house without knowing what legal and other difficulties may be involved.
  Mr. Lee: I cannot see that it would cause hardship to anybody merely to amend the law to bring it into line with what is the fact in regard to options in other areas. One can have an option contract in regard to other matters not involving an interest in land. There are no great difficulties in evidencing it. In any event, the hardship that would be caused by a change in the law could be as nothing compared with the hardships that are involved when people deliberately breach an undertaking.
  One does not look too closely for morality in contract, but if a bargain is a bargain in a whole host of other situations, and if a person can be acted against for ratting on a bargain, as he can, it would be perfectly feasible and right for that to be implemented in this respect.
  I go a stage further and say that although an element of punitive damages has rarely featured in the law on contract, except in regard to bounced cheques—and there it applies because that is a form of constructive defamation—it would be reasonable if it were possible for some element of that to be involved in gazumping.
  584
  I am at a loss to see how the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) can make the points he does about evidence. Letters are always exchanged in these matters. One rarely comes across the sale of a house where there is nothing in writing. But that would not provide any difficulty. It would also act as an element of restraint upon the estate agents' profession, which is wholly in need of regulation. Whether the current Bill is the most appropriate way of doing that I know not. It is certainly a profession which needs regulation in relation to that matter, because estate agents are very often privy to the mean and unfortunate situations that arise time and again. As has been pointed out, in an inflationary situation the propensity for this abuse to occur is the greater.
  I want to raise one other matter which is, in a sense, of a quasi-constituency character. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will have time to refer to it in his reply. When a house is demolished under a compulsory purchase order, as part of a slum clearance or for any other purpose, and damage is done to an adjoining property, as far as I can see, unless there is evidence of negligence in regard to that, there is no claim that the owner of the adjoining property can levy on the local authority. Indeed, I had such a case in the Aston ward, in my constituency, where not only was this deemed to be the case, and the advice given to the local authority was to that effect, but when, rather honourably, the authority offered to make an ex gratia payment to compensate for the damage that had unavoidably been done to an adjoining terraced house the city's solicitor promptly advised that such a payment would be ultra vires and that if it were made there would be dangers of a surcharge from the district auditor.
  I cannot think that that can be right. I should have thought that this problem would arise quite often. In the particular instance that was drawn to my attention some time ago, the person concerned was well able, financially, to provide for the repair, but the fact remains that there will be many instances where that will not be so, where hardship can be caused, and in respect of which I think it is only reasonable that there should be some

  585
  amendment of the law so as to provide against that kind of injustice.
  I want to make one or two general observations in regard to the debate. The Minister deserves to be commended for many things that he said in the debate, not least with regard to the desirability of a tenants' charter. Also, I was very pleased to hear that the Government are taking a stand against the sale of council houses, though not as strong a stand as I would wish them to take.
  I should like to hear a little more about what the Minister thinks of the default behaviour of certain local authorities. Where a Conservative-controlled local authority has flatly refused to build housing on anything like a reasonable scale, is that not the kind of situation in which the default procedures might reasonably be brought into effect?
  I remember, years ago, when the Coventry City Council was brought to book by a Conservative authority for failing to spend money on what we comically call civil defence, its powers in respect of civil defence were withdrawn. I should like to know whether the Minister would be prepared to face the row—I think that he would do so with equanimity—that might be involved in withholding funds from a local authority which persistently failed to build houses and persistently indulged in a policy of selling off local authority houses notwithstanding the fact that it had a long waiting list.
  Mr. Molloy: To illustrate that point even further, in the London borough of Ealing we have almost 300 homeless families and about 8,000 people on the waiting list. In three years of a Tory-controlled council it constructed 30 housing units. In the following four years of a wicked Labour Council the council managed to construct only 3,500.
  Mr. Michael Morris: Speak up.
  Mr. Molloy: I shall speak up, and very loudly, for half an hour if necessary. I hope that Conservative Members will listen to this. A Tory council was returned to power, and within a month one of the first things that it did—I must repeat this, because although we have heard some sincere statements from Conservative
  586
  Members tonight they do not realise what some of their colleagues in local government, such as those in the London borough of Ealing—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godinan Irvine): Order. Had the hon. Member wished to make a speech he could have taken other steps to do so. A number of hon. Members have been sitting in the Chamber all day waiting to speak.
  Mr. Molloy: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although, quite rightly, you have called me to order for going on for too long, I find it remarkable that you were not a little more keen to prevent the interruptions which tempted me.
  It is vital that we in this House understand that some of the sins committed by local authorities cause great pain to ordinary families. One set of Conservative councilors—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) to resume his speech.
  Mr. Lee: I am seized of the point made by my hon. Friend. His local authority is only one, alas, of many examples. The Minister will lose no popularity, and will, I suspect, gain a great deal if, when faced with blatant examples of the kind to which my hon. Friend referred, he is prepared to use his powers to intervene in the way that I have suggested. No doubt there will be squeals of rage from the Conservative Benches, but that is something that we can bear with fortitude.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: I want to refer to the question of the nationalisation of the building industry. It is a matter that was avoided by the Secretary of State during his speech earlier today, and I suspect that the proposals that are contained in the document "Labour's Policy on Construction" are somewhat of an embarrassment to him. I sense that that is the case in respect of a number of Labour Members, and when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) gets on his feet to talk about nationalisation it is always by way of trying to explain away the content of this document.

  587
  I have been interested to look through the Socialist Party's proposals for the building industry, the material producers and suppliers and the professions which create the activity and provide the support for about 2 million people employed in construction and related activities. For the last-mentioned, the so-called "constructional professionals", to use the jargon in the document, the Socialists propose that
  "their education should be taken out of the hands of professional institutions and controlled by a body representing the whole industry, perhaps the Construction Industry Training Board".
  That proposal is contained in recommendation No. 54 of the policy background paper to which I have referred. It is an example of the fallacious and irresponsible submissions which appear throughout the document and in its 60 proposals to which, according to Mr. Ron Hayward in his foreword, his national executive committee
  "has given its broad endorsements to the basic policies set out".
  The text is in no way attributed to its authors or those who comprised the study group.
  We are told, again by the general secretary of the Labour Party, that Ministers, Members of Parliament, trade unionists and individual party members made available their experience and expertise. It would be helpful to know in what particular field their expertise lies. The absence of any reference to active responsibility for running a successful enterprise begs a question or two. Incidentally, no death-bed confessions are in evidence from any of the intended victims.
  With a colleague, I have been in the building industry for about 30 years. We have never had more than 60 or 70 employees and have always backed our judgment with our own money or that which we borrowed from the banks. I assure the House that this document is no more than an academic exercise, put together, I suspect, in the main by those with little or no practical experience of the building industry or, for that matter, of anything else which is the subject of their research. Its purpose is to try to justify the long-term objective of active Socialists.
  588
  I quote from the booklet. Paragraph 6, under the heading "Public Ownership", states:
  "A central tenet of Labour's philosophy is the need to take out of private hands and bring into social ownership the 'commanding heights' of the economy."
  There is no question, it should be noted, of building up State-owned companies. That would be the hard way of proving whether publicly owned enterprises could be made successful. Instead, the document suggests in paragraphs 43 to 46 that it should be done by the acquisition of a whole series of major and successful companies, including English China Clay, Redland, Consolidated Gold Fields—that clearly proved irresistible—Ready Mix Concrete, Hoveringham, Pilkington, BP Industries, Associated Portland Cement, one of a number of companies in the cement business which would be taken over, and London Brick. The Socialists had already promised us in their October 1974 manifesto that they would nationalise mineral rights.
  We see no indication here of the costs involved. They do not tell us, the country and the taxpayer what it will all cost. A vast amount of money will be required from the British people by way of rates and taxes. It will be a forced investment for all of us and an outgoing commitment by way of undefined administrative costs.
  No estimate is given of the outcome in building costs, an important factor here. Home and overseas output was £875 million in 1975–76. Therefore, what the industry is being threatened with is not only the takeover of its home-based operations but the risk to which a vast enterprise overseas will be subject.
  Furthermore, we are told nothing about increased effectiveness of the labour force and the need for its mobility. Indeed, the competitive nature of the industry is deplored. Recommendation No. 22 says that competitive tendering should be used much less. This is really a sop to some direct labour organisations.
  Among the recommendations, there are a number of real gems. In No. 14 we see:
  "The construction implications of public expenditure plans should be more effectively communicated to the industry, and procedures for assessing construction implications strengthened."

  589
  In No. 14 we have this:
  "The best forward planning systems for capital programmes already operating in the public sector should be extended more widely."
  No. 16 is:
  "A proportion of future public expenditure on construction should be guaranteed against spending cuts."
  How that is to be done, there is no explanation. We are not told how a Socialist Administration would have coped with the decline in the industry's output by 25 per cent. in the last four years.
  "Registered unemployment (seasonally adjusted) in construction as such rose from 80,000 in November 1973 to 214,000 in February 1977, including some 66,000 skilled craftsmen."
  There is a summary going with the building materials sector on page 50, and it reads just like an academic exercise. It says:
  "We have outlined in this section a strategy for introducing public accountability into the building materials sector—a major sector of both of our manufacturing and extractive industries—and thus ensuring an adequate and planned supply of material inputs for the construction industry. We believe it will be an early priority of the new State holding companies in the contracting and building materials sector to investigate whether vertical integration between the production and assembly sides of the industry, which some large private contractors are already developing, can yield further improvements in efficiency and in planning."
  That really is jargon of the worst description. I was hoping to intervene in the Secretary of State's speech to ask him to explain the word "oligopoly" which appears on page 36:
  "We note that there is a much higher degree of oligopoly"—
  that rhymes with "monopoly"—
  "in the industry than is immediately apparent from the overall statistics of the number of firms."
  I must confess that I had to look the word up, and I found that it is a
  "State of limited competition between a few producers or sellers".
  That is an indication of the academic exercise with which we are concerned.
  I recognise that the proposals in the document are not as yet, in their totality, Socialist Party policy. Whether they will be, I make no judgment. However, they are such that the country must be warned. They are the unavoidable face of
  590
  Socialism and must be vigorously opposed by every proper means. The industry itself has an important part to play, as, indeed, have those who work in it. Two million people are affected; they must be fully informed. I judge that, if provided with the facts, they will scornfully reject them. This, I think, is an indictment of the document, and I can well understand the embarrassment of the Secretary of State and his senior colleagues and many Labour Members.
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Rossi: This has been a wide-ranging debate and the House will, I hope, forgive me if, rather than seeking to comment on the many and varied points made, I concentrate on the Secretary of State's speech, particularly as I understand that the Minister for Housing and Construction wants a full half-hour in which to reply.
  The Secretary of State drew our attention to the Government's Green Paper on housing as representing the Government's objectives in housing. I derived much hope from this, since, with its technical volumes, the paper represents a deeply researched analysis by the Department into our housing problems. It showed that whilst the vast majority of our people are adequately housed—indeed, housed to a very high standard compared with the rest of Europe—there remain severe pockets of housing stress and of poor standards of housing, particularly in our older towns and cities. It showed, therefore, the need to shift the emphasis of public resources away from indiscriminate new building, tower blocks and large council estates, towards a sensitive revitalisation of our ageing and substandard stock.
  It showed also that, given the choice, the majority of people in this country prefer to own their own homes rather than to be someone else's tenant, even of the most benevolently-disposed local authority. The Secretary of State knows that in the technical volume No. II a sample survey shows that 87 per cent. of our young married couples aspire to home ownership. But within the same sample, 49 per cent. believe that they will never be able to attain it. My belief is that the duty of politicians is to try to see that those aspirations are fulfilled.

  591
  The document also showed that public sector provision was a particularly expensive way of meeting housing need, and to that extent it reinforced the arguments shown in the "Neddy" report which the right hon. Gentleman will remember I had cause to leak a little while previously. That showed that for the same amount of public money, one could house three families in the private sector for every one family that could be housed in the public sector.
  The Green Paper also showed that the public sector by itself, given the constraints of the economy, could not solve the problem in areas of housing stress, particularly for the homeless and the young mobile, and therefore reliance had to be placed on the private landlord, to whom encouragement rather than condemnation had to be given. Indeed, this was followed by the Government's own consultative document on the private rented sector, which emphasised that we had to help the private landlord if we were to solve our housing problems.
  These are all conclusions to which the Conservative Party has long since adhered, and I saw the Green Paper as containing the seeds of a bipartisan approach to housing—something which I greatly welcome, since I have always deplored the use of housing as a political football in a game where the only losers are those in need of a decent home.
  Therefore, I was much encouraged by the Secretary of State when he extended the Green Paper approach by the announcement which he made today. In the main, the legislative proposals are those which we can support and, indeed, which we ourselves would bring in. My right hon. Friends and myself have in recent years advocated a tenants' charter. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) has twice introduced a Bill which the Government have ensured will not see the light of day.
  Part of our charter will, of course, include the right to buy one's own home, if a council tenant. But for those tenants who do wish to buy, or who are unable to buy, we shall provide a standard form of tenancy agreement spelling out their rights—something to which the right hon. Gentleman drew attention. We shall give
  592
  them a greater say in the management of their estates. We shall give them the right to carry out improvements.
  The only adverse comment that I would make of the Secretary of State's announcement is that in February 1974 the Labour Party offered a new deal for council tenants but nothing has happened in its four years in office. Here the offer is again taken out, dusted over and produced. Why? Possibly because we are now approaching another General Election. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if we approach that promise with a little cynicism.
  I also welcome the proposal that local authority mortgage interest rates are to be kept in line with building society rates. But there must be a word of caution, because just as local authority rates come down more slowly than building society rates—because of the way in which local authority loans are financed—equally, they go up more slowly. If we bring into being a proposal of this kind, at some point in time borrowers from local authorities may feel themselves a little unfairly treated compared with the historical situation.
  The proposal with regard to guarantees for mortgages by building societies through local authorities is also extremely sensible and long overdue. I should like an assurance that a guarantee will not continue to be treated by the Treasury as a loan of money and, therefore, part of the capital allocation. This is the way in which it has been dealt with up till now. Local authorities may well feel that they would rather loan money direct and help people themselves than use up that same capital allocation by underwriting building societies. Therefore, it is most important to ensure that guarantees are not treated as part of that allocation. I hope that the Minister will give us the assurance that this has been negotiated with the Treasury and that the Treasury now accepts this concept.
  With regard to the Rent Acts, I can accept all that the Secretary of State said about this matter. Of course, security of tenure is of little consequence to the non-resident landlord. Provided he gets a reasonable return on his investment he does not mind who his tenant is. There is no need for anyone to seek or threaten to remove security of tenure. Inasmuch as the hon. Member for Mitcham and

  593
  Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) asked me, I give him the assurance on the Floor of the House—as I have done publicly in other places—that it is not the intention of the Conservative Party to remove security of tenure from those people.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, together with security of tenure, he will retain any form of rent regulation?
  Mr. Rossi: I shall come to those points. I am conscious that the Minister wants a certain amount of time. But there is another problem with regard to the resident landlord. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it is necessary to assist landlords in that situation to get back their property much more rapidly than they are able to under the law at present, when it is just and right that they should have it. Again, we concur.
  There is also the lunatic situation today in which people leave their homes empty when they go abroad, or go to another part of the country, because they dare not let. Of course, an exception must be made to the provisions of the Rent Acts in order to cover that situation.
  We are most conscious of the fact that, as the Green Paper says, there is a crude surplus of property over people requiring homes. We believe that that surplus exists mostly in properties which would otherwise be rented but are deliberately kept empty because it is felt that the Rent Acts are unfair. Therefore, we have brought forward the concept of short-holds and we shall legislate on this, so that, where a property is unlet when the legislation is introduced, if it is then let on a fixed-term tenancy it will not be subject to the security of the Rent Acts. In that way, we hope to tap this unused supply and bring supply and demand into balance.
  As for rent regulation, of course it is necessary, particularly in areas of housing stress, to ensure that advantage is not taken of an unfair market situation. But there are anomalies. The rent officer and rent tribunal systems operate side by side, one applying fair rents and the other reasonable rents as a criterion. The Secretary of State did not mention that. Those two should be integrated, and a common criterion should be applied which gives a reasonable and fair return
  594
  to the owner of the property to ensure that he is encouraged to let rather than discouraged from letting, the property, while ensuring at the same time that rogues cannot exploit a difficult situation.
  A residential landlord who has let part of his premises is today subject to capital gains tax on that part of the property which has been let. Our evidence shows that, particularly in the university cities, that is a disincentive to letting to students. We would remove it. My hon. Friends are seeking to press an amendment to the present Finance Bill in Committee to achieve just that. It will be interesting to see to what extent the Government believe in helping the residential landlord by the attitude which they take to that amendment.
  I also welcome what the Secretary of State said about improvement grants. However, we must first make sure that the conditions attached to the grants are relaxed. Far too high a standard is required by local authorities as to other works which have to be done in addition to that for which the grant is sought. When people face that additional expenditure, they do not take up the grant. Often, by any objective judgment, those extra works are not really necessary, but the local authority is compelled to require them by the form of the legislation.
  There is also the question of rateable value limits, which should be relaxed. However, the Secretary of State's statement rings a little hollow when we consider that only 48 per cent. of the proposed expenditure in Block II for improvement grants in the private sector has been approved by his Department for this year. That does not seem to add up to the statement that he has made about his policy.
  So far, sweetness and light, but I do not find the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's speech so attractive. Of course he has to rally the troops and raise their morale, since he is about to lead them into battle. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said, the Government's housing programme has been a disaster, despite the brave face that the right hon. Gentleman placed upon it.
  My hon. Friend spelled out the figures. Quite uncharacteristically, we had from

  595
  the right hon. Gentleman a virulent outburst against the AMA because the Association had dared issue a Press statement to the effect that the Government were allowing it only 69 per cent. of local authority bids for capital expenditure for housing.
  Of course, that kind of statement is very inconvenient when the Secretary of State is trying to persuade the House that the alibi for the disastrous programme is that the wicked Tory councils have not done their work. When someone produces figures to show that they have not been given the money to do that work, it becomes rather inconvenient. The Secretary of State then attacks the AMA and says that the secretary did not have the authority of his chairman to make that statement. I do not know how long that chairman will remain chairman. I understood that he was on his way out, and that his views did not represent those of the AMA at present.
  If the Secretary of State does not like the AMA figures, perhaps I could refer him to the figures produced by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers. In its report and comment on the housing investment programme, it summarises its conclusions:
  "Local authorities in England wanted to invest £3,521 million in housing in 1978–79—an increase of 52 per cent. in real terms over what they were allowed to spend in 1977–78. Central government have approved only 69 per cent. on average of the local authorities' housing investment plans for that year."
  It may well be that the Secretary of State will say that a 52 per cent. increase is far too large, and therefore he must cut back. That is all very well, but he cannot say at the same time that local authorities do not want to spend that money. He cannot have it both ways.
  The report continues:
  "For the year 1978–79 the level of local authority housing investment approved by the Government is only 4 per cent. higher on average than the level of the previous year (which had been the lowest for many years)."
  If one looks at the Government's White Paper on public expenditure, Command 7049, one sees that the total authority investment capital expenditure in 1977–78 was the lowest for many years. One also finds that for 1977–78 it was lower than for 1976–77, which in turn was lower than for 1975–76, which was lower than
  596
  for 1974–75. It is still lower than for 1973–74 and for 1972–73. There we have the figures from this independent source which show that the Government capital investment programme is not what the Secretary of State would have us believe it is.
  The Secretary of State decried our suggestion that we wished to sell council houses, or give council tenants the right to buy their own houses. That theme was echoed by some of his hon. Friends. He said this was because the Tories are against local authority housing. That is not the case. We wish to give people what they want. We believe that that is our duty. We want to help people to fulfil their aspirations. The fact is that 49 per cent. of the sample of young married couples who said they wanted to own their own homes said they could not ever see that eventuating out of their own resources.
  The comment was made that this was a bad deal and that sales of council houses were not terribly successful, because the take-up was not good. On Friday I was in Nottingham and it was my pleasure to hand over the keys to the tenant of the 3,000th house sold in the past 18 months by the incoming Conservative council. That means that there are 3,000 happy council tenants who now own their homes.
  The financial consequences for the local authority were very good. Capital sales total £23 million, showing a profit of almost £8 million on the original provision of those houses. That means £8 million additional worth of capital in the coffers of that local authority. The consequence on the housing revenue account is that a former deficit on the non-mandatory rate fund contribution of £1·2 million was reduced to nil in the next year. That is the consequence for the ratepayers of Nottingham. This success story could be repeated throughout the country and could transform the economy of local authorities.
  One local authority told me that its housing stock was valued at £60 million. If the entire stock were sold, not only would it not be necessary to demand any subsidies at all from the Exchequer; the authority would not have to charge the ratepayers a penny rate. Indeed, it could give the ratepayers a dividend. The release of capital moneys in that

  597
  way could mean the elimination of interest charges having to be paid by the local authority, the elimination of the responsibility for repairs, and the elimination of the need for maintenance and management. This could transform the economy of the local authorities and the nation dramatically. This is what the people want.
  I am not saying that we do not see any role for local authorities in housing. Of course that is not the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) said, there will always be those who do not want to become home owners, and provision must be made for them. There will be those who, because of their financial circumstances, cannot become home owners. The elderly will always need to be provided for, as will the disabled and the single who do not qualify under most points schemes.
  This must be the function of our society—a compassionate society—to help those who cannot help themselves. But in respect of those who can help themselves, there is no need for them to remain a burden on themselves, through their rates and taxes, and on the remainder of the community.
  I could go on to outline a number of features of my party's housing programme, which I feel is the best programme this country has seen in housing for at least four decades but my agreed time is up. I shall be proud to see it presented by my right hon. and hon. Friends at the coming election.
  The Minister has already said that he does not want to enter into a Dutch auction on our proposals. Of course he does not want to do so. He cannot begin to compete with our proposals. I am sure that the people of this country will well realise this, and give their decision convincingly in the not too distant future.
  9.32 p.m.
  The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): We have all waited with great interest in this debate—a debate called by the Opposition—for the revelation of what the Opposition wish to put to the country. But all we have had is a rather empty speech from the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), one of the worst speeches I have heard on housing. It did no more
  598
  than garble the statistics and reiterate, in a generalised form, the subject of a statutory right for the purchase of council houses by tenants.
  Beyond that, we have had nothing from the Tory Opposition in this debate. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), for a period of six or seven minutes, uttered constant cries of "me too-ism". He went through a whole series of the policy proposals which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment had listed in his speech and said "Me, too". He constantly said "We agree", "We agree", "We agree". He uttered not one dissident note on our proposals. He put one or two queries on their detail, but as for the general policy propositions we had advanced he did not put forward one note of disagreement.
  What we have had in this debate, in essence, is garbled statistics, secondly, a reiteration of the argument about the indiscriminate sale of council houses, and, thirdly, a series of "Me, too" statements. We were told that we must await the revelation of a magnificent policy that will be the best the country has ever seen—but we know nothing about it. We have heard nothing about it except a series of "me too-isms". To call a debate on such an issue and not to reveal what is to be presented to the country with great drama and such positive pride is, to say the least, a little disappointing.
  Mr. Heseltine: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Freeson: No, not for the moment.
  Mr. Heseltine: The Minister has attacked me.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It looks as though the Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Freeson: We await, with some disappointment, as will people interested in housing throughout the country, the publication of the great dramatic policy that will be the best the country has seen. We know not of it yet.
  Mr. Heseltine: The Minister has accused me of producing garbled statistics. Can he give the facts that contradict any statistics that I gave?
  Mr. Freeson: I shall come to several of these points later. If the hon. Member

  599
  for Henley wants a period of disappointing reading, he should look through Hansard tomorrow, because his speech will ook very impressive as the contribution of the Shadow Secretary of State on such an importantnot l subject.
  It is extraordinary how little, apart from the series of "me too-isms", the Tory Party attitude to housing has changed in the last four years. There have been radical advances in housing policy in that time but only minimal changes in the content of Opposition policies. If anything, the Conservatives have retreated further into the backwoods from which they were emerging into the scrublands when we took office in 1974.
  Contrary to what the hon. Member for Hornsey said about nothing having been done in the last few years and his claim that we were only now presenting our intentions, the real emphasis in housing policy has changed. By the late 1960s, the emphasis on meeting new house building targets as a singular test of success or failure by any Government was already out of date, but we had to wait until the last four years for this wider development in housing policy to take place. It is not that house building is unimportant, but we need to put it in the context of a much wider look at the real needs of people and not the needs for which politicians anticipate good Press coverage.
  The work encapsulated in our housing Green Paper, which has been commended on both sides of the House, has already led to changes in policy and procedures as we have built up the work. We have not awaited the publication of the Green Paper or the policy statement that my right hon. Friend made earlier, on the basis of that Green Paper, before acting in these matters.
  We shall bring forward the legislative proposals, but Conservative Members should mark the order in which action is taken. First, we establish the need by the most extensive study and analysis of housing problems in this country that has ever been undertaken. Secondly, we formulate and implement policy changes and, where necessary, carry them forward. The comprehensive Bill that my right hon. Friend outlined will do just that.
  600
  This wider development of housing policy has had a number of ingredients already. The first aspect is the quality of life. Hon. Members, not for the first time, have raised the question of high-density living, high-rise blocks and industrial building—the latter subject was raised, with much stress, by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean). Action was taken from 1974 onwards, within a few months of our taking office, to put a stop to high-rise building and medium-rise accommodation for families.
  There are no tall blocks or even medium-rise blocks being planned for family occupation. When we came into office, such accommodation represented nearly 20 per cent. of the total programme. It now represents less than 1 per cent. That is a worthwhile achievement. We did not await the Green Paper or legislation. We did not even await the changes in density policies that some of the structure plans, under our influence, are implementing. We took action.
  We have altered density policy, which is of great significance for future housing development in our urban areas. Coupled with that, we must deal with the existing stock by changes of management policies, which are already being put in train, which we are encouraging and upon which we are giving guidance. We have stressed, as my right hon. Friend did again today, the importance of housing management initiatives and experiments in neighbourhood management schemes. We have acted upon them in conjunction with local authorities throughout the country.
  When I took office in 1974, the Department did not employ one adviser or consultant on housing management. We now have a housing services advisory group, and a housing management services unit is being set in post. We have issued a full series of reports. In conjunction with about 30 local authorities throughout the country, we have undertaken studies of the worst problem housing estates. We are implementing the results of the studies. We are not awaiting some new policy or new legislation before taking action. Action is being taken now.
  Mr. Michael Morris rose—
  Mr. Freeson: I shall complete my references to housing management before giving way.
  We have taken a series of steps in housing management as a preliminary to the further steps that will be anchored in the legislative proposals to which my right hon. Friend referred. We have taken matters further than that. We have initiated schemes that I know were lying on my predecessor's desk in the previous Tory Administration. Conservative Members have endorsed the schemes in the House and elsewhere, but they did not act upon them when in office.
  Community leasehold schemes, shared equity schemes and co-operatives are now coming forward in their hundreds in various forms throughout the country. There are almost 150 co-operative schemes in the pipeline as a result of action taken only 18 months ago. The setting up of a Co-operative Housing Agency is another measure that we have undertaken. I could quote a series of other actions that we have undertaken in contact with local authorities and in sponsoring projects at official level and ministerially. That has been going on over the past four years. It is now producing the result that lead us to provide the framework in legislation that will carry matters further forward.
  Mr. Michael Morris: Why is it that in the four years that the right hon. Gentleman has been a Minister thousands more empty properties are owned by local councils, principally Labour-controlled authorities such as Camden, Islington, Haringey and the Secretary of State's borough of Tower Hamlets?
  Mr. Freeson: There has not been an increase in empty properties. On the contrary. I shall list some of the projects that have been undertaken in widening tenure choice and the management systems which have contributed to that.
  There has been an increase in short-life property licensing arrangements. A series of community leasehold housing associations has been sponsored. Some of the associations are now converting themselves into co-operatives. There has been a range of measures, and we have been encouraged by the fact that 40 local authorities have agreed to undertake
  602
  leasing schemes from private owners for short terms, or in some instances running up to 21-year leases on a review basis. There was only one local authority undertaking such arrangements when we came into office.
  There has been a series of initiatives. We issued a report on these matters a few months ago. We collated all the different methods being applied throughout the country and issued the report to local authorities.
  Where there is real, hard evidence of properties being unnecessarily empty, it behoves all public representatives, including Members of Parliament—I am now speaking as much as a Member as a Minister—to have direct contact with their town halls and to encourage actions that could be taken, either by purchase or by negotiating leasing arrangements of the sort to which I have briefly referred. Some properties will stand empty for various reasons. Some are on the market for certain periods. Others are subject to repairs. There are others that are unnecessarily empty. We must talk to the authorities and bring our influence to hear.
  There have been the various initiatives to which I have referred. They have all been directed to widening the choice of tenure that is essential in housing. More than that, the schemes that I have outlined, and to which we have been giving a great deal of time in the past few years, introduce a community dimension to housing that has been missing for far too long. That is to be coupled closely with the kind of estate management and neighbourhood management experiments which we are sponsoring with a number of local authorities. Various authorities which are not directly associated with the projects which we are sponsoring are being advised about these matters. Many things are being done. We are widening choice and introducing the social dimension in housing at neighbourhood level.
  I stress that one of the most important factors in widening choice is to be found in Housing Corporation and housing association work. Here I quote action, not rhetoric. For years Opposition Members, when in Government, spoke grandiosely about the third arm of housing, referring

  603
  to the housing association movement. At most they produced about 9,000 or 10,000 dwellings a year. That was the figure which was operating in 1973. For most of the earlier period the figure had been about 6,000. In the course of four years housing association work has expanded to nearly 40,000 dwellings a year.
  Mr. Michael Morris: The figure is 32,000.
  Mr. Freeson: It was 32,000 last year. I am speaking of 1978. But 32,000 is a threefold increase on what went on under the Conservative Government. This year it will be a fourfold increase. The facts are that in 1978 we expect to see between 35,000 and 40,000 dwellings.
  Mr. Michael Morris: Thirty-five thousand?
  Mr. Freeson: I said between 35,000 and 40,000 dwellings, which is nearly four times as many as under the Conservative Administration. That is an achievement of fact nor rhetoric.
  The housing association movement is also moving more of its activity into inner urban areas where the greatest stress lies. It is purchasing properties for social ownership. It is modernising, repairing and converting and providing those properties at reasonable rents for people who are in the greatest need. It is also participating on an expanding scale in cooperative housing, community leasehold, shared equity and even down-market provision for sale. It has our backing and encouragement. We reject the idea that the Government are concerned with only one kind of tenure. We must aim for a variety of tenure. We do not want to see an indiscriminate eroding of rented property.
  Time and again Opposition Members complain about the inadequate supply of rented housing. In fact, there are about the same numbers of rented dwellings now as there were 30 years ago. The difference is that the bulk were then privately owned and mostly sub-standard, whereas today the bulk of them are publicly owned by local authorities and housing associations and they are in mostly good condition. If we were to get rid of that kind of stock on an indiscriminate basis, which is the policy of
  604
  the Opposition, we would undermine the provision of rented housing.
  Mr. Sainsbury: Does the Minister accept that, because of the change in ownership of rented dwellings, a large proportion are no longer available to single-person households or to the newly married who would not qualify for council tenancies?
  Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his understanding of the demography of the big cities. In London alone, the vast majority of single people are in accommodation. But there has been a tremendous increase in the numbers of single-person households and an inadequate total supply of housing stock in London to meet the needs of those households. There has been an increase, not a reduction, in supply, but it has been overtaken by an increase in the numbers of small households, not only in London but throughout the country.
  The millions of homes now provided by local authorities and housing associations are far and away of better quality than those they replaced over the last 30 years. They are provided at reasonable rents and the majority of them are first-class homes. The fact that we are concerned to improve the standards of the worst should not blind us to the fact that this country has a proud record in the provision of decent housing and at reasonable rents. There are countries throughout Europe and many people in the Americas who would be delighted if they had anything like the provision we have made over the last 30 to 40 years. That is something not to denigrate but of which we should be proud and upon which we should build.
  I turn now to the Conservative Party's policy on council house sales. Let me put to the Opposition one area of concern. It has not been this Government's policy to stop the sale of council houses. In our first policy circular in April 1974 we indicated that we had no intention of withdrawing the general consent. But we expressed the view, which we still hold, that it is wrong to undertake indiscriminate sales irrespective of the broad-based housing needs of the area and of the need to maintain a good stock of quality rented homes for those in greatest need.

  605
  That is the policy that we oppose, and that is what I ask the Opposition to consider when they talk of a so-called statutory right to buy. There already is such a statutory right. The real issue is whether there should be unqualified statutory compulsion upon local authorities indiscriminately to sell even where it can be shown that to do so would reduce the choice and reduce the number of good-quality homes for families to occupy, and even where it could be shown that there is an inadequate supply of rented housing.
  We are entitled to put that concern to the Opposition when they advocate this kind of policy. We do not ask them to withdraw from a policy of council house sales as such, any more than we have withdrawn from it. We are, however, entitled to demand of public representatives who presume to take on executive responsibility in this place or in the town halls that they do not blind themselves to other needs or be so obsessed with one doctrinaire element of housing policy that they ignore all other needs It is that to which we are opposed, and if need he we shall act upon that when the time comes. We wish to see a variety of provision. That is our policy, and we urge it upon the Opposition.
  Mr. Joseph Dean: Does not my right hon. Friend recall that during the last General Election campaign the Leader of the Opposition made the sale of council houses one of the strong planks of her party's platform? Is she aware that where Conservative local authorities are now offering council homes at 20 per cent. discount, the take-up is very small indeed?
  Mr. Freeson: Whatever may be said in this place and at Tory Party conferences, elsewhere a good deal more sense is being shown in this respect even by Conservative councillors. That is one of the reasons why the sale of council houses, of which two-thirds are already under the control of Conservative councils throughout the country, notwithstanding the windy rhetoric that we get on this subject from the Opposition, is in practice running at a very low level in relation to the total stock and the total additional stock that is being built.
  In the last few minutes available to me I want to turn to another important
  606
  aspect which concerns us and which should concern the Opposition and the country. We are glad to have received certain general assurances, at long last, about the Rent Acts in answer to questions that we have been putting to the Opposition on this matter for some time, and we take it as being on the record that the Opposition have no intention now of repealing the legislation on security of tenure or on rent regulation. That is what I understand from the statements that we have received. I hope that we shall see an end to the nagging, narking criticism of the Rent Acts that the Opposition now endorse.
  Mr. Rossi: Although I have said that we shall not repeal the Rent Acts and I have given certain assurances on security of tenure and rent regulation, that is not to say that there are not more than enough defects in the Acts that need putting right, and being put right very quickly.
  Mr. Freeson: I am all in favour of improving the Acts, but I am glad to have it on record that the Conservative Opposition, despite the years of nagging criticism and generalised opposition, and the undermining of people's confidence in this legislation, are in favour of security of tenure in law and of maintaining the system of rent regulation. At long last we have got that on the record, and we are glad to have it so.
  Let me turn to another aspect of policy on which the Opposition have not yet come clean. That is the question of the level of investment. The hon. Member for Hornsey made much play of the bids under the housing investment programme system. He knows perfectly well, being in contact with the local authorities concerned, that some of those which have spoken so much about the bids that they have put in being cut are, in fact, at risk of underspending the sums that have been granted to them. A good deal of the bidding that went on was very questionable, to say the least. I have said frankly to local authority representatives in discussions with them throughout the country, that we want realistic bids and that we shall make sure that the investment is available on the basis of realistic programmes.
  Our concern at present is that under the exhortation of leading members of

  607
  the Opposition, in this place and elsewhere, Tory councils throughout the country are going short on the investment programmes that are being allocated. What we should like to have from leading spokesmen of the Opposition is a public statement that they wish to see an expansion of investment in public sector housing, not a contraction. Will they please give us that undertaking? Or is it their intention to cut?
  Or do we have to turn to the other Shadow Housing Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), who, at a stroke, in 1978 wishes to cut by £150 million the investment programmes of local authorities under the housing investment programme system? He announced that only a week or so ago. Whom are we to believe—the Shadow spokesman here or the Shadow spokesman for the Treasury, who is the other housing Shadow? The right hon. and learned Gentleman says "Cut". Does the hon. Member for Hornsey say "Cut investment programmes" after having complained about "phoney" cuts that we are supposed to have imposed? Will he please tell us—I shall gladly give way—whether he will maintain the present level of housing investment in the public sector and whether, when economic circumstances permit it, he will support an expansion of that provision? I gladly give way. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
  Well, we shall take note of this and come back to it on another occasion. The present Government will maintain the provision. We shall do our best to encourage local authorities to take up the programmes that have been allocated. It will be in new building for special needs and general needs—
  Mr. Heseltine: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Freeson: Not now. The hon. Member had his chance.
  We shall do our best to make sure that councils take up the resources that have been programmed on new build, on buying substandard housing for conversion and modernisation, and for special needs, and on their allocation for home loans—
  Mr. Heseltine rose—
  Mr. Freeson: —on their allocation for improvement grants and all other kinds of housing need.
  We take note of the fact that, when invited to do so, the Opposition did not stand up and give an undertaking.
  Mr. Heseltine rose—
  Mr. Freeson: They have refused to do so, and we take it on the record.
  Mr. Heseltine: The Minister for Housing and Construction gave that pledge at the last General Election and broke it consistently year after year. Why should we believe it now?
  Mr. Freeson: That is the answer. The Opposition are not going to sustain the present level. They have refused to accept the challenge put to them.
  Mr. Heseltine: You did it.
  Mr. Freeson: We will accept, and we are accepting the challenge. The Opposition will not do so.
  Mr. Humphrey Atkins rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put, accordingly, That this House do now adjourn:
  The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 270.

  Division No. 236]

  AYES

  [10.00 p.m.

  Altken, Jonathan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Burden, F. A.

  Alison, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Arnold, Tom

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Bralne, Sir Bernard

  Churchill, W. S.

  Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

  Brittan, Leon

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Baker, Kenneth

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllfle)

  Bell, Ronald

  Brotherton, Michael

  Clegg, Walter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Cope, John

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Cormack, Patrick

  Benyon, W.

  Buchanan-Smith, Allck

  Costaln, A. P.

  Bitten, John

  Buck, Antony

  Crouch, David

  Biggs-Davlson, John

  Budgen, Nick

  Crowder, F. P.

  Body, Richard

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Davles, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  James, David

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

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

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grlnstead)

  Ralson, Timothy

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Rathbone, Tim

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Dunlop, John

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rees-Davles, W. R.

  Durant, Tony

  Kilfedder, James

  Ronton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kimball, Marcus

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Rhodes James, R.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rhys, Williams, Sir Brandon

  Elliott, Sir William

  Kltson, Sir Timothy

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Knox, David

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lamont, Norman

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Farr, John

  Lawson, Nigel

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Fell, Anthony

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Lloyd, Ian

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Loveridge, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Luce, Richard

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Forman, Nigel

  McCrlndle, Robert

  Shepherd, Colin

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'fd)

  Mocfarlane, Nell

  Shersby, Michael

  Fox, Marcus

  MacGregor, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Faser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  MscKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Sims, Roger

  Freud, Clement

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Sinclair, Sir George]

  Fry, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  MsNalr-Wllson, P. (New Forest)

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfleld)

  Gardiner, George (Relgate)

  Marshall. Michael (Arundel)

  Splcer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Marten, Nell

  Sproat, lain

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

  Mather, Carol

  Stalnton, Keith]

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Maude, Angus

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maudllng, Rt Hon Reginald

  Stanley, John

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Mawby, Ray

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, Ian (Hltchin)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stokes, John

  Gorst, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Mills, Peter

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Gray, Hamlsh

  Ml8campbell, Norman

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Tebblt, Norman

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Moate, Roger

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Grist, Ian

  Monro, Hector

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Grylls, Michael

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Trotter, Neville

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hannam, John

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Vlggers, Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Wainwrlghl, Richard (Colne V)

  Hastlnga, Stephen

  Mudd, David

  Wakeham, John

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Neave, Alrey

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Nelson, Anthony

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Neubert, Michael

  Walters, Dennis

  Heseltine, Michael

  Newton, Tony

  Weatherlll, Bernard

  Hicks, Robert

  Normanton, Tom

  Wells, John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Nott, John

  Whltelaw, Rt Hon William

  Hodgson, Robin

  Oppenheim, Mra Sally

  Whitney, Raymond

  Holland, Philip

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Wlggln, Jerry

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Wlgley, Dafydd

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Pardoe, John

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Penhallgon, David

  Younger, Hon George

  Hunt, David (Wlrral)

  Perclval, Ian

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hurd, Douglas

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Mr. Michael Roberts.

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Bean, R. E.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Allaun, Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Anderson, Donald

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bldwell, Sydney

  Buchan, Norman

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Buchanan, Richard

  Ashley, Jack

  Blenklnsop, Arthur

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Ashton, Joe

  Boardman, H.

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

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

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Campbell, Ian

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Canavan, Dennis

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Cant, R. B.

  Bates, Alf

  Bradley, Tom

  Carmlchael, Nell

  610

  611

  Carter, Ray

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Janner, Greville

  Radice, Giles

  Cartwright, John

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  John, Brynmor

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Concannon, Rt Hon John

  Johnson, Waiter (Derby S)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Cowans, Harry

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Judd, Frank

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Cronin, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooker, J. W.

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Kelley, Richard

  Rose, Paul B.

  Cryer, Bob

  Kilroy-Sllk, Robert

  Rowlands, Ted

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whlteh)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Ryman, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lambie, David

  Sandelson, Neville

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

  Lamond, James

  Selby, Harry

  Davies, lfor (Gower)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Sever, John

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lee, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Dempsey, James

  Litterick, Tom

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Dewar, Donald

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sillars, James

  Doig, Peter

  Luard, Evan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Snape, Peter

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Soearlng Nigel

  Dunnett, Jack

  McCartney, Hugh

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  MacCormick, lain

  Stallard, A. W.

  Eadle, Alex

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Edge, Geoff

  McElhone Frank

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Mae Farquher, Roderick

  Stoddart, David

  English, Michael

  MacKenzie Rt Hon Gregor

  Stott, Roger

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Strang, Gavin

  Evans, loan (Abeidare)

  Maclennan Robert

  Strause, Rt Hon G. R.

  Evans, John (Newton)

  McMillan Tom (Glasgow C)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Madden, Max

  Swain, Thomas

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Magee, Bryan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Mahon, Simon

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertlllery)

  Flannery, Martin

  Mallalieu J P W

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Ford, Ben

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Tilley, John

  Forrester, John

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Tinn, James

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Tomlinson, John

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Torney, Tom

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Tuck, Raphael

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Ginsburg, David

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Golding, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Gould, Bryan

  Molloy, William

  Ward, Michael

  Gourlay, Harry

  Moonman, Eric

  Watkins, David

  Graham, Ted

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Watt, Hamish

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

  Weetch, Ken

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Weitzman, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  While, Frank R. (Bury)

  Harper, Joseph

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  White, James (Pollok)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Newens, Stanley

  Whitlock, William

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Noble, Mike

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Oakes, Gordon

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Ogden, Eric

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Henderson, Douglas

  Orme. Rt Hon Stanley

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee ET

  Hooley, Frank

  Ovenden, John

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huvton)

  Horam, John

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

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

  Padley, Walter

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Woodall, Alec

  Huckfield, Les

  Park, George

  Woof, Robert

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Parker, John

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hunter, Adam

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Perry, Ernest

  Mr. Donald Coleman.

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Price, C. (Lewlsham W)

  Question accordingly negatived.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Parliamentary Pensions Bill and the motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with, though opposed until any hour.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

  PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.18 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Like most pensions legislation this is, I am afraid, a technical and complex Bill. But the changes it seeks to introduce are not in themselves unduly difficult. There may be some aspects on which differing views in the House will be expressed—as, indeed, there always should be—but in the main I hope that this is a Bill which will commend itself to the whole House. It is not intended to be costly or controversial and I hope that it will enjoy a wide measure of support on all sides.
  The purpose of the Bill is to implement the recommendations for improvements in the parliamentary contributory pensions scheme which were contained in report no. 8 from the Top Salaries Review Body. It also makes a number of lesser administrative changes in the scheme. The Review Body's report was, of course, presented to Parliament in July 1976, but at that time pay policy virtually ruled out any improvements in occupational pension schemes and we were not able to take any immediate action. From 1st August 1977 this was no longer the case, and we were able to consider implementing the Review Body's recommendations.
  At this point, I should like to say a little about the Government's general approach to the Review Body's report. We have accepted all the recommendations as a package. I am sure that there are several additional changes which hon. Members might have wished to see in the Bill but which the Review Body did not recommend or even specifically reject. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has received a number of proposals of this kind. One can, of course, think of many ways of adding to the benefits of any pension scheme, and not least the parliamentary scheme.
  Many of these suggestions are, at least on the face of them, attractive. An example is the thought that some improve-
  616
  ment might be made in the benefits for dependent children. But I am sure that hon. Members would agree that we are always in a difficult position when it comes to determining our own conditions of service. It is reasonable that our conditions should match those of comparable occupations in the public service and elsewhere. On the other hand, we naturally want to avoid any suggestions of self-interest or over-generosity to ourselves.
  There is great advantage, therefore, in our being able to refer these matters to the Top Salaries Review Body. In this way we can ensure that improvements in the scheme have regard to the overall level of benefits under it and that they are introduced only after careful costing and thorough research by an independent body. I am sure that this arrangement works well and to the advantage both of Members and of the taxpayer. It is for this reason that the Government are reluctant to depart from the Top Salaries Review Body's recommendations, particularly when a proposal put to them by hon. Members and others has been specifically rejected. We have no wish to weaken the Review Body's standing in these matters. Indeed, I should like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to Lord Boyle and his colleagues for their work in this difficult field. One does not lightly enter the dense thickets of the legislation on the parliamentary pension scheme.
  The main provisions of the Bill are, I think, by now fairly familiar to hon Members, and in view of the lateness of the hour I am sure that the House will not wish me to dwell now on the minor administrative provisions in the Bill. I shall, therefore, confine myself to describing the five main improvements introduced by the Bill, all of which do no more than bring the basic scheme for Members of the House of Commons up to the level of public service pension schemes generally.
  The improvements in the Bill will make no difference to the basic pensions of Members, with the exception of the small group of present Members who served in the House between 1949 and 1955. The changes that the Bill makes are designed primarily to assist the dependants of Members and those Members who find themselves in particularly

  617
  difficult personal circumstances—for example, serious ill health. The ill health retirement provisions are almost identical with those which have been available to civil servants since 1972.
  The first main improvement, contained in Clause 1 of the Bill, is an option, to be exercised at the end of a Parliament, for Members with 25 years' service in the House to retire at age 62 with the full pension they have accrued to date—that is, without any actuarial diminution such as is done in the case of hon. Members who retire early, at the age of 60, under the present scheme.
  The Review Body noted that some other pension schemes with a retirement age of 65 contained provision for early retirement on pension accrued to date. They considered that the present option for MPs to take an actuarially reduced pension from age 60 onwards imposed a heavy financial burden but that a general reduction in the retiring age of the scheme to, say, 60 would lead to few Members being able to accrue a full pension by the age of retirement. The Review Body concluded, on balance, that retirement at age 62 should be permitted at the end of a Parliament for Members with at least 25 years service in the House. This is, I am sure, a recommendation which will be widely welcomed.
  Clause 2, which is very important, provides an option for Members to retire early on grounds of ill health with their reckonable service enhanced in certain circumstances. In all cases the Member must satisfy the Trustees that he ceased to be a Member as a direct consequence of his ill health, which was such as would prevent him from performing adequately the duties of a Member of the House of Commons. This is, we believe, a reasonable test for the Trustees to apply. Under Clauses 3 and 4, current members of the supplementary scheme who retire on grounds of ill health will be eligible to receive an early pension, but without enhancement of reckonable service—that is, confined to the Members' scheme. The same will apply to former participants in either scheme who retire from work on grounds of ill health after leaving Parliament.
  The third main change is in Clause 9, which permits the Lord President by order to provide for the purchase of added years of reckonable service, at full cost to
  618
  the Member, by periodical contributions from salary or by lump-sum purchase. Work on the preparation of this order is well advanced and it will embody all the Review Body's particular recommendations for the scheme. I hope that an early draft of the order can be made available to hon. Members who are interested before we reach Committee stage on the Bill. The provision applies to any Member serving at the passing of the Act.
  Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill seek to introduce improvements in the arrangements for widows' and dependants' pensions payable in respect of Members of the House of Commons in service after the passing of the Bill. Where a former Member dies after retirement, his widow will receive not less than the full amount of his pension for three months before she begins to receive the normal half-rate widow's pension.
  Similarly, where a Member who had qualified for a pension dies in service his widow will receive not less than his full pay as a Member for a period of three months. If he was under 65 when he died, the widow's continuing pension after the three-month period will be calculated on the basis of enhanced reckon-able service, as if her husband had retired on grounds of ill health. Clause 7 provides a limited short-term benefit for widows and children when a Member dies in service who had not qualified for a pension.
  Clause 10(3) provides for Members actually in service after the passing of the Act to receive an extension of back service credit from 10 years—as at present—to 15 years, for services as an MP before the introduction of the parliamentary pension scheme in 1964. The Review Body considered carefully whether all previous service should be reckonable for pension purposes. It concluded that this would not be appropriate but that a limited increase could be justified in the context of the package as a whole.
  To pay for these changes, there has naturally to be some increase in contributions both by Members themselves and by the Exchequer. The total cost of the changes provided for in the Bill will be about £120,000 a year. This will be met partly by an increase in Members' contributions from 5 per cent. to 6 per cent. of pensionable salary and partly by an

  619
  Exchequer contribution of some £60,000 a year. There is no increase in contributions under the supplementary scheme for office holders, because the great majority of the improved benefits attach only to the basic scheme for Members.
  Some hon. Members may be interested in the effect of Clause 14, which may appear particularly complicated. The main purpose of that clause is to bring about a small improvement in the position of those who retire from the House of Commons and then hold offices in the House of Lords with fairly low salaries. At present they may not receive any part of their pension earned as a Member of the House of Commons, as long as they hold office in the House of Lords. Clause 14 would allow some or all of their pension to be paid up to the level where pension and salary together equal the current salary of a Back-Bench Member of Parliament. They will not, therefore, lose financially on moving from this House to take up an office in the House of Lords.
  I am fairly sure, too, that I shall be asked why the Bill does not seek to improve the arrangements for severance pay for Members of this House. The answer is that severance pay is not a benefit payable under the Parliamentary Pension Scheme and it is, therefore, outside the scope of the Bill. But my right hon. Friend has already informed the House that there will be an early opportunity to discuss this matter during the forthcoming debate on Members' pay.
  Mr. Thomas Swain: How does the Minister explain the fact that anyone who is retiring at the next General Election and who has been in the House 19, 20 or 21 years will, if he wants to buy service of 10 years, have to find a sum of roughly £4,260? This means that it will be more than three years before he gets one penny benefit from his investment.
  Mr. Smith: There is a genuine difficulty here. I am afraid that to get an enhanced benefit under the pension scheme there must be some method by which it is paid for. In the case that my hon. Friend mentioned, if it is paid for by a lump sum obviously it will be very expensive. But we do not see how it is possible to make such a radical difference
  620
  to the parliamentary pensions scheme to allow extra year's service to be added without payment for it. I am afraid that that is an unfortunate consequence of the parliamentary scheme having to stay roughly in line with other public service schemes. Some Members who would be retiring—not particularly those to whom my hon. Friend referred, because I think that he was careful to say 19, 20 or 21 years' service—and who were here for many years prior to 1964 when we did not have a scheme would get the extra five years. This is a considerable benefit, for which no extra contribution will be required. That is a genuine attempt to try to make up for the fact that a number of Members with very long service in the House have only 10 years reckoned for the period before 1964, although they may have spent a very long period of time in the House before that. It is in the nature of a compromise, but many of these things have to be compromises.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: The Minister said that the ideas enshrined in the Early-Day Motion on severance pay were outside the scope of the Bill, but he added that the Leader of the House had said that the House would have an opportunity to discuss the matter. May I press the Minister a little further on that topic? Will the House have an opportunity not only to discuss severance pay but actually to decide upon it? The House would welcome the opportunity to make a clear decision whether it wants to support the sentiments in the Early-Day Motion.
  Mr. Smith: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but it is not appropriate for me on this pensions Bill to speculate what might be possible in respect of Member's pay and severance pay, which are quite other matters. I thought it only fair to the House to point to the limits of this Bill, which would not go so far as to allow amendments in Committee on severance pay. I have no doubt my right hon. Friend will reflect on the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  I should like to end on a more general note. In opening the debate I said that this was a complex and difficult Bill, as hon. Members who have read it will appreciate. I apologise for the difficulty

  621
  in sometimes understanding its provisions. I am afraid that, because it was a difficult Bill to frame, it has taken some time to produce. I know that hon. Members have been concerned about the time the Bill has taken to emerge into the light of day, but those who have experience of pensions matters will know that this is an area in which no prizes are awarded for being 90 per cent. right. Small mistakes can have major consequences and can be seriously damaging to individuals. Therefore, particular care must be taken in framing legislation.
  I should, however, like to leave with the House the reflection that our pensions scheme is probably one of the most complicated in the United Kingdom, if not in the world. It is carefully tailored to meet the difficulties and uncertainties of parliamentary life, and it is composed of two separate schemes woven tightly together for Members of Parliament and office holders. As an example of the drafting difficulties this creates, the ill-health provisions in the Bill have to allow for 14 different permutations of service in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
  After the Bill is passed, the parliamentary pension scheme will be governed by at least five separate Acts of Parliament as well as the major order, to be made in the next few days, modifying the scheme to contract us out of the new State pension arrangements. The background reading list necessary to understand the present Bill runs to at least 10 items. We should, I think, consider whether it really remains sensible to attempt to embody in primary legislation a scheme of this complexity, which will inevitably need fairly frequent amendment to keep it up to date. The time may be coming—as it did for the Civil Service in 1972—when the scheme needs to be consolidated not in a further Act but in a system of rules which can be adjusted rather more easily. This is a point for the longer term, but it is an important one on which the Government would welcome the views of the House, particularly in this Second Reading debate.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: The Minister mentioned the establishment of rules for the future of the pension fund and suggested that many Members would welcome that, but it would be inequitable if those rules embraced a particular sys-
  622
  tem of pensions based on a hypothetical salary, which is the case now and which is unique to the House of Commons, when that system is not available to the rest of the country. I hope that the Minister does not have in mind the introduction of rules on those lines.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Member is straying on to a matter on which there is an item in his name on the Order Paper. There are certain oddities about our situation. There is another oddity on which the hon. Gentleman may reflect. There are a number of people who are being recommended to take a higher salary and who are voluntarily taking a lower one. That is the source of one difficulty. It is a point that causes a great deal of concern to hon. Members. I understand that there are some other public servants who get pensions based on a higher reckonable salary. Some civil servants are in the same category as hon. Members. They had a salary increase recommended but it was not paid. The appropriate analogy for the parliamentary scheme is other public service schemes.
  The question of rules will have to be considered carefully, but it is not a matter which concerns us tonight. Hon. Members will realise the difficulties. I was casting a fly on the waters in the hope of receiving general endorsement for the proposition that we should move in a different way in future.
  As I have said, I do not at this time of night wish to weary the House with an explanation of all the considerable detail of the Bill. That can properly be left for Committee, when I hope to provide background notes on the effect of the various clauses to assist hon. Members who may be interested, in the hope that that may clarify some of the complications that appear on the face of the Bill.
  I hope that I have satisfactorily explained the main purpose and features of the Bill. It is no more than a modest but useful measure. I commend it to the House and ask hon. Members to give it a Second Reading.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I should have told the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean).
  10.36 p.m.
  Mr. Francis Pym: The House will be relieved that the Government have eventually introduced the Bill and grateful to them for doing so. The House will appreciate the way that the right hon. Gentleman—I take this opportunity of congratulating him on the fact that I may now refer to him in that way—has introduced it. He will find that many points of doubt and criticism will be raised in the debate.
  The Top Salaries Review Body was appointed in January 1975—three and a half years ago—and reported in July 1976 —two years ago—on pensions and some other matters. Many hon. Members feel that the delay between that report and the Bill has been unnecessary and regrettable. The Minister explained that there were pay policy restrictions in 1976, but they were created by the Government. They released themselves from that constriction in August 1977—nearly a year ago—and we have got the Bill only towards the end of June 1978.
  The Bill gives effect in full to chapter 3 of the Eighth Report and we welcome that fact that the Government have responded in that way, but after two or three years circumstances have already changed. That will be reflected in later speeches. Those years have seen the greatest degree of inflation ever known in this country-15 per cent. last year, 17 per cent. the year before and 25 per cent. the year before that. At times of such inflation, pensions naturally assume greater importance because it is retired people who are the hardest hit. After such a gap in time, it is no wonder that new views and attitudes will emerge in the debate, criticising to some extent the Bill before us.
  Inflation was the inspiration of certainly the second half of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) which was not selected. Obviously, hon. Members who retired by 1964 without any pension are among the hardest-hit members of the community. More than any other group, they will be feeling the pinch and, like any other organisation, we are naturally concerned about our colleagues who retired in those circumstances.
  In the light of the events I have described, the Review Body might well take
  624
  a different view if it were in session now—that is to say, sitting two or three years after its deliberations, which were before the dramatic expansion of inflation.
  The trouble over pensions and the criticism that I think will be lodged arises, at least in part, from the illogicality of paying Members of Parliament one salary and regarding their salary as another figure for pension purposes. We know that there is a notional figure for pension purposes, which is an anomaly. The anomaly has arisen because the Government have failed adequately to remunerate Members of Parliament. I believe that that is the view of the House. Clearly they have not done so in accordance with the recommendations of the Review Body on Top Salaries. The debate is not about the salaries of Members of Parliament, but it cannot be denied that salaries and pensions are inextricably connected.
  Clause 12 of the Bill increases the contribution that Members will make to their pensions. There will be some element of controversy about whether it is fair or right that the contribution should be increased from 5 per cent. to 6 per cent. Presumably the notional salary will be increased as well. I imagine that that will take place in a Bill or order relating to Members' salaries.
  If the contribution made by Members is to increase, presumably the notional salary will have to be increased. That will exacerbate the criticism that is felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the present arrangement. The first half of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North refers to that anomaly, which derives from the fact that the Government, to put it bluntly and crudely, have funked acting on the recommendations of the Review Body.
  Mr. Robert Mellish: All Governments have.
  Mr. Pym: No, that is not true. In 1970–71 the Conservative Government accepted the recommendations it full and put them before the House. The House accepted in full the rise for Members of Parliament and Ministers. There was no deviation from that.
  Mr. Swain: Is the right hon. Gentlemen aware that before the 1970 General

  625
  Election there was an understanding between both major parties that whichever party won the election would implement the Lawrence Committee's report?
  Mr. Pym: That is as may be.
  Mr. Swain: It is so.
  Mr. Pym: It is as may be. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) sought to suggest that no Government had done it. I was saying as a matter of historical fact that one Government had done it. I happen to know that the Labour Opposition at the time thought that the Government's acceptance was entirely right. They were slightly envious that a Government had had the courage to do that.
  The anomaly to which I was referring derives from the fact that the Government have resolutely refused to act upon the recommendations of the Review Body. They have done so in respect of the 1976 recommendations, but not without a considerable degree of pressure. I do not think that it was volunteered. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has been active in trying to persuade the Government to take action, and no doubt other hon. Friends and Labour Members have been no less assiduous in bringing pressure to bear upon the Government.
  We know that the salaries of Members of Parliament are soon to be reviewed. There will be great interest in the House about how the Government decide to handle the matter. How is the present anomaly to be adjusted? It is appropriate to draw to the attention of the House what the report of the Review Body on Top Salaries, Cmnd. Paper 6574, says about Members' salaries. Paragraph 4 states:
  "we feel bound to express our concern at the consequences of continuing to undervalue the demands on those elected to govern the country…we are perturbed that, whereas our recommendations for increased allowances have been accepted in full, Members' salaries have been increased by little more than one-third of what we recommended. We consider this imbalance between salaries and allowances to be wrong in principle and unwise in practice. We are also perturbed by the establishment of two different levels of salary for pension purposes and other purposes…The only way to avoid these and other difficulties…is for Members to vote themselves a realistic salary."
  626
  That is relevant to the Bill, because for pension purposes we have a notional salary which would not exist if the salary were at the level recommended in the report. The Minister said that it was a good thing that the Government were able to refer such matters to such a body. I think that those were his words. Indeed, he referred to it, but he is accepting the recommendations only in part. It is all very well to take credit for the recommendations which are accepted, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot then argue that it is equally reasonable not to accept the other recommendations.
  I certainly feel that constitutional implications underlie the level of remuneration for Members of Parliament. Obviously I cannot go into this matter tonight, but it is significant. The words in the report, one chapter of which we are accepting, are extremely important and highly relevant to the consideration that we shall have to give to Members' salaries whenever the Government bring forward the legislation.
  I should like to raise three matters concerning the Bill. First, I want to draw attention to Clauses 6 and 7 and the distinction between widows and dependent widowers for certain benefits. I understand the background and precedents in other pension schemes, but I think that many hon. Members will feel that this division is, to some extent at least, inappropriate in this age of nondiscrimination.
  Secondly, I should like to refer to Clause 2, particularly subsection (8)(b). This clause deals with the ill health of Members:
  "III-health pensions based on service as a Member."
  That subsection will apply only if the Member or ex-Member can satisfy the Trustees
  "that on the day of the poll in that election his ill-health was such as would prevent him from performing adequately the duties of a Member of the House of Commons."
  When people get on in life, illness and indisposition are to some extent variable. I wonder whether it is right to say that it must be on polling day, and only on polling day, that the illness is to be acknowledged. It seems entirely human and natural that a Member or an ex-Member could be fit on polling day but not very fit on the eve of the poll or on

  627
  the day after the poll. It seems curious phraseology to say that medical certification is required
  "on the day of the poll".
  I suspect that some amendment there might be considered with advantage, fairness and humanity.
  Thirdly, there is the question of pre-1964 service. I particularly welcome the extension of the number of pre-1964 years of service which can be counted towards service from 10 to 15. I am sure that that is right. But I am equally sure that there will be particular concern about those MPs who retired before or shortly after that date. They are small in number, but they must be in very straitened circumstances now.
  The report, in paragraph 34, states:
  "If it were the desire of Parliament as a whole that some additional provision should be made for those Members who had retired before the introduction of the present pension scheme, it might be appropriate to give consideration to an arrangement in parallel to the State pension arrangements for the over-80's."
  I think that this matter will have to be dealt with in Committee. I am not sure whether Parliament will think it right to confine it to the over-80's, although no doubt some among that small number of ex-Members will be over 80. I am sure that hon. Members will wish to probe this area more deeply in Committee. Indeed, that is the purpose of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North.
  Those are three comparatively minor matters. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to raise many others.
  I welcome the fact that at long last the Government have introduced the Bill and accepted in full the recommendations in the report. It is a matter for regret that there has been such delay, particularly as the economy, inflation and the general social situation have changed so dramatically. I am sure that this will have an effect on what lion. Members feel would today be appropriate.
  I think that the Review Body on Top Salaries might take a different view if it were sitting now. I do not know whether the Government intend to ask the Review Body to review the matter yet again. But it would seem highly desirable to ask it to look again not only at pensions
  628
  but at Members' salaries, because everything has changed so much.
  I think that it is an error for us to get behind in the adjustments that we make in our salaries and arrangements from time to time. It would be wise for us to keep up to date, and I hope that the Government, who do not have so much longer to live, will, as long as they live, bear in mind their full responsibility as a Government for deciding what arrangements for Members' salaries and pensions shall be made and ensure that we do not allow ourselves to get as out of date as I believe we are.
  10.52 p.m.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The purpose of my brief intervention is to thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the Government for honouring the commitment that my right hon. Friend gave the House on several occasions that the recommendations of the Boyle Report would be implemented. I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State both on the manner in which he introduced the Bill and on the honour that was conferred upon him. It augurs well for the future that his first speech as a Privy Councillor was a short one.
  I support my right hon. Friend warmly in what he said about the need for a consolidation measure at the earliest possible time to deal with the pension arrangements of hon. Members. The Bill will give effect to chapter 3 of the Eighth Report of the Review Body, and it remedies serious defects in the existing scheme. Clauses 6, 7 and 8, in so far as they help widows and children of deceased Members, are especially to be welcomed. I hope that the Bill will be passed speedily so that this part of it will become effective as soon as possible. It is very much in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members that many of our right hon. and hon. Friends have passed away and that their widows have suffered because this measure was not in force.
  No one could argue that the Bill is over-generous. Nor should it be. But there is a need for people to realise that the position of Members of Parliament is quite different from that of people in most other occupations and professions. For example, the tenure of office of Members of Parliament is uncertain. A Members

  629
  frequently gives up the position in life for which he has been trained, but he may serve in this House only for a short time. It may be argued that a Member goes into his position in this House with his eyes open. That is true. That is what some of the newspapers say. Yet Members of Parliament should he treated with some consideration. A Member cannot hope to achieve a pension in the region of half pay, such as civil servant or a local authority employee can expect. The average Member serves for about 15 years, and that shows that the average pension must be modest.
  Members of Parliament are unable to plan in advance as people in other walks of life are able to do. That is for the simple and obvious reason that we do not know when a General Election may occur. A Parliament may last for 18 months or less, or it may run for the full five-year term. Members may therefore have no alternative but to continue well beyond the age of 65 because they cannot afford to retire before that age, although they would often like to do so and their wives would be even more glad if they were to retire at the right time. This cannot be a satisfactory state of affairs. I hope that the Review Body will be asked to look at this point carefully in due course.
  This may not be the appropriate moment to discuss the salaries of hon. Members, although the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) referred to the matter. Of course, there is never a proper time to discuss the salaries of hon. Members in this House. That is the reason why I belive, and have believed for a very long time, that the question should be taken out of our hands.
  I hope, however, that the leaders of all political parties in the House can agree that the least that can be done is to reactivate the Review Body at once after the next General Election, whatever the result of the election may be. There are many other matters to be looked at. One of them, if I may say so in passing, is your own position, Mr. Speaker. But I shall not embarrass you by going into any details about that at this stage.
  The Bill is an important step forward. It does no more than implement recom-
  630
  mendations which were made to the House two years ago. Its cost is negligible. I wish it a speedy passage.
  10.56 p.m.
  Mr. Edward du Cann: I agree with every word that the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) has said. Since I have pressed the Leader of the House as hard as anyone to introduce a measure to implement the plain and clear recommendations of Boyle, and I think that the right hon. Member for Anglesey and I, separately and together, have seen the Leader of the House some half a dozen times, perhaps, about this matter, I would like my first words publicly, as it were, to be of congratulations and best thanks to him. I add a further personal word to the Leader of the House. That is to say how good of him it is to be here with us this evening for the debate on this matter.
  This may be a complex matter, as the Minister of State has said, but it is, in fact, just a simple updating of our pension arrangements. It is no more than that. It is giving us, after some considerable delay, a fair deal in this matter. I think that it is right to say very clearly that it is a beginning, and it is only a beginning.
  As the Minister very rightly said, it would be a good thing if we could consolidate all this pension legislation and set up some method of easier handling. I entirely agree with that.
  There are two matters for discussion. The first is this system and the alterations that it makes to the calculation of pensions, the contributions, the rights, how dependants are treated, exceptions and the rest. Secondly, there is the level of remuneration upon which pensions are based. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, these matters are inextricably interrelated. Both are relevant, because one cannot have a pension without a scheme and rules and, of course, the actual amount that is paid out by way of pension needs a yardstick from which to flow—that is to say, the salary. The question to which the House should address itself in some respect in this matter is on what salary level pensions should be based.

  631
  It is necessary to go back a little into history. In 1971 there were the first references to the new Review Body. There had been no increase in Members' salaries since the implementation of the Lawrence recommendations in 1964. Then, in 1972, the Boyle recommendations were implemented in full, with the good will of the whole House—eight years later, after eight years of delay. In 1972, the Review Body on Top Salaries, the Boyle Committee, began a fresh and comprehensive review of Members' and Ministers' salaries. It was from that that the proposal flowed that Members of Parliament should be paid a salary of £8,000 a year. In 1977 the theoretical pay rate for pension became £8,208, although, as has already been stated, the basic pay of a Member of Parliament is very much less than that.
  As the right hon. Member for Anglesey said, our own remuneration always seems to be a difficult and embarrassing subject for us to discuss. I am not altogether clear as to why that should be so. It is made much more difficult, I suggest, by the long delays that seem always to supervene between reviews. It is made very much more difficult by the low salary levels from which the discussions begin. And it has been made much more difficult still, I say in all seriousness to the Leader of the House, by the tendency that we have lately developed to improve the allowances because we think that the public, by and large, will agree to those, while still keeping pay very much lower than it ought to be.
  I would say that this is a House of Commons matter and that it is for the House of Commons to debate and decide it. I am fortunate to earn a living outside the House, and it is perhaps easier for me to speak and to act freely than it might be for others who are Members of this House and who are not so fortunately placed. Any politician is a man of opinions. I am certain of my own, which I hope the House will approve and which, I think, have a bearing on these matters.
  First, I believe it to be discreditable for this House of Commons to tolerate the establishment of committees or commissions to make recommendations on subjects on which we already have all the facts. Secondly, when those commissions
  632
  or committees, however they are appointed, have reported in good faith, I think it is contemptible that their recommendations are not accepted because, for example, it is not convenient for the Government of the day. Thirdly, my experience in this place has taught me that it is usually not reasonable to wait for Ministers, of any Administration, to take an initiative. Waiting for Ministers is like waiting for Godot, and he, you will remember, Mr. Speaker, never came.
  The position nine months ago, the period of human gestation, was this. We had a clear recommendation from Boyle on the pensions of Members of Parliament. I do not believe that we had the least prospect of legislation. I believe that it was necessary to press the Leader of the House, for this was something that could easily be done without embarrassment to the Government of the day and totally within Government pay policy. For those reasons—and I think that this should be said—the executive of the 1922 Committee and the executive of the Parliamentary Labour Party, under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Anglesey met and talked and considered the matter and decided to make joint representations to the Leader of the House. I have already paid tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the typical courtesy with which we were always received and for his eventually accepting our recommendations. I hope the House will think that co-operation between the two main parties in this House is healthy and may be useful in other respects. But in my view, for what my opinion is worth, it is a beginning, and only a beginning.
  I should never argue that no bounds should be set either to the pretensions of Back Benchers—we are hardly noted, any of us, for our modesty—or that the price that the nation must pay for democracy should be unlimited. There is much to be said for public examples of modesty or restraint on the part of Members of Parliament. We have a duty to set an example, and it is undoubted.
  But what are the facts? Since 1964, a date that I have already mentioned, 14 years ago, Members' salaries have fallen considerably behind the general movements in remuneration and in prices. A recent parliamentary Question asked

  633
  what the 1965 basic salary would be now —I am speaking of a Question asked in September 1977—to have the same purchasing power as in 1965. The salary then was £5,250. To give the same purchasing power, the salary at that date would have had to be £10,264. The Library—our diligent researches—worked out that the figure of £8,000 on which our pensions are based, recommended in 1975, by Boyle, would have been £10,883 by the end of 1977. I suppose that if one extrapolates the figure and takes it to the end of the year it will certainlyy be over £11,000, and probably more like double the amount that Members of Parliament are receiving today.
  While we rejoice at the Bill, this updating, this fairness as I have described it, let us be under no illusion. The figure on which the pension is being based in future is far lower than in justice and fairness it ought to be.
  By international standards, and not merely as a question of what is right according to some yardstick which was considered and fixed by the Boyle Committee a year or two ago, the same applies to pay, only the contrast is more marked. As The Times wrote a little while ago, by international standards we are badly paid—two-thirds of the amount paid to a Member of Parliament in Canada, Italy and Germany, about half that paid in France and Australia, less than half that paid in Holland, and one-third of that paid in the United States. It is not surprising that The Guardian describes our remuneration as "inadequate" and says that it
  "ought to be substantially increased."
  the Economist calls us "poor relations", and according to the Sunday Times we are
  "the worst paid in the Western World."
  The late hon. Member for Wycombe, Sir John Hall, who took a great interest in these subjects, tragically died before he was able to see the fruits of some of his work. If right hon. and hon. Members will be diligent enough to look back to a Question which he asked on 24th January 1977, they will see just how bad the situation has been hitherto in regard to pensions. The Lord President of the Council gave him a long and detailed answer of comparatives at that time.
  634
  There is an unanswerable case for Members of Parliament to be remunerated properly. There is no reason on earth why Members of this House should be underpaid and as badly underpaid as they are at present. Salaries in this place should be adequate—not so big as to be a tremendous attraction, nor so light as to involve hardship, as I am bound to say is currently the case for some active Members of Parliament, for some pensioners and for their widows. I think that the country should know that.
  Though we may rejoice about the Bill, I do not believe that we are doing a proper job even now. I do not think that the Bill is complete. The right hon. Member for Anglesey asked a very important question which bears on Clause 16, which provides for a reduction in lieu of income tax to be made in refunds of contributions to former Prime Ministers, Speakers of the House of Commons and Lord Chancellors. If the Leader of the House replies to this debate, I hope that he will be good enough to tell the House whether he thinks that the arrangements made today for these old and great servants of our nation are appropriate and adequate. The researches which I have made indicate that they are not, and here is a matter which I believe should be looked into.
  None the less, I hope that the House will welcome the Bill. Amendments are possible. Whether it will be possible to make the amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) referred—what might be called the Lomas amendment covered by Early-Day Motion No. 252, which has now been signed by 217 Members of Parliament—I do not know. But this is a beginning.
  If I might recommend the next stage, I remind the House that the Leader of the House has indicated that some time soon, perhaps next week, there will be an announcement about increases in Members' salaries. I echo warmly what the right hon. Member for Anglesey said. We must take this subject out of the political arena altogether if we can without in any way resiling from the duty that we have to decide the matter.
  Pay is in a muddle, and we all know it. This Bill is a muddle because it is based on a notional sum, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire

  635
  said. Every responsible commentator knows that the subject is a muddle. It must be possible to establish a proper rate for the work that we do here. I echo the suggestion made to the Leader of the House by the right hon. Member for Anglesey that the Boyle Committee should be re-established immediately and asked continuously between now and the next General Election to update its thinking and assessment of the position.
  I hope that my right hon. Friends in the leadership of the Conservative Party will echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire said about the need for a commitment on the part of both sides of the House to accept what the Boyle Committee recommends without equivocation in the name of common sense and in the name, above all, of endeavouring to ensure that democracy works effectively in that its handmaidens —since I am not allowed to use a term which imputes sex, perhaps I should say "hand persons"—are looked after in reasonable fashion by those whom we endeavour to serve.
  11.10 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I agree very largely with the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). We are discussing a pensions Bill, and a great deal of what he said was concerned with pay, which does not really arise in this debate. But I agree entirely as probably every other hon. Member agrees, that the pay which hon. Members get is inadequate and that it was very unfortunate that the Boyle Report was not accepted in full.
  We know the reason, and it was very understandable. With the climate of the time, if the pay of Members of Parliament had been increased substantially there would have been an outcry against Members taking unfair advantage in voting themselves a substantial increase while the working people, under the various standstill arrangements that were in operation, were unable to do so for themselves. The political effect would have been serious—I think we all realised that —and, therefore, the Government felt that they had very good reason for saying that, for the time being there should be a limit on the increase.
  Mr. Michael English: Surely my right hon. Friend will
  636
  recollect that the £8,000 which Boyle proposed that we should have was proposed before this current pay policy. We have not yet received it, although the pay policy in nowise prevents us from doing so.
  Mr. Strauss: I do not think that that in any way destroys the case I am making. If at that time the Government had increased our pay to £8,000, there would have been a veritable outcry, and the political consequences, and the consequences in the trade union movement and in the economy as a whole, might have been serious.
  I agree fully with the right hon. Member for Taunton that there should be agreement now, before the General Election, by all parties in the House, that whatever the Boyle Committee recommends in its next review should be accepted by whatever Government are elected. That is the only way out of the difficulty. But it is for the leaders of the parties to decide whether they are to agree to that.
  I agree also that the pensions paid are wholly inadequate and nothing like as good as they should be. I am Chairman of the Managing Trustees of the Pension Fund, and it is our duty to administer the two funds that exist to the best of our ability. I do not think that there is any criticism that we have not done it well.
  But our other job is to see that Members of Parliament, as far as our advice carries weight, are receiving proper pensions and where there are anomalies in the pension system we recommend changes. The Trustees have gone into this matter thoroughly over the last two years, and they have drawn up a number of proposals which they have submitted to the Boyle Committee proposing changes which we thought would be acceptable. In other words, we have thought it quite pointless at the present stage to go beyond the principles which apply to the public service pension schemes, because that plainly would not be acceptable to Parliament and I doubt whether it would be acceptable to the public.
  Therefore, we have limited our proposals to improvements within the public service pension principles which are in operation. Within those limits we

  637
  have made a number of proposals, and all the proposals before the House this evening are those which have been suggested to the Boyle Committee by the Managing Trustees of the Pension Fund.
  I am glad that the Boyle Committee has accepted all these proposals. I am also glad that with one exception, which I shall deal with in a moment, the Government have accepted all the Boyle proposals. One proposal which was put forward by my Committee was not accepted by Boyle. That was very regrettable, and I hope that further consideration will be given to it. The Leader of the House knows what that proposal is. We suggested that pensions given to children of deceased Members were not adequate and should be brought up to the standard which exists in the public service pension schemes. We felt that pensions in respect of children should be quite substantially increased in order to bring them into line with existing pensions in the public service. In other words, the pension for each child should be not one-eighth of the eligible pension but one-quarter, and it should be limited to two children.
  That might make a difference of several hundred pounds for a widow with young children. That is not an unreasonable request, because it is already in existence elsewhere. Apart from that, we must thank the Government for accepting the Boyle Committee's report, and we must thank the Boyle Committee for accepting all the views put forward by the Trustees.
  I should like to emphasise that all our recommendations were unanimous. Equally, with regard to those recommendations which were not put forward, and which some hon. Members think we ought to have put forward, it was also unanimous that they should not be put forward, because in the circumstances it was thought that they were unreasonable. Therefore, the proposals before us tonight are the fruits of all-party recommendation and as such should be accepted.
  In saying that, I agree completely that they are inadequate at the moment. I hope that the next time the Boyle Committee meets it will change the pensions system to something which is very much better. Having two tiers—£8,000 for pensions and £6,250 for salaries—
  638
  is utterly ridiculous. That should be altered. I do not know whether it is generally appreciated that Members who retired in 1974 get susbtantially higher pensions than Members who retire now. That is a ridiculous situation. All that requires looking into.
  Meanwhile, all that the House can do is to say that at present pensions are inadequate, that there must be improvements and new proposals must be put forward in the next Parliament which I hope the Boyle Committee and whichever party are in power will accept.
  11.18 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Dean: I rise to oppose the Bill. In doing so, I recognise that I shall be expressing a minority view which will receive no enthusiasm in any part of the House. I realise, too, that there have been close consultations within the House before the Bill was produced. Therefore, in that sense it is very much an agreed measure.
  My opposition was expressed in a motion on the Order Paper. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) for the measure of support which he gave to the two main grounds for my opposition, which are expressed in the motion in the following terms. That the Bill
  "first, continues to base pension rights on notional pay much higher than actual pay, thus giving Members and Ministers pension privileges which are denied to the rest of the community; and second, makes no provision for Members or the widows and dependents of Members who retired before October 1964."
  This motion is somewhat similar to a motion which a number of my hon. Friends and I had on the Order Paper and which was discussed when we last debated parliamentary pensions in 1976.
  I should first declare an interest in pensions matters. I am a trustee of a number of pension schemes. Secondly, I in no way oppose the pension improvements in the Bill. Indeed, only recently have we begun to provide for ourselves pensions which are adequate by modern standards or are comparable with those in other jobs. As for pay, that remains wholly inadequate for the hours we put in and for the hazards of the job.
  So, in opposing the Bill, I am not saying that we are overpaid or over-pensioned. I am saying that we are open

  639
  to criticism for adopting artificial pension devices to try to make up for poor pay.
  Mr. Mellish: I respect the hon. Gentleman for what he is saying, but is not the logic of his argument that he should not oppose the Bill now but should try to amend it in Committee? That is the normal way.
  Mr. Dean: I am grateful. As I develop my arguments, I may be able to invite the right hon. Gentleman's support for some amendments which I will put down in Committee, if it is possible to get them in order in the light of the Long Title.
  I want to deal first with the position of those who retired before October 1964 and of their widows and dependants. They are entitled to no parliamentary pension. We have to remember that they served at a time when pay was even more inadequate than it is today, when allowances were small or even non-existent—there was no secretarial allowance, for instance—and many of the expenses of the job, which in most other jobs are met by the employer, had to be met wholly by our former colleagues in those days.
  How many of those former colleagues are in straitened circumstances today? How many of them, having served their country and their constituencies for many years, are in poverty? How many of them, indeed, perhaps served as Cabinet Ministers and are in poverty today? How many of them are wondering whether Parliament has forgotten them when they see us improving pensions for ourselves but doing nothing for them?
  The last time that we discussed these matters, in 1976, I asked how many former Members and Members' widows are receiving help from the Members Fund.
  The Lord President replied:
  "There are…24 former Members and 33 widows of deceased Members who are not eligible for pension from the pension scheme but who receive grants from the House of Commons Members Fund."—[Official Report, 12th July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 11.]
  I hope that those figures will be updated before the end of the debate.
  It is a scandal that we should be debating improvements for ourselves tonight
  640
  when that number of our former colleagues and their widows have to go to a means-tested scheme to receive any assistance. Whatever the latest figures, I suspect that there are many others of our former colleagues who have not applied because they feel that it would be demeaning. I hope that at least we can get the facts on this.
  Mr. Strauss: The answer to the question is that the numbers today are about the same as they were a year or two ago. It is a distortion to say that a number of older Members are in poverty. Those who apply—and anybody can apply—are treated with great sympathy. They can get from the Members Fund a substantial grant to take them right out of poverty, although they have contributed nothing. They are given considerable grants if they apply, and every application is treated with the greatest sympathy.
  Mr. Dean: I am assured to hear that. But I still maintain that there is all the difference in the world between a pension as of right and one based on a means test, however sympathetically it may be administered and however generous the trustees of the means-tested scheme may be. There is a substantial difference between the two types of arrangements.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: Is the hon. Member asking that the statutory scheme—as of right—should be extended to those who did not contribute before that scheme was introduced? If so, is he not giving to these persons pension privileges that are denied to the rest of the community? Does not his amendment embody a contradiction?
  Mr. Dean: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, because I am coming to that point. I recognise that the Boyle Report recommended against bringing in those who retired before October 1964. I accept that the traditional approach to pension schemes has been that those not in service at the time should not benefit. I suggest to the House, however, that most modern precedents have been in the other direction.
  When the pension schemes in which I am involved improve benefits to those who are serving, they almost always provide on an ad hoc basis some improvements

  641
  for those who retired earlier and who could not otherwise benefit from the new arrangements. I remember distinctly that when I was a Minister dealing with war pensions in a previous Government, on at least two occasion when we improved benefits under the war pensions scheme for those in service we also improved the benefits for those who had retired, however long they had been in retirement.
  Mr. English: Some play has been made about Members who did not contribute before 1964. I think I am right in saying that they were not allowed to contribute. This puts a different complexion on the matter. Will the hon. Member explain the situation of civil servants who did not contribute before 1964 or before any other date?
  Mr. Dean: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his help. Before coming to civil servants, I should like to turn to a much more effective analogy and a more convincing precedent in favour of my argument. It applies to our own contributory pension scheme.
  We have already conceded the principle—this is my answer to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—that service before October 1964 can count for pension purposes and that the cost shall be borne wholly by public funds. In other words, there is to be no contribution by the Member concerned. It can count for pension purposes for those serving after 1964 even if they had a break in service and returned, say, in 1966. The Bill increases the pre-1964 service which can count for pension purposes from 10 to 15 years.
  I submit that we now have a contrast that is even starker than it was before the Bill was introduced—namely, that existing Members who can count 15 years' service before October 1964 for pension purposes can have the whole of that met from public funds. On the other hand, we have those who retired before October 1964 who get no pension and can count no service before 1964. I suggest to the House that that is neither fair not equitable.
  The Boyle Report, in paragraph 34, suggested a possible solution. It referred to another precedent—that of the over-80s pension introduced for people outside this House in 1970. I believe that a limited parliamentary pension as of right
  642
  for former Members and their widows at the age of 80 is the least we can do. I hope very much that, if it is possible to devise an amendment that is within the Long Title of the Bill, the Government will give it sympathetic consideration.
  I submit that we should no longer go on improving pensions for ourselves without some recognition of the difficulties of our former colleagues who retired 14 years or more ago and who have suffered the full rigours of inflation on their savings, with no parliamentary pension to help them. I suggest that modern precedents are wholly in favour of some pension for them. The parliamentary supplementary benefit—for that is what it is—through the Members Fund is no longer good enough. I suggest that we dishonour our former colleagues and ourselves as long as we allow that situation to continue.
  My second argument is that it seems to me wrong to base our pension rights on notional pay which is much higher than actual pay. Our actual pay is now £6,270 a year, but our pay for pension purposes is the Boyle recommendation, which has been added to in recent years to bring the figure to £8,208 a year. I suggest that in doing this we are providing for ourselves pension privileges that are denied to the rest of the community.
  The Minister was able to make no more than generalised remarks. I ask him to quote any pension scheme which can go before the Inland Revenue and obtain this type of arrangement. It is a device to make up for poor pay. It is an understandable device, and I would not necessarily complain about it if other sections of the community could do likewise. There is some flexibility within the Inland Revenue arrangement at the moment, and I do not intend to weary the House by going into detail. I suggest, however, that when we fix our own salaries and our own pensions we are under a special obligation to ensure that we do not act in a way that appears unfair to others.
  In my view, the Bill perpetuates a bad precendent which was established in 1976. My fear is that it will become permanent. There is an arguable case for those who are retiring at the end of this Parliament and who otherwise would be trapped with a reduced pension indefinitely. I am all for making special arrangements

  643
  for them, but to go beyond that would be inequitable and difficult to defend to people outside.
  I am sorry to strike a discordant note on this domestic occasion, but I believe that it would be wrong to let the Bill go by without expressing my misgivings on these two important points of principle.
  11.35 p.m.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: Looking round the Chamber, I am struck by the fact that many hon. Members here have a direct or highly imminent interest in the provisions of the Bill. I include myself in that because I shall not run for Parliament again at the next General Election.
  I believed that this was not a discussion about pay, but the arguments have seemed to widen beyond pensions to cover hon. Members' salaries and I could not help thinking how much better it would be if hon. Members had a trade union. It would then be clear that, just like anyone else, we were a sectional interest negotiating, quite legitimately, for proper remuneration.
  I have always believed in an adequate remuneration for hon. Members. When I first became an hon. Member in 1945, the pay was derisory and it was argued that any increase in hon. Members' pay was unpopular in the constituencies. So it was, but I always said to my workers in Blackburn that if they wanted Members who were independent of outside interests and dedicated only to their constituents they would have to be paid a living wage.
  However, I get a little worried about the coalition of self-interest that is growing up as we discuss how worthy we are of better treatment. How are we to get an adequate adjudicator in that situation? My right. hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), a highly respected hon. Member who has done a marvellous job in pensions, put forward an astonishing doctrine when he said that he hoped that there would be a total commitment by both sides of the House that the Boyle Report should be accepted uncritically—whatever it said about hon. Members' salaries—by the next Government.
  That is an extremely dangerous doctrine because it seems to imply that there
  644
  should be an exemption of immunity for hon. Members from the political pressures of pay policy that any Government must and will accept. I remember other highly deserving professions—it may surprise hon. Members if I quote the example of consultants in the NHS—who had their Review Body's findings decimated by considerations of pay policy with the introduction of a ceiling and a cut-off point. They had to accept it in the national interest—and quite right too.
  I accept the integrity of the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) in pension matters. I know his interest and dedication in these matters. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I find no difficulty in accepting that pensions should be based on notional incomes. I believe I am right in recollecting that that happened to the consultants and others who suffered from interference with Review Body findings in the interests of pay policy. We are not the only ones to have found ourselves in that position. I find no difficulty in accepting that our pensions should be based on a notional income if it means that we have been refused our full arbitration award by a Review Body in the interests of the national pay policy.
  I was a member of the Government who decided that there should be a cutoff point at £8,500. I supported it. The cut-off point operated against many professionals who had Review Body findings in their interests. I thought that it was right to accept that cut-off, and I did so in the interests of Members and Ministers. Britain was right up against it in 1975. By heavens, we would never have turned back the tide of inflation if some of us had not given a lead and accepted the denial of our salary awards.
  Mr. English: All Labour Members agreed with and approved of the cut-off point of £8,500. However, we did not understand why the Cabinet of the day, before it introduced the present pay policy, said that we should not get the £8,000 that was recommended by the Commission, to which it was committed.
  Mrs. Castle: These are inevitably and perfectly legitimately all matters of self-interest. We have to give some sort of national leadership. That is part of the price of being in politics. Despite an arbitration award on behalf of Cabinet Ministers, I was in favour of a cut in Ministers' salaries.

  645
  It may be said that that interferes with the proper development of differentials and salary relationships. I repeat that I am not suggesting that we should endlessly accept an inferior status for Members' pay. I am anxious to liberate Members from dependence on outside private income and interests. That is important. However, we have been through exceptional years in our national history. It was totally right that we should have given such leadership. Members have suffered. I am sorry, but it was inevitable that we should. I do not worry if there happens to have been created a slight anomaly whereby our pensions are related to notional pay.
  The amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset, North remains contradictory when it states on the one hand that we should not have pension privileges that are not applicable to others universally but on the other hand asks for exceptional treatment for widows and the pensions of Members before the statutory scheme was introduced in 1964.
  These are immensely complex matters. There will always be anomalies. One can only try to stick to broad guiding principles. I accept that it is imperative that we do not vote ourselves privileges that are denied to others. All that we have voted ourselves so far is the privilege of accepting reductions in our arbitration awards, which is an excellent example. I do not make any apologies for it.
  I wish to raise a question of principle and one in which I cannot be said to have a direct interest. That is because if it arose within my family I should be dead. I refer to the widower's pension. This was touched on briefly by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). My ears pricked up when he started, but what a throwaway line that was. It was almost an exit line over his shoulder. I believe that it should be built up as one of the major issues of principle before us. I maintain that it is intolerable that this House, which for some years has been busy equalising the rights of men and women, should in the Bill endorse, reinforce and perpetuate a gross injustice against one deserving section of our society—the widowers.
  After all, we are discussing a superannuation scheme in which women Members have always had the same rights and
  646
  obligations as men. I have been a Member of this House now for 33 years. During that period I have always earned exactly the same salary as male Members of Parliament. If anybody had tried to pay me 75 per cent. of the male rate, I would have chained myself to the railings outside in protest, just as certain eminent ladies did a considerable number of years ago—an event that we shall be celebrating in the near future. I have always worked, I was going to say exactly the same hours as male Members, but, if we were to take a tally, if we were to clock in and clock out, I think that it would be found that women Members of Parliament pro rata had always worked longer hours than the men [Hon. Members: "No"]—because they are cursed with the obstacle of over-conscientiousness. Certainly our stamina is greater than that of the men and we are less flaked out at 6 o'clock in the morning after an all-night sitting.
  It is indisputable that we have paid the same contributions as our male colleagues under every pension scheme which has been brought before the House. If the Bill goes through, the contributions of women Members will rise to 6 per cent., just the same as the men's.
  Under the present scheme, the widow of a male Member gets half of what would have been his entitlement. Under the Bill, that will be supplemented by a short-term scheme which will help still further the widows of Members.
  I ask the House to consider what a number of us probably never have considered—namely, what does our pension scheme do for the widower? If he is to get any of his wife's pension entitlement—this is becoming a slightly pressing matter in my own case—he must, according to Section 14(1) of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972,
  "at the time of her death"
  —it may not be later; it must be at the very moment of her death—be
  "incapable by reason of age or bodily or mental infirmity of earning his own living and was wholly or mainly dependent on her".
  That is happening at the time when, under the pension scheme that I introduced into the House as Secretary of State for Social Services and which became operative in April this year, we have abolished for women the archaic and demeaning concept of dependency. Under

  647
  that new pension scheme the married woman's option is phased out. Women at work must contribute over a phasing-in period at the same rate as men and will receive the same pension as men in the same earnings range.
  Yet for the husbands of women Members of this House we continue to perpetuate the demeaning concept of dependency. Really, this is to stand sex equality on its head. It is also to violate the contributory principle. That is why I bring this to the attention of the hon. Member for Somerset, North, who, I know, is involved in certain private pension schemes. All the best occupational pension schemes are getting rid of that attitude. Private schemes are increasingly incorporating pensions for widowers on exactly the same basis as for widows. The only logical application of sex equality, to which the House has been committed in Bill after Bill in the last few years, is to introduce not a widow's benefit but a survivor's benefit on equal terms regardless of sex. Why do we not do it? The logic of it is unanswerable. We have all paid for it.
  There is a built-in discrimination which is actuarially unjustifiable. I shall explain why we do not do it. It is not because it would cost a lot of money. I asked my right hon. Friend the Lord President what would be the cost to our contributory pension scheme of giving widowers of Members pensions on the same basis as those we give to widows of Members. I asked what increase would have to be made in Members' contributions to meet the cost. The reply, given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, was:
  "Since the Parliamentary Contribution Pensions Scheme has relatively few lady Members, no significant additional cost would arise if benefits were to be available equally to widows and widowers. Such a change would, however, set a precedent for comparable public service pension schemes where the cost would be very substantial."—[Official Report, 19th June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 331.]
  That is a marvellous new version of the servant girl's justification for her illegitimate child. The trouble is that it would be a very big one.
  It was this creation of precedent that led the Treasury to forbid me as Secretary of State for Social Services to include a survivor's benefit when I was drawing up
  648
  the new State pension scheme which became operative in April. However, we made some progress in that scheme. At least, we did not drag in the discredited concept of dependency.
  On the contrary, the White Paper on the better pensions scheme provided for equality of treatment for the widower where both he and his wife had retired. In that situation the widower's pension could be augmented by his wife's earnings. That may not be a complete introduction of the principle of equality, but it is a great deal better than the squalid criterion that the widower must be incapable, physically and mentally, of providing for himself.
  In strict logic, therefore, in this year when we are celebrating the introduction of universal suffrage as the first step to equality, this Government, who have done so much to extend the concept of equality, should be bringing forward new changes to our pension scheme which would give the surviving husbands of Members of Parliament half the wife's pension entitlement, just as the surviving wives get half that of the male Members. Not all Members' wives are dependent on their husbands by any means.
  I wonder what the House would say if at the Committee stage of the Bill I were to move an amendment to put before the word "widows" everywhere that it appears, not only in the Bill but in the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972, "dependent and incapable of self-support". What if that were a criterion for a widow's pension? Everyone in the House would be horrified.
  We cannot, of course, get too out of line with the provision for the generality of the citizens, but I believe that we can adopt the same principles as our State pension scheme. Therefore, I give warning to my right hon. Friend that when the Committee stage is reached I shall be moving very reasonable and very moderate amendments to start getting a realistic concept of sex equality by adjustments in the widower's pension scheme and a removal of the grotesque criterion for qualification that exists at present.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider my reasonable proposals very seriously and very sympathetically.
  11.56 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: My interest in the Bill is not quite as imminent as the interest of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I hope not to benefit from its provisions for at least 22 years. I must remember to remind my electors of that hope and intention at an early opportunity.
  Like many hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I also welcome the Bill. I hope, however, that commentators outside the House will not believe that we are trying to create through the Bill a life of feather-bedded luxury for ourselves when we retire, because I believe that our pension fund is a very modest fund. I do not believe that if one were establishing a fund in the private sector one would immediately look at and consider the House of Commons Members' Pension Fund as an ideal fund and would base one's fund upon it. Indeed, our fund, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) has said—he is a great expert in these matters—is falling behind many funds in the private sector, both in its provision and in the amount that we contribute to it.
  Therefore, I very much hope that the impression does not get around that this is a lavish scheme and that we are doing rather well for ourselves. That is not so at all.
  On a point of acrimony, perhaps, I must may that I very much regret that the Government did not bring in the Bill earlier, because there is considerable doubt whether it should not have been brought in in 1976. It is a matter of opinion whether it offended against stage 1 of the Government's incomes policy, because there was no statutory backing for that policy, so it can be only a matter of opinion, therefore, that the proposals in the Bill now before us offended against that policy.
  That is a matter for debate. What is not a matter for debate is that the Bill should be made retrospective to August last year. I ask the Government to look carefully, before the Committee stage next week, at whether some changes can be made, because by not bringing in the Bill by August of last year all the dependants of our colleagues who have died since that time have suffered a permanent loss in benefit which cannot be made up. They
  650
  have suffered that loss as a result of the dilatory behaviour of the Government.
  Therefore, I believe that it is incumbent upon the Government to see, before the Committee stage, whether some amendments or provisions can be made to allow those dependants of Members who have died since August of last year to benefit—of course, it is the dependants particularly who will benefit from the Bill—and to receive what I think is their right. If the Government had acted promptly, it would certainly have been their right.
  The House is always in an awkward situation when it is debating its own pay and pensions. We are the only group in society that can determine absolutely what we pay ourselves and what levels of pension we set.
  Mr. Joseph Harper (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household): We have made a very bad job of it.
  Mr. Baker: That puts us in a very bad position, and, as the Government Whip has just said, we have made a very bad job of it. I am glad to get that support from the Treasury Bench. We have, indeed, over the years made a very bad job of it. That is one reason why we have said that we should ask an independent body headed by Lord Boyle, as it were to do this rather unpleasant task for us.
  The whole concept behind asking Boyle to report is that Boyle should be accepted, because if he is not to be accepted we might just as well do the job ourselves, imperfectly as we can. The danger of asking Boyle to report and not accepting Boyle is that we are looking on Boyle as a sort of current bun from which one picks out the currants that one wants. As a result, all our pay and pension debates become a sort of catch-as-catch-can.
  I argued from the Government Dispatch Box when introducing the Bill in 1972 just what the Minister argued, which is that we must stick to the principle of accepting the proposals in full. I accept that principle, but the Government have departed from it. I do not know why the Government have departed from that principle, but they have done so because they have not accepted the proposals of Boyle in full. They have accepted some of Boyle's proposals, and that puts the

  651
  House in an exceptionally difficult position.
  I echo what the Chairman of the 1922 Committee said, what the Father of the House said and, indeed, what the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party said, which is that we must move to a better way than we have at present of determining our own pay, allowances and pensions. I believe that the answer lies in having a reconstituted Boyle Committee after the election and for it to report to the House and for the House to decide upon those findings.
  If the Government of the day, for various national income considerations, wish to phase or stage those recommendations, that is for the Government of the day to try to persuade the House to do, but this is basically a House of Commons matter and we as responsible Members of the House of Commons should surely be allowed to decide whether we favour or disagree with the findings of Boyle.
  I support that, because if we move away from the principle of accepting Boyle in full we move immediately into the area of saying that there is a good case for pre-1964 Members. I think that there is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North has argued tonight. I think that there is a very good case for what has been called the Lomas amendment, but we get into the area of picking and choosing once we abandon the principle of accepting the report in its totality.
  We have debated these matters several times since I have been a Member. I hope very much that we shall move to a better system. As the Government Whip said, we have done very badly for ourselves. The only Assembly that pays its Members less than we do is the Assembly of Luxembourg. I do not know where Luxembourg stands in the pecking order—perhaps the great aunt three times removed—but it pays its Members less than we do. The Irish Parliament pays its Members rather more than we do. It is one of the ironies of the last 100 years of our history that the Assembly that meets in Eire pays its Members more than we do. I think that they were rather lucky to get away with that.
  I believe that the House should take a much stronger stand as a House. We as Members of Parliament should take a
  652
  much stronger stand. I believe that we should be quite robust in rebutting the accusations which are made that we are trying to make a very cosy position for ourselves in our pay, allowances and pensions. That is not the case. It is evidently not the case. This is a slight improvement along the road. I hope that the Bill will go through basically as it is, but I believe that what should come out of it is a very much better system of making these arrangements on a permanent basis.
  12.5 a.m.
  Mr. Robert Mellish: I have been very impressed with most of the speeches that I have heard from both sides of the House, because I have listened to almost every debate on the salaries and conditions of Members of Parliament in the last 32 years. I always found it all very interesting to listen to and all very personal.
  Looking back over the years, I remember that it was I who initiated a motion demanding an increase of pay for Members of Parliament. I remember Lord Shawcross, a gallant Socialist, walking into the Chamber in his dinner jacket at the tail end of the debate and supporting the motion warmly, which almost ruined our case. I remember the late Sir Winston Churchill, when he was Prime Minister. He had a lot of sympathy for Members of Parliament, but he really was not too enthusiastic. He brought in a system giving us an additional allowance per day, but only from Monday to Thursday. I remember saying to him—I suppose that I was as crude then as I am now—"I don't understand this. I eat on Fridays, and I come here on Fridays. Why can't I get paid on Fridays?" He looked at me as though to say "I've never heard of you before". Anyway, he was not much interested. But we have had all sorts of systems.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) quickly and conveniently forgets history when she wants to. She had better be reminded of it. I have taken an interest in Members' salaries by making speeches on the subject and getting some of the venom, too. Much of it came on television. Certain of my hon. Friends appeared on television with me on one occasion following an argument that Members should

  653
  get more money, and they said "not until the old-age pensioners get more". That was the great theme. I remember getting hundreds of abusive letters. I remember, too, that one hon. Member—I had better not name him, because he is still a Member—got hundreds of letters of praise. But I am that sort of person. I thought it was right to get up and say that an MP's salary then, as now, was lousy, rotten and, for the job that he did, an absolute disgrace.
  The history, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has conveniently forgotten, was that Boyle came in because for years and years we had tried to solve this problem by this type of debate, when we tried to resolve it ourselves with silly motions put down by various individuals of all different factions, and then rather shamefacedly going through the Lobbies and voting.
  My right hon. Friend says glibly that we ought to have a trade union. Of course, that is silly too. It is silly in the context of the trade union movement, and I know as much about the trade union movement as does my right hon. Friend, because I was actually born in it. So that is out, too.
  What we did was that Lord Houghton, as he now is—then the right hon. Member for Sowerby—as the key man, brought forward the motion that took this matter right outside the orbit of this House and gave it to an independent committee which was to be set up. We did not know then that Lord Boyle was to be the chairman. I remember that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. White-law) took a prominent part, and I remember that he was extremely co-operative and sensible and picked up this idea at once.
  The result was that we made history by, for the first time, putting the matter to an outside body. But who were these people? Let us get that on record. First of all, of course, there was Lord Boyle. There was a trade unionist on the Committee, one of the most eminent of all. There were tycoons from private industry. They were representative of the whole range of our society. When they spoke, this was not some trade union cabal saying what we should get.
  Mrs. Castle: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Mellish: With respect, my right hon. Friend did not give way to other hon. Members. I am not sure that I ought to give way to her.
  Mr. English: She gave way to me.
  Mr. Mellish: In that case I will give way to her. Anyone who gives way to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) must be in trouble.
  Mrs. Castle: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, instead of having an ad hoc body appointed by the Government to adjudicate upon us or anyone else, it would be better to have our salaries linked to those of some group of people whose wages and conditions had to be negotiated by a trade union?
  Mr. Mellish: Now my right hon. Friend has moved into another area. That is not what she said earlier. However, I want to keep to my theme.
  The Boyle Committee was established, and none of us knew who would be on it. But, when its membership was announced, even the national newspapers, which have never been our friends, admitted that it was indeed a body absolutely above suspicion in that it represented all strata of society. However, the irony is that, although the Boyle Committee has, over a number of years, said things about this House and its membership which are to the credit of the House and its membership, they have not been accepted.
  One of the suggestions which have already' been argued and debated is that we should link an MP's salary with, for example, the assistant secretary rank. But we know who the biggest opponent of that is, and I will remind my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn—the trade union movement. Of course it is, because if we linked an MP's salary to the rank of assistant secretary, whose salary today would be about £11,000, when the unions went to negotiate for the assistant secretary they would be told "Watch it, brother. You give it to that lot, and you have to give it to that other lot in the House of Commons". It was the trade union movement itself that did not like the idea and did not want it.
  I was thinking of mentioning the newspapers again, but I had better not because there are some which are not very friendly

  655
  disposed towards this House which spend all their time attacking us, and it really is quite a scandal. But, in fact, it is now conceded that the Boyle Committee was the ideal body to do the job.
  I defend why the Government did not implement the last recommendations of the Boyle Committee. I was here when it all took place, when this £6,000 and £8,000 malarkey came into being. The truth is—we were all here at the time and we knew the atmosphere—that we could not have introduced what Boyle recommended, the £8,000 a year. If we had, the percentage increase for MPs would have been way over anything and everything that we were asking others to accept. I have always understood and been considerate about that.
  But I say this to my right hon. Friends. There comes a time when the House really has to have the guts to say "This is a report made by men and women of calibre and, therefore, this is what should be done". I cannot treat with scorn, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn did, the idea that there should be a concordat between the two major parties that whatever the Boyle Committee recommends will be implemented by the next Government.
  Like other Members, I am on my way out now; it does not matter so much for me. But it certainly matters for those who are yet to come, and the time is coming when we have to say to the Press and the public "This House is something that we are proud to be Members of, and if you are doing a job of which you are proud you must make it incorruptible".
  We are not asking for great salaries. We only want to make sure that the men and women who come here to serve their nation will be paid properly in a way recommended by a Committee whose objectivity is unquestioned. Whatever the Boyle Committee recommends, let it be implemented. Let us not go on with this appalling anomaly of getting a salary on the one hand and a pension much higher on the other.
  I say this to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I hope that he will be Leader of the House for many years to come, but I must tell him that the present situation cannot go on. We must change it. The right hon. Member
  656
  for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) made an excellent speech, and I agree with him that the time is well overdue to take this matter out of the ordinary orbit of the House and for us to have the courage to tell the truth to our people and trust them.
  I represent a constituency where the wages are not very high. I remember an incident with regard to the salaries of Members. At the time when we were getting £1,500 a year, a character in my constituency came up to me and asked "Do I understand that you MPs are getting only £1,500 a year?" I replied "Yes, that is right." He asked "Is it a fact that you are able to decide the salaries for yourselves?" I replied "Yes, that is right." He replied "Serves you bloody right." That just about puts it in a nutshell.
  12.15 a.m.
  Sir Nigel Fisher: I agree entirely with all that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has said about pay. Of course, it was absolutely right to set up the Boyle Committee and absolutely wrong then totally to disregard what that Committee recommended. However, I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman in any detail, because I want to be very brief indeed at this late hour, especially when many of my hon. Friends still want to take part in the debate.
  As one of the Managing Trustees of the Parliamentary Pensions Fund from the Conservative side of the House, I want to support our Chairman, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). I also want to thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and the Lord President for having brought it forward, not before time and not without some pressure from the Trustees, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, and from the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. On this occasion—I thought absolutely rightly, because it is a House of Commons matter—they made joint representations to the Leader of the House.
  The proposals before us tonight give effect to the recommendations of the Boyle Committee, to which I should also like to pay tribute, because Lord Boyle and the members of his Review Body gave very sympathetic consideration to

  657
  the suggestions which the Trustees of the Pensions Fund submitted to them.
  There was only the one omission to which the right hon. Member for Vauxhall referred which disappointed us. That was with regard to the small improvement in children's pensions which the Trustees had recommended. We merely wanted a rise in the rate of those pensions from one-eighth of the former Member's entitlement to one-quarter, subject to a maximum of two children eligible at any one time, and we hoped that children's pensions could be continued up to the age of 17—at present it is 16—without the child necessarily continuing in full-time education. The cost of doing so would have been absolutely negligible, because only 12 children's pensions are being paid at present. It would have had the effect of putting the children of hon. Members on the same footing as those of civil servants, teachers, National Health Service employees and all other public sector workers.
  I do not understand why Members' dependants should be treated less favourably than those in other branches of the public service. I believe that the right hon. Member for Vauxhall wrote to the Lord President on this point, but the Government did not feel able to go beyond the recommendations contained in the Boyle Report. If I may say so, the Government are somewhat selective in their treatment of Lord Boyle's reports. When it suits them, they stick rigidly to Boyle, but when it does not—as in the case of Members' pay—they ignore Boyle altogether. I hope that the Lord President will be prepared to reconsider the position of children during the Committee stage of the Bill.
  In other respects the Bill seems to me comprehensive and fair. Indeed, at my age of, alas, 64, and after more than 28 years' service in this House, I really feel that I should almost declare an interest when I support the Bill because when I look particularly at Clauses 1 and 10 I see that they are virtually tailor-made to suit my particular circumstances!
  I am glad that the Minister referred in passing to one point—not precisely a pensions point—which arises out of Early-day Motion No. 252. It seems wrong that a Member elected in February 1974 and defeated in October 1974 could
  658
  have received severance pay of three months salary after serving for only a few months, whereas a Member who has served for 20 years or more and who retires through ill health can receive nothing more than his pension—although if he had been defeated in that election he, too, would have received three months' salary.
  Hon. Members who have to retire through ill health in, say, their fifties would find it hard to obtain alternative employment quickly and three months' pay would be a great help at a difficult time. To give it to them would be a humane gesture—important to a few individuals, and at very little cost to the State.
  I was informed by the Table Office that I should be out of order in referring in this debate to Members' pay, so I threw away some carefully prepared notes. However, a great deal of latitude has in fact been allowed to hon. Members on both sides. I am very glad that it has. I totally agreed with everything said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. However, there will no doubt be another opportunity soon to refer to this matter in more detail, so I shall say no more on that tonight.
  I would only underline the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) that it is complete nonsense to base pensions on a notional figure, as the Government have had to do because our pay is so derisory compared with that in any other comparable legislature in the world. Pensions should obviously be based on pay, which should be far higher than it is today.
  12.22 a.m.
  Mr. Michael English: I should like to ask one relevant question. Will the Government permit amendments to the Bill on the lines suggested tonight? To take a simple example, the possibility of pensions to 12 children is clearly something about which an amendment should be possible. But it is not, because the Bill has a very restricted Title and there is a Money Resolution and a Ways and Means Resolution. Therefore, I hope that whoever replies for the Government will do as was done in the case of the Speaker's pension Bill—not the present Speaker but a previous one—and say that if the House desires such

  659
  amendments, technicalities will be overcome and an appropriate Money Resolution will be put down by the Government so that there will be no question of 12 children losing the possibility of a pension merely because of the technicality that no one but a Minister can move that they should have it. I see the Minister nodding and I am grateful to him. It would be inappropriate if that happened merely because of a procedural technicality of the way in which we deal with money in the House.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said that we have a terrible problem in these matters because we may create precedents. The Expenditure Committee, in its report on the Civil Service, touched on pensions, a matter of some interest because many Civil Service pensions are inflation-proofed. In times of high inflation, they are a matter of some concern to the public because no private firm can afford to keep up with such inflation proofing. I do not think that the right hon. Lady need worry about the precedent we might create in improving Members' pensions.
  There are 7,090,000 people who are affected by public sector pensions. Of those, 3,900,000 are in schemes to which they contribute and for which there are actual pension funds. These include people in local government, public corporations and so on. Then there are 1,950,000 who actually contribute but have no actual pension fund, only a notional one. These include every teacher in the land and the 1,125,000 in the National Health Service, as well as odds and ends like the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.
  Then there are 1,085,000 who pay no contributions whatever, and receive pensions from no fund whatever. These are 750,000 in the Civil Service, and 335,000 in the Armed Forces. There is no precedent that will be created by dealing with Members of Parliament, except for one very small and interesting group of people. There are only 155,000 people out of over 7 million who are in the same situation. They are the only ones, apart from us, who pay contributions but receive their pensions from a totally unfunded pension scheme. They are the police and the firemen.
  660
  It might be of some interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn that whatever precedent we create for ourselves might form a precedent for the police and firemen but for no one else in the land. I do not mind creating a precedent for the police and for firemen. I think that they well deserve it. Conservative Members may wish to consider that when they are advocating an appropriate pension for Members of Parliament they are also advocating them for the police and firemen. This is a matter of some importance. We have discussed the question of pay policy for Members, but I do not think that I should mention the possibility of creating a precedent for the police and firemen in the context of pay policy.
  No Government have ever decided whether they regard Members of this House as self-employed—635 small businesses—or as employees. We are treated far worse than employees. Outside the House we would be appalled if someone produced an arbitration award and it was turned down promptly—not on the principle that it did not conform with a pay policy, but on the principle that it did not conform with a pay policy that might be introduced a few weeks or months later. The Leader of the House is shaking his head. I have been discussing this issue with someone with whom he too has discussed it—the retiring general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union. The reason we did not obtain our award was nothing to do with pay policy, but was in order to persuade Mr. Jack Jones and others that there should be a pay policy. In order to persuade members of the general council of that fact, we had to forgo what we were entitled to before any incomes policy was produced.
  Of course, we should conform to any incomes policy that is applied to the rest of the community. In other words, we should have had £8,000, plus £6, plus son of £6, plus 10 per cent. But in order to have a pay policy, some of the sacrificial lambs comprised Members of this House, who, by the standards of other people, are underpaid.
  There is an obvious and simple principle by which Members of Parliament should be paid. No civil servant has the power, which a majority of Members of this House possess, to pass almost any

  661
  piece of legislation. We are restricted in passing legislation in only one respect. We may not pass a law to extend the term of this House without an election and without the consent of the House of Lords. Perhaps we may have to pass some other things in two Sessions, but anything else we may do. We may even pass a law, as has been done by this House in the past, to have somebody executed. We may do anything we wish.
  In the United States Congress, which has less power because it is restricted by a federal constitution, there is a simple belief that no civil servant should be paid more than a member of Congress because in the United States civil servants have less power. A civil servant is a member of the Executive and a member of the Executive in the United States has to obey the law, and the law is changed and determined by the two Houses of Congress there. There are people equivalent to our Ministers who are paid more than are members of Congress, but civil servants are not.
  The clear principle which should be appropriate to Members of this House is that they should be paid more than their subordinates, the civil servants in the United Kingdom. Merely to state that principle, which has never been slated in this debate, shows how far behind we have fallen in this country. We genuinely believe as a House of Commons that our subordinates should be paid more than we are paid. We carry such actions into effect, and I wonder whether possibly the way in which we govern the remuneration of those who are concerned in Government in this country has something to do with the way in which government in this country is not as effective as perhaps it once was in the nineteenth century. But we are, strictly speaking, talking not of pay but of pensions.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said that he thought Lord Boyle's Committee represented every stratum of society. I gave evidence to that Committee, and I think that Lord Boyle, Lord Plowden, Lady Seear, and the worthy gentleman who was once permanent secretary to the Lord Chanceller are eminent, capable and competent people, but I do not think they represent every stratum of society. Indeed, three-quarters of them are in another place, and that I have never
  662
  regarded as representing every stratum of society, even though a small proportion are life peers put there by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or one of his predecessors. Up to now, many things have been done for us, or even against us, which we have had no opportunity to talk about. For example, only recently the trustees of the Members' pension fund decided to opt us out of the State pension scheme. I hope that in Committee we shall have an opportunity to rectify that.
  In the Bill that applies to most members of the community, anyone who wanted to do that was supposed to consult the trade unions representing the employees and tell the Occupational Pensions Board that this had been done. We have no trade union. There is doubt about whether we are employees or self-employed, so the Trustees, acting entirely within their legal jurisdiction, decided, first, that they would act as employers and advise Mr. Speaker, as our nominal employer, that he should opt us out of the State scheme and, secondly, that they would act as employees, consult themselves and advise themselves to opt us out of the State scheme.
  If they had opted us in, we would have been forced to pay an extra £5 a week in contributions. It may be that, as the Trustees and their advisers suggested, hon. Members would not have wished to do that, but we were never asked. There was no debate in the Chamber or in a Committee room upstairs. Hon. Members could have been asked to go to one of the Committee rooms where it could have been put to them "If you wish to opt in to the State pension scheme, you will have to pay an extra fiver a week. If you do not, you will not have to pay that extra contribution, but, of course, you will not get the extra corresponding benefits. Which would you prefer? Hon. Members were never asked. They were treated in a more authoritarian way than any employer in the land would dare to treat his employees. I am glad that the average employer can no longer treat his employees in the way in which hon. Members are treated.
  I was impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). I can say with a clear conscience that I have no personal interest in the treatment of hon. Members who retired

  663
  before I was elected in 1964. I agree with the hon. Member for Somerset, North that it is a total disgrace that they should not be treated adequately. Some hon. Members have said that those people did not contribute. Not one of our 750,000 civil servants contributes a single penny, or ever has, towards his pension. No hon. Member before 1964 contributed a single penny towards his pension, but I do not see why he should not get one, in the same way that all the civil servants, members of the Armed Forces and others who do not contribute get their pensions.
  I hope that the principle of the hon. Member for Somerset, North will prevail and that Ministers and those on the Opposition Front Bench will realise that some justice should be done to hon. Members who retired before 1964 and will not allow technicalities to stand in their way, but will ensure that justice is done.
  12.40 a.m.
  Mr. David Walder: I shall comment briefly on the question of comparability, which has run through the debate as a sort of theme. It applies equally to pensions as to pay. Pay is founded on the initial absurdity that it is referred to the Review Body on Top Salaries. Top salary it certainly is not.
  There is the myth that somewhere in the public service, or in various selected sections of the public service, it is possible to find an exact parallel to other positions, other duties and other tasks, and that at the end of it we shall find some magical sum that will be the right and proper one to to pay to a Member of Parliament. The whole concept is a complete myth.
  We have heard in the past that we have the parallel with the under-secretary. We all know that Members of Parliament may carry out other occupations while an under-secretary may carry out only one occupation. I carry out one other occupation and no other, namely, writing books. However, the under-secretary cannot moonlight. He is not a true comparison.
  When dealing with the pension scheme I find that we are striving in Clause 1 to get near to the mythical public servant with which we compare ourselves. However, we find ourselves in a curious situation. It seems that at 62 years we
  664
  can retire advantageously. I believe that for the civil servant the equivalent age is 60 years. He receives certain benefits attributable to his years of service and we do not.
  Mr. English: And he does not contribute.
  Mr. Walder: Precisely. The curiosity of our position is that we may start our service in this place at 62 years. It is possible to be elected to the House for the first time at that age. It might be thought that these are Committee matters, but they are points of detail that lead me to my main argument that search as we may we shall not find true comparability.
  Our pension scheme over the years has been an uneasy system. It has been rather like a house decorator with layers and layers of unmatching wallaper pasted one over the other but unfortunately the previous layer shines through.
  I give a little support to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), who gave me some. I hope that it is not out of order to report, without identifying, a conversation that I had with one of the class of community with which the hon. Gentleman compared Members. One of the police officers in the House passed the cryptic remark to me not so long ago "You made a right mess of your pension fund, and so have we of ours". To that extent, I think that the hon. Gentleman and I agree.
  I do not think that we shall find some magic formula. I do not think that we shall find that by trade union representation, as suggested by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who, with her customary courtesy, has now departed the House. It was my last opportunity to interrupt her. I do not think that we shall agree about trade union representation. Therefore, I am driven inevitably towards something like the Boyle Committee, something that we can see as reasonably impartial. It does not have to involve every stratum of society, but let it be something that is able to take into account our position in this place and to judge our special conditions. The Boyle Committee was the first body to be set up that considered our peculiar working conditions, and considered them properly.

  665
  For my final point I turn to the Minister who introduced the Bill, which I welcome in a limited way because it is, after all, a limited Bill. The Bill goes along the road towards what my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) suggested in his admirable speech. If we are to look for a body to examine our affairs, be they pensions or pay, it must be something like the Boyle Committee and have changes of membership.
  Any system of comparability—and it would be artificial comparability—at which the House arrived would be regarded by various sections of the community as unfair. The nearest that we can get to fairness is to have our financial situation judged by a committee such as the Boyle Committee.
  12.45 a.m.
  Mr. John Stokes: I hope that the fact that we are discussing this important Bill after 10 o'clock—indeed, at quarter to one in the morning—with about 20 Members present does not mean that the Lord President, who has been here throughout the debate, but for the moment has left the Chamber, does not consider it as important as I believe it to be. I am sorry that he did not agree to my request during questions on business last Thursday to discuss our salaries at the same time as we discuss our pension arrangements, because pensions are based on salaries and the two subjects, as we have seen tonight, must be closely intertwined.
  Pension matters are extremely complex. Therefore, I welcome the Minister's suggestion that in future our pension arrangements should be governed by rules rather than by a complicated series of Acts of Parliament.
  Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), I deplore the delay in bringing forward the Bill. I hate to introduce a discordant note into what is a House of Commons, not a party, matter, but I suspect that the Lord President does not entirely have his heart in this matter.
  As hon. Members know, I have spent the last 30 years or so since the war dealing with pensions and salaries. I found Parliament the most difficult and confusing, if I cannot say employer, perhaps I can say task master that I have ever come across.
  666
  I should like now to refer to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder). I do not think that the House will ever quite make up its mind about the kind of people that we are. I can see a case for paying us no salary at all and, therefore, no pension. That situation persisted for the greater part of England's history and at a time when, on the whole, our affairs were much better regulated than they are now. But I do not believe that most people would think that today this Chamber should be filled entirely by extremely rich people. Therefore, the alternative must be to pay us a realistic salary. I do not say that we should be paid the rate for the job, because no two Members, let alone people outside, could possibly give an accurate job description.
  However, I cannot for the life of me see a case for paying ourselves exceptionally low salaries. Exceptionally low salaries must lead to exceptionally low pensions. Perhaps the one good thing about the European Assembly, which I do not like, may be the influence that it must have on salary and pension rates here.
  I think that our salaries and pensions should be related, at least to some extent, to those paid by the best employers in this country—say, companies such as ICI or Shell, if not quite up to the lush standards of the Civil Service whose members, as we know, do not contribute one penny towards their pensions. We all know, and I am surprised that it has not been mentioned tonight, of the cases of hon. Members who have stayed on when they wished to retire simply because they could not afford to do so. That seems to me quite scandalous and we have the remedy for it in our hands in this Bill.
  Apart from the level of our salaries, the main weakness of the scheme must be the presumption of 40 years' service. There is confusion over the two "salaries" we receive. There is the actual salary that the public think we receive, and the other salary that some of us actually receive, which is lower because we disclaimed a rise some time ago. The notional salary for pension purposes of just over £8,000 should by now be £11,000 to take account of inflation since 1975. The level of salary is fundamental to the working of the pension scheme.

  667
  It is fair and reasonable to say that 40 years' service is what someone would expect in the private sector or in many other occupations. It is not fair here where the average length of service is only about 15 years. Therefore, to have a low level of salary and the 40-year term of service will lead to extremely depressed pensions. If we can attain a better salary level and a more realistic period of service—say, 30 years—that would go some way towards transforming our pension scheme.
  I welcome all the recommendations. I particularly welcome Clause 9, which enables Members to purchase additional years of reckonable service. Perhaps the Lord President will confirm later that payments to this end will be free of income tax, which is an important factor in payments of this kind.
  I have no objection to the increase in the Member's contribution from 5 to 6 per cent. if that will lead, as the presumption must be, to higher pensions.
  I conclude by asking a number of questions. When will the wretched notional salary for pension purposes be brought to an end? This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory arrangement, as we have heard. Will the Government make an announcement on the subject before the next General Election? If we do not tackle it now it will continue as a festering problem.
  On pensions, we have an overriding duty to our older Members. If we do not act with firmness and resolution now to put salaries and pensions on a proper basis, no one else will do it for us. When we debate the question of salaries, on which the pensions are based, which I hope we shall do very soon—I believe possibly next week—I hope that the House will insist on Boyle's £8,000 being put into effect forthwith. Further delay will only cause greater complications, and the nettle must be grasped now.
  I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said in asking that the Review Body, which does a very good job, should be asked to sit again and recommend up-to-date salary levels for Members of Parliament. I hope that all hon. Members will try to persuade the Government to accept that. But let us remember that this is a House of
  668
  Commons matter and not just a Government matter.
  12.54 a.m.
  Mr. Michael Morris: I believe that I am the youngest Member to speak in the debate, and therefore, I hope, have the longest time to go before drawing my pension. I should like to pay a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) for the way in which they made their contributions tonight. They went beyond concentrating on the details of the Bill, and widened the scope of the debate. I hope that they have ensured that never again will this issue be brushed under the carpet.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) was right to say that there should be a commitment and an undertaking by both Front Benches, before going into a General Election, that the review that is carried out will he implemented in full, whatever it may be, when it is completed after an election.
  I wish to comment on the point made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I am married to a full-time practitioner in the National Health Service. I see no reason why I should be discriminated against if I were unfortunate enough to be a widower. But the right hon. Lady's point would have carried considerably more conviction if when she was Secretary of State for Social Services she had fought the case then. She did not do so. However, having said that, I support the case that she has made.
  The point that I want to make, and the reason I have remained in the Chamber to make it, is that I think that it is incumbent on the Government and particularly the Boyle Committee to recognise that parliamentary service is not the same as service in the Civil Service or service in the private sector. The nearest comparison is with Her Majesty's judges. I think I am right in saying that their pension scheme is based on 15 years' service.
  It seems to me that the Government and the Boyle Committee need to recognise that relatively few Members get to the House before the age of 40. We are nearly all just about 40 when we become

  669
  Members. At best, we are unlikely to do more than 25 or 26 years' continuous service, if we are lucky. That point needs to be taken on board by the people who review these pension arrangements. They need to recognise that we believe that it is tolerable that people should retire on two-thirds of salary. But none of us will serve for 40 years. Occasionally someone may be fortunate enough to serve for 40 years, but the vast majority will not serve for anywhere near that period. Frankly, they will not get a half of their salary as pension.
  Therefore, I urge the Government, when they next reconstitute the Boyle Committee, to ask the Committee this question: is 40 years an appropriate length of time, or should not Members of Parliament be considered in a similar light to Her Majesty's judges and an assessment be made as to what should be an appropriate length of service for the basis of a pension?
  12.58 a.m.
  Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) said that he thought that he was the youngest person to contribute to the debate and was, therefore, very objective about it. I am afraid that I am the youngest person to contribute to the debate, and therefore I must be even more objective than his good self.
  The main points that have been made in the debate are not surprising. They were obvious points that hon. Members who have thought about the pension scheme would be bound to make. We shall have a Committee stage, and I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not go into enormous detail on all the points made, because we shall have another opportunity, and perhaps a more suitable opportunity, to do that.
  I thank the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) for his very kind personal remarks about myself. He surveyed the situation and complained that we were a little slow in bringing forward the Bill. None the less, he said that he was glad to see it. He raised some questions, without going into them in detail. No doubt he will return to them in Committee if he wishes to pursue them. However, he gave a general welcome to the Bill, as, indeed, did right hon. and
  670
  hon. Members in most parts of the House, with one solitary exception—the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean).
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) stressed that the Bill was really only a fair deal after some delay. I think that it is absolutely right to stress that we are not making any revolutionary proposals for the pension scheme. The proposals are very modest. All that they do is to bring up to date the Members' pension scheme in the light of improvements which have been made in other public service pension schemes. That is worth putting on record.
  There have been references to Civil Service and judicial pension schemes. To be fair to the Civil Service, it must be remembered that, although contributions are not made, the fact is taken into account in the Pay Research Unit and in the method of establishing the salary. That fact, too, should be borne in mind.
  The right hon. Member for Taunton asked me about the reference in Clause 16 to the pensions paid to the Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor. He will be aware that in para. 102 of its report the Review Body on Top Salaries considered the pension arrangements. It considered that the arrangements would be satisfactory if the salary increases that had been recommended were implemented. Clause 16 deals with a small taxation point and tidies up an anomaly that results from the 1972 Act.
  That underlines the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, that it is one thing to talk about a pension scheme and how it is organised, when perhaps the reality is its relationship to the salary and to the yardstick. To that extent, I think that right hon. and hon. Members were fully in order in referring to the salary levels, because there is not much point in talking about a pension scheme without a reference to the levels, and the levels in turn flow from the salary level that is determined.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) referred to the submissions which the Trustees of the pension fund had made to the Review Body. I am glad that he did so, because the House is indebted to the initiative which the Trustees took in putting forward detailed recommendations and also

  671
  for the realistic and practical way in which they put them forward within the limits of political possibility. A great deal of what has emerged from the Review Body is the result of the initiative which the Trustees took in putting forward these recommendations.
  My right hon. Friend raised a point about children's benefits. I hope that in Committee we shall be able to go into this in a little more detail than we have been able to do today, and I await the presentation of the argument on that occasion.
  The hon. Member for Somerset, North has two grounds of objection to the Bill, although how far he will pursue his objection to it I am not yet clear. The first point that he raised was on the position of pre-1964 Members. I think that everyone has sympathy with Members who retired before we had a proper pension scheme and who may be in difficult circumstances, but I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall effectively answered the argument in his intervention during the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  We have to take into account the fact that there were no contributions, however unfortunate that was, and that there is a serious difficulty of principle in catering for people before 1964. This is another matter to which we may return later, but the arguments were rehearsed in the Boyle Report, and there is serious difficulty for the Government in overturning the recommendations of the Boyle Report on that matter when it was thoroughly gone into by the Boyle Committee itself. The Committee felt unable to recommend that former Members with no service after the introduction of the parliamentary scheme should be entitled to a pension from the scheme. In rejecting the proposal that accommodation should be made for pre-1964 Members, Boyle took into account the fact that the Members fund does exist to help former Members in case of need, and I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall said that effective assistance is given in circumstances of need. One would wish to cater for everybody, but there are serious problems of principle in catering for people before 1964.
  Mr. Paul Dean: Will the Minister comment on the suggestion by the Boyle Committee that the House of Commons might like to consider doing something similar to the over-80s pensions? Will he at least put down a Government amendment so that we may discuss and vote on that suggestion?
  Mr. Smith: I shall consider that suggestion, but it should be understood by the House that it is limited in scope. It applies only to the over-80s. I do not know the present age levels of people who were in Parliament and left before 1964, or in 1964. But it is limited to that extent.
  There is another difficulty, though. There are other employees in the public sector and the private sector who retired before schemes were introduced and for whom no retrospective provision is likely to be made. I am informed that there may be hundreds of thousands of employees in the public sector and the private sector, and one genuine difficulty that we face is that if we are making provision for ourselves and for some of our colleagues who were in Parliament before any scheme was introduced, ought not there to be similar provision made for other people, especially people in public sector occupations, who were in a different position?
  I cannot give any commitment that the Government will introduce such an amendment. They have considered this matter very carefully and come to a certain view about it. But certainly I will think again about what the hon. Member for Somerset, North said, although I hope that he will understand that I am not committing the Government to introducing any amendment.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) spoke eloquently and with force about sex equality in the pension scheme. I think in strict logic—she depended heavily on strict logic—there is very little that one can say against her argument on its merits. The difficulty again is the extension of the principle to other people in the public sector, and it might well involve a very large expenditure of public funds. I am told that if there were to be strict sex equality throughout the public sector pension schemes, putting widowers in the same position as widows,

  673
  it might involve expenditure of up to£20 million. Obviously this is a very serious matter. But it would be a little difficult to write amendments into the Bill to take account of such an important principle given the time scale that we want to achieve in passing the Bill. But no doubt the matter will be investigated more closely in Committee. The main difficulty that we see in it is the extension of the principle to other public sector schemes.
  Mr. Michael Morris: Unless this House debates that issue, it will continue to be cast aside. No Department has been prepared to discuss it. I believe that it is the job of this House to discuss it.
  Mr. Smith: I have no doubt that the House will discuss the issue in Committee, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has indicated her intention to put down amendments. She is a lady of her word when it comes to that. So we shall be debating it in Committee. I thought that at present I should put the other side of the argument. We shall have to reach a conclusion in Committee. I am not making any objection to the principle of widowers being dealt with in the same way as widows, but there is always a difficulty in moving towards the establishment of such a principle and I am just expressing some caution about the difficulty in the way of doing so. It arises principally from the fact that there would be repercussions on other public sector pensions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) asked about the attitude the Government would take towards amendments tabled in Committee. It is extremely difficult for me to say in advance whether amendments would be in order. It is not the intention of the Government to restrict hon. Members in proposing amendments simply on the ground that limited additional expenditure would be incurred. However, the Government would see more difficulty in accepting major increases in expenditure or increases which would invalidate the proposed contribution rate contained in the Bill. There is, of course, a correlation one with the other. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the Government will approach any amendments
  674
  with good intentions, in the light of what I have said.
  Mr. English: I was thinking of the 12 children.
  Mr. Smith: I do not think that there is anything further that I should go into in detail, bearing in mind that we shall be having a Committee stage. I hope that perhaps the hon. Member for Somerset, North will think again about his opposition to the Bill. I can understand the reasons why he objects to certain provisions, even though I do not agree with him. But to object to the Bill would be to stop from coming into effect much needed improvements in benefit to deserving individuals.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  Committee this day.

  PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the contributory pensions schemes for Members of the House of Commons and for the holders of certain Ministerial and other offices, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable under the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 out of money provided by Parliament or out of or into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Coleman.]

  WAYS AND MEANS

    PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS
    Resolved,
    That any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the contributory pensions schemes for Members of the House of Commons and for the holders of certain Ministerial and other offices may make provision for reducing the sum payable under subsection (3) of section 30 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 to or to the personal representatives of a former holder of an office mentioned in that subsection.—[Mr. Coleman.]

  HUMBERSIDE (ROAD COMMUNICATIONS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  1.10 a.m.
  Mr. Michael Brotherton: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the subject of road communications on the south bank of the Humber. First, I would like the House to consider the geography of the Humber, north and south. There are two main ports on the Humber—Immingham, on the south bank, and Hull, on the north bank. Grimsby, a secondary port, is on the south bank. Grimsby and Immingham are, in fact, the same port: they are jointly called the port of Grimsby and Immingham by the British Transport Docks Board. On the south bank we have very poor road communications. Recently there has been completed the M62, which runs from Hull across the country to Liverpool. It runs the whole way across the nation. On the south bank, however, we have nothing like that.
  We are building at the moment the Humber Bridge, which is to connect the two banks. There are those who say that the bridge is being built because there was a by-election in Hull in January 1966 and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), then Minister of Transport, went to Hull and said that the Socialist Government would build a bridge across the Humber. That bridge is in the process of being constructed, and we all know now that, although it started at an estimated cost of £19 million, the cost will eventually end up at about £90 million. There is no way of preventing that bridge from being completed. It is a white elephant; it is unnecessary, and it goes from nowhere to nowhere. When it comes to the south bank of the Humber, there is no real road communication that is of any use at all.
  Why do we need good roads on the south bank? The ports of Immingham and Grimsby together are the brightest jewel in the crown of the British Transport Docks Board. They make an enormous profit. Hull makes a loss while Grimsby and Immingham make a huge profit. At Immingham, which is in my constituency, we have ICI, Fisons and the
  676
  port, and millions of tons of goods go over the quay there every year. Immingham is the sixth largest port in the United Kingdom. Yet we have no roads. Grimsby is a great fishing port, but the Department of Transport has said recently that it is not to be regarded as a port at all.
  The M180 is the road that is to go from the Humber Bridge across to Immingham and Grimsby. We are told that it will stop just short of Grimsby because Grimsby is no longer to be regarded as a major port. The road is to end at Pywipe. Pywipe is a field just outside Grimsby in my constituency. This dual carriageway is to end in a ploughed field, and we are told that this is because the Department of Transport no longer regards Grimsby as a major port.
  It is not for me to make the case for Grimsby, because Grimsby is not in my constituency. Grimsby, however, is the major fishing port of the Humber. In Grimsby there are such factories as Findus, La Porte and Ross. There are other major food processors. Many of my constituents in Cleethorpes work in Grimsby. If one were to drive along the A18 on any night when the fishing vessels have come into Grimsby, one would know that many dozens of lorries go along that route. A tremendous traffic block is built up night after night because Grimsby, regardless of what the Ministry may say, is a port. Regardless of what the Ministry may say, Grimsby is a major fishing port which generates a tremendous amount of traffic.
  My constituents in Cleethorpes, Humberston and the surrounding towns go to Grimsby to work or to fish. They may go to work in the factories that I have mentioned. As a result of all the jobs in which those people are engaged, traffic is generated and enormous numbers of lorries have to go along these roads. We are now told by the Ministry that nothing will be done: first, that nothing will be done until the 1980s and, secondly, that the road will stop at Pywipe.
  Can the Minister really say that he regards Grimsby not to be a port? Can he really say that he does not regard the people in my constituency as working in a port? Can he really say that the traffic going from Grimsby towards the

  677
  Humber Bridge, or the traffic going towards the Al and Ml, is not important? Can he really say that he does not believe that this road is important?
  I have said that we have the M62 on the north bank of the Humber. What is required on the south bank, as all those who work on the south bank know, is a decent east-west road communications system. The Humber Bridge is of little use to my constituents or to all those who work on the south bank. What is required is something which will tie in with the Al and MI north-south major trunk roads of the United Kingdom. We need roads which will tie in with the M62 so that we can get across the country to Liverpool.
  At the moment, we have absolutely nothing at all. The M180 is being built and the Brigg bypass has been completed. Obviously, those who live in that area thank the Minister and the Department for what has been done, but the fact remains that the south bank is being betrayed in that we do not have a sufficient communications system which tics in with the north-south trunk routes of the nation. We are being totally ignored by the Department. We are being ignored to the extent that even the planning of the road will stop at Pywipe and will not even continue into Grimsby.
  Those who live on the south bank of the Humber regard with great cynicism the granting of development area status to the south bank of the Humber just before the Grimsby by-election of about a year ago. Just over a year ago, the south bank of the Humber was given development area status, but since then nothing has been done to improve our communications or to give us a decent road system. Nothing has been done to help the people of Grimsby and Immingham to communicate with the rest of the country. People are in despair. What will the Minister do to help us?
  1.20 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) has raised the subject of the road system on the south bank of the Humber and has made some fierce criticisms. He said that the south bank had a poor road system and that it was being betrayed. That is a travesty of the truth, as I am
  678
  sure, in calmer moments—perhaps at an earlier hour—he would recognise.
  The road systems on the south bank are beginning to be very good indeed and we are making striking progress in improving them still further. At the end of the next two or three years they will be among the best in the country, considering the size of the area and the amount of traffic.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the Government did not regard Grimsby as a port and he asked why a road ended in a field. In both cases he is absolutely wrong. Of course we regard Grimsby as a port. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is lighting to secure its interests as a port. Nor does the road end in a field. The Grimsby-West Marsh relief road is to be built by the Humberside County Council as a 1½ mile stretch of new road, to connect with the A18 trunk road termination in the Pywipe industrial estate—it is not a field—with the Grimsby town road network and the docks area, which is just the part of the port which should be connected with the road system.
  The scheme will cost £4·25 million at today's prices and work is expected to start in time for its completion to be phased in with the opening of the new A18, which will connect with the new M180 on the eastern side of Brigg. That will mean a complete new road of a high standard connecting the port of Grimsby with all the main centres of population in the North and, further down, with the Al and M1.
  We are also putting on the improved Al8 a stretch which will be called the Immingham spur, which will connect the existing A160 to the A18 and give direct and much better communication for the port of Immingham via the M180 and the A18 to the main motorway network. The double port, to use the hon. Gentleman's term, of Grimsby and Immingham will have direct high-quality connections with the motorway system. Therefore, his second point is not true either.
  Indeed, the strategy, as it deserves to be called because of the considerable thought and effort which have gone into it, is based on a clear regional strategy for Yorkshire and Humberside which involves improving the road communications to the Humber ports not only in regard to the need for trade with Europe,

  679
  which will obviously increase through the eastern ports, but in regard to the industrial potential of these areas. The hon. Member referred to the status of Grimsby and other parts of South Humberside.
  This clear policy has been carried through with a remarkable amount of road building. I have recently opened the Brigg bypass, which is part of the M180, and I know the areas very well. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis), who have pressed hard for the steady progress that we are making, and making very much on time. As the hon. Member knows, road schemes can fall behind time all too often, but I am sure that there is the will on South Humberside to see that the schemes are completed. I am sure that they will be completed on time without too much interruption. Most of them are well on time and will meet the target dates.
  Mr. Brotherton: I am sorry that the Minister's hon. Friends are not in the Chamber this evening for this debate. Can he answer the point I made about whether the Department regards Grimsby as a major port? The Department stated recently that it did not regard Grimsby as a major port, and this was one reason why the M180 extension would end at Pywipe.
  Mr. Horam: The ports of Immingham and Hull have a higher throughput in terms of tonnage and volume of business than Grimsby. Therefore, they get a different status and a different category of treatment. It is really a matter of wording. We have provided and will provide, in conjunction with the Humberside County Council, a good system of road communications for Grimsby. That is what matters. It does not matter whether the road is called a trunk road or a county road as long as it serves adequately the needs of road hauliers and traffic using the port. In that context Grimsby will be extremely well served.
  Mr. Brotherton: I make no apology for pressing this. According to the British Transport Docks Board, the port is known as the port of Immingham and Grimsby. The twin ports are regarded as one, and they make an enormous profit for the
  680
  Board. How can the Minister say that he regards Grimsby in a different light from Immingham?
  Mr. Horam: The argument for putting Grimsby in a different category is a matter of simple fact in terms of tonnage. The hon. Gentleman himself confirmed that when he said that Grimsby was the secondary port of Grimsby and Immingham. It should be stressed, however, that Grimsby and Immingham need to have good road communications. The plans that I have indicated—the M180, the A18, the Immingham spur and West Marsh relief road—will connect the ports of Immingham and Grimsby directly by good, high-quality roads to the motorway network. That is what matters. Whether the road is called a trunk road, a motorway or a county road is immaterial as long as it is a good road that serves the purpose. In that respect, the particular category of port is also irrelevant. What matters is the communications.
  We are providing on the north bank the M62, which gives excellent east-west communications from coast to coast for North Humberside. In South Humberside we are providing the M180, which will improve communications east-west along South Humberside. Furthermore, it will tie in with the M1 and the Al via the M18. That itself will provide north-south communications. The Humber Bridge also fits into that scene because it will connect the M62 with the M180. In addition—this is the kernel of the hon. Gentleman's argument—the M180 will continue via the Alb and via the West Marsh relief road and the Immingham spur to connect the ports of Grimsby and Immingham with the main motorway network.
  There is also a scheme for improving the Al5 route to link the Humber Bridge southern approaches with the M180. That is now under construction. Furthermore, there are plans to extend that improvement to the A15 to link it south near the county boundary—namely, the junction of Lincolnshire and South Humberside, south of Redbourne. That relates to the north-south communications.
  There is also the Louth bypass, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not mention it at any length. As he knows, we have a scheme for improving that bypass, which is most important to

  681
  the town. It is a lovely town with an important and attractive area in the centre, containing many listed buildings, including the famous St. James's Church.
  Mr. Brotherton: The Minister will realise that I did not mention the Louth bypass because I was talking about roads in South Humberside, not about roads in Lincolnshire.
  Mr. Horam: But the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the A16 passes from South Humberside through Lincolnshire on its way south to Stamford. That important north-south road has been scheduled for comprehensive improvement and was put into the preparation pool for such improvement as long ago as September 1975. One or two improvements have already taken place to the north of Louth. The Louth bypass is now a subject for discussion and work by the Department and there will shortly be public consultation on the various alternative proposals in that respect. There will be other improvements on that general line of route. That is something that matters not only to Lincolnshire and to Louth but also to traffic from other parts of the country to South Humberside and the ports of Grimsby and Immingham.
  Perhaps I may give a little detail on the progress of the M180. The Brigg bypass, which I opened last summer in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe, was completed in September 1977. The remainder is now all under construction and will be opened in stages as lengths are connected at either end when the existing highway system is completed. The section between Thorne and the A161 is expected to be finished by October this year. We hope to finish the section from the A161 to Scunthorpe, including the Trent bridge crossing to the A18, by January 1979 and the Scunthorpe southern bypass by the same date
  Subject, therefore, to some difficulty over the Trent bridge, where there have been one or two genuine problems which the contractor has come across, that whole stretch of the A180 motorway and the central east-west communication for South Humberside will be open for use at the beginning of 1979. That will provide in many respects a high-quality road. In some places it will be a three-lane carriageway and for other short sec-
  682
  tions it will be a two-lane carriageway, but all of it will be dual carriageway. Much if it will relieve existing small villages and towns, such as Brigg, and other places along the route from what have been decades of severe traffic congestion.
  When I opened the bypass, I was told that people in Brigg could not hear themselves talk in the shops along the High Street because of the volume of traffic that daily threaded its way through the town. That affects the environment and quality of life of the people of the area which are as important as the industrial needs of ports and the general industrial infrastructure of South Humberside.
  The A18 continues to make progress on schedule. The draft line order for the A18 Brigg to Grimsby road was published in December 1977 and the draft side roads order was published a few days ago. There were 30 objections to the line order, mostly from landowners, and they included suggestions for an alternative route. My hon. Friends the Members for Grimsby and for Brigg and Scunthorpe have been so anxious that we should make progress that they have suggested we should cut public consultation to a minimum, but there have been 30 objections and it will be necessary to hold a public inquiry, probably in the autumn of this year. This will add a little time to the project, though it will still be within the schedule of progress that we have mapped out. The inevitable price of proper consultation with local people is that we must consider their legitimate objections. We considered that a public inquiry would probably be necessary and we allowed sufficient time for it. There will be no putting back of the date when the road will be in being.
  The new A18 Brigg to Grimsby trunk road will be about 13¾ miles long and will have dual two-lane carriageways. The new trunk road link—the Immingham spur—will be about a mile long and will have a single two-lane carriageway. The total cost of the new A18 will be £27 million, and if progress goes according to schedule, as it should, we shall have it completed by the end of 1981.
  If one considers the figures that I have mentioned for these roads, one can see the quality of the road infrastructure going into South Humberside. The hon.

  683
  Gentleman is being totally unfair to the Government. Many parts of the country would be glad of the sort of treatment that we are rightly giving to South Humberside, and the industrial infrastructure will benefit accordingly. I have not even mentioned some of the other schemes that are being carried out in the area; for example, the A15 connection from the M180 to the Humber Bridge, which will cost £8·3 million, all granted by the Department. That is proceeding on schedule in three sections, is timed to open with the Humber Bridge, and will play its part in building a proper system for North and South Humberside.
  684
  The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge what is being done by way of road improvements in South Humberside. On any objective analysis, considerable improvements are being made and South Humberside is getting a very good deal. I am sure that those who travel in the area and who have had to put up with a great deal in the past can see from the sheer volume of building that is taking place and the plans in hand that they are getting a really good deal.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Two o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Rating Revaluation
  Rating Revaluation
  Local Government Employees (Pay)
  Local Government Employees (Pay)
  Land (Ownership and Use)
  Land (Ownership and Use)
  Uranium
  Uranium
  School Population
  School Population
  Murder
  Murder
  Colleges of Higher and Further Education
  Colleges of Higher and Further Education
  Sick and Disabled Persons (Treatment)
  Sick and Disabled Persons (Treatment)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Roads
  Roads
  Asbestosis
  Asbestosis
  Building Society Loans
  Building Society Loans
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Listed Buildings
  Listed Buildings
  Herring Stocks (North Sea)
  Herring Stocks (North Sea)
  Prisoners (Northern Ireland Transfers)
  Prisoners (Northern Ireland Transfers)
  Perinatal Care
  Perinatal Care
  PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS (BROADCASTING)
  PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS (BROADCASTING)
DEFENCE
  Lulworth Firing Ranges
  Lulworth Firing Ranges
  Gordon Barracks, Gillingham
  Gordon Barracks, Gillingham
  Arms Sales
  Arms Sales
  Armed Forces (Pay and Allowances)
  Armed Forces (Pay and Allowances)
  Chatham Dockyard (Apprentices)
  Chatham Dockyard (Apprentices)
  HS146 Aircraft
  HS146 Aircraft
INDUSTRY
  Aberdeen (Area Status)
  Aberdeen (Area Status)
  Clowne
  Clowne
  Mineral Stocks
  Mineral Stocks
  HS146 Aircraft
  HS146 Aircraft
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pigmeat
  Pigmeat
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Sutton Bridge (Departmental Land)
  Sutton Bridge (Departmental Land)
  Water in Food
  Water in Food
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Council of Ministers (Meeting)
  Council of Ministers (Meeting)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Gold and Silver Hoards
  Gold and Silver Hoards
  Teachers (In-Service Education)
  Teachers (In-Service Education)
  Canaletto Painting (Purchase)
  Canaletto Painting (Purchase)
  Sex Discrimination
  Sex Discrimination
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
ENERGY
  Statutory Instruments
  Statutory Instruments
  Alternative Sources
  Alternative Sources
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Convicted Robbery and Forgery Gang
  Convicted Robbery and Forgery Gang
  Ecclesiastical Bodies (Appointments)
  Ecclesiastical Bodies (Appointments)
  Bail
  Bail
  River Deben (Speed Limit)
  River Deben (Speed Limit)
  Sunday Observance
  Sunday Observance
  New Year's Eve 1978
  New Year's Eve 1978
  Northern Ireland Prisoners
  Northern Ireland Prisoners
  Prisoners (Visits)
  Prisoners (Visits)
EMPLOYMENT
  School Leavers (Ormskirk and Kirkby)
  School Leavers (Ormskirk and Kirkby)
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Medway Towns (Apprenticeships)
  Medway Towns (Apprenticeships)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Inactivated Vaccines
  Inactivated Vaccines
  Harwell (Vaccine Research)
  Harwell (Vaccine Research)
TRADE
  Fish Imports (Tariffs)
  Fish Imports (Tariffs)
  Barter Arrangements
  Barter Arrangements
  Oil Tankers (Spillage)
  Oil Tankers (Spillage)
  Industrial Democracy
  Industrial Democracy
  Air Fares
  Air Fares
  Security Companies and Personnel
  Security Companies and Personnel
  British Film Fund
  British Film Fund
ENVIRONMENT
  Waterway Maintenance (Fraenkel Report)
  Waterway Maintenance (Fraenkel Report)
  Billingsgate Market
  Billingsgate Market
  Public Bodies (Cost)
  Public Bodies (Cost)
  Parliamentary Offices (Site)
  Parliamentary Offices (Site)
  Public Lavatories (Disabled Persons)
  Public Lavatories (Disabled Persons)
  River Derwent (Navigation)
  River Derwent (Navigation)
TRANSPORT
  Roads (Eependiture)
  Roads (Eependiture)
  Drivers' Hours
  Drivers' Hours
  Car Parking Facilities
  Car Parking Facilities
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Motor Car Ownership
  Motor Car Ownership
  M40, Stokenchurch-Wycombe
  M40, Stokenchurch-Wycombe
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Child Benefit Centre, Washington
  Child Benefit Centre, Washington
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Untreated Milk (Infectious Organisms)
  Untreated Milk (Infectious Organisms)
  Royal Sea Bathing Hospital, Thanet
  Royal Sea Bathing Hospital, Thanet
  Hearing Therapists
  Hearing Therapists
  Emergency Dental Schemes
  Emergency Dental Schemes
  Desertion (Benefit Claims)
  Desertion (Benefit Claims)
  Pension Rights
  Pension Rights
  Supplementary Benefit Claimants
  Supplementary Benefit Claimants
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Drugs (Promotion and Advertising)
  Drugs (Promotion and Advertising)
  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Hormone Pregnancy Test Drugs
  Hormone Pregnancy Test Drugs
  Pregnant Mothers (Drugs)
  Pregnant Mothers (Drugs)
  Accidents (Medical Attention)
  Accidents (Medical Attention)
  Institute of Hearing Research
  Institute of Hearing Research
  Chiropody
  Chiropody
  Poliomyelitis
  Poliomyelitis
  Accident and Emergency Departments (Greater London)
  Accident and Emergency Departments (Greater London)
  Dentists (Tottenham)
  Dentists (Tottenham)
  Prince of Wales Hospital, Tottenham
  Prince of Wales Hospital, Tottenham
  Dentists (Remuneration)
  Dentists (Remuneration)
  Orthopaedic Registrars
  Orthopaedic Registrars
  Funerals
  Funerals
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Teaching Staff)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Teaching Staff)
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  National Insurance Employer's Contributions (National Health Service)
  National Insurance Employer's Contributions (National Health Service)
  National Insurance Contributions (Married Women)
  National Insurance Contributions (Married Women)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Community
  European Community
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Direct Elections
  Direct Elections
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Community
  European Community
  Diplomatic Representation
  Diplomatic Representation
  Embassies
  Embassies
  Lebanon (Refugees)
  Lebanon (Refugees)
  Hong Kong Police (Report)
  Hong Kong Police (Report)
  Middle East Airlines (Accident Report)
  Middle East Airlines (Accident Report)
  Passports
  Passports
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Prisoners (Applications for Transfer)
  Prisoners (Applications for Transfer)
WALES
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Land Rovers)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Land Rovers)
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments

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

THE HS 146 AIRLINER
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how soon they expect to approve the request for British Aerospace to develop the HS 146 airliner.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Government are considering the recommendation of the British Aerospace Board as a matter of urgency; I can assure your Lordships that a decision will be announced as soon as possible.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, which I do not think would win an Oscar for information, may I ask him three supplementaries? The first is, how many jobs are involved at Hatfield should the project go ahead? Secondly, would British Aerospace, within their own finances, be able to fund the project, and at what cost? Thirdly, is it a project the Government are considering in any case doing alone, rather than in collaboration?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as regards the figure of employment, I think that is impossible to quantify, for the simple reason that one does not know what other work will be done by those companies concerned. As regards the financing, I can say that it will be funded in the normal way as part of British Aerospace's capital investment programme—from internal resources and a mixture of Public Dividend Capital and National Loans Fund money. British Aerospace, as the noble Earl will know, is expected to make an adequate return on its capital employed. As regards collaboration,
1116
British Aerospace are discussing with European manufacturers possible risk-sharing collaboration on up to 30 per cent. of the airframe, and their discussions are continuing. McDonel I Douglas have recently suggested marketing assistance for the HS 146 as part of a wider programme of collaboration.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that there are several extremely keen potential customers for this aircraft, and that if the delay continues for very much longer not only will those customers lose interest but we shall lose them as potential customers?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I personally have no knowledge of potential customers.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, without wishing to be a spoil-sport on this matter, can the noble Lord not be a little more forthcoming on what the potential market is for this aeroplane? Are not the Government considering this as part of their deliberations on whether or not to approve the investment?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, at the end of the day it is not the Government but British Aerospace that decide, and British Aerospace have already recommended the go-ahead on the HS 146 because they regard it as in their commercial interests to do so. It is the national aerospace company that in fact makes recommendations on this matter.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, would the Government bear in mind in their consideration of this matter, that although this is a most excellent design, with most excellent safety factors, it is now some years old and if the Government delay a decision for very much longer this aircraft may suffer the fate of many other excellent British civil aircraft, of coming on the market too late?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I do not think that noble Lords need worry about this. As I have assured your Lordships, a decision will be announced as soon as possible—and that may be soon.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, was the Minister serious when he said he had no knowledge of potential customers? It appears to me to be an extraordinary reply.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a matter for British Aerospace and not for me.
Lord TREFGARNE: But, my Lords, has British Aerospace not given the Government the slightest idea of how many of these aeroplanes they think they are going to sell?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is very early clays on a subject which has not yet gone nap.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, can the noble Lord not be a little more specific on the question of jobs? Have not the Government been approached by the trade unions involved at Hatfield, and if the noble Lord consulted British Aerospace would he not be told that 8,000 jobs are at stake?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am certain that the Government have been approached by a great many people on this subject. On the other hand, this is a moving situation, after all. We have recently concluded an important contract with Romania and this must affect employment at the various factories mentioned by the noble Earl.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, did the noble Lord really intend to tell the House that British Aerospace, in seeking financial support for this project, have not submitted with their application the result of their market surveys?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I said absolutely nothing of the sort: I did not. I said that British Aerospace had recommended a go-ahead on the HS146. That is enough. They have done the market survey. Please do not let us get bound to day-to-day business management. Nevertheless—
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords, British Aerospace have made a recommendation to the Government and
1118
in due course the Government will respond, and very shortly thereafter both Houses will be informed.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am wondering whether the noble Lord actually heard what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. Has British Aerospace submitted estimates of the number of these aircraft that they intend to sell if the Government give the go-ahead, or have they not? If those estimates, which the noble Lord says they have made, remain confidential to British Aerospace and have not been given to the Government, how can the Government reach a proper decision?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, there is such a thing as commercial in-confidence. I keep on having to tell noble Lords, who claim to be experts on this matter, that there is such a thing as commercial in-confidence. I do not know, nor can I tell the House, what discussions have been taking place between British Aerospace and potential airlines. This is complete nonsense.

BRITISH AIRWAYS: RE-EQUIPMENT PROGRAMME
2.45 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now close to reaching a decision in conjunction with British Airways and British Aerospace on the initial re-equipment programme for British Airways and whether the recent BAC 1–11 order to Romania assists their decision.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Government are continuing their careful consideration of British Airways' recent aircraft acquisition proposal and will announce their decision as soon as possible. The very welcome Romanian order will, of course, be taken into account in the Government's deliberations.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply.

1119
Can she give the House any details of the Romanian order and say whether there is any fresh news about the potential Japanese order for the BAC 1–11? Can she also say whether British Airways have an urgent case for the supply of new aircraft by 1979?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, so far as the last part of the noble Earl's question is concerned, British Airways need these replacements to come into service in full by 1985, but at present there is no desperate shortage. So far as the Romanian deal is concerned, I understand that an agreement for the licensed manufacture of BAC 1–11 aircraft in Romania, and for technical assistance on manufacture, was signed by British Aerospace and the Romanian Government on 15th June. Further agreements for the supply of three complete aircraft and for components should be signed during the next few months. The agreements provide for the production of 82 aircraft in Romania in the period up to 1995. British Aerospace will supply approximately half the airframe components for the first 22 aircraft, in addition to the three complete aircraft that have been bought, and thereafter, after 1985, the airframes will be wholly Romanian built. Rolls-Royce, who make the Spey engine which powers the 1–11, have signed a framework agreement for the supply of 25 complete engines and for the provision of components for assembly in Romania. In total, the deal is worth over £300 million to the United Kingdom.
So far as the Japanese deal is concerned, that is still, of course, under consideration. We have to remember that the Romanian deal is not likely to affect the Japanese decision. The Japanese requirement is for an aircraft with a short take-off and landing capability, and this version of the BAC 1–11 fits that admirably. But discussions are still going on.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, can the Minister say, as British Airways already operate 1–11s, that there is no conceivable reason why part of their short-haul fleet, at any rate, should not be equipped with the new 1–11? Secondly, can she confirm that there is a special built-in sales clause from British Aerospace, saying that if British Airways wish to dispose of these aircraft when
1120
newer ones arrive they will buy them back? Lastly, can she say what incentives, if any, Boeing have offered to buy 737s?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, so far as I know, there has been no incentive offered by Boeing to buy their planes. The direction as to which aircraft British Airways buy is a matter for discussion. It is rather difficult to talk about it at the moment, because the discussions are just starting. But we expect to be in a position to announce the decision within a matter of days now. So I should rather not be pressed on that point at the moment.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that there is a sales clause by British Aerospace to buy back?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords, I cannot confirm that.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that very full reply about the Romanian deal. Can she say whether this solves the British Aerospace problem of the continuance in production of the BAC 1–11?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords. It is a very welcome addition to their order book, but it does not solve their problem. We are still hoping that there will he some orders from the Japanese deal.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say for whom the BAC 1–11s to be built in Romania are destined? Are they all to be used by the Romanians, or will they be for sale elsewhere in the world?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my information is that, at one time, the Romanians were the earliest aircraft designers, and they had very good aircraft design engineering projects going in the early 1920s. My understanding is that the Romanians are very anxious to build up their aircraft trade and their manufactures of aircraft again, and these planes are to be the start of this. What will happen to them afterwards, I do not know. So far as I know, whether they are strictly for Romania's use, or whether they can sell them when they have made them, is not strictly tied up in the agreement.
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords, but 82 aircraft will be a very great fleet for the Romanian airline, which I believe has 10 or 12 at the moment. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that they are not, at least, destined for British Airways?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I cannot even give that assurance at the moment. I will certainly make inquiries and write to the noble Lord.

CANADA: NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION
2.50 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will congratulate the Canadian Government on their decision not to make, use or distribute nuclear weapons.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the Canadian Government's support of nonproliferation, and their decision not to produce nuclear weapons, are well-known and of long standing. The only recent Canadian decision in the context of nuclear weapons was that announced by Prime Minister Trudeau in his speech to the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament on 26th May; namely, that Canada was in process of replacing its nuclear capable aircraft in North America with conventionally-armed aircraft.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that it is very significant that public opinion on this issue is now reaching governmental level? At the Special Session on Disarmament, not only Canada but India also announced a similar policy. Could not our Government associate themselves with this repudiation of nuclear weapons by ending not only the American bases in this country, which are an invitation to attack, but also our own nuclear weapons, which are irrelevant in view of American and Russian superiority?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I certainly agree that the more informed public opinion impresses upon Governments in all parts of the world, East and West, the desirability of, first, limiting and then, hopefully, abolishing nuclear weapons, the better it will be. Indeed, this is the theme which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been comprehensively and cogently advancing over the past year or so and which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister spelled out in a notable speech on 2nd June during the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament. As to the unilateral repudiation of nuclear weapons, the question is whether, in association with other nuclear Powers—I repeat in both East and West—we can evolve, as we are trying to do, a multilateral limitation leading to the abolition of these weapons, with proper provision being made for security and verification.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords. until we reach this Utopia, would Her Majesty's Government consider congratulating America upon the endeavours that they are making to keep ahead in the nuclear field, since it is upon that that the Western World may eventually be protected from tyranny?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not think that I could engage in a new programme of congratulation in pressing forward the existing programme of consultation.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the highest military circles there is an increasing trend in the direction of military strategy rather than in favour of the creation of conventional weapons—in particular the increase in manpower rather than the use of the nuclear weapon?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that we should all be well advised to ponder very carefully what my noble friend Lord Shinwell has said. As he has said, there is a substantial body of opinion which is beginning to consider whether—I put it no higher—there may not be a stand off, as it were, in the field of the more sophisticated and more dreadful weapons, but with the result, unless we are able to achieve agreement at all levels of armaments, that a

1123
new and intensified importance is given to what are known as conventional weapons. I am grateful to my noble friend for making that point.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, arising from that sympathetic and favourable reply, for which I am very grateful, may I ask my noble friend—
Several noble Lords: Order! Order!
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, could I ask the Minister—
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend Lord Shinwell would defer to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, it being his turn, in a bipartisan sense, to intervene at this stage.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether we are to understand that the Government endorse the dictum of Sir Winston Churchill that the possession of the atomic weapon is the great deterrent at the present time?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is a deterrent. It is our duty to measure the efficacy of all deterrents in present and potential future terms. We are committed, full members of NATO, with its policy of flexible deterrence. So are the Canadians; so are 15 countries, not all of them nuclear powers. While we maintain the NATO shield, we shall look carefully, with proper regard for multilateral action and verification, at other possibilities, but always on the basis of security and multilateral verification.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in view of my noble friend's sympathetic and what I regarded as a favourable and reasonable answer to my question, may I ask whether, in view of the circumstances and the changes which I have ventured to indicate, it is desirable now to increase the number of our auxiliary forces, so far as that is possible in the economic situation, and having regard to other factors?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am glad to be regarded as reasonable by my noble friend, even if I
1124
am not always favourable. I find that what he says is, if I may say so without presumption, reasonable. He has said that we should measure our defensive efforts in relation to our economic strength. I am paraphrasing what my noble friend said, but there was that qualification in his remarks. While we are doing that, with like minded countries—not all of them in the NATO alliance; indeed, an increasing number of them in the non-aligned sector—we are seeking both in New York at the present moment, and in other for a, like Geneva and Vienna, opportunities for the multilateral reduction of not only nuclear arms but also conventional arms, leading, one hopes, to eventual abolition. I believe that that is the right basis upon which the defence policy of this country should proceed, and it is the basis upon which the whole strategy of NATO is based.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord accepts the principle which he has rightly enunciated—that we must do the best that we can within our economic potential—will he not stress to his friends in the Ministry of Defence that the most economic return we can get is an investment in the Territorial Army, in both military and social terms for a reserve army, and can he not accelerate the reversal of the policy of disbanding it which an earlier Government of his persuasion initiated?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is another question—a question of detail within the general confines of what I have said. No doubt the noble Lord will pursue it in his own way, and, I hope, in his own time.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us believe that the action of Canada may make it a little easier to follow part of our previous policy, which was to try to get, in the Pacific at least, a nuclear-free zone? Secondly, anent the question of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, regarding the famous dictum of the revered Winston Churchill, is my noble friend aware that the outstanding words of Churchill were "Jaw, jaw, jaw, is better than war, war, war"?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I resist the temptation to follow

1125
my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, into the deep recesses of recent history and prose style. However, what my noble friend has said is perfectly true. All of these proposals were made during the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament. Canada has made its own proposals; so have the French. A number of interesting and, it may he, significant proposals aimed at the immediate future have been made which we are very seriously and closely considering with the countries who made them. We are considering them not only with like-minded Allies, but also with an increasing number of non-aligned and neutral countries—some of them. indeed, in Eastern Europe—with whom I think increasingly the Western democracies are finding greater common ground.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, will the noble Lord make it clear that he and the Government do not accept the comments and suggestions of his noble friend Lord Brockway about United States' bases in this country, but, on the contrary, that this Government, like all their predecessors, recognise that it is as a result of the closest Anglo-American co-operation in defence that peace, order and liberty have any chance of enduring in this world, particularly in view of the recent news in respect of the Russian manoeuvres?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I certainly agree with the remark about the importance of Anglo-United States co-operation. In security matters, as in every other matter, I can heartily agree with the noble Lord. As to the first part of his supplementary question, a good deal of that is a question of opinion, some of which I may share. But I take this opportunity of warmly agreeing with him on the latter part of his question relating to our relations with the United States.
I think that this is an appropriate moment at which, in the absence of the Leader, I might suggest to your Lordships that is it now time to go on to other business.

WAGES COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to intro-
1126
duce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to wages councils and statutory joint councils; and to move that the Bill he now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

WALES BILL
3.3 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord GREENWOOD Of ROSSENDALE in the Chair.]
Schedule 2 [Existing Statutory functions.]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall be the second Schedule to the Bill?
Lord O'HAGAN: I should like to begin by apologising to your Lordships for holding up the proceedings, if I misunderstood the arrangements that were made at the end of last Thursday's business. I should now like to return, very briefly, to Schedule 2, because the other day I was going to say a few words about the transport, roads and bridges, and road traffic sections of Schedule 2, but was unable to do so, no doubt owing to my own stupidity. Nevertheless, I believe that these parts of the Schedule are worthy of attention by the Committee. I hope to provide your Lordships—as I did the other day—with an opportunity to hear an explanation from the Government of how they see this aspect of devolution working in practice.
In the White Paper, Our Changing Democracy, the Government stated—and I shall not repeat it in detail, in the interests of saving time—what it was that they saw, at that moment, should be the powers over these particular aspects of policy to he devolved to the Welsh

1127
Assembly. There is one phrase that I would pick out from the list that they gave at that time. It included powers to subsidise bus and railway passenger services, to he exercised concurrently with similar local authority powers. I should very much like to know how Her Majesty's Government see this working in practice and how it can be done at the same time under the various functions devolved in the Schedules, with the provision put in Clause 11 of the Bill, which permits the Assembly, if it wants to do so, to make grants towards the carrying on of public passenger transport undertakings. This is the first major point in what will be a brief delay of the Committee's proceedings.
This is what I should like to suggest to your Lordships that we need to know. We are looking at transport in three different ways at the moment. We are looking at transport in Scotland, under the Scotland Bill; we are looking at transport in Wales under this Bill, and we are dealing with transport for the United Kingdom as a whole under the Transport Bill, which we shall begin to examine in Committee next week.
Is the noble Baroness satisfied that the various provisions of the different Bills interact in a sufficiently coherent way? Could she reassure us today which particular tidying-up processes will be needed, or is this something that we shall have to leave to another date? She has already said that the different aspects of transport have got a little out of kilter with each other. When we examine this Schedule, its paragraphs 16, 17 and 18, and, later on, Clause 11 of the Bill, the Committee will want to know whether the arrangements have really been thought through.
I shall not be long. I should like to look at one or two of the provisions of the Acts that have been put into the Schedule for retention by Westminster and devolution to Wales. I should like to know whether the noble Baroness can tell the House why it was that the Government in another place decided to leave out certain parts of the Schedule which they put in at first, because that was never debated. It was merely agreed under the guillotine on 7th March (Column 1301). It would be useful if we could
1128
understand why the demarcation line was altered at that point.
When one examines the transport provisions in the Schedule it seems that the policy clashes at which I hinted a little earlier have started to come into practice. During the passage of the Transport Bill in another place Ministers defended the cohesion of our transport system. But under the devolution proposals the issuing of licences by the traffic commissioners, appeals to the Minister, annual reports by the traffic commissioners, the charging of fees by the traffic commissioners, and the making of regulations, have all been devolved. The question I should like to put is this: How can this leave a coherent United Kingdom system for the licensing of transport? Or are my fears exaggerated in seeing this as a chipping away of the system to which Ministers of the present Government in another place pay such tributes?
I was interested in some provisions of the Civil Aviation Act. I understood, from my no doubt ignorant reading of this Act, that it might be possible for the Welsh Assembly to make rules that different noise levels were permitted to aircraft. This may be a topic about which the noble Baroness wishes to write to us. But another point that we need to examine is whether, when these powers do come into force, what she said on 15th June about the control of pollution and the like remaining at the centre is not contradicted by the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act as devolved under paragraph 16 of this Schedule.
I shall not go through the rest of the provisions relating to roads and bridges, and road traffic. I want to be reassured that the powers that are devolved will nevertheless make it possible for a coherent transport system to be maintained. If we have an Assembly, of course the Assembly must have powers that are worthwhile having; nevertheless it is important that we should be satisfied that the powers over transport and road traffic have not nibbled away at a system that has so far been to our great advantage because it is a coherent and unified system.
I hope your Lordships will not think me wholly frivolous if I say that I was a little alarmed when I started to take a slow walk through some of the sections

1129
of the Act devolved under "Road Traffic", because it is in the apparently minor recesses of the Schedules to this Bill that the details of the powers of the Assembly are to be found. Having looked at it at least six times, I am still under the firm belief that, under this Bill as drafted, the provisions of Section 60 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, which are contained in Part XVIII of Schedule 2 and are devolved, devolve to the Welsh Assembly the powers to control the placing of bollards in Greater London. If I am wrong about this I shall he delighted to be reassured, but if it is true that the Welsh Assembly is going to be in charge of bollard placing in Greater London it does give one anxiety as to whether in other more important matters the right sections of the Bill are in the right place. If I am wrong I shall be delighted to be told so, but it is in that spirit of earnest inquiry that I raise these points on these aspects of the Bill. Once again, for misunderstandings previously incurred, may I be forgiven?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: May follow the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and ask one question quite briefly about another point in this Schedule? It was moved in the other place by the Minister and now is in the Bill in Part I of Schedule 2, page 26, line 36, and relates to the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963. That sounds a very dull subject but this Act is of considerable importance in helping to solve some of the industrial problems of Wales. According to the words now in the Bill there are devolved to the Welsh Assembly the provisions of the whole of the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963, but there are reserved to the Westminster Parliament the powers to fix rates of interest in respect of advances made by local authorities, under Sections 3 and 4, for the erection of industrial buildings within the meaning of Section 66 of the Town and Country Planning Act. I therefore wish to emphasise to the Government the importance to the economic life of parts of Wales of the industrial development powers of the Assembly and local authorities under this Act of 1963.
Also I should like to emphasise the desirability in this context of having more flexibility in relation to interest charges on the loans which local authori-
1130
ties can make and in respect of which there are reserved powers by the Parliament at Westminster. The Minister in the other place gave as his reason for reserving powers in regard to the fixing of interest rates that, although certain powers for industrial development by the Welsh Development Agency are transferred to the Assembly by the Bill, there are always safeguards, he said, to ensure that the Assembly—to use his words:
"… cannot distort competition between firms in Wales and elsewhere".
I do not know whether the Minister felt he had to say this sort of thing in a Welsh context because of the well-known European Economic Community's legislation about the dangers of competition. But, surely, if it is against that background, though the amounts of money involved in Wales are almost infinitesimal, they are very important sums of money in the context of the Welsh economy in certain areas.
If I may mention something personal, as a one-time President of the Welsh Liberal Party—and I am proud to say its honourary life member—I have been concerned with many attempts to influence industry, including foreign based industry, as to the attractiveness of Wales. I should like, therefore, to pay a tribute to the Welsh Development Agency and to the initiative of many Welsh borough councils in trying to meet the severe employment problems in their areas from funds at the disposal of local authorities. Some noble Lords may know that several Japanese firms have been attracted to some areas in Wales. Local authorities in Wales have very extensive powers to provide facilities. These can make a differentiation between areas which can and those which cannot take up opportunities to help with the unemployment problem.
In the last two or three years abnormally high rates of interest have made it impossible for many small companies to start up or expand in Wales, or to take advantage of the facilities which local authorities have been providing in many parts of Wales. I should therefore like to urge the Government to consider how far arrangements can be made to reduce and vary interest rates on loans which come through the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963, as this would give

1131
additional power to local authorities to help in some of the severe local industrial problems, particularly in regard to unemployment, in parts of Wales which I know very well. I fully realise that as I have not given notice of this question I am unlikely to get an answer this afternoon, but if that matter could be considered at some later state I should be very grateful to the Government.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I, too, should like to raise a matter under Schedule 2 which, in my inexperience, I failed to do last week when we were discussing the Health and Safety at Work Act. My question to the noble Baroness is slightly complicated, but I hope she will not see any partisan feelings coming out in it; it is a simple desire for information. Under the description of the Health and Safety at Work Act in Schedule 2 on page 47, the functions pertaining to the Health and Safety at Work Act which are reserved to the Secretary of State are those
"so far as exercisable in relation to matters other than the control of emission into the atmosphere of noxious or offensive substances".
When I was reading the Act I came across Section 1(1)(d), which relates to controlling the emission into the atmosphere of noxious or offensive substances. I also came across Section 5(1), which relates to the general duty of persons in control of certain premises in relation to harmful emissions into the atmosphere.
My question is quite simple. The noble Baroness was at pains to point out that she and her Government wanted to make Schedule 2, and indeed the whole Bill, as complete as possible but equally as simple to read as possible. I should like to know why in one breath they put into Schedule 2 these two subsections of the Act and in the next breath promptly take them out again.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I have a very small question for the noble Baroness on the subject of water abstraction. I think it is in Schedule 11 that the powers are transferred to the Welsh Assembly. What I should like to ask her is a question in regard to advertising. If you alter any of your rights to abstract or build reservoirs on the stream, you have to advertise in the local Press and tell your local council. You also have to advertise in the London Gazette. Will it still be the
1132
London Gazette or are we to have a Cardiff Gazette?
3.20 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for advising me that he was going to raise these points which unfortunately we did not get raised at the end of our last session. The Government's approach on transport is that the Assembly should take over the powers which are essentially of a supervisory and local nature and concerned with Wales. Perhaps the main provisions to come within this approach are those relating to road service licensing, and it might be helpful if I explained the position on this, since we have had considerable interest shown in the question of road licensing in respect of the Scotland Bill. The road service licensing is that part of road transport which is concerned with the routes, the frequencies and the fares of bus services and is administered by the traffic commissioner for each traffic area. After devolution it is intended that Wales should become a single traffic area and the traffic commissioners will be responsible to the Assembly rather than to the Government in respect of their road service licensing function. But the public service vehicle licensing, for which the traffic commissioners are also responsible, is to be entirely reserved, since, as we explained on the Scotland Bill, it is concerned with safety standards and we think that these should remain uniform throughout the whole of the country. I see the noble Lord nodding his head so he does not dissent from that.
The freight operators' licences will also be reserved because they have implications for industry. Because the chairman of the traffic commissioners normally sits alone for public service vehicle licensing matters and is also the sole authority for freight operators' licensing, he will continue to be appointed by the Government, but the other two traffic commissioners, who will be primarily concerned with the road service licensing—the routes, the fares, the frequency of services and so on—will be appointed by the Assembly.
During the debates on the Scotland Bill I think it was generally accepted that most of the ministerial functions in respect of road service licensing were a local matter and suitable for devolution, but then some concern was expressed

1133
that the present administrative arrangements should remain, especially so that the cross-border operators— and in this case it would be those coming from England into Wales—would not need different authorisations in Wales. In the Wales Bill, as distinct from Scotland, we are devolving only executive powers, so I can assure your Lordships' Committee that there is nothing in these powers which will enable the Assembly to alter the current administrative framework. This will remain the same in Wales as in England.
The noble Lord also referred briefly to the question of aerodromes. Here again we have a difference, in that in Wales, unlike Scotland there is no Civil Aviation Authority or British Airports Authority aerodromes. In practice the Assembly powers in Wales will relate primarily to the local authority aerodromes which are of a local rather than a national or international nature. Functions with a wider national implication—for example, the policing and air traffic control—are items which are to be reserved under the Wales Act.
In so far as concerns the other general points which the noble Lord made, he referred in detail to the traffic commissioners. He referred also to the possibility of grants to the bus and the rail services. Local authorities have power under existing legislation to give grants to bus and rail services and this will be unaffected by any devolution proposals. In addition, the Assembly is given the power to make grants, by Clause 11 of the Bill, and the Ministers at present have similar powers, but for technical reasons it is necessary to deal with this matter separately in Clause 11 rather than to transfer the powers in Schedule 2. I hope the noble Lord is not going to ask me to explain the detailed technical differences and I hope he will accept my assurance that there are reasons why we should discuss this point on Clause 11.
In so far as the Civil Aviation Act and noise levels are concerned, I think the noble Lord has perhaps hit on a defect in the Bill. We have been planning to bring in an Amendment at the Report stage to amend the entry for the Civil Aviation Act 1971. It is not our intention that the Assembly will have the power to determine the noise levels at the airport, and
1134
we hope that we can bring forward a satisfactory Amendment on that basis at the Report stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, raised questions on water. I am not trying to dodge the issue, but we have numerous Amendments down on the substantive provisions on water later in the Bill and it might be better if his point were raised when we reached Clause 63 and Schedule 8. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is dealing with the subject of water and I am sure he is much more competent to give the noble Lord satisfactory answers than I am off the cuff at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was good enough to write to me about his problems in understanding what we have done about the Health and Safety at Work Act. The entry in the left-hand column of the Bill lists a number of provisions to be devolved. The right-hand column provides that all of these are devolved only so far as they relate to atmospheric pollution. It is necessary to state it in this way because some of the provisions in the left-hand column have relevance to matters which go wider than atmospheric pollution, and it is not intended to involve these other aspects. The noble Lord might re-read this when he has time and sort out that it is a fact. We are devolving to the Assembly only those parts of Acts under which at present the Secretary of State has powers. It is the powers of Secretaries of State in all these enactments which are being devolved and for which we should read "Welsh Assembly". I am advised that there is not likely to be a Cardiff Gazette. That refers to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, as to how the necessary announcements about water extraction will be made. We are not intending to start a Cardiff Gazette or anything approaching that.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, raised wide questions on the effect on community land, on various aspects, interest rates and so on. The Local Authorities (Land) Act of 1963 is reserved in respect of industrial buildings because all matters of industrial and regional policy are reserved and are not left to the Assembly. We think that these must remain on a United Kingdom basis so that one area cannot bid against

1135
another and try to persuade people indiscriminately to go from one area to another. The control of interest rates is an important part of the control of the regional industrial incentive; therefore we think that that ought to be reserved as well, although the Act is devolved for loans other than those on industrial buildings.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, also advised me in advance that he was going to raise points about the differences, after devolution, between transport in England, in Wales and in Scotland. The devolution of transport matters is expressed in rather less general terms in the Wales Bill, but the scope is much the same as that provided for in Scotland, except that there is no equivalent in Wales of the Scottish transport group. The major difference, of course, is in the form of devolution where the Scottish Assembly will have legislative powers and the Welsh Assembly will not. The Welsh Assembly, therefore, as we explained earlier, takes over existing ministerial powers in respect of transport matters in Wales. The detailed implementation of the transport policy will, as now, rest primarily with the local authorities who will be submitting their own transport policy and plans and so on.
The Assembly, through its specific powers and the provision of finance, sill be able, if it wants to, to provide a different emphasis on transport policy and will be able to co-ordinate the work of the local authorities and perhaps get a more sensible and coherent transport policy. The Assembly could make it known that a transport supplementary grant would be paid at a higher level to local authorities which gave more emphasis to the development of public transport in urban areas and less to road building or vice versa, or it could make more grants available for rural bus services under Section 34 of the Transport Act 1968. These are just two examples to show how we anticipate that it will work. All this could result in differences in transport policy between Wales and England. But this is not anything novel, as the discretion open to local authorities already creates differences, not only from one country to another but even from one county to another. Some cities worship the car and others worship the bus. Some want major roads and lots of car parking, and some want a much more frequent public passenger bus service.
1136
The Government consider it right that the role of central Government should be taken over by the Assembly so that central Government decisions and advice can be more closely altered to meet Welsh needs and circumstances. We see no reason why any policy differences that there may be between England and Wales and Scotland after devolution should lead us into any practical difficulties as most transport planning is very closely related to land use planning and is anyway undertaken very much on a local or regional basis. Responsibility for the national British Rail network is, of course, reserved and is not affected by devolution.
I do not think that I have answered in great detail all the points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, but we shall certainly consider them. One or two went rather wider than the points we had originally anticipated might be thrown at us. I shall look at the matter and write to him and also ensure that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, receives a copy of the reply so that we know where we must go from here.
Perhaps I ought at this stage to give a minor apology to the House for the fact that our Bill team is somewhat depleted because we suffer from having—or perhaps I should say that we have the advantage of having— Ministers of the Crown on our Bill team (a matter about which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and I have crossed swords many times) who today appear to be missing due to their other commitments.
Lord ELTON: Arising out of the last contribution by the noble Baroness, may I say that as I came into the Chamber I was reflecting with regret that the bowlers are always outnumbered by the batsmen. If something has been done to redress the balance I am more than glad.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I should like to clarify one point which the noble Baroness raised when she so kindly referred to the Act which I mentioned in my previous speech. I was concerned only with the flexibility of rates of interest in regard to the loans which local authorities can make under that Act. The noble Baroness was so sympathetic when she said that the Government were concerned with Welsh needs and circumstances that I wonder whether she would consider providing some flexibility of interest

1137
rates in the context perhaps of a particular area, at least in Wales itself.
Baroness STEDMAN: Off the cuff, I should say, no, I do not think that I can do so. However, I shall take the matter away with me and look at it.
Lord O'HAGAN: I thank the noble Baroness for saying that at least I may have got one thing right and that there is some substance in the point that I was putting to her about the Civil Aviation Act. That emboldens me to say that when looking at the Road Traffic Act which is devolved under Part XVIII of Schedule 2, I found that under Section 31(5)—which deals with the control of dogs on roads—the Secretary of State at present has the power to
"make regulations prescribing the procedure to be followed in connection with the making of orders under this section ".
The devolution Bill leaves the rest of that section, but devolves subsection (5). Therefore, what is devolved to the Welsh Assembly is the power to make regulations under part of a section which is not devolved to it. Perhaps the noble Baroness would look at that matter so that she, rather than we, may come forward with an Amendment on the future of dogs in Wales.
The explanation given by the noble Baroness as to how the Government see the transport provisions of the Bill working is indeed valuable and something for which I, and I hope the rest of the Committee, are grateful. Nevertheless, there is still the anxiety that, in spite of the stricter demarcation line which she has drawn, there are many bus services and bus operators whose service boundaries are nothing to do with the physical boundaries of Wales as a country or the counties of Wales as counties. Therefore, the difficulties of running services across the Border are by no means to be overlooked if a different system as regards the management of traffic develops within the Principality after the passage of this Bill and if it ever comes into effect.
I hope that the noble Baroness will, after today's debate, bring forward all the Amendments necessary on this Part of the Schedule. However, I can assure her that if she does not, we shall.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
3.35 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Enactments conferring powers exercisable concurrently]:
[Amendments Nos. 61E, 61F and 61B not moved.]
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 61C:
Page 62, leave out line 40.
The noble Baroness said: This Government Amendment, like the Amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, tabled and which has not been moved, seeks to delete the entry in Schedule 3 for Section 7 of the Local Employment Act 1972. Your Lordships will be aware that the Local Employment Act was one of four Acts included in Part IX of Schedule 2 which has now been deleted by an earlier Amendment. I do not want to comment now on the wider issues that may be raised by that vote, but it might have been noticed that the Government had down an Amendment—No. 57B—to delete that particular entry in Part IX of Schedule 2 for the Local Employment Act. This Amendment to Schedule 3 was also on the Marshalled List at that time as an Amendment to Schedule 11—Amendment No. 109A. The purpose of the Government's Amendments was not to change the policy in respect of the Local Employment Act, but for technical reasons to achieve it in Schedule 11 rather than in Schedules 2 and 3.
During the debate on Part IX of Schedule 2 we did not detect any opposition to the Assembly being given powers under Section 7 of the Local Employment Act and accordingly we propose to proceed with these Amendments. As I shall explain, the powers to be exercised by the Assembly are of a limited nature and the Government will retain the full range of powers which they exercise at present.
When the Wales Bill was in another place Schedule 3 attracted some considerable interest, and in the light of the debate the Government looked carefully at each of the individual entries in the Schedule to see whether they achieved what we required. Our conclusion was that the entry for Section 7 of the Local Employment Act 1972 was not quite right, and

1139
the Government's three Amendments on the Marshalled List are intended to rectify the matter. Section 7 of the Local Employment Act 1972 is concerned with grants and loans for the provision of infrastructure services for industry in development and intermediate areas. Our policy is that the Government should continue to be able to make such grants after devolution; partly because they will remain responsible for a range of infrastructure services (for example, gas and electricity), but also because of their overall responsibility for industrial and regional policy. At the same time, it is sensible that the Assembly should be able to make grants in respect of those particular services, such as roads and sewers, for which it will have responsibility in other contexts.
We propose that the powers in respect of these "devolved" services should be concurrent. This should not present any practical difficulties, as the power is simply one to pay grants or loans. Powers in respect of other infrastructure services are exercised by the Government alone.
The Bill, however, can now easily achieve this without amending the Local Employment Act itself. The wording of Section 7 of that Act is such that it would, after devolution, probably prevent the Government from continuing to exercise their powers in respect of all the infrastructure services. The difficulty is that the Act enables a Minister to make grants or loans only if he is in charge of the Government Department that is responsible for the service. After devolution that will not be so in the case of services such as roads and sewers. We therefore, now propose to tackle the whole matter in Schedule 11, where textual amendment can be made to Section 7, and the Schedule 2 and 3 entries are no longer required. The Government's Amendment to Schedule 11 will, as I have said, ensure that the Government have powers in respect of all the infrastructure services and that the Assembly has concurrent powers in respect of those infrastructure services which are devolved in other contexts. The Amendment to Schedule 3 is a paving Amendment for the later Amendment to Schedule 11, but I thought it right that we should explain our intentions at this stage of the proceedings. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLES: I should like to say that on this side of the Committee we are very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for this explanation. I do not think that she will expect us to start debating it at this stage of the Bill; we can take it when we are debating Schedule 11. However, we are very grateful for this explanation.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I should like to express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman and ask for clarification. When the noble Baroness says that this is a paving Amendment, does she mean that it is a paving Amendment to Amendments Nos. 108A, 108B and 108C?
Baroness STEDMAN: It is the Amendment that arises when we get to Schedule 11.
Baroness ELLES: It is Amendment No. 109A.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 61G:
Page 62, leave out line 42.
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is consequential on the deletion of Part IX under Amendment No. 57C. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: Perhaps I ought to say at this time that the Government, of course, accept this Amendment, but it is entirely without prejudice to the matters being returned to in another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Existing statutory functions]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 61GA:
Page 6, line 22, leave out from ("may") to end of line 24 and insert ("make arrangements to support museums, art galleries, libraries, the languages and culture of Wales, the arts, crafts, sport and other cultural and recreational activities; but shall not under this section do, or include in any such arrangements anything which would unreasonably prejudice the interests or restrict the employment opportunities of those who do, or those who do not, speak the Welsh language").
The noble Lord said: The recent exchanges have revealed the relationship of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to

1141
the other place. But let us pass from that and now look at Clause 10, which is very much like a dressing-up box which I remember finding in the attic of my parents' home many years ago and which appeared very dull until you started pulling things out of it. In fact, what this clause covers is of considerable importance and interest and falls into four separate areas. Our rather large probing Amendment seeks to open up all these so that a number of apparent anomalies can be resolved.
The areas are respectively arts and letters, sport and leisure, language and the National Trust. It would perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee if I restricted myself to the first of those brackets in my first interjection in these proceedings. Your Lordships will already know that we are concerned about the funding aspects of the arts. Perhaps I could remind the noble Lord, Lord Donaldon of Kingsbridge—who I understand has now taken over the batsman's wicket—of a submission made to him or his Departmtnet by the National Library of Wales on the White Paper when it was published. In it, he is reminded that it is one of the chartered bodies listed in Appendix F of the White Paper. It says:
"Paragraph 261 seems to imply that the future financing of the National Library will be determined by the Assembly".
That would still appear to be the case under the Bill.
It goes on:
"While the National Library of Wales is at present accountable to Parliament under the Welsh Office, because of its unique position as a national institution it has close association with the other national institutions in England and Scotland for which the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries has general oversight. Consequently the grant-in-aid provided to the National Library of Wales bears a firm relationship to the grants made to other similar institutions. Furthermore the support and the advice which the National Library of Wales has received from the Standing Commission has proved invaluable and it benefits enormously from the relationship which has been developed (largely through its association with the Standing Commission) between the various national institutions throughout the United Kingdom. It is hoped that this close association will be safeguarded".
I raised this question in a financial context in our debate on the 14th June, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman —who has now gone to the other end of
1142
the pitch and is not facing the bowling—said at that stage that she had not had time to consider the question and would write. The reference is in column 391 of the Official Report. Unfortunately, that letter has not yet reached me. Therefore, it is necessary, and probably beneficial in any case, that this subject should be discussed in the open rather than in correspondence, and so I seek to pursue the matter further.
The fact that the fear is not restricted to members of my own Party is revealed, for instance, in the words of Mr. Leo Abse in another place, who said on 7th December that he had:
"the deepest sympathy with the views expressed in the annual report of the Welsh Arts Council—namely, that the change in status of the Welsh Arts Council which might follow devolution legislation and the consequence of it on the Council's long-term arts policy is not predictable".
He went on to say:
"There will be a threat as the result of the coming into existence of the Welsh Assembly that the unique system in Britain whereby the arts are insulated from political domination could be subverted. We must not seek to impose our individual prejudices, philistinism"—
and the word is not mine—
"or sophistry on the Arts Council".
The reply he received was not, in my view, satisfactory. It was that:
"The Arts Council is a chartered body and as such, like other chartered bodies, is excluded from the Wales Bill.
The Bill proposes to give the Assembly very wide powers to support the Arts. It will be a matter of agreement between everyone concerned as to exactly how the new arrangements for the arts will be operated".
That appears to leave the question of funding, which is not embodied in the Charter, entirely open and, of course, a good deal flows from that. At this stage I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he has knowledge of the document produced on Devolution policy by the Welsh Arts Council in February, 1976 —I presume he does—which embodies their views on the subject. Is he aware that in that document they say that they would welcome devolution provided they could be embodied under a new Royal Charter—like that of the Arts Council of Great Britain—and provided that they could include craft and film in their purview. They add that they, just like the farmers, are anxious that regional differences within Wales should be reflected in their membership.
Finally—and perhaps this is the most important point—can the noble Lord silence, once and for all, the rumours which are now current that it is the Government's intention to dismember the Arts Council of Great Britain into three separate and inevitably weaker bodies for England, Scotland and Wales, thus frustrating the final plea of the Welsh Arts Council that they should at least be given two seats upon the Arts Council of Great Britain? Naturally, there are other matters, but I think that at this stage I should like the noble Lord to have an opportunity to reply.
3.48 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): I am grateful for the opportunity of explaining exactly where the Government stand in relation to the Arts Council, which naturally concerns me particularly closely. If I may, I shall deal with that matter first. The Arts Council of Great Britain is a body nominated by the Secretary of State and created by Royal Charter. The Scotland and Wales Bills are silent on the future arrangements for such bodies, although responsibility for the arts is explicitly devolved under both Bills.
The result is that it will be for the Assemblies to decide what organisational arrangements they would like to make in Scotland and Wales. There is a wide range of possibilities. They might wish to set up their own Departments of Culture or to have their own Arts Councils, which is the rumour to which the noble Lord has referred; but it cannot be more than a rumour, because until the Assemblies exist and say what they want, there cannot be any truth in it. The Assemblies might even wish to continue to operate through the Arts Council of Great Britain, using the existing Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils, which are committees of the Great Britain body.
However, there would be technical problems with that solution as the Scottish and Welsh Arts Council money comes at present from the grant in aid for the Arts Council of Great Britain, which is provided through the Department of Education and Science; after devolution money for the arts in Scotland and Wales will come from the block grant. But
1144
there are some activities which get an Arts Council subsidy or guarantee now which cut across these boundaries and have a Great Britain dimension. In particular, I have in mind the amount of touring that is carried out by various opera and theatre companies, travelling exhibitions and certain institutions and artists who have a world reputation and following.
There will probably also be a need for some sensible arrangement for all concerned to get together from time to time to discuss matters of common interest, though whether this could be looked after by the Arts Council with an amended charter or by a new body remains to be seen. But we do need to ensure that there is no hiatus in the transitional period in the level of support to artistic activity. We therefore have it in mind that in this, as in many other fields, there will have to be preliminary discussions between officials and arts administrators and provisional arrangements to tide over matters until the Assemblies can take a considered decision for themselves. At this stage it is important not to anticipate that decision, nor to rule out any solution.
I have had this answer prepared extremely carefully because I think this is a fairly explosive subject and it is important that we should be exactly clear where we stand. The Government's position is that the arts are devolved, and therefore it will be up to the Assembly to decide what structure it wishes to employ. Many people take the view that it will be unlikely not to insist upon direct management itself, but that is only a view. It bears no relation to the reality that may come. So I think we have the position clear that the Arts Council does not have to disappear, though it is quite likely that the Assemblies in each case would prefer that it did and that some co-ordinating body was erected.
Lastly, we recognise the cross-border importance of the arts, both in relation to Scotland and Wales, and we are perfectly aware that there must be some organisation for dealing with this. It will not be laid down in this Bill but it will emerge later.
3.53 p.m.
Lord ELTON: If noble Lords do not mind, I should like to take up directly two points which have emerged. The noble Lord said that his answer had been

1145
carefully prepared, and of course he will accept that my answer cannot be prepared because I have not heard his answer until now. I agree with him that this is a matter of considerable importance which leaves many questions unresolved by the nature of the solution which it proposes. I understand that the ACGB grant will be lost de facto at the moment when devolution takes place, which will remove a vehicle of considerable importance for the dissemination of the views and policy of the Arts Council, even if it is to survive. I understand that the survival of the Arts Council of Great Britain is to be dependent upon decisions made by the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, assuming that they come into existence; and to some extent I think one must see that as subordination of the interests of the whole to the interests of the arts.
It may be that that is what devolution is. I question whether it is a right decision at this juncture, or whether any of the parts are likely to pledge themselves to the welfare of the whole in a political context, when their choice might be seen as being in some way disloyal to the community which they have just been elected to represent. But a principal consideration seems to lie in the words which I think I heard the noble Lord say immediately before his conclusion. I cannot paraphrase them but they amounted to this; that for a period all will be uncertain; for a period everything will depend upon close co-ordination between directors of museums and other services and presumably—
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: With respect, the museums have nothing to do with it. We are talking about the Arts Council.
Lord ELTON: I apologise. But it will be a question of ad hoc arrangements over a period, the extent of which cannot be clearer until we know when the Assembly is to sit and when it will make its decisions.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord again. I am sorry, but this is important. The Welsh and Scottish Arts Councils exist now, and they will not cease to exist until the
1146
Assembly decides what it is going to to with them; so I think that there will be actual continuity although there will not be continuity of grant after D.1—whenever that is.
Lord ELTON: I find that most helpful. What I had it in mind to say was that if, as apparently there may not be, there were to be an extended period of uncertainty, it might be a good thing to have some delaying factor on the operation of the part of the Bill which has this effect, so that the bodies which have to budget ahead would be able to count on their budget for, let us say, 12 months after devolution, and during that period of 12 months the Assembly would have been able to make known to them what the arrangements for their budget in the next 12 months might be. That is something which I will take away and reflect upon. I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I suspect that other noble Lords would like to voice an opinion on this and therefore I will now give way. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has been patiently waiting.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: I feel sure that in so far as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, presented this Amendment as a probing Amendment in order to gain information from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, he performed a valuable service. I think we realise that it needed a statement which was carefully prepared, and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson for that. But what has puzzled me is why we are presented with an Amendment in the terms on the Marshalled List if the inquiry—and a very valuable inquiry—was merely one in regard to the financing of art galleries and what would happen in the future. One has often to look at the words of an Amendment. What does this Amendment do? It really leaves out most of the words after, "The Assembly may" and substitutes new words; namely, "make arrangements to support" in place of, "do anything it considers appropriate to support". We do not need an Amendment for that because there is no change, unless the noble Lord felt that was his way of introducing a probing Amendment.
Lord ELTON: It might be of service to the Committee if I were to say that that

1147
was exactly what it was. This is a probing Amendment and it is not necessary for the noble and learned Lord to demolish the case which is presented in the Amendment. He will see that a number of other matters arise from the Amendment to which I shall speak later, and that explains the length of the Amendment. It may save him a little anxiety if I say now that this is not an Amendment we intend to press.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: I am very glad to hear that the noble Lord does not intend to press it, but I should like to know why it was introduced in such terms. Perhaps I may continue: the noble Lord said before that it was a probing Amendment, but it is much more than a probing Amendment. Instead of the words in the clause, which are,
"To support museums, art galleries, libraries, the Welsh language",
the Amendment has,
"art galleries, libraries, the languages and culture of Wales,".
I am delighted to know that the noble Lord thinks that there are many languages in Wales. I am delighted that he should pay respect to the culture of Wales. I thought at first that perhaps the noble Lord meant "the language of Wales", but the word "languages" was in the third Marshalled List, it was in the fourth Marshalled List, and now the noble Lord has moved his Amendment and has made no change in the wording. Which are the languages of Wales? The noble Lord has paid tribute in the past to the Welsh language. I remember on Second Reading he said that the Welsh were
"a distinct and separate nation with a distinct, separate, proud and very long national tradition—some would say a good deal longer than that of the rest of the United Kingdom, for Welsh was spoken in these Islands long before the English tongue existed ".—[Official Report; 23/5/78, col. 840.]
This is a very fine tribute, but it does not make the Welsh language into a number of languages.
In your Lordships' Library on one of the shelves there are two neighbouring volumes. One is the Oxford Book of English Verse, the other is the Oxford Book of Welsh Verse. The latter of course, entirely Welsh. The earliest poem in the Oxford Book of English Verse is from the 13th Century; the first poem in the Oxford Book of Welsh Verse is from
1148
some seven centuries earlier. I think that the noble Lord was justified in his Second Reading speech in paying the handsome tribute he did to the language of Wales, and I accept the tribute. But even so it does not multiply the languages in Wales. There is one Welsh language, and I think I am right in saying that Welsh scholars can fully understand and follow the language of the Welsh poem of the 6th Century.
However, what I want to know is why the noble Lord included the latter part of the Amendment. What has it to do with the financial point he raised? May I remind your Lordships of the words. The noble Lord did not even refer to this when he moved it:
"shall not under this section do, or include in any such arrangements anything which would unreasonably prejudice the interests or restrict the employment opportunities of those who do, or those who do not, speak the Welsh language".
Why were those words introduced? What was the motive behind this?
It is true that the noble Lord now says, "Well, I am not going to go on with this Amendment". I should hope not. But does the noble Lord not owe it to the Committee to say why these words were ever put in? Do these words indicate mistrust in the capabilities of the Welsh people? I have had the privilege of listening on the Cross-Benches to most of the debate. I have listened with admiration to the speeches from the Opposition Front Bench and from the other Benches. I have listened with admiration to the speeches from the Government Front Bench and the other Benches. But I am hound to say that in one respect I think the Opposition noble Lords have been a little unfortunate. Not when it has come to going into the Division Lobbies, but in their protestations, because the more they have protested that it would be quite wrong for anyone to think that they had any mistrust of the capabilities of the Welsh people, the more the impression seems to me to have been gained on the Government Front Bench that that is exactly what they were indicating.
Do they, or do they not, mistrust the people who will form the membership of the Welsh Assembly? Is it necessary to put into a new Act of Parliament:
"There shall be a Welsh Assembly, but the Members are not to act unreasonably"?

1149
Is that mistrust, or not? Is there any reason to think that they would act unreasonably? The Welsh have plenty of experience of dealing with bilingual communities. The Welsh Assembly, when constituted, may well be four-fifths made up of those who do not speak Welsh. Is it necessary to insert into this new Bill a provision, "Well, the Assembly must not act unreasonably"? Why would they? What reason is there to think that they would?
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? I always do so in this House with fear, but particularly when interrupting the noble and learned Lord. I do not think it is distrust of the Welsh Assembly—and I speak as a Welshman here—it is that we all distrust anybody who is above us. That is always so when I speak, and I think the same is true of my noble friends when we say that the Assembly might do something wrong. I say this with the greatest respect about every organisation; local authorities, Governments, and even your Lordships' House. It is not that I or my noble friends are, if I can put it in agricultural words, "getting at the Welsh Assembly"; it is that we are always frightened of anything new. As a Welshman, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord would feel akin to that spirit. I apologise for interrupting him.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: The noble Lord says that there is a certain fear of something new. The noble Lord either supports this Amendment or he does not. If he does not support it, it does not matter; if he supports it, does that mean that he would think it necessary to legislate that this new body should not act unreasonably because he would fail to have trust in the capabilities of the Members of the Welsh Assembly? The noble Lord has spoken favourably in regard to county councils. Who elected the county councils?—the same people who will elect Members of the Welsh Assembly.
I think that one day last week the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, indicated in his reply that he thought that there was again a creeping in of an expression of mistrust in the capabilities of the Welsh people. In another debate the same
1150
night, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, felt the same. But the noble Lord, Lord Elton, disclaimed it. He said on 15th June at column 650:
"I should like to rebut the charge more strongly in this context than in any other that the noble Lord has made that we are against the Welsh. We are not against the Welsh Assembly because it is Welsh. We are not against the Welsh Assembly because it may be no good".
I am puzzled about that. The noble Lord continued:
"We want to make the Assembly, if it has to he, as good as it can be, …".
I appreciate that these words are now going to be withdrawn, but did their inclusion indicate that there was mistrust in the capabilities of an elected Welsh Assembly to act fairly in regard to those who did, or did not, speak the Welsh language?
I am sorry that it has been necessary to go into this matter even though the noble Lord did not mention it in proposing his Amendment, but it is on our Marshalled List and I think it is right that the noble Lord should have the opportunity of disclaiming once again any idea that it is necessary to provide by Statute that the elected people in the new Assembly would act unreasonably.
4.8 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: No one is going to believe this, but the noble and learned Lord has taken out of my mouth most that I was going to say about the latter part of this Amendment which was not touched on, but in his own inimitable and judicial way the case has been made beautifully. I understood that it was mainly a probing Amendment. Nevertheless, I consider the language at the bottom rather unfortunate in so far as logically it implies that the Welsh, as a nation, are likely to prejudice non-Welsh speaking Welshmen. It is unfortunate that that was attached to it.
May I say, as somebody with what we used to call the old-fashioned Higher Certificate but not A-levels, who had to probe a little into medieval Welsh and study Plant yr Hayl, The Children of the Sun, about the Incas of Peru, and look up some medieval Welsh, that I think it is absolutely necessary to have that type of scholarship available in the museums and in cultural areas. I hope that the Welsh Assembly will encourage that scholarship

1151
with a new chair of philology in Aberstwyth, Swansea or Cardiff, or the Welsh university.
I hope the Assembly in considering this matter will not be too proud to support necessary esoteric scholarship. Though it might sound odd, there is a need for esoteric scholarship in all our nations, including the Anglo-Saxon, to keep alive the cultural tie and the silver thread of neighbourliness and nationhood. I therefore hope that while we are considering sport we shall also consider the learned institutions, and I hope that the Welsh Assembly will, if necessary, consider supporting a Chair in Welsh philology or in the Welsh language, particularly to keep alive the old documents and manuscripts that go way back into history. The case having been made, I will not bore the House with repetition.
4.11 p.m.
Lord GIBSON: I apologise for not having arrived at the beginning of the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge; I was prevented from getting here in time. However, I arrived in time to hear him say it was the Government's view that it should be left to the Welsh Assembly to decide how the arts in Wales should be funded and for it to say whether or not there should be a Welsh Arts Council. I do not want to indicate any distrust of what Welshmen, the members of the Welsh Assembly when it is set up, may do. At the same time, I feel entitled, as an ex-chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain, to express apprehension as to the effects of splitting up the three arts councils, whereas at the moment they are one. It may be politically wise—I do not attempt to pronounce on the political wisdom or unwisdom of this—but it is my duty, I feel, to say what I think the artistic effect will be and how any bad effects may possibly be mitigated.
At present, as I said on the Scotland Bill in relation to the Scottish Arts Council, the Scots and the Welsh—though let us stick to the Welsh in this context—have the best of both worlds. The Welsh Arts council has total autonomy in the dispersing of its funds, which are voted en bloc by the Arts Council of Great Britain, and I think it is true to say it has never been disappointed with its share. It has total autonomy and there-
1152
fore it cannot have any more autonomy; it can only have less; if the Welsh Assembly—which let us not assume it will—behaves with less restraint as regards interference in the arts than this Parliament does. In other words, it has everything it could want.
It also has the right to sit on the Council at the centre in London and participate in all the decisions that are taken in regard to the United Kingdom as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that the good of the whole was being subordinated for the good of the parts. In fact, it is not for the good of the parts either. It is essential that they have the right to sit at the centre and take part in the decisions at the centre, and anything less than that will have a very bad effect on the way in which the arts are administered and will cut them off from what is of deep interest to them and to us all.
If the arts are to be devolved to the Welsh Assembly, I hope it will be possible to find some means of perpetuating the essence of the present system and that there will not be any cultural isolation practised in Wales. I know it is the strong feeling of most members of the Welsh Arts Council that they are happy with the present system. If it is about to disappear, the important thing is to set our minds to finding a means of perpetuating the essence of what works so well at present.
Lord THOMAS: As a Welsh-born Member of this House, my view is that the Amendment, particularly the second half of it, is a reasonable, businesslike precaution to have in the Bill. We know what the atmosphere of Wales is today, but we do not know what it will be in years to come, and I think that the precaution of having a non-Welsh speaking person doing things for Wales is reasonable. I was asked to be the founder chairman of the Development Corporation for Wales and I have been chairman of the Welsh Aviation Advisory Committee, though I do not speak any Welsh—if I do, I speak only a couple of swear words. But I have not found that not being able to speak Welsh has been any barrier to doing things for Wales and being persona grata, I am happy to think, in Wales. would describe the second part of the Amendment as perfectly reasonable and

1153
logical. In my view it does not reflect at all on the fair-mindedness of the Welsh people. I would regard it as a sensible and businesslike provision to have in the Bill.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: We are debating the Wales Bill and I appreciate that it is up to the Welsh people to decide what they want. That is fair enough. However, I want to know what is to happen to the Arts Council in general. Indeed, I am rather surprised that before reaching this position of discussing what the Welsh Assembly will do about their arts—in which they are, naturally, interested, and it is only right that they should be—We should not have been told whether the Arts Council has been consulted, whether they have agreed to what is being done and what will be the result if the rumour is true that the Arts Council is to be split up. I should not like that to happen. In short, your Lordships should have been told, before reaching this stage, exactly what is to happen to the Arts Council. Surely we should know, before taking a decision on this Amendment or anything like it, what is the view of the Arts Council as a whole and, equally important, what is to happen to the Arts Council.
I speak with many years experience of another place and I know, even so far as my Party is concerned, the difficulty we had in getting finance and help for the arts in general. I do not want the new devolution Bills—with which I do not agree at all, anyway—to result in the Arts Council, which I and many of my honourable friends in another place tried hard to create and support, having a decision of this sort thrust upon them without their view being known by us. Devolution should not destroy an organisation which has been built up to help the arts in general.
As for all the rest—whether the Welsh language will be spoken in the Assembly and so on—I could not care less; if they want to talk in Welsh, let them do so. But I do not want the Arts Council to have to talk in Welsh, Scots or Geordie. I particularly want to know why the position of the Arts Council has never been put forward so that, when we discuss these matters, we know what will happen to the Arts Council, something which, in
1154
my view, is much more important than whether we speak Welsh, Scots or Geordie. As I say, I really do not understand what all the argument is about. However, I should like to have an undertaking from the Government that if I table a Question your Lordships will be told in detail about what is to happen to the Arts Council, financially and otherwise, in the future.
4.20 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My reaction to the general principle, and indeed to some of the detail behind devolving authority from the centre to Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, has already been made quite clear, and I should have preferred to give myself a self-denying ordinance that I would not repeat this reaction during discussion of the Welsh Bill. I can imagine the noble Lord opposite being pleased about that. However, I was rather disturbed by the contribution from the Cross-Benches from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. This made me feel that, with the view I hold, I ought to have on the record some observations to run alongside the speech of the noble and learned Lord.
I consider that the noble and learned Lord was unfair to my noble friend, but I shall say no more about that because my noble friend is perfectly capable of looking after himself. However, at the same time, the noble and learned Lord was also unfair to the Parliamentary system. The noble and learned Lord spoke in a most persuasive way—and indeed we know how persuasive he is, and that makes his contribution so much more dagerous if I happen to be wrong. I consider that he was unfair to the Parliamentary system in his suggestion that one could not say that one had every confidence in the fairness and objectivity of the Welsh nation, while at the same time one wanted to write into a Bill which would give them extra authority, certain safeguards which, if one was viewing the matter in a nasty way, may give the impression that one did not in fact have that confidence. We know that in practical terms both of those propositions stand up. It is a fact that the capabilities and the objectivity of the Welsh people are neither better nor worse than those of the English or the Scots; they are just about the same. The Welsh have the same number of saints—

1155
if they have any at all—and they have the same kind of strength and weaknesses of character as the rest of us.
Because that is so, we know from experience in legislating for future government, that it is possible, under our various electoral systems, for people who are not objective, and who can be extreme and unfair, to gain control. At present in this country we are accepting all kinds of edicts from a Government who have less than 28 per cent. support from the voting population of the country. All manner of extreme things are being done. It is possible, even in the Welsh Assembly, that although the nation as a whole can be relied upon, a group which could not be relied upon to the same extent may at some time gain control of the Assembly.
There is a possibility that that will happen, and, as my noble friend said, what is proposed in the Amendment forms a very sensible safeguard. It we are legislating for the future, we have a duty to write such safeguards into the legislation. The noble and learned Lord was a most eminent Lord of Appeal, and no one should know better than a man who has held such a high and responsible office that the only reason we have laws at all—against such activities as robbery, driving above a 30 mph speed limit, and not paying income tax—is that there is a minority of people who are prepared to evade the themes of objectivity, honesty and general straightforwardness for their own self-interest. That is the only reason we have laws, and we all have to work under certain restrictions.
It is most prudent that, in passing on power to the Welsh Assembly, we write into the legislation certain safeguards which will make it less likely that damage will be done by small minorities who gain control, if only temporarily. I do not at all suggest that the Welsh people will fall below others in how they use their voting powers, but as legislators we must anticipate the possibility that the worst might happen. We may have to have a written Constitution because of what is happening throughout the United Kingdom today. I thought that the speech of the noble and learned Lord, though very persuasive, was out of character and unfair, and so I wished to have another point of view on the record to stand alongside it.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I should like to put a point to the noble Lord before he sits down. Let us suppose that at some future time the Anglo-Saxons decide that they want an Assembly of their own, and I were to table a proposal that there should be no unreasonable prejudicing of the interests, or restriction of the unemployment opportunities, of those who do not speak the Anglo-Saxon language—or I could use the word "English" if necessary. Of course it would be absurd to legislate in that way. It is impudence to think that in these modern times a nation would be so prejudiced that such a proposal would be necessary. I would not dream of putting down such a proposal.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: When the noble Lord, Lord Elton, with his usual charm, introduced the Amendment some time ago, I was very relieved that he did not say anything about the language question. Certainly he did not suggest in any way that the Welsh people might be unreasonable or prejudiced regarding cultural and recreational activities. I was pleased that he did not make that point, because it meant that I would not have to make certain observations more pointed as compared with the elegant phraseology of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borthy-y-Gest.
However, I wish to take up a point which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, made. He indicated—and this is quite true—that there is a fear in Wales, and elsewhere, that the Assembly may try to thrust the Welsh language on to people, and thus lead to discrimination on a language basis against the interests and employment of people. I have heard that stated on many occasions, but to say such a thing is to fail to appreciate the present pattern of the speaking of English and Welsh in Wales in a domestic, industrial and political context.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, referred to the election of county councils, the majority of members of which are not Welsh speaking. When the Welsh Assembly is elected, most of its Members will be from the industial areas of Wales, which are largely non-Welsh speaking. Twenty per cent. of the people of Wales do not speak Welsh at all. Therefore, it is inevitable that the majority of men and women in the Assembly will not be Welsh speaking.

1157
Notwithstanding the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I must say that the Amendment, raising as it does the question of language, is divisive and unhelpful, and in Wales it will be considered to be such. I must endorse what was stated in another place by more than one Welsh-speaking Member of Parliament who have great experience in these matters. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will withdraw the Amendment without qualification. Whatever may be the motive behind the Amendment, it is the kind of Amendment which—to put it quite bluntly, as Members did in another place—is an insult to the people of Wales. The question of language should be left to the common sense of the elected Members of the Welsh Assembly, and your Lordships' Committee should not try to impose rules of language upon the Welsh Assembly.
Lord LLOYD: It is many years since I last spoke in the Chamber, and I did not intend to speak this afternoon. However, in view of the fact that for two years I was Under-Secretary of State for Welsh Affairs, I think that possibly I have a right to make a very brief observation on the Amendment. I regret that I must disagree with the noble Lord who has just spoken. What is being proposed seems to me to be an eminently sensible arrangement. There has always been a number of people in Wales who wished to compel the teaching of Welsh in schools; there have always been Welsh-speaking enthusiasts. I do not think they have any need to be outraged by anything that is said in this Amendment. But, as against that, this protects the interests of the non-Welsh-speaking people. I served with the Welsh Guards in the war, and most of my men came from the Rhondda. None of them spoke Welsh; and I think that a great majority of the Assembly will probably be non-Welsh-speaking anyway. Therefore, I should like to support the noble Lord on my left and other noble Lords who have spoken in favour of this Amendment, which seems to me to make common sense and to be just what is needed.
Lord ELTON: I suppose it was naïve to assume that I could put down an Amendment covering four separate fields, to announce in advance that I intended to
1158
speak to only one of them and not then to be attacked on the other three, or at least on two of the other three. The naïvety was espied, inevitably, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, who descended upon me, if I may so phrase it, like a dove with talons and made it clear to all what I had done. I am therefore drawn, of course, to rebut some of the statements he has made, though I admire the cleverness with which he has manoeuvred me into a position where everybody outside this Chamber will now assume that I withdrew my Amendment, when I do withdraw it, not as a result of a preconceived plan but as a result of his charming attack upon me.
The noble and learned Lord started by giving me a bouquet, as it were. I had almost plunged my nose in it before I recalled (and he reminded me shortly) that he never hands me a rose without there is an earwig in it; nor, indeed, does he throw me a snowball without a stone is in it; nor have I met a hand more deeply clothed in velvet or more heavily shod in iron. All this I say in the best of spirits and the greatest of goodwill, because he has been a Member of your Lordships' House for 14 years longer than me. Therefore, it is with deference but none the less insistence that I must say that it is a perfectly normal procedure in this Committee to put down an Amendment in order to draw interesting and constructive views from the Members of the Committee; and if the noble and learned Lord thinks that it has not done that, then he is wrong.
The noble and learned Lord started out with a moving appeal on the language question. I might have accepted part of what he said earlier on. I might have accepted that there are only two languages in Wales—that is to say, Welsh and English (and I am surprised that the restriction to the plural which he imposes is so adamant, since it seemed to exclude the existence of English as the principal national language of Wales altogether; that I find puzzling)—but when I was last in Wales I had the good fortune to drive in beautiful weather from giving a conference in Carnarvon to making a speech in Cardiff, and I noticed what bore out an earlier experience: that the Post Office was called one thing at one end of the journey and another thing at the other. They were both Welsh words, and they

1159
were different. What is more, when I set out with temerity and, I think, folly, to attempt to master at least the basic principles of that beautiful and intricate language I discovered that there is a choice of two sets of tapes, two sets of instruction books, two manuals of instructions, both purporting to teach the same language and with entirely different contents; and I am told that if I learn one I will not understand the other. If the noble and learned Lord tells me that I am wrong, I must believe him, but everybody else in Wales tells me that I am right. Therefore I say that there are not two but three languages in Wales, and I stand by that.
I had put this Amendment down as a probing Amendment in order, first of all, to elicit the views which several of my noble friends have most hopefully advanced, which reflect views I have heard of a genuine anxiety within the Home Civil Service that the possibility of a language test before appointment to service with the Assembly would constitute an obstruction to a career prospect, and I thought that this should be ventilated. I recognise the difficulties—I had not spoken to this part of the Amendment; I now will do so—that will arise if the Welsh Assembly is to conduct its proceedings in English and Welsh, of whatever variety, and some Members thereof are monoglot and others are not. There will presumably have to be a translation service. I cannot see that anybody who cannot speak Welsh can offer to serve as an interpreter. Therefore, there must be occasions on which there is a reasonable bar to appointment on the grounds of language.
But the noble and learned Lord takes exception to this. He asks: Are we being reasonable in suggesting that the great and good Welsh, with their great and complex language, will ever act unreasonably? The noble and learned Lord is a Lord of Appeal, I understand, and he must have heard many cases on many Acts of Parliament. Almost every one has a provision to defend people from the unreasonable exercise of the powers contained in the Act. May I, since I happen to know a little about education, refer him specifically to Section 68 of the Education Act 1944, which gives a right of appeal by an aggrieved party against the unreasonable exercise of powers by a
1160
local authority, which is the nearest thing we now have to the Welsh Assembly. I cannot see that this is any breach of precedent, or that it is unreasonable, or that it is anti-Welsh.
This brings me to a central theme. I have the greatest admiration—and I am not saying this out of sycophancy or because I think it looks elegant in debate —for the noble and learned Lord, who has one characteristic which I envy above all other, and that is a streak of romanticism. However, I feel that this is tingeing what he has been saying, because the romantics, who are perhaps best represented by the French poets of the 19th century, always invest inanimate objects or organisations with abstract properties. If you are Lamartine and you want to give the idea of majesty, you refer to rocks, as in Le Lac. If you wish to talk of sorrow—was it de Vigny who wrote Le Chanson de Roland? —you refer to the wind blowing through the trees. If you want to reflect despair and you are Victor Hugo, you write of the snow. At the end of every stanza in L' Expiation, as the noble and learned Lord will probably recall, "il neigeait". Nothing could be more damped down; nothing could make you feel almost physically the despair of the retreat from Moscow more than those words.
I think this is a process which the noble and learned Lord is applying—wrongly, in my respectful opinion—to the Welsh Assembly, because he is saying that the Welsh Assembly is in some way subsuming all the ideals of Welshness; the Welshness of Wales. It is in some way something which takes up its beauty, its grandeur, its traditions; everything that he so rightly holds dear. And I am very glad that he does, because it is people like him who keep burning a precious flame which is all that stands between Wales and its reduction to a commonalty with the other parts of the United Kingdom. He is doing this, but he is assuming that the Assembly, elected or otherwise, purely Welsh or otherwise, perfect or otherwise, will contain within it the essence of all that is Welsh, and if we suggest anything which is in any way restrictive to that Assembly or to its Members this is in some way restrictive to and derogatory of, not the Members but Wales and Welshness.
I am doing everything in my power to disabuse him of that opinion. I said

1161
during the Second Reading debate and I repeat now that it is our duty to protect the rights of our fellow citizens in Wales, the Welsh, the people who do the electing, the people who want this Assembly—if they want it. Our function in this House and Committee is to see that the Assembly is such that, if they accept it, it will do the best job for them that it can. But it is made up of human beings; and the Welsh are no more venal than the English or the Scots, but they are no more saints, either. Why should legislation about Wales exclude restrictions on the unreasonable use of powers when legislation about England, Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole uses this formula on every page? I cannot see this argument.
I implore the noble and learned Lord to understand that I, at least, trust the Welshness of the Welsh; and had I had the opportunity to withdraw this Amendment before the noble and learned Lord made his speech I should have said that I had been anxious to listen to the views that we have had so usefully expressed to us. I should have reflected that the majority of those elected and the great majority of those electing the Assembly would not be Welsh-speaking, and that they would surely be able to protect their own interests. I should have wanted to think about this; I should have wished to consult with my friends, both here and in another place. That is the view that, without the very charming, entertaining and effective speech that the noble and learned Lord has made, I should have expressed at this stage.
The Committee will forgive me for defending myself at some length, because I have to some extent been defending my Party. We were discussing the Arts Council. The noble Lord opposite has now had plenty of time to consider a further carefully thought-out statement. I think that, before I move on, he will wish to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and the questions raised by my noble friend from North Tyneside. I presume that before this debate is over and after he has had time to collect his information, we shall, regrettably, have to look at sport and we ought to look at the National Trust.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: It is not a question of collecting
1162
information. It is a question of collecting my wits after the very long and diffuse Second Reading debate which we seem to have every afternoon—they become more and more interesting and more and more impossible to reply to. Do I take it from what the noble Lord has said, that this is Part 1 of the Amendment and that we are going to have to discuss Parts 2, 3 and 4? If so I should like notice.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord nodded his head vigorously when I suggested that I ought to stop after my brief introduction to let him reply about the Arts Council. Since then, I have not been able to get a word in edgeways.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The noble Lord had a good seven minutes and he need not complain. Before dealing with Part I of this Amendment I should like to say that I think it a thoroughly bad practice in Committee to have a very wide Second Reading debate on four or five subjects. I do not think that it is the way to do it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, said so and I agree. I came prepared to deal with anything, as I always am. So far, nothing has been said which presents me with a problem that I cannot skip over or skid round. But it is really quite ridiculous on Committee to have a discussion of this kind. I think it is absolutely wrong. Every speaker spoke about something different. I shall do my best to sum it up.
I should like to begin by saying a word to the noble Baroness who confessed that she did not understand anything about it at all and who complained that she had not been told by the Government exactly what was going to happen. Her understanding I must leave to her; but, over the prophecy about what will happen, I had already answered quite clearly that the arts will be devolved to Wales and Scotland and that the Assemblies in Scotland and Wales will decide how to deal with them. I do not know, and neither does anybody else in the Government, what decision they will make. We can make various guesses, but we do not know. That is the answer to the noble Baroness. I fear it will not satisfy her, but it is the best that I can do.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: It does not.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I did not think it would. I should like to turn to the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, in whose views I am naturally very interested, as he was until a year ago, a most successful chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain for five years. He ended by saying that the position—which is my position—will probably change and that we must try to see that it changes in the right way. That is the position.
What I said in my carefully considered statement was that there was no basic reason why the Arts Council of Great Britain should be dissolved. If the Assemblies choose to continue as branches of the Arts Council of Great Britain, there is no legal objection. I think there are very many feelings among people that it is extremely unlikely that this will happen; but that is the case. One of the things about Royal Charter bodies is that they are not altered by legislation; so that what will happen will be that any alterations that are required to the Arts Council of Great Britain will be dealt with, after discussion with the relevant bodies in Wales and Scotland, by the Arts Council of Great Britain altering its own constitution accordingly.
If I may turn for a moment to the Welsh language, I have to confess that whether or not he carries a horseshoe in his boxing glove (as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, once said he did), the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, said nothing with which I did not agree. I have been saying on Amendment after Amendment throughout the whole of the Bill that, without accusing noble Lords opposite of being deliberately anti-Welsh or trying to do dawn the Welsh, the effect of what they are doing is to derogate from the powers of the Assembly which is set up in order that the Welsh should look after themselves. I should like to say that although some noble Lords express a difference of opinion with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, I express agreement and I think that he put his case admirably, as everybody else thinks. Everybody thought it was put very admirably but not all agreed with it. I agree with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, complained that things were done by
1164
this Government on a minority vote (or something of that sort) assuming, I imagine, that he was not satisfied with the present electoral system; but I observe with horror that he voted against proportional representation; so that I think he is in the usual fairly confused state. I think that is all I need to say about the Arts Council and the Welsh language. Parts 3 and 4 are to follow.
Lord ELTON: Clearly, the Committee would like me to defer Part 3 until we reach Amendment No. 61J, so I will leave sport on one side. I should like to allude to the position of the National Trust. It appears that this clause will affect it closely. May I ask the noble Lord whether I am correct in assuming that the effect of this clause, taken with Clause 71 and Schedule 10, will be that such transactions as are at present necessary to the National Trust in the United Kingdom will, as they relate to Wales, still be transacted by Parliament under the special Parliamentary procedures already established'? The question can be more simply expressed than in the technical language I used by saying that I want to know whether the business of the National Trust, as it is at present supervised by Parliament, will or will not be affected by the Bill as it stands. Obviously, this is something which is of some importance. My understanding is that it will not; but my suspicion is that that might be unintentional.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS: BRIDGE: That is my understanding.
Lord ELTON: If the noble Lord's understanding changes, perhaps he will inform me before the next stage. I think that we have now said enough on the subject. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his very interesting and philosophical speech. I do not wish to add anything at this stage beyond saying that all my life such influence as I possess, which may be very little, has been used for the promotion of the most cordial good relations between the English and the Welsh and for the utmost co-operation. I trust that nothing that has been said in this debate will make

1165
it difficult for the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and Ito co-operate in that line.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.48 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 61GB:
Page 6, line 22, after ("anything") insert ("which but for the enactment of this Act would have been within the powers of a Minister of the Crown, which").
The noble Lords said: This is contiguous to and not consequential to or a related Amendment. This seeks to define what the clause means. We have now established areas in which the Assembly is empowered to act. Does this clause give them power to buy land or to direct that land shall be bought; and, if so, is that power subject to planning procedures? I think I can simply ask this. Can the noble Lord tell us what the inclusion of this Amendment would prevent the Welsh Assembly from doing that it would otherwise be able to do? To that extent, it is a probing Amendment. If the answer is, "Nothing", then the Assembly has only the powers of the Secretary of State. To a layman like me, "anything" means what it says: anything. Of course, the visions open and are extended on either side. Can the noble Lord reassure the Committee?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I expected a little trouble over the word "anything". It worried me and I cross-questioned the drafters carefully and consulted legal opinion. I must answer fully on this. I think it is a point that otherwise people can become confused about. The clause as it stands does no more than devolve to the Assembly those non-statutory powers which are now available to Ministers to support cultural and recreational activities. Where appropriate, the Bill devolves statutory powers precisely and explicitly under Clause 9 and Schedule 2, with which the Committee has become familiar in our earlier debates. But, in the main, Ministers do not rely on statutory powers to support the arts and cultural and sporting activities. Hence this clause; I am sure that there is no disagreement that the Assembly should be able to support such activities.
What are the powers it provides?
1166
They would allow the Assembly to furnish support by means of financial assistance from the block fund in exactly the same way as Ministers can provide assistance from their Parliamentary vote without explicit statutory authority. Secondly, the Assembly will be able to encourage such activities in exactly the same way as Ministers do, by acting in their capacity to do whatever a private individual can do.
The clause cannot be read as conferring powers to take action for which legislation would be necessary. It does not provide any basis for the Assembly to regulate as a matter of law or to compel anybody to do anything. It cannot be used to enforce any change on any body, statutory or otherwise. The word "anything" is absolutely limited by the inability of the Assembly to legislate. I hope that what I have said explains the situation. If not, I will have another go.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord has understandable pessimism about being able to explain anything to me. That must reside in my stupidity and not in his lack of lucidity. He has been perfectly explicit and I am grateful to him. There is something that follows from this: at present the powers to which he refers, which are not explicitly expressed in the statute, relate to the sphere in which a particular Minister operates. Thus, the Minister of Education can produce funds for assisting children at school and the Minister of Health can contribute towards some medical scheme, but neither will do the job of the other. Am I right in assuming that what happens now is the block grant is funnelled down into the cornucopia of the Welsh Assembly and then, at that point, the Welsh Assembly becomes all things to all men, it becomes all Ministers to all fields? Thus, there is no distinction and it can draw on these funds which were originally specifically available for specific objects and put them, let us say, all to one object or to some object at the expense of others.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Provided those objects are devolved, the answer is, yes.
Lord ELTON: With remarkable rapidity we have arrived at all the information I wished to acquire. If no other noble

1167
Lords wish to speak on the subject, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.53 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN moved Amendment No. 61H:
Page 6, line 24, after ("sport") insert ("(including prevention and treatment of injury in relation to sport)").
The noble Lord said: We now come to less controversial matters in relation to Clause 10. The purpose of my Amendment is to ascertain the scope of the words in Clause 10:
"The Assembly may do anything it considers appropriate to support … sport and other … recreative activities".
I have left out all the other words relating to museums and galleries, and limited it to the Assembly's action which it considers appropriate to support sport.
The purpose of this Amendment is to try to ensure that two most important aspects relating to modern sport and recreational activities are included in those words; namely, the prevention of injuries likely to arise in sport and training; and, secondly, the proper treatment of injuries arising in sport and recreational activities. These do not appear to he covered by the word "sport" alone in Clause 10, and my Amendment is an attempt to draw to the attention of the Government these two other very important matters relating to sport.
I must declare an interest because for the past 12 months I have been the honorary chairman of the Institute of Sports Medicine, which was established some years ago to develop research and teaching in sports medicine. Sports medicine is defined as the application of medical knowledge and practice to problems of active recreation, games and sports. These matters have become increasingly important in view of the great encouragement given by the Government for people of all ages to indulge in sport at club and leisure centre level. As the Committee knows, many millions of pounds have recently been spent in the building and development of leisure centres.
On the Continent of Europe and, as I learned only this morning, even in certain African countries, sports doctors, specialists in the prevention and treatment of
1168
injuries, play a great part in the organisation and training of athletes for international games. As members of the Committee may have seen in the Press release of 18th April this year, an appointment unique in Great Britain has been made in that the institute of which I have the privilege of being chairman, was able to procure the election of Dr. Sylvia Lackman as a Fellow of Sports Medicine at the well known women's college, New Hall, at Cambridge. Never before has this subject of sports medicine received such academic acknowledgement in the United Kingdom.
The institute received great co-operation in this matter from the Regius Professor at Cambridge, Sir John Butterfield, who is a treble Oxford Blue. If I may emphasise the catholicity of this new Cambridge sports medicine project, the right reverend Prelates may like to know that I received great encouragement from a Cambridge theologian of international fame, the Master of Selwyn College, Cambridge, who was a one-time famous international rugby player with memories of frequent past injuries in the field.
Apart from the eminent doctors on the board of management of the Institute of Sports Medicine, the devoted secretariat and the university medical staff, we were able to collect information from a class of persons who were most useful to the work of the institute. They were people of both sexes who had achieved some kind of prominence in certain sports, but who were now playing at school, leisure centre or club level the games at which they had such prowess in the past. If I may say something about this Cambridge clinic, even in the past few weeks it has treated over 100 injured young persons. Surprisingly, the highest percentage of injuries—over 30 per cent.—were among raquets players. The next highest was, not unexpectedly, among rugby players, and the next rowing. These statistics from these experiences will form a basis of important research at Cambridge.
Since I became involved with this Cambridge project, I have come across a number of people who have been injured for life because of inadequate knowledge of simple training techniques and inadequate care for their injuries during their

1169
early days. The intensity of training of young sportsmen and sportswomen, and the intensity of competitions, has increased greatly at club, county and national level. Therefore this matter is no academic one. I do not propose to mention topical instances of problems where competitiveness has given rise to serious injuries at international level, or failures clue to gaps in even psychological—as opposed to physiological—knowledge which have produced failures in training in recent years.
It seems to me that the Welsh Assembly should have clear powers under Clause 10 to support this important aspect of prevention and treatment of sports injuries in the widest context. May I say that I had hoped to establish this "sports medicine project". in Wales I tried the University College of Aberystwyth, on whose Council I have the honour to serve, but they do not have a medical faculty. I was advised to try Cardiff, which is under the presidency of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I am sure he was not consulted, but I was told that they had no money available for doing such research. I have since been advised that the present wording of Clause 10 relating to recreational activities would preclude powers to assist in the important and topical subject of prevention of injury in sports. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: I should like to make a brief intervention to ask for information, and perhaps it might be convenient to do so now, so that the information can be brought while the noble Lord deals with the Amendment. Can the noble Lord tell me whether the functions under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and the related functions under the regulations brought in under the Public Health Act 1961 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (Part III) are not devolved, and that this field of prevention of injury will therefore be barred to the Welsh Assembly unless this Amendment is accepted? Might it not be a good thing if the Welsh Assembly were allowed to take care of this matter?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Taking the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, first, before answering the other question, I can answer
1170
this very quickly in a way which I hope will be entirely satisfactory. Improvement of the treatment of injury is a statutory duty on the Secretary of State in Section 1 of the National Health Service Act 1977. This duty is devolved to the Assembly in Part VI of Schedule 2. That covers the most important part of the noble Lord's question. The Assembly will be responsible for the allocation of funds from the block grant for health and for the allocation of funds within the health field. So this particular phrase in the Amendment does not add to the statutory powers the Assembly will have.
Similarly, Section 1 of the 1977 Act places a duty on the Secretary of State to improve the prevention of injury, and so the Assembly will have the statutory right to do what it thinks is necessary to prevent injury in relation to sport within the medical field. There are, of course, other ways of preventing injury through sport outside the medical field. For example, efforts can be made to improve the safety of areas given over to sporting pursuits, such as leisure centres. But if the Assembly wish to allocate funds to this sort of activity as part of its support for sport it will be able to do so.
I was very interested in what the noble Lord had to say and I am always glad, but never surprised, to hear of anything good coming from Cambridge, where most good things come from. Really, there is no need to add to Clause 10 for the Welsh Assembly to be able to deal with every single thing that he mentioned. The noble Lord asked whether the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 was devolved. It is devolved. In view of that, I hope that the noble Lord will not consider it necessary to pursue the matter further.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his assurances, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.4 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 61J:
Page 6, line 24, at end insert ("but shall not alter the method of appointment or the payment of grants-in-aid to the Sports Council for Wales.").
The noble Lord said: The Sports Council of Wales is one of the many bodies

1171
which are concerned to know a little more about their future, and the noble Lord may be able to help them by answering the questions I have implied in putting down this Amendment—a principal concern, of course, of those which appear in the Amendment itself: will there be an alteration in the method of appointment or the payment of grants-in-aid to the Sports Council in Wales?
When we recall that the Council, among its many other functions, including giving grant aid to "grass-roots sportsmen", as they put it in their report, also administers the National Sports Centre for Wales in Cardiff, and that they planned—I do not know whether they have started yet—in the financial year 1978/79, a beginning of the National Outdoor Pursuits Centre at Port Dinorwic in Gwynedd, we can see that here again we have body which is very much dependent on some degree of budgetary security. Already the Outdoor Pursuits Centre to which I referred has had to be phased over three years because the rate of grant they are receiving at the moment will enable them to complete the job only in that manner. There are certain penalties inherent in spreading a job that is scheduled to take three years over four or five years, and indeed over longer than that it may become impossible. That is the principal matter I wanted to raise with the noble Lord. Can he perhaps let me know the answer? I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The Sports Council for Wales is a body, like the Arts Council, established by Royal Charter. The Charter governs the constitution of the Council, including the appointment of members and the application of any finance received by the Council, including any money voted by Parliament.
It is constitutional practice for Royal Charter bodies to seek alterations to their charters if changing circumstances make this necessary or desirable. We said this in our discussion on the Arts Council. The Government see no need to alter this arrangement, and consequently the Wales Bill is not designed to deal with such bodies substantively. Instead, the Government expect that these bodies, including the Sports Council for Wales, will discuss with the Assembly and the Government any changes needed in their charters to take account of the new situation created
1172
by the Bill. The bodies will then, if necessary, apply for any changes in the normal way, which is by application to the Privy Council.
The Amendment proposed by noble Lords opposite appears to seek to entrench the present system of appointments and grants to the Sports Council for Wales. In the light of what I have said, the Government would regard this as mistaken. It would be wrong to enshrine in Statute—the Wales Bill—what has previously been, and in England will continue to be, a flexible non-statutory arrangement satisfactory to, and meeting the needs of, those concerned.
Under Clause 10, the Assembly will acquire powers which are currently exercised by Ministers on a non-statutory basis, subject only to approval by Parliament of the annual appropriation accounts. These powers will enable them to pay grants, and otherwise support sport, which will include grants to the Sports Council for Wales. Because of the Assembly's role in matters primarily of interest to people living in Wales, it is expected that the Council will normally look to the Assembly for its finance. Sport is a matter of local concern and it is right that the Assembly should be able to accept responsibility for its support in Wales.
The noble Lord spoke about "budgetary security". Nothing under our Parliamentary arrangement ever has complete budgetary security, and in fact the British Government could knock off the Sports Council's grant tomorrow if they wanted: they will not. We think we can rely on the Welsh Assembly to behave equally sensibly.
Lord ELTON: That was most helpful. The noble Lord has said, in effect, that the question of appointments and the paying out of funds received are effectively entrenched already and can be altered only at the request of the Council. I think that is probably very satisfactory.
I should just like to allude to this budgetary question. None of us yet know exactly when all this is going to happen and how it is going to fit in with the financial year: nor can we guess how quickly the Assembly will get itself organised to publish its first budget. I think that, not only with the Sports

1173
Council but with a lot of bodies, there may be a real difficulty if it takes six months for the Assembly to reach a conclusion. For example, if it is appointed in November, we have gone over the Treasury's financial year, have we not? Who will pay the salaries, and who will pay the builder during that period? I do not want to trespass upon the financial provisions, because these will be touched on later, but is it not an idea that we should keep in mind, that it might be necessary to enable the Assembly to get its house in order, without the anxiety that things will go sadly amiss while it is doing so, by arranging for the present budgetary arrangements in certain areas to continue for a period after the coming into existence of the Assembly?
The other point that I want to raise here is also a financial one, but restricted to this area. What, in this and in analogous cases, if any, is to be the role of the Secretary of State? I think that a lot of these bodies have reposed considerable confidence in the past in the fact that they had a voice in the Cabinet speaking, on a particular occasion, on their behalf. They felt that this was a way of protecting them against other pressures and of effectively advancing their cause. Indeed, I know, reverting to the Library, that they feel that they have been very well served in this way by the noble Lord's friend and colleague in the other place. That being the case, presumably this function is now to he taken away from the Secretary of State and, as in many other instances, it will reduce the totality of what he has to do. So at some stage in our debates I suppose that we need to know whether it is the Government's intention that the Secretary of State for Wales shall remain a member of the Cabinet, after devolution has taken place. It is not fair to ask the question now, but, in case the noble Lord had not thought that I would ask it, he now knows that I shall.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The question of the interim period, if any, must be handled in this case as in the case of the Arts Council. There is a body, and there will be a Secretary of State, until there is an Assembly. I do not see any difficulty in continuity, until the Assembly has made
1174
up its mind what it will do. It is worth just mentioning that the Assembly will not have power to alter the charter of the Sports Council. That has to be done by the Sports Council, but after discussion with the Assembly. I cannot answer the last question, but I am grateful for the warning.
Lord ELTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have taken the point about the entrenchment of the charter. I do not think that the noble Lord has quite taken my point about the interim period. I do not want to labour it now, but it is, in essence, that an Assembly could come into office late in November. It would then have to negotiate its block grant and acquire its funds. That is not something which can be done in half-an-hour over a cup of tea at No. 11. Then, at some time in the New Year, it will have to start making its budgetary plans. At some stage it has to vouch safe to all those numerous bodies which are dependent on it for funds what those funds will amount to. By then we are past Budget day, and I should have thought that by the time this had gone through the proper procedures a number of accounts could be heavily overdrawn, to the embarrassment of the voluntary bodies and others concerned. This is not my area of expertise. It is, however, a fairly practical consideration. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reassure my colleagues later on in the debate. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I hasten to assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, that I do not mean what I say. In fact, I mean exactly the opposite. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has already answered my question. My only query here was about the word "anything", and whether it meant an extra power to take land other than by Statute. I understand that "anything" in this context means nothing, and that is all I have to say.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: With respect, it means nothing involving legislation.
Lord WIGG: I have never seen in a Bill before, either in this House or in another place, words quite like this. I gather that the noble Lord who has just spoken is satisfied about the meaning of the word "anything". If he is satisfied, then I am prepared to be satisfied, too. But this clause refers to "anything it considers appropriate". What does that mean? Does it mean that the Assembly may send out Christmas cards, double the Maundy Money on the Thursday before Good Friday or dance around the maypole? Then we come to the word "support". What does that mean? The Assembly "may do anything it considers appropriate to support". It might take the money away. It might say that by taking away the grant it is forcing something to do this or that. The House should be told exactly what is the informing principle that called for the drafting to be done in this way.
Perhaps I had misjudged the situation, but I saw on the Marshalled List that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, would move to leave out Clause 10. My interest was aroused, not because of the cultural, recreative activities part of Clause 10, but because the Assembly may do anything it considers appropriate to support sport. That, too, is a little wide. What is meant by "sport"? What is one man's meat is another man's poison in this field. It could certainly cover the thoughts that were in my mind when I read this clause, in relation to the provisions which, happily, have now been removed from the Bill.
What could the Assembly do if it considered it appropriate to support racing in Wales, at Bangor or at Chepstow? Or it might even be that it wanted to support other courses, because there have been other courses in Wales which have now gone. In this century there used to be racing at Cardiff, and there was also racing at Tenhy. Wales has produced some very noted men who have made great contribution to Wales. I understand that Mr. Noel Murless started his career not far from Bangor race-course; and Wales has also produced great jockeys such as Fred Rees and his brother L. B. Rees. So if the Assembly may do
1176
anything it considers appropriate to support racing, one wants to know what it could possibly think appropriate in these circumstances.
When it comes to games such as rugby and soccer, there are associations connected with them which could be given support, and the Assembly could consult with some kind of organisation or group of men and women who were interested in those activities. But to put on the Statute Book a clause of this kind that can mean anything and nothing seems to me to be far-fetched. Of course, it is in line with the rest of the Bill. This has no meaning at all. It was never intended to have any meaning. This is a dummy in the shop window, and what you must not do with dummies in shop windows is look inside to see what is there, because there is nothing inside. This has not been at all thought out, but it is a pleasant evening and the House is to sit late, so perhaps the Minister would care to take a few minutes off from his other activities and just deal with my point as to what is the informing principle, so far as this clause is concerned, in relation to sport.
Perhaps the noble Lord can take three sports. Perhaps he can say what he has in mind in relation to Bingo, which is a very important activity in Welsh life—may be not in the circles in which the noble Lord moves, but in mine it is a very important activity. What, if anything, do the Government think the Assembly might do that could be considered appropriate to supporting Bingo? The noble Lord might say a word or two about the other sports which I have mentioned. I do not want him to go too wide, but perhaps he will pick out three sports which he thinks are followed in Wales and tell the Committee what he thinks this clause can possibly mean in relation to three sporting activities which are referred to by the word "sport".
Lord HAWKE: I hope that the noble Lord will respond to that invitation. I think that this is rather ambiguous. "Sport" is a term which means different things to different people. To me "sport" means hunting, fishing, et cetera. However, according to the Army recruitment posters, "sport" means football, cricket and the like which I call "games." What does the noble Lord mean by "sport" in this context?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I think that we use the word "sport" in the widest possible sense to include racing, bingo and anything else that the noble Lord may like to include. The point is that the Assembly can do anything which it considers to be appropriate to support these activities and to support the cultural life of the Principality for which it is responsible. Whether it will spend a great deal of money on some of these activities is a matter for it to decide. I should think that it would spend very little on bingo, which pays extremely well and needs no support. In relation to racing, the money for racing does not come from the Assembly but from elsewhere. Therefore, it is most unlikely that the Assembly would do anything very specific about racing. But it could. I think that the meanings are perfectly clear. I find no difficulty about understanding what is meant. It is rather difficult to describe exactly what will happen, but this will be for the Assembly to decide.
Lord WIGG: I am sorry, but that is not quite good enough. The Exchequer takes very considerable sums of money out of the pockets of the people of Wales, through the functions of the Board of Customs and Excise. Therefore, the figures are returned in the annual report of the Board of Customs and Excise. Fair amounts of money are involved, and it is perfectly clear that the Assembly will not have much control over them; they will still be in the tight grip of the Treasury.
It is just not good enough for the Minister to say that "sport" is what it means to me. I am not responsible for this; this is not my conception of sport; it is the Minister's conception of sport. If the Bill becomes law, either the Minister or the Government will give to the Assembly power to do anything which it considers to be appropriate in support of these activities. The Minister could at least define the extent of the activities. It is no good the Minister saying, "We don't know what the Assembly is going to do". I quite agree with the Minister that neither he nor the Government know what the Assembly is going to do; the Government have not thought out what the Assembly is going to do. I know that I am asking the Minister a difficult question, but all that he has to do is to get up and
1178
say, "We put this clause into the Bill, but we don't know what it means. However, it does not matter very much to your Lordships what it means, because nobody is going to do anything about it". If the Minister will say that, I shall sit down and say no more.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: It is a great temptation to achieve that result, but obviously that is not what I shall say. The words are perfectly clear. "Sport" is a very wide term, as is "art", and it is absolutely unnecessary to define it here. What will happen in practice will be this. If the Assembly gives money to something which it thinks is sport but which the noble Lord does not think is sport, he can bring an action in a court of law, where he will get a definition of "sport". These general terms are never defined in Acts of Parliament. I think that the noble Lord is as ungenerous as one would expect in his description of something which seems to me to be both clear and useful.
Lord WIGG: I am sorry, but if I had wanted to define the term within the meaning of the Bill I would have put down an Amendment. I am not asking the noble Lord to define it in legalistic terms. I want him, if he will—and I regard it as his duty to the Committee—not to interpret these words but to tell us what was in the Government's mind when they called upon the Parliamentary draftsman to draft a clause so wide as this. What does it mean to them? What did it mean to the Ministers who were responsible for the drafting of this Bill when they put in those words? What were they seeking to do?
Lord HAWKE: I do not believe that the word "sport" is in the least necessary. Why does not the Minister leave out the word "sport" and leave it at "cultural and recreative activities"?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, was not here when the explanation of this clause was given. Perhaps I had better go through it again. The point of this clause is that under Clause 9 a number of statutory duties are made over to the Assembly by the Secretary of State. However, in addition to statutory duties, the Secretary of State exercises a certain

1179
number of non-statutory powers. This clause is designed to make sure that those non-statutory powers are available to him. Those non-statutory powers, as exercised by the Secretary of State, include what is contained in this clause. They include the support of museums, art galleries, libraries, the Welsh language, arts, crafts, sport and other cultural and recreative activities. I am very sorry, but I am unable to see any problem here.
Lord WIGG: I am sure that the noble Lord does not see the problem, but that does not mean to say that the problem does not exist. I am sorry that I was not here during the earlier part of the afternoon. However, I have been pursuing my sporting activities by watching the racing at Ascot, though not with the same financial benefit as when I watched the Derby—still, satisfactorily enough! The fact that a Minister has non-statutory powers obviously means that we need not worry about the Bill, because it deals here with the law and not with what the Minister may do on the side as a result of some habit he may have formed, or some work that the Department may have taken on. However, the Minister has got to answer for his statutory powers. All I am concerned about are the Minister's statutory powers. The Government have now put into the Bill a provision whereby the Assembly is to be given powers of great width and great depth. I do not know what they mean and I do not believe that anybody else knows what they mean. The powers are so wide, in my judgment, as to defy description. I do not believe that in the ultimate it makes two-penn'orth of difference whether or not they are in the Bill. That is what I want to establish: that we can all go home happily, because it does not matter. That is all.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Other non-statutory powers]:
5.28 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 61D:
Page 6, line 27, leave out from ("disabled") to end of line 29.
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is a probing Amendment, to find out exactly what the Government mean by Clause 11(b). Perhaps, however, the
1180
first question is one of substance. The whole of the clause is concerned with other non-statutory powers. Therefore, the first question which I should like to ask the Government relates to the title of Clause 11(b); namely, "Other non-statutory powers." Is this limitative, or does it allow the Assembly at some stage to take further statutory powers? That is, are the only non-statutory powers, other than those mentioned in Clause 10, first those concerned with the provision in Wales of services for the war disabled and, secondly, those concerned with making grants towards the carrying on of public passenger transport undertakings in Wales? Are those the only two other non-statutory powers which are to be given, both now and in the future, to the Welsh Assembly? If they are not the only ones, what other non-statutory powers will be given? Will they have to be brought about by Act of Parliament, or will the Welsh Assembly have the right to take non-statutory powers during the course of its functions? I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: If I may answer that question first, the other non-statutory powers are included in Clause 10.
Baroness ELLES: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I have mentioned already that some non-statutory powers are contained in Clause 10. All I am asking the Government is whether, apart from those set out in Clause 10 and apart from the two powers which are specifically mentioned and identified in Clause 11, there are any other non-statutory powers. Will the Welsh Assembly, at some future date, be entitled to undertake other non-statutory powers, although they are not spelt out in this Bill? Is this a limiting clause, or is it one which is merely descriptive? That, of course, is another matter. At some stage I should be grateful for a reply from the Government.
I should now like to draw the attention of your Lordships to the particular content of Clause 11(b). My comments on this Amendment will be a series of questions. I apologise for not having notified the Government first, but, as we all know, we have been working under pressure lately. If I cannot receive the answers today I shall be very happy to have them later on. My first question is this. When reference is

1181
made to public passenger transport undertakings, are we to presume that that covers all forms of public transport—bus, rail and local air services?
The second question is connected with financial matters, because one of the powers granted to the Assembly is to make grants. I do not pretend to be an expert on the transport services, although I know that there is a transport expert on the Government Benches at the moment. As I am informed, I understand that the financing of public transport services comes from two sources. The first is the rate support grant, which is dealt with by the counties. The second, as I understand it, is the transport supplementary grant. That is a fixed figure which I understand is settled every year subject to plans put forward by counties some time in July. I understand that the figure for Wales is something like £5 million; I believe that is the kind of figure involved.
My question in this connection is this: where these grants are to be made by the Welsh Assembly—and it now has authority to make grants—are the grants to come from the block grant which it will receive from the Consolidated Fund? Are these topping-up sums, which will come from some other source, or can the Assembly merely advise, and indeed direct, the counties to spend their transport supplement grant in some other way? Can it control the way that the rate support grant is to be spent on transport within the counties themselves? Clearly, in the way the clause is drafted at the moment, there is an element of confusion. I should be grateful if we could have some clarification on this aspect.
The next question is the matter of transport policy. Clearly if grants are to he made towards the carrying on of public passenger transport undertakings, that involves a considerable element of policy: whether the money is to be spent on the repair of roads and highways; whether it is to be spent on the maintenance or improvement or even elimination of bus services; whether new airports are to be built; whether rail connections are to be improved and all those kinds of matters. Are these matters to be dealt with by the Welsh Assembly, despite recommendations from the counties, or is there to be some form of co-ordinated plan between the Welsh Assembly and the counties?
1182
Indeed, some districts in fact allocate some of their resources to bus services.
I hasten to say that in my student days, I hitch-hiked all over Wales. Certainly in those days communications were extremely difficult. Therefore, bus and rail services are extremely important to the people of Wales. The distances are very great and it is difficult to get about. Obviously it is a matter is of importance, who is to decide the policy as to the improvement, or disimprovement, of transport facilities for the Welsh people. Who will control the funds in the end? As we all know, he who holds the purse strings will, in the end, decide the policy to be implemented throughout Wales.
Finally, I know that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I quote from her recent speeches on the Transport Bill, which had its Second Reading in this House on 9th June. It was very clearly stated—and obviously I accept that she was probably reading from a brief—when, talking about the importance of the Transport Bill, she said:
"It is not simply a matter of resources.… This means not only proper planning; it means that someone somewhere has to take decisions".— [Official Report, 9/6/78; col. 1557.]
Therefore I should like to know in this context who will take the decision? Is it the Welsh Assembly or is it the county?
Further on in the Second Reading debate, at col. 1558 of the Official Report, the noble Baroness said:
"The Bill seeks not to impose on counties a whole new range of duties and powers, but to clarify and extend the responsibilities which they already have".
Obviously in the way that this Bill is worded it is clear that there is going to be conflict. I am not saying that the Welsh Assembly should not have these powers. This is not in the argument. I merely want to know who is going to have them, how they are to be implemented, and what status, rights and responsibilities the counties will be left with after the Welsh Assembly takes on these non-statutory powers.
Finally, the noble Baroness, very rightly and properly, said in her winding-up speech (in col. 1621 of the Official Report) on the Second Reading of the Transport Bill:
"On the question as to what proposals and effect this Bill would have on devolution, or the

1183
effect of devolution Bills on this Bill, which again I think was raised by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, mention has already been made in the course of the passage of the Scotland Bill through this House that some amendments might have to be made. Indeed this Bill contains provisions that affect some of the matters that are being devolved under the terms of the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill, and Amendments will have to be made to deal with these".
In view of that statement by the noble Baroness, which I am sure is quite correct, I must say that I very much regret that the Government have not put forward at least some Amendments to the Wales Bill at this stage, knowing that the Transport Bill was also going through this House. I think that it might have saved us some time if we had had some Amendments from the Government to clarify what is obviously at the moment not only confusion for us but what must be very worrying for counties, which presumably at this time of year must be getting out their plans for supplementary grants. I should be grateful to the noble Lord for a reply.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The first point which the noble Baroness raised can be answered very quickly. Clauses 10 and 11 are limited, and include all non-statutory powers. Any grant of further non-statutory powers would require further legislation.
Baroness ELLES: By "legislation" the noble Lord presumably means by Act of Parliament.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: That is exactly what this noble Lord does mean. The noble Baroness asked whether public passenger transport included all such undertakings. The answer is that it does. The powers to he transferred to the Assembly are functions at present exercised by Ministers. These are, in the main, contained in enactments. Those to be transferred are listed in Schedule 2. I think that we are all perfectly clear about this, but it is just as well to go through it again.
There are son-le functions not contained in Statutes which are exercised by Ministers on a non-statutory basis, subject of course to the annual Appropriation Acts. Some of these functions also need to be transferred. As any listing in Schedule 2 would not be appropriate, special provision needs to be made—hence Clause
1184
11(b), which will enable the Assembly to make grants to support bus and rail passenger services on an all-Wales basis. At present such powers are available under various Acts to local authorities, but only with regard to their own areas. The powers are also available to Ministers who, as mentioned, do not require express authority, other than under the annual Appropriation Acts, to make these grants generally, although there are some limited powers contained in enactments.
The Wales Bill devolves important functions to the Assembly in the field of transport services. The provision in Clause 11(b) is therefore properly devolved to the Assembly, who will be able as a result to subsidise services as necessary, taking into account the needs of the whole of Wales, just as Ministers do now for England and Wales. It will provide a useful tool for the Assembly in the formulation of a coherent policy for public passenger transport in Wales. Therefore I suggest that the noble Baroness can put her mind at rest.
I think I should say that the non-statutory powers do nothing to affect the counties' responsibilities—the local authorities—and there will be no powers of intervention by the Assembly in the way local authorities spend their rate support grant. The rate support grant is a grant in support of the rates and will not be administered or interfered with by the Assembly. In regard to the question of Amendments, my noble friend said that the Government's intention was to make some Amendments in the Transport Bill and that is thought to be the easier way of doing it.
Baroness ELLES: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. In view of the comments that he has made in regard to the statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, concerning Amendments to the Transport Bill, I would draw his attention to the Second Reading debate, in which the noble Baroness said:
"For technical reasons—because all Bills are still in the process of passage through the House—they will have to be made at a later stage, either to this Bill or to the relevant constitutional Bill".—[Official Report; 9.6.78; col. 1621.]
Do I take it therefore from the noble Lord that now no Amendments will be made to the Scotland or Wales Bills but only to the Transport Bill?

1185
In regard to the rate support grant, I absolutely accept that the counties will have the sole control of those sums of money to spend as they think fit for their own counties, but the noble Lord did not actually mention what role the transport supplementary grant would play and whether therefore the powers of the Welsh Assembly to grant sums for public passenger transport are entirely topping-up sums from their own block funds and nothing to do with either of the two sources from local authorities. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will confirm those two points.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I do confirm them.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Without wishing to go over Clause 10 again, I understand from the replies given by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, that both this clause and Clause 10 refer to non-statutory powers. Would it not be possible and also make it far clearer if in fact those words were written into both clauses? I may have a suspicious mind, but at the moment it gives me the idea rather of a blank cheque and I wonder whether the noble Lord might like to take up that suggestion?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I think the noble Lord has rather a suspicious mind. The side heading to Clause 11 says "other non-statutory powers." It is in writing in the Bill and I do not know that we can go much further. I certainly do not think it would be necessary.
Baroness ELLES: I took the noble Lord's reply to imply that these clauses are limitative and that any further devolvement of any non-statutory powers would have to be made by Act of Parliament. I take his word for that statement and I think that will clarify the point raised by my noble friend. In thanking the noble Lord for his explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount AMORY: Noble Lords will be sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has been prevented by urgent domestic circumstances from being here this evening. We shall all be sorry to know the reason for his absence, and in that situation I wish to move what I understand he would have moved, namely, that Clause 12 be left out.
I wish to support strongly the elimination of this clause which I believe should not have found its way into this particular Bill, where it seems to be wholly out of place. As I said in our Second Reading debate, to the best of my knowledge all the Welsh county councils desire very strongly the elimination of this clause. Ministers have been tireless in assuring us that this Bill does not affect the functions of existing local authorities, but here we have an invitation to the Assembly to initiate changes in functions which, if they were approved by Government, could turn the existing allocation of responsibilities topsy-turvy.
Is another surgical operation on the structure of local government desired by the public at large? I cannot believe that it is. What the public want is for the existing local authorities to be encouraged to get on with their responsibilities, concentrating on efficiency in their services and on choosing the right priorities and giving the best value for money. Those in favour of a radical revision of functions at the present time, within five years of the last reorganisation, have given no specific reasons that I have heard for their views. We are not told what the shortcomings are of the present allocation of functions or what the objects would be in any reallocation. We are left to guess. A blank cheque to the Assembly to make recommendations is really not satisfactory in any major Bill of this kind.
Ministers have made no specific charges, to my knowledge, of maladministration or inefficiency. On the contrary, quite recently they have congratulated local authorities on the success with which they have carried out the Government's wishes as to their aggregate expenditure. One cannot avoid the impression that Ministers' objections are that the last local government reform was passed by Parliament under a Conservative Government. So my first reason for disliking this clause is that it invites recommendations for another

1187
restructuring of local government without advancing the slightest specific reasons for such a major convulsion.
It may be said that it imposes no mandatory duty actually to propose changes but only a duty to consider whether to make them or not. But whoever heard of such an invitation to a new and keen public body, anxious to justify its existence? Who imagines that they would be likely to respond with the answer, "No change is required"? Such an idea seems to be almost laughable. So at this time, when stability is required for the reason I have mentioned, with a division of responsibilities which the public at large are beginning to understand, surely it must be wrong—to use a rather imaginative mixed metaphor—to pull local government up by the roots and drop it again into the melting pot.
My second reason is that if major changes are required to be initiated the Assembly seems to be quite the wrong body for this task. Changes in functions and in relations between local governments call for a very calm and dispassionate review. The Assembly, which will clearly be part of local government as a whole, involved as it will be with a lot of day-to-day judgments, and day-to-day party controversies possibly, cannot be the right body to sit back and make dispassionate recommendations of this kind. One hopes that conflicts between the Assembly and local authorities will not often take place, but I think your Lordships will agree that one cannot say they will never take place.
Again, if we are to be realists, the Assembly will be very likely after a few years of existence, to build up some kind of vested interest, if that is not an offensive phrase—I do not mean it to be—but some kind of special view, shall we say. I know some noble Lords at this point will say, "There you are, you have no confidence in the Assembly because it is Welsh". I must be very careful at this point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, is listening, and if I go wrong in some trifling way he will, in the most gracious way possible, descend on me like a ton of best Welsh steam coal, of the very highest possible thermal efficiency, of course.
Perhaps I dare say again that I have full confidence in the Assembly. The reason
1188
I am putting this forward is not because of lack of confidence in the Assembly, or any other reason but the sole one that I think the Assembly is too close to day-to-day business and is likely to be too immersed in it and too involved to be a dispassionate judge of what is required. So if it is necessary to have a major review I really think it should be done quite separately by some entirely independent body, and I would be strongly against setting up such a body in present circumstances. I do feel that to include this clause in this Bill would be wrong policy and quite wrong timing. If the noble Lord, Lord Champion, had been here, I am sure he would have led his troops into the Division Lobby with the aim of having this clause eliminated. I am confident that my noble friends will, as I shall, support him in taking that action.
Baroness VICKERS: I should very much like to support the noble Viscount, Lord Amory. One thing that worries me particularly is that there is no compulsion for the Secretary of State to carry out the recommendations of the Assembly. The Members will have enough work to build up their own organisation, and it will be very frustrating for them if they do bring forward what they think are sensible ideas and they are all turned down by the Secretary of State. I would agree with the noble Viscount that a further reorganisation so soon after the last one would create more confusion to the average voter. I can say this quite categorically because I fought the Conservative local government reorganisation from beginning to end, and got myself into quite a lot of trouble by voting against it on every occasion that T could. I feel that the average voter will think himself more remote from the affairs of local government bodies which have been administering over a wide area.
I should like to quote from what Harold Wilson said in 1976; he was speaking to the Labour Party Local Government Conference in Cardiff:
"To impose another reorganisation would not prove a burden easily to be tolerated. We will not throw the whole of local government again into the melting pot".
I think this clause is an invitation to initiate further reorganisation. If you were given this chance, you would surely want to do something to show that you

1189
were at least competent. As I understand it, local government in Wales is utterly opposed to this idea. The apparent stability of local government following the recent reorganisation has been mentioned by the noble Viscount. I suggest that it would be quite wrong to contemplate further reorganisation, which I think would be very bitterly controversial and which would also take a considerable amount of time and be very expensive. Local government should be allowed to get on with its job. An efficient organisation cannot possibly waste so much time and money repeatedly considering reorganisation. For 30 years or so—the entire post-war period—there has been talk of local government reorganisation. Even the steel industry or any other industry has not been so afflicted.
I should also like to refer to the Personal Social Services Council, which has said that reorganisation could impair the quality and delivery of its services. It is opposed to partial reorganisation which would transfer its services from the local councils to somewhat larger metropolitan districts. I have great respect, if I may say so, for the local councils in Wales; I think they are some of the best in Great Britain.
The Bill itself does not attempt to appropriate any of the functions of local government to the Assembly, but I suggest that there are dangers consequent upon any reform. Government will not be closer to the people but further away. Even the Labour Party in Wales, in the document on local government reform, admits:
"In view of the relatively small size of some of the multi-purpose authorities, it would also prove necessary for some expert and some specialist staff to be employed on a basis wider than a single authority; that could be done through the Assembly or by joint action between a number of local authorities".
So I do hope consideration will be given to withdrawing this clause, because I am quite certain it will not improve local government in Wales, which to my mind is working extremely satisfactorily at the moment.
There is one further point I would mention. I understand that the Assembly would have to report its conclusions to the Secretary of State for Wales and would then be responsible for the distribution of rate support grant to the
1190
local authorities. Having served on a local authority, I think the last thing local government wants is a Welsh government tied to Whitehall. This would complicate the relations between the local authorities and the real central power. So I would support the noble Viscount.
Lord GRIDLEY: In supporting my two noble friends who have spoken on this Motion to leave out Clause 12, I rise with a certain amount of trepidation because I am speaking from the Opposition, I am an Englishman and what I have to say is something in relation to a Welsh Assembly. I have asked myself what were the reasons for writing this Clause into the Bill. It does seem to me that what one has to do at the outset is to see what will happen when the Welsh Assembly is established. This will be an entirely new body of men faced with new problems which they have not dealt with before. Under this Clause 12, Welshmen completely new to this sort of situation in a Welsh Assembly will be sitting in judgment on other Welsh people in local government authorities. This seems to me a position into which they should not be placed, and I find it very difficult to understand how this clause came to be written into the Bill. I say that I find it difficult because it seems to me that some of the problems which obviously will face the Welsh Assembly in taking over local government will be the appointment of various individuals to the local authority, possibly retrenchment, possibly expansion of certain services, possibly conditions of service of those people who are the officers of local authorities. I feel that this is not a responsibility which should be placed on the Assembly.
My noble friend Lord Amory suggested, with a great deal of force from his experience, that the people who should be considering this might be people right outside the confines of the Welsh Assembly, possibly a Commission, possibly some independent arbitrator, so that once the Welsh Assembly is set up there will be no friction or difficulty in what the Assembly will be trying to carry out. I hope I have made these comments in a constructive sense. It is not that I am criticising the ability of the Welsh Assembly to come to a wise judgment, but I think they are being put in a very difficult situation in all the

1191
circumstances. What I am trying to do is to make some suggestions for the smooth working of the Assembly.
6 p.m.
Lord TRANMIRE: May I put a point of view, not from the Welsh counties, but regarding the attitude of the local authorities in Britain generally? They have been battered very much by reorganisation and are just trying to get over it. They now fear that this clause is going to make it difficult for them to plan their future. I would ask the noble and learned Lord, who I think is going to reply to this debate, to consider carefully whether it is the moment to have a clause like this in such a Bill as this. Perhaps when he replies he could detail to us what the Bill means by "review the structure". As far as I can see, there are two possible angles to this matter—either the Assembly will say that some of the functions of the local authorities should belong to the Assembly, or alternatively it might say that some of the matters that we have devolved to the Assembly from the central Government should be further devolved to the local authority.
We in the northern part of England have found that on reorganisation the straitjacket of a Bill laying down functions is not the happiest way of meeting the problem. Areas vary very greatly, and the need in an area for a particular function may be different in one part of the country from another. Therefore in many parts—there was a letter in The Times from the director of social services of the North Yorkshire County Council two days ago—by amicable agreement there has been a working arrangement of devolution. Directly you put into this Bill a review of a structure by a new body, which has many other responsibilities, it means that there will be a period of instability in local government not merely in Wales but throughout Britain. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts on this particular clause. If later on, in 10 years' time, there is need for legislation when we have settled down after the last reorganisation, there would be a case for bringing in some Bill to deal with that with some more impartial arbiter as to the structure than that proposed in this section.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I find myself more than usually confused
1192
in this Amendment, and as I feel I may have to make up my mind I should like some free advice. No doubt I shall get that from the noble and learned Lord. As I see it, this Amendment highlights the whole trouble of the Wales Bill, indeed devolution itself. As I have followed as best I can the Bill's progress in Committee—and Schedule 2 contains the "nitty-gritty"—I have come to realise that Central Government is not really giving the Welsh Assembly anything. It is saying to the Welsh Assembly, "You may take powers away from those below you if you wish". I make no bones about it. I do not wish to see the Welsh Assembly taking over these powers and governing from Cardiff, and destroying my local government in Llanelly, though I believe that some of my county councillors do. So I say to myself, "I must vote for this Amendment". If I do that, I might as well say to myself, "Why did I not oppose the Bill on Second Reading?". If this Amendment is passed, there will be very little for the Welsh Assembly to do. Is it right for me in your Lordships' House to do such a thing? Surely such a decision is for the Welsh people at the referendum.
I am truly in a muddle. On Second Reading I said that Wales had asked for a fish and had been given a serpent. I believe now that I was nearer the truth than I ever dreamt. If I may say so, the head of the serpent was produced by the noble Baroness on Wednesday over nominated bodies, but it was the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who let it flop out from the Dispatch Box on Thursday on the Water Board nomination. Instead of being a serpent, it appeared as an octopus with powers to grab all the nominations of nominated bodies, and now we discover it can grab the powers of local authorities. If that is what the Welsh want, an Assembly all-powerful in Cardiff with no power on the ground for local authorities, then it must be their decision. But let us make it quite clear to them that, when they vote for the Bill in the referendum, they are voting for that. As I see it, the ball is in their court; I am not at all sure it is in ours.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: As I listened to the debate, I could not help thinking once again—and I say this without any political bias—what a pity it was that the previous Government implemented

1193
their plans for local government reform before waiting for the conclusions of the Kilbrandon Committee and the evidence associated with that same inquiry. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, in his charming and persuasive manner, seemed to indicate that there was nothing wrong about local government in Wales; everything was perfect. But the 1973 legislation of a previous Government changed, for instance, very drastically the boundaries of local government. This is a cause of considerable dissension and unhappness in the administration of local government in Wales, because of the large counties that have been created. It modified also some aspects of the National Health Service and Welsh water undertakings with some unhappy consequences. There is considerable feeling in Wales that the planning arrangements require looking at and some reform. At the present time, planning is dealt with by district councils and county councils. Changes are clearly necessary in regard to that very important matter of planning which affects the lives of ordinary people a great deal, as well as industrial concerns.
What we are concerned about in Clause 12 is simply this: an elected Assembly, the first elected Assembly Wales has ever had, shall at some time—not necessarily immediately, because I would agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, that it should not happen straight away and commonsense in Wales would not allow it to take place for several years—be empowered to review the structure of local government and then report to the Secretary of State for Wales. The Secretary of State varies the safeguards. The Secretary of State for Wales need do nothing. I have a great sympathy for the officials of the present county councils—they are very fine men, some who are Welsh speaking, some who do not speak Welsh at all. As one might expect, they have reacted very violently against the Wales Bill, but their reactions have been far less than the reactions of the district councils. A number of district councils would in due course have welcomed a review of the present local structure. It seems to me almost unarguable that the Welsh Assembly should be allowed for the first time on a national basis to consider local government in Wales.
6.9 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: May I begin by joining with the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, in expressing our regret that my noble friend Lord Champion, who could have contributed so much to discussion of this Bill in view of his long and dedicated experience in local government is not able to be present. We hope that the family question which has sent him home will be healed and resolved. We had a trial run on this issue on Second Reading, and I appreciate the concern that has been expressed by those familiar with and those who have worked for and have contributed so much to local government, like the noble Viscount himself, that there may be danger in this clause of a sort of future take-over of local government activities and powers by the Welsh Assembly. I venture to think that these fears are really wholly misplaced, and I support the approach which has just been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, on this issue.
Some noble Lords have painted a somewhat happy picture of the present system of local government in Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, referred to the reorganisation of local government carried out by the last Administration as the "idiotic" reorganisation of local government. I personally would not use such extreme language as that, but there is little doubt that whereas at countycouncil level there seems to be some satisfaction, at other levels and at the grass-roots levels I am sorry to say that that is not the picture of contentment that really exists.
The present system of local government organisation in Wales—basically the two-tier system of eight counties and 37 districts—which was established under the Local Government Act 1972, has been subjected to widespread criticism since its inception. I do not think that that criticism is based entirely on the proposition that what was produced by a Tory Government cannot possibly he good. That would be a gross exaggeration and I do not think that it explains the whole reason for the attitude of, at any rate, a substantial body of opinion in Wales which has criticised local government arrangements.
It is not for me today in this debate to list the matters of discontent as regards

1195
local government organisation in Wales. But I understand that the criticisms relate to the remoteness—especially in the case of the larger counties—of the local authorities concerned, its cost, the duplication and confusion of powers which apparently exist, and its unsuitability, particularly in the case of the former county boroughs. Those criticisms may not be sound, but they are strongly and widely held and the Government think that in the public interest, they ought to be examined carefully.
Therefore, in answer to the first proposition of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, that there is no need for change—certainly not yet—I venture to submit that he is reflecting a view which is not the general view in Wales. Secondly, if there is need for a change, it is suggested by the noble Viscount that certainly this Assembly is not the appropriate body to make recommendations. I venture to quarrel with that view. The Assembly will take over the main supervisory responsibility for local government in Wales. That being so, it is not inappropriate that it should carry out a review of the present structure, and by that I would contemplate that it would look at the two-tier system and the powers and functions that are exercised by the components part. I cannot elaborate on that answer in reply to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, on this matter.
The Welsh Assembly will have to work closely with the local authorities in Wales in virtually all their main areas of operation. It will be responsible for most of their centrally provided finance through rate support and other grants. I venture to submit that as the elected representatives of the people of Wales and in Wales, the Assembly ought to be, and I think will be, well placed to make a proper study of the present arrangements and to make recommendations. No more is proposed in the clause as it stands than to review the structure and to report the conclusions to the Secretary of State. That review will, of course, involve full consultations with the existing local authorities, their representatives and their civil servants and with the local authority associations. Therefore, I submit that this is an appropriate body to conduct this review of a struct-
1196
ture which is deemed to be unsatisfactory by so many people in Wales.
The further fear has been expressed that this is a grab, a power-seeking idea, which the Assembly will be encouraged to pursue. The limit of the power given in the clause is to report the conclusions of its review to the Secretary of State. It will then be for the Secretary of State and the Government to form a view upon what is proposed. If changes are proposed, they will require legislation and in the last resort it will fall to Parliament to decide whether to give effect to them.
Therefore, the fears are, in my view, ill-founded. In my submission, this is the appropriate body to conduct the review. I have endeavoured to explain the reasons why it has come to pass. I confess that I have not so far been able to identify the hydra-headed snake that has obviously tormented the mind of the noble Lord Lord Stanley of Alderley, in the past few days. I am very distressed that so gentle and genial a person as he should be so harassed by such appalling nightmares as the hydra-headed Welsh snake. It is even more unattractive than some of the Welsh dragons that one sees in the ancient heraldic symbols that lie around in such profusion in Wales. I think that he can calm his mind. In my view, this is a sensible proposal, and accordingly I hope that the proposal to omit it from the Bill will be rejected.
Baroness VICKERS: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord about the matter which I put to him. The Assembly will, of course, be a political body comprising two, three or perhaps even four Parties. Therefore, the Members of those Parties will have vast discussions among themselves which will be reported in the local newspapers and so on, and that will be particularly unsettling. If the noble and learned Lord really wants a reorganisation of local government, surely it is better to have an impartial body commissioned to inquire into it. That would give people more confidence. Moreover, as I suggested previously, if the Assembly is to do all this work and then submit its findings to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may be of a different political Party from the Party which has the majority in the Assembly. It will be a very difficult situation. Let us

1197
suppose that the Secretary of State at that time does not agree with what is said. It could be said that he is disagreeing on political grounds and not on the basis of real judgment. In my view, there is a great danger here and perhaps the noble and learned Lord will consider the matter.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Baroness has said, I should expect the Assembly to be composed of representatives of the various Parties. I should imagine that the process of reviewing the structure would not be on a single-Party basis. I hope that there would be across the board representation as regards those who are delegated to review the structure. Ultimately, of course, it would have to come back to the Assembly as a whole to make its recommendations. I think that in that way it would work. I suppose that if it wanted to do so it could, when carrying out this review, invite external guidance and advice also upon the review itself.
However, I must return to the continued refrain which certainly all Welsh Members of your Lordships' Committee will wish to repeat: we are dealing with fairly sophisticated politically-minded people who, on the whole, do not behave irresponsibly. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, is not suggesting that they will behave otherwise. Nevertheless, it is worth my reminding noble Lords of the confident view that we have of the way in which they will conduct their affairs. I do not think that there is need for anxiety.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: It is perhaps a little dangerous for a Scot to intervene in another Celtic problem, but the noble and learned Lord's description of the feeling of the people in Wales today of the new sort of local government struck such a clear chord in my mind of what is happening in my part of Scotland that I felt I wanted to support my noble friend Lord Amory for the particular reason that the noble and learned Lord thought I should not.
The position in Scotland is that certainly the people in the street, the people in the hills and the people in the country districts feel that the modern, large organisation is too distant and too expensive. I think that those were the words which the noble and learned Lord used, and certainly those are the two things which come most
1198
clearly through to us. If the noble and learned Lord is right in thinking that this duty should be given to a new Welsh Assembly, surely the people will say, "It is even more distant than the large local authorities that we already have". What is more, if I am any judge of how these things will turn out, the Members will have a vested interest in maintaining the salary structures of their own civil servants and perhaps of themselves to an even greater extent than local authorities have already done. Therefore, I am afraid that on this particular matter I entirely agree with my noble friend that they would be unsuitable people to make recommendations on this point.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think it is contemplated that the Welsh Assembly should take over all local government functions. That is not contemplated at all. This democratic, national Assembly will be the first in the history of Wales since the Middle Ages. I shall not go into that, tempting as it is to talk about it. What is contemplated is that the executive powers now exercised by the Secretary of State—remotely and bureaucratically, in a faceless way, except, of course, for the handsome Secretary of State for Wales—will hereafter be exercised by the Assembly itself. That is what is contemplated; it is nothing quite so revolutionary of the kind indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas.
Lord MOYNE: I rise with some embarrassment because on this occasion I find myself in disagreement with so many of my noble friends. I think that when one is in disagreement and one is going to vote the wrong way from the point of view of one's noble friends, one is obliged to say why. I am convinced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, has expressed this great disquiet and discomfort in Scotland at what has happened. I think that the function of a local Assembly is to express the local view. What Westminster has imposed in Scotland at least has been intolerable, and I think that in their new Assembly the Welsh people should be given the chance to say what changes they want. This may not be accepted by the Secretary of State, but it is exactly what the Assembly is for; its job is to look at these matters.
Lord ELTON: My noble friend has made a valuable contribution, though I think it may become apparent that I do not altogether share his view in the matter. Nothing I do can surprise the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It is not my purpose or duty to defend the recent reorganisation or to declare that it is either satisfactory or unsatisfactory, but I have sat in silence, hoping that the reasoned, measured and familiar tones of the noble and learned Lord would enable me to counsel my friends not to press this Amendment But in this I have been disappointed.
It does not seem to me that the noble and learned Lord has properly rebutted the view expressed in a charming mixed metaphor by my noble friend Lord Amory, who must have been reading about the plans for plastic trees which were recently publicised, and expressed in a discussion paper produced by the Welsh Counties Committee in the following terms:
"Local government should be allowed to get on with its job. An efficient organisation cannot possibly waste so much time and money in repeatedly considering reorganisation. For 30 years—more or less the entire post war period—there has been talk of local government reorganisation. Not even steel or any industry, let alone government, has been so afflicted".
Coming from that source, this plea must be listened to with respect and attention.
The reorganisation is recent. It takes new bodies a time to shake down. We must recognise that this is the case, not only for the local organisations of which we are now speaking but also for the Assembly to which the task of supervising yet another reorganisation is to be entrusted. I should have thought that it was natural to expect it to need two or three years in which to play itself in and to discover what it is like to work to the existing organisation before deciding how it should be altered. Indeed, there is some rather good authority for this view, because the Government's own White Paper, Devolution—the English Dimension, rejects local government reform in England because:
"A further reorganisation so soon after the last one would be bound to create confusion in the minds of the average elector. Probably he would feel more remote from the affairs of a local government body administering services over a much wider area".
1200
Why the Welsh elector should be immune to the uncertainties that the English elector is clearly recoganised as having in this Government White Paper, the noble and learned Lord has not explained. I cannot see why the effects upon the one should not be the same as they are upon the other.
There are also rather important bodies which share this apprehension. The Personal Social Services Council has said that reorganisation of local government could impair the quality and delivery of personal social services and that it is opposed to partial reorganisation which would transfer those services from county councils to some of the larger non-Metropolitan districts. This consideraton must apply equally to any reorganisation intended for one region in the United Kingdom only, that of Wales.
Therefore, I think that I am in company which even the noble and learned Lord would regard as respectable. Indeed, his former Prime Minister, Sir Harold Wilson, said in January 1976 that to impose yet another reorganisation would be a burden not easy to be tolerated. He said:
"We will not throw the whole of local government again into the melting pot".
It is interesting to note that Sir Harold Wilson said those words when addressing a Labour Party local government conference in Cardiff. So it cannot be an unrespectable view to hold.
But that is not the principal reason I hold it. The principal point seems to be that the reorganisation of local government in any region—and we happen to be speaking of the region of Wales—ought not to be conducted upon the evidence of that region alone, for the simple reason that at this of all junctures in our history it is essential that we preserve the fabric which unites the United Kingdom. You may well have—and I have said this on Second Reading debates so I shall not expand on the theory of the thesis—a different system of local government on one side of the Anglo-Welsh Border from that which there is on the other. But it must be constructed by a body which can see both sides of the Border with equal clarity and equal interests.
I do not think that the only route out of this difficulty that I see presenting itself to the noble and learned Lord is to

1201
say, "But of course we shall have a commission looking at the English side at the same time." I do not think that to set those two reports side by side to see where they agree and where they disagree, and to have a grand powwow between the two, and come up with some median after a long argument, is a proper, efficient or, indeed, a cost-effective way of conducting this discussion. It seems to me that from the start there should be some supra-regional body to conduct the inquiry.
I risk the lethal rain of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, in that I am saying—I see to his surprise—that I do not think that the Welsh Assembly, whatever its characteristics, will be the right body to look at this. But if we were looking at the devolution of the North-East, Cornwall, or indeed Scotland. I would say exactly the same thing.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Thank Goodness!
Lord ELTON: And that is that the inter-regional implications of reorganisation of local government can only be properly and impartially taken on board by a supra-regional body. I think that this is being done too early. The Bill gives a duty rather than giving a power. The power could be given under other parts of the Bill at a later date. All we are removing by this is the requirement that the wrong body should do the wrong review in the wrong place at the wrong time. I hope that my noble friend presses this Amendment.
6.31 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: In listening to some of the speeches, I think I have detected a certain misunderstanding of the way in which Welsh people think, work and act. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, said that this should not be a political issue and should not be discussed in a political Assembly. But in Wales politics is perhaps the very soul of the people. Politics is discussed all the time. Politics is discussed in the chapel—everywhere. There is no divorce in Wales between politics and intelligence, as there sometimes may be in other countries. The two go hand in hand.
1202
It is precisely because of this that it is appropriate that a political Assembly should consider this extremely important matter of local government within Wales. If one does not have the political Assembly doing it, then indeed there is no authority to the result. The authority will depend upon the political Assembly.
It is important to realise this distinction between the way in which the Welsh people think about things and conduct their affairs and the way in which certain other people do. It may he that we tend to be somewhat emotional in Wales, but the question of local government is not an unemotional subject in Wales. It is an extremely important subject, and something which leads the people to respond to the actual form of government that is put forward. For this reason it is vital that the Assembly should conduct exactly the kind of review which is suggested. If it does not do it, then I think there will be a good deal of unrest, of questioning, of trouble within Wales because they will feel that they have not got the system that they wish to have. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested that all this should be done by some—I was almost going to say, superhuman—body that was above the whole political theme.
Lord ELTON: That is not what I intended. It is not above the political area; it is above the regional arena. This is another issue altogether. It must not look at the problem from a purely Welsh point of view, because other interests are affected. I would say the same if it was an English body; it should consult the neighbours as well. Therefore, it must stand above the geographical border, that is what I said.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: I understand what the noble Lord is saying, and I think that he is again misunderstanding the situation of Wales. He talked of Wales as though it were one other region. It is not one other region, it is something which has a certain—I do not want to over-emphasise this—national character. Furthermore, it has a geographical character. If one looks at Wales and at the counties which have been set up, one sees that some of them cover an enormous area but with a small population: other have a restricted area with a large population. There are probably

1203
something like three or four centres of population in Wales. For the rest, they are scattered around an enormous countryside of great diversity.
This is a problem which must be solved by the Welsh themselves. It is not appropriate to have some body set up which carefully considers whether or not Wales is similar to Yorkshire and decides that what is appropriate for Yorkshire is appropriate for Wales. It is something that the Welsh must decide. Therefore, this ought to remain in the Bill.
Viscount AMORY: May I first refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has said about politics and Wales. We understand this. We understand that politics is part of the air that Welshmen breath. That is not praise or criticism, but I think it is a fact. It reminds me of a case I read about where a lawyer had been talking a great deal about what his clients thought in Little Muddiford. The judge said, "I should have thought, with great respect, that the inhabitants of Little Muddiford have not even heard of this abstruse technical point". He got the reply from the lawyer, "In Little Muddiford we talk of nothing else". That has not really got any relevance to
Wales, but it gives me an excuse to say that I wholly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, told us about the Welsh attitude to politics, and that does not really interfere with anything I have said this afternoon.
I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his, as always, extremely courteous reply, and not only that but for the extreme generosity of the tribute he paid to my Party when he said that to say that anything done by a Tory Government must be wrong is a gross exaggeration. I had expected that he was going to say that, "Anything done by a Tory Government must be wrong may be an exaggeration". To introduce "would" instead of "might", and to have introduced "gross exaggeration" is extremely generous of him. Having said that, I should like to say that before he spoke I felt "Not Content" about this clause; I am afraid I still feel "Not Content".
6.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 82.
Resolved in the negative, and clause disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 13 [Powers under local Acts]:
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.47 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I should like illumination on a small matter. The clause brings into the purview of the Assembly the exercise of
"such functions given to Ministers of the Crown by or under local Acts as the Secretary of State may by order specify".
I am not addressing myself to the question whether or not the Secretary of State should make the specification. I hope there may be a handy phrase or two to explain to those of us who do not know precisely the implications of what a local Act is. We have had Acts specified ad nauseam in Schedule 2; to hear a great many more brought in anonymously, as it were, is rather worrying and many of us would like to know what this means.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, local Acts are many and various, but ministerial involvement is much rarer than in Public General Acts. This is only to be expected, because if anybody secures Parliamentary approval to particular legislative provisions he should not thereafter have to go to the Minister for any further approval;
1206
so ministerial involvement tends to be limited to matters with which Ministers are already closely concerned, matters of land acquisition, disposal and the like. Also, Ministers may have minor powers which are virtually exercisable on behalf of Parliament, such as powers in relation to works; that is, the possibility of extending the time specified by Parliament for the construction of authorised works. Those are the powers in the main which lie in Acts promoted by local authorities and statutory undertakers, and many of them will be identical in character with the sort of powers we have devolved in Clause 9. So they should, therefore, devolve also, and that is the purpose of Clause 13.
The magnitude of the task has been somewhat lessened by the current activity in local authority legislation. The Local Government Act 1972 prospectively repeals all such legislation, subject to various qualifications, and this has compelled the local authorities to review their legislation, and to decide how much of it ought to be saved by such methods as are available. Their task has been eased by Part I of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act—which your Lordships debated rather thoroughly in 1976—which converts into permanent form those standard clauses which were regularly being found in the local authority legislation which the Government regarded as being worth perpetuating. So it is

1207
subsection (1) of this clause which confers on the Secretary of State power by order to specify the local Acts ministerial functions which the Assembly is to exercise—those are the functions which he now has and which will pass to the Assembly. Subsection (2) is the subsection which empowers consequential provision of any such order, and this extends to devolving the power by making its exercise subject to ministerial control, and thereby following the pattern which we set in Clause 9 and in Schedule 4. Subsection (3) makes an order subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, and provides necessary safeguards.
Lord ELTON: I should be over estimating my ability if I thought that I could say that I understood everything that the noble Baroness has said—
Baroness STEDMAN: You will when you read it.
Lord ELTON: The noble Baroness assures me that I will when I read it, but of course she cannot assure me that I find it all to my taste. I must reserve my position on this matter, because it appears that much more than I expected came pouring out of the box when it was opened. It may be innocuous, but I cannot tell. I am much obliged to the noble Baroness.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [First meeting]:
6.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord ELTON: We were speaking earlier about the bowlers on this side and the batters on the other. I wonder whether there is an interested crowd at the rails of the pavilion seeing what is going on, because occasionally one feels that they have missed one or two balls that have been played. I should like to know—and I think everyone would like to know—what kind of time-scale the Government have in mind, and I hope that whoever is to reply for the Government (the noble Baroness, or the noble Lord) will be able to tell us this. Obviously there will be no firm commitment, but at the moment there is no adumbration.
1208
At an earlier stage I was discussing with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, the possibility of an interim arrangement being required by the length of time that might elapse between, on the one hand, the holding of the referendum—the bringing into effect of the Act—and, on the other hand, the sitting of the Assembly followed by various processes, the result of which might be a disastrous shortfall in funds which could have severe effects upon the bodies dependent upon them. Much of what we were saying then would have either gained or lost force had we had any inkling as to the answer which the noble Lord is, or is not, now to give to my question. We should like to know from the noble Lord when he thinks that the Secretary of State is likely to direct that the first meeting of the Assembly shall be held, in terms of, say, the lapse of time from the holding of the referendum. This may be in the lap of the gods, but I am sure that the noble Lord hopes—and he may even expect—that the Secretary of State for Wales may, on that distant day, be the same person as now holds the office, or certainly that the Secretary of State will belong to the same Party as is at present in power. Therefore, there must be some plan in the back of the Government's mind; otherwise, there will be an awful nonsense. Can the noble Lord tell us what the plan is?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I should like to reply to this question on an off-the-cuff basis because this matter is not in any sense contained in the clause, which simply refers to an arrangement. The referendum will take place at a certain time. After that Parliament will need to consider the result, and the Parties will need to select their candidates, which will take some time. Then there will he an election campaign, followed by an election. I do not think that at this stage anyone can give a timing. What one can say is that the election will follow the referendum as soon as is reasonable, because there are fairly standard times for elections; this we understand. As soon as the election has taken place, the Assembly will assemble. How, ever, to put a timing on this seems to be quite impossible.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I consider that the noble Lord opposite has put for-

1209
ward a quite legitimate probing point, but no definite time can be given, as is obvious from what the Minister has just said. After the referendum there will be constituency matters and selection of candidates to be dealt with, as well as all the other ground work which every practical politician realises exists when it comes to electoral assemblies. In the half minute that I intend to speak I wish to make a suggestion; namely, I should like to see the first meeting of the Assembly take place on St. David's Day, or as near as possible to that day, after the referendum decision.
Lord ELTON: I do not think that we have got much further. There is another dimension; namely, the question of the order laid before Parliament in the light of the result of the referendum. It is possible that the referendum will be won or lost. There is also a real danger that a majority of those voting in the referendum will vote for devolution and that, while that majority will be significant, it will, nevertheless, be less than the 40 per cent. required. Therefore, there will have to be delicate discussions, as well as delicate political decisions in Parliament. I have elicited that there is, as always, considerable uncertainty here, but I have not elicited any idea as to how far the area of uncertainty may extend, and we may return to this when we consider the financial provisions.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The noble Lord has elicited some idea regarding the point he raises, which is the best he could possibly expect. A certain number of things have to happen. I have explained these at tedious length, and the noble Lord's estimate as to how long these matters will take is liable to be very much the same as mine. The period after the referendum may need to include the Parliamentary procedure. After that, there must be a time for an election, and once there has been an election there will be an Assembly. It does not seem to be very mysterious.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord has made it clear that there is no intention to delay matters further once the decision is taken in Parliament, and it was necessary to know that. I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Standing orders]:
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord ELTON: I should like to slip in a point here before the dinner break. It occurred to me last night to inquire about this. Under the provisions of Clause 15, the Secretary of State may give directions for regulating the procedure of the Assembly pending the making of its own standing orders. Most noble Lords here are very well versed in Parliamentary procedures, but it would be nice to know what the force of those directions would be; to what extent would they be binding upon the Assembly. The clause does not appear to state that the directions shall be binding upon the Assembly. It is said simply that the directions shall be sent by the Secretary of State in an envelope, and the assumption is that the Assembly is bound to follow them; but I do not know whether or not this is the case. I should have thought that it was not, and this may or may not be a matter of importance. I suspect that it might be, but probably is not.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I believe it is fairly clear from the clause that the initial regulation issued by the Secretary of State in the interim period before the Assembly has met will be binding until it has met, when of course it will have the power to make any change it wishes.
Lord ELTON: I should like to have this point clear. Is it the case that the standing orders will have effect until the body that they are intended to control meets?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: That is my understanding.
Lord ELTON: Therefore, they will have effect only when in fact they have no effect, because they cannot have effect when the Assembly has not met. Is that right? That would seem to be the most extraordinary situation to appertain. I take it that beyond that point the standing orders are matters which the Assembly can agree to operate, but is at liberty to dispose of piecemeal. Therefore, it will substitute its own binding orders, either step by step, or altogether, when it has agreed them.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: That is my understanding.
Lord ELTON: I am again much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

WALES BILL
House again in Committee.
Clause 16 [Pecuniary interests]:
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendment No. 61DA:
Page 7, line 20, after ("pecuniary") insert ("or other").
The noble Lord said: As I have not spoken for quite a long time and I have heard the Government frequently suggest that we have some distrust of the Welsh Assembly, I want to say now that I have no distrust of the Welsh Assembly, which is in any case non-existent, and which may in fact never exist. I do not think that pecuniary interests are necessarily more important than other interests. I think that there are occasions when the reverse is true. All that this Amendment seeks to do is to ensure that interests other than pecuniary interests are also disclosed. In case, despite what I have said, there are noble Lords who still feel that I move this Amendment only because I am distrustful that these other interests would be disclosed failing a provision in the Bill, I would point out that it was the Government who put into the Bill the provision in standing orders that pecuniary interests should be disclosed.
It seems to me that the Government could have left it to the Assembly to put such an obviously necessary provision in their standing orders. It was not our suggestion, although we are happy with it. I do not propose to waste the time of the Committee with a lot of examples. All that I am putting forward is that if the Government thought it right, despite their frequent words of trust and confidence in the Assembly, that special provision be made in the Bill for the Assembly to include in its standing orders a requirement that pecuniary interests are disclosed, I see no reason why they should not apply the same reasoning to other interests. I doubt whether the noble Lord will propound the view that other interests do not matter. But if the Government stick to their view that it is necessary to spell out in the Bill that subsection (1) of Clause 16 is necessary, I am sufficiently optimistic to believe that this Amendment might be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: We have a long evening in front of us, so we will start it in an agreeable way. We recognise that some noble Lords feel strongly on this. When it was debated recently in the Scotland Bill, my noble friend Lady Stedman agreed to consider the point again and write to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on this matter. In doing so, we shall bear in mind the points made in the noble Lord's speech and the need to keep the two Bills in line on this sensitive issue. When we have reached a decision, I will ensure that the letter that we undertook to send to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is copied to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and his colleagues. I hope that on this basis, the Opposition will not press this Amendment.
The Earl of SELKIRK: Perhaps I could thank the noble Lord for his personal reference to me. I hesitate to enter this select assembly where I have not been seen before. I thought that I could be helpful or perhaps disturbing if I came in; but I fully accept what the noble Lord has said. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that there was no difference and that "pecuniary" included other interests. This is a proposition which I do not think necessarily would be accepted by all courts of law. I do not think they are the same. I feel that it is quite wrong to assume that it is insulting to the Welsh. Corruption is a dangerous thing in all parts of the world, and we should never lag behind them in putting emphasis upon it. You have only to read the newspapers to know that it can take an astonishingly wide variety of forms. I will say no more than to thank the noble Lord for his words.
Lord ELTON: I am encouraged by what the noble Lord has said, and I should like to endorse what was said by my noble friend. In certain matters, nepotism is far more dangerous a form of corruption than any pecuniary interest. If you get, for instance, an incompetent teacher appointed because he is somebody's friend or nephew the damage lasts a great deal longer than if somebody has pocketed a few hundred pounds which he should not. This has been the subject of complaint by the National Union of Teachers in Wales—and they are, I think, politically closer to the noble Lord than
1214
to me. The South-Wales Argus carried an article on 20th September last year making this clear. There are myriad examples of this matter which I hope the noble Lord will bear in mind. I will not waste the time of the Committee as I think he will bear them in mind.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I am grateful to the noble Lord. The sort of examples that I had in mind are un-contentious ones like the discomfort of having, say, a local public library closed down and that sort of thing which could occur. I look forward to hearing from him by letter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.7 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 61DB:
Page 7, line 28, leave out ("500") and insert ("1000").
The noble Lord said: We continue in similar vein. In fact, I think there is a parallel with the Scotland Bill here. May I remind noble Lords of the Salmon Report which, in a similar context, recommended summary trial or trial on indictment and, in the latter case, the penalty maxima were to be two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine. Only if the conviction was on summary trial could the penalty be limited to six months or £400. I am referring to the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life. We are talking about potentially vast sums: the building of bridges, motorways, sports stadia and, if my Amendment is negatived, the whole budget of the Welsh Development Agency. Therefore, the game would be worth the candle at the price at present stated.
Certainly, there was a discussion in another place on an Amendment which overlapped this one, but that tied the fine of £1,000 to establishing a register to be deposited with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which would contain disclosures of pecuniary interest. Again, one does not wish to quote cases too closely. The noble Lord is probably familiar with a recent article in the Daily Telegraph on the subject. Perhaps he does not read it; but there is a good deal of corruption in local government

1215
throughout the United Kingdom and it is usually associated with decades of one-Party rule—something which we on this side are trying to avoid. That is the greatest deterrent to the democratic expression of displeasure in this sort of thing.
I do not suppose that there is any great magic about the figure of £1,000 but in the article on 28th February to which I referred—"Favourite Sons in the Land of their Fathers"—it became quite clear that during the past two years there had been 20 corruption trials in South Wales and that 12 of the 30 convicted have been sent to prison. Some of them were prominent in the hierarchies we are looking at. I wish to deduce nothing from this whatever, except to say that temptation is just as rife in the area we are looking at as in others, and if an opportunity comes to put things right I should have thought it was welcome. I should like to know what the noble Lord feels about this. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Once again, I shall not make a long speech about this Amendment. We accept that the Opposition feel very strongly—we learnt this in the proceedings on the Scotland Bill, and from what the noble Lord has said the same applies to this Bill—that the Assembly should have the power to suspend or exclude Members for breaching the standing orders relating to pecuniary interests. Accordingly, we have agreed to consider the matter urgently and, if necessary, return to it on the Third Reading of the Scotland Bill. Personally—not as a Minister in the Government but as an individual—I believe it to be entirely wrong to send people to prison unless they are dangerous. So I am particularly pleased that in the Scotland Bill the imprisonment sanction was dropped.
Lord ELTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord. In the light of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 61DC:
Page 7, line 28, at end insert ("or to a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding six months or both.").
The noble Lord said: We are in the same area and I have the same intention as the noble Lord divines. I am interested to hear what transpired in the Scotland Bill. This is a probing Amendment and the Committee will appreciate that in extreme cases an Assemblyman could, under the terms of the Amendment, be given six months' imprisonment without the option and that that would bring him within the scope of Clause 5 and disqualification. The noble Lord has already brought out what I was hoping to draw from him by saying that, and the question of disqualification for corruption is already before Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, I think that the briefest reply from him would suffice. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I was under the impression that we were taking these two Amendments together. If the noble Lord is satisfied with my reply to the first Amendment, may I hope that it applies to the second.
Lord ELTON: Indeed, it does. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 7, line 29, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: We are pressing on with such rapidity that my ancient joints can scarcely bear the pace. This Amendment seeks to leave out subsection (3) on page 29 of the Bill. The matter principally of interest here is that this is a provision which does not occur in the Scotland Bill and I should like to know why there is a difference of treatment. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The question is simpler than some I am asked. There is no provision in the Scotland Bill comparable to Clause 16(3). The reason is very simple. In Scotland, prosecution of offences is the responsibility of the procurator-fiscal service, which enables the national interest as a whole to be considered; but there is one great difference between the two systems. In England and Wales it is possible—and not uncommon—to have private prosecutions. Anyone can bring a prosecution. Thus, if the Bill were

1217
silent, anyone could launch a prosecution against a member of the Welsh Assembly. The case might have no merit, but it could take up a great deal of the member's time to refute it. Moreover, the way would be open for the threat of prosecution to be used to bring pressure on individual members.
For these reasons, the Local Government Act 1972 contained a provision (Section 94(2)) that no prosecution for a breach of the rules about pecuniary interests should be brought except by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is no corresponding provision in the otherwise almost identical Section 38 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The reason is that, as I have just explained, Scotland has a system of public prosecutors which we do not have in England. Thus, the effect of the two Bills is substantially the same. Members of the Assemblies are protected from frivolous or vexatious prosecutions and there is an opportunity for the public interest as a whole to be considered.
It should be noted that, unlike the Local Government Act 1972, the Bill does not require the prosecutions to be brought by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. They can be brought with his consent. The reason for choosing the Director is that he is the only person available. Crime is not devolved to the Welsh Assembly and there will be no one in the devolved administration with functions which correspond. With the Director's consent a prosecution will be able to be instituted by anyone. It is most unlikely that the Director would refuse his consent in a proper case. The provision is thus not another "Whitehall apron string". In the Government's view it achieves the most sensible result possible in the circumstances.
Lord ELTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord for that very full answer which I shall read before I commit myself to an opinion upon it. I thank him for answering at such length and in such detail. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Subject committees]:
8.17 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 62A:
Page 7, line 36, leave out from ("above") to end of line 37.
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing Amendment to find out exactly what the Government are thinking in relation to the functions of the Assembly. In Clause 17 the committees which are to be set up under the Assembly are given certain functions with which they are to deal. This is the normal procedure in many Assemblies. Indeed, in an Assembly of which I have the honour to be a Member, the European Parliament, the subject committees work very well and they are a very satisfactory way of dealing with the problems with which Parliaments are meant to deal, and with the kind of work that the Welsh Assembly will have to do this is the right way to proceed.
There is some doubt which creeps in in regard to the functions which the Assembly are empowered to undertake and exercise. In line 36 the Bills refers to:
"sections 9, 10, 11 above".
I should like to know why it does not refer to Clause 13. Powers are given to the Welsh Assembly under that clause. I wonder why that clause was excluded. What is slightly more sinister from the rather critical mind is the end of that subsection which says:
"and with such other functions (if any) as the Assembly may determine".
Normally when a body is set up its function and powers are clearly defined. We are not questioning whether they should have any or what they should be; but in a document of some kind when setting up a body, whether elected or nominated, these functions and powers should be set out. Their limitations and restrictions should be clearly pointed out both to the electors and the elected.
Not only are the functions of the Assembly apparently to be indeterminate so far as Parliament is concerned but it is the Assembly itself which is to decide and determine its own functions. This seems an extraordinary piece of devolution: that is, that a body should be given powers to decide its own functions regardless of statute. This is how I read that clause at the moment. I may be wrong and there

1219
may be some limitations on the functions; there may be limitations on the powers of the Assembly to determine what functions it has.
In this subsection there is no limitation at all that I can see which is imposed upon an Assembly in the selection and exercise of its functions. I think this is a particularly dangerous thing for an elected body in a country where we have executive and judicial or quasi-judicial functions performed by the same body, rather as we have in Parliament: a blending of executive and legislative powers—and even that is sometimes very much criticised as being an unsatisfactory way of governing a country. Nevertheless, that is a fact of life, not having a written Constitution, and this is the way that things have grown up. I beg to move.
I wonder, however, in the case of a new body which is being set up under this Bill, whether this is the right way to go about it. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could comment on the kinds of functions he thinks the Assembly will perform under this Clause and what restrictions or limitations may be imposed upon them.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Subsection (1) of this clause requires the Assembly to appoint committees relating to the powers devolved under Clauses 9, 10 and 11. The provision which this Amendment seeks to delete enables the Assembly to give these committees such other functions as it may determine. So, for example, the subject committee dealing with housing will have to be given functions relating to the devolved housing powers. But, for example, the Assembly could, if it wished, ask the committee to draw up comments on a Government Green Paper on housing. This provision does not add to the powers of the Assembly in any way; it simply makes clear that the Assembly can, if it so decides, delegate additional functions to its subject committees. It is a simple and useful provision and without other substantive effects.
It is a mistake to believe that by amendment to the Bill—or in other ways—it is possible, or desirable, to confine the deliberations of an Assembly committee strictly to functions explicitly devolved. In exercising its functions, the committees will be bound to be concerned with
1220
developments or proposals on functions which the Assembly is not to exercise. Proposals for legislation at Westminster are a clear example. Are they not to consider the Government's proposals for new housing legislation which might well affect the Assembly's functions? And should not the Assembly be able to delegate such consideration to a subject committee? This would be the undesirable effect of the Amendment. I think the noble Baroness has read into the clause a great deal more than is there. I think it is a simple and innocent clause and I hope that I have removed some of her worries.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I wonder if I may just intervene: this is a very wide passage because it refers to,
"such other functions (if any) as the Assembly may determine".
Does that include, for example, a settlement in Rhodesia or nuclear bombs? This does not seem to have any limitation at all. I do not know if that is the Government's intention.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: This is the same sort of thing, is it not? If the noble Earl really thinks that a responsible Welsh Assembly which has a committee on sewage will extend its discussions to include a Rhodesian settlement, he is in a world which I do not share. I do not think it is necessary to put in that sort of limitation. The kind of committee that I have suggested may have certain housing functions. It may sometimes wish to consider housing functions which are not part of its business but which are being discussed at Westminster; and there is no objection to it. I really believe that this is not a serious worry. I hope I have satisfied the noble Earl on this: that is very difficult to do, I know.
Baroness ELLES: The noble Lord said that this was simple and innocent. I am afraid I do not agree with him. I do not think it is as simple as it looks and certainly it is not as innocent as it may appear. However, I will think about this again. At the moment I think the drafting of this is unsatisfactory. I do not doubt that the Assembly must have a certain amount of discretion to discuss what it wants, but I would ask the noble Lord: if we are giving powers to a Welsh

1221
Assembly to discuss legislation in our Parliament, how is it that we here are going to be prohibited from discussing executive matters which are going to be dealt with by the Welsh Assembly?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: With respect, we are not prohibited from discussing them; we are prohibited from legislating on them, and that is quite a different matter.
Baroness ELLES: It comes very nearly to the same thing when you are actually having to take decisions. In fact the Assembly will presumably be taking decisions on some of its discussions: it will not just talk about some matter and then do nothing. There will be policy decisions being taken, although I accept that they will not be legislative—I know that the Welsh Assembly has no legislative powers. If the noble Lord will permit me, I shall look carefully at what he has said and reserve my right possibly to bring it up again at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.26 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 62B:
Page 8, line 5, leave out ("leader") and insert ("chairman").
The noble Lord said: This is one of a group of probing Amendments and, if I have got the numbering right, I shall be speaking in effect also to Amendments Nos. 63B, 65, 66A and 67D. I hope I have not gone so very far wrong with those numbers! The point behind these Amendments—and it is always very puzzling when one sees two words in brackets and in quotes, and nothing else—is to enquire into the desirability or otherwise of this Parliament deciding in advance that in every case the chair and the leadership of the various committees to which these Amendments apply should be held by different people. I shall be guided as much by what my noble friend says as by what the noble Lord opposite says: but in the Bill as it stands the option is removed of combining them except as an artifice.
I would not presume to have any tremendously unshakable opinion on the matter, but I am very much interested in the advice given by the Association of County Councils which was referred to by the noble Lord or by one of his colleagues, and to which we listened closely. They are very experienced on the job and they say that the statutory requirement for the appointment of separate leaders in each subject committee and of the Executive Committee of the Assembly is not desirable. They consider this is unnecessary and they draw attention to the fact that the Government argued in another place that it is customary within local government to appoint leaders of committees and councils. Although that is true of some authorities, it is by no means general practice and there is certainly no statutory requirement for such appointments at present.
So what is being brought into this Bill is in fact a new principle which limits the choice of the Assembly; and it is perhaps amusing to find that on this occasion I am advocating a greater latitude of action whereas the noble Lord is about to defend, I do not doubt, a restriction of that latitude. In many local authorities, the chairman of a committee is acknowledged as leader, whereas in others the two appointments are separate. Surely this is a matter which should be left to the Assembly to determine for itself and there should be no statutory provision for the separate appointment of leader. I beg to move.
Viscount AMORY: I should only like to confirm what my noble friend has said. From my experience, there is no general practice in local government in favour of having a separate leader and chairman of committees. Some local authorities do it; others do not. I should like only to say that I am in entire agreement with him that it seems a little unnecessary to lay down the law, as it were, here by statute, compelling them to have a separate leader and a chairman if they are to do otherwise. I should have thought that this, anyhow, was a case where we are not attempting to restrict what the Assembly may do. I would have thought it was good sense to leave this to the Assembly's own choice, without laying down anything by statute.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: It is certainly in the reverse direction which, as we have said once or twice, is a change. The effect of these Amendments would be to upset the careful balance now achieved by Clauses 17 and 18. As the Bill stands, each subject committee is to have a leader and a chairman, both appointed by the Assembly. The chairman will be expected to adopt the traditional, impartial role essential for the good running of the committee. He must establish confidence in himself as an impartial arbiter, both among the committee membership and within the Assembly as a whole, very much along the lines of the traditions of chairmen of Committees of your Lordships' House and of the other place. As for the leader of each subject committee, he will, in effect, be the executive member. He is to be the focus for action and will put forward the views of the subject committee at meetings of the Executive Committee, of which he is to be a member. He will, of course, also put the majority Party's proposals to the subject committee.
If the two jobs were rolled into one, as these Amendments propose, there could be an excessive and undesirable concentration of power at the head of subject committees. Moreover, selection of chairmen would become more contentious. The question would arise whether the first priority should be to appoint a person suited to the policy-making role, or rather to appoint a member capable of chairing constructively the subject committee. If the second option was chosen, then the Executive Committee would be in danger of developing into a panel of chairmen, admirable as a relaxed talking shop, but of more dubious value as a decisive body charged with the execution of functional responsibilities. It is our contention that, by separating the roles of the leader and the chairman, the Bill successfully creates a system of checks and balances, under which the Executive Committee functions decisively and, at the same time, the proposals of the majority Party are subject to the scrutiny of a politically balanced subject committee headed by an impartial chairman.
Indeed, this point highlights two other important practical advantages which arise from separation of the two offices. First, the skills of chairmanship are different from the executive skills that will
1224
be required of someone who is to be both leader of a subject committee and a member of the Executive Committee Secondly, we have frequently heard during the debates on this Bill in this House and elsewhere that, in the foreseeable future, the Welsh Assembly is generally likely to be dominated by Labour members. Combination of the job of chairman and of that of leader could have the effect, perhaps unintended by the movers of these Amendments, of barring members from appointment as chairmen, because of their Party allegiance, irrespective of their known skill as chairmen. For all these reasons, therefore, I would urge the noble Lords opposite not to press these Amendments. I feel that we have the balance somewhere near right. It is quite difficult to get it right and I shall be very sorry to see that balance disturbed.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord always gets most exercised by the prospect of a Division, when I have announced a probing Amendment. He need not dissuade me from that, as I have already said that I shall not press it. But this has revealed an interesting philosophy. My first thought was that the noble Lord was thinking of the chairmen as if they were mayors who had to be free for honorific operations, but he was not. The noble Lord has made a distinction between the function of chairmen, who, when gathered together, are apt to form admirable, relaxed talking shops, and leaders who will be full of executive drive. The fact that the same person held office in both senses, in consecutive years, makes that a difficult contention.
But when he said that the skills of chairmanship are different from those of leadership and of the Executive Committee, one has to draw his attention to the provision in Clause 18 where the principle which he has set out as being sacrosanct is clearly breached. The Bill states on page 8 at line 18,
"the person named by the Assembly as chairman of the Executive Committee shall also be its leader".
So it is clearly possible to be both chairman and leader, and it is, in fact, desired by the Government that one person should be both chairman and leader. This is a principle which I feel the noble Lord has not as yet effectively adduced.

1225
Of course, the Amendment as drawn, unless there were consequentials or, at least, referentials, would interfere with the checks and balances which the noble Lord has set out which, in the terms in which he has set them out, with the likely domination by Labour members that he has already said is expected, opens the prospect of the membership of the agreeable talking shop, and the rôle of chairman, to members of other Parties, but the keen executive rôle to members of the Labour Party. Of course, the principle of representation of all Parties in committees is one which we respect and think is not taken far enough. But I shall be interested to know how the noble Lord explains the fact that where it is totally undesirable to have the same person being leader and chairman in the policy committee, it is quite undesirable that it should be in any other form but in one person in the Executive Committee.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I do not think that this is a very difficult problem. The subject committees are a form of power sharing, which a good many of us who have worked in Northern Ireland in one way or another have always been looking for, and have so far not achieved. The Executive Committee is like a Cabinet and the head of that committee is like a Prime Minister, who is a chairman but political. I believe that this is the intention of the set-up and I think that the clauses as they now stand carry it out accurately. I do not really think that there is anything to worry about here.
Lord ELTON: I am obliged for that, and of course it puts a new perspective on our next Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.38 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 8, line 8, leave out ("section 18") and insert ("sections 18 and 22").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment approaches the difficult question of the organisation of committees at a really central point, because it is in the Executive Committee, as we are all, I think, clear,
1226
that the real power will rest. The noble Lord has generously admitted that it is likely that there will be nomination by one Party, and, equally generously, has said that power should be shared at least in the subject committees; and I respect and welcome that. None the less, the real action will be in the Executive Committee, because, as if it were a finance and general purposes committee, it will hold all the strings, as the Assembly is enabled to remit matters to it and the Committee is enabled to remit matters to the chairman, who is also to be the leader.
As I have already said on a number of occasions—and I think my noble friends have borne out that they share my worries —the principal matter for concern to us in this Bill is the fact that we can see no provision that will require this body to be other than a closed shop. Indeed, it is designed—the noble Lord told us on the last Amendment—so that the leaders who will compose it will all be chosen from the majority Party. The noble Lord said that it is a Cabinet, and he added that the leader or chairman will, in some respects, be discharging the functions of a Prime Minister. In that way, the main decisions are all taken by a body that is unsupervised, except by the Assembly, and not open to it.
We have looked for a means to counter that, which is to ensure that members of other Parties are not present in sufficient numbers to inhibit its solidarity or to delay its activity, but are present in sufficient numbers to act as watchdogs, if you like, and are able to reassure their colleagues in the Assembly itself that all is being conducted as it should be. I am aware of the preference, before the election, of the Labour Party executive committees in Wales for the particular "mix" of committee and cabinet systems which the Bill projects. I do not think that the Welsh people, who have considerable experience of the product of closed government—a fact which we have already debated in connection with Clause 16—would want to see the same conditions reproduced on this massive scale, offering such succulent temptations to the fortunate few who are entitled to sit around that privileged table behind those very thick doors.
I am not being partisan in the political sense. As I said at Second Reading, it

1227
might be more difficult for me to make the point if what was in prospect was a permanent succession of Conservative rulers of Wales. I think, however, that the point would have to be made and that it would have to be made in this House. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will reply in the spirit in which I have moved the Amendment. I beg to move.
8.41 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I shall reply, as always, in the same spirit as the noble Lord, which is to try to reach the best solution to the problems which face us both, but I shall reply at rather greater length than usual because I think that this question is very important. The Government's objective in the group of clauses which we are now in the middle of—that is, Clauses 14 to 23 relating to the conduct of business—has been to set out in broad outline the way in which the Assembly is to be organised to conduct its business. There are two built-in principles—a flexible and efficient system of working and wide participation by Members in the work of the Assembly.
The Assembly will inherit a wide range of functions and, in the Government's view, it is in the interests of efficient administration to require the Assembly to set up subject committees to embrace all its functions. This will, among other things, enable members of the Assembly to specialise in matters in which they have a particular interest, and so to contribute effectively to the Assembly's work. The Bill also provides, in Clause 22, which we have not yet reached, for these committees to be balanced so as to reflect the political composition of the Assembly, so far as this is practicable. This will ensure that all parties represented in the Assembly can participate in the Assembly's work.
Similarly, the Government think that it is sensible to provide that each subject committee shall have both a chairman and a leader, or executive member. The chairman will be expected to adopt the traditional impartial role. The leader will have an executive role. He will put forward the majority Party's proposals and, except in the case of the Chief Executive, will act as the link between his committee and the Executive Committee.
Turning now to the Executive Committee, the Bill provides in Clause 18 that
1228
it shall be composed of the leaders of the subject committees and may include additional members up to one-third of the number of those leaders. So far as that is concerned, therefore, it need not be purely from the one side.
All this provision is, if I may say so, carefully worked out and balanced. It does not impose a rigid system on the Assembly, but enables the Assembly to adopt a system tailored to its own requirements. In some respects it may be possible and convenient for the Assembly to work through subject committees; but the likelihood is that for much of its work it will be necessary for the Assembly and its committees to delegate powers to the executive members. This will be particularly so in matters which require urgent and day-to-day decisions, and in matters calling for confidential or urgent action. The Executive Committee will also have the vitally important tasks of co-ordination and resource allocation, and for these purposes the Assembly may well decide that the committee should reflect the views of the majority Party or Parties.
Any delegation of executive powers which the Assembly might decide to adopt is made subject in the Bill to the need for political balance, and hence participation, in the subject committees. These committees are there to keep a check on the actions of the leaders, who will regularly require the approval of the subject committees for their exercise of delegated powers. Furthermore, the Bill makes it possible, though this is a matter for the Assembly, to add some extra, perhaps non-majority Party, members to the Executive Committee.
I suggest that we must be careful in seeking to add to or disturb the structure set out in the Bill. Essentially what the Amendments are aimed at is, as I said before, a form of power-sharing. A system is proposed which is not only untried but which would be totally uncertain in effect. The Amendments, I suggest, go very much further than aiming for an improvement in the Bill; they propose a wholly novel constitutional arrangement. While we can welcome the experience of the Conservative Party developing ideas for the first time of a new constitutional device for devolution to Wales—a belated conversion—I suggest that this has hardly been thought through thoroughly. How

1229
would it work? How would elected representatives of the Welsh people be accounted responsible? The Bill itself provides for a fair balance on the subject committees, but it seems to the Government wholly wrong to force this concept on the Assembly for the Executive Committee as well.
I should be surprised if the proposers were to urge that such a system be adopted at Westminster. It will be important also for the Assembly to be reasonably decisive and generally capable of carrying out its responsibilities. This makes it necessary for the majority Party in the Assembly, or a combination of interests if there is no majority, to be responsible and to be seen to be responsible. The focus of this responsibility will be the Executive Committee, composed mainly of the leaders of the subject committees. If the strength of will of the Executive Committee is weakened, as I think it would be weakened by the adoption of these Amendments, then there are grave dangers for the good government of Wales. For one thing, it might force the majority, to adopt a "caucus" system.
Finally—and I apologise for having spoken at such length, but I think that it is important—I should say a word about the suggestion that there will be permanent one-Party government in the Assembly. We do not know. If that is what the electors happen to want, who are we to say that they shall not have it? But it is important to recognise that the electors will be voting in a different context from that of Westminster elections. They will be close to the Assembly and able to watch day by day what it is doing. If they do not like what they see, they will be able to reflect that dislike in the ballot box.
I hope that the Assembly will not be shackled by a system both untried and uncertain in effect that could, I believe, face it with severe and unwarranted difficulties and that second and wiser thoughts will prevail. As this is a probing Amendment, I hope that I have said enough to convince the noble Lord. The noble Lord indicates that it is not a probing Amendment. Therefore, I hope still more that I have said enough to convince him.
Lord ELTON: I cannot say that the noble Lord has convinced me. I can disabuse him of his hope very rapidly. The noble Lord speaks at times as though we were speaking of eggshells rather than Welshmen. I do not think that the checks and balances to which we have referred are so delicate that they will be wrecked by extending one stage further the principle that the noble Lord or his friends have introduced into this Bill. He believes in the principle of power sharing. He is glad to see it evidenced where critical power is not, but hesitates to put it where it is. He sees grave dangers for the good government of Wales in introducing into the chamber of the Executive people of a different political persuasion in sufficient number, not to influence its proceedings but simply to make sure that those proceedings are known. He says he thinks that this may introduce a caucus system. It seems to me that we already have a caucus system in the Bill.
The noble Lord tried to sugar the pill by saying that there was allowance for up to one-third of the number of the Executive Committee Members to be drawn from those who were not already leaders. But this is a permissive power. He said that they might perhaps come from the non-majority Party. The very great temptation, where so much power rested over such large resources, would be to make all safe and have nobody to rock the boat. This would happen in almost any Assembly if it were given the choice, and not simply in the one in Wales.
It seems to me that we have laid our finger on the centre of the tangle. It is at this point that we decide whether or not the one-Party majority, which some of us expect to occur in Wales, is to be built into the executive machine, or whether the windows are to be thrown open, or the door opened a crack. This is a matter which should be discussed in another place. The only way in which we can bring that about is by amending the Bill at this point. That is what I shall ask my noble friend to do.
8.52 p.m.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Plant, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hamnett, L.

Raglan, L.

Balogh, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Banks, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Samuel, V.

Barrington, V.

Henderson, L.

Seear, B.

Bernstein, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shinwell, L.

Birk, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Simon, V.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Stamp, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Janner, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Brockway, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stedman, B.[Teller.]

Caccia, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

Crook, L.

Leonard, L.

Strabolgi, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Diamond, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.[Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

White, B.

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

McNair, L.

Wigg, L.

Foot, L.

Maelor, L.

Wigoder, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Willis, L.

Gardiner, L.

Moyne, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Glenamara, L.

Norwich, V.

Winterbottom, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wise, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Wynne-Jones, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Phillips, B.

Grey, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Alport, L.

Elles, B.

Newall, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Northchurch, B.

Amory, V.[Teller.]

Elton, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Avon, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Balfour, E.

Exeter, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rathcreedan, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Fortescue, E.

Rochdale, V.

Boothby, L.

Gainford, L.

Sandford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Glenkinglas, L.

Sandys, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gray, L.

Selkirk, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gridley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Carrington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sharples, B.

Cathcart, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Henley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swinfen, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Tenby, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Tranmire, L.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

De Freyne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Tweeddale, M.

Denham, L.

Long, V.

Vickers, B. [Teller.]

Derwent, L.

Loudoun, C.

Vivian, L.

Digby, L.

Lyell, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Dundee, E.

Middleton, L.

Westbury, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Monson, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Eccles, V.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 63) shall be agreed to

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gray, L.

Rochdale, V.

Alport, L.

Gridley, L.

Rochester, L.

Amory, V.

Harvington, L.

Sandford, L.

Auckland, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Sandys, L.

Balfour, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Seear, B.

Belstead, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Selkirk, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Sharpies, B.

Cathcart, E.

Long, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lyell, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Middleton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Swansea, L.

Digby, L.

Mottistone, L.

Tranmire, L.

Dundee, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Elles, B.

Trenchard,V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Newall, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Elton, L.

Northchurch, B.

Vickers, B.

Exeter, M.

O'Hagan, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Young, B.

Gainford, L.

Redesdale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hamnett, L.

Raglan, L.

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Samuel, V.

Brockway, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

David, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Janner, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kagan, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

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

Lee of Newton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Leonard, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Gardiner, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

George-Brown, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

White, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Hale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
9 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 63A:
Page 8, line 12, after ("chairman") insert ("in accordance with the d'Hondt system").
The noble Baroness said: In dealing with this Amendment I should like to deal also with Amendments Nos. 63B and 64. The name "d'Hondt" has obviously aroused a certain amount of interest and I am happy to be able to introduce into this Welskdebate a name which is at least not English, so that it adds slight colour to an other wise very English activity. Those of your Lordships who have been connected with the European Parliament will know at once who I mean by "M. d'Hondt". In fact he has haunted our lives from the time when we first joined the Community.
The purpose of the d'Hondt system, which seems to me to be one of the fairest systems that I nave come across for the
1232
allocation of seats and the allocation of positions, is based on a kind of proportional representation, so that the number of chairmanships which would be allotted to any one Party would be based proportionately on the number of people in any given Assembly. For instance, where there is a majority of one Party, broadly speaking, you get a majority of chairmanships; the second largest Party gets the second largest number of chairmanships, and so on. This, therefore, distributes the chairmanship of committees in a fair way throughout the different political Parties of the Assembly. This would also continue if there were to be vice-chairmen of these committees—which no doubt there will be, although they are not spelled out in Clause 17. These would also be allocated in the same way. The use of this system would ensure a fair balance among the political Parties, giving the majority of chairmanships to the largest Party but also giving the possibility to even the minority Parties of having the chairmanship of one of the committees.
If we look at Schedule 2 to the Bill, which sets out the various devolved functions of the Assembly, and take that in conjunction with Clause 17(1) of the Bill, there will obviously be a good many committees, unless some of these committees are going to deal with two or three subjects together. The number of subjects covered in the Schedule reaches 18. There are 18 Parts to Schedule 2, excluding the registration services in Part XIX and General under Part XX, so there might be anything up to 18 committees. I think it would appear to anybody including the Welsh people, that to have 18 chairmen coming from the same Party would be absolutely unfair and un balanced in any such Assembly, and this particular system would ensure that members of other Parties should have a chance to chair at least some of these many committees.
This is a system which has been known to work fairly over many years. To my knowledge there has never been dissension in the European Parliament over the use of the system. It was accepted when we joined the European Parliament, and of course by members of the Socialist Party when they joined it. Not only would it ensure a balance to the Parties, but it can also be used to take into account the matter of geographical area—whether there is a chairman coming from North Wales or South Wales, or perhaps the West coast, and one could also take into account the fact of whether they come from a rural or an urban area.
I shall not go into the detailed mechanics of how it works out, but it is a sure way of guaranteeing fair distribution taking into account these three factors: first, political Parties; secondly, the regional origin of the chairman and, thirdly, the type of area that he comes from, whether urban or rural. So all aspects of political life in Wales could be fairly represented among the chairmen of the committees because, whether or not they will be members of the executive committee, they will in fact play a considerable role in the success of the Assembly. If there are not good chairmen in these committees the Assembly itself will not be able to function efficiently. So I recommend to your Lordships this method of ensuring that the chairmanship of these committees will be fairly and equitably balanced
1234
among the Members of the Assembly I beg to move.
9.6 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I should like to ask the noble Baroness a question on a point of clarification. I understand her to say that this is a form of proportional representation for the purposes of dealing with the internal arrangements in the Assembly. As the noble Baroness will be aware, I was involved in this question of proportional representation with the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, earlier in this matter. He has had experience of this system in working a form of proportional representation to give a fairer method of election and securing advantages for the minorities.
Baroness ELLES: I should like to confirm what I said earlier. It is a form of assuring a fair balance among the Parties. In this instance I am referring to chairmanships and not to the number of Members or the way in which the Members are elected; but among the Members who are elected it is, to my knowledge and experience, the fairest method of distributing these positions, taking into account the various interests. Those who are interested may read about it in How Democracy Votes written by Enid Lakeman, who of course is the expert on proportional representation, or they can ask any of their colleagues who are concerned in the European Parliament.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am much obliged.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The proposal in this group of Amendments is that the chairmen of the subject committees should be named by the Assembly in accordance with the d'Hondt system—however one should pronounce it. I think the Dutch sound the "h" but I cannot quite remember.
Baroness ELLES: It is a Belgian name, actually.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: They certainly do. It is apparently a reference to a system of allocating seats by proportional representation devised by Victor d'Hondt of the University of Ghent, and I am not at all surprised that the noble Lord, Lord

1235
Lloyd of Kilgerran, has a soft spot for any such system. Under this system the first seat goes to the Party with a majority of votes. A calculation is then made of the average number of votes per seat in the case of each Party. The Party which would have the highest average number of votes per seat is then allocated the second seat. The procedure is repeated until all the seats have been allocated. If this system were applied to the appointment of committee chairmen by the Assembly it would presumably ensure that the appointees did not all belong to the Party with a majority of seats in the Assembly. Depending upon the make-up of the votes, the other Parties would be likely to take a share of the appointments.
Under the Government's proposals the chairmen will have the normal impartial role and will be selected for their ability as chairmen; it is surely better to leave it to the Assembly as to how chairmen are selected. There is no suggestion that chairmen will all come from the majority Party, though there is a suggestion that the Executive members will all come from the majority Party. The intention of the Bill is that the Executive Committee should be a powerful and effective body, that it should not be a body spread among the Parties but should—as in this country—be a one-Party body, with power-sharing sub-committees advising. That is what we are putting forward, and, with respect, I think it would be a great mistake to alter it.
Baroness ELLES: The noble Lord was talking about selection by the Assembly of the chairmen of these committees. If it is not too much of a bore to refer again to the European Parliament, there the chairmen are also selected, although the word in the Bill is not "select" but "nominate"; I suppose there is a certain difference between the two words, and they must have been put there for a purpose. But the fact is that, if an Assembly is to nominate certain individuals, they have nevertheless to devise a way of doing so. They cannot just pick a lot of names out of a hat. I think everybody in the Assembly would deplore it if it was just a pal of so-and-so who was going to be nominated. They have to work out some kind of system by which to do it. All I
1236
wanted to establish was that the chairmen should not be nominated by the Assembly just because they all belong to one political Party or they all happen to come from one part of Wales. I am not here disputing the question of the members of the Executive Committee; I am simply talking about the chairmen of the subject committees. These subject committee chairmen should he fairly distributed among members of the Assembly. They must take into account Party, the area from which they come and the type of region they represent.
Obviously, I am not going to press this Amendment, but I think it is something that should be given as guidance to the Assembly. I do not think any new body would resent any form of guidance coming from the Government as to how they should nominate their chairmen. There is nothing in the Treaty of Rome which says anything about the Assembly, except that one should be set up. Frankly, I think it would have been very much better than wasting a lot of time discussing what these people are going to do and how they are going to do it. I think they should have been left considerably more leeway in how they set up their own organisation and what they do with it. If you are going to make them nominate their chairman, I would suggest that guidance should be given as to how these chairmen are to be nominated.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The noble Baroness has confused me rather.
Lord TREFGARNE: Well done.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGBRIDGE: It is not very difficult to do, but the noble Baroness has succeeded in doing it. It seems to me that we have gone very little further than the Treaty of Rome. We have left this almost entirely to the Assembly. The noble Baroness is asking us to impose on this freedom we have given them a specific Belgian plan for selection. My own view is that as the Assembly will be elected from all over the Principality—some people from North Wales, some people from South Wales, some from the country, some from the towns— they are a very good body to decide on who they want to appoint as chairmen to the subject committees. I think it would be a pity to alter it.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, recognised that I have a certain amount of sympathy for this Conservative Amendment. It seems to me to make some constitutional progress. One of the curses, at least of local authority government, in this country is that, where there is a predominant Conservative administration or a predominant Labour administration in a local authority, it is very unlikely that any other Party will obtain the chairmanship of any of their committees. This difficulty is to be found in so many local authorities. I thought that this proposal seemed to indicate that, if there was one Party dominating the Welsh Assembly, at least all the chairmen would not necessarily be members of that Party.
Baroness ELLES: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for supporting this Amendment. I said earlier that I was not going to press it as I did not consider that this was something that this Parliament should lay down, but in view of the amazing number of Members of your Lordships' House who did not appear to have heard of M. d'Hondt I felt that perhaps the debate had been worth while. Even if those Members of your Lordships' House still have not heard of him and do not know about him, perhaps the Members of the Welsh Assembly will now be able to know about him. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 63B and 64 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 17, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
9.15 p.m.
Lord ELTON: I have a point which your Lordships will have noticed I was trying to bring out earlier. Can the noble Lord give us the meaning of the word "name" in line 11? The line reads:
"the Assembly shall name one of the members of such committee as its chairman and another as leader…".
It is only a very small point. I take it that it is intended that the Assembly shall name them by an electoral process, but in fact that is not stated. I do not want to be accused of nit-picking; therefore I shall make nothing more of it than
1238
to ask whether in fact what the noble Lord has in front of him has the effect that he would wish it to have.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The answer is yes.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [The Executive Committee]:
[Amendment No. 64A not moved.]
9.16 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 8, line 16, after second ("of") insert ("all").
The noble Lord said: This is a small point of clarification only but since the noble Lord has revealed himself so sensitive to the delicate mechanism of checks and balances, it does relate to a matter which he may find of interest. Clause 18, as it stands, reads:
"One of the committees appointed under section 17 above shall be known as the Executive Committee and shall consist of the leaders of the other committees so appointed…".
It is really a question of the usage of the English language. Does it or does it not mean the leaders of all the other committees, or does it merely mean that it may be made up of some of them? The point might have substance at a later time though it would not appear to have at the moment; but there are circumstances in which it could be important.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: It means all.
Lord ELTON: Leaving out the word "all" has the same force as putting it in. Is that what the noble Lord is saying?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The noble Lord asked me a question—does it mean all? I answered, "Yes, it does mean all."
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord is not going to confuse me. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord ELTONhad given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 66:
Page 8, line 18, leave out ("one-third") and insert ("one-half").

1239
The noble Lord said: On page 8, line 18, we suggest leaving out "one-third" and inserting "one-half". This is in fact pursuing the question of the balance within the committee. I think we have covered this ground already. I was delighted to see by the surprise on the noble Lord's face that he agrees with me, and I shall not move the Amendment.
[Amendment No. 66A not moved.]
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 8, line 18, after ("leaders") insert ("appointed subject to section 22 below").
The noble Lord said: This is consequential on Amendment No. 63. As your Lordships will see, through the Amendment we put in, we are making the Executive Committee subject to the provision of balance of Party within the committee laid down in Clause 22. In order to maintain consistency it is necessary to put this in. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I think I have to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.20 p.m.
Lord SWANSEA Lord SWANSEA moved Amendment No. 67B:
Page 8, line 20, leave out from first ("be") to end of line and insert ("the Leader of the Assembly").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 67B, and I shall speak also to Amendment No. 67E. No doubt it will also be for the convenience of your Lordships to discuss Amendments Nos. 67C and 67D in this context. This part of the Bill deals with the title of the chairman of the Executive Committee, and it is proposed in the Bill that he shall be known as the Chief Executive.
It seems to me that this title is entirely inappropriate in these circumstances because for some years, especially since the reorganisation of local government and the setting up of larger local government areas, the time-honoured title of clerk to a local authority has, in many cases, been superseded by the title of chief executive. So it has already taken on a special meaning in relation to local government. Of course it means a salaried, non-elected officer of a local authority.
1240
So this title has acquired a generally understood and accepted meaning in local government and other administrations which in no way relates to the position of this office. It is entirely inappropriate that it should be applied in this case to an elected Member of the Welsh Assembly who occupies the office of chairman of the Executive Committee.
Another point with which I should like to deal is the use of the word "its" in line 20, which to me is ambiguous because it is not clear whether it refers to the leader of the Executive Committee or of the Assembly. I think that the situation should be clarified. If it means that the chairman of the Executive Committee shall also be the leader of the executive Committee then it is simply superfluous verbiage. I may be wrong, but I believe that the intention is that it should mean that the chairman of the Executive Committee shall also be the leader of the Assembly, which to me makes much more sense. Therefore, my Amendment is designed to make that point clear.
As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said a short time ago, the Executive Committee is equivalent to the Cabinet in a legislative body. The chairman of that Committee occupies the position equivalent to that of Prime Minister. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that he should also be defined as the Leader of the Assembly. One cannot draw an exact parallel between the United Kingdom Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, as Parliament is a legislative body and the Assembly is not. Therefore, in the other place we have the Prime Minister as well as the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House, of course, is a very honourable office, and so it is in your Lordships' Chamber. We accord to the whole of that office the respect due to that office. However, in the Welsh Assembly, which will be an executive and not a legislative body, it seems logical that the Leader of the Assembly should occupy the equivalent position to that of the Prime Minister in the United Kingdom Parliament. I look forward to hearing what other noble Lords have to say in connection with this and the connected Amendments. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): I must advise

1241
your Lordships that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 67C.
Lord ELTON: That is an appropriate introduction to my thanking my noble friend for suggesting that I should join in at this stage. Your Lordships will see that our Amendments are very similar. The Amendment of my noble friend would result in the Bill reading as follows:
"…the person named by the Assembly as chairman of the Executive Committee shall also be the Leader of the Assembly ",
with initial capitals for "Leader" and "Assembly" thus making that the official title. However, our Amendment would simply finish at "leader", leaving out the words:
"and shall be known as the Chief Executive",
thus not giving any title to the person to whom we refer. The noble Lord will remember the furious and poetic exchanges during an earlier stage when it was quite clearly the opinion of the House that the name of the chairman of the entire Assembly was a matter for the Welsh Assembly itself to decide upon. It seems to me that if that was the opinion of the House in that case, it should be the opinion of the Committee in this case. Therefore, my Amendment, which your Lordships may or not prefer to that of my noble friend, leaves that the case.
Lord HARVINGTON: The word "executive" has been worrying me quite a bit. It seems to me to be a word which is quite new in the constitutional sense. I have been thinking about all the various Government organs that we have had in our history and I cannot think of anywhere where this word "executive" has been used in the sense in which it is used here. When the noble Lord comes to reply, perhaps he can tell us how this word came to be thought up. Why do we call someone an "executive" in a case like this when the word "executive" is on almost everybody's lips today, everyone knowing exactly what it means? It has a very definite connotation in our daily life in this country today. This word does not seem to me to have any relationship to the accepted use of the word as we understand it today. I hope that the noble Lord can say why this should be and why the solution which has been put forward seems to be the more attractive one.
9.27 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: I think that my noble friend Lord Harvington is quite right that "Chief Executive" is a phrase that is very much in modern fashion at the present time. However, if it is used here, I think that there will be a great deal of confusion in local government circles generally because of the fact that, as my noble friend has said, in the rest of local government the chief executive designates the senior paid official. I should have thought that it was worthwhile for the Government to give a little more consideration to this, either leaving it to the Assembly to decide for itself, or thinking up some designation which would be a little different and which would indicate more clearly that this is not the senior paid official but the senior elected Member of the Assembly. I do not know whether the noble Lord can tell us whether the Government gave consideration to other possible designations before they pitched on "Chief Executive".
Lord SEGAL: I am curious to know to what extent the Government are anxious to dig in and insist on this term "Chief Executive". To many of us, the title "Chief Executive" has supplanted the title formerly known as the "Town Clerk". It has rather glorified the office of the town clerk, but I am not quite convinced that it would glorify the office of the head of the Assembly.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I must say that when the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, was addressing your Lordships I had a certain amount of sympathy for this proposition. Being somewhat realistic in these matters, is it not better to leave the words as they are in the Bill? Whatever words are put in to describe any individual in the Welsh Assembly, the Welsh Members of that Assembly will, in due course, choose their own.
Lord ELTON: That is not the point. The point is what we shall find in the legal documents that are circulated and in newspaper reports. Some people will think that they are addressing the equivalent of the town clerk when, we have just been told, that they would be addressing the equivalent of the Prime Minister. There is a difference.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: The noble Lord is raising certain hypothetical

1243
differences which are quite unrealistic in the context of a Welsh Assembly.
Lord DIGBY: I should like to support my noble friend on this, because it is quite clear in all local government circles that the chief executive is a paid official and not an elected member. I am just wondering whether the phrase "Executive Chairman" might be a possible alternative. I throw that out as a possibility.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: A number of points have been raised here. Let me begin with the discussion of line 20, which is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea. The Bill says:
"the person named by the Assembly as chairman of the Executive Committee shall also be its leader".
That means the leader of the Executive Committee, not of the Assembly. Clause 15(2) requires the election of a presiding officer for the Assembly, so I think we can be clear that the noble Lord's suggestion was wrong, and I hope he is now satisfied on that point.
Lord SWANSEA: Surely the term presiding officer would be equivalent to that of Speaker, and not of leader of the Assembly?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Whatever it would be equivalent to, line 20 refers to this man being the leader of the Executive Committee, and not of the Assembly. This is quite clear. I am now stating it from the Government Bench, and I hope that the noble Lord will believe me. Similar Amendments to this were debated at the Commons Committee stage—unlike some Amendments we have discussed which were not fully debated—and defeated on a Division. The title "chief executive" was opposed on the grounds that it would lead to confusion with senior local government officials, as has been suggested tonight.
The nomenclature was one of the issues considered collectively by Ministers after the defeat of the Scotland and Wales Bill. They decided to rename the Scottish chief executive the First Secretary, but agreed that no change should be made to the Welsh titles, which were considered to be the most suitable of the various possibilities and particularly apt to the Welsh Assembly's executive role.
1244
I have explained why in our view the leaders and chairmen of such Committees are both necessary, but this does not mean that I accept that "Leader of the Assembly" would be a preferable or even acceptable title. I am not really clear what the noble Lord's intention is in proposing this alternative title, except perhaps the feeling that the chief executive in local authority is paid and in this case would not be paid. This is the only significance I can find.
Baroness ELLES: I should have thought that there was considerable difference between not only somebody who is paid and somebody who is not paid—which in fact is not correct because presumably a Member of the Assembly will be paid—but one is elected and one is a paid employee. These are the differences.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I stated it wrongly—as between being elected and paid, or just paid.
Viscount AMORY: May I ask the noble Lord whether the title suggested by my noble friend, "executive chairman" was among those considered but rejected?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I cannot answer that question. I feel that the title proposed is reasonable and acceptable. This is not a thing on which one wants to quarrel. It is a question of words, and if noble Lords would be happier if I took it away and brought back the same answer on Report, I am prepared to do so. Seriously, we will look at this. I do not think that there will be a good reason for changing it, but I am prepared to look at it.
Lord ELTON: I must make my position clear before my noble friend does the same. That is a generous gesture. I am not sure that I like the way it was phrased—bringing back the same answer—but I am sure that the noble Lord did not intend to be either pessimistic or ungracious. The present title is quite unsatisfactory. It ought to go. It is not a matter of Party rancour. I should be happy to see everybody across the Floor voting as they felt.
We cannot be satisfied with what we have. It may well be that "executive chairman" is the right title to have. If we have to put something in the Bill perhaps that is what it should be. Maybe,

1245
as I said before, we should follow the principle which the noble Lord and his friends put forward with such force, vigour, and determination at an earlier stage and allow the Welsh to choose the name themselves. That is what I should like to do. But these are alternatives which the noble Lord opposite will be considering if my noble friend consents to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: If you are going to leave it to the Welsh you would have to have something to leave to them, and perhaps what is in the Bill now might be considered that.
Lord ELTON: That is not satisfactory because what is left in the Bill now tells them that they shall call this person by a name—that he shall be known as the chief executive—and that is not satisfactory; they should be allowed to call him Pendragon or the executive chairman, as they wish.
Lord SWANSEA: This has been an interesting discussion and probably it is a matter about which we should have second thoughts I have not changed my view and I still feel that in this case the title chief executive is inappropriate. When dealing with an earlier part of the Bill and with the term "presiding officer" your Lordships decided that the proper title for that office should be left to the Assembly, and perhaps the same should apply in this case. I hope that between now and Report the Minister will give the matter his consideration, and we will do likewise. Perhaps I made a mistake in giving the word "Leader" a capital L because that implies a title being conferred in the Bill which might be better left to the Assembly to decide. We can think about that again and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 67C, 67D and 67E not moved.]
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
9.37 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 67F:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
1246
(" . Any committee appointed by the Assembly shall have such power to send for persons and papers as the Assembly may decide when appointing each Committee, but such power shall not be exercised in respect of Members of either House of Parliament or in respect of papers which relate to the defence of the Realm.").
The noble Lord said: Elsewhere in the Bill there is provision for the Assembly to set up inquiries, but I do not feel that that power necessarily brings to them the information or provides the means by which they can conduct their business if they are to acquire the knowledge they need of all the affairs in Wales. My noble friends and I can find no provision in the Bill for their making inquiries other than by this means, unless it is hidden in Schedule 2, and that was not apparent to me when I was going through the educational provisions, which I did with some care.
It therefore seemed sensible to table an Amendment so that the Minister could set out the means by which they could acquire the sort of information which for example, a committee of another place could acquire as an essential tool in formulating their policy. It did not seem to us proper to put very strait limits on that, provided that the powers did not exceed what were already the limits set out in the Bill. It also seemed to us proper that the power to send for persons and papers should not include the power to send for persons and papers of either House of Parliament.
Obviously this is at this stage a probing Amendment, so the Minister need not fear that I am about to call his noble friends back from dinner in order to decide the Question. However, we should be in a better position to know how the Assembly will work vis-à-vis the people and institutions it will be governing, and I hope we shall be given that information as part of the noble Lord's reaction to what we have set out in this Amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Two similar Amendments were debated by your Lordships during the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill. This Amendment embraces the main points of both. Lord Drumalbyn accepted in that debate that the powers to call persons, that the Amendments sought to confer, might have been defined too widely, but argued that some such powers were necessary because it would otherwise be difficult to enforce a call by the Assembly

1247
for people and papers. The Amendment was withdrawn and was not put down again for Report stage. The present Amendment seeks to enable the Welsh Assembly to decide when setting up each committee whether to equip it with powers, similar to those of Parliamentary committees, to call for any persons and papers, with certain specified exceptions. The Government take the view that, even with the exceptions set out in the Amendment—which exceptions we agree with—it is going too far to give Assembly committees such wide-ranging powers.
Here, again, we have an Amendment which is in the opposite direction from usual. The noble Lord is trying to give more power to the Assembly, and we are saying that he is going a little too far. Parliament's powers to call for persons and papers derive from the kind of inherent privilege that the Assembly will not have, and is not intended to have. Therefore, to make an Amendment of this kind would introduce for the Assembly a level of authority that is appropriate, outside the courts of the land, or for law enforcement purposes, only to a sovereign Parliament. However, as it stands the Bill already recognises that the Assembly may, in certain limited circumstances, need to require information, and so it confers on the Assembly certain powers to enable witnesses to be summoned and to produce documents. These powers derive from Clause 25(2) of the Bill, which incorporates by reference the provisions of Section 250(2) to (5) of the Local Government Act 1972. I believe that these were the details for which the noble Lord was asking. The Assembly will therefore be able to obtain the information it needs where it causes an inquiry to be held into any matter relevant to the performance of its functions. The Assembly could establish one of its committees as a committee of inquiry and confer on it these powers.
It may be helpful if I set out the difference between the provisions of the Bill as it stands, and the proposed new clause. First, the Bill now enables the Assembly to require the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents only in the context of an inquiry into a matter relevant to the performance of any of its functions. The new clause would confer a general power, which is unacceptable because it
1248
would confer the kind of privilege appropriate only to a sovereign body.
Secondly, the Bill provides that the Assembly must take a conscious decision to confer these powers in a particular instance, and not confer them on a permanent basis. The Assembly must have a particular object in mind. Thirdly, even where the inquiry is to be conducted by a committee of the Assembly, the powers being exercised would be the well-precedented powers now exercised by those appointed by Ministers to hold inquiries. These powers deal with such matters as sanctions and do not leave loose ends, as the new clause does.
The Government thus believe that the Bill as it stands strikes the right balance. The Assembly should not be given the far-reaching powers appropriate only to a sovereign Parliament, but, equally, it should have available to it powers comparable to those now enjoyed by Ministers in the execution of their duties. Of course it is desirable that the Assembly should be able to give its committees adequate powers to require its own staff, and Members and officials of bodies operating directly and exclusively under the Assembly's control, to appear before, and provide information for, Assembly committees. The Assembly can already do this under its inherent powers, and there is no need to make specific provision on this point.
Even though it is refreshing to find the official Opposition for once seeking to extend the powers of the Assembly beyond those proposed by the Government, it would, in the Government's view, be wrong to extend them beyond the Assembly's inherent powers and those conferred by Clause 25. I hope that this rather long explanation will satisfy the noble Lord, and I think that I have dealt with the specific questions he asked as to where the powers are derived from.
Baroness ELLES: This is the second time that the noble Lord has been pleased with the Opposition, so it is not for once, it is for twice. We are already one notch up, therefore, in the course of the discussions during the Committee stage of this Bill. However, I take issue with the noble Lord about the rights of an Assembly committee to ask people to come before it and to discuss with it matters which are of

1249
common interest. I do not know on what authority he says that this is a function of only a sovereign Parliament, or with what other bodies he is comparing the Welsh Assembly. Of course, naturally enough, I revert back to my experience in the European Parliament, and I apologise to noble Lords if they are getting rather sick of hearing of the European Parliament. Nevertheless, although it is possibly not entirely a body comparable to the Welsh Assembly, it is a body of elected persons throughout Europe who have not got legislative powers; so there are certain similarities in the functions, if not in the powers, of these two bodies. They are also bodies set up recently. They are both new bodies, in a completely new set of circumstances.
It would have been unthinkable, I believe, for the committees of the European Parliament not to have these powers to enable them to carry out their duties effectively. Of course, I am referring to their duties under the Treaty: not exceeding their powers in any way, as indeed we were not imagining the Welsh Assembly committees would be exceeding their powers in any way, but merely trying more effectively to fulfil their functions. It appears to me, from my experience in the European Parliament, that it would be very difficult for a committee to fulfil its functions and discuss, for instance, matters of employment without having groups of trade unionists coming into the committee to give their views on certain employment policies or decisions affecting employment. Why should such trade unionists, for instance, not be allowed or enabled to come and discuss with a Welsh Assembly committee on employment? It seems to me a very logical and simple process which is in no way exceeding the powers of the Assembly.
I do not think my noble friend is intending to press this Amendment, but I do think that this is something beyond Party which the Government should look at again, and they should not impose any binding restrictions on the Assembly as to who they should or who they should not receive. This is quite different from local inquiries under ministerial powers which have been devolved: this relates to the ordinary procedural activities of the Assembly, in an attempt to assist committees to fulfil their functions in a
1250
normal democratic manner. As we all know, you cannot now enable democracy to progress or to have any effective future if you do not have communication and discussion. It seems to me, therefore, that the right thing to do would be to consider, at any rate, that these committees should be allowed, under certain specific conditions, to have people come to their committee meetings and discuss matters of interest to the Assembly.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Perhaps I may answer that first. I think there is a modicum of misunderstanding here. The noble Baroness spoke of people being allowed or enabled to talk to them. Of course they are allowed and enabled to talk to them. The power which is not conferred by this Bill is the power which the courts have and which Parliamentary Committees have to insist on an appearance. In the normal course of events, people would be asked to give evidence and would come and do so, but if they did not want to then they could not be made to come.
Lord HARVINGTON: I wonder whether I could ask a question of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, or the noble Baroness—and I apologise if I have missed something here which I ought to know. Does the writ of the Assembly as regards papers and persons extend beyond the boundaries of Wales? For instance, if somebody goes over into Monmouthshire and there is an argument as to whether that is Wales of England, or something of that kind, or goes to Scotland, can he be subpoenaed from there, and can an officer of the court go for him, get him and bring him back—that is, an officer from whatever happens to be the Assembly's equivalent of the office of the Sergeant at Arms? I was wondering whether that point is covered by the Amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Again, I think we are on a wrong issue here. The rule of law and crime is not devolved, so the writ of the Assembly does not run at all in the sense in which the noble Lord was speaking. Obviously, if somebody commits a crime and escapes to Scotland, under the present rules he could be brought back, just as he could be if it were within Wales. It would not be within the Assembly's business.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord has been most helpful, and has really brought out the question of whether or not a person can be subpoenaed to appear before a committee of the Assembly. Of course, we were trailing our coat for this, and for a good deal more which has pounced out of the undergrowth upon it, if I may so put it, which we shall read with interest. The question of how the Assembly arrives at its decision is important. Obviously, the processes which the noble Lord has described will be crucial to it. I am grateful to him for the information he has given about the way the Government are thinking. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Exercise of certain powers of subordinate legislation]:
9.50 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 67A:
Page 9, line 7, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment draws attention to the powers of the Assembly to charge a committee with the exercise of its powers and, as has already been seen in Clause 17(2)(b), it can, in fact, charge the leader of that Committee with certain powers; so that certain executive decisions and measures can be taken by one person alone. In this particular clause, there is a limitation on this power of the Assembly to devolve its executive powers. By subsection (2) we see that the Assembly as a whole has to exercise its powers in certain specific circumstances. There are four examples, decisions, set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) of subsection (2) which cannot be devolved to a committee by the Assembly.
This is perfectly understandable. Why I put down this Amendment relating to the deletion of subsection (3) is to ask the Government how they think this subsection will work. It uses the words: "in … cases of urgency". These cases of urgency are, apparently, to be decided by the standing orders of the Assembly. Obviously, the question of urgency will depend on how often the Assembly is intended to sit during the year. Is it intended, for instance, that the
1252
Assembly will sit in plenary session every month or every week? Clearly, matters of urgency may arise more often outside meetings of two or three occasions a year than outside monthly or twice-monthly meetings.
I think that this is something that we should want to know. We should also want to know about the way the Assembly itself will decide when a case of urgency arises. Who is to decide when that uregncy arises? Is it to be left to the Chief Executive, so-called (or not so-called, as we have been discussing earlier), or must it be decided by the Assembly as a whole in plenary session; and must there be a majority vote to decide whether there is a case of urgency which justifies devolution of a power to be exercised normally by the Assembly to be exercised by a committee?
The other point which springs to mind is the question of the exercise by a committee of these powers. Is it to be the same committee which is responsible for the particular functions which are involved in that particular case of urgency? For instance, is the committee which is concerned with planning to have power to make very obviously important decisions? —because this clause deals with the important decisions which are to be made by the Assembly. Is the same committee, who possibly have a political interest in the decision to be taken, to be allowed to assert these powers?
These are all questions which arise out of the subsection. I think that probably it would have been better if this subsection was not in the Bill because it leaves the matter, I think, less clear than if it were left to the Assembly to work out in its own way how it is going to deal with these matters. As worded at the moment, it raises a whole lot of doubts as to how this will work in practice. Who is to decide what is urgency? Who is to decide which committee is to exert its power when a case of urgency arises?
Many of these matters, understandably, will be contained in the standing orders of the Assembly. Could the noble and learned Lord say whether some draft standing orders have been prepared, or are being prepared, in order to assist the Assembly in its initial proceedings? If that is so, how in those provisional standing orders, if they exist, is this subsection dealt with? I beg to move.
9.57 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Baroness has asked me a number of questions relating to the provision in Clause 20 that in cases of urgency a committee may be charged with the exercise of a power to which subsection (2) applies by virtue of paragraphs (a) or (b) of the subsection. The matter which ought to be emphasised is that these powers are available only in cases of urgency, as the noble Baroness has said, as defined in standing orders. It would be very optimistic and confident if we had already produced draft standing orders. The Bill has a little way to go; not very long, I am sure—owing to the speed with which the Wales Bill is going through your Lordships' House, it will be any day now—but I cannot promise that we have produced the draft standing orders yet, but they will be produced in the fullness of time. The need for the use of these powers in a state of urgency will be determined by the committees themselves. They will decide when the situation arises calling for the use of these powers.
Your Lordships will have noted that the provision does not extend, as the noble Baroness has indicated, to all the powers which are listed in subsection (2) of the clause but only to the first two—that is, those subject to any form of Affirmative or Negative Resolution procedure. The provision does not extend to provisional orders or to orders subject to special Parliamentary procedure (which would not normally contain circumstances of urgency). Thirdly, the power must be delegated to a committee and cannot be delegated further to the leader of the committee or to a sub-committee. So it is pretty well circumscribed in the way that the clause indicates.
Those noble Lords who have had ministerial experience will know that suddenly things can crop up which make the creation of a statutory instrument necessary in a hurry. Many have had experience of that in ministerial days, when some external event shows the need to amend regulations. This power is necessary and we should be guilty of lack of foresight if we did not provide for it.
1254
The situation will arise only in cases of urgency. Those cases will be determined by the relevant committees themselves. It would be intolerable if it was necessary to reconvene the whole Assembly—which may be in recess—to enable this power to arise. Accordingly, within the restrictions that are imposed by the clause I submit that this is a necessary power to give to the Assembly.
Baroness ELLES: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. It does not cover completely all the questions that I asked and I do not expect an answer to the questions I have put to him, particularly as I did not give notice. I should like an answer at some stage as to how a committee may be charged with the exercise of this power. Is it to be done by the senior official who is working for the Welsh Assembly? Is he to say to a committee: "Look, something urgent has cropped up; you must deal with this because I cannot send out a mandate, or whatever it is, to the Welsh Assembly to re-convene in order to discuss some urgent matter?" Must it be at the behest of the senior Member of the Welsh Assembly—presumably either the presiding officer or the chief executive, using the terms that we have been dealing with so far? I think the wording of this particular subsection is not clear, and I am still not clear in my own mind as to how this decision is to be taken or who has the authority to take it. I will, if I may, leave it with the noble and learned Lord for now, and if he wishes to—
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to say that these are matters of detail and they will be provided for in the standing orders of the Assembly. They are matters of detail: I agree they are important. They have rot been worked out yet but there will be provision for them in the Standing Orders of the Assembly, and necessarily so.
Baroness ELLES: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said, and I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Scrutiny of subordinate legislation]:
10.1 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 9, line 31, after ("other") insert ("investigative").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 68, which concerns the scrutiny of subordinate legislation. In subsection (2) it says:
"The Assembly may confer on the committee appointed under this section such other functions as the Assembly may determine".
In the Amendment we propose the insertion of the word, "investigative" after the word "other", in order to keep the entire clause on the same lines. It is very likely that the noble and learned Lord will say that was always the intention and that investigative or scrutinising functions were intended. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The intention is to ensure that any additional functions the Assembly may give to the committee scrutinising subordinate legislation shall be investigative—I am not sure that I know what "investigative" means in this context. Clause 21 certainly sets out the basic framework within which the Assembly is to scrutinise its subordinate legislation. It must appoint a special committee to scrutinise instruments of a general character which are to be made by the Assembly, and the role of the committee will be somewhat similar to that of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in our own Parliament.
Subsection (2) provides that the scrutiny committee may also carry out such other functions as the Assembly shall determine and it would enable the Assembly to ask the committee to scrutinise, for example, instruments made by the Registrar-General or the Forestry Commissioners and falling within the Assembly's sphere of action.
We think it would be desirable to give the scrutiny committee other roles as well and we see no good reason for restricting the committee to scrutiny. What is "investigative" is a little uncertain on the margin, as I am sure the noble Lord will admit; and I think it
1256
would create confusion if the word "investagative" were introduced. We do not think the Amendment will be helpful. We think it will be confusing and unnecessarily restrictive. Accordingly, I hope that what is provided for, for this important committee to scrutinise subordinate legislation, is, as it stands, about right. I cannot go further than that.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord, and I am also obliged to my noble friend. I should have been here a moment or two earlier, but there was a Division in the Commons and the information on the teleprompter, if that is what it is called, was obscured, so I did not know that we had got so far.
The noble and learned Lord said two things which seemed to me to be in contradiction. The earlier part of his answer led me to suppose that the functions of this committee were restricted to the functions implicit in Clause 21(1): that they were to scrutinise. The noble and learned Lord does not know what "investigative" means, but he expects me to know what "scrutinise" means. So be it. He then swept aside an Amendment, which we had put down as a probing Amendment to elicit what were those other functions—and all that he said led me to suppose that they were all functions of scrutiny—by saying that he thought that to limit it to scrutiny would be too restrictive.
So that my question remains unanswered. What are the other functions that this committee is to discharge, if they are not in the nature of scrutinising? The clause, with subsection (2) as it stands, appears to allow the Assembly to permit the committee to do almost anything, and to turn itself into a miniature finance and general purposes committee. I am sure that that is not the intention. I therefore wonder what is the intention, and we have put down the Amendment in order to elicit from Her Majesty's Government what is behind the drafting of subsection (2). I regret that I am still in the dark as to what that may be.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: What I think is intended is to give to this committee a role of scrutiny, in the field of

1257
subordinate legislation. But there may be other functions which the Assembly desires to impose upon this scrutiny committee. They will obviously be matters in the same field, but it is not proposed to restrict it to the matters set out in Clause 2(1). It is intended to give the power to investigate matters, or perhaps to inquire into matters which may be referred to it, over and above the limited scrutiny of subordinate legislation, which the Assembly may desire to confer upon the committee.
I think that it gives an opportunity to the Assembly to use the scrutiny committee for such other functions by way of inquiry—I shall not use the word "investigative", because I have criticised the use of that word—as the Assembly may decide is convenient and suitable. It merely makes available to the Assembly this appointed committee, to which it may be convenient to give powers to conduct inquiries, or whatever it is that the Assembly may commit to it. I do not think that I can be more specific than that. It seems to make sense to me, but perhaps not to the noble Lord.
Lord ELTON: There is always that danger. Let us narrow the field. Would the noble and learned Lord be satisfied with an Amendment which said that—and I am taking his words—
"The Assembly may confer on the committee appointed under this section such other functions by way of inquiry"—
which is one phrase we used—
"as the Assembly may determine"?
Or,
"The Assembly may confer on the committee appointed under this section such other functions in the nature of scrutiny as the Assembly may determine"?
The noble and learned Lord has told me the intentions of the Government. I do not think he has told me the effect of the clause. The effect of the clause would still seem to me to be limited not by what is set out in subsection (1), but by the permissive powers set out in subsection (2). If this is the case, it must be wrongly drafted. I do not want to make a meal of this, but we ought to put it right. I should like the reaction of the noble and learned Lord to the sense of the two alternatives, "by way of inquiry"
1258
or "in the nature of scrutiny", which I do not suggest are a final draft, because this will at least make clear his intentions and we can see the effect of the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am willing to look at this point; perhaps it needs greater particularity. I thought that it was all right as it is, but if the noble Lord is worried that it provides too wide a range of possible activity for the scrutiny committee, I am certainly willing to look at it. If, therefore, the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, perhaps we can return to it.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged for what the noble and learned Lord has said. Of course I shall be guided in the long run by the superior wisdom of the Lord Chancellor of England over my lay opinions. I feel, as I think many of us do, that when we are drafting statutes we want to say what we want them to mean so that they mean what we have made them say. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will achieve this intention during the interim period between now and Report. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Party balance in committees]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 9, line 36, after ("17") insert ("18,").
The noble Lord said: This is consequential upon Amendment No. 63 which we carried. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.12 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 69K:
Page 9, line 38, after ("parties") insert ("and the representation of the various parts of Wales").
The noble Lord said: We come back to the field in which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, was so interested, the field of checks and balances. The Amendment provides in line 38 that I the balance shall be not only between the

1259
Parties but also between the regions or various parts of Wales. I think it was generally accepted at Second Reading that there are considerable distinctions between the North and the South of Wales: that, as regards its population, the North is, generally speaking, rural and agricultural while the South is urban and industrial and that the interests of the two, therefore, may often conflict.
Since the Government have been good enough to say that minority Parties should be represented in the committees and since those minority Parties may be drawn from both the North and the South, it seems that consistency as to the fairness of their intention requires that the representation in the committees should include balance as to geographical region—and, therefore, economic interest—as well as balance as to political Parties and, therefore, affiliation. I suppose that on occasion it may lead to some rather difficult juggling of membership, but if we are to achieve what the noble Lords opposite are patently trying to achieve and what we are trying to convince them that we also are trying to achieve—namely, a fairly constructive and efficient Assembly for the people to vote on at the referendum—it seems to me that this is a necessary provision. The point is not of earthshaking constitutional significance, and I should have thought that it is one to which the Government might even be able to accede. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that I understand the underlying intention of these Amendments, but they do not make very clear to me whether Party balance or geographical balance is to take precedence if in a particular case the two considerations prove to be incompatible. I am not quite sure what is meant by "the various parts of Wales". A broad distinction is drawn between North Wales and South Wales. Pembrokeshire is supposed to have its own special character.
My own county, which used to be called Carmarthenshire, is now lost under the rubric of the previous administration of Dyfed, along with a number of other counties which are unrecognisable in the new regime that was created. It is not an easy problem. Clearly it is reasonable to expect that the Assembly will wish to take various factors into account
1260
in deciding the membership of the committees. As the noble Lord pointed out, in Clause 22 the minimum requirements for the political balance of the subject committees, the scrutiny committee and the accounts committee are provided for. That will ensure that minority interests are represented on these committees. These provisions will prevent the majority Party, if there is to be one, from dominating any particular committee to a greater extent than is justified by the representation in the Assembly.
I have little doubt that the Parties in the Assembly will take care to see, so far as is practicable, that there is a proper geographical spread. I do not think that there will be any empire building in Glamorganshire to see that Caernarvonshire does not get a fair run in representation. I am sure, knowing the gentlemen of Caernarvonshire and Pembrokeshire, that they will see to it that they get a fair part in the representation.
I respectfully submit that to introduce a requirement as to the geographical balance—even as vague a one as is provided in the noble Lord's Amendment—could present very serious practical problems. A situation could arise where, if there is to be a need to reflect both Party balance and geographical areas, the committees would either be so large and unwieldy as to be unacceptable, or it would be impossible to find enough members on them to comply with the necessary statutory requirements. With respect, I think that this is surely a matter that can be left to the discretion of the Members of the Assembly.
At last Wales will have a national Assembly. One of its achievements, I hope, will be to limit the traditional rivalry (to put it as modestly as I can) between North and South Wales. It is a distinction created largely, I am afraid, as a result of the lack of communications between North and South Wales. That, in turn, has created a difference in accent. Reasonably fluent as I am in the Welsh language, I confess that in part of Caernarvonshire I am a little lost by my fellow countrymen's speech—but that happens only occasionally. However, I think we must, here again, look to the good sense of the Assembly, which will operate as a national Assembly, to see that the North

1261
is not frozen out by the strong men of South Wales, where the large majority of the people of Wales live.
Viscount AMORY: If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will forgive me, I was not terribly impressed with his argument about the difficulty of laying on the Assembly the requirement of taking account of the Parties and the geographical spread. I think that the noble and learned Lord asked which of the two should take precedence. I should have thought that there were many examples where two factors to be considered were laid on the authorities, without laying down which of the two should receive preference. I should have thought that the tremendous difference in population between one part of Wales and another perhaps made this desirable. Whether or not, on balance, it is desirable, I should not have thought it was impossibly difficult to do, just by virtue of laying two responsibilities on the authority, both of which had to receive consideration.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the really important matter is already provided for in Clause 22, that
"the Assembly shall secure that the balance of parties in the Assembly is, so far as practicable, reflected in the membership of the committee".
That is the crucially important thing. I do not know how the Party spread will operate geographically and I had better not forecast what the future political shape of the Assembly will be, but I think to make statutory a provision for a geographical representation being an essential element is not really necessary and in the case of the small committee it might be very difficult to achieve it. I expect that it will present no difficulties in practice because there will be clear representation from all parts of Wales in the Assembly itself. They will be represented there on the basis of the electoral system, and it will act responsibly as a national Assembly and I do not believe that we need worry unduly about this.
Lord ELTON: So far as I am concerned the principal surprise in the debate has been that, following the loud cries of "Hear, hear!"from the Liberal Benches about the differences in North and South
1262
Wales, and remembering that the Amendment on proportional representation contains within it a definition of the geographical regions to which we allude and that was warmly supported from the Liberal Benches, there has been no intervention in support of this particular principle, even as a matter of theory. I think the noble and learned Lord should not underestimate the anxiety, which has been extremely clearly put before members of my Party, and I do not doubt also of his Party, that exists in the rural and agricultural North about the prospects of domination in the political and economic sense by the urban and industrial South. The argument that he adduced for saying this was superfluous almost made one suppose that one could expect all the members of minority Parties to come from one half of Wales and all the others from the other half.
However, I think we have investigated this area sufficiently to get the temperature of the water in the Government's thinking (if that rather unhappy mixed metaphor will be forgiven) and I do not propose to pursue it further than I already have, at least until I have read what the noble and learned Lord has said. I think he might have been a little more generous in his approach. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 69L not moved.]
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Defamation]:
10.22 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 69B:
Page 9, line 42, after ("statement") insert ("relating to the functions referred to in sections 9 to 13 above").
The noble Lord said: It may be to the convenience of the Committee if I speak at the same time to Amendment No. 69C. Clause 23, which confers absolute privilege against defamation proceedings upon the Welsh Assembly, is almost identical to a similar clause in the Scotland Bill. I say "almost" because, curiously enough, where the Scotland Bill puts semicolons the Wales Bill has commas. There may be some obscure mystical Celtic significance

1263
in that which eludes a mere Saxon like myself. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can explain this when he replies. There is also another small alteration of a seemingly grammatical nature in line 2 of subsection (2) which is unlikely to have any significance. One really wonders whether these minor distractions have been slipped into the clause as red herrings.
The important thing that needs explaining by the Government is why on earth absolute privilege comes into this Bill at all. This is because all elected public bodies, such as the Welsh Assembly will be, are automatically protected by the doctrine of qualified privilege. This automatically protects Members who—and I quote from Halsbury—
"are acting in good faith and without any indirect or improper motives make statements about other people which are in fact untrue and defamatory".
In other words, they are completely protected without the need for a clause such as this, unless they speak maliciously. Noble Lords without legal training may not have realised this; I myself certainly did not realise it until the other day. What this means is that all Assemblies of this nature, with the exception of Parliament itself and the courts, function perfectly well despite being protected only by qualified privilege. It does not inhibit their smooth and efficient operation in any way. After all, the Greater London Council—responsible for over two and a half times the number of people the Welsh Assembly will he responsible for—does not feel the need for its members to be able to speak maliciously in order to run its affairs. The same applies to the West Midlands and Greater Manchester County Councils, both of which are responsible for more people than the prospective Welsh Assembly will be responsible for.
When the virtually identical clause in the Scotland Bill was being criticised at Report stage, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, defended it, in reply to a question by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, by maintaining that the Government's view was that absolute privilege was essential for the effective running of a legislative body. But whatever the merits of that argument—and many of us were not convinced by it—it cannot possibly apply here. The Welsh Assembly is not a comparable body; it has no power to legislate.
One cannot avoid a growing suspicion, particularly bearing in mind the obviously ha sty drafting of both the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill, that the inclusion of Clause 23 in this Bill was entirely accidental. A similar clause featured in the Scotland Bill, so someone assumed, so I would guess, without thinking the matter through, that it automatically followed that a parallel clause should appear in this Bill. The fact that it was at one time proposed that the Welsh Assembly should have legislative powers lends credence to this theory.
As to the drafting of this pair of Amendments, they would effectively confine the cloak of absolute privilege to discussion of what we now tend to think of, following the twenty odd days spent on the Scotland Bill, as devolved matters, but which are, of course, properly although less euphoniously described as transferred functions as far as this Bill is concerned. When a similar Amendment was moved to the Scotland Bill, the Government's objections concentrated particularly on the difficulties of defining precisely where the border line is drawn between devolved and non-devolved matters. As we are only concerned with malice here—because, let me reiterate, non-malicious comment is totally protected—I hardly think this to be a valid objection. All that members have to do when in any doubt is simply to restrain the malicious remark which may be on the tip of their tongue, not exactly a very onerous requirement. Most of us find this quite easy in our daily lives, and although comment in your Lordships' House is absolutely privileged I think very few noble Lords, if ever, take advantage of this. As the Wales Bill stands, members of the Welsh Assembly may malicously libel or slander with complete impunity not only people in Clwyd or Carmarthen but individuals in Caithness, Carstairs, Carlisle, Coleraine, Cambridge and Cornwall as well. I suggest that this is quite unacceptable to the Committee, and indeed to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.
If the demarcation between transferred functions and non-transferred functions is too difficult to define, I suggest the best course is to delete Clause 23 altogether. Perhaps it would be wise to delete the whole clause in any case. It is totally illogical to give such powers to a non-legislative Assembly. By indirectly giving the

1265
Assembly the status and the prestige of a sovereign Parliament by means of clauses such as this, you will pave the way sooner or later for separation and the ultimate break-up of the United Kingdom.
Finally, by a significant coincidence an Early Day Motion took place in the House of Commons only two days ago, on Monday 19th, which can be found at columns 29 and 30 of the Official Report for that day. Speaking on the Motion, Mr. Burden, the Conservative Member for Gillingham, voiced the strong opinion that it was regrettable that there was apparently a growing tendency for some Members under the rules of privilege to impugn the honour and integrity of others outside. He also urged Members on all sides of the House to be careful about using their privilege, since if they made similar statements outside the House they would be liable to face considerable legal implications. If any Members of the Committee have any doubts about our Amendments, I think these timely words will dispel them. This is a non-Party matter. Unfortunately, the other noble Lords who are supporting me could not be here at this hour, but this is a matter which cuts across Parties, and indeed cuts across one's attitude to devolution. It is perfectly possible to be in favour of devolution and still have doubts about this clause. I hope noble Lords in all parts of the Committee will support the Amendments. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The picture that the noble Lord has created of the Members of the Welsh Assembly as a pack of potentially malicious slanderers, I am bound to say surprises me a little, but these possibilities do occur to imaginative minds. Clause 23 gives absolute privilege in the law of defamation to any statement made in proceedings of the Assembly and to any document published under the authority of the Assembly. The noble Lord's Amendment would limit that absolute privilege to statements relating to the devolved functions which are referred to in the preceding clauses we have been discussing.
I quite understand the anxiety of the noble Lord that there are certain dangers in giving absolute privilege to any body or institution and there is the risk of abuse,
1266
but the principle of the matter is that the status of the Welsh Assembly is the status of a National Assembly of Wales. It really depends what status your Lordships give to it in order to decide what protection it should have for absolute privilege for its Members, who will be elected by the people of Wales as a whole, in their deliberations in the Assembly itself. It is quite true that the Welsh Assembly will not have legislative powers, but it will have executive powers which v, ill he exercisable on a national scale. It will have important powers in regard to subordinate instruments, and in the view of the Government they ought to attract absolute privilege. This is what Clause 23 of the Bill does.
I think it is desirable to see what the Assembly will actually be discussing. I do not think it is realistic to hive off the sphere of its considerations within a sealed-off area labeled "devolved matters.' What goes on outside those devolved matters will obviously be a matter of concern and for discussion by the Assembly. Perhaps I can give an example of the kind of situation I have in mind. The Government, for instance, may well be proposing legislation affecting Wales and they could well welcome the views of the Welsh Assembly upon any forthcoming legislation of that kind. I ask the noble Lord whether it is really to be suggested that that kind of discussion of this elective Assembly for Wales should only enjoy the umbrella of qualified privilege. I submit that the protection that ought to be given, and what it is practical to give—because I do not think it would be practicable to restrict the sphere within which absolute privilege could be given to one part of discussion while in another part the protection would go—is provided for here; and this is needed by the circumstances of the case.
The real answer to the risk of abuse by a Member of Parliament or a Member of the Assembly is public opinion. Through the decades those of us who have been in the Commons for years and those who have enjoyed the privileges of your Lordships' House will know that, whereas we have these powers of saying whatever we like, we exercise responsibility, in part because the public outside is listening. As far as we are concerned they are listening more than ever before, which I think is a desirable thing, especially

1267
to those golden voices I hear with such regularity at breakfast time each morning; some are more golden than others; some perhaps silver, and some perhaps not even silver, but good they sound. Public opinion controls and determines the exercise of these powers. I think that we can rely upon the people who will compose the Welsh Assembly—who will not, I think, by character be malicious slanderers—to exercise their powers responsibly.
10.35 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: I should like to intervene on this Amendment because, having listened to the noble and learned Lord, I find the arguments in favour of keeping the clause becoming fewer and fewer. Moreover—and I mean no disrespect to him whatever—by the time he had finished I thought that the Bill would be much better without the clause. He said that in the end it is public opinion that decides on this matter. I point out that first, members of the public will not have been able to discuss this clause before it becomes law and, secondly, it will be individual members of the public who will suffer if absolute privilege is granted to the Welsh Assembly in the way envisaged by this clause.
It seems to me rather extraordinary that we have been listening to so many arguments as regards the Scotland Bill telling us that it is essential to have absolute privilege for the procedures of the Scottish Assembly because it will be a legislative body. That was the only final argument that could be adduced by the Government Front Bench when this matter was raised. It seemed to me, at least, that it was the strongest argument that they could produce. Yet, when we have been discussing the Welsh Assembly we have been told repeatedly that it will not be a legislative body. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will remember that on the 6th June—which was only a few days ago—we were informed categorically that it will not be a legislative body, and we accept that it will not be a legislative body. So, I do not see how the Government can reconcile the views that, first, the Scottish Assembly must have absolute powers because it is a legislative body, and, secondly, that the Welsh Assembly must have absolute privilege although it is not a
1268
legislative body. The two arguments simply do not connect in any way that I can see, unless there is some third or fourth stage of chop logic which has escaped me.
There are other matters to be raised. After all, local authorities do not have absolute privilege, although I accept that the Welsh Assembly itself is a different animal from a local authority. Nevertheless, we have been told over and over again that it is not a sovereign Parliament. It seems to me that throughout our discussions it has been very convenient for the Front Bench opposite to use arguments of one kind when it suits it, and then to use totally different arguments as regards some other clause; but the arguments do not seem related to the fundamental issue which we are discussing.
As the noble and learned Lord rightly said, we do not often have cases of slander or defamation in our elected bodies. But the noble and learned Lord will certainly recall that only recently there were very grave breaches of privilege. I do not propose that we should even discuss them in this House, but they were raised quite recently in regard to an issue of defamation. It is not so difficult for these cases to arise in any elected body.
I do not know whether we shall, in fact, vote tonight or make a decision on Clause 23, but I ask the noble and learned Lord to give us a more convincing reason why he thinks that this clause should remain in the Bill. After all, absolute privilege is a very great privilege for any elected member of any body, because he has a total right to say anything he likes about any individual within the Chamber of the body to which he is elected. This is a very grave and serious privilege, and it can very seriously and gravely affect the rights of individuals.
This is not a light matter; this is not something where one can just say, "Because it is in the Bill, we must keep it", or where somebody else can say, "We do not like it, we must have it out". It affects the fundamental rights of the individual and, in this particular case, of the Welsh individual. I think that the Government should be able to give us very much more serious and profound reasons why the Welsh elected Member to the Welsh Assembly must have absolute

1269
privilege when he is discussing some individual and possibly causing considerable harm to that individual.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has drawn attention to broadcasting. The broadcasting of debates in itself can, in fact, cause more damage to an individual than if these matters were not broadcast. It may very well be that the name of an individual—possibly rightly or, which is worse, possibly wrongly—may be mentioned in connection with some debate. That individual may suffer grievous harm of some kind and serious detriment to his professional or private standing in society. As the noble and learned Lord has mentioned the fact that even these proceedings may be broadcast, I should very much regret if absolute privilege was to be given to this body in such a manner that we have not been convinced that it is essential for it to have it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The basis of the privileges of Parliament is freedom of speech. The two are linked together in the Bill of Rights.
Baroness ELLES: Will the noble and learned Lord allow me to intervene? Very often we talk of freedom of speech, but in all the universal declarations on human rights and other covenants and conventions there are always limitations and restrictions on the use of freedom. They involve considerable responsibility as regards the use of freedom of speech as well as consideration of the rights of others.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Baroness had borne with patience what I was endeavouring to say, perhaps I could have satisfied her, although I anticipate that that would be a very difficult operation. However, freedom of speech has been embodied in our Constitution since, I think, 1688, and this is the basis of the privilege of Parliament whose Members enjoy absolute privilege. When the noble Baroness was expressing some concern about a recent debate in another place, I wondered whether she was regretting the existence of absolute privilege even for Parliament itself, but probably that was not intended.
1270
The real question is what status we really want to give to this national Assembly. Is it to be treated on the level of a local authority, enjoying qualified privilege; or is its quality as a national Assembly, of Wales in one case and of Scotland in the other, deserving of special recognition and special status? Are the kinds of matter that it will discuss matters of such importance affecting the people that those speaking ought to be free to speak their minds? The threat of libel actions against ordinary folk—not rich Assemblymen or rich Members of Parliament—is a very serious threat. There is no legal aid to fight the cases and the ability of the ordinary Assemblymen or the ordinary Member to say what he thinks is right for the benefit of his constituent, which may be very gravely defamatory—perhaps that is not the right word—gravely objected to by great corporations or even powerful individuals, is a power which is very important to give to the Assemblyman and the Assembly Member.
As I said earlier, the restraints upon its exercise are a product of self-discipline of the Assembly, with the knowledge that the public are listening and watching. I was not suggesting that the public would be discussing tomorrow at breakfast-time in Llanelli the provision in this clause dealing with defamation. I was saying that in the future conduct of their affairs by Assemblymen, there will be watchful attention.
I am surprised to hear that the view emerged in regard to the equivalent provision in the Scotland Bill that it was granted to the Scottish Assembly only because the Scottish Assembly was a legislative body. I should be surprised to find that that had been stated by my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey, or by me if I was discussing it. I cannot remember it. Certainly, in regard to Scotland, the executive powers are such that they, too, if that was the only ambit of their powers, need this protection.
I submit that the status of the Assembly calls for it. The kinds of matters they will be discussing call for it. We have rather gone away from the noble Lord's Amendment in the wider discussion which, surprisingly, we entered into, but I should have thought that what is proposed in the Bill is necessary and right in principle.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I hesitate to cross swords with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor again. I regret his using the word "status". This is nothing to do with status, either historically or elsewhere. The only reason one has absolute privilege is because it is in the national interest. It is in the national interest that we should be free to speak. It is not a question of status. I am afraid that that is in the Government's mind. It is within the dignity of a body that they should have the status of absolute privilege, and this is not a good basis.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: We have crossed swords on this before on the Scotland Bill. When I referred to the national status I was trying to distinguish between this being a national Assembly and not a local government authority. I was not asserting status itself as a word of significance.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord say that. Certainly the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—and I think the Lord Chancellor himself—on basing his need for absolute privilege in Scotland deeply emphasised the legislative status. I find myself in agreement with what my noble friend said; that is, that there was a sharp emphasis on this point. I think there is a case to answer for an Assembly that is not legislative. It is a narrow case because it is legislative; but when you go beyond that I cannot see how you can separate this wholly from a local authority, and I believe that would be wholly wrong.
Lord MONSON: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor charged me with regarding the potential Members of the Welsh Assembly as a collection of potentially malicious slanderers. I do not think I gave that impression. It is because I do not regard them as such that I think these Amendments are justified. Given that they are, by and large, highly unlikely to be malicious individuals, all the more reason to accept these Amendments. What have they to fear?
I am grateful for the support from the Conservative Front Bench and from the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. Time and time again through these debates on Scotland and Wales the Government have maintained, when objecting to an Amendment moved from the Cross-Benches or the Conservative Benches, that Parliament remains sovereign; that these Assemblies will not have the status and dignity of a sovereign Parliament. Yet, in contrast, they are conferring the dignity they claim it is not to have by clauses such as Clause 23.
Exactly one week ago the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara—I am sorry he is not here—whom we know to be a keen enthusiast for devolution, from his speech on the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill, in referring to Conservative Amendment No. 43A, compared the prospective Welsh Assembly to a large local authority. Precisely. I could not have put it better. A large local authority is effectively what it is, and if you are going to confer absolute privilege on the Welsh Assembly, why not on the Greater London Council, which has charge over almost three times as many people? Why not on the West Midlands County Council, the Greater Manchester Council, or the West Yorkshire Council?
It is a question of the protection of the individual against malicious comment. It is easy to refrain from malicious comment. I accept the noble and learned Lord's criticism that it is perhaps difficult to divide qualified privilege from absolute privilege: I think it is better therefore to divide against Clause 23 stand part. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 69C not moved.]
10.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33: Not-Contents, 16.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

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

Collison, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

David, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

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

Kagan, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Peart, L. [L. Privy Seal.]

Stone, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

White, B.

Rochester, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Segal, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Stedman, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gainford, L.

Moyne, L.

Tweeddale, M. [Teller.]

Gridley, L.

Newall, L.

Vickers, B.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Redesdale, L.

Westbury, L.

Middleton, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Motion resolved in the affirmative, and agreed to accordingly.
11 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 69A:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Proceedings of the Assembly
(".—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below—

(a) the proceedings of the Assembly and of its committees appointed under sections 17, 18, 21 and 53 of this Act shall be conducted in public:

(b) a verbatim report of the proceedings of the Assembly shall be published as soon as is practicable following the day on which they take place;

(c) minutes of the proceedings of such committees shall be published as soon as is practicable following the day on which they take place.

(2) The Assembly may waive any provisions of subsection (1) above provided that—

(a) the Assembly resolves that such provision should be waived 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); and

(b) the resolution is passed before the commencement of the proceedings; and

(c) the duration of the proceedings waived does not exceed 24 consecutive hours.").

The noble Lord said: The Assembly, which has now been granted privilege, and which may, upon the return of our enactment from the other place, be able to subsume the functions of the Welsh Development Agency and all the other major bodies referred to in earlier debates, will be an engine of considerable power. Its deliberations and decisions will closely affect the policy and the lives of the bodies and the individuals which it governs. It seems to us that, under those circumstances, it is right and proper that its proceedings should be known, and our
1274
Amendment seeks to provide that this shall be achieved by the publication of its proceedings.
The Amendment is a rather long one, and I expect that the noble Lord who is to reply will point out detailed defects of drafting which have escaped us— and I already see him nodding his sage and forgiving head. I shall be interested if he will address himself to these minutiae, because I think that this is a matter of some interest which we ought to get right. But there is the larger question of whether or not the proceedings of the Assembly, which is a national Assembly and which in some respects resembles a large local authority but in some sense a sovereign Parliament, shall be made public.
The means we have set our hand to are shown in Amendment No. 69A, subsection (1) of which brings in the proceedings of subject committees by reference to Clause 17, of executive committees by reference to Clause 18, of the scrutiny committee by reference to Clause 21 and, by reference to Clause 53, of the accounts committee. It requires, first of all, that proceedings shall be held in public; and, secondly, that they shall be published. The proceedings of the Assembly as a whole, we have suggested, should be reported verbatim, as are the proceedings of the two Houses of this Parliament. It would be unreasonable, I think, to lay upon the Assembly, with their limited resources, the necessity to publish verbatim accounts of all the proceedings of all the committees. None the less, it is necessary, we feel, for the public, public servants, members of industry and members of the professions generally to be able to evaluate the probable policy and the intentions behind policy to some extent by knowing what has gone on in the committees. It seems reasonable, therefore, that the

1275
minutes should be published. There will be no extra labour in preparing them, after all, since they will have to be prepared anyway.
Clearly there will be occasions when either of these main provisions—the provision that meetings shall be held in public and the provision that those proceedings shall be recorded and published—will not be appropriate to the occasion. The example that suggests itself is a committee which is discussing the long-term planning of a city, when there might be a suggestion that something obnoxious, like a glue factory, or something which would attract large and noisy crowds, like a sports stadium, should be set up in a quarter of the city, and when the result of the publication of those proceedings (although the suggestion might not have been made seriously and might later be dropped) upon the value of the surrounding property and the plans that people had for developing it would be dramatic. It is suggested to me that to allow that sort of speculative debate to be reported could be damaging.
It would not be a good thing if the waiver that we have placed in the Amendment was to be operated habitually or on a semi-permanemt basis. The tone of the Amendment is to say that it is normal to publish proceedings and it is exceptional to keep quiet about them. Therefore, the decision to sit in camera or not to publish the proceedings must be a decision of the Assembly carried by a substantial majority; and, what is more, the decision should only be valid for a period of 24 hours before it must be renewed.
This, as I have indicated, is a probing Amendment, at least to the extent that we do not consider that we have it right at this stage. I think that it has the merit of setting out these principles: the holding of most, or all, of the proceedings in public; the publication of all proceedings of the Assembly; the publication in the form of minutes of the proceedings of committees; and the power, when necessary, by a large majority—in other words, as an act of, one thinks, fairly rare occurrence—to set these provisions aside for a limited period. Those are the grounds we are seeking to establish. I should be interested to hear what the noble Lord's reactions to them may be.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I should like strongly to support the principle behind the first part of these Amendments which, in effect, says that certain proceedings of the Welsh Assembly should be held in public and that there should be a verbatim report of those proceedings. I realise that questions of cost may arise but the central point in this matter is whether the Westminster Parliament should lay down that the proceedings of the Welsh Assembly shall be in public and that there should be these verbatim reports. I think that we should do this. We should give complete guidance to the Welsh Assembly on this matter. The Assembly must not start off in my view as a secretive body and for any reason not have these proceedings held in public. Its proceedings should be open and reported so that everybody will know what is going on.
Viscount AMORY: I think, if I may say so, that the verbatim report is important in this case. Local authorities through Wales will be extremely interested in the deliberations of the Assembly. They will want to have an absolutely up-to-date account of what is going on, what is being done and what is being said, just as at present they are able to get a Hansard account of all that goes on in Westminster. I think it essential that they should have as up-to-date a report as can be contrived of the day-to-day discussions in the Assembly. Therefore, I beg to support my noble friend's Amendment.
11.8 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): Certainly, I understand the anxieties which have given rise to this particular Amendment but I am afraid that the Amendment as tabled by the noble Lord is impractical for a number of reasons, as I will seek to persuade the Committee. First, the Assembly is going to be a democratically-elected national body and its proceedings are clearly going to arouse a great deal of national interest in Wales. If there is any danger of that interest flagging I suspect that its Members will take all possible steps to ensure that it is revived. I should be surprised if Members of this Assembly are not, in fact, in favour of the maximum possible publicity for all their deliberations. I think it is

1277
inconceivable that such a body would wish to conduct its deliberations in private other than in the most unlikely circumstances, or would fail to keep the public fully informed about what was going on.
I think that there are two principal objections to this new clause. We think it is unnecessary and, what is more, we think that it demonstrates once again the lack of faith in the ability of the Assembly Members to run their affairs responsibly. When this Assembly is established it will be because Parliament has approved the proposals and because they have been endorsed by the Welsh people. The proposals transfer considerable powers to the Assembly; surely Parliament and the Welsh people can safely assume that this body will act responsibly in accordance with the powers with which they have been entrusted.
So far as allowing the public access to proceedings is concerned, I readily acknowledge that some years ago a number of local authorities regrettably did not do this and that legislation was necessary, as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, will recall, to ensure that they did. But that was back in 1960; times have changed and it is unlikely—to put it at its least—that the Assembly would seek to turn the clock back and revert to the practice adopted nearly 20 years ago by some backward local authorities. I do not think that is a realistic fear.
But we have to bear in mind that the Welsh Assembly will also be the Executive, and that some of the proceedings of its committees (especially of the Executive Committee) will be of a confidential nature. I acknowledge that this is recognised in the new clause, but the machinery proposed is totally impractical. It requires a vote by members representing two-thirds of the total Assembly seats before the Assembly or any one of its committees can exclude the public. Surely it can be left to the committees to decide when it is in the public interest for its proceedings to be held in private?
The practical problems of the system proposed by the Amendment would be enormous. An obvious example: suppose a number of members are absent and the two-thirds majority is not available; what does the committee do? Suspend
1278
business and try again to get a majority to meet in private next week? What happens if the business was urgent? What happens if there is an absolutely urgent need for a clear decision, and that decision, by reason of the nature of the business, has to be conducted in private? One can envisage certain circumstances where this might be necessary.
Let us take another example. How does the noble Lord envisage that this scheme would work during Assembly recesses or on other days when the Assembly is not sitting? Again I emphasise the Assembly will be the Executive, and some of its committees will need to meet or to be available to meet throughout the year. If urgent confidential business comes up in August what does the Executive Committee do? Bring two-thirds of the Assembly Members back from their holidays?
It seems an extreme proposition. I should be surprised if the noble Lord, who is an extremely reasonable man—if he does not regard that as an offensive description at this time of night—would regard that as a sensible way of conducting public business. I have no doubt about the admirable intentions of the noble Lord. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, have said with their very substantial experience of local authority life. But recognising their anxiety, I do not believe that an Amendment of this character could possibly be written into the Bill without creating the most significant practical problems.
We have to recognise that though in the past—and I repeat this point—a small number of local authorities did behave in a manner which two, possibly three, political Parties considered very bad indeed in trying to conduct their business wholly in secret—a very foolish course of action indeed—and Parliament eventually had to take action in dealing with this abuse, I do not believe in the situation of 1978 and after this year that this is a significant risk. Even if the noble Lord disagrees with me on that point, I hope that I have persuaded him that the Amendment as drafted simply would not deal with the problems that he has identified without causing a very significant number of quite serious problems for the Assembly.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: The noble Lord, as usual, has been persuasive on these matters. I agree with him that the drafting of this Amendment requires further attention, particularly the second part of it. But I have concerned myself purely with the principle of whether the proceedings of the Welsh Assembly shall be in public, whether there should be a verbatim report of the proceedings and whether this Parliament should give directions to the Assembly to that effect.
The noble Lord started off on the wrong premise. In my view, this is not a question of leaving it to the common sense of the Welsh Assembly. It may be for a variety of reasons that, when the Assembly starts, it decides not to publish its proceedings. It may be controlled in this matter by the question of cost. I think it is a matter for this Parliament, with its experience of these matters, to lay down a rule that their should be proceedings in public and that there should be a verbatim report of the proceedings. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that this is such an important matter that he will consider it so that the whole thing can be raised at a further stage of the Bill.
Lord ELTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, for his support. I was interested in the objections advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, because it seems to me that the only substantial ones were the last two. These objections were that the proceedings of the Executive Committee in particular, but also others, might need on fairly frequent occasions to be confidential, and that on those occasions a sufficient number of Assemblymen might not be readily available to make it possible to proceed.
There is clearly a defect in subsection (2) of the Amendment, as I said when I moved the Amendment. But the noble Lord has not addressed himself, I think, to the principle, beyond saying that the Members of the Assembly could be counted on to see that they remained under the limelight in all circumstances; and, of course, the noble Lord, unlike most of us on this Bench, does not have to listen to the whole debate on the Bill, so he has not heard this great cry: "Lack of faith", going out again and again, as we have. It becomes really somewhat dispiriting and annoying.
1280
I do not wish to have to return to the charge on this matter every time; but let us accept that there should be some provision for the publication of the proceedings of the Assembly, to which the noble Lord raised no substantive objection whatsoever. Let us consider that they might meet and decide—for reasons of economy, because the expense would be considerable, or for some other reason—not to publish reports of their proceedings regularly. Would it not be an unsatisfactory decision, and would not the noble Lord recognise that it would be a far worse insult to the Assemblymen to tell them that they must do what they were not doing after they had met than to provide them with a means of doing it before they met? It may be that his feelings would be satisfied if we made this a permissive clause rather than a requirement. That is another aspect which we have not yet looked at. Nor have we looked in any detail at all at the requirements for public sittings and the admission of the public as opposed to the publication either of a verbatim report or of the minuted proceedings.
Clearly the Liberals agree with us on this, and it is a serious matter. Although we do not propose to press it in this form at this time, we feel it is something in which we would have the support of the Welsh. We believe the people of Wales are likely to take our view rather than that advanced by the noble Lord. Therefore, it is essential to ask whether he considers that the requirements in subsection (2) could be modified in such a way as to make them acceptable; or whether the requirements in subsection (1) could be drafted in such a way as to make those in subsection (2) superfluous; also whether he feels that either the requirement that the committees' proceedings should be published verbatim, or the requirement that they should sit in public except on special occasions, is unreasonable. We have two areas here. We have the Assembly and we have the committees. Let us deal with them turn by turn. What is the noble Lord's answer to my questions in relation to the Assembly?
11.20 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: What I have said to the Committee, I hope moderately persuasively, is that the Amendment put forward by the noble

1281
Lord, is unacceptable for the reason that I have given; namely, that it would create a totally unworkable situation. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked whether we would consider the matter, and of course we will. It would be foolish of me to say that we will disregard everything that is said in this Committee stage. It would be a remarkably presumptuous position to adopt. What I said in putting forward the Government's position is that we must leave a good deal to the common sense of the committees.
I hope that the noble Lord was not chiding me for not being present during the extremely persuasive speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, which carried the entire Chamber, except the noble Lord and a few of his friends. It seems to me that there was a great deal of justification for what the noble and learned Lord said on that occasion. But I would not wish at 11.20 p.m. to return to the controversies of the past, save to say that we will gladly consider what has been said. I cannot make any commitment. What I can say is that the Amendment as drafted is wholly unacceptable, for the reasons I have given, but we will take note of what has been said and reflect upon it before the next stage.
Lord SWANSEA: Before my noble friend gets up, there might be another way of dealing with the question of admission of the public to the Assembly; that is, by bringing the Assembly within the provisions of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. Perhaps the noble Lord opposite could consider that in the context of this Amendment. That could be done quite simply by an Amendment to Schedule 11, to amend the Schedule to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act, so as to apply that Act to the Assembly.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Certainly, I will reflect on that. But I tried to point out the situation so far as the 1960 legislation is concerned. I can remember attending some of the Standing Committees in another place, as a person who was at that stage a member of a local authority interested in what would be said about it. But that was to deal with
1282
a situation that arose in 1960, in regard to a handful of local authorities. I think—and I say this in no offensive spirit to the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, or to anybody else—that we must beware of "nannying" this Assembly on every conceivable aspect of its activities, giving the most detailed instructions on every aspect of its work. These will be reasonable, moderate, sensible people wanting to do a good job for the people of Wales. We must trust them and not always work on the assumption that they are foolish and irresponsible people, whom the late Randolph Churchill described as silly-billies. They will not be silly-billies. They will be sensible, reasonable people.
Lord ELTON: I always wondered where the Chancellor of the Exchequer got the phrase from. I am obliged to the noble Lord for w hat he has said, but I cannot say that I am encouraged by it. I do not think a requirement that an Assembly of the stature and authority which the noble Lord proposes should publish its proceedings, is in any way "nannying". I do not think we are legislating for silly-billies; we are legislating for human beings. This is an attribute of the Assembly that most of us would wish to see in the Bill, and I think that the Welsh people would like to see it in as well.
We must definitely come back at Report stage with an Amendment which will embody what we have in mind. I suspect that, despite the spirited way in which the noble Lord has resisted what I put down, there are areas of agreement there and the likelihood of our getting something which is right and proper, after the advice of the noble Lord and his advisers, is very much greater than if it is done in the teeth of their silence. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will be kind enough to write to me, not so much setting out his objections to the Amendment as it is tabled, because that would be to tilt at a windmill, but addressing himself to those parts of the principles embodied in it which lie feels can properly be given to the Welsh Assembly without appearing to "nanny" them. If I can count on that support, I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Staff]:
11.25 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 69G:
Page 10, line 9, at beginning insert ("Subject to the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment takes us to line 9 on page 10. The suggestion is that the words
"Subject to the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service"
should be inserted at the beginning of line 9. I do not want to delay for too long on this Amendment. The noble Lord is closely in touch—much more closely in touch than I have ever been with the affairs of the Civil Service. It occurs to me that there is a very large professional and largely voiceless opinion, because of the constraints imposed by public service, which will be very interested to hear what linkage is intended between the Assembly and the Home Civil Service.
We have touched before on this point. It seemed to me that the obvious way to give the noble Lord an opportunity to make a statement of a reassuring nature would be to table an Amendment which made the appointment of officers and servants of the Assembly subject to the advice or consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, since it would then bring the employment of civil servants by the Welsh Assembly into the perspective of the United Kingdom Civil Service. That is the motive which lies behind the tabling of this Amendment, which I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: If it had not been for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, had indicated that this was a probing Amendment, I might have felt constrained to say that the Amendment was both misconceived and unnecessary. However, I do not have to say that. Two anxieties have been expressed. There has been some discussion of the problem, and it is right that there should have been. Certainly we want to avoid any situation which could cause confusion and conflict between Whitehall and Cardiff.
Two particular anxieties have been expressed in the discussion which has taken place on this question. The first is that there would be insufficient control over the selection of individuals for appointment by the Assembly. The
1284
second is that there would be inadequate control over the total number of civil servants to be employed by the Assembly: that the Assembly would decide to appoint an altogether unreasonable number of people, that this by itself would be foolish and that action should be taken to prevent it.
The Government do not accept that either of these points gives rise to any justifiable anxiety, for reasons which I hope to persuade the Committee are justified. First, the Amendment provides for consent to individual appointments by the Minister for the Civil Service. This, in our judgment, is unnecessary. Clause 65 provides that officers or servants of the Assembly shall be civil servants; as such, they will need to have been certificated by the Civil Service Commissioners. Individuals who work for the Assembly will be part of a unified home Civil Service and will be recruited strictly according to the standard procedures applying to recruitment to the home Civil Service.
After appointment, all officers and servants of the Assembly will be subject to whatever controls the Government may apply to the terms and conditions of civil servants generally. This seems to the Government to provide adequate safeguards against the possibility of the appointment of a totally unsuitable individual as a civil servant of the Assembly. I think that it is unreal to suggest that the Assembly might canvass for appointments throughout the entire Civil Service.
There is the question of control over total numbers. It is an important point. I would in no way wish to diminish its significance. On this question the Bill does not provide for any kind of direct Government control over the numbers of civil servants who will be employed by the Assembly. That is absolutely true. The Assembly could reasonably, in our judgment, regard such control as an unwarranted interference in its affairs. It is being given substantial powers. It is surely up to the Assembly to decide how many staff it needs to carry out its responsibilities.
The manpower implications of any policy will need to be weighed as an important component in the exercise of responsibility for devolved matters. This

1285
is the point which I think is most important in this whole question. An important constraint will be that staff costs will have to be met out of the block fund. If the Assembly were to appoint an altogether unreasonable number of officials it would simply have less money in the block fund for other purposes. That seems to me a perfectly proper way of limiting any less responsible Member of the Assembly who might urge the appointment of an unreasonable number of officials.
On the other hand, to provide for the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service as to numbers carries with it the implication that the Government could frustrate policies of the devolved Administration and would be constantly monitoring performance and efficiency. This could well create some degree of conflict, as I indicated earlier. No similar control—and the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, will I am sure bear me out on this—is attempted as far as local government is concerned. Any attempt to impose it would, I think very reasonably, be most strongly opposed. I think it perfectly reasonable that the clause as it is at the moment should stand unamended. There are constraints on the Assembly as far as numbers are concerned. Its officials will be members of the home Civil Service. That is a development which we should all welcome.
11.33 p.m.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord adduced some valuable and interesting principles. The first, which will be read with attention, if it is not already known, is the fact that the standard procedures for appointments will operate. That will set a number of fears at rest.
The other point that I wanted to take up very briefly is this. The noble Lord said—as is apparent from the Bill—that there is no control over numbers and that this is an important consideration. He said that the restraint that exists is financial, because the payment for the civil servants employed by the Assembly will be found out of the block fund, and will therefore be seen as a deduction from the rightful income of the Welsh people. But if there is no control over these numbers—and I accept what he said about manning and all the rest of it, as he expressed it in this
1286
Amendment—can he tell me how, and upon what authority, the Government have arrived at the estimate on page vi of the Bill (Effects of the Bill on Public Service Manpower) that the number of civil servants in Wales is likely to increase by about 1,150 over forecast levels? While he is about it, can he tell us to what extent this increase will be mirrored by any decrease in the Welsh Office staff?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Obviously, there will be some movement from the Welsh Office to the Assembly. That is certainly true. We have made what we consider to be a reasonable calculation as to numbers. I hope that the figures will be borne out. These decisions will be matters for the Assembly. We think that this is, taking a very broad view of the matter, a reasonable calculation to make, given the responsibilities which it is suggested should be devolved to the Assembly. It would be absurd for me to say that there might not be some marginal variation one way or the other, but I think it is a reasonable calculation as to numbers.
Lord ELTON: I am interested. I do not want to delay too long over this, but had the Explanatory Memorandum said "about 1,000" or indeed "about 1,100" civil servants one would have regarded that as an approximation, but it does not: it says "about 1,150" which is a very precise figure. They could have said "1,153" and that would have aroused all my suspicions, but it seems to me that somebody here has prepared a document which is going to be submitted to the Assembly when it meets, or to the officer of the Assembly whose job it is to find the original complement of personnel, and that they have decided that on that piece of paper should be written the number 1,150. Otherwise, so far as I can see, the Government have merely taken it upon themselves to make a calculation and assumed that the Assembly will make the same calculation.
The interest in the conundrum as to which of the two processes the Government have followed is this. In the one case they will be exercising a monitoring function, and in the other they will not. Is the noble Lord telling me that they are not going to give advice on this, and they have not already formulated a policy as

1287
appears to be portrayed by the Explanatory Memorandum, or is he not?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am sure that those concerned will be very glad to make certain suggestions to the Assembly once it is appointed. We have made a reasonable calculation so far as numbers are concerned. It may be that for presentational purposes the last 50 was an error of judgment—I will give the noble Lord that point. We tried to make as reasonable a calculation as possible in the circumstances, and our assumption is that this is round about the number of people who will be appointed by the Assembly. But, as I have said, if the Assembly were (most unlikely) to submit to pressure from its membership that it should appoint an unreasonable number of people there would simply be less money in its funds for other purposes and therefore it would be a self-defeating thing to do.
Lord ELTON: I am glad to hear that the Assembly will benefit from the advice of the Government, as I supposed that it would, and that it will not be placed in a governmental straitjacket, as I did not fear that it should. We have it on the record and I am obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.38 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 69E:
Page 10, line 10, at end insert ("and, in making any such appointment, it shall not solely prefer a person by reason of his being, or having been, a civil servant over a person who is, or who has been, a local government officer.
(2) In this section—
"civil servant" means an officer or servant of the home civil service; and
"local government officer" means an officer or servant of a county council or a district council in Wales or a community council.").
The noble Lord said: I am approaching the particular problem of the appointment of the Welsh Civil Service from a different aspect from that of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. This Amendment should be read in conjunction with my Amendment No. 102S to Clause 65, which seeks to establish a Welsh public service. In moving this Amendment and speaking to
1288
the subsequent Amendment I am seeking to ensure that in the establishment of—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Will my noble friend give way? I apologise for intervening, but when he referred to the subsequent Amendment, which one was he referring to? Was he referring to the Amendment to Clause 65?
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: Yes.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am much obliged.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: In the establishment of an independent comprehensive public service for Wales, my particular concern is to ensure that local government officers in Wales shall have equal opportunities with civil servants to take part in and to be members of the public service in Wales. I would not wish to see them disadvantaged in any way in applying for positions within the service. It may well be that my noble friend will be able to give us assurances on this point. It is, I am sure, in the best interests of the Assembly that it should be able to draw on the widest possible expertise for the establishment of a civil service, as one may call it, for the Assembly. I hope my noble friend will be able to give that assurance. I beg to move.
11.41 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: There are two matters dealt with in my noble friend's Amendments, and I shall deal with them in turn. The Amendment to Clause 24 would require the Assembly, in appointing staff, not to show preference to civil servants over local government officers. In considering these Amendments your Lordships will need to have regard to Clause 65, to which the second Amendment applies, which provides that officers and servants of the Assembly must be civil servants. Thus, although they will be appointed by the Assembly, these officers and servants will be members of a unified home Civil Service and will be recruited according to the standard procedures applying to the appointment of civil servants. They will have to be certificated by the Civil Service Commissioners.
I think it important to bear in mind that the Assembly will be taking over functions

1289
currently undertaken by central Government, and especially by the Welsh Office. Accordingly, it is our expectation that a substantial number of the staff employed by the Welsh Assembly will transfer from the Welsh Office with their jobs. In addition, we expect a number of the Assembly staff to be recruited as a result of trawls through the Civil Service, the normal procedure which applies when new organisations are established. For example, there will be many Welsh men and women who are currently employed as civil servants outside Wales who will welcome the chance to return and to work for the Assembly. Thirdly, we would expect some new civil servants to be recruited to serve the Assembly, and of course it will be open to officers in local government to join the United Kingdom Civil Service in the usual way with a view to joining the staff of the Assembly. Furthermore, opportunities might also arise for the temporary secondment or interchange of staff between the two services.
It is our view that this Amendment is misconceived. In appointing its permanent staff, the Assembly will not normally, as the Amendment appears to envisage, be faced with a choice of, for example, a civil servant or a local government officer. Before the stage of the Assembly making an appointment is reached, the individual will have to have been through the normal Civil Service recruitment procedures. The Assembly will have a choice of individuals all of whom will be civil servants, although some may well have had former careers in the local government service. It is, therefore, in our judgment, unnecessary and misleading to provide that the Assembly shall not discriminate between civil servants and local government officers.
I turn now to the second Amendment, which is the Amendment to Clause 65. This would provide for the establishment of an entirely separate Welsh Civil Service. The Government are not prepared to accept this suggestion, because we see the great benefits arising from retaining a unified Civil Service. First, a unified service is likely to be both more economical and more efficient. Separate services would undoubtedly require more staff, greater expenditure on recruitment, training and so on. A single service would provide the devolved Administration with
1290
a wider range of talent and experience than it might otherwise attract, and would also provide a more attractive and flexible career structure, which is an important consideration. This would be especially true for those specialists, who would necessarily be employed in small numbers, who would otherwise have a limited chance of varied job experience and a low ceiling to their promotion prospects.
If I may, I will take one example from my own ministerial experience as far as the Police Service is concerned, though that no doubt was as a result of the creation of larger police forces. There is no doubt whatever that the career prospects of a number of specialist officers were very dramatically enhanced. This is not a precise parallel of course—we are not talking here of the amalgamation of police forces—but so far as creating a proper career structure for these officers goes, I think this a not inappropriate analogy to make.
Secondly, a unified service will provide an established and experienced means of sorting out matters of common concern both to Westminster and to Cardiff. There are bound to be some teething problems when the Assembly is first established and we think that a unified Civil Service will do a great deal to assist in the solution of these problems.
Thirdly, the staff concerned have left us in no doubt that they wish to remain part of a unified service, and we cannot assume that they would necessarily wish to transfer to an altogether different service from that into which they were recruited. I think that it is necessary to weigh very carefully indeed their very clearly expressed preferences. In the light of what I have said, I very much hope that, on reflection, my noble friend will agree not to press these Amendments.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I can hardly say that I was taken by surprise by my noble friend's remark concerning the establishment of a Welsh public service under Clause 65. I was glad to have his assurances concerning the possibilities of local government officers gaining appointment to the Civil Service which will service the Assembly, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): There is an error in the Marshalled List. There is another Amendment to Clause 24, Amendment No. 69J, to be moved by Lord Swansea.
11.49 p.m.
Lord SWANSEA Lord SWANSEA moved Amendment No. 69J:
Page 10, line 10, at end insert—
("(2) A person may not be disqualified from being an officer or servant of the Assembly by reason only of his inability to speak the Welsh language").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment. In moving it I am aware that I am skating on very thin ice, because I know only too well the passions that can be aroused in some quarters if one appears to disparage the Welsh language. That, of course, I have no intention of doing. It must not be thought that I wish to disparage the Welsh language or to suppress it at all, because it is a language of great antiquity, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, in the Second Reading debate, and it is a language of great beauty. At the same time it is one which is spoken by only one-fifth of the population of Wales, and in the Second Reading debates I expressed concern that in the staffing of the Assembly there might be discrimination against non-Welsh speakers, and that certain jobs might become "jobs for the Welsh-speaking boys." Some of the unions, I think, are concerned about this, and I refer to communications I have had from the Society of Civil and Public Servants. They support this Amendment and say that their members in the Welsh Office have long resisted attempts to designate certain jobs within the office as requiring the ability to speak Welsh.
Of course, I acknowledge that there will be certain posts under the Assembly where an ability to speak Welsh will be essential. At the same time it would be a great pity if certain positions—especially in the senior grades—should become a closed shop. I should be very glad if the noble Lord opposite could give an assurance that in other cases the proportion of officers who are required to speak Welsh will reflect the extent to which it is spoken in Wales as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: It has been a constant theme of many Welsh anti-devolutionists, notably Mr. Leo Abse, that the establishment of the Assembly could lead to the creation of a bureaucratic élite of Welsh-speaking civil servants and to the imposition of a Welsh-speaking qualification on a wide range of public appointments in Wales, to the detriment of the English-speaking majority, which I think is the fear at the back of the noble Lord's Amendment. There is no known instance in current legislation of a restraint on powers of appointment similar to that contained in the Amendment, but there are a few instances of requirements to give preference to Welsh-speaking applicants—in appointments as inspectors of factories, mines and quarries in Wales—which it seems to me is quite legitimate. A similar Amendment by my honourable friend Mr. Leo Abse and others was debated during Committee stage of the Wales Bill in the Commons. That Amendment provided additionally for any person discriminated against on grounds of language to have the right to sue the Assembly for damages.
It is important that Clause 24, which gives the Assembly a formal power to appoint its staff, should be read in conjunction with Clause 65 which provides that:
"Service as an officer or servant of the Assembly … shall be service in the home civil service of the state, and appointments … shall be made accordingly".
The machinery for making permanent appointments to the staff of the Assembly is governed by the Civil Service Order in Council 1969. This order provides that the Civil Service Commissioners shall certify the qualification of persons applying for permanent appointment. Nobody can receive a permanent appointment without such a certification.
All that Clause 24 does, therefore, is to give the Assembly the same formal powers of appointment as are available to Ministers in the United Kingdom. The general processes of selection and recruitment of permanent staff will be carried out, not by the Assembly, but by the Civil Service Commissioners. Thus, there will be no significant change from the existing practice as it applies to the Welsh Office and other Government Departments. This is one of the consequences of maintaining

1293
a unified Civil Service covering Wales and Scotland as well as England.
Basically this Amendment is misconceived in so far as it assumes that the Assembly will hand-pick all its staff and will be able to impose conditions on recruitment which do not apply to the rest of the Civil Service. There are some instances, such as senior appointments and temporary short-term appointments, where the Assembly may have more than a formal rÔle, but these are matters for discussion with the Assembly when it is established with a view to ensuring that the standard United Kingdom practice is followed. Furthermore, the Amendment overlooks the need to make certain appointments, mainly of translators, for which a knowledge of Welsh is essential. There is already a Translation Unit in the Welsh Office, and the Welsh Assembly will certainly need some staff with knowledge of the Welsh language, particularly in these areas that deal directly with the public.
In general, the proposer of the Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, appears to be anticipating difficulties which will not arise—if I may say so, not for the first time in our discussions. After all, the Welsh Assembly will be elected by and will be fully representative of the people of Wales. Even if it were able to pick and choose all its staff, it would hardly be likely to act in a way that would antagonise the English-speaking majority in Wales. Its actions will be under scrutiny, not only by the electors, but also by the staff associations and others concerned; and its permanent staff will form part of the United Kingdom Civil Service, liable for service in the appropriate grades in any part of the Kingdom and selected by the same process. I hope that what I have said will convince the noble Lord that his Amendment is misconceived and that the problems which he fears will not arise. I hope that I have satisfied him on that.
Lord ELTON: It might, perhaps, be a good thing if I repeated now more clearly what I said at an earlier stage in our debate when the question of language qualification arose. I think that what the noble Lord has said reinforces the satisfaction which I felt at that stage that this was not a subject which we could regard as a real
1294
threat; that it was a subject which the Welsh could properly look after themselves. I am much obliged to my noble friend for giving an opportunity for what has proved to be a much fuller statement on the subject than we were able to acquire earlier today—and perhaps given at a lower temperature. I think that this will be extremely helpful. As I said then and say now, this is not something that we wish to press. We merely wish to elicit the information, and this has been most ably done.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: That is perfectly all right and the reply from the Minister and my noble friend is fair enough. But I am a little suspicious of this dogmatic assertion that it will not arise. The noble Lord has given very good reasons, quoting both Clause 65 and this one, why, in his view, the chances of it arising are remote; but the phrase "will not arise" is very dogmatic and very certain.
I merely rose to say that I should have expected the Government to produce an Amendment which would have met the point the noble Lord made, that there are grades and there will be jobs where the knowledge and the ability to speak the Welsh language is quite essential. So this particular Amendment which my noble friend is moving does not meet that point. But the noble Lord himself quoted the views of the honourable Member for Pontypool and others there. This is not the fear of someone outside Wales; this is a fear expressed by Welshmen who understand it, who have held office, who have been Members of Parliament for many years and who would not want to create any sort of feeling in this, recognising that there is a majority of English-speaking people in Wales.
Even at this late stage, is there no chance at all—and we are in no way brushing aside the point made by the noble Lord—of the Government recognising the genuinely-felt apprehensions of the people in Wales—people who have authority and who have expressed their views—and of meeting the point that we must have some who understand and speak the Welsh language? It should not be dealt with by a mere statement that it will not arise, because if one wanted to use the time I could describe circumstances where it might well arise with the powers that the

1295
Assembly has under the rest of the Bill. I should have thought that, because of these feelings, the Government ought even now to find some form of words that would meet the point the noble Lord has made and which would face up to the apprehensions which are very genuinely held, not only by those in the United Kingdom outside Wales but by those who speak with authority inside Wales itself.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: There is a point in what the noble Lord has said. There is no doubt that there are apprehensions in Wales that a small minority of determined people will be able to behave in an unjust way. This is not something that we can deal with in general legislation. It is true in this country; we have small groups of determined people who are trying to ruin the country. We do not make general legislation against them. The noble Lord does not want to. This is not the way we deal with it. I cannot think of the right analogy, but I think he is punting up the wrong alley. I do not think that the fact that a small and determined group of people could do damage is something which general legislation should take into account.
I hope the noble Lord will leave it like that. If we are to do as he suggests we will have to legislate against every dangerous possibility, and not only the viciousness of certain over-zealous Welsh Nationalists but the viciousness of all the other minority groups, of which there are some hundreds. I do not think we can do it. It would be much better to leave the matter as it is.
Lord SWANSEA: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his clarification of this point. This was a probing Amendment and was simply for purposes of clarification. I appreciate that there will be certain posts where knowledge of Welsh will be essential—in translation, and certain other departments. I am glad to have the noble Lord's assurance, but I think he was a little optimistic in saying that the situation will not arise. It should not arise, anyway. What he has said will be noted with some satisfaction by the unions concerned. I am grateful to him for clearing up the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?
12.1 a.m.
Baroness VICKERS: Clause 24 says:
"The Assembly may appoint such officers and servants as it considers appropriate".
As we know, in the House of Commons and the House of Lords we have permanent staff who are directly employed. These staff are not civil servants. They are either officers or officials of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. They are distributed among five different departments, as the noble Lord will know, so I shall not go into detail. Are there going to be any such type of permanent servants in the Assembly? I gather from what is stated in Clause 24 that there is the possibility of having officers and servants of this type.
I think it is advisable to have them because there are so many duties that must be permanent. For instance, the House of Commons has a post office, its own transport department, its own refreshment department, and I presume that the Assembly will want these. I presume that these people will not necessarily be civil servants. Who is going to do the cleaning of the building? I gather it is done here by the DOE. Are all these provisions made?
I believe there is some feeling about this question of permanent servants as opposed to civil servants. I should like to know whether there is going to be an establishment for such officials of the Assembly on the lines we have here. I think they play an important part. I suppose that there ought to be an establishment section for the administration of the departments even if there are many fewer than here. I should like to have an acknowledgment from the noble Lord as to how this is going to be done.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: There is a simple answer, unusually, to the noble Baroness's question. All Welsh Assembly staff are to be civil servants, unlike in the Scottish Assembly which is a legislative body. The answer is quite simple: the cleaner, the administrator, the post office, and all the rest will all be civil servants.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Inquiries]:
12.5 a.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 69H:
Page 10, line 12, after ("matter") insert ("except for the structure of local government in Wales").
The noble Lord said: I am sure the Minister recognises that this Amendment chimes in with the Division we had earlier on Clause 12, which removed from the Assembly the duty to review the structure of local government. Whether or not the Amendment is relevant turns on the meaning of the word "inquiry", because under Clause 25,
"The Assembly may cause an inquiry to be held into any matter relevant to the performance of any of its functions".
In the backwash, as it were, of our furious exchanges about Clause 12 apprehension was expressed that the immediate reaction might be to substitute an inquiry under Clause 25 for a review, as it was called, under Clause 12. Is the noble Lord able to set my mind at rest by explaining the difference between a review and an inquiry?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I will endeavour to put the noble Lord's mind at rest and, if I succeed, that may shorten the evening's work. The removal of Clause 12 removes the mandatory obligation, which was in the Bill, that the Assembly should look at the problems of local government. Under the Bill as it stands, however, there is a discretionary power for the Assembly to hold an inquiry,
"… into any matter relevant to the performance of any of its functions".
It is, therefore, a discretionary power. It is modelled on Section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 which permits a Minister to hold a local inquiry and to call for papers and witnesses. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to go further than that; the answer is that the right to hold such an inquiry exists. The removal of Clause 12 stops the mandatory obligation to do so, but it does not remove the discretionary right. I hope that is sufficient of an explanation for the noble Lord. If not, I could go on for quite a long time.
Lord ELTON: I hate to stand between the Committee and the pleasure of hearing the noble Lord continuing for quite a long time, but he has said what I was hoping
1298
he would say. I will, naturally, consider and take advice on what he said, but it seemed to me that it was the mandatory nature of Clause 12 that caused us anxiety and the mandatory nature of the recommendations to be presented. I wanted to clear my mind as to the fact that this is a permissive power, and of course there are many aspects of local authority workings which are properly within the ambit of the Assembly, and one hopes they will be inquired into. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Supplementary powers]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 10, line 24, at end insert ("and any expenses incurred under this section shall be paid out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund").
The noble Lord said: I have my probe in my hand again in that I tabled this Amendment as a confession of my ignorance of the financial proceedings which will be better understood by my noble colleagues when we come to Clause 40 and the passages which lie beyond. I should like to know whether this clause has any purpose other than that being probed by my noble friend in the next Amendment, No. 70A, which might be of a financial nature. This is a permissive clause allowing the Assembly to:
"… 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".
I assume the purpose of the clause lies within the brackets; it is to make it clear that, when it is carrying out its functions within the limits set by the measure, those limits include the acquisition and disposal of property.
This may be simply a question of throwing out a wing to improve the feeding facilities for the Members later; I do not know. However, if the Assembly is to do the things mentioned, will this expenditure, like all the rest, come out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund, or is access given by the clause to some other source of revenue? I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The answer to the noble Lord's question is, yes. Expenditure under Clause 27, like all other expenditure for purposes for which the Assembly may exercise its powers, will have to be paid out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund. That will be the only source of finance available to the Assembly for both current and capital expenditure. Its powers of borrowing, which are listed in Clause 46, are available only to meet short-term deficits in either the Welsh Consolidated Fund, or the Welsh Loans Fund, and borrowing will, in any case, normally take the form of a temporary bank overdraft. Expenditure under Clause 27 will have to be covered by an appropriation order made by the Assembly, under Clause 42, on the recommendation of the Executive Committee. Such an order provides authority under Clause 41 for the issue of credits by the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General on the Welsh Consolidated Fund. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question—
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I wish to raise a matter with the noble Lord before he sits down. With regard to the point that expenditure would have to come out of the Consolidated Fund, can the noble Lord tell me whether the Assembly would have power to organise, for example, a Welsh lottery to raise money which it could spend on items which would be covered by the provision we are considering?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Answering off the cuff, I should say, yes; but I think that I should write to the noble Lord because I may be wrong.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord has a capacious and ready cuff, and I hope that it is correctly inscribed. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said, which has clarified the situation. The only doubt which remains in my mind concerns what is a short-term deficit. My bankers and I often have a disagreement about this point, and perhaps the Assembly will as well. That aside, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving the information which I requested, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.13 a.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 70A:
Page 10, line 24, at end insert—
("Provided that any acquisition of agricultural land or restriction of right over agricultural land by the Assembly under this section shall be subject to an Order by the Secretary of State and such Order to be approved by resolution of each of the Houses of Parliament. 'Agricultural' for the purposes of this section shall have the same meaning as in s. 290 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.").
The noble Baroness said: The Amendment refers to the very wide supplementary powers given to the Assembly by the provisions of Clause 27. I wish to refer in particular to the power to acquire or dispose of property, which is mentioned in the clause, and which, according to Clause 17(2)(b), could be exerted by one individual, naturally on political grounds. It appears that the farming community in Wales is worried about this power. The power is granted by the clause in conjunction with Clause 10, which refers to the right of the Assembly to do anything it considers appropriate in order to support a whole list of items, including
"sport and other cultural and recreative activities".
In this regard the Assembly might be involved in acquiring land.
The purpose of the Amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to issue approval by order where the right of acquiring agricultural land is involved. As I say, it is a particular concern of the farming community that agricultural land can be acquired and disposed of under the clause. As the noble Lord will be aware, the definition to which I refer, in Section 290 of the Town and Country Planning Act, is a fairly wide one. I will not take up the time of the Committee in reading out all the categories of land which come into that definition, except to say that they include grazing land, meadow land, market gardens, nursery grounds and the use of land for woodlands. The definition in fact covers quite a large number of various types of agricultural land.
Of course, under the Bill as it stands the acquisition of land does not have to be for a specific purpose. In the clause it states that the Assembly can do anything—referring, referring, of course, to property—
"which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of its functions".

1301
This means that it would operate if the Welsh Assembly was considering planning matters; sport, to which we have already referred; possibly matters connected with its powers relating to passenger transport, which we have already discussed this afternoon; aerodrome construction; highways; or, of course, matters relating to the many powers and functions which are enumerated in Schedule 2. So the Committee will be aware that the powers of the Assembly are very considerable, particularly, in this clause, in relation to the acquisition and disposal of property, including, as the clause stands, agricultural land. I should therefore be grateful if the Government could say how these supplementary powers might be used and for what purposes, and how they might be controlled, at any rate to some extent, for as the Bill stands they may be used even by only one individual. This, I think, needs elucidating in order to set at rest not only our minds, that such powers could reside in one person, but also the minds of the Welsh electors.
I think it should be said on this side of the Committee that it is not the Welsh Assembly as such which causes us great concern as the fact that the bureaucratic control which is built into this particular Bill, and the way the Government envisage it functioning, is going to deprive the citizen of certain protective rights. It seems more and more that in this Bill the image of democracy is being obliterated by the kind of clause that we have before us now and are considering. There seems to be little or no restriction or limitation on the use of the powers which are being given to the Assembly, even to the extent, as I say, of them being exercised by one individual. I shall be grateful to hear the comments of the noble Lord, to know what right of protection a small farmer in some part of Wales would have against what I consider could be, anyway, arbitrary action on the part of one individual in the Assembly. I beg to move.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Before the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, answers, perhaps I could address a question to my noble friend Lady Elles. I have had a fairly comprehensive look at this Amendment, and it seems to me that what she has proposed is quite a large measure
1302
of what we have been accustomed to call overkill. I see the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, smiling. I did not expect that I would be able to join forces with him on this, but we shall have to wait to see what he says. The point surely is that if we take, for example, a swimming pool which, for one reason or another, is on the edge of a town and has alongside it a small dairy farm, it may be that for some reason it is necessary to put a new heating plant into the swimming pool and that a very small parcel of this dairy farm will need to be compulsorily purchased. It could be well under half an acre; it might be a matter of only a few square yards. In this case, my noble friend has suggested that such an order be approved by Resolution of each of the Houses of Parliament. I cannot see from my point of view that this is a reasonable thing to expect.
12.20 a.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I am grateful to the noble Lord because I agree with him in what he said at the end; but let me begin by trying to put this clause into perspective. The purpose of Clause 27 is to make sure that the Assembly will have adequate supplementary powers to carry out its devolved functions on such matters as furnishing offices, providing Members and offices with stationery, providing facilities for the media to report debates, and other miscellaneous supplementary matters for which it would be burdensome to create specific powers. This clause has been described as the "paper clips" clause. Clause 27 confers no power on the Assembly to disregard existing law or to impose any burdens on the citizen.
Clearly, such a clause includes power to acquire or dispose of property. But it is in a very remote contingency that this power would be exercised in relation to land. The devolution of powers in the Commissioners of Works Act 1852 ensures that the Assembly can acquire land for the public service. So it does not need Clause 27 for this purpose; it already has the power. In any event, what the clause does not do is provide any power to acquire property of any kind or to restrict anybody's rights by compulsion. If this is what the movers of this Amendment want to stop, they are starting from

1303
a false premise. The clause does not give powers of this kind.
The Amendment proposes that if the Assembly wishes to acquire a piece of agricultural land for a supplementary purpose—and to acquire it by agreement with the owner of the land, because it would otherwise have no means of getting it at all—the purchase must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. This is surely unnecessary. We are not talking about compulsory purchase, we are talking about a deal between two bodies. This never requires approval by both Houses of Parliament. I appreciate the concern of the National Farmers' Union in Wales, but I believe that their nervousness is not justified in relation to this clause. I do not believe that there is any danger. I hope I have satisfied the noble Baroness.
Baroness ELLES: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I must say that it does not quite satisfy me. He said there would be no burden on the citizen but I do not see from the wording of this clause how the citizen is protected. Can he repeat to me—I may have failed to understand him—that the Welsh Assembly by this particular clause asserting its supplementary powers is given no right to acquire the property of an individual except by treaty?—that is, presumably, by financial negotiation. Would the individual in any circumstances be forced in any way, either through compulsory purchase or possibly at some second stage of the deal by having some planning development put on to his land? It seems to me, that, although in the initial stage it will start with straight negotiation and a man may refuse or may agree to sell at a price to be mutually agreed, there are other methods and administrative measures which the Assembly could no doubt assert which would deprive the citizen of his right not to sell. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could reassure me on this.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I do not find this difficult at all. Under Clause 27, which we are talking about, there is no power to acquire land except by agreement.
Baroness ELLES: I am grateful for the explanation of the noble Lord. I agree with my noble friend that the Amendment as it stood was, perhaps, a sledgehammer
1304
to crack a nut. Nevertheless, I think it is an important nut and I think that if people do not take an interest in the rights of the citizen we shall get nowhere. I am grateful to the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [International obligations]:
12.25 a.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 70B:
Page 10, line 32, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 34.
The noble Baroness said: Here we are getting into slightly muddy European waters. This is a subject which certainly confuses me, if it does not confuse any other Members of the Committee. The wording in this Bill is not the same as in the Scotland Bill, presumably because the Welsh Assembly does not have legislative powers whereas the future Scottish Assembly will have them. I should be grateful if the noble Lord will help me to clarify my interpretation of this clause. As I understand it, the clause allows the Secretary of State to retain concurrent powers where he considers that community obligations arise; that there is a need for subordinate legislation; and that it is desirable for him, the Secretary of State, to exercise that power rather than the Welsh Assembly.
I do not have to emphasise to the noble Lord that this is a probing Amendment, and I have no intention of pressing it. But on what grounds does the Secretary of State decide that it is desirable for him that the power should be exercised? Surely, the fact of introducing subordinate legislation under European Community legislation, whether through a regulation, decision or some form of general Directive which has to be implemented in the national legislation, is a matter of law. Whereas here, as the clause is worded, it would appear to me that the Minister is having to make a political decision as to whether he should exert the power to implement whatever the Community instrument might be, rather than the Welsh Assembly.
This particular form of option which lies with the Secretary of State is to me a very much stronger ground for conflict and confrontation than if the Minister had an automatic duty and responsibility to implement that particular subordinate legislation which is necessary to honour our Community obligations. Would the noble Lord consider that it is to be on certain legal grounds that he should exercise that power? Who is to decide whether the grounds on which this power is to be exercised are legal or political? I can see here considerable conflict not so much between the Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly but between the civil servants sitting in the Welsh Office in Cardiff, and the civil servants advising the Welsh Assembly down the road, or wherever it might be, also in Cardiff. As I see it, it will be a rather schizophrenic situation between those who have to decide at what juncture it is desirable for a Minister of the Crown to exert this power rather than the elected body.
We can see certain areas where this is bound to arise, where there will be a certain amount of conflict, because in Schedule 2 there are two aspects where one might need subordinate legislation affecting the devolved powers. One is safety and health. There are a good many safety and health regulations which are beginning to flow from the Community and where, obviously, certain standards are desired to be kept throughout the Community. One would have thought that that was the kind of situation where one would want to keep the same standards rather than have the opportunity of having divergent standards, particularly within the United Kingdom, let alone as between England and Wales.
Another area where there undoubtedly will be continuing regulations of some sort—I mean regulations in the general sense and not in the specific sense of the European Treaty—is in regard to pollution. I should have thought that coastal protection, for instance, is a matter for England and Wales together. This is something where the sea, despite the Wales Bill, will still flow around the coast of England and Wales together, and will not be impeded by this legislation. Therefore, it seems to me that these are the kind of matters where it is essential for an overriding power to be exerted,
1306
not in any way to deprive the Welsh Assembly of the right to make decisions which obviously affect its own Welsh interests, but to deal with matters which do affect the nation as a whole and which reside in the Secretary of State.
I would ask the noble Lord how he sees this clause working in fact, and whether he would not consider it advisable, particularly in relation to the European Community legislation, that that should remain in the hands of the Secretary of State and, above all, be controllable by Parliament. Often in our debates on Europe we have been accused of allowing the sovereignty of Parliament to be diminished by European Community legislation. Yet here we are, depriving ourselves not only of the right to discuss certain aspects of the European Community legislation, but of the right to legislate even for part of the United Kingdom by this clause. I beg to move.
12.32 a.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Perhaps it would he helpful if I were to set out as exactly as I can what Clause 29 provides on international obligations. Our basic starting point is the principle that the United Kingdom Government should be, and should be seen to be, finally responsible for implementing all Community and indeed other international obligations. But subject to the protective provisions in this Bill, to which I shall come in a moment, the Government consider that the Assembly should have the power to make subordinate instruments and take executive action to implement international obligations within the scope of the powers devolved to it. That is a more precise definition of the enablement conferred upon the Assembly than the one given by the noble Baroness. It is much narrower, and I repeat:
"to make subordinate instruments and to take executive action to implement international obligations within the scope of the powers devolved upon it".
I hope that is somewhat reassuring. As I said, the Bill contains protective provisions whereby, first, the United Kingdom Government can prevent the Assembly enacting subordinate legislation which involves breach of international obligations and, secondly, the Government themselves can act to implement where they desire to do so.

1307
The way the Bill protects the powers of Westminster to implement international obligations is as follows: Clause 29 itself provides that, for the purposes of implementing such an international obligation, any Minister of the Crown can exercise any ministerial power to make a subordinate instrument, as devolved by the Bill.
Additionally, under Clause 35(2) the Secretary of State can revoke an instrument made by the Assembly if it is incompatible with an international obligation, or indeed if he wants to make his own instruments. A Minister can use his power to implement an international obligation under Clause 29 if three conditions apply. I shall come somewhat later to the grounds the noble Baroness asked me to explore.
The first is, where the power to make a subordinate instrument requires to be exercised in order to implement the international obligation; the second is where the power could be exercised by the Assembly, and the third is where it is considered desirable for the power to be exercised by a Minister. The Minister then becomes entitled to use the power as if the relevant function were not devolved.
That brings me to the more specific explanation of the grounds. The grounds on which he may act are, indeed, any grounds. This is part of the assertion of the paramountcy of the United Kingdom Government. This is a measure to devolve upon a wholly subordinate Assembly certain executive functions and, as such, there are safeguards whereby neglect or accidental oversight of the discharge of certain devolved executive functions can be put right by the action of a Minister. The clause is deliberately drawn widely, and must be interpreted widely, so that the United Kingdom Government, through its Ministers, will be in no way inhibited from taking action in this field to make good a deficiency in the devolved executive function, which I have described, by the Assembly.
It may never be necessary. It may be that the national Assembly of Wales will be impeccable in the discharge of its executive functions; some of us believe that. Nevertheless, it is well that there should be a provision just in case, even in Wales, Homer nods from time to time.
1308
The Minister will be able to intervene not just to make good a deficiency, but to initiate action which, for his reasons—and they may be any one of the reasons quoted by the noble Baroness—are good in justification of his action. Fundamentally, this is an assertion of the paramountcy of Parliament in Westminster. It is a protective clause taken with Clauses 34 and 35.
I hope that I have given the noble Baroness and the Committee a fairly clear idea of why this provision is there. She also asked by implication why the Assembly should have any powers at all in this matter. It is true that the Scotland and Wales Bill made a blanket reservation of any matters which involved international obligations. By the way, I rather think that the provision in the Scotland Bill, as it now stands, is as it is in the Bill now presented to the House for Wales. The noble Baroness rather doubted that. My understanding is that the two provisions are analogous. But the former Bill made a blanket reservation of any matters which involved international obligations. However, that Bill also contained a provision enabling delegation of the power and the implementation by order. Thus, the Government have always recognised that in certain cases the Assembly should have the power to make subordinate legislation in a devolved field by being able to implement an international obligation.
We moved from our original proposals because, on further consideration, we concluded that they were too restrictive and could have proved difficult to operate in practice. In our view, provided that adequate protection is afforded to ensure that the Government demonstrably retain not only the capacity for implementing but for preventing the breach of all Community or other international obligations, then the Assembly should be empowered to implement such international obligations.
I apologise to the Committee for taking a little time over explaining the intentions of the clause and the way that it is intended to work, but I thought that the noble Baroness raised important questions. I believe that the protective provisions of this clause and the other clauses which I have quoted—34 and 35—are adequate; that is, the override provisions are entirely suited and comprehensive enough to meet

1309
any fears which anybody may have that the powers of Ministers of the United Kingdom Government and Parliament are not sufficiently assured in this proposed legislation.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not press these Amendments. She has raised points which have enabled us to explain the intentions of Clause 29 and the other related clauses perhaps more fully than has been done in the past.
12.42 a.m.
Baroness ELLES: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having taken a great deal of trouble over clarifying many aspects of Clause 29. In particular, as the clause is worded, it is certainly not clear that there is any power of revocation of any instrument.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: The noble Baroness is referring to—?
Baroness ELLES: Clause 35. Taking the three together, this is the effect of the clauses which give to a Minister of the Crown the right, in certain specific situations, to do that. Therefore I am grateful to the noble Lord. With regard to the Scotland Bill and to my remark that the clauses in the Wales Bill are different, there was some debate about this: first during the Committee stage and then during the Report stage when my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross went very deeply into the matter. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, agreed to make some modifications to the Scotland Bill, but I have not seen those changes. I may be wrong; the noble and learned Lord may not have agreed to make certain changes. However, he was certainly considering the propositions which were put forward by my noble friend, which related to a slightly different aspect, since the Scottish Assembly will be a legislative body and different problems will therefore arise. The wording of the clauses will not be identical.
I shall not waste the time of the Committee by debating the Scotland Bill; for the time being, we have enough to do with the Wales Bill. I should like to study very carefully what the noble Lord has said, because there is obviously a great deal of substance in it. I am very grateful
1310
to him, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: May I respond to one point which the noble Baroness quite properly made. I believe that I half took issue with her about something which I should not have picked up. The noble Baroness and I are absolutely right that the three clauses, taken together, cover every aspect of the Secretary of State's override. The power of the Secretary of State to revoke subordinate instruments, which is the specific point that she raised (where that is the situation in which she needs to intervene), is in Clause 35(2).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 70C not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Oath of allegiance]:
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 70D.
Page 11, line 9, leave out from ("election") to ("he") in line 11.
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of your Lordships, I should like to take Amendment 70E at the same time.
This clause on the oath of allegiance was neither debated during the passage of the Scotland Bill through this House nor when the Wales Bill was going through another place. Despite the hour, I do not apologise, because we are not here voluntarily at this time of night. It is a matter of constitutional importance that this clause should at least be discussed. It emphasises—and we have a duty to emphasise—that there is an oath of allegiance which must be taken by a Member of the Welsh Assembly, who consequently owes a duty to the Crown. Anybody who stands for the Welsh Assembly cannot overlook where his allegiance lies.
There is a difference between the position of a local authority councillor and a Member of the Welsh Assembly, as this clause is drafted. Although a councillor does not have to take an oath of allegiance, he does have to make a declaration of acceptance of office, and has to do so within a definite time period. If he fails to make that declaration within this definite time period, his election is

1311
declared void. That is not quite the same as the position of a Member of another place, who, according to Erskine May, is subject to very severe penalties if he should sit or vote without taking the oath, even to the extent of his seat being vacated as if he were dead if he should do this. I say this purposely to emphasise the importance of the meaning of the taking of the oath of allegiance, whether it be to a Member of another place or, as it will be, to a Member of this new Assembly.
There is one difference between the Member of another place and the Member of the Welsh Assembly. The Member of another place who has not taken the oath of allegiance is entitled to certain privileges, but he is not entitled to sit; nor is he entitled to his salary. There is no question, under Clause 30, that a Member of the Welsh Assembly would not be entitled to his salary. However, that may be put into the standing orders if the Welsh Assembly saw fit.
Do the Government consider that this particular clause is limitative, or do they consider that this is merely an outline and that the Welsh Assembly has the right to fill in other commitments, obligations and qualifications with regard to the taking of the oath of allegiance by a Member? One of the difficulties that we have encountered in discussing this Bill is that it is never quite clear whether these are categoric instructions which are limited by the words in the Bill, or whether silence denotes that there is considerable scope for the Welsh Assembly to deal with these particular measures. There is provision for taking part in proceedings only subject to taking the oath. I have said nothing about salary and sanctions. The only sanction is in subsection (2), which is the subject of this Amendment.
We already have the distinction between the local authority councillor and the Member of the Welsh Assembly. I am not trying to equate two separate types of body. One takes the declaration, the other takes the oath, but I think it would be reasonable that nevertheless a time factor should be imposed, because as the clause stands at the moment the Welsh Assembly Member who has not taken the oath of allegiance could indefinitely remain a Member of the Welsh Assembly if the Welsh Assembly so decided.
So long as a decision is made before the expiration of the second month the Member could be entitled to call himself a Member of the Assembly for as long as the Assembly may so decide. I do not think that is right for any kind of body, elected or otherwise. Perhaps two months is the wrong length of time; it may not allow, for instance, for somebody being ill and unable to come and take the oath of allegiance and perhaps one might make it three months. But I think it should be a matter for consideration by the Government that an unlimited amount of time should not be available to a Member without taking the oath of allegiance, and so depriving the electors of the right to representation in that particular body. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: This is a perfectly legitimate Amendment and I think that by the time I have finished speaking we shall not quarrel over it. The Government accept that normally Assembly Members should have to take the oath of allegiance within two months of their election. But there may be occasions when there is a good and valid reason why this is not possible, and obviously, for example, illness is one.
The Bill as it stands provides no more than that the Assembly can within the two-month period allow a Member an extension, so that if there is a sustainable reason for delay a Member can put his case before the Assembly. It is not to be expected that a Member would delay taking the oath for longer than was necessary. In the first place, Clause 30(1) prevents him from taking any part in the proceedings of the Assembly until he has sworn his allegiance. Furthermore, under the provisions of Clause 32(4), no Member will be paid until he has taken the oath of allegiance, although once he has so taken it his salary will he backdated to the date of the election.
I think these facts may make it clear that the Assembly would not agree to any licence in this way without good cause, but we feel that if there is good cause, such as illness or something of the kind, it is not a serious thing to allow the Assembly to examine this. After all, the Assembly will consist of Members who have taken the oath of allegiance, who are being paid, who are attending, and it

1313
seems to me that they will be people who will be quite hard on those who fail to fulfil these conditions unless there is a good reason; and if there is a good reason I think probably we should all agree that it is desirable that they should give a certain licence to the candidate.
Baroness ELLES: I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which I think has got us a bit nearer, although not quite as near as he or I would like to be. I should like to consider what he has said and see whether there is not some other way of wording subsection (2) so that this considerable latitude which is allowed might perhaps be modified. I quite take his point, and I instanced the case of somebody who might be ill and therefore unable to take up his membership of the Assembly because the second month had expired. There may be some other wording which would restrict the powers of the Assembly to extend the time indefinitely on any grounds whatsoever, which is the situation as it stands at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 70E not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Resignation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?
12.55 a.m.
Lord ELTON: I have one point to raise on Clause 31. I am much impressed by the smooth efficiency with which the clause assumes the precise and alert machinery of the Assembly will click into action upon receipt of the letter announcing the resignation of the Member. But this contrasts strangely with the earlier remarks of the Government when we were debating the provisions of Clause 4, when it was thought necessary to provide very considerable latitude to the presiding officer of the Assembly in the matter of taking notice of the delivery of such information.
Clause 4(3) states that the date of election on the occurrence of a vacancy shall be
1314
"not later than three months after the occurrence of the vacancy, except that if the vacancy does not come to the notice of the presiding officer within one month of its occurrence the date of the election shall be not later than three months after the vacancy comes to his notice".
There is no term set for the period in which that may occur. In the light of what was said in that debate, I wonder whether the noble Lord can at least tell us whether it will be the posting of the letter of resignation that will count as the occurrence of the vacancy, its delivery or its coming to the notice of the presiding officer, and if so, what constitutes coming to the notice. Otherwise it seems to me that there could be a more or less indefinite vacancy.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I think the legal position has always been the same: that the receipt of a letter is the legal indication of what is in it. I have not taken advice on this. The noble Lord is asking whether it is the posting of the letter or the receipt of the letter which will make the resignation effective. My answer, without checking—and I will write to the noble Lord if I am wrong—is that it is the receipt of the letter.
Lord ELTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord, and I expect I may get a letter from him telling me that the receipt is deemed to have occurred within a certain number of days of the posting. His own experience will bear out that this is often an invalid assumption. I could not find a passage in the Bill which I thought I had seen and which covers all these points, including the service of writs and so on. Plainly, it is not in the noble Lord's mind either. This is not a substantial point but it is an interesting one. I await the post with interest when it is delivered.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I only hope it arrives.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 70F:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
(" .—(1) If, throughout the period specified in subsection (2) of this section, a member of an Assembly attends neither a meeting of the Assembly nor a meeting of any of its committees or sub-committees of which he is a member he shall cease to be a member of the

1315
Assembly at the end of that period, unless his failure to attend is due to some reason approved by the Assembly before the end of that period.
(2) The period mentioned in subsection (1) of this section is a period of six months beginning with the last attendance of the member at such a meeting as is mentioned therein.").
The noble Lord said: Of course, we shall again be accused of saying that all the potential Members of this Assembly are idle, devious or in some way undesirable. I can only again reply that I am thinking of them as human beings and not as particularly Welsh, Irish or English. It may not perhaps stretch the imagination too much either to grasp circumstances in which this Amendment would become relevant. Its provisions are, broadly, that if a Member does not turn up he shall, after the lapse of a specified term, be deemed to be no longer a Member. I am not sticking with tenacity to the particular period mentioned in the Amendment; I am again after a point of principle and am interested to see whether it is a point which can be met, perhaps under different terms, after the noble Lord has deployed his well-known persuasive powers for me.
The principle is that if a Member of the Assembly disappears, or simply takes a very prolonged holiday, he really should not hold down the job, keep somebody out of it, leave his electors unrepresented, and draw the salary. We have no further to look than another place; not so long ago, a former Postmaster-General did in fact disappear and there was great concern to know whether or not there should be a by-election, and nothing could be determined until he eventually turned up in, I think, Australia, after a lot of interesting speculation in the Press. The effective result of this was that for many months his constituents were not represented. It seems to me that that is unfortunate and since the circumstances that I describe have already occurred in England—not Wales—with an English Member of the United Kingdom Parliament, I do not see how the noble Lord can in this case tell me that I am saying something derogatory of the Welsh in suggesting that this might happen, because we have already done it. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: To everybody's surprise I do not regard this Amendment as derogatory. Perhaps it is the first one I have had to
1316
deal with which has not been. I cannot point that particular finger at the noble Lord. As the noble Lord pointed out, the Scotland and Wales Bill made provision similar to the present Amendment for dealing with persistent absence of Assembly Members. That provision was one of several in the Bill which was criticised as unnecessary, and on reflection we found this argument persuasive. We accordingly deleted the provision when the present Bills were drafted.
There is comparable provision in local government for dealing with persistent absence. But we do not consider that this is a matter in which it would be appropriate to follow the practice in local government. The Assembly will be a national body with executive powers. We believe it is right to assume that the Members of the Assembly who will be national figures will act responsibly in carrying out their duties. I am only sorry my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek is not here to confirm what I am saying. After all they will have sought election against tough competition in their own Parties and ultimately against candidates from other Parties. In these circumstances, we judge it more appropriate to follow the practice adopted in the other place whereby the ensuring of attendance will be a matter for the Party machinery in the Assembly and for the local constituency Party to deal with. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will be satisfied that the situation is better left as it is.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Surely, if the situation as it was in the other place on the particular occasion to which my noble friend referred had not proved adequate, why should it be any more so in the Welsh Assembly?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I did not quite get the point the noble Lord made. Would he mind repeating it?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: If this provision has been part of our Constitution, whether written or unwritten, as it reflects on the other place, the problems of the ex-Postmaster-General and the confusion that ensued because of his prolonged absence would not have occurred. If it is a fact that this is so,

1317
why should there be any objection to enshrining my noble friend's Amendment into the Wales Bill?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: There has been one instance only which the noble Lord has quoted which was an embarrassment, but in the other place the Party discipline is entirely effective. If a Member of Parliament fails to turn up, it is not necessary to have legislation to say that he must—the Party which elected him will see to it. We take the view that the Assembly is of that order and that exactly the same thing will work there. Clearly, it would be possible to treat the Assembly in a less dignified way, but it would be quite unnecessary.
Baroness WHITE: I should like to intervene on this Amendment. I have kept quiet throughout this debate for the reason which I gave on Second Reading. This is an insulting Amendment and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will not press it.
Lord ELTON: I am sorry, I did not quite catch what the noble Baroness said.
Baroness WHITE: I said that it was an insulting Amendment.
Lord ELTON: I could not believe my ears.
Baroness WHITE: That is what I am saying. I think that, with the exception of my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts, I am the only Welsh person present, and in my view this kind of Amendment is not called for. After all, the Members of the Assembly—as my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge said—will, we hope, be people of some stature, and it is really for the Assembly and for its constituents to exert the sort of pressure which could be necessary in exceptional cases. The one particular exceptional case which has been mentioned was so exceptional that it is not really an adequate basis for legislation.
Lord ELTON: I am absolutely astonished by that intervention. I really am surprised and regret that the noble
1318
Baroness, Lady White, finds this an insulting Amendment, when even the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, said that for once it was not even derogatory, let alone insulting. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has drawn our attention to the immense efficacy of the Party machine in the House of Commons. But the example that I am quoting is an example of an occasion when it totally failed to work.
Let us give it not two months but three or four months to work, but if it does not work it will be of no benefit to the Welsh electors to remain unrepresented for an unspecified length of time which may be as long as it takes to accept the proof of death, because there is no evidence of survival. I do not know how long it takes under an insurance policy, but I assume that it would be the same for the Assembly. It would not be able to legislate on this because it is not a legislative body.
Our own Parliament became muddled over this not so long ago and there was no way that it could find to get over the situation. I suggest that there is a way—it may not be that set out in the Amendment—and it might do something to allay what in my view is the unfounded feeling of affront that has been voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady White: we could put some power into the hands of the Assembly to make its own regulations on the subject. At present, as I read Clause 15—which is the clause under which the Assembly makes its own standing orders—it is entitled under subsection (3) to make orders which include,
"provision for preserving order in the proceedings of the Assembly, and any standing order made by virtue of this subsection may include provision for excluding a member from such proceedings".
That does not answer the case, but if the Assembly can keep somebody from taking part in the proceedings when he is around and known to exist, it would not perhaps be such a very great departure from what is already in the Bill and would be regarded as not insulting but perfectly workable by notable Lords and Baronesses on the other side of the House if one extended the power so as to allow the Assembly to declare that at a certain point in time the Member was no longer a Member by reason of his absence.

1319
If we put that responsibility into the Assembly's hands, if we give it that power which is not yet there, if it is prepared to use it on its own behalf—and the noble Baroness and others will accept that, if it does it itself, it must do it on its own behalf—perhaps that will allay the suspicion that when we do it we are doing it in some extraordinary sense which quite escapes me, against the Assembly. Would that be the answer? I think that the problem could arise and it seems absurd when we make a law of this sort once in 150 or 200 years that one should not provide for the unexpected when it has already happened once quite recently.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: The noble Lord expressed surprise that my noble friend Lady White expressed what quite a number of us felt—namely, that this was indeed an insulting Amendment. If it is so important for the Wales Bill, would the noble Lord explain to me and the Committee why no move was made during the prolonged discussions on the Scotland Bill for a similar provision to be put into that Bill? If the arguments for insisting on these provisions in the Welsh connection are so strong, why were they totally absent in the case of Scotland? Are they two different peoples of different categories of responsibility and ability? The answer is obvious. He has selected Wales for a little Amendment which is not only unnecessary but which will create a considerable amount of resentment in Wales, especially as it was not counter-parted during the discussion of the Scotland Bill in this House.
Lord ELTON: I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord for illuminating something for me which I had not understood. To that extent, I moderate what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady White. The noble Lord suggested that the treatment of the Scots and the Welsh is different because they are different people.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: The noble Lord by his action today, which is not counterparted by any action he took during the passage of the Scotland Bill, is implying that there is a difference—a pejorative difference.
Lord ELTON: I absolutely take the noble Lord's point; I was trying to reply to it. He says that the implication is that one would trust the Scots—though I do not think trust enters into it—and not the Welsh. The answer is, of course, that, although I am taking a leading part in the Wales Bill, I was not involved to any considerable extent on the Scotland Bill, and I cannot be in two places at one time or run two Bills at once. Had I been, this is something that would have occurred to me.
However, I see that what the noble Lord says could have force. I think that the extent to which it had force would really be the extent to which he and his friends made use of the circumstances. If they were to say to the Welsh, "Look, there is this provision to protect your electorate from absenteeism among your representatives and there is no such protection for the Scots electors", they would think that they were being better done by. If he said, "There is this provision to guard against your representatives being absent and unreliable whereas the Scots can be trusted", there would be grave resentment. That is the danger of all political advance, is it not?—that it can be interpreted in one way or another.
My view is that I have advanced this Amendment in good faith in order to obtain the reaction of the Committee. The reaction on the other side of the Committee has been a great surprise to me, very illuminating and not at all what I expected. I feel that this is a provision which ought, in fact, to exist not only in Wales or in Scotland but also at Westminster. It would have been a very good thing had it existed however long ago it was that Mr. Stonehouse went absent and the Party machinery did not work. But I would be the last person to wish to precipitate the kind of unpleasantness which the noble Lord, who I know never speaks in malice, says would arise from such an Amendment. In any case, I would not wish to press it at this stage because it is a principle that needs to be looked into.
But I do wonder whether the noble Lord does not agree with me on this. If the circumstances were different, if the Scotland and Wales Bills were going, as it were, side by side down the road and the provision was in each, and if, indeed, the

1321
opportunity arose for it to be provided for Westminster as well, and that opportunity was taken, would this still be such a bad thing or would it not be rather a sensible provision? I should like to hear that before I withdraw the Amendment.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: If I may answer the noble Lord, I take exactly the same view as my noble friend Lady White. She put it in a nutshell. As we do in Westminster, as we do in regard to the Scottish Assembly, so let us do in regard to the Welsh Assembly, and let the Members of that Assembly, in conjunction with the grass-roots feeling—the ultimate sanction of democracy—govern the deportment, the behaviour and the assiduousness of the elected representatives. Like her, I see no reason why any one of those three elected bodies should be subject to this kind of proposal. But if any one of them is, then the other two should be. I do not think that any of them should be. I am rather surprised that, of the three, the noble Lord should select the Welsh Assembly.
Before I sit down, may I, in the best possible spirit, convey this to Members on that side of the Committee. I have listened to the discussions on a great many Amendments in which I have not taken part. There is a perceptible tendency to regard the Welsh people and their potential representatives in the Assembly as being somewhat in a separate category from those in Scotland or in any other part of the country. My noble friend Lord Harris put it very well when he said that we must stop this "nannying" of the Assembly, otherwise we may unwittingly evoke in Wales feelings that it is not the purpose of any part of this House to produce.
The position in Wales at the moment is one of moderation, of keen participation in the general business of the United Kingdom, and within that Union to seek a reasonable and effective form of devolution. One of the ways in which that might be transformed into a much less reasonable and more intractable attitude is to go on with these innumerable Amendments, most of them unnecessary, some of them by implication insulting, like this one, thus creating in Wales, unwittingly, I am sure, exactly the kind of feeling that I would hope it would be
1322
the common purpose of all Parties, of all Members of this House, and indeed of Parliament, to avoid.
1.16 a.m.
Lord ELTON: What the noble Lord has said is extraordinarily interesting, and I think useful. I do not think that we want to be drawn by him into a second rebuke on the question of drawing the Committee once more into a Second Reading debate, but it is worth making again one point which it is all too easy to lose sight of, particularly by those who in Wales are watching the progress of this Bill through this House, and subsequently through another place. I had been at pains to make this clear before. Your Lordships will well know, but not everybody does, that our function is one of revision, and that the function of an Opposition is to bring into the open issues that need to be discussed by means of Amendments which bring those issues out. If every Amendment is to be treated when it is a probing Amendment, as this is, as though it is an attack upon the sacred central ground of the Welsh Assembly, which is seen as the shrine of all that is Welsh, then of course there is bound to be resentment. But the process of this House requires that we should examine the questions.
I myself regard the sanctuary of all that is Welsh as residing in the bosoms of the Welsh people. I think they deserve the best Assembly we can give them. I do not agree with noble Lords opposite about what that may be. But it is not an assault upon the Welsh in the form of their Assembly; it is an attempt to use the Parliamentary procedure to see that that is properly discussed and drawn in a form which this House and another place between them agree is the best we can get, and it is then up to the Welsh people themselves to decide what that shall be. This applies to Amendments which are moved and withdrawn, which are very numerous—they are less numerous in this Bill than in the Scotland Bill, or in many others—because if the job is to be properly done then they must be numerous.
The other and much more difficult point to convey is something I said at Second Reading. I declared at the beginning that we must send Amendments to the other place which might not be

1323
acceptable but which would serve the purpose of enabling the other place to express an opinion for the first time on large areas of the Bill. If the noble Lord will bear that in mind, if he agrees that the temple of Welsh culture and its heritage and history is in fact in the traditions and nature of its people, then perhaps he will think of me less hardly. I take everything he said in good part. I have the greatest regard for him. I ask him to accept that I am trying to do an honest job honestly on behalf of my noble friends. If it gives offence on occasion I regret it, but I think the offence should be taken against me rather than against the institution I am trying to serve.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Before we finish this discussion I would say that of all the Amendments we have considered, and there have been a great number, probably this has been the simplest, and one which required the least discussion of all. I think it is absolutely wrong—and I agree entirely with my noble friends Lady White and Lord Goronwy-Roberts—that the suggestion that a particular rule should be applied to the Welsh Assembly could be taken as offensive. This is such a simple thing that I do not think it is worth the discussion we have given it. It seems perfectly clear that the right thing for the noble Lord to do, if I may say so crudely, is to come off it and leave it at that.
Lord ELTON: I do not know whether or not this is a Parliamentary process; what I call it is withdrawing the Amendment, and that I beg leave to do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 [Remuneration]:
1.21 a.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 11, line 17, leave out from ("to") to end of line 20 and insert ("a member of the Assembly the salary and allowances for the time being paid to an Assistant Secretary in the Home Civil Service in his first year in that grade.").
The noble Lord said: I suppose all the same things will be said; but we have said them, so let us leave them unsaid. Again I suppose, because this has not been applied elsewhere, it will be taken as being applied to the Welsh because they are Welsh and are not Scots or English.
1324
It is a ballon d'essai. We wish to consider the difficulty into which elected bodies responsible for their own salaries, as it is intended under this clause they should be, get themselves in the face of their electorate, a difficulty which is felt by another place and this House. The Committee might like to consider at the same time Amendments Nos. 72 to 77, which provide another approach to the same problem.
There are two. One is to remove the responsibility from the Assemblymen of voting their own salaries and place it instead in the hands of a higher authority. I am sorry that some of our Welsh colleagues are not here to discuss this, but it is my clear impression from my conversations in Wales that there is a widespread feeling among the Welsh that they do not want the Assembly to be responsible for fixing its own salaries, and indeed pensions. I should have thought that if I was right in my assessment, this again would not be derogatory, because it is a curtailment of the rights of the Assembly; it should rather, be flattering in that it is a defence of the rights of the Welsh electorate who find the funds out of which the Members are paid.
There are two ways out of the difficulty. One is to hand the assessment and decision to a higher authority, which of course cannot be done in another place but can be done here, in the case of the Welsh Assembly, and the other is to tie the salary to some existing scale, so that once that has been done the difficulty of asking for a rise from the electorate, at a time, for instance, when one is preaching restraint in wage demands, is overcome. It is a perennial difficulty in Parliamentary institutions and it seems to me that the proposal in Amendment No. 71 might be an acceptable answer.
We do not necessarily have the right figure, and of course we need to know—I hope the noble Lord will tell us—what will be the workload of the Assembly and of a typical Assemblyman. If we accept literally all that has been said about this in the past, and the Assembly is merely discharging the functions hitherto discharged by the Secretary of State, it would be logical, though I do not doubt not acceptable, to divide the salary of the Secretary of State equally among the

1325
Members of the Assembly; but I do not propose that. On the other hand, there must be some point which is suitable; maybe it is somewhere halfway between the remuneration—or average receipts, because it is not a remuneration—of members of a county council on the one hand and of Parliament on the other. But having established it, it would be useful to tie it to the salary of an identifiable grade in part of the Civil Service.
This is a device which deserves discussion, and if it can be discussed outside the acrid area in which we feel that we cannot discuss anything for Wales which is not already embodied for Scotland, the United Kingdom, or England, that would be to advantage, because no doubt we shall return to the subject on other occasions in relation to other parts of the United Kingdom, and we shall then have cleared our minds on an important principle. I repeat that there is strong feeling in Wales on this matter, and I think that on the whole it sympathises with the objective of taking this decision out of the hands of the Assemblymen. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I have to advise your Lordships that if this Amendment is agreed, I will not be able to call Amendments Nos. 72, 73 and 74.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I do not want to be nasty to my noble friends opposite. I do not want to go on saying how awful they are in what they are saying about Wales. However, the Government suggest that the Assembly, after assuming its position and looking at the work it has to do, should have the right to fix its own salaries, and this is a much more complimentary approach than that contained in the Amendments of the noble Lord. I do not put the matter any worse than that. I do not wish to say that the noble Lord is insulting the Welsh. I merely think that he is not being nearly as polite to them as I am, which is a slightly different point.
We believe that the Assembly should have as much freedom as possible in deciding its procedures and other operational matters. In accordance with this policy, Clause 32 provides that once the Assembly is established it will assume
1326
responsibility for determining the salaries and allowances and pensions of its own Members, just as the determination of those of Members of Parliament is a matter for Parliament. Similar provision is made in Clause 32 of the Scotland Bill. Our policy is that we do not think that it is appropriate or necessary for the salaries and allowances of Assembly Members to be either fixed by the Bill (as Amendment No. 71 provides) or controlled by Westminster, as the other Amendments provide.
The remuneration of Assembly Members will be determined, at least in part, by the working hours to be adopted by the Assembly and the regime required of Parties in the Assembly. These considerations will have a bearing on whether the Assembly is to be full-time or part-time, although these terms are ambiguous. The real issue is probably whether it is to be possible for an Assembly Member to live on his pay, or whether other income-earning activities are to be the rule. The Assembly will have responsibility for a wide range of important matters affecting Wales, and it would be out of keeping to deny it responsibility for fixing the salaries of Members. Welsh public opinion can be expected to play a crucial part in influencing the Assembly's decision.
In so far as the noble Lord is correct in saying that many people are concerned about this question, I would say that they will have the opportunity to express their concern and to ensure that Assembly Members do not over-pay themselves. The Government recognise that they will have to set the initial salaries, and that this will have to be done in good time for the first elections, since potential candidates will need to know the likely level of remuneration. This cannot be done until the result of the referendum is known and the draft of the first commencement order has been laid before Parliament and approved. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State should direct what the initial salaries should be without reference to Parliament. This is in line with the Government's philosophy that decisions on Members' salaries are properly for the Assembly, and that Parliament should not be involved in what is essentially an internal matter for the Assembly. However, in taking a decision on what the initial pay of Members of the Assembly should be, the Government will of course take into account the

1327
views expressed in Parliament and elsewhere.
Amendment No. 71 would provide that an Assembly Member should receive a salary of about £10,000 plus such allowances as are payable to Assistant Secretaries in the Civil Service. These allowances would cover travelling and other expenses necessarily incurred in duties undertaken. I am in no position at the moment to say whether this would be an appropriate salary, but I would only point out, modestly, that the basic rate proposed is considerably in excess of that which the Members of the other place see fit to pay themselves. Amendments Nos. 72 to 77 adopt an alternative approach to Amendment 71. They propose that all payments to Members and former Members should be fixed by the Secretary of State in an order subject to Affirmative Resolution by the other place. The Government's objection to both approaches is the same: we think that this kind of provision is unnecessary. In our view, these are matters on which only the Assembly can decide in the light of its own experience and in the light of Welsh public opinion. That is why we propose in the Bill that the Assembly should fix the salaries and allowances to be paid to its Members and the pensions to be paid to its ex-Members. I cannot believe that the noble Lord opposite will differ very much from this. It seems to me the proper way to deal with it, and I very much hope that he will accept what I have said.
Baroness VICKERS: I have been very interested, listening to the noble Lord. I agree with him that perhaps it was unwise to put down this Amendment, but I think he must admit that here the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has given very high praise to the qualities and the efficiency of the proposed Members, because he is proposing to give them this very high salary which, as the noble Lord has said, is more than equivalent to what is being received in the English Parliament. So here we have the noble Lord, Lord Elton, giving very good praise—not insulting the Welsh—by suggesting this remuneration. I think the noble Lord opposite could perhaps be gracious enough to see that Lord Elton is not always putting the Welsh down. In fact, he is putting them up on a very high level this time.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I try to practise graciousness above all things, and I am perfectly prepared to admit that, though some people might think that it is an overpayment, nevertheless it is not an insult to the Welsh Assembly.
Baroness ELLES: Perhaps I could join in this, particularly if the noble Lord opposite is in a gracious mood. I shall enjoy even more talking across the Table to him. With regard to this Amendment, I think there are one or two points that could be considered. If I have understood it correctly, it is the Secretary of State who will lay down the initial salary; so it is not in fact very relevant to say that the Welsh Assembly itself must decide its remuneration, because presumably—there is no doubt an answer, but perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to finish—the Secretary of State will give a figure so that whoever it is standing for Carmarthen, Caernarvon, Cardiff, or wherever it is, will know that he will get an income of roughly £X—"Will I be able to afford to do it? Will I be able to afford to give up the job I am doing?", et cetera. They will obviously have to have some initial sum to start off with, but after that, once they have all got together, presumably, they will decide, "Is it a good sum to have? Shall we put it up, or shall we put it down?".
One of the things which, never having been a Member of another place, I have never had to suffer, but which seems one of the great disadvantages of another place with regard to their own salaries, is that it always becomes a matter of political football. Everybody knows that they are far too underpaid for the duties and work that they have to do and the time they have to spend; and there are all sorts of factors which prove that they are grossly underpaid. If, on the other hand, people like to give themselves exactly what the part-time chairman of the Eggs Authority gets, well and good; but I do not see why one should inflict that kind of self-denigration on a new body. We should give them a chance to get a proper salary, more in keeping with the kind of duties one expects them to fulfil. I should have thought that the noble Lord would have been thankful that this side of the Committee has put forward a positive proposal, we always being told

1329
that we never put forward any good suggestions. I hope the noble Lord will continue to be gracious and will thank us for having put a positive proposal that the Members of the Welsh Assembly, at least, should be better paid and have a better realisation of their work for the people of Wales than the Members of the House of Commons have for their work for the people of the United Kingdom.
1.35 a.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I have no serious comment to add to what the noble Baroness has said. I believe that the Welsh Assembly, when it has decided what kind of work it has to do, is the proper body to decide its salary, just as I believe the other place should decide its own salary. The fact that there are political pressures on them to keep it down is a fact of life. I think that the idea that we should sail in from outside and put right what is wrong is an absolutely absurd idea. Quite honestly, if we are going to make the Welsh Assembly something which really governs in Wales, which is what we are trying to do, it must surely have the final word on what it pays its Members. I cannot believe that anybody would think it should be done by anybody else.
Of course, the Secretary of State must have a starting figure and the starting figure discussed has been the same figure as the other place. I do not know whether that is what he will do, but that is the figure that has been discussed and is quite acceptable. I cannot see that it is desirable to give them either more or less than somebody else. Surely, they must decide their own. I cannot believe that noble Lords opposite will not agree.
Baroness ELLES: I hope that the noble Lord is aware that many countries in Western Europe do, in fact, follow that practice. They tie the salaries of their Members of Parliament to the highest paid civil servant of their Administration. It therefore takes out the political element from the discussions and ensures that people who are serving their country are paid an adequate salary. In France, Members of the National Assembly are paid the same as the salary drawn by the equivalent of a Permanent Under-
1330
Secretary of the Foreign Office. I say that merely to show that it is accepted practice in other countries. There is no reason, because it is not the practice in the other place, why it should not be practised in another body.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: This is not what we are talking about. We are talking about not what the Members shall get, but who shall decide it. Clearly the Welsh Assembly are entitled to say that they will all be paid as Under-Secretaries or anyone else. We are not discussing at all what figures should be, but who should decide. I feel certain that in the end noble Lords will agree with me that the people who should decide this should be the Welsh Assembly.
Lord ELTON: I do not think that we can usefully go on longer with this. I think that we have spent our time to some purpose. We have elicited the intention of the Secretary of State as to the initial salary, which I was not aware of. We have exposed a fundamental reason for resentment among the Welsh whenever there is a departure from the standard set by the Scotland Bill, which many of us were not aware of; and we have considered a method of fixing salaries which might commend itself to the future Members of the Welsh Assembly (if the Bill is as amended when it reaches them) which they might like to follow; for it will get them out of difficulties later. We have all become rather tired. I hope that we shall not become crosser than we have become. I feel no malice towards others who have told me that I have been insulting. I hope that they will feel tomorrow that I have not been insulting in what I have said—or, at least, not with malice. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 72 to 77 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Jury service]:
On Question, Whether Clause 33 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE: Before the Question is put, we have heard a lot tonight about matters raised on the

1331
Wales Bill which have not been mentioned on the Scotland Bill and how insulting they have been. I consider, as a Scot, that we have been insulted now. There is something in the Wales Bill which was not contained in the Scotland Bill. It relates to the jury service. It says:
33.—(1) In Part III of Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974 (excusal of certain persons from jury service) after the entries under the heading "Parliament" there shall be inserted—
"Welsh Assembly Member of the Welsh Assembly."
(2) A member of the Assembly shall not be liable to serve on any jury in Scotland.
I think it would be an insult to ask a Welshman to serve on a jury in Scotland. I suggest that all this is deleted as it does not apply the other way round. No Scots Assembly Member is banned from sitting on a jury in Wales.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Power of Secretary of State to prevent or require action]:
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 77A:
Page 12, line 6, leave out from ("would") to second ("or") in line 7 and insert ("affect, directly or indirectly, any matter with respect to which the Assembly has no power to act").
The noble Baroness said: This is a rather complicated point. A similar point arose when the Scotland Bill was debated. I should like to take Amendments Nos. 77A, 78B and 80B together. I will say at the outset that this is a point which the Government conceded when it was very ably argued by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. As the Wales Bill stands, it appears to me that the Secretary of State has no override powers in relation to cross-Border subordinate Instruments—that is, any subordinate Instrument which deals with Wales but which could have an effect on another part of the United Kingdom.
This was the case in the Scotland Bill which was drafted in precisely the same way as the Wales Bill now is. The Government accepted Amendments in paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 which affected paragraph 2 of Schedule 2. In fact, the effects of paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 were negatived by an Amendment which was put forward by the Government in regard to the Scotland Bill and an addition to Clause 36(2) was also added in that Bill.
The effects of these two Amendments were basically that Scotland had responsibility for legislating only for matters which were entirely within the Scottish borders. As the Wales Bill now stands, the Welsh Assembly can pass a subordinate Instrument which could have effect on matters which affect the United Kingdom as a whole, England or Scotland, and the Secretary of State under Clauses 34 and 35 would have no override powers.
I accept that the Amendments may not be correctly drafted. I think that this is a very difficult area. There is no Schedule to which to relate these clauses, as there was in the Scotland Bill. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could reply or give an undertaking to look at this matter. I think this is something which could justifiably be put right, either at this or a later stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I think that it is worth mentioning that Amendments similar to those put down by the noble Baroness were put down by the official Opposition in the other place at Committee Stage on this Bill, were debated for two and a half hours and were rejected on a Division by a margin of 37 votes. I throw this in for good measure in any discussion that we may have. Hansard for 8th March records it.
The Amendments which we are discussing cover three themes. The first is to return to the rather wider formulation of the override power as it appeared in the Scotland and Wales Bill; the second is to remove the reference to "might affect" from the conditions precedent to the use of the power (though the noble Baroness has omitted to table an Amendment to remove this reference from Clause 34(1)(b)); and the third is to delete that part of the second condition precedent to the use of the power in Clause 34, which requires the Secretary of State to take account of the public interest. The noble Baroness seems to be content, however, that the public interest should be taken into account before overriding a statutory instrument by use of the power in Clause 35. I think it might be for our convenience if I were to take each of these themes in turn.
Apropos of the "English dimension", the Government changed the structure of the policy override clauses from that of

1333
the Scotland and Wales Bill for the reason explained in a statement made by the Lord President of the Council in July 1977, which was conveyed to your Lordships by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. The Government do not think it necessary to provide a power of policy override in respect of possible repercussion on what might be termed the "English dimension" of a devolved matter. One of the merits of devolution is that it will allow reasonable diversity within the continuing unity of the United Kingdom, and the Government do not consider that there should be a power of policy override merely because an action of the Welsh Assembly in a devolved area might be inconvenient for the United Kingdom Government of the day. In their view, policy override should be kept in reserve in case it is needed to protect matters which lie at the heart of the continuing unity of the United Kingdom, such as defence, trade, energy, the economy and industrial policy.
That is the intention. But there were representations that the override clauses in the Scotland and Wales Bill went too wide, in that the reference to
"a matter with respect to which only Parliament has power to legislate"
would, in fact, include the "English dimension" of a devolved matter. This would be an unwanted effect and the formulation has therefore been changed to ensure beyond doubt the exclusion from the override power of repercussion on the "English dimension" and make it bite only on the more important area of matters, such as defence, and so on, for which there is no devolved responsibility. That is why the Government find unacceptable these Amendments which would restore the earlier concept of
"any matter with respect to which the Assembly has no power to act".
The formulation of background powers of the kind we are discussing is a question of balance. In my submission, the Government in these two clauses have got the balance right—as appears to have been accepted in relation to the Scotland Bill—and I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Baroness will see her way not to press this Amendment.
Baroness ELLES: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. In
1334
fact, the position seems to be rather worse than I envisaged it, because I was not aware that the United Kingdom Parliament now will be stopped from discussing certain matters with regard to Wales, but that the Welsh Assembly will be able to pass subordinate Instruments which have an effect on parts of the United Kingdom, and there is no action that the Secretary of State for the United Kingdom Parliament can take.
If I may, I should like to study what the noble Lord has said. I hope, in the meantime, that he will take on board the points I made, regardless of the drafting of the Amendment, because I am particularly concerned with this matter of cross-Border subordinate Instruments over which there is no overriding power at the moment for the Secretary of State. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would look at this and perhaps write to me before the next stage of the Bill. On that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I should like to add that we regard this as an important matter, and I shall be happy to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.50 a.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 12, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert—
("(b) that any action capable of being so taken is not proposed to be taken and that failure to take it would or might affect a reserved matter, whether directly or indirectly;").
The noble and learned Lord said: During the Committee stage on the Scotland Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, moved a drafting Amendment to the then Clause 36, and my noble friend and learned friend Lord McCluskey agreed to consider that. As a result, a Government Amendment was put down and, I believe, was agreed to Clause 37 of the Scotland Bill. The same point applies in relation to Clause 34 of this Bill, and the present Amendment is identical to that in the Scotland Bill.
With this Amendment, the Government consider that it should now be clear beyond doubt that Clause 34(2) would

1335
provide, as was always intended, that the Secretary of State can, subject to the public interest, first, override action which would have a detrimental effect on a reserved matter and, secondly, require action where failure to take it would have a detrimental effect on a reserved matter. The essence, in both cases, is prevention of a detrimental effect. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 78A:
Page 12, line 11, leave out ("in the public interest").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment was meant to arouse a certain amount of debate as to the definition of "public interest", how the power would be used, on what criteria the Secretary of State would decide whether or not something was in the public interest, and whether the main consideration would be for the people of Wales or for the United Kingdom as a whole. But at this late hour it is not the time to discuss the finer points of public interest.
I merely make a marker with regard to this, that the Secretary of State will have to use his discretion—presumably, this will be a discretionary matter—as to the meaning of "public interest" in this case. Or does the noble and learned Lord consider that there are certain legal grounds, on which the Secretary of State must base his decision that a matter is in the public interest, which must guide him to use his powers under the subsection? I shall be grateful if the noble and learned Lord will comment on that. I do not propose to have a debate on this, though it is a matter of public interest not only for the people of Wales, but also in regard to the exercise of the powers of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think it is possible to give a precise definition in advance of how the Secretary of State would interpret "public interest", though the words are well precedented in Statute. But we think it is useful for the term to be included, as it means that the Secretary of State need not take action if he thinks that it would not be in the public interest to do so. The important point is that the Secretary of State will have to
1336
justify the use of these powers to Parliament. Before he decides to intervene, he will need to satisfy himself that he has a convincing case for doing so, and a case that will be approved by Parliament. I am afraid that I cannot take it further than that, but it is a well-known conception.
Baroness ELLES: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that. Of course, we are aware that it is a very well-known concept, but it has never been very clearly defined. Though the noble and learned Lord said that it would have to be approved by Parliament, are the overriding powers always the subject of an order?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that probably more in a political sense it will have to be approved by Parliament. He is always in danger of getting the sack, unless he carries Parliament with him.
Baroness ELLES: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that valuable piece of information. So I hope that Secretaries of State will be careful, when they exercise their powers in relation to the public interest. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 78B not moved.]
1.54 a.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 12, line 42, leave out from ("Parliament") to ("and") in line 1 on page 13.
The noble Lord said: Clauses 34 and 35, taken with Clause 71, provide for the procedure by which instruments which are approved by another place, and not approved by this place, can be enacted by the vote of the other place alone. The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to write to me at the beginning of these proceedings and say that it was no longer the intention of the Government to proceed with this feature of the Bill, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Wales; and if there is any insult intended it must be to this House. Therefore I have tabled Amendments in the terms which the noble and learned Lord suggested, which take out this provision. I do not think that your Lordships wish to be treated to an inept lecture by me on the constitutional significance of this

1337
matter; your Lordships are well aware of it. As I understand that the Amendment will not be resisted, I think that we can dispose of it quite quickly and with a sense of gratification and fellowship with the noble Lords opposite.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: These Amendments flow logically and with consistency from the consequences of the defeat of the view taken by the Government of the matter on the Scotland Bill. As I indicated at Second Reading, so far as this House is concerned the Government are therefore prepared to accept these Amendments. Accordingly, at this late hour we do not need the privilege of a discourse by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on the constitutional position—illuminating at another hour, and possibly even in another place, though that would be.
Lord ELTON: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I mentioned that I omitted to say that the grouping appears to be Amendments Nos. 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 and Clause 71. Then, when we come to these, I need not discuss them. I noted with interest what the noble and learned Lord said. I agree entirely with him about any discourse by me not being illuminating under these circumstances. I noted also with interest the emphasis the noble and learned Lord placed on the words "so far as this House is concerned" the Government do not intend to proceed. I shall look with interest at Hansard of another place when the Bill goes back to them. I beg to move.
1.57 a.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 13, line 2, leave out ("the House of Commons") and insert ("either House").
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [Power of Secretary of State to revoke subordinate instruments]:
[Amendments Nos. 80A and 80B not moved.]
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendments Nos. 81, 82 and 83:
Page 13, line 29, leave out from ("Parliament") to ("or") in line 32.
Page 13, line 40, leave out from ("Parliament") to ("and") in line 41.
Page 13, line 42, leave out ("the House of Commons") and insert ("either House").
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 83A:
Page 14, line 5, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment relates to Clause 35(7). It deals with the matter of hybrid instruments, which was debated during the proceedings on the Scotland Bill. As a result of the Amendment which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and a favourable answer from the Government, I understand that that subsection was removed from the Scotland Bill. I do not propose to go through all the arguments, unless noble Lords wish me to do so. I should be grateful for a hopeful reply from the noble and learned Lord on this subsection.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government are willing to accept this Amendment.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Requirement of consent]:
2 a.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 14, line 21, at end insert—
("or
(c) agricultural land").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to protect against the wasteful acquisition of agricultural land. Under this clause the Assembly is required to seek the consent of a Minister of the Crown before compulsorily purchasing certain types of land. The Welsh Assembly, for example, under Clause 36(2)(a), may not compulsorily purchase land held by, say, the Electricity Board. Under Clause 36(2)(b) it may not compulsorily purchase land held under, for instance, the smallholding scheme or by a local authority approved dogs' home, or slaughterhouse or drug house. Quite why the Welsh Assembly would want to compulsorily purchase a slaughterhouse

1339
or drug house, quite frankly, escapes me. Nevertheless, as I understand it, if it wants to do so it must seek the consent of a Minister of the Crown.
The one thing that the Welsh Assembly really might want to purchase compulsorily is agricultural land. That is the one thing they can do so easily, and without the consent of a Minister of the Crown. If I were a member of the Welsh Assembly I think that I would do the easiest thing—we are all human, anyhow—and compulsorily purchase agricultural land. Therefore, to make it fair, I believe that before so doing the Assembly should seek the consent of a Minister of the Crown. Certainly this clause seems to me to encourage the Welsh Assembly to take agricultural land. I need hardly add that any land taken should be looked at once, and then once again. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: Where the land is to be acquired for devolved purposes, the Assembly will be responsible for making its own compulsory purchase orders for a limited range of purposes, and for confirming compulsory purchase orders made by local authorities and other bodies, for a wider range of purposes. For instance, the Assembly will have the power under Section 113 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to acquire property for the devolved public service; for example, offices for civil servants working on devolved functions. The making and confirming of compulsory purchase orders will be reserved unless the specific powers have been devolved.
It is, of course, possible that compulsory purchase orders made for devolved purposes will nevertheless affect land being used at that time for reserved purposes—and no doubt the noble Lord has in mind at this time the agricultural land. The use of land at any particular time is not immutable, nor can it be regarded in isolation from other land uses or other development needs. It is a matter to be considered as part of land use planning as a whole. Local authorities already have powers to provide for land to be taken in or out of agricultural or other uses as part of their wider responsibility for land use. And so far as there are ministerial powers in respect of land use, these will be transferred to
1340
the Assembly by virtue of Part VIII of Schedule 2 to the Bill. As powers in relation to land use in general, including powers to change land uses, are transferred it would make little sense to limit the Assembly's compulsory purchase powers in respect of land currently held for one particular type of land use. To do so would risk the fragmentation of land use planning, which by its very nature must be dealt with as a totality if it is to be effective.
The Assembly, under Clause 36(2), will need ministerial consent before making or confirming compulsory purchase orders in respect of the land of the accepted statutory undertakers, or of local authority land which is held for reserve purposes. These controls are not concerned with safeguarding any particular land uses but with safeguarding the carrying out of the statutory functions by the bodies operating in those reserved areas. For instance, it would be wrong for the Assembly to be able, without ministerial consent, to purchase compulsorily land being used for electricity generation. This might prejudice the Central Electricity Generating Board's ability to carry out its statutory duties.
Similar considerations do not apply to agriculture because there are no similar statutory functions to safeguard. But the Assembly in exercising compulsory purchase and land use powers will of course give full weight to agricultural considerations as to other considerations. In most cases compulsory purchase decisions are subject to the strict procedural requirements of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946, and if the Assembly failed to give proper weight to all considerations they would be subject to challenge in the courts. If, in the last resort, the Assembly were in the view of the Government endangering agricultural land, then the intervention powers of Clause 35 would be available. But to provide an additional control in respect of agriculture would, I suggest, be over-fussy. It might even run the risk of the Assembly giving less weight to agriculture than it would otherwise do in the knowledge that a special agricultural protection was being separately provided. I hope that, in the light of this, the noble Lord may see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I thank the noble Baroness for that very long and detailed explanation, which puts my mind at rest. On a small point, I do wish that we also had the statutory powers, like the Central Electricity Generating Board, to prevent people from taking agricultural land, although I have to admit that this might be somewhat impracticable. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness ELLEShad given Notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 84A:
Page 14, line 21, at end insert—
("(3) The Assembly shall not without the consent of a Minister of the Crown make any provision in relation to the functions, qualifications, resignation or removal of auditors").
The noble Baroness said: This is an Amendment which I should like to consider further before moving it, and so, with the permission of your Lordships, I should like to postpone it until the next stage of the Bill.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Powers exercisable only with consent of a Minister of the Crown]:
[Amendment No. 84B not moved.]
2.7 a.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 84C:
Page 63, line 28, at end insert—

("The Water Act 1973 (c. 37) section 36(3) and Schedule 7.

The powers with respect to the making and confirmation of byelaws.

The Water Act 1973 (c. 37) section 21(2).

The power to give directions with respect to schemes under that subsection.").

The noble Lord said: It may be convenient to the Committee if in moving Amendment No. 84C I speak also to Amendments 84D and 84F. We now return to the subject of water, and before we go into the technicalities of these Amendments to Schedule 4 and of the later Amendments to Schedule 8, it may be helpful if, very briefly, this being just after 2 a.m., we look in a more general way at the water supply situation in Wales and England in order to examine the context within which these Amendments in my name and those of my noble friends, lie.
On Thursday night of last week the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that the whole issue of water so far as Wales is concerned is central to the whole debate, and he went on to say:
"it seems to me absolutely unthinkable for us to move into a situation where the Assembly would not have powers which are laid on them in this Bill."—[Official Report, 15/6/78, Col. 660.].
It was an interesting debate on water and I hope I shall avoid going again over that ground. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the provisions in this Bill for devolving to the Welsh Assembly powers and responsibilities for water supplies are of great importance.
The basic facts are that much of the Midlands and parts of North-West England and Wessex are dependent for water on water resources in Wales. The Elan Valley supplies Birmingham; Lake Vyrnwy supplies Liverpool; the Clywedog reservoir stores water for discharge into the River Severn, and so on. In the nineteen-sixties Welsh opinion was strongly against the development of more reservoirs. Politically it was highly controversial and extremist bodies carried out acts of sabotage. I believe that now the climate has completely changed, no doubt partly due to the creation of the Welsh Water Authority and the passing of the Water Charges Equalisation Act. The Welsh and the Severn-Trent Water Authorities have agreed to promote jointly a project at Craig Goch to provide water to be discharged into the River Severn and, so far as I know, there is little opposition in Wales to that project.
This Bill introduces an entirely new factor into the situation, and if I may borrow some of the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, it would be "absolutely unthinkable" not to examine closely the provisions in this Bill for giving the Welsh Assembly responsibility over the rain which the Almighty causes to fall within their territory and the ways in which both the Welsh and the English interests in using it are safeguarded.
In addition to the basic facts to which I have referred, the whole trend in water legislation in recent years has been towards a national water policy encompassing all regions, including Wales. Your Lordships were reminded last Thursday that the boundaries of the Regional Water Authorities are drawn hydro-

1343
logically. So we have the Severn-Trent Water Authority covering a large area of Wales and the Welsh Water Authority large areas in England. With certain exceptions, the Welsh Assembly will exercise devolved powers within the Principality. The transfer of control will cut across the principle that has been accepted by the Government and is contained in the Water Act 1973 that river basins should be managed as single units.
In electoral terms the Welsh Assembly will only be responsible for Welsh interests, whereas both Water Authorities are responsible for the provision of services to consumers who live in England. The Government, in drafting this Bill, have been fully aware of the possible conflict of interests and have taken very great trouble to write into the Bill sufficient powers for Government to prevent the Assembly taking action in the interests of Wales which may be against the interests of the nation as a whole, and these we shall be looking at later on.
While accepting the principle of devolving to the Assembly most of the powers exercisable by Ministers in relation to water matters, my Amendments and those of my noble friends are designed to narrow the possible areas of conflict between the Severn-Trent Water Authority and the Welsh Water Authority, and to ensure that the Government have sufficient powers to intervene where the national interest in water may be threatened.
May we turn to the Amendments to Schedule 4. Clause 36(1) and Schedule 4 provide the devolved matters which can be exercised only with the consent of a Minister of the Crown. The matters currently listed in Schedule 4 mainly concern orders of various kinds which may affect the interests of excepted statutory undertakers, defined in Clause 79. The provisions these three Amendments are designed to insert into the Schedule are different in character and are of two types: first, powers which are essentially local in character, and therefore properly devolved to the Assembly, but which may have an incidental effect on the national policy for water in England and Wales and should therefore be exercised with the consent of the Minister. Secondly, powers which are local in character but which should be exercised for administrative reasons in a manner compatible
1344
with the way they are exercised in the English part of the Severn-Trent Authority's area. The insertion of these powers in Schedule 4 keeps the powers in the hands of the Assembly but enables arrangements to be made to secure these ends.
If I may pick out a few of these powers by way of illustration, with regard to the powers with respect to the making of by-laws, these arise under various enactments, and they can all be regarded as local matters which should operate harmoniously throughout an Authority's area. For example, by-laws under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 regulate, among other things, the close seasons and close times for fishing. These may be varied according to local circumstances, but they must hang together throughout a river basin. The consent of the Minister is designed to ensure this, while confirmation by the Assembly will take care of the local circumstances.
The power to give directions with respect to schemes under Section 21(2) of the 1973 Water Act should, it is thought, be exercisable with the consent of the Minister of the Crown to ensure against excessive cost that might fall upon English consumers by reason of an over-elaborate scheme for water recreation in the Welsh part of the Severn-Trent Authority. The Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act power in Amendment No. 84D, if it remains under the supervision of a Minister of the Crown, would ensure, for example, that charges on riparian owners to pay for an authority's fishing budget should, as with by-laws, operate consistently throughout a river basin.
Amendment No. 84F deals with Land Drainage Act 1976 matters. With regard to special drainage charges, it is clearly desirable in the case of land drainage schemes that charges on land benefited should be so fixed as to be fair on both sides of the border. Differential drainage rates are again a local matter, but the consent of the Minister is needed to ensure that similar cases are dealt with in a similar way. Incidentally, one internal drainage board responsible for raising such rates lies astride the England/Wales border.
The consent of the Minister is required to ensure fairness in the appointment of

1345
an arbitrator in an appeal against drainage rates under Section 77. Section 85 of the Land Drainage Act gives power to issue directions regarding forms of statement in connection with precepts. It would be administratively cumbersome and expensive if these forms of statement differ within a water authority's area. Finally, with regard to tolls on vessels navigating in navigable waters, it is desirable that the Minister's consent should be sought in order to ensure an even-handed charging policy in the English and Welsh parts of the water authority's area. I beg to move.
2.18 a.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking these three Amendments together because they to hang together. The Government believe that water is so central to domestic matters of everyday concern to people in Wales that the Assembly should be given substantial powers. But it is necessary also to take account of the fact that the Wales/England border does not, as the noble Lord has told us, follow the hydrological boundary of the Welsh Water Authority and the Severn-Trent Water Authority. The Bill therefore proposes that in general the two water authorities operating in Wales should be responsible to the Assembly for their activities in Wales and to the Government for their activities in England.
It is also necessary to take into account that Wales is an important source of water for England and that decisions on developments in Wales can have important implications for England and Wales water policy and for certain English holders of statutory rights connected with water. The Government have recognised this by reserving responsibility for the drawing up of the overall England and Wales policy for water; by providing (in paragraph 43 of Schedule 11 to the Bill) that the Welsh policy for water must be in harmony with overall policy; and by providing for special intervention procedures under Schedule 8 to the Bill to protect the interests of the England and Wales policy and certain statutory interests in England.
The Amendments which the noble Lord has put before us, and which are now
1346
under discussion, would seek to make decisions by the Assembly on by-laws, water recreation schemes, certain fisheries orders and land drainage functions in Wales subject to ministerial consent. English interests are protected under Schedule 8 to the Bill. It has not been established what reserved interests in Wales need this protection under Schedule 4 and in the Government's view these limitations on the Assembly's actions are unjustified. As regards Amendment No. 84C on the by-laws and the water recreation schemes, Section 36 of and Schedule 7 to the Water Act 1973 confer ministerial powers only for the confirmation of water authority by-laws, not for the making of by-laws by Ministers, which is suggested by the Amendment. The Assembly will only be able to confirm by-laws relating wholly to Wales, and we think that it would be quite unjustified to require ministerial consent in such cases.
As regards the water recreation schemes, Section 21 of the Water Act 1973 requires the Welsh Water Authority to draw up a plan in consultation with the Severn-Trent Authority on the recreational use of the water rights of both authorities in Wales. The Welsh Assembly would be required to settle any dispute between the authorities. This again is purely a Welsh matter not affecting English interests. Any financial commitments arising from the policy would do so within Wales and would be set against the Assembly's financial allocations.
As regards Amendment No. 84D dealing with salmon and freshwater fisheries, the regulation of salmon and freshwater fisheries by the Assembly could, of course, affect English fishing rights, but this is already recognised in the Bill. As Section 28 of and Schedule 3 to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 are listed in Part IV of Schedule 8 to the Bill, the Secretary of State will be able to intervene if an order made by the Assembly (which would be made mainly on the initiative of the water authority itself) does adversely affect English fishing rights. To make such an order subject in all cases to ministerial consent under Schedule 4 is quite unnecessary.
On land drainage and the Land Drainage Act 1976, Section 51, special drainage charges are determined by water authorities and the Assembly's powers will be limited

1347
to increasing, on the application of the water authority, the maximum amount of charge per acre under the authority's scheme or increasing the overall maximum of 10p specified in the Act. There are no reserved interests which should be protected and to make the Assembly's exercise of the power as regards Wales subject to ministerial consent again we do not think can be justified.
Under Sections 68 and 69, the making of differential drainage rates is undertaken by internal drainage boards after consultation with their water authorities. Unless the internal drainage board happens to be the water authority itself, the Assembly's power will be limited to confirmation of the orders of boards in Wales since directions to internal drainage boards as to the making, variation or revocation of orders fall to the water authority. If the internal drainage board is a water authority, directions as regards Wales may be given by the Assembly; but it is clear from the provisions mentioned that the issues are local and that as regards Wales the Assembly should not be made subject to ministerial consent.
Still on the final Amendment, Amendment No. 84F, Section 77 provides that an owner or occupier of land who is aggrieved by a drainage rate may, instead of appealing to the Crown Court, agree with the drainage authority to refer the matter to arbitration. If the parties subsequently fail to agree on who should arbitrate, the Assembly will be able, for cases in Wales, to appoint an arbitrator. There seems no possible justification for making the Assembly's appointment subject to ministerial consent.
As regards Section 85 the only power here to be exercised by the Assembly is the setting of the form of statement of the purposes to which the amount demanded by any precept issued by a water authority to internal drainage boards is intended to be applied and the basis on which it is calculated. It seems incredible to suggest that ministerial consent must be obtained to the form that is to be used in Wales.
On the final section, Section 88, the Assembly will be able, on the application of a drainage authority, to impose tolls on certain waters not controlled by navigation, harbour or conservancy
1348
authorities, where the cost of maintenance or works in connection with the waters will be increased as a result of navigational use. Once again, we do not accept that ministerial consents for orders made by the Assembly are justified, particularly since the objector is given the right to special Parliamentary procedure under Schedule 10 if he is a harbour or conservancy authority. We think that we have the safeguards already in the Bill, and we are satisfied that these Amendments are not necessary.
Lord RAGLAN: I am very grateful to my noble friend for this very detailed explanation which she has given. I am under some difficulty, because she will have noticed that I have tabled an Amendment, probably for tomorrow, dealing with the troubles of the Welsh Water Authority in connection with this Bill. It is so late now that it is quite certain that I shall not be able to see what my noble friend has said printed in Hansard tomorrow before I make my speech. If I could have a copy of the brief which my noble friend has read out to the Committee, I should be most grateful because it may save some time tomorrow and may clarify matters a little. When I say that it may clarify matters a little, it is because I have become so confused with the referencing and cross-referencing of various Acts; I have been fairly rifling through these various Acts on the bench trying to keep up with what my noble friend has said and what the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has said. I really do not know where we are.
Also, I have to take these remarks in connection with the speech made by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich last Thursday. In examining the remarks that my noble friend made, I am not quite sure whether I agree with what he has said is the case in relation to certain matters affecting the Welsh Water Authority. This is a matter of astonishing complexity. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will be able to present these matters to us with rather greater clarity than, to judge from speaking to other noble Lords who have taken an interest in this matter, they have been able to do so far. I am rather worried about it and I am not the only person to be worried about the whole water situation, which my noble friend Lord Harris of

1349
Greenwich says is one of the matters that is central to the Bill. I think that it is important that we get it absolutely right. We shall not get it right unless we first understand it.
Baroness ELLES: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, replies, I wonder whether I might join with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who has put a fair point to the Committee. This matter will probably be debated tomorrow and obviously at this late hour we shall not have a chance to have a copy of the Official Report of tonight's proceedings. Would it be too much trouble for the noble Baroness to arrange that copies at any rate of her speech, if not her brief, could be made available to Members of the Opposition for tomorrow?
Baroness STEDMAN: My understanding is that proof copies of Hansard, even at this late hour, will be available in the Library tomorrow. But I shall get my secretary to check on that and, if that is not so, I shall see that Members get copies of the brief.
Lord MIDDLETON: I, too, am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her most detailed statement. These proposals are not uncomplicated. I am also grateful that she will take care to ensure that we get a copy of what she said. These proposals are not intended to cast doubts upon the competence of the Assembly. They are designed to reduce the possibility of uneven local administration; for instance, along the whole length of a river such as the Severn. It may be that providing, as these Amendments seek to do, that the powers which are essentially local in character under the various enactments specified in these Amendments should fall under the ministerial consent provisions of Clause 36 and Schedule 4 is not an ideal way of securing even treatment on both sides of the Border.
Undoubtedly there will arise difficulties and inconsistencies over the administration of the water authority areas where part of a river basin is in England and part in Wales, and where an authority is responsible in one case to the Secretary of State and in the other to the Welsh Assembly. One can imagine the situations that might arise if different by-laws
1350
apply to different banks of the same river, and that is quite conceivable under the Bill as it stands. The Bill is therefore unsatisfactory in this respect. We must try to get it right. In view of what the noble Baroness said, this may not be the right way to go about it so I shall not press the Amendments, but my noble friends and I will consider the Government's views and will look very carefully at what the noble Baroness said, and perhaps come back at a later stage.
Lord RAGLAN: I think it is possible that the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady White and myself, No. 102C, might, if the Government accept it, meet the noble Lord's fears and objections.
Lord MIDDLETON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 84D not moved.]
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 84E:
Page 63, leave out lines 31 to 38.
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is consequential on an earlier Amendment, No. 57C. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: The Government accept this Amendment. It is consequential, but we accept it totally without prejudice to the Government returning to the whole matter after the Bill has gone to another place.
[Amendment No. 84F not moved.]
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Reserved Local Matters]:
2.32 a.m.
Lord ELTONhad given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 84G:
Page 63, column 2, line 49, at end insert ("Education").
The noble Lord said: I do not know whether it is the lateness of the hour or the exactly similarly late hour at which I drafted this Amendment but it does not now appear to me to achieve what I then thought it did. The difficulty of bowling in this particular match is that one does not know which cricketer is going to play the ball back at one. A few minutes ago

1351
I informed the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that it was my intention not to move this Amendment. If it is someone else who has got the pads on I can only apologise for making their journey from the pavilion unnecessary.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Industrial and economic guidelines]:
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendments Nos. 84H, 84J and 84K:
Page 14, leave out lines 29 to 35.
Page 14, leave out line 37.
Page 14, leave Out lines 41 and 42.
The noble Baroness said: With the permission of the Committee, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 84H, 84J, and 84K, which are all consequential on Amendment No. 57C.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The Government accept these Amendments, but without prejudice to returning in another place to the question of the restoration of Part IX of Schedule 2.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Agency arrangements and provision of services]:
2.35 a.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 84L:
Page 15, line 15, after ("authority") insert ("which discharged the functions of the authority").
The noble Lord said: I fear this may be a rather more technical field, so at this hour I will make some simple observations on what is intended to be a simple theme. Clause 38 provides for the making of agency arrangements between authorities and the provision of services, and it permits the Assembly to make an agency arrangement with a relevant authority for specified functions which we need not enumerate at this stage; they are in Clause 38(1).
Clause 38(2) says that no such arrangements for the discharge of any functions shall affect the responsibility of the authority on whose behalf the functions are discharged. It would seem to the lay eye that, by inference, an effect is permitted on the authority actually discharging the
1352
functions, and the effect of the Amendment is to make both authorities in question remain responsible as they woulp have been had the arrangement not been entered into by either of them, thus restoring parity of responsibility to what it was before. I hope I have made myself clear. If I have not, I shall return to the matter at the request of the noble Lord.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: This clause simply enables arrangements to be made between the Welsh Assembly and any relevant authority for one party to carry out functions or provide services on behalf of the other. There is no compulsion on either party to enter into an arrangement. There could, for example, be no question of the Welsh Assembly requiring a United Kingdom Minister to carry out a function. A principal and agent will, therefore, enter into an arrangement only where it is in the interests of both parties to do so. The clause is necessary because a person or body on whom a statutory duty is laid cannot delegate that duty or discharge it through any other person or body unless Statute so provides.
Agency arrangements between United Kingdom Government Departments and Northern Ireland Departments were a long-standing feature of relations between Whitehall and Stormont. Provision was made for them in Section 63 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and in Section 11 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, and many arrangements were made under these provisions. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland carried out a great deal of work on an agency basis on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Commissioner of Valuation for Northern Ireland valued property for the Treasury and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. Her Majesty's Stationery Office in Belfast did a great deal of work on behalf of Northern Ireland Government Departments. Those are a few examples, some of which may be appropriate so far as the Welsh Assembly is concerned.
I need not go into great detail, although the noble Lord quite reasonably asked me to give some account of the general situation. The Amendment seeks to ensure that the agent's responsibility to discharge a function is not altered by the

1353
agency agreement. To be frank, I do not think the logic behind the Amendment is absolutely correct.
As regards the discharge of the function itself, the responsibility is vested in the principal, not in the agent. The clause makes clear that the conclusion of an agency agreement in no way alters the principal's responsibility, but because the agent has no responsibility in regard to the function itself, there can be no question of affecting his responsibility. That is not to say, of course, that he has no responsibility in regard to the agreement. There, quite rightly, the normal rules of agency will apply, and if the work is carried out under contract, the normal principles of contract law will operate.
I should like to give an example which will, I hope, illustrate this point. The Wye-Severn Bridge complex is currently administered on both sides of the Border by the Avon County Council. The Welsh Assembly might very well wish to continue this arrangement. If it did so, responsibility for the maintenance of the roads in the Welsh part of that complex would remain with the Assembly, and if the citizen wished to complain about the state of the roads, his complaint would lie against the Assembly. Any failure on behalf of Avon County Council to maintain the road surface to a satisfactory standard would be dealt with under normal agency arrangements, so that the Assembly would seek redress against the council in the normal way that it would seek to resolve any contractual dispute.
That deals to some extent with the first Amendment. With regard to the others, I do not know whether the noble Lord is asking me to give an explanation on remuneration and other matters. I hope that what I have said provides a broad account of our position on the clause.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. The nub of what I was looking for was the normal principles of contract, because I was concerned about how a lay eye would view a situation where a function was being discharged for one authority by another which failed in such a way that it damaged the body receiving it to discharge the function. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture
1354
might knock down something with a bulldozer when it was supposed to be grading a road adjacent to a building. One wonders where the responsibility would lie in such circumstances. I suppose that the lawyer's eye would at once see that this would not be a responsibility; it would be a liability. The noble Lord has made that clear to me, and I thank him for it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.43 a.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 84M:
Page 15, line 16, at end insert ("and the authority on whose behalf the functions are discharged shall remunerate in full the authority which discharged the functions.").
The noble Lord said: We have now established a contractual relationship, and I should be interested to know what are the principles behind the costing of it. Of course there are endless permutations of the kind of authorities that may be involved, but rather than elaborate examples, I should like to know from the noble Lord whether the transactions covered by the clause will be reflected in the accounts of the bodies concerned. If large sums of money are being dealt with, the matter may be quite important. If the Assembly is doing something for a Ministry—rather than the other way round—it would not be fair that this should end up by being paid for by the Welsh out of their block grant, when it ought to be borne by the Treasury out of United Kingdom taxation. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The Amendment seeks to provide that the principal on behalf of whom the functions are discharged shall reimburse the agent, unless other arrangements are agreed. This is not provided for in the Bill because it is unnecessary. The conferring of the power to enter into contracts of agency carries with it the right to enter into arrangements regarding reimbursement. Even if there were no express terms as to reimbursement in the contract, the payment of reasonable reimbursement may be implied from the circumstances of the case. In the vast majority of cases it will no doubt be agreed between the parties that the agent's expenses should be

1355
reimbursed by the principal. So, for example, where the Welsh Assembly is the principal, the agent's expenses will ordinarily fall on the block fund. In our judgment, there is certainly no need to provide expressly for this. If the principal, on whichever side he may be, makes a bad bargain, he will be held to account by the usual Parliamentary, or Assembly, processes.
Lord ELTON: I think that that is as much as I can take on board at this stage, and I shall read it with interest. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.45 a.m.
Lord ELTONhad given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 84N:
Page 15, line 19, at end insert ("in Wales").
The noble Lord said: We need not, I think, spend much time on this, because from what the noble Lord has said it is clear that the arrangements which have been described take place across the Border, not only from the Assembly to Government but also, potentially, from the Assembly to local authority. That being the case, I can see that this Amendment would stultify the necessary arrangements. With that explanation, I will not move this Amendment.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Provision of information]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 85:
Leave out Clause 39 and insert the following new clause:
Provision of information
("39. The Welsh Assembly shall send to the Secretary of State such reports and returns and give him such information with respect to the exercise of its functions as the Secretary of State may require or as may be required by either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 39 provides for the provision of information. Where the Secretary of State requires information "relating to the exercise of functions by the Assembly", then he may require it. The re-phrasing suggested in the Amendment is designed to elicit the circumstances under which this may be necessary and the procedures which will bring it about. I do not wish the noble Lord to detain the Committee at great length upon this, but
1356
it seems to me that, since we are talking about putting Wales at arm's length, as it were, in some respects, we wish to be sure that the arm, at least, is aware of what is going on. I have chosen a very bad simile; I am sorry. We want to establish that there is a sensitive and viable connection between the functions of the Secretary of State and those of the Assembly in so far as they rest upon the passage of necessary information between the two. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: It may be of some help if I explain the general intentions behind this clause, and I will do it, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, invited me to, as briefly as is appropriate in all the circumstances. I think this is a very simple and short clause, intended more as a back-up power than for regular use. Ordinarily, the Welsh Assembly could be expected to co-operate in providing necessary information to the Secretary of State, but there could be circumstances in which either side, or both, would feel happier if there were statutory powers in the background.
The sort of information which the Government may need to obtain for United Kingdom purposes is information about devolved matters which is relevant to non-devolved matters or required for the proper discharge of non-devolved responsibilities—for example, about trends in secondary education, which would affect the planning of university provision or demand for student awards—or information which needs to be produced on a consistent United Kingdom basis to meet requests or requirements from international organisations, such as United Nations bodies or the European Economic Community. There are a number of examples which one could give, such as health statistics for the World Health Organisation, or social statistics for the EEC. I do not know whether the noble Lord would like me to go on at any greater length. I could, if he would like me to do so, go into greater detail, but that, broadly speaking, is the purpose and intention of this clause.
Lord ELTON: That is admirably clear. The point that the noble Lord has not picked up in the Amendment—and neither did I at the outset—is the point that, under the Bill as drafted, the contact is always

1357
going to be through a Minister of the Crown making a request, is it not? Under the Amendment, the request may be made by either House of Parliament. I really do not think this is a principle we want to delve into in great depth at the moment, but I would have thought that the noble Lord's brief would have contained some reaction to the suggestion that it might be open to Parliament to speak direct to the Assembly as well as to a Member of Parliament to speak to the Assembly. If there is a relevant paragraph, I think it would be interesting if we could hear it.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I will look into that point. We looked into this question at an earlier stage and we decided that the reference to Parliament was unnecessary because Parliament is sovereign. In any event, its Select Committees can require persons or papers without any specific statutory powers. Standing committees could obtain any information by asking the Minister on the Committee to request the information from the Welsh Assembly through the Secretary of State. That deals with the particular point raised by the noble Lord.
Lord ELTON: Very adequately. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Welsh Consolidated Fund and Loans Fund]:
2.51 a.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE The Earl of GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 85A:
Page 15, line 28, leave out from ("Fund") to end of line 32.
The noble Earl said: We now come to the financial provisions of the Bill. As the Secretary of State for Wales in the present Government said when introducing this Bill that the system of financing the devolved services will be crucial to the success of devolution, we believe that our proposals for a block fund and related arrangements are fair and practical. In the best of all possible worlds one would not go to this crucial aspect of devolution (as the Secretary of State put it) at
1358
3 o'clock in the morning. Our intention is to investigate whether they are as practical and fair as can be achieved; our Amendments are down to try to arrive at that purpose.
My noble friend Lord Elton told me that the Committee does not like to have a lot of Amendments moved together en bloc as it finds that rather confusing. Therefore I shall try to avoid doing this. But since the financial provisions and arrangements are really one debate and since we must debate this before we can make sense of the individual Amendments or the Government's responses to them, I hope—and I am in the hands of the Committee—I may be allowed to debate certain of these Amendments together and then perhaps move them separately.
I do not want to engage in any pretences. I must, frankly, say that it is not my intention to divide this evening but to get the finance debate over, so to speak, to see what the Government have to say to it and then return and look at our own Amendments again in the light of the Government responses. I am therefore going to talk to Amendment No. 85A, to Amendment No. 87B, to my manuscript Amendment to Clause 44, to Amendments Nos. 92D to 92H and to the manuscript Amendments to Clause 58. In other words, I am going to have the rate support grant and block grant debate appropriately en bloc. But, in order to avoid confusion, when the debate is over, I will move the Amendments individually and formally.
I think we must start by looking at the present system of local government financing in Wales. It is, in brief, a negotiation between the local authorities in Wales and the Secretary of State as to what amount of rate support grant should annually be allocated. Under the present Bill, the Secretary of State is to pay the Welsh Assembly—this new body —a block grant. This block grant is to include a notional figure for regional support grant. In other words, the Welsh Assembly will decide how much regional support grant is going to be necessary in any given case to any given local authority.
The Welsh Assembly can either pay out money to a Welsh local authority or it can withhold monies, as I understand it,

1359
without having to refund the block grant back to the Secretary of State, back to Central Government, as it were. If there were to be a cut in the block grant or in the amount of rate support grant which the Welsh Assembly was handing out, the individual local authority would have to raise rates. We are a little anxious that this is an effective piece of back-door taxation and that, therefore, we may be getting into a potentially tricky situation and we want some Government reassurance on this point.
We feel that the general guidelines should be that the additional costs of the Welsh Assembly itself, and the work that it has to do, should come off the general block grant from Central Government rather than be additional to it. I think that one of the political problems that we have with devolution generally is that, on the one hand, people want to have greater control and greater involvement in their affairs but, on the other hand, the general movement is equally and forcefully towards economies in public spending and increases of public accountability. Our job here as a Parliament as a whole is to try to steer between these two somewhat contradictory positions.
The point has been raised in the devolution debates, not only on this Bill but on the Scotland Bill, that if tax raising is to be divorced from tax spending, then power will naturally gravitate towards tax raising power. In this sense, the Assembly can be seen as setting in train in a paradoxical manner an anti-devolutionary process. The Layfield Report argued for,
"either adopting a financial system which frankly recognised need for strong central direction or … taking positive steps to increase the ability of local authorities to manage local affairs. If that is not done "—
the report went on—
"we believe that there is bound to be an increasing shift of power to the centre, but in circumstances in which responsibility for expenditure and local taxation will continue to be confused."
Layfield stated:
"We are convinced that, unless increased powers of local decision are matched by greater control by local authorities over their sources of revenue, the combination of financial and political forces will continue to push in the direction of greater, not less, central control".
That, again, is one of the difficulties that we have to steer throughout the entire devolution debate.
My honourable friend, Mr. David Price, during the debates on the Scotland Bill, raised this very issue and itemised the conflicts it might cause. He said:
"The Scottish Executive will have lots of things to do but the power to control money will not be passed to it. I can think of nothing which is more designed to produce 'aggro' between Edinburgh and Whitehall than that."—[Official Report (Commons), 22/11/77; col. 1362.]
Originally the Labour Party did recognise this problem in the context of Wales and it demanded that the Assembly should have a degree of financial independence commensurate with its responsibilities. To settle for less, it felt, would be a negation of the principles on which British local government is based.
Thus, to give the Assembly the requisite amount of independence, the Labour Party paper held out for a personal income tax levied in Wales and a right to levy and utilise certain minor taxes on capital as well as stamp duties and selective employment tax. These proposals ran into opposition, as might have been expected, from the national Labour Party and, indeed, from the Treasury which was particularly concerned about retaining control over national demand management.
As a result, therefore, the Government suggested the centrally determined annual block grant to fund the Welsh Assembly. The Government left the doors very much open on the subject of local revenue power. In the July 1977 White Paper we read the lines:
"The Government will be ready to consider incorporating the necessary revenue-raising powers in subsequent legislation."
The White Paper went on:
"There is no call for — Welsh taxpayers to carry a higher permanent burden of taxation than elsewhere".
But taxation does have a way of becoming permanent once one starts off on any given tax road, despite good intentions. It seems to us to be doubted that Welsh taxpayers will be overjoyed to hear that their burden of taxation is not to be permanently higher but only higher from time to time. Nor is it much of an incentive to industry to locate in regions where additional local taxes are imposed.
Professor Tait of the University of Strathclyde regards the proposed annual block grant system as unstable and as one which would gradually lead to separation

1361
as a result of constitutional conflict. He says in The Economics of Devolution, an essay written in 1975:
"This is the classic knife-edge position. Either the position is one where powerful central Government is prepared to take politically unpopular decisions to restrain strong, affluent regions, or these regions which are weak and require expansion start to behave as independent countries. The inbetween stages can be unstable."
My honourable friend, Mr. Timothy Raison, pointed out in the debate on Scotland and Wales that the annual block grant system would be bound to produce bad feeling among other regions of the United Kingdom. It seems to us that the force of his argument is that in the scramble for national resources the block grant system gives considerable advantage to the regions operating it with the force of Assemblies behind them. The English then would naturally resent what was happening, and so would Ulster people. Therefore our general feeling, in the context of the financial background to the Bill, is that the financial provisions could, if we are not careful, create a regular conflict between Wales and Westminster, and therefore endanger the unity of the United Kingdom; could raise questions of democratic accountability, and could indeed threaten some extra taxation in Wales. We must remember that the rate support grant system, which I shall come to in just a moment, constitutes over half the whole block grant, and the powers of the Welsh Assembly to withhold a rate support grant without refunding it could cause hostility and jealousy, if you like, in England as well as in Ulster.
The position under the present Bill, therefore, is that the Welsh Assembly now rather than the Secretary of State, as previously, will negotiate with local authorities what they want in the form of rate support grant. With the exception of the specific grants, that is to say, for example, for the police, which will form a small proportion of the total rate support grant and which will go straight to local authorities, the Assembly will allocate the rate support grant as between the authorities themselves. So the sums allocated will come out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund, which is negotiated by the Assembly and by the Secretary of State.
It seems to us that in this negotiation there will clearly be certain conflicts of argument. The Assembly will argue that they need so much for education, so much for water, so much for health, and so on; and then they will try to itemise what, in addition to those specifies, they will need for rate support grant. But surely the point of devolution is that the Assembly can choose, if it wishes, less than a certain given figure for education. It will decide how much it may spend of these overall items and can choose whether to spend more on any other given item. We, of course, do not dispute that it should have this right, but the net result will be that there must be some sort of figure which may be assumed to suffice for rate support grant.
In the Bill the figure is not specified. It is hidden; it is concealed, as it were, within the total block grant. What we find objectionable here is that the Assembly can negotiate a figure for rate support grant with the local authorities, can obtain this figure from the Secretary of State, from central Government, as part of the overall block grant; but can then either not allocate it to the Welsh local authorities themselves or, worse still, can spend that money on something else. This is the time when nearly all political Parties are agreed that Government spending has to be watched with extreme care.
The Amendments we have put down require the rate support grant figure to be specified, and require the Assembly to distribute the whole specified figure. If our Amendments should be passed, the Assembly will still, of course, have the power of allocation as between the individual authorities; and the Assembly will still have the power to pay a very small rate support grant to the authorities, because it can simply ask for a small rate support grant allowance from the Secretary of State. And it will still be able to pay money for rate support grant from outside the specific figure: that is to say, from outside the rest of the overall block grant.
The two Amendments which I have put down in manuscript—and I apologise for this—were designed on the original understanding that we would probably not debate the financial provisions until Friday. I am glad that we have had a

1363
chance to have the general debate before then, but I think noble Lords on all sides will appreciate that that change put us in some difficulties. I beg to move.
3.6 a.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Earl has, perfectly reasonably, made a Second Reading speech on his whole group of Amendments. I shall reply at rather greater length than I otherwise would, because I am dealing with a whole group of Amendments about which he will no doubt decide how to proceed after I have spoken. Let me first take the general question of tax raising, which the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, raised at the outset. The Government's position on this question was set out in paragraph 65 of the White Paper Devolution: Financing the Devolved Services, to which the noble Earl referred. The Government certainly are not opposed to limited supplementary tax powers to finance optional extra spending, but no one has yet identified a suitable tax for this purpose. The Government have, in this situation, undertaken to discuss possibilities with the Assembly in due course, but if agreement on this question is reached a programme of primary legislation will be needed at Westminster.
The noble Earl, perfectly reasonably, began with the first of his Amendments, No. 85A, and I shall now turn to that. He raised a number of questions related to this clause about the operation of the Welsh Consolidated Fund and the Welsh Loans Fund, and I should like to say a few words about the different purposes of those two funds. To start off with the present position, the capital spending needs of Ministers and their Departments, as well as their current spending needs, are met from moneys voted by Parliament; that is, out of the Consolidated Fund. But the capital needs of many public bodies which are responsible to Ministers are met by borrowing. In certain cases, this borrowing takes place from the Minister himself, who obtains the money from the National Loans Fund. Advances made by Ministers in this way have to be repaid with interest at the appropriate rate.
The arrangements laid down in the Bill mirror these national arrangements. The current and capital needs of the Welsh Assembly will be met from the Welsh
1364
Consolidated Fund, which will be financed by the block fund to be voted by Parliament. The capital needs of public bodies for which responsibility is transferred to the Assembly will continue to be met by borrowing. In cases where such borrowing takes place at present from the National Loans Fund, through a Minister, it will take place in future from the Welsh Loans Fund through the Assembly. The Welsh Loans Fund will be supplied from the National Loans Fund by the Secretary of State.
The Welsh Loans Fund, accordingly, is not a source of finance for the Assembly's own spending, but for spending by various public bodies operating in devolved fields, which will look to it for repayable advances to finance their capital expenditure. The bodies concerned are those to whom advances are made under the Acts listed in Schedule 6 to the Bill, notably—and let me give some obvious examples—new town development corporations and water authorities, which we have spent a fair amount of time discussing already. What we have sought to do in the Bill is to match the national arrangements as closely as possible, while recognising the need for the bodies concerned to account in future to the Assembly and not to Ministers. The arrangements are identical with those contained in the Scotland Bill, to which your Lordships' House has agreed.
I do not propose to go into any more detail so far as this Amendment is concerned, although, if the noble Earl invites me to do so, I shall. He raised a number of other questions, and I think that I ought to try to deal with them. So far as the noble Earl's questions on the rate support grant is concerned, if it is convenient both to him and to the Committee I think that I ought to deal with them. At the moment I am referring to the phraseology of Amendment No. 87 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne. If this Amendment were to be taken literally, we should have to advise the Committee that it would be unnecessary and misleading and, indeed for these reasons, undesirable.
First, in our view it is unnecessary, because it is clear from Clause 58 and from Schedule 2 that responsibility for payment of the rate support grant is to be transferred to the Assembly. Clause 58

1365
provides that it will be paid out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund. Secondly, the Amendment is misleading because rate support is only one of the forms of central Government expenditure on devolved matters which will have to be paid out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund. Others —for example, spending on the health services, housing subsidies and transport subsidies—are all matters of great importance, and that is the way in which they will be dealt with. Thirdly, to carry this Amendment would be misleading, because it would be wrong, in our view, to specify rate support grant alone.
Finally, the Amendment is undesirable because it would take payments of rate support grant out of the arrangements by which spending must be in accordance with the appropriation orders made by the Assembly as a whole and turn such payments into some kind of special charge upon the Fund. The Government accept, however, that there has been some misunderstanding as to how the rate support grant arrangements will work after devolution. Therefore, it is helpful to have had this Amendment tabled by the noble Earl. If he would like any more detail on this question of rate support grant, it might be more sensible, in view of the hour, if I were to write to him. However, if the noble Earl would prefer me to go into greater detail now, I should be prepared to do so. However, I think that the most appropriate course of action is for me to go into this matter by correspondence with the noble Earl, and that I shall gladly do.
So far as Amendment No. 87B is concerned, the words proposed to be left out are, in our view, a necessary part of the arrangements provided for in Clause 42(3) for accounting for sums received by the Welsh Assembly. Sums received by way of repayment of advances from the Welsh Loans Fund or payments of interest on such advances should clearly be paid into the Welsh Loans Fund, as Clauses 55 and 56 require, and not into the Welsh Consolidated Fund.
In the light of what I have said already, I think that the most appropriate course is to ensure that the words uttered by the noble Earl are carefully examined. I shall deal with such other matters as he has
1366
raised by correspondence, in good time for the noble Earl to deal with this matter, if he wishes to do so, at the Report stage.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I agree with him. I do not think that this is the time to go into the details of the rate support grant. However, we reserve our right to return to this subject on Report. I should like to examine my Amendments in the light of what the noble Lord said this evening, and also in the light of his answers to those parts of my speech where I itemised some of our anxieties, which he is very welcome to send to me in the form of correspondence. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Payments out of Welsh Consolidated Fund].
3.16 a.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 15, line 35, leave out from ("General") to end of line 36.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment to discover quite why the Government have specifically removed from the Assembly the need to have credits granted on the fund by the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor-General when transfers are made from one fund to the other. All other payments out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund require the granting of credits. These grants appear to be the only exception. There may well be a good reason for this which has so far eluded me. I am not in any way suggesting that such transfers need a special monitoring, but since all other payments come, so to speak, under the eye of the Welsh Comptroller I see no reason why these transfers should not do so as well. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The Bill reflects the United Kingdom financial arrangement of a Consolidated Fund and a National Loans Fund. Clause 40 of the Bill sets up a Welsh Consolidated and a Welsh Loans Fund—we have just discussed this point—and subsection (2) provides for transfers between these two Funds, which reflects provisions

1367
of the National Loans Act, 1968. That is the answer to the noble Lord's point.
The prime purpose of the provision in subsection (2) is to enable short term deficits in one Fund to be offset by balances in the other, thus keeping to a minimum the need to use the necessarily more expensive short-term borrowing powers provided by Clause 46. Transfers of this kind, occasioned by fluctuations in cash flow, may require to be made at extremely short notice when accounts are made up at the end of a particular day. It would greatly reduce the value of the facility if separate authority was required from the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General for each transfer. But in any case a transfer is not an expenditure and there is no need, in the Government's view, to impose the safeguard of requiring a creidt from the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 16, line 8, at end insert ("or
(c) is to he distributed to local authorities in Wales under section 58 below").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make sure that the rate support grant is not used for any purpose other than that for what it is intended. Perhaps I shall be told that this will be included under subsection 2(b), but as the amount involved for the year 1977–78 is £463 million, I should like to make sure. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: This in fact was one of the matters to which I referred in dealing with the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, when I said that I would ensure that a letter was sent to him explaining the matter in some detail. To be blunt, it would take a formidable amount of time to explain this question. A letter might be the most sensible way in which to proceed.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Appropriation of sums forming part of Welsh Consolidated Fund and destination of receipts]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 87A:
Page 16, line 15, at end insert ("or a purpose for which they are payable out of that Fund under this Act or any other Act of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to close a small but important gap in the provisions contained in Clauses 41 and 42. Clause 41 provides that sums may be paid out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund in two particular sets of circumstances. The first is where they are directly charged on the Fund as, for example, the salary and pension of the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General—and that matter is dealt with by Clause 50(5). The second is where they are part of sums appropriated for a specific purpose by an Assembly order. Subsection (1) of Clause 42, as it stands, provides that sums may be appropriated only for a purpose for which the Assembly may exercise its powers.
This leaves a gap, since the Bill may provide for sums to be paid out of the Fund (without "charging" them on it in the technical sense of that term) and the purpose of the payment may be one for which the Assembly does not exercise powers. A clear example is the expenses of the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General's Department. The Amendment closes this gap by providing that any sums payable out of the Fund (but not charged) can be the subject of appropriation orders, even if they relate to matters for which the Assembly itself does not exercise powers other than payment of the money concerned. Such expenditures will thus receive the approval of the Assembly, operating in full session. I beg to move.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I had a question which I wished to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on the last Amendment, but perhaps I am too late. Would that be out of order?
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I did not realise that the noble Earl wished to speak to that Amendment but I put it and the Committee has accepted it, so it would be right to go on.
[Amendment No. 87B not moved.]
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Payments out of Welsh Loans Fund]:
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Payments into Welsh Consolidated Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament]:
[Manuscript Amendment No. 88E not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Short term borrowing.]:
[Amendments Nos. 88A to 88D not moved.]
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I now move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

THEATRES TRUST (SCOTLAND) BILL
7 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Ilarmar-Nicholls.)

NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS AND ELECTRICITY (FINANCE) BILL
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 o'clock.
[Sitting suspended from 7.1 p.m. until 8 p.m.]

  PUBLIC CORPORATIONS: NUMBERS EMPLOYED
  PUBLIC CORPORATIONS: NUMBERS EMPLOYED
  THE BOSPHORUS: PASSAGE OF SOVIET SUBMARINES
  THE BOSPHORUS: PASSAGE OF SOVIET SUBMARINES
  ARMED SERVICES: APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE
  ARMED SERVICES: APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE
  FORESTRY COMMISSION AND SCOTLAND: AFFORESTATION PLANS
  FORESTRY COMMISSION AND SCOTLAND: AFFORESTATION PLANS
  EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION: COST TO PUBLIC FUNDS
  EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION: COST TO PUBLIC FUNDS