Sitting of 1 March 1978

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

    Speed Limits
    Mr. MacGregorasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the question of giving local authorities more discretion in deciding speed limits in their own local areas.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): Except on trunk roads, speed limits are already the responsibility of local authorities. On principal roads they must consult the Department before making changes, but my right hon. Friend and I are always prepared to listen sympathetically to local opinion, subject, of course, to the general need for consistency on major roads.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister accept that this issue continues to cause acute concern for villages on principal roads in my constituency, the inhabitants of which feel totally unprotected against heavy traffic, including the juggernauts which now speed through them? Is he aware that the main obstacle appears to be the departmental criteria which prevent action on this front? Therefore, will he consider giving responsibility wholly to the local highway authorities and rely on their good judgment and sense, in view of the fact that their representatives see the situation constantly on the ground?
    Mr. Horam: I accept that there is concern, as the hon. Gentleman has said. I share that concern. I cannot undertake to give authority and responsibility solely to local authorities, because there
    434
    obviously is a need for consistency over the whole country. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are having consultations on revised criteria for speed limits. These may well propose lower criteria for obtaining a speed limit, and I think that this will help with the general problem about which I am concerned.
    Mr. Bagier: Will my hon. Friend say what he means by "local" when he talks about local authorities? Is he aware that the Tyne and Wear metropolitan county authority, for example, which has insisted on increasing speed limits on various roads throughout the metropolitan county, is being opposed completely and absolutely by the representatives of both authorities inside the Sunderland borough authority within the metropolitan county? Their opinions are not being taken notice of and they are being overruled by the metropolitan county council, with apparently no further appeal. Will he look at this problem?
    Mr. Horam: This apparently arises where there is a division of power between the two tiers of local government. It is endemic to the situation. Without any change within those responsibilities, there is little that the Department can do about it.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend and recognise the real concern of local people about these matters, but will the Minister tread very warily in moving away from the principle of there being national criteria, because the essential point is that the motorist should be able to recognise consistency of speed limits wherever he is?
    Will he also make known to the House at a fairly early stage what sort of changes he has in mind in the number of vehicle and passenger movements in suggesting altered criteria?
    Mr. Horam: I have not suggested that we were moving away from a necessity to have national criteria. That remains the case. I think I made that plain in my earlier answer. However, I certainly feel that local authorities should bear in mind their responsibilities and should take account of local opinion, which can be strong in these matters. For example, a parish council, which has very few other powers, may well feel that to apply a

    435
    speed limit is the one thing it can do to protect its community. On the hon. Gentleman's final point, I undertake to inform the House as soon as we have any firm proposals.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for shorter questions and answers.

    M1 (Expenditure)
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Transport how much money his Department is planning to spend on repairs and reconstruction of the M1 and the bridges over it from Luton south to London between the present and 31st December 1978.
    Mr. Horam: About £200,000.
    Mr. Madel: If the bridges on the two-lane stretch of the M1 there are not in a dangerous state, why spend money on them this year, apparently to make them waterproof, thereby causing huge congestion when they will have to be completely reconstructed in the 1980s in order to build the third lane?
    Mr. Horam: The general answer is that a stitch in time saves nine. If we did something now we might be able to save further expenditure in the not-too-distant future. There may be some delay on the Ml as a result of the patching to those three bridges, but it will last only five weeks, starting from 4th April. So it will be a short delay. I assure the hon. Gentleman that those repairs are necessary.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Is my hon. Friend proposing to take any steps to decrease the danger in fog on this area of motorway and, indeed, as it stretches up to the North?
    Mr. Horam: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will read the new Highway Code carefully when it is published shortly. I am sure that he will, knowing his personal concern about the matter.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Will the Minister take another look at the entrance to the M1 where, apart from off-peak periods, there is a continuous snarl-up of traffic?
    Mr. Horam: I note the hon. Gentleman's point, though it is something that is likely to persist, whichever party is in power.

    Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Transport how many officials are currently employed in the complaints department of the Swansea vehicle licensing centre; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): Two units—which deal with over 30,000 inquiries a week, only a proportion of which are complaints—have a combined total of 445 staff. Certain other staff also handle complaints as a part of their work.
    Mr. Gow: Although it goes very much against the grain for me to say it, will the Secretary of State understand that there is a need to increase the staff in the complaints department? Is it not a fact that this 25-acre site, employing 5,500 staff of his Department, has proved the greatest bureaucratic shambles of all time?
    Mr. Rodgers: No, I do not think that it has. There have been problems—I do not deny that—but I think that there has been a marked improvement at the centre over the past six months, and we should be glad about that.
    Mr. Anderson: I welcome the concern of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) for extra employment in my constituency, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the great bulk of inquiries derives from errors in form filling by applicants? Moreover, given the considerable throughput at the centre, is not the amount of justified complaint very small, and may not the constant carping campaign of denigration be harmful to morale at the centre?
    Mr. Rodgers: I think that all that my hon. Friend says is correct. Many of the problems were not foreseen when the centre was established. Equally, I think that, initially, mistakes were made. But matters are getting very much better, and the centre deals with an extremely large number of inquiries.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Can the Secretary of State give an example of a bigger bureaucratic shambles?
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Since the vehicle licence fee is an inequitable and regressive tax, would it not be better to abolish it, and the centre as well?
    Mr. Rodgers: There are strong arguments for abolishing the tax, which I recognise, but I am afraid that we should still have to deal with other problems in keeping track of vehicles for road safety and law enforcement reasons. Therefore, I cannot promise that the centre will not continue to exist.
    Mr. Norman Fowler: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it is not good enough just to blame the public? Is it not plain that the number of complaints about the Swansea centre must be a cause of genuine concern? In other cases where there have been complaints—for example, about motorway service areas—the Secretary of State has set up an independent inquiry. Will he now agree to set up such an inquiry into the efficiency of the Swansea centre?
    Mr. Rodgers: Neither today nor at any other time have I blamed the public in any way. As I have made clear, the performance of the Swansea centre has been improving, and I think that we should be glad about that. If the hon. Gentleman wants to satisfy himself in this respect, I shall be glad to welcome him—or any other hon. Member—to see the centre first-hand.

    Bus Services
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made with the monitoring of bus services on the periphery of London.
    Mr. Horam: This is a continuous process.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Why cannot my constituents in Waltham Abbey and Epping have a direct bus to the Underground into London? Would that not make some money? Second, is the Minister satisfied that minibus operators are being enabled to come in alongside the present monopoly, which cannot maintain even its inadequate advertised services?
    Mr. Horam: I think that the London Country Bus Service company has had problems arising from difficulties stemming from its original inheritance of vehicles and the sort of repair workshops which it took over. I understand that it hopes to renovate these with reasonable speed, although there will be difficulties for some time. I shall draw
    438
    the specific points made by the hon. Gentleman to the attention of the chairman of the company.
    Mr. Spearing: Since the taxpayer supports a good deal of our bus services throughout the country, does my hon. Friend lay a responsibility on local authorities to obtain from operators a realistic assessment of their service to the public, especially on non-timetable routes?
    Mr. Horam: Certainly, we look at the the whole of a county council's approach to its bus service, the revenue support which it gives and the way in which it plans its services. We intend to reinforce that control and investigation through the Transport Bill at present going through the House.
    Mr. McCrindle: When the Minister has a word with those responsible for London Transport services on such points as those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), will he satisfy himself that, as population has moved over the past decade away from central London to such places as Epping and Ongar, the bus services have kept pace in those outer London areas?
    Mr. Horam: I note that point and I undertake to look into it.

    A38, Saltash-Trerulefoot
    Mr Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state his Department's preferred route in respect of the A38 trunk road improvement between Saltash and Trerulefoot.
    Mr. Horam: We hope to do so in April.
    Mr. Hicks: I am grateful for that information. When is it likely that a public inquiry will be held, based on the preferred line of route? Second, when is work likely to commence?
    Mr. Horam: For the section from Saltash to Trerulefoot, I am afraid that I cannot give the date for a public inquiry. It will depend on the decision which we reach following the public consultation, and then publication of the orders. Until then, we cannot come to the public inquiry. As for the date of opening, we are thinking in terms of 1983–85. That is the date so far given.

    Lorry Routes
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Secretary of State for Transport what new initiatives he proposes in concert with the appropriate local authorities to achieve a cut-back in heavy vehicles using city and town centres and the immediate residential areas.
    Mr. Horam: The Government advised local authorities, with which the powers to control heavy lorries reside, on the exercise of these powers in the White Paper on transport policy. Supplementary advice on the use of traffic management schemes has been given since, and another circular, just issued, gives guidance on the use of signs for advisory lorry routes where mandatory restrictions may not be feasible. These initiatives need time to have their full effect.
    Mr. Smith: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that, despite various proposals and regulations made over the years, in our town and city centres today there are more heavy lorries than ever using the roads? Secondly, is he aware that in residential areas these same lorries are doing enormous environmental damage? In all the circumstances, should not the Department of Transport take a lead in bringing together the various local authorities to ensure that there is a cut-back in the number of lorries using these areas?
    Mr. Horam: As the hon. Gentleman may be aware—I am sure that he is, from events in Kenilworth, in his constituency—my Department is taking the lead in trying to bring together the local authorities on which responsibility rests for applying restrictions of this kind. As for the hon. Gentleman's own area, if the local authorities can bring forward a scheme which will ease the problem in places such as Kenilworth, we shall be only too happy to help.
    Mr. John Ellis: What is happening about my hon. Friend's inquiry into drivers' overnight accommodation? Does he realise that accommodation for thousands of drivers is either non-existent or utterly inadequate? If the accommodation were improved, would it not stop drivers having to take their vehicles into the centres of our towns and cities, where they have to go now if they want to have a kip?
    Mr. Horam: I agree with my hon. Friend. If we can provide better facilities for lorry drivers, we shall solve some of the problems which are plaguing towns and villages throughout the country. As he is aware, we are talking about this problem to the Transport and General Workers' Union, among others, and I am sure that we shall eventually be able to make progress.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Are there in the Department any figures to show how many 32-ton vehicles passing through city centres actually have to go there and how many could take an alternative route?
    Mr. Horam: That sounds a rather theoretical question, but I shall see whether we have such figures in the Department.
    Mr. Conlan: Will my hon. Friend recognise that, so long as he and his Department insist on levying tolls on the Tyne tunnel, there will be a disincentive to lorry drivers to use that tunnel, with resulting overcrowding in an area of Gateshead which he knows well, namely, Low Fell?
    Mr. Horam: I am well aware of the problems of Gateshead, as my hon. Friend is, but I must remind him that the principle on which tolls are levied on tunnels and bridges has been well understood from Government to Government, namely, that the user must pay for a very big facility. If the user does not pay, the ratepayer or taxpayer will have to pay. Moreover, I think that the Tyne tunnel is pretty well full to capacity even with tolls, so I am not sure that Gateshead would gain any benefit from a reduction in tolls there.

    Drivers' Hours
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Transport what advantages will accrue to the United Kingdom when the EEC regulations on drivers' hours are introduced.
    Mr. William Rodgers: It is difficult to be sure, given the United Kingdom's long record in road safety and working conditions. However, we inherited certain obligations on accession to the Community and I am sure we shall adjust.
    Mr. Marten: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Commission that, while the drivers' hours proposal may be valid for vehicles going to the Continent, in this country the employers do not want it, the employees do not want it and the customers do not want it, because of the rising costs? Will he tell the Community that while such a proposal may be suitable for Continental countries it is irrelevant and unwanted in this island country of ours?
    Mr. Rodgers: I have probably expressed a view very similar to that of the hon. Gentleman, but in more diplomatic language—I make no criticism of the hon. Gentleman—in the course of the very long and difficult negotiations leading to the agreement on 17th October last. But my view now is that we must see what we can do over a period of time to persuade others of our partners that there is a good case for a modification of Regulation 543.
    Mr. Litterick: The House appreciates my right hon. Friend's concern for road safety and for the prevention of accidents, but will he explain why it has taken his Department so long to warn the public of the serious and dangerous mechanical defects in the Volkswagen Scirocco and Golf models, which have been sold in this country?
    Mr. Rodgers: I confess that I do not know the answer to that question, or even whether it is the role of my Department to deal with defects of that kind in motor vehicles. But I shall look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Speaker: It has nothing to do with this Question, either.
    Mr. Adley: Does the Secretary of State agree that the use of tachographs could overcome some of the restrictions on distance which are inherent in the regulations? Will he now publicly support voluntary agreements entered into between employers and unions on the fitting of tachographs?
    Mr. Rodgers: There is no restriction at all on voluntary agreements on the fitting of tachographs. As the House knows, the use of tachographs on international journeys is something that is taken for granted because the law of the land must apply. The hon. Gentleman, unwittingly, possibly confuses Regulation 543 in
    442
    respect of journeys of 450 kilometres with the wider issue of the general use of tachographs on goods vehicles.

    Trunk Roads
    Mr. Buchananasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is yet able to indicate which major trunk road schemes he will not now proceed with in the light of the recommendations of the Leitch Committee.
    Mr. William Rodgers: No, but I shall report on the progress of the review in my forthcoming roads White Paper.
    Mr. Buchanan: Will my right hon. Friend indicate whether his Department will carry out the sensitivity tests suggested by the Leitch Report in order to determine what effect the new traffic forecasts will have on typical road schemes? Will he give a further assurance that traffic forecasts will not be revised in an upward direction in any cost-benefit analysis because of the uncertainty which exists about the future growth of traffic in this country?
    Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the uncertainty and to the extent to which the Leitch Committee has said that this should be taken account of in making our decision. We shall certainly take account of that. It is difficult to forecast the precise movement in the growth of traffic, and I would not want to try now. We shall do that and ensure that our decisions receive the sensitive attention that my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Mr. Fry: Before the Secretary of State either abandons any projects or downgrades them, will he confirm two facts—first, that according to the statistics the safest roads on which to travel are, overwhelmingly, motorways and, secondly, that although the road building programme has been savagely cut over recent years the figures show that the Government have underspent over the last two years by more than £200 million on their own budget?
    Mr. Rodgers: As the hon. Gentleman says, it certainly is the case that the safest roads are motorways. It is also the case that there has been some underspending—which is characteristic of the construction programme as a whole—for

    443
    reasons that we all know. All these factors will be taken into account. But it must be the case that there is a strong need for a new approach to road building which takes account of all the considerations set out in the Leitch Report.
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Secretary of State for Transport how long he expects the revision of the trunk roads programme that he proposes to make in view of the findings and recommendations of the Leitch Report, to take.
    Mr. William Rodgers: I shall announce progress in the forthcoming roads White Paper.
    Mr. Tuck: Does my right hon. Friend realise that much of this trunk road programme will result in great waste? Is he still determined to go ahead with the M40 between Oxford and Birmingham, in view of the fact that British Rail has extra capacity for 6 million passengers and 6 million tons of freight on that route alone? Is this not a prime example of the urgent need to transfer transport from road to rail?
    Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend makes a number of separate but related points. He will recall the decision on the form of road between Oxford and Birmingham, which was announced recently. We are very anxious to see that more freight is carried by rail, and my hon. Friend must agree that the road programme is substantially smaller than it was. However, there is still a substantial need for new roads for a number of good reasons.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is the Secretary of State aware that one new road that is needed urgently is the three miles or 4·8 kilometres through my part of Eltham?
    Mr. Rodgers: I know that that is the hon. Member's view. He has expressed it on many occasions. I accept it.
    Mr. Spearing: In answer to Question No. 8 my right hon. Friend used the word "sensitive" in relation to future decisions, subsequent to the Leitch Report. Will he tell the House whether he will consider roads where permission has been given for construction but this has not already started, and where construction would not have been authorised had the Leitch criteria been used? Will
    444
    he say in his forthcoming White Paper why the Government wish to go ahead with these schemes, if that is their view?
    Mr. Rodgers: Although we shall look at every decision sensitively, that does not mean that the roads will not be built. I cannot say that I shall please all my hon. Friends, or, indeed, anyone, when the review is completed. We are applying the Leitch criteria to roads in the existing pool, and we are making what I hope are sensible decisions in the light of those criteria and in the best interests of everyone concerned, taking account of all the conflicting factors.

    Motor Vehicles (Dipped Headlights)
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure the greater use of dipped headlights, as required by the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1971, S.I. 1971 No. 694, and 1975, S.I. 1975 No. 245.
    Mr. Horam: The new Highway Code to be published shortly will clearly enunciate the requirements for day- and nighttime use of headlights; guidance on their use in fog is also included in the fog code. We also use television to get the message across.
    Mr. Mawby: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, which shows that certainly the Department is on the ball in this matter. Does he realise that reflective signs, particularly reflective clothing on pedestrians, are useless unless headlights are used by the motorist in poor conditions? Will he do everything to impress upon motorists that when in doubt they should use their headlights?
    Mr. Horam: I think the hon. Gentleman has put it very well. My general advice to motorists is to use dipped headlights at night unless the road is well lit and always to use them on motorways and on high-speed roads even if these are well lit.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Will the Minister confirm that at present he is dealing with advice and good intentions and that his Ministry has no plans to introduce legislation relating to the compulsory use of dipped headlights at night.
    Mr. Horam: I confirm that.

    Metrication
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will include representatives of motorists in the consultations on his plans to change over from miles to kilometres.
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will include representatives of motorists in the consultations on his plans to change over from miles to kilometres.
    Mr. William Rodgers: I am making no such plans at the moment, but I am sure that any consultation would include motoring organisations.
    Mr. Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he state clearly to the House that there is no EEC obligation upon this country to change over from miles to kilometres? Is he aware that there appears to be no commercial or other advantage for the change? Will he tell the House why he has persistently failed fully to answer questions on the Government's policy in this matter, despite the many questions posed to him in the House and elsewhere?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am not aware that I have persistently refused to answer any question. The only questions on this matter that I am aware of were the ones asked before and at the last Transport Question Time, and I did my best to meet the wishes of the House and the anxieties that were expressed. It is perfectly clear that we have no direct obligation under EEC regulations to change from miles to kilometres, but a decision was made in 1968 to go metric. That was supported by subsequent Governments. That is the background to the discussion that is taking place. I have made it quite clear that I am not proposing to take any steps in that direction in the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Knox: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should embark upon the consultations as a matter of urgency in order to get a decision one way or another rather than just putting it off?
    Mr. Rodgers: I confess that I have other things to do. I thought that that was the view of the House as well.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: If there is no pressure from the EEC on this matter, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will listen to the authentic voice of the British people?
    Mr. Rodgers: I shall listen to the authentic voice of the British people, but, with respect to my hon. Friend, it is not always easy to know which that is. I must say to the House that, however passionately hon. Members feel about the matter, there is a younger generation that is a great deal more relaxed about the question of metrication and kilometres.
    Mr. Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he agrees to stick to miles I shall buy him a pint?
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the main point for going metric in 1968 was to harmonise in respect of export markets? Can he arrange to publish in the Official Report a list of those products which are exported and which have to be measured in miles or kilometres?
    Mr. Norman Fowler: Is not the position that there is no obligation to change from the mile and that overwhelmingly—surely the Secretary of State accepts this—the public do not want such a change? Given that fact, why does not the Secretary of State make it clear that the Government are opposed to any change and tell the Commission that no change will take place?
    Mr. Rodgers: Because I think it would be quite dishonest to say that. I rest exactly where I rested on the previous occasion, that this is a matter in which we have an obligation. I have to carry out consultations and to form a view. I think that is a proper way to proceed. I have also said—although it is not a matter for me—that if the House chooses to debate the matter I shall be glad to do so.
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will summarise the practical advantages of changing from miles to kilometres.
    Mr. William Rodgers: No, Sir. This is something to be assessed in the light of consultation.
    Mr. McCrindle: Will the Secretary of State re-read the Question, which asks

    447
    for something that, on the face of it, seems quite simple, namely, a summary of the advantages of moving from miles to kilometres? If, by implication, there is none, why is the right hon. Gentleman dithering before coming to the House with the obvious conclusion?
    Mr. Rodgers: We have already had a Question on this subject. I thought that it was a widely held view that on a matter of this importance there should be general consultation with the public. When we have the results of that public consultation we shall be able to make a decision to put before the House for approval.
    Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the 1968 decision to which he referred earlier was taken largely on the ground of the partial use of the metric system in the United States? Is he further aware that the United States uses miles and not kilometres?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am aware of that. It seems to be a further reason for our having full consultation in due course before reaching a decision.

    Roads (White Paper)
    Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his White Paper on roads.
    Mr. William Rodgers: Shortly, I hope.
    Mr. Cook: Will the Secretary of State accept that his recognition of the need for greater public information on roads expenditure is welcome? Is he aware that it will be even more welcome if, in his forthcoming White Paper, he commits himself to both "before" and "after" studies of road construction tests, so that we may know whether the traffic flow forecasts for these roads justify their construction under the Leitch criteria? There has been a tendency in the past to over-predict traffic flows.
    Mr. Rodgers: I agree with my hon. Friend. Once the roads are constructed, it is right to try to assess in retrospect whether the decision was wisely made, although some may say that we cannot do much about it then. I am anxious to have the best possible information on which to make these difficult decisions. My hon. Friends must realise that they
    448
    are difficult decisions and that some are bound to be controversial.
    Mr. Crawford: Will the Secretary of State give the go-ahead for making the whole of the A74 between Glasgow and Carlisle a motorway? How many more lives have to be lost before that is done?
    Mr. Rodgers: I cannot tell the hon. Member that today.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State tell us whether his forthcoming White Paper will examine the ways in which the transport supplementary grant can be spent? In Derbyshire the Tory-controlled council is refusing to spend the money available and this is resulting in anomalies in my constituency. Is it possible for the parish councils to spend money on the bussing of school children, as in Hilcote, in my constituency?
    Mr. Rodgers: The White Paper on roads will not go that wide. However, my hon. Friend makes an important point, which has a bearing on the transport supplementary grant in the next financial year. We are discussing this in the Transport Bill Committee.
    Mr. Fell: As the Government are determined to stay in the Common Market, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that all the East Coast ports could do with better roads to them? This would help our links with Europe.
    Mr. Rodgers: We have already made clear that we recognise that priorities have changed, and my major priority is good east-west links. This means that the East Anglian and the East Coast ports generally should have good roads.

    Lorries (Driving Test Fees)
    Mr. Fryasked the Secretary of State for Transport what the fee for a heavy goods vehicle driving test will be in March 1979; what it was 18 months ago; and what percentage increase this represents.
    Mr. Horam: The fee a year from now cannot be known with certainty, although we are consulting with the industry on an increase to £33·50. The present fee is £24.
    Mr. Fry: Does the Minister agree that although we appreciate that such services

    449
    have to cover costs, there has been a very large increase in recent years? This conflicts strangely with the constraints on the road haulage industry in restricting its own price increases. This is a very real difficulty.
    Mr. Horam: I accept that the increases have been big, taking account of the last one and the one proposed. The one that is proposed, however, does not go beyond the current rate of inflation. It is not out of line with what we consider to be reasonable.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will the Minister accede to the wishes of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) by increasing the taxation on heavy goods vehicles, as has been recommended frequently?
    Mr. Horam: That is a matter for the Chancellor. He took action in the last Budget, and no doubt he will consider it in future Budgets.

    Road Haulage Industry
    Mr. Goodladasked the Secretary of State for Transport, in view of the fact that there are no plans in the current Session to nationalise the road haulage industry, what advice he has given to the industry about its future.
    Mr. William Rodgers: Whoever owns the road haulage industry, it has a bright future as long as it provides a service that the country needs.
    Mr. Goodlad: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what advantage he thinks will be gained from an extension of nationalisation in the road haulage industry, as mentioned in the White Paper?
    Mr. Rodgers: The industry has had a mixed reputation. The experience of the National Freight Corporation in the great majority of its operations has shown how an effective part of the public sector can be a pace setter. I want to see the NFC grow in its activities and make a substantial contribution to the industrial life of this country.
    Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when we have got rid of the Lib-Lab pact and have a decent Labour majority in the House we shall be able to return to Socialist policies for transport? We shall be able to think
    450
    in terms of a considerable extension of nationalisation in the road haulage industry.
    Mr. Rodgers: I am not sure that I accept my lion. Friend's description of the present situation, but certainly when we have a new Parliament we shall he able to consider the clear commitment to enlarge the public sector in transport.
    Mr. Adley: Does the Secretary of State accept the viewpoint about the extension of nationalisation in the industry irrespective of the parliamentary position at present? Will he tell us who will be the beneficiaries of more nationalisation?
    Mr. Rodgers: This is not the occasion for an ideological debate, although I should love to take part in one. I believe in a very strong public sector pushing its frontiers forward. On the road haulage industry, I take the view that the public sector can set standards in a way that the private sector has been unable to do. In a mixed economy I want to see both sectors prosper.

    A1, Darrington (Flyover)
    Dr. Edmund Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce his decision in respect of the construction of the proposed flyover at Darrington on the A1 trunk road.
    Mr. Horam: We hope to reach conclusions very soon.
    Dr. Marshall: In reaching a decision in this project, will the Minister bear in mind the arithmetical features of the cost-benefit analysis which operate unfairly against schemes such as the Darrington flyover, for which the benefits will accrue greatly as the years go by?
    Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend has made a very sophisticated and accurate point, which I shall bear in mind. I hope that in this scheme sufficient account will be taken of road safety and environmental aspects, as well as those of cost benefit.

    Rail Freight
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Transport if there is any discernible growth of freight on British Railways as a result of the new Speedlink service; and if he will make a statement on the expansion or otherwise of rail freight traffic generally.
    Mr. William Rodgers: More than 25 per cent. of the traffic carried by Speed-link in 1977 was new to rail. I am sure that the BRB will continue to take a positive view of the future prospects for rail freight.
    Mr. Flannery: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, which I regard as optimistic. Does he agree that efforts to take more freight into the safety of the railways and to improve their viability are difficult because of the tax position on heavy lorries that was referred to earlier? Does he agree that railways have to pay for their right of way while the taxpayers pay for the roads, and that there is therefore unequal competition? Will he seriously put his mind to this problem?
    Mr. Rodgers: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said earlier, we see the need for a much fairer means of levying taxes on the two sectors. If freight is obliged to pay its way on the railways, there should be fair competition. The prospects can be good. There is a significant future for freight on the railways. British Rail must go out and get the business, and it is showing a positive approach.
    Mr. Moate: When the figures are published, does the right hon. Gentleman expect to see that British Rail has met its statutory duty to break even on freight in the last financial year?
    Mr. Rodgers: The statutory obligation referred to by the hon. Gentleman does not extend to the last financial year. That was the last year in which the railways were expected to carry a loss. I believe that it was less than £10 million. The coming financial year is the first in which they are expected to pay their way.
    Mr. Buchanan: My right hon. Friend gave information earlier about the Speed-link service, which we welcome. Is he aware that many of us who are concerned about getting an integrated, co-ordinated Socialist transport policy are appalled at the pharisaical attitude of the leadership of the Transport and General Workers' Union in regard to the terminal at Didcot, which, if working, would increase the freight content of British Rail tremendously?
    Mr. Rodgers: I know that there has been widespread and genuine concern and I should like to think that these matters will be settled. I understand that the General Secretary of the NUR has made clear his views to Mr. Jack Jones I regret the course of events, which has been widely reported, and hope that the matter can be resolved.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: As I missed Question No. 10 because of a late train, will the right hon. Gentleman answer it now?

    Magdalene Bridge, Cambridge
    Mr. Rhodes Jamesasked the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department will publish its decision on the traffic implications of the rebuilding of Magdalene Bridge, Cambridge; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Horam: The proposal to rebuild this bridge within the shell of the existing structure will enable it to carry buses once more. Other aspects of traffic management within the city will be for the county council to consider, since this road is likely to be detrunked on completion of the Cambridge northern and western bypasses.
    Mr. Rhodes James: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does it mean that a decision has been made by his Department?
    Mr. Horam: I am not sure to what decision the hon. Gentleman is referring. Cambridge City Council has made an application that, because the bridge is a listed bridge, it should not be rebuilt inside its existing structure. We have not made a decision on that. We shall try to resolve the matter as soon as possible.

    Lorries (Safety)
    Mr. Ronald Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to enforce the addition of side rails at approximately wheel hub height in the manufacture of heavy goods vehicles in the interests of road safety.
    Mr. Horam: I am having information on accidents analysed to see whether there is a case for this.
    Mr. Atkins: Despite the fact that our road safety is probably superior to that

    453
    of most other countries, does my hon. Friend not agree that no money should be spared to improve safety further, bearing in mind that if we are ahead on safety standards, rather than behind, as we were on pollution, it could be of advantage to our manufacturers?
    Mr. Horam: I accept what my hon. Friend says. That is precisely why we are looking into the matter. I know that manufacturers in some other countries—for example, Volvo—have examined this question with great care and have concluded that it is sensible. We shall be looking at the evidence and conditions in this country to see whether it is right.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that heavy lorries are keeping to speed limits on motorways?
    Mr. Horam: That is a good point. I shall look into it.

    Freight (Waterways)
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to encourage the carriage of freight by water.
    Mr. Horam: The Government are ready to consider on their merits any proposals to increase waterborne freight traffic.
    Mr. Moate: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the Select Committee report published today which concludes that the British Waterways Board should be regarded as a transport industry, that it has experienced a lack of support from the Government, and that it has had a bad relationship with the Government? Does he support the policy of submerging the Board within a national water authority responsible to the Minister with responsibility for sport, snow and droughts.
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman is asking me a leading question, because this is a matter of differing responsibilities between the Departments of the Environment and Transport. I note the recommendation of the Select Committee that there should be a transfer from the Department of the Environment to my Department, but that is a matter for the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Flannery: In the light of the Select Committee report, will my hon. Friend seriously consider its recommendation for
    454
    the improvement of the South Yorkshire Canal, as everyone in the area is in favour of it, the Select Committee is in favour of it, and surely the Government should be in favour of it, especially as it will make the transport of steel, for example, considerably cheaper?
    Mr. Horam: I note my hon. Friend's advocacy of the scheme. The Secretary of State for the Environment is looking at revised proposals submitted by the British Waterways Board.

    British Railways Board
    Mr. Cockcroftasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the Chairman of the British Railways Board.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the Chairman of British Railways.
    Mr. William Rodgers: Tomorrow.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the widespread feeling of relief that the rail strike has been, at least temporarily, averted, will my right hon. Friend tell the Chairman of British Rail that a long-term settlement will not be impeded by an inflexible attitude on the part of the Government towards pay policy?
    Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that it would be necessary for me to say that to the chairman. The House may not wish to go over the difficult and detailed questions that were at stake earlier this week, but no one has suggested that the threatened strike, which, luckily, has been averted, was due to anything related to the main spread of pay policy.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: When the right hon. Gentleman sees the chairman, will he make clear his concern for the transfer of as much heavy freight as possible from road to rail and acknowledge that one of the best ways in which the right hon. Gentleman could accomplish that would be to have a word with Mr. Moss Evans and to tell the Transport and General Workers' Union not to interfere any more, at Didcot or anywhere else?
    Mr. Rodgers: I discuss a number of things with the chairman from time to time and I have been concerned with the problems of rail freight. The chairman and

    455
    I are at one in wanting to see the railways carry as much freight as possible, but the issues involved are much larger than the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. John Ellis: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman, will he discuss the question of Didcot and find out whether the chairman has been consulted by the entrepreneurs who are starting up at Didcot, and also find out exactly who they are? He will discover that this is a murky business. What consultations have these people had with my right hon. Friend, with the British Transport Docks Board, with the interests at Southampton which they are trying to ruin, or with the railways? Will my right hon. Friend also advise Conservative Members that in seeking to attack the Transport and General Workers' Union they are on dodgy ground?
    Mr. Rodgers: It is unlikely that I shall speak to the chairman in those terms. My hon. Friend and the House will appreciate that there are strong feelings on this matter. There are important issues to be resolved and the right course is to find out how this can be done, rather than for us to get too excited, because that is not the best way to deal with the problem.
    Mr. Norman Fowler: I hope that the Secretary of State will not be bullied by the Transport and General Workers' Union or his hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). If I may go back to the question of industrial action, we greatly welcome the abandonment of the strike, but can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the parties have agreed to abide by the result of the inquiry?
    Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that words of that sort were embodied in the agreement that was reached last night. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it was a difficult and delicate matter. I pay tribute to Mr. Lionel Murray of the TUC, who played a principal part in what were difficult and skilful negotiations. I prefer to say nothing more about the matter today, although I recognise that it is of real concern to the House.

    European Commission (Infrastructure Proposals)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Depart-
    456
    ment has discussed with the European Commission its proposals for action in the field of transport infrastructure; and, if so, with what result.
    Mr. William Rodgers: The Commission's proposals to improve the arrangements for consultation on the development of transport infrastructure were agreed at the Transport Council held on 20th and 21st December 1977.
    The Commission's draft regulation providing for financial help for transport infrastructure projects of Community interest is under discussion in the Council Transport Working Group. It is impossible to say when it will be put to the Council or what its decision will be.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend able to explain to incredulous officials in the Council Transport Working Group how it is that we have managed to let go to rust and get stuck in the mud one of the most sophisticated tunnelling machines for any Channel tunnel? Who and where in my right hon. Friend's Department is the person responsible for what seems to be a monumental and grotesque piece of incompetence?
    Mr. Rodgers: I think that my hon. Friend is being rather unfair. I know that he is concerned, and he is right to relate the matter to the infrastructure projects in respect of the Channel tunnel, which have been explored by the Transport Council, to which it was referred.
    I say to my hon. Friend with great respect, as I know that he is well informed about scientific and engineering matters, that were the tunnel one day to be built—I am not expressing a view on that—the equipment that was appropriate on the last occasion might be unsuitable on the next.
    Mr. Marten: May we have an assurance that there is no intention on the part of the British Government to waste money by building Channel tunnels?
    Mr. Rodgers: In reply to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) in July 1977 I expressed the position of the United Kingdom Government, namely, that we stood where we stood at the time of the announcement of the abandonment of the previous proposition. I think I said that it would be ungenerous for us not to consider any

    457
    proposition to come to us from the Community, especially if it involved a financial contribution to the funding of such a tunnel.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Although I am no pro-Marketeer, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the reasons that were originally given and accepted by both Front Benches in favour of the project, which would do more good for inter-European trade than any other EEC regulation?
    Mr. Rodgers: If my hon. Friend wishes to lobby to that effect, he is entitled to to do so. However, the possibility of a Channel tunnel arouses strong feelings either way. For the moment I rest on the simple consideration put from the Government Dispatch Box by, as it happens, the late Mr. Anthony Crosland that it cannot feature in our present priorities given the economic difficulties through which we have been passing.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: As we are told that the economic difficulties are getting so much better, is it possible that the Government will give the working party's paper a fair wind? Is the working party considering the Channel tunnel seriously?
    Mr. Rodgers: What the working party does or does not do is not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. I have said that I shall consider any propositions put to the Government, especially if they are propositions that include a substantial contribution to the infrastructure costs of a project that would be an advantage not only to this country, if such it would be, but to the whole of the Continent and not only to France.

    Supplementary Grant (East Sussex)
    Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smithasked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had from the East Sussex County Council concerning the transport supplementary grant.
    Mr. Horam: The council's chief executive wrote to the Department on 18th January about the transport supplementary grant settlement for 1978–79. A reply was sent to him on 26th January.
    Mr. Johnson Smith: Leaving aside the Minister's totally unjustified attack on the council's alleged lack of support for public
    458
    transport and the fact that his transport supplementary grant policy tends to undermine local government autonomy will the hon. Gentleman explain how he can rectify a situation in which a local authority has to submit to him its transport expenditure proposals six months before it has agreed its total budget?
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the arrangements by which the transport supplementary grant is settled. It is essentially a supplementary grant on top of the rate support grant, which is the main support for transport policies. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's point has the validity that he suggests. I must regret, once again that East Sussex is one of the Conservative-controlled councils that has reduced its support for bus revenue in the next financial year.

    Roads (Urban Areas)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give an approximate estimate of the total amount spent on inner urban roads in England and Wales during 1977.
    Mr. William Rodgers: In 1977 £0·75 million was spent, in England, on one major inner urban trunk road scheme. I do not have such information for local authority roads.
    Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend discourage local authorities, such as the South Yorkshire County Council, from embarking on a £1 million inner urban road scheme such as the Heeley bypass, which Sheffield does not want and to which the local residents are strongly opposed?
    Mr. Rodgers: I have tried to discourage the South Yorkshire County Council on one occasion, and it was not very popular. My hon. Friend raises an awkward question about a local option. Under the structure of local government that we are obliged to deal with for the moment, I think that this is not an area in which I should seek to intervene
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether he is in favour of inner relief roads, or whether he would prefer to see urban areas put forward projects for outer relief roads to take out of those areas heavy commercial

    459
    traffic and all the pollution that it generates?
    Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the precise problem. Every urban area is different. It would be impossible for me or any other Minister to make detailed decisions of this sort about what might be appropriate in one place but not in another. These are arguments that have to be conducted at local level in the light not only of traffic but of environmental factors.

    British Transport Commission
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report details of how many staff were employed by the British Transport Commission at the time of the Transport Act 1947, excluding docks, marine and canal staff; and how this compares with the current figure for the total staff of British Railways.
    Mr. William Rodgers: Yes, Sir. The figures are 642,000 in 1947 and 219,000 in 1977, but they are not strictly comparable.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the Transport Act 1947 the publicly owned railways have become a target for cuts of all sorts in both freight and passenger services? That has affected the environment throughout the length and breadth of the country and added many thousands of men and women to the unemployed register. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to rebuild the publicly owned railway transport system and to protect it from those on the Opposition Benches who have done all that they can to destroy this public enterprise?
    Mr. Rodgers: I agree that there has been a considerable contraction in our railways system over the period that my hon. Friend mentions. Many fewer work on the railways today than 30 years ago. However, I would like to believe that we are now achieving a new stability that will improve morale in the railways. I think that the whole House will accept that they have a central and continuing role in our public transport system.

    Road Haulage (International Permits)
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking
    460
    to secure sufficient permits to enable road hauliers in the North of England to convey to EEC countries goods exported to those countries by local firms.
    Mr. Horam: We continue to press for increased quotas on every appropriate occasion. All permits are allocated on a national basis, using criteria agreed with the trade associations representing operators.
    Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman hold out any hope for local haulage contractors in the very areas where firms have been successful in developing an export trade, or is the haulage work associated with this trade to continue to go to hauliers from the other end of the country or, indeed, to overseas hauliers?
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we published a report last October that went into the way in which we allocate permits. We invited comments on the report so as to receive suggestions on how we might improve our methods, which is something that we are always seeking to do. If the hon. Gentleman has any such suggestions, I should welcome them.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware of the permit problems that are met on journeys to the Middle East? I draw his attention to the problems facing firms such as those in my constituency that carry out this lucrative export trade.
    Mr. Horam: Yes, I agree that there are difficulties in the Middle East. Before Christmas I discussed these difficulties with the Government of Iraq and various other Arab Governments, with a view to sorting out some of the problems. The Department is continuing to take an interest in them.
    Mr. Fairbairn: I hope that the Minister will not mind my referring to North Britain, which many Labour Members may think is the North of England. Does he appreciate that many road hauliers in Scotland can get reverse licences by going to the Continent, and cannot get them from this country to go to the Continent, so that they have to operate backwards?
    Mr. Horam: I am totally opposed to juggernauts going backwards along motorways.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 17TH MARCH
Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Peter Bottomley

Mr. Tom Litterick

Mr. Patrick Cormack

BILL PRESENTED
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS
  Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. Robert Sheldon, and Mr. Denzil Davies, presented a Bill to clarify and amend the law with respect to investment and borrowing by trustee savings banks; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

  COUNCIL TENANTS' CHARTER
  3.32 p.m.
  Mr. Reginald Eyre: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the status of tenants of council houses; to make provision with respect to their security of tenure and to facilitate transfers of tenancy; to provide opportunities for such tenants to participate in matters affecting their interests; and to make certain other administrative improvements.
  In seeking the leave of the House to introduce a council tenants' charter Bill, which aims to raise the dignity and status of council tenants, I have in mind particularly the circumstances which now apply in many large towns and cities throughout the country.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House, representing constituencies in heavily populated urban areas, will know from the evidence of their advice bureaux and postbags of the constant flow of complaints from tenants about delays in getting repairs done, about the unsatisfactory nature of repair and maintenance work when it is done, of frustration over the system of allocation of tenancies which fails to take account of family needs, and of even more frustration over the difficulty of securing satisfactory transfers of tenancies.
  Those urban areas where vast impersonal council estates have been developed provide some of the worst examples, through State agency domination, of the crushing effect upon individuals of large-scale bureaucratic management. However hard councillors and officials may try, administrative problems and failures inevitably flow from the size and nature of the task undertaken.
  In some large local authority areas, council estates comprising more than 100,000 houses are managed by a single authority. In my judgment, and as a result of my experiences, it is beyond the capacity of the present system for these huge estates to be administered in a really humane way, taking proper account of the needs of tenants. Control on these estates is too much by officialdom and not enough by individuals.
  The situation adds seriously to the all-too prevalent feeling on the part of many people of being anonymous, of not belonging, of not mattering enough as

  463
  individuals, and this feeling is a root cause of the social instability in our large towns and cities. The Bill will make a start in improving a housing system which, as the crude shortage of housing is brought to an end, cannot be accepted as satisfactory for the years ahead.
  Sales of council houses will, of course, improve the position for those families able to undertake purchases, but that aspect is not my concern today. For those continuing as tenants, the Bill otters, first, the elimination of petty and unjustified restrictions and regulations imposed upon council tenants; second, permission to take in lodgers and keep domestic pets, subject to reasonable safeguards; third, in return for the acceptance, where appropriate, of responsibility for minor repairs, the grant of reasonable freedom in the alteration and decoration of the interior and exterior of their dwellings, including the choice of colour of their own front door.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: As long as it is red.
  Mr. Eyre: The Bill offers, fourth, improved security of tenure for tenants carrying out agreed structural improvements and modernisation of their dwellings; fifth, and very important, the inclusion of tenants in the formulation of estate management policies to improve the environment of their own estates, including play areas and community facilities.
  In my view, this would best be achieved by dividing up vast areas of council housing along natural boundaries into the neighbourhood areas referred to in the Bill. With an informal system of representation, people living in the neighbourhood areas would, as applies now with many residents' associations, have closer contact with councillors and local officials, and thus greater participation in the management of their affairs. Officials now operating too often from the
  464
  centre would in this way gain better knowledge of what is happening in the streets and roads of the neighbourhood.
  A neighbourhood system would stimulate efforts for self-help, the planting of trees, and recruitment of leaders for voluntary organisations serving the needs of young and old. It would also strengthen neighbourhood feeling to counter vandalism and anti-social behaviour and give support to good tenants seeking better conditions in their own localities.
  The Bill also aims at improving facilities for exchange of tenancies, where much greater account must be taken of family circumstances, such as the desire of a mother with children to live nearer her parents for mutual support and care.
  Finally, the Bill seeks to establish a national council house exchange scheme, which is much needed in these times of massive unemployment, to assist people who are moving from one part of the country to another to get work.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Reginald Eyre, Sir William Elliott, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Fred Silvester, Mr. Robin Hodgson, Mr. Andrew MacKay, Mr. Peter Bottomley and Mr. Ian Grist.

  COUNCIL TENANTS' CHARTER
  Mr. Reginald Eyre accordingly presented a Bill to improve the status of tenants of council houses; to make provision with respect to their security of tenure and to facilitate transfers of tenancy; to provide opportunities for such tenants to participate in matters affecting their interests; and to make certain other administrative improvements; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10th March and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

  WALES BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
  Ordered,
  That the Report [24th November 1977] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Foot.]
  Report considered accordingly.
  Question,
  That this House 3oth agree with the Committee in their Resolution.—[Mr. Foot.]
  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee), and agreed to.

  TABLE

  Allotted day

  Proceedings in Committee

  Time for conclusion

  First day

  Clauses 1 and 2,

  11 p.m.

  Schedule 1,

  Clauses 3 to 9.

  Second and third days

  Clause 10,

  7 p.m. on third day

  Schedules 2 and 3,

  Clauses 11 to 14.

  Third day

  Clauses 15 to 24.

  11 p.m.

  Fourth day

  Clauses 25 to 34.

  7 p.m.

  Fourth and fifth days

  Clauses 35 to 37,

  6 p.m. of fifth day

  Schedules 4 and 5,

  Clauses 38 to 41.

  Fifth and sixth days

  Clauses 42 to 58,

  6 p.m. on sixth day

  Schedule 6,

  Clause 59.

  Sixth and seventh days

  Clauses 60 and 61,

  9 p.m. on seventh day

  Schedule 7,

  Clauses 62 to 65,

  Schedule 8,

  Clause 66,

  Schedule 9,

  Clauses 67 to 71.

  Seventh and eighth days

  Clauses 72 to 78,

  5 p.m. on eighth day

  Schedule 10,

  Clauses 79 to 81.

  Eighth day

  Clauses 82 and 83,

  11 p.m. on eighth day

  Schedule 12,

  Clause 84.

  Ninth day

  New clauses,

  11 p.m.

  New Schedules,

  Schedule 11.

  Following is the report of the Business Committee:
  That—

  (a) of the allotted days which under the Order [16th November] are given to the remaining proceedings on the Bill nine shall be allotted to the proceedings in Committee and the remainder to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading; and

  (b) the Bill shall be considered in Committee in the order shown in the Table set out below; and

  (c) the nine days allotted to the proceedings in Committee shall be allotted in the manner shown in that Table and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, he brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WALES BILL
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair.]

Clause 1

  EFFECT OF ACT
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  3.40 p.m.
  Mr. Francis Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Could you explain to the Committee why you thought in your wisdom that it would be right not to select any amendments to Clause 1? You will recall that there were a number of amendments to Clause 1 of the Scotland Bill. A number of amendments to Clause 1 of this Bill are similar to those that were selected on that occasion. The amendments in the names of myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends are identical. Could you possibly consider whether you could and should select them?
  The Chairman: I thank the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) for raising that point of order. Perhaps I can clear the matter up by saying that what is appropriate at one time is not necessarily appropriate at another. On the other hand, I must confine myself to the general principle that no particular explanation need be given for non-selection. That is entirely in the hands of the Chair. What I can say in addition is that if any right hon. and hon. Members desire to discuss any matter which appears upon the Amendment Paper relating to Clause 1 they will have the opportunity to debate it on the motion, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Sir David Renton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Of course we accept that the selection of amendments is entirely in the hands of the Chair, but I believe that the House generally assumes that the Chair will be consistent. Consistency is not always a virtue. Sometimes there can be
  468
  reasons for politicians changing their minds, even if they are in the Chair. However, exactly the same constitutional point arose on the Scotland Bill and the amendments were selected. The same point arises on the Wales Bill and the amendments are not selected. Naturally we feel puzzled.
  It may be out of order to press you. Mr Murton, to state your reasons for selection on the Scotland Bill and non-selection on this Bill but it is only right and fair to the Committee that I should point out that if similar circumstances arise again we shall at least be equally puzzled.
  The Chairman: I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) will not be too puzzled. Although there is a similarity between this Bill and another which was discussed recently, this is a separate Bill. I hope that the Committee will bear with me. I reserve to myself the right not to give an explanation for non-selection. The Committee will be able to discuss any matter which is relevant, on the motion, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Leo Abse: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. It certainly is perplexing that serious amendments have not been called to Clause 1, which is the foundation stone on which the whole edifice stands. I appreciate that we can expect no explanation, but it appeared inevitable that on St. David's Day there would be a considerable number of leeks. It is abundantly clear that some leak must have come to the Chair that the Government no longer believe in Clause 1 and that they accept the verdict of the House that the Bill does not do what it claims to do—namely, retain the unity of the United Kingdom.
  Without appearing to be importunate, I suggest that it would be wrong if the impression existed either in the House or in the Principality that the Government can manipulate the Chair so that amendments are not called. The Government have funked the issue in that respect. Even if I am mistaken, undoubtedly that implication will be believed in many quarters.
  With great respect, Mr. Murton, I invite you to explain to the Committee on this occasion—as the Chair often does—how this has come about and how on this

  469
  important clause amendments have suddenly vanished.
  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. As I understand the position the Government will not be moving that Clause 1 be accepted. I understand that there is no need to have a long discussion on amendments but that we should have a brief discussion on the clause as a whole.
  I wish to raise another matter which is perhaps more important. I notice that you have not selected amendments to Clause 13. A number of hon. Members have received a communication from the Association of County Councils which states:
  "I am writing on behalf of the Association and the Welsh Counties Committee to express the strongest support for the amendment to Clause 13 of the Bill which you and your colleagues have tabled and which is designed to ensure that the Welsh Assembly shall not review the structure of local government in Wales…the county councils in Wales are unanimous in their opposition to Clause 13."
  I hope that we shall have the opportunity to debate that clause and the amendments to it. I understood that you might be selecting the amendments, Mr. Murton.
  The Chairman: I can give the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) that assurance. I have not yet proceeded that far because Clauses 11 to 14 come up for discussion on the third day, to finish by 7 o'clock on that day. There is plenty to discuss in the first two days.
  I can give the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) one assurance. I hope that he will not think that I allow myself to be influenced by the Government in my decisions. I was in no way influenced. I made the decision myself and by that decision I must stand.
  Since it is St. David's Day, I remind the Committee that St. David became archbishop because his voice was louder than those of the other bishops present and he was the only one who could make himself heard. I am not asking to be an archbishop but perhaps the Committee will allow me to exercise my own discretion in this matter.
  Sir Raymond Gower: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. I understand that your selection of amendments to future clauses is provisional.
  470
  May we have your assurance that you will consider with sympathy the point raised about Clause 13 which deals with the relationship between the Assembly and the county councils? This is a matter of considerable importance and should be debated if possible.
  The Chairman: I can give the hon. Member that assurance.
  Mr. Abse: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I find myself, as do my hon. Friends the Members for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) and Aberdare (Mr. Evans), in strange company as a result of having tabled Amendment No. 14. Two amendments have clearly become telescoped, as will be seen by the names appended to Amendment No. 14. My hon. Friends and I are seeking by Amendment No. 14 to reduce the figure of £32,750 per Assemblyman. Appended to the amendment are the names of those, however, who deploy the same argument but for different reasons which have led to different consequential amendments. They are seeking by way of proportional representation to increase that figure.
  Considerable confusion is likely to arise because for our part the amendment has the specific goal of reduction whereas the other signatories seek an increase. In order that the position should be clear, may we have the opportunity of discussing the issues that are raised in Amendment No. 15 and Amendment No. 12 when Amendment No. 14 is discussed? May we be told that, should the need arise, we can have separate votes on Amendments Nos. 12 and 15? This difficulty has clearly arisen because of the curious telescoping of amendments which means that the various signatories to one amendment have totally different objectives.
  The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for Pontypool will permit me to get this clear. Two amendments with identical wording were placed on the Order Paper, one being put down some days before the other. The reason that the names of all those who support the hon. Member for Pontypool did not appear was that only six names are chosen. All this can come out in the debate. I shall call the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) and I shall call the hon. Member for Pontypool. Each will be able to put his different point of view

  471
  on the amendment. I can tell the hon. Member, because this will resolve the problem, that I shall be prepared to allow a separate Division on Amendment No. 12, which would meet the hon. Gentleman's point, should the Business Motion allow.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: In order still further to remove any doubt, may I say that in the absence of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) I, if I succeed in catching your eye, Mr. Murton shall be moving the main amendment of that group which will be Amendment No. 8. I can assure the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) that Amendment No. 14 is incidental to the cause I shall be putting over, and I shall not trespass on his preserves.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. It will not have escaped your notice that the figure of St. David stands outside the portal of this place from the Central Lobby. I noticed as I came in that he was wearing a frown. I am not sure whether that was because of your non-selection of amendments to Clause 1 or because I was not wearing a daffodil. Do I understand from what you have said about Clause 1, which refers to the entire provisions of the Bill, that we shall be in order if we discuss any part of the Bill in our debate on Clause 1?
  The Chairman: It is no wonder that St. David is frowning. The hon. Gentleman will be at liberty to discuss any point in the Bill which is germane to Clause 1, but to Clause 1 only. There will be an opportunity to discuss other clauses at a later stage.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Is it appropriate to ask, through you, the whereabouts of the Secretary of State for Wales on this important date?
  The Chairman: That is not matter for the Chair.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): I intervene only briefly and I trust for the convenience of the Committee. I had assumed that, this being St. David's Day, it would be a day of good will among all Welshmen and from all Welshmen to
  472
  other hon. Members. I hope to be proved right later.
  Since the Government did not seek to reinstate Clause 1 of the Scotland Bill we shall not be seeking to retain Clause 1 of this Bill.
  Mr. Pym: I can assure the Under-Secretary that for all of us on the Opposition Benches, as no doubt for the whole Committee, this is a day of good will. But it starts with a breathtaking admission from the Government. It is a devastating admission. Clause 1 is the whole of Part I of the Bill. It declares that the provisions of the Bill
  "do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it".
  The Government are now no longer prepared to uphold that that is so. That is a welcome admission and we regard it as a wise move for them to have made. Like the rest of us, they know what would have happened had they not made it. That does not alter the fact that this is a remarkable opening to discussion of the Bill.
  Today is St. David's Day and I have an idea that St. David is on the side of those of us who oppose the Bill. That remains to be seen. I hope it is so, however, because I am certain that the Bill is as unnecessary as it is unwanted by the people of Wales. The fact remains, after what happened over the Scotland and Wales Bill that the Government have seen fit to bring it back. All the evidence we have seems to suggest that the people of Wales have adhered pretty firmly to the view they have taken all along, which is that they are overwhelmingly against a measure of this kind. The latest opinion polls I have seen indicate that over half the people of Wales still want no change in the present system. Those polls have indicated that fewer than 5 per cent. want the Government's proposals as they are outlined in the Bill. That may or may not be true, but that is the indication for what it is worth. Speaking to hon. Members from all Welsh constituencies, however, seems to confirm that view.
  A recent leader in the South Wales Echo stated,
  "We have consistently regarded it as undesired and undesirable"

  473
  and that seems to sum up what many people have said about it.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: For the guidance of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) I should explain that it has been the bitter experience of some of us to find that the Government will be willing during the course of this debate to listen only to the opinions of one newspaper—the Western Mail. On this historic day and this historic occasion that must be a notable matter of history. If the right hon. Member could find some way of quoting the Western Mail, that would be music to the Government Front Bench. My right hon. Friends do not like the views of the Liverpool Daily Post, the South Wales Echo, the Swansea Evening Post or the South Wales Argus, which are unanimously critical of the devolution proposals.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Padley: My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) gave a long list of capitalist newspapers. Socialists should take no notice of any of them.
  Mr. Pym: I am grateful for the advice of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and I am glad that I started by quoting the South Wales Echo, a newspaper I have known all my life. I see that it is running a series of articles about divisions within the Labour Party in Wales on this issue. It seems that the Labour Party has a sizeable problem on its hands in Wales because the Government insist on forging ahead with this Bill.
  Sir Raymond Gower: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that neither the New Statesman nor Tribune is keen on the Bill either?
  Mr. Pym: Yes, and, as I said, we have St. David on our side. But, apart from anything else, I think that it will be a very expensive exercise if it is put into effect. It will cost more than £6 millon to set up the Assembly and more than £12 million a year to run it. Its essential effect will be to weaken the voice of the Secretary of State in Wales and, above all, the voices of the 36 Members of Parliament representing Wales in the United Kingdom.
  474
  I think it incredible that, after so many years of governing England and Wales on essentially the same basis, we should suddenly be asked to make such a dramatic change. On the Scotland Bill, I argued that after 270 years without an Assembly in Scotland it seemed unreasonable to forge ahead with a scheme that the House of Commons did not really like, and that more time should be taken so that any change made should be the right one. In the case of Wales, the history is infinitely longer.
  The last time that Wales had an Assembly of its own was in 1536—which is 442 years ago. That is no reason why the Welsh should not have an Assembly again if that is what they want, but it is no answer for the Government to say that they must have a measure of devolution on this basis, forcing it through under a guillotine. They cannot justify that.
  Clause 1, which the Government say that they will not insist upon, is directly related to the consequences of the Bill for the unity of the United Kingdom. The fact that the Government are not now to press it means that they have accepted that the Bill does affect the unity of the United Kingdom. That is an essential point to make. I want to raise first the effects that the Bill will have upon Parliament and the issue, which we discussed so much on the Scotland Bill, of Welsh Members voting on English business. The question on the Scotland Bill known as the West Lothian question also applies to the Wales Bill. It is different in degree, but the same in principle.
  After the Assembly is established, Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies will be voting on Executive orders and Executive actions in the devolved areas for England and Northern Ireland, but not for Wales. The combined votes of Members representing Welsh and Scottish constituencies could very well alter decisions on those orders and actions. These are not simply administrative matters. They are not just matters of detail. Neither the introduction of comprehensive schools, for example, nor the end of the sale of council houses required legislation, and the same is true of the abolition of National Health Service charges and pay beds. All that was done under orders, so these are not minor matters.

  475
  The Committee also has to take into account that in at least half the General Elections since the war the party that emerged in a majority in England was different from the party that emerged with a majority in the United Kingdom as a whole, so this issue of how Welsh Members are to vote is very important.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: Before the right hon. Gentleman confuses the Committee further, I remind him that the question of comprehensive education in England and Wales was dealt with by circular, which was not subject to resolution of the House, although it might have been debated, until there was an Act or Parliament. What he has said about comprehensive education is monumentally irrelevant to the Bill.
  Mr. Pym: I do not think that it is. Certainly such a matter can be and usually is introduced by subordinate legislation. In that case, it was done by directive, but I do not think that it was so in the case of the National Health Service charges or pay beds. I took other examples.
  There is no easy way of introducing a convention of non-voting or non-participation by Welsh or any other Members even if that were thought to be a desirable solution. For example, there are very great difficulties in deciding which business is Welsh only and which is other business. I believe that Members representing Welsh constituencies wish to remain United Kingdom Members as part of the United Kingdom Parliament. Almost any vote in this House on Government policy may affect Wales, at least to the extent that that policy is embodied in legislation. That is the first important impact that the Bill will have on the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Also under the Bill we are creating a new parliamentary requirement—that is to say, a requirement for separate Welsh legislation. Whenever legislation is passed affecting England and Wales, it will obviously have to reflect the requirement to make separate arrangements for Wales. How is that to be done? Is the best way to achieve it to enact separate legislation for Wales? That may well be the clearest way. If so, I realise that there would be added pressure on parliamentary time. But that would be a consequence of the Bill.
  476
  But even if it were decided not to introduce separate legislation for Wales as against England, there would need to be much greater and most careful scrutiny of any joint legislation to ensure that it took full account of the new circumstances in Wales. I remind the Committee of what the Royal Commission said on this subject in paragraph 903, discussing the implications of this kind of devolution. It said:
  "As in legislative devolution the implications for the centre would depend very much on whether devolution were to be extended to all or only selected regions of the United Kingdom. If the latter, there would be little reduction in the demands on Parliamentary time. Indeed the task of Parliament would be made more difficult, since Bills would have to be drafted in one way to apply to regions which had devolved powers and in another way to those which did not."
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair-minded, so he will also recall that the Royal Commission was extremely critical of the amount of secondary legislation going through the House without debate, vote, scrutiny or consideration at all. Surely that is a very strong argument in favour of the kind of Assembly that we are proposing for Wales.
  Mr. Pym: That is a fair point. But what I am considering now is the impact that a change of this kind—that is to say, switching responsibility for subordinate legislation for Wales—will have on the actions of the House of Commons. I shall return to the subject later.
  I want now to come to the question of the representation of Wales in the House of Commons. With a scheme of executive devolution of the kind recommended here, the Royal Commission took the view that the question of a reduction in the number of Members did not arise since Parliament would continue to legislate. Nevertheless, Welsh Members are going to have a changed role and therefore questions about the representation of Wales are bound to go on being raised in just the same way as they were over Northern Ireland.
  We know what these figures are. The average electorate in Wales is about 57,000 and in England about 66,000—a difference of 9,000. That has always been accepted without question. The Conservative Opposition are in favour, and always have been, of retaining 36

  477
  Members for Wales—the existing number—and we have never proposed any kind of devolution or any other arrangement which could lead to a call for a change in that representation. But what the Committee must be aware of is that if dissatisfaction arises over the role that those Members will play in English matters there may well be demands for a reduction in numbers, just as in the early 1960s that complaint was made about Northern Ireland.
  This leads me to the role of Members of Parliament here. If the Bill is enacted they will have three different roles for Wales: first, where the Assembly is responsible for executive actions but not the legislation requiring and leading to that action; secondly, where the Secretary of State for Wales has responsibility, as he does now; thirdly, where any Minister and the Government as a whole are responsible for the whole United Kingdom.
  The House will then have five different ways in which to carry out its United Kingdom responsibilities: first, in Wales, with the three separate responsibilities that I have just described, but sometimes with only legislative responsibility and sometimes with full responsibility; in Scotland, where we shall sometimes have legislative but not executive responsibility, and sometimes no responsibility at all; in Northern Ireland, where there is direct rule, at any rate for the time being; in England, where we have full and sole responsibility; and, finally, for the United Kingdom as a whole.
  All these points relate to the effect that this little green pamphlet called the Wales Bill will have on the House. They are very significant effects.
  I turn to the division of powers. In the White Paper "Devolution within the United Kingdom: Some Alternatives for Discussion", published in 1974, a document that I find a gold mine of unanswered questions posed to the Government by the Government, we find in paragraph 56 the following questions:
  "(i)… in practice, can one draw a distinction between major policy making (which would be the responsibility of central Government) and subordinate policy making and administration (which would be the responsibility of intermediate level governments)?
  478
  (j) … would the United Kingdom Government in practice be able to enforce its broad policies on a politically hostile intermediate level government?"
  We have no answers to those questions yet.
  There is a difficulty about dividing policy making from administration, as I said earlier. Many major policy decisions can be made under existing legislation. They include, for example, the alteration of the character of the education service and the health services. The Royal Commission raised this matter in paragraph 828, when talking about the definition of the devolved functions. It said:
  "the distinction between policy making and administration is not a precise one…there is no obvious point at which policy making ends and administration begins. Legislation gives effect to a policy decision. Statutory instruments and directives can be seen as administrative devices concerned with implementing that decision. But they can equally be classified as supplementary policy documents."
  There are two ways in which this dilemma could be contemplated with a view to an attempted solution. One is that all the powers conferred by any Act of Parliament on a Minister including subordinate legislation, could be devolved to the Assembly. Secondly, the Minister could retain power of subordinate legislation. The Government have chosen the former way. I do not think that it is altogether satisfactory. I believe that it will lead in its own way to an essentially unstable kind of Assembly, because as I read the Bill the Government will be unable to change the Assembly's powers from year to year.
  For example, if a United Kingdom Government on election find themselves faced with an Assembly of a different political colour, will they not be tempted in any legislation they enact to spell out their policy in far more detail than they might otherwise? Could not the Assembly find that powers in housing, for example, in which it could at one time exercise discretion, must in certain circumstances be exercised in a manner specified by the House of Commons? Suppose an Assembly in Wales did not wish to sell council houses and Parliament here decided that it would be required to sell council houses. Would not that be a source of conflict between the House and any Assembly in Wales?

  479
  4.15 p.m.
  Next we come to the effect on Government and in particular on the Secretary of State for Wales. Incidentally, we are very sorry that the Secretary of State is not able to be here today, I am sure for good reasons. If the Bill is ever enacted, the Secretary of State will be able to speak less strongly for Wales in the Cabinet. He will no longer be responsible for the administration of a large body of legislation and he will be unable to draw on his normal direct administrative experience in advising the Cabinet. He will be left with a residue of powers rather than being able to co-ordinate the whole of Government activity in Wales. He is bound to speak for Wales with a weaker voice than he did before. That will be to the disadvantage of Wales, which is one of the reasons why the people of Wales are very unlikely to support the Bill.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it not also a fact that a Conservative Government in England would be under considerable pressure from the Opposition in Wales to frustrate the Assembly? Herein is a great recipe for conflict, as we saw in the Scotland Bill.
  Mr. Pym: That is right. It is exactly the kind of situation I was trying to describe. It would be unhelpful. Indeed, it would tend to be disruptive of government and to make for bad government. It is one of the conflicts I have been trying to anticipate. We do not need to put the Bill into effect to know what will happen.
  The White Paper, which I quoted recently in connection with Scotland, foreshadowed that the Secretary of State for Wales might disappear. He would certainly have more limited powers, because he would not have a strong Department behind him, as that Department would have handed over a great deal of its responsibility. Therefore, the position of the principal representative of Wales in the United Kingdom will be weakened, which is a very bad thing.
  Next we come to what is an almost ludricrous concept. I have called it United Kingdom-Welsh relations. One has only to state it to appreciate how bizarre it is. It arises after 400 or 500 years of working absolutely harmoniously together in government. Such a concept
  480
  seems fantastic. But not to raise it at this stage, when we are debating the unity of the United Kingdom, would be a sin of omission.
  Dispute and tension are almost unavoidable in the relationship between the Assembly and the United Kingdom Government. There will be argument and controversy over the guidelines that the Bill requires to be established to direct the Assembly in its relations with the Welsh Development Agency, for example. This will happen particularly if there are two different parties in control at Cardiff and Wesminster.
  The next matter is that of the override powers. Here the argument is very similar to the argument on the Scotland Bill. Under Clause 35 the Secretary of State will be able to recommend that an action of the Assembly legitimately taken and properly carried through should be set aside if it
  "would or might affect a reserved matter, whether directly or indirectly".
  That provision is very wide and could be used on almost any pretext. Each time it is used it could be open to the accusation that it was being used politically. I am sure that the provision will give rise to a great deal of controversy.
  The same applies to the override powers on international obligations. It is difficult to understand why, without any reference to Parliament, the Secretary of State may overrule the Assembly on the ground that its actions may conflict with such obligations. These are matters of fact and law. Therefore, they are justiciable and could and should be referred to the courts.
  It is difficult to visualise almost any matter arising in this House and affecting England that does not also directly or indirectly affect Wales. I have the utmost difficulty in thinking of any issue that does not cross that dividing line. There will be as many problems, although of a slightly different kind, over Wales as over Scotland.
  Then there are the financial aspects. The allocation of the block budget, whether it is done annually or whether the four-yearly proposal is carried through, will be a source of controversy. In 1975–76 Wales received about 5·4 per cent. of public expenditure when the population of Wales was about 4·9 per cent. of the population of the United

  481
  Kingdom. That excess—if that is the right word—is based upon the needs of Wales. It is not done on a population basis. It is based upon the needs of Wales on a regional basis. Wales needs it. No one challenged it or questioned it. Everyone throughout the United Kingdom accepted that position absolutely.
  I cannot escape the thought that it is absolute moonshine for the House of Commons to imagine that once we have a devolved Assembly such as is proposed for Wales and we start to work out a block budget, figures will not emerge indicating the scale of the difference between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and with the best will in the world, they will increase the degree of controversy. People are all human, and they will say "If that is going to Wales and so much is going to Scotland, why cannot we have more in this part of England?"
  It is in that sense that I think this whole concept will lead to a sense of division within the United Kingdom, rather than designing what I believe ought to happen—some improvement in the government of this country, the whole of the United Kingdom and each constituent part, so that the feeling of unity is emphasised. Surely the people of this country, in whichever part of the United Kingdom they live, are longing for a greater sense of national unity in the difficult days in which we are living.
  It seems very much as though what is proposed in the Bill is bound to lead to a sense of a greater degree of controversy and jealousy, and, to some extent, envy. People are only human. They will feel that about these financial arrangements I am afraid that that will happen.
  Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Unless I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman in the past, I have heard him say in this Chamber that he favours some form of devolution. Yet the whole tenor of his remarks today seems to suggest that for Wales, at any rate, no devolution of any power to the people of Wales, who compose a national community, will ever be possible. Is that his view? Is it the view of the Conservative Party, or has the right hon. Gentleman's party a policy that means devolving to the Welsh people some power over their own affairs?
  Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman is quite right when he says that I have used those
  482
  words. I have used them principally in relation to Scotland. On the question of Wales, we have never thought that an Executive should be set up there. That is not proposed under the Bill. We have thought that the administrative devolution that Wales ought to have could and should be extended, and that the way in which the House of Commons considers and scrutinises Welsh business of the Government of the United Kingdom could be greatly extended and improved in many respects, and could take place in Wales. That is the expression of opinion that we have given on Wales. This is not the occasion for me to expound in detail on that because what we are doing is considering the Bill. But those are the policy conclusions that my right hon. Friends and I have reached on this subject.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: On the question of the block grant allocation, the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly said that the policy so far in the House of Commons, under successive Governments, has been that the needs of Wales and Scotland are greater and, therefore, they have received a larger financial allocation. But is there not a danger now, a danger that we must now realise, that when the block grant is calculated it could well be calculated on a population basis and not on a needs basis, because the needs of Wales would be determined by the Assembly?
  Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman is emphasising the point that I was trying to make. That is that because the disparity in the allocation of public money between the different parts of the United Kingdom would come into sharper focus, the people who are getting less than their fair share of what is available, as it seems to them, will start raising their voices and asking to have a fair deal, and those voices will be heard and must be expressed through hon. Members of the House of Commons representing those parts of the United Kingdom, wherever they are, which are disadvantaged by this proposal. Therefore, the tendency to which the hon. Gentleman refers is exactly the kind of tendency to which I am referring, and I think that it will be a pity.
  In other words, what the hon. Gentleman and I are saying is that the arrangements as they now stand result in Wales getting a better deal than she is likely

  483
  to get if the Bill were ever to be put into operation, quite apart from the additional expense of the Assembly.
  I agree, also, that it is very important indeed that the people of Wales understand what the Bill will mean.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He and his party were surely using the same argument when opposing the introduction of a Secretary of State for Wales, saying that Wales would be disadvantaged by it. He is now pointing to the enormous advantage that followed from it. Is he not being entirely inconsistent?
  Mr. Pym: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the Conservative Party appointed the first Minister for Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] All right—it was before the Labour Party and the Liberal Party thought about it. I accept that it may be only a question of degree, and perhaps the views expressed then were not correct, but there was no question of any devolution or division between Wales and England. It was a question whether Wales would be better represented by a separate Minister in the Cabinet, and it was decided, by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), that Wales should be represented by a separate Minister. So it has been ever since, and so it is.
  I have probably detained the Committee for long enough. However, the point is that it is necessary for the Committee to appreciate the depth and the profundity of what is at stake in the Bill. The mere fact that the Government, in their wisdom, are not now prepared to try to retain in the Bill the whole of Part I. concerning the effect upon the United Kingdom, indicates that they themselves appreciate that something major is at stake in what they are proposing for Wales.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends and I do not believe and never have believed that devolution of this kind was appropriate for Wales. We have never thought that a separate Assembly was appropriate, nor that the people of Wales have wanted it, and we have been quite forthright about that. Therefore, we shall oppose the Bill. We think that it would be much
  484
  better and far more to the interests of the people of Wales to extend the devolution that already exists and to improve—my goodness, there is scope for it—the way in which the House of Commons and Parliament in general scrutinise the Government's decisions over Wales.
  I hope that in the fullness of time, somehow or other, the Bill does not reach the statute book. If it does reach the statute book, I predict that the people of Wales will say that they do not want it.
  It is an extraordinary comment on the amount of time that we are about to spend on this issue when one considers all the arguments that we shall have in order to lead to that ultimate conclusion. However, we are placed in that position, and I have, in this the first speech on the Committee stage of the Bill, outlined what I think are the most important issues—though there are plenty of others—that will lead to the greatest potential danger for Wales. I hone that eventually the Bill will not become an Act.
  Mr. Ifor Davies: I rise to welcome, briefly, the Government's action in seeking to delete this clause. It has been said that the clause, in any case, was meant to be an expression of opinion and a form of declaration, but it has, nevertheless, been a declaration which has been subject to very serious challenge indeed.
  I believe that the House of Commons will accept that it is an important principle of legislation that a Bill should contain points of law and not expressions of opinion. The clause was not only a mere statement of opinion but a statement which has undoubtedly led to much controversy. It is the very point which has led to divisions of opinion among many Welsh people on the merits of the Bill itself and, as we have just heard, to the deep concern among Welsh people about the position of the Welsh Office.
  In this brief intervention, I therefore express the hope that the spirit of good will, about which we have just heard, and the spirit of understanding shown by the Government in connection with this clause and this matter, will be followed outside the House of Commons, so that when the debates on the referendum come they will be conducted at a high level and will be based upon principles and not upon personalities.

  485
  For that reason, I welcome the fact that the Government are seeking to withdraw the clause.
  4.30 p.m.
  Sir David Renton: Although I was given the name David, I cannot claim to have been named after St. David of Wales. So far as I know, I was named after my Scottish grandfather. But I always feel happier on St. David's Day, and today is no exception—despite the anxious start that you gave us, Mr. Murton, with your non-selection of the amendments to Clause 1. Now that we know that the Government are not asking the House to approve the clause, I would congratulate you on your telepathic insight into their intentions.
  The welcome fact that the clause is not to remain part of the Bill—I am sure that the House will agree with the Government—must not blind us to certain considerations. Those are first, when we need less government, devolution will give us more; second, when we need simplicity of administration in our highly complex society, devolution will make government in Wales more complex; third, when we need to strive for economy in public expenditure, devolution will cost more.
  To start with, devolution will cost another £15½ million and another 1,300 civil servants. We know that the Cardiff Exchange is being adapted and furnished in anticipation of it.
  Mr. Abse: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and anyone else will not continue to use the figure of 1,200 or 1,300 civil servants. From his membership of the Kilbrandon Commission he will appreciate that that Commission constantly said that if an Assembly were set up, it would in the end require its own Civil Service. The figure that the Government have presented is based on sharing, but sharing will not come. The people of Wales should know that the price for this Bill is at least 2,000 civil servants, who will be paid for from the funds allocated for Wales.
  Sir D. Renton: I am grateful to the hon. Member, but I was about to add that those figures which the Government have given are only the starting figures. As he has rightly said, and as my colleagues on the Kilbrandon Commission
  486
  pointed out, there will necessarily be an elaboration of the arrangements with which the Government start.
  The Commission was split four ways in its recommendations about Wales. Speaking for myself and two other members of the Commission I can say that we did not want executive devolution of any kind. We wanted simply a consultative Assembly where the affairs of Wales could be discussed in Wales. We wanted the Secretary of State's powers to remain, but his responsibility to be extended, so that he was in a truer sense Secretary of State for Wales. I hope that in our considering the Bill the Secretary of State will be a true Secretary of State and that we do not suffer the experience that we had on the Scotland Bill, when the Minister of State, however manfully, had to do the work of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  I see the Minister of State, Scottish Office, sitting here today.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: No, he is the Minister of State, Privy Council Office.
  Sir D. Renton: I beg his pardon. I regard him so much as a member of the Scottish Bar, whose learning we so appreciated on the Scotland Bill, that I gave him the wrong office. I regret that mistake. At any rate, if he imagines that he can fill the place of the Secretary of State for Wales, who is a Queen's Counsel, which means that he is learned and competent in the law of England, we shall have to disabuse the honourable Gentleman.
  We must also not blind ourselves by assuming that the dropping of Clause 1 means that, at a time when we need national unity, the Bill will not lead to a division of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has deployed the general circumstances which arise on Clause 1, its being omitted and its relevance to the rest of the Bill so fully that I can now be fairly brief. However, I should like to emphasise one or two of his points.
  There is no doubt but that the statement in Clause 1 that the Bill would not affect the supreme authority of Parliament is simply not true. We shall have

  487
  to be very careful in particular about subordinate legislation. The will of Parliament and the policy of the Government of the United Kingdom could within Wales be so easily frustrated by the refusal of a Welsh Assembly to pass the delegated legislation which that policy and the legislation of Parliament which supports it would require. That is a glaring example of the kind of conflict which could easily arise between this House and the Welsh Assembly.
  The position of the nominated bodies also gives rise to concern. They have been nominated under Acts of Parliament and others may be established in future. They will be answerable, to the extent that the Bill requires, to the Welsh Assembly, but in reality they will be dependent not upon the Assembly but upon this House for their funds, especially for capital expenditure. That is another glaring example of potential conflict. The Assembly may in effect direct those various public corporations in Wales to do this or that, but will not be able to provide them with the funds to carry out the responsibilities that it feels they should exercise. This House will have to do so. Unless this House and the Assembly are to be of absolutely one mind—that is something that we cannot assume—there again we have the seeds of conflict.
  As has been said, it was Henry VIII, the son of the first Henry Tudor, a Welshman, who brought Wales and England together in 1536. Those Welsh Tudor kings and Queen Elizabeth I were brilliant people. They exercised in the sixteenth century a tremendous influence upon the life of England, and its effects have been lasting. In this Parliament today the Welsh have never had it so good. I have said this before—in a debate a year ago. The Prime Minister represents a Welsh constituency. The same applies to the Leader of the House. The Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker are two highly respected Welshmen. Another respected Welshman is the Home Secretary of England.
  The Welsh have never had it so good since the days of the Tudors. What are the Welsh politicians doing? Instead of maintaining their influence within the United Kingdom as a whole, they are trying partially to peel away the Welsh Pro-
  488
  vince from the United Kingdom. I do not think that that is any service to Wales. It is not a good way of celebrating St. David's Day. Surely, it is a failure of these eminent Welshmen that they should be doing that instead of doing all they can to strengthen Wales within the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Hooson: The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) has grossly exaggerated the effect of the Bill. So has the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), in what was virtually a Second Reading speech. The clause that we are discussing is complete surplusage to the Bill, and that is the sole reason why it should not stand part of the Bill. The first sentence reads:
  "The following provisions of this Act make changes in the government of Wales as part of the United Kingdom."
  Of course, it is part of the United Kingdom; otherwise, we could not be legislating for it. It then says:
  "They do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it."
  That is absolutely right. We are concerned, as we were on the Scotland Bill, with setting up a subordinate body.
  The right hon. Gentleman for Cambridgeshire showed a lack of acquaintance with the thoughts of saints when he suggested that St. David would be opposed to the Bill. He also showed a monumental ignorance of Welsh history. There has never been a body to represent Wales, elected or otherwise. Wales was run in the sixteenth century by the Council for Wales and the Marches, which was run from Ludlow. It was Bishop Lee of Worcester, the most notorious chairman of that council, who boasted that in three or four years he had hanged 4,000 Welshmen.
  The right hon. Gentleman suggests that this Bill, of all Bills, is calculated to break up the unity of the United Kingdom. I must tell him that that is absolute nonsense. The criticism that can be made of it is that it is not a very effective Bill. That is a different matter. But the whole ground on which the right hon. Gentleman attacked it was misconceived. It reminded me of the debate in the House, at which I was present, about a Secretary of State for Wales. It was suggested by the Conservative Party that a Secretary of

  489
  State for Wales would have nothing like the same influence in the Cabinet as would a Minister for Welsh Affairs. It was suggested that the Conservative Home Secretary—I think, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, who was also Minister for Welsh Affairs—would have had much more power to influence matters on behalf of Wales because he was a more powerful Minister, acting within the Cabinet and influencing the Cabinet to the benefit of Wales far more than could a mere Secretary of State for Wales.
  I do not recollect hearing the right hon. Gentleman speak on that occasion. The right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) did not agree with it, but the approach of the Conservative Party was that there would be no benefit to Wales from a Secretary of State. The exaggerated criticism that I have heard today from the right hon. Gentleman has brought back to me echoes of the exaggerated criticism made then. The Secretary of State for Wales is now exalted into an almighty position, and it would be terrible for Wales today—this is the argument—if his power and influence were in any way to be undermined.
  Mr. Pym: Whether a Secretary of State was or was not better than a Minister for Wales is a matter of opinion, but at no stage was the argument adduced that the existence of either the one or the other had any effect upon the unity of the United Kingdom, which is what we are debating.
  Mr. Hooson: With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman will find that at the time the argument was used that it would be another step in the direction of devolution, that the next thing wanted would be greater powers of devolution, and so
  on.
  4.45 p.m.
  If we create another body in Wales, there will be the same kind of conflict, somewhat enlarged, as there is between county councils and the central Government. It is exactly the same kind of conflict. For example, this is so in the case of a Conservative Greater London Council and a Labour Government in the House of Commons, or the other way round. The real problem is whether the right machinery is provided in the Bill for the resolution of the disputes which will undoubtedly arise. That is the kind
  490
  of criticism that I can understand. But the wholehearted attack on the Bill today was absolutely unjustified.
  I have been extremely critical of many aspects of the Bill, but for most of us the issue is this. For centuries Wales has not had a body which could really speak up for it. Whatever the drawbacks of the Bill, ultimately those of us who will vote for it on Third Reading will ask whether it is better for Wales to start and have a directly elected body which can speak for it, a body which Wales has never had over the hundreds of years of its history, though many have yearned for it. They will ask whether it is better to have that, with its defects, than not to have it.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: It is a happy coincidence that the Bill should start its Committee stage on St. David's Day. We have heard a good deal of history already. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) claimed that if St. David were alive today he would virtually be sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. I am bound to say that I find that one of the more bizarre notions, because if St. David were here he would not recognise one Englishman. In fact, when he was here he was busy seeking to preserve the Christian Church against the depredations of the ancestors of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches.
  Having said that, there are three brief points that I wish to make. I first want to refer to the assertion of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire that Wales does not want the Bill. As I have said before, no one knows that. The House of Commons has decided that once the Bill is law, the people of Wales are to be given the opportunity to decide. Then we shall know, but at this moment we do not know.
  It is quite wrong to say so firmly that the people of Wales do not want the Bill because there is available evidence contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. We know that the Labour Party in Wales is officially in favour of the Bill and very strongly in favour of it. We know the views of some of my hon. Friends—those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), in particular, who represents a seat in Gwent, where I understand they have a Society of St. George. I wish them well.

  491
  They are perfectly entitled to have such a society. In my constituency there is a Society of St. Patrick. I do not think that that makes Gwent a part of England, nevertheless.
  There is the party in favour of it. The Wales Trades Union Congress is in favour of the Bill. It represents its members throughout the Principality. The Welsh Churches are almost universally in favour of a measure of devolution. They may criticise parts of the Bill, but they are in favour of it. The county council in my own area of Gwynedd is broadly in favour of the Bill.
  Although one cannot say for certain what will happen if a referendum is held, we know that a substantial body of thoughtful opinion believes in a measure of practical devolution, whatever may be said by any hon. Member in the debate. I should not like to predict the result of a referendum, but I am satisfied that there are many people who believe not only in the Bill but in a substantial measure of devolution of one kind or another.
  Second, I come to the question of secondary legislation. There was a great deal in what the right hon. Gentleman said on this score, but I recall something said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales some two years ago when we debated the White Paper in the Welsh Grand Committee. My right hon. and learned Friend told us that during the first two years of his tenure of office he had signed over 1,000 orders without any debate whatever in the House. That is a substantial argument in favour of another body with time to scrutinise such orders, since they all affect the lives of the people of Wales.
  The same is true of nominated bodies. One of the arguments in favour of setting up the Crowther/Kilbrandon Commission in the first place was that people in Wales were sick to death of nominated bodies whose actions affected their daily lives but which were not accountable to any elected persons. At that time, my hon. Friends agreed. They were not in contention. They thought it necessary to do something about it.
  Third—the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has already touched on this—the right hon.
  492
  Member for Cambridgeshire failed to distinguish sharply enough between the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill. There is a substantial difference between the two. For Scotland, there is to be a legislative Assembly, taking Scotland a good way along the road towards Home Rule. The proposals for Wales are markedly less in almost every way.
  Mr. Pym: I did not go into the differences in depth, since I thought that it would be out of order to do so, but I made the point that there is to be no separate Executive in Wales as there is to be in Scotland. Although the Welsh Assembly will not have power to pass Acts, it will have legislative powers and a legislative role separate from the House of Commons. I made that point, too, although I did not go into the matter at length.
  We must recognise that, although there is not such a strong form of devolution for Wales, there is a considerable degree of devolution, including a legislative role.
  Mr. Hughes: I agree that there is an important measure of devolution, but it is not to be compared with what is provided in the Scotland Bill.
  Mr. Pym: I agree.
  Mr. Hughes: The formulation of policy and the introduction of major legislation will take place in the Scottish Assembly, but the same will not apply in Wales. Major policy for Wales will continue to be decided at Westminster. Major legislation will continue to go through the House of Commons. The Budget will be decided in the House of Commons.
  I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that while major policy continues to be decided here, while major legislation in respect of Wales continues to go through the House of Commons, and the Budget is decided here, it will be quite wrong to talk about reducing the number of Welsh Members of Parliament.
  Fourth, the right hon. Gentleman and others make far too much of the possibility of confrontation between Parliament and the Assembly in the event of a change of Government. The only example that we have in these islands is Stormont, and one hesitates to refer to it, but the fact is that for 50 years there

  493
  was very little inter-governmental confrontation. When I had the privilege of serving as Minister of Agriculture, the Stormont Minister for Agriculture came over to see me nearly every month. He was a Conservative and Unionist—and that had been the experience throughout 50 years. There was a good deal of argument, but there was far more cooperation, and I think that the same would be true in the present case.
  We have had some experience of these things in the past. Perhaps one of the best examples is the controversy following the Balfour Education Act, when the Welsh county councils, led by David Lloyd George and others at the time, confronted the Government on the implementation of that measure. But there was no great abiding trouble. There was no revolution. There was none of the great row which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends seem to envisage. I believe that things will work perfectly well.
  The right hon and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) spoke of the Welshmen now occupying senior positions in the State. We are very proud of them. They are there because they are the best men for the job. The fact that they are there proves beyond a peradventure that the Welsh can run a modest little Assembly of this kind and provide the men for the job, despite all that is said by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool. The Welsh can provide the leaders and Members of an Assembly of this kind, as they have provided leaders in the British Parliament and in local government throughout the years.
  Finally, I come to the comparison which the right hon. Gentleman drew between the allocation of resources per capita in Wales and the allocation in England. I must say that I find this somewhat distasteful. It is impossible to make a comparison on allocation of resources between a country of 2½ million and a country of nearly 50 million.
  If one were to compare the allocation of resources in Wales with the allocation of resources in England, for example, north of a line just below Newcastle, one would be nearer the mark. It would be a fairer comparison. I do not regard a comparison between England and Wales as any fairer than a comparison of allo-
  494
  cation of resources between the South of England and the North of England. Indeed, I am sure that if anyone started to make any such comparison my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) would be on his feet at once. I cannot accept that the suggested comparison holds water.
  Mr. Pym: I absolutely accepted, as everyone does, that there is a different allocation. All I was saying was that it seemed to me that the Bill would throw the disparity into focus. I believe that that would be a pity. It is one of the consequences of the Bill which I find undesirable, precisely because it would focus attention on something which nobody at present bothers about, because everyone accepts it as fair.
  Mr. Hughes: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman approaches the matter with the utmost good will but, for the reasons which I have given, I regard the effort to compare as odious.
  I believe that with a measure of good will from this House, among all parties, the Assembly proposed for Wales should work. It is not perfect in all respects—I can find plenty of room for criticism—but, given the opportunity, it will, I believe, go a long way towards satisfying national aspirations in Wales. My fear is that if we do nothing we shall find ourselves having to give a great deal more later on.
  Sir Raymond Gower: The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) makes a valid point when he says that the proposed Assembly could work. I am sure that no one doubts that. Nor is there any doubt, so far as I am aware, of the ability of those who may be elected to it to carry on effectively the work which will be conferred upon that Assembly. That is not in question, either.
  The question is whether this is a wise and proper course to take at this time, and whether it is desired by a formidable majority of the Welsh people—or even by the majority of the Welsh people. Those arc the questions to which the right hon. Gentleman should address himself, not the question whether it is wise to have an Assembly to take over nominated bodies, for example. If he is forced to such an argument to sustain

  495
  his support for an Assembly of this nature, I think that that reveals that the Assembly is not likely to be a very important body.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I merely referred briefly to a point which was emphasised in the report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution.
  Sir R. Gower: Be that as it may—I understand how the right hon. Gentleman puts it now—the important question is not the one to which he addressed himself. The right hon. Gentleman speaks as though there is some tremendous difference in kind between Wales and parts of England. The truth is entirely to the contrary. Families are divided by geography. Some families live in Cheshire and some in Flintshire, and it is merely an accident of birth that some live on one side or the other of an imaginary border. One sees how slender is the difference between so many parts of the United Kingdom.
  Similarly, in parts of South Wales there are many people living in Gwent—whence comes the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse)—whose ancestors were heavily drawn from the West of England. They came there at the time of the growth of industry in the industrial part of Wales, and again it is purely an accident of birth that one cousin lives on the Bristol side and another cousin, or several cousins, live on the Glamorgan side or the Gwent side, so intertwined is life in these islands today.
  One has to consider all the implications of dividing the country up in some way. The right hon. Member for Anglesey said he was quite sure that this was a modest Bill. I accept that on paper it appears to be modest. But many of us have fears that this is a very thin edge of a very large wedge.
  The right hon. Gentleman was at some pains to distinguish between this Bill and the Scotland Bill. I believe that the present Government merely took the view "The row has been louder in Scotland. There is a separate system of law which does not obtain in Wales. Scotland has had a Secretary of State for longer. Therefore, there is a case for giving Scotland a bit more."
  5.0 p.m.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: The hon. Gentleman spoke of a border existing in the imagination. Does he extend that argument to the Scottish border or was he applying it only to the Welsh border? If so, is he seriously telling this House that people imagine themselves as Welsh as opposed to being English?
  Sir R. Gower: I did not apply my argument to Scotland at all because the geographical setting is somewhat different. The very nature of geography has perhaps tended to make a bigger separation. But even the hon. Lady will be aware that numerous people have moved into various parts of Scotland who are certainly not of Scottish ancestry and vice versa.
  Mr. Ronald Atkins: The hon. Gentleman should add that many Angles have settled in the central lowlands of Scotland and probably form a bigger part of the population than those from the Highlands.
  Sir R. Gower: The hon. Gentleman has made a pertinent observation with which one cannot disagree.
  I take a rather different view from that of my right hon. and hon. Friends. In some ways I regret the departure of this wording from the Bill. I accept that the Government were quite honest when framing this clause and really believed that the proposals did not affect the unity of the United Kingdom in any way at all. They probably felt that there was a need to give confidence to the people of the United Kingdom and, therefore, put in some wording to lessen the anxieties of those who feared the break-up of the United Kingdom.
  Sir David Renton: Does my hon. Friend agree that in doing so the Government broke one of the basic rules of drafting? That is, that when introducing Acts of Parliament one does not make expressions of opinion. One is entitled to make an expression of intention of purpose, but the words contained in the Bill are merely an expression of opinion.
  Sir R. Gower: I tend to agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, but the wording certainly suggests that when this

  497
  clause was framed the Government included an explanatory statement that the following provisions in the Act would make changes to the government of Wales as part of the United Kingdom. But they then added these comforting words in order to remove all anxieties. They included the assertive statement:
  "They do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it."
  I wish that were the case. But for the reasons stated by my right hon. and hon. Friends I think that to some degree the provisions in the Bill will affect the unity of the United Kingdom.
  What is more, they provide the sort of framework from which might emerge events that would much more seriously affect the unity of the United Kingdom. That is the danger, not the actual wording of the Bill, defective as it is.
  Mr. Michael Roberts: That, too.
  Sir R. Gower: That, too. Nevertheless, if we could have this Bill and the changes embodied in it and we could say with certainty "It will be so far and no further", some of us might be willing to consider it in that light.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: From time to time in the past the hon. Gentleman has described himself as a federalist. How does he reconcile that with the comments that he has just made?
  Sir R. Gower: In my submission, by setting up a federal system we would have a far greater chance of remaining as a stable system. Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is not present. He could explain this better than I can.
  I would remind the hon. Gentleman that if one set up a federal system—this is something which the Government might consider—it would not embody connotations of differences of nationality which the proposed system of devolution embodies. We would have the same system for the whole of the United Kingdom and not merely for Scotland and Wales. That would constitute an important and vital difference.
  Mrs. Margaret Bain: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify
  498
  whether what he is saying is the official or unofficial policy of the Conservative Party in view of its lack of commitment on devolution?
  Sir R. Gower: It is no one's policy except my own. I hope that I am entitled to speak as a Back Bencher. While I largely share some of the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), I dissent from him on his apparent pleasure at the disappearance of these words from the clause. I would rather that some words remained in the clause stating that nothing in the Bill shall affect the unity of the United Kingdom. I would rather that the provisions of the Bill were consistent with those words. Unfortunately, that is perhaps not possible. Perhaps I am asking for far too much.
  But we are entitled to have serious anxieties, despite claims that this is a lesser measure. Many of the views expressed by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) obtain here, too. The fact that to some degree hon. Members for Welsh constituencies will be looking at many problems in a different light means that it will not be possible for them to speak with confidence in matters which are devolved.
  Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman represents an area in this House. Although it will also be represented in the Assembly, if the representatives of that area respond to the pressures in that area they can speak with every confidence.
  Sir R. Gower: That is a specious argument.
  Mr. Wigley: It is right.
  Sir R. Gower: It is not right. It is not even accurate. A situation may arise where an hon. Member for an area sitting in this Parliament may be of a different party from the person sitting in the Assembly. It is likely that there will be two or three Assembly representatives. There is a good chance that one of them will belong to a different party from the Westminster representative. To that extent the representative at Westminster may not share the views or sentiments, or have the same opinions, as some of the persons in the Assembly.
  I think that is a fair point to make. I believe that in certain respects it will

  499
  be possible that the position of Westminster Members will be affected. The fact that the Government are now agreeing to the omission of this clause indicates to me that they unfortunately apprehend that the wording is not accurate. They accept the fact that these changes will to some degree affect the unity of the United Kingdom. Perhaps that is why they are omitting these words. Whatever is said and done in the debates that follow, I hope that we shall accept the principle that if there is an Assembly it will be one that can be reconciled with the existence of the United Kingdom. Whatever the defects of the United Kingdom, it has been something of great importance to the kind and quality of life that we have enjoyed in these islands. We should not lightly cast this away.
  Mr. Abse: I do not share the view expressed by many people that this clause is, in fact, simply declaratory. Rarely do I agree with what is said by the Leader of the House and the Minister of State in this debate, but if there is one thing with which I do agree it is their constant insistence that this clause is very important.
  As I indicated in my less-than courteous intervention in my representations earlier, I regard this clause as the foundation stone upon which the whole edifice stands. That was the view of the Government also, and they fought long and hard to preserve this important clause in the Bill.
  The Government put the view that, far from affecting the unity of the United Kingdom, this Bill would strengthen it. The Committee should remember when we are debating this clause that two essential arguments have been presented by the Government to explain why they thought that this was the case, and why they believed that they could with confidence put this clause in to underline and demonstrate that the Bill would preserve the unity of the United Kingdom.
  Broadly speaking, they put two theses forward to justify it. The first I shall call the "blackmail thesis". The Government said, not explicitly but implicitly, that there would be rivers of blood if we did not have the Bill. The Taff would be red with blood, the barricades would be erected in Splott, and the pro-devolutionists of Gwent would storm down the valleys of Monmouthshire, even as their
  500
  Chartist forefathers did, to seize Newport. They argue that these were the consequences to the unity of the United Kingdom if the Bill did not go through. No doubt the Army would be out at Stow Hill and we would find Sketty and Cyncoed in revolt. The Union Jacks would be hauled down from the Swansea civic centre and the Cardiff city hall. That was the blackmail argument that was presented to the House to justify putting the Bill through—that if we did not the whole of Wales would be in revolution.
  But, of course, the collapse of the Bill in the last Session and the yielding of the Government to our demand for a referendum—both done against the wishes of the rabid pro-devolutionists and the nationalists, who never supported the referendum until they rather belatedly suggested that they should join in—did not bring a ripple to the Ebbw. No blood flowed. All that flowed was a little more ink in the editorials of the Western Mail and a little more paint which was poured out by the nationalist fellow travellers on to the signposts of the Principality. This was the only response to the collapse of the Bill in the last Session, and the fact that we insisted on a referendum.
  5.15 p.m.
  This means that Wales, by its overwhelming indifference, showed that it was concerned only with relevant problems that challenged the Principality—unemployment and the consequences of the third industrial revolution. It mocked all those who had hoped to compel Wales into submission by presenting all these nightmarish fantasies and the Government now know it.
  The bluff has been called, and the demand that in order to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom we must placate a blackmailing and fanatical minority can no longer be respectably presented again by the Government. This was the first reason why the Government said that we had to have this clause and this Bill. Now they are somewhat muted. Such diffidence, We all know how fluent Ministers usually are, but their defence has collapsed because the good sense of Wales has demonstrated that it would not yield to the notion that it could be provoked into action when, on both sides of the Committee, so many hon. Mem-

  501
  bers from Welsh constituencies had insisted that the Bill would disadvantage Wales and bring no benefits.
  The second argument to justify the Bill and to prop up this ringing, bold clause, was the Government's claim that there would be genuine and considerable devolution of power to Wales of such a kind that it would satisfy the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), who has a distressing habit of attacking many of us on this side of the House and then disappearing—
  Mr. Ronald Atkins: My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) had to leave the House to chair a most important meeting. He apologises for his absence.
  Mr. Abse: That may be so, but it happens with great frequency. It would be better, when a debate is so obviously rigged to coincide with St. David's Day in the hope that there will be some resonance of a chauvinist view coming out of Wales, for my right hon. Friend, and the Secretary of State, who is also absent, to be present. If there are reasons for the Secretary of State's absence, they should be heard.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): My right hon. and learned Friend has been at No. 10 Downing Street today to listen to the Wales TUC.
  Mr. Abse: The House can judge for itself.
  Sir A. Meyer: Unfortunately, I have to leave the debate in 10 minutes in order to take part in a television broadcast with the Secretary of State on this very subject.
  Mr. Abse: I regret these absences. I recognise the responsibilities of the Secretary of State but I think that there are occasions—and this is one, particularly as the debate was arranged so long ahead—when he would have been wiser and would have shown greater respect for the Committee had he been present.
  I return to the second thesis that the Government are putting forward. They say that a massive hand-over is being given to Wales. Let us look at the language of the
  502
  White Paper. It is always good to go back to it. There was no suggestion that this is a little Bill of no importance, and no suggestion that only little powers were involved or that it would be an exaggeration for anyone to say that what was proposed was a fundamental constitutional change. On the contrary, the White Paper said:
  "a massive handover was intended to be given to the Assembly."
  In my opinion, this is what is being given.
  The White Paper, expressing the view that the Government believe is embodied in the Bill, talked of:
  very substantial policy-making and executive powers."
  and:
  "wide responsibility for democratic oversight."
  The Secretary of State went round Wales telling people that what was being given was a revolution constitutionally, which would meet, according to the White Paper:
  "the aspirations of the great majority of the people of Wales."
  The right hon. Member for Anglesey no longer talks about the Bill's meeting the aspirations of the great majority. He diffidently and cautiously suggests that perhaps he might hope for a little majority. He says that no one knows. His confidence has evaporated. The political maturity of Wales, the most politically mature part of the United Kingdom, has been expressing its opinion and has subverted the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government Front Bench. They know that they are meeting not with enthusiasm, but with great and well-founded antagonism.
  It was because, they believed and said, a great change was taking place, which was absolutely necessary, and because these great changes were satisfying the aspirations of the majority of people in Wales, that the United Kingdom would be preserved.
  The blackmail theory has gone. No one now says that if we do not have devolution there will be blood flowing in Wales. Not even the Leader of the House would give warnings on that score. Also gone is the belief that they were satisfying the great majority of the people of

  503
  Wales and that this was a fundamental change.
  I shall tell the Committee why the Government suddenly argue as they do. They know that the more they argue the aspirations are being satisfied and the United Kingdom being preserved by a massive hand-over, the more likely it is that the House of Commons will demand, in the face of such changes, that it must be satisfied that at least 40 per cent. of the electorate would want such an irrevocable change.
  There has been an orchestration coming from feeds from the Welsh Office and, doubtless, other Government quarters, echoed in the Western Mail and The Guardian today. These journals are suggesting, in almost the same language, that the changes are slight and that there is not the same reason for anyone to get as concerned about this Bill as the House of Commons did about the Scotland Bill The reason for this orchestration is that just as, originally, the Government wanted to play up the changes, they are now desperately anxious to play them down. The more they tell us what they originally told us, the more the House of Commons will insist that, in order to bring about these changes, there should be an unequivocal vote in a referendum with the overwhelming majority which the Government claim was in existence. The Government are totally in retreat and they are beginning on this St. David's Day in their customary—on the issue of devolution—shambles.
  Once we begin to examine what will happen if the Bill goes through, we realise how the role of every hon. Member representing a Welsh constituency is bound to be demeaned. Let no one say that I am exaggerating. When listening to the conflict between the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and others on this issue, I applied my mind to the consequences for me and my work and I am sure that every other hon. Member was doing the same. We are all engaged in constituency matters. Each will have in the forefront of his mind particular issues that are affecting and impinging on his constituency.
  I could give the Committee a catalogue of such issues—as could every other hon.
  504
  Member representing a Welsh constituency. I am engaged in trying to persuade the Secretary of State to put greater pressure on the Welsh Development Agency because I want capital for the extension of a factory in my constituency which is suffering from considerable unemployment.
  I am engaged in trying to push forward certain bypasses because my local authority and constituents believe that the road system must be more streamlined in order to meet the problems of unemployment and to attract industry. I am also engaged in trying to wheedle more money to get a comprehensive school built and a fully implemented comprehensive education system in my valley.
  All hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies could tell the Committee of similar issues. I shall be utterly impotent in these matters once the Bill is passed. I shall not be able to make effective representations to the Welsh Development Agency because it will be under the domination and control of the Welsh Assembly.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: Will my hon. Friend tell the Committee whether he thinks the Bill is about the better government of Wales and the rights of the Welsh people or about the rights of the Welsh Members at present sitting in this Chamber? It seems that the two issues are separate.
  Mr. Abse: The hon. Gentleman may have little confidence in his personal competence in being able to exercise leverage upon a Government. I am confident that in my constituency there is a belief, which is being expressed in the opinions coming from Wales, that Welsh people elect hon. Members and expect them to exercise leverage in this House. They do not want untried and untested Assemblymen who will be a totally unknown factor and will not be experienced in dealing with the Government or be able to mobilise, as hon. Members can, pressure upon the Government.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the illogicality that he will, however, be able to decide on exactly those issues in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler)?
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Abse: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) has anticipated the point that I was about to make. He has raised a valid point. If my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) thinks that these matters are so trivial, I remind him that I represent a new town, the responsibility for which I share with the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas). The future of that town and its administration will go to the Assembly. In that new town is more than a third of my electorate.
  There are consequences. My hon. Friend may say "Bravo" about responsibility for the new town going to the Assembly. He may say "What an indolent life you will now be able to lead". The absurdity is that, if the Assembly came into existence I should be able to intervene in all the debates on issues affecting every new town except my own. I shall be able to debate all the issues affecting every new town in England. For how long will the Members representing those towns put up with that? Why should they put up with it? Why should I and other hon. Members be able to participate in the decision-making process affecting every constituency in England while the Members representing English constituencies will, like myself he debarred from participating in so much of the decision-making within the Principality?
  Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the new town of Cwmbran will have representatives who will be able to bring pressure to bear in the appropriate place? Although the hon. Gentleman may not be doing that personally, the town of Cwmbran will have adequate or excellent representation that will bring to bear the necessary pressure.
  Mr. Abse: I doubt whether that argument will commend itself to my constituents in Cwmbran, who know how much hostility has been aroused within neighbouring authorities because it is suggested that an excess of capital has gone into the new town. We at Westminster can take a more detached view than can be taken locally. Whereas we can get the Secretary of State for Wales to take an overall view of such issues and to be unsullied by local pressures, there will be local bargaining in the Assembly. I
  506
  accept that that bargaining can take place in this place, but it will be inevitable and overwhelming in the Assembly.
  It is clear that the view will be taken in the Assembly that the new town will suck up too many resources, even though that is justified and central policy in the past has said that that was right. It would be a disaster if Cwmbran New Town had to depend upon Assemblymen for its development. I shall not pursue that issue, but it highlights the difficulties that are arising and adds to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), who stressed that because legislative power is not in itself being handed over with the handing over of all this policy making, the giving of executive power to the Principality is bound to lead to enormous tensions between the Assembly and ourselves.
  In my judgment there is bound to be a conflict between the Assembly and the House. In many respects the conflict could be greater than the conflict between Scotland and England. I shall explain why. The reason is that the ambiguity will be greater. To be able to distinguish between executive action and legislative action, to be able to distinguish between a broad legislative outline and the application of detailed policy, is bound to mean that a large area will be ambiguous. In Scotland the conflict that may arise will be overt and clear. There may be conflict between the legislation that this place wants and the legislation that is passed in Scotland. However, in dealing with Wales we have such a grey area that it is inevitable that every question could be argued and disputed when there appears to be a policy need or an administrative need. Conflict would arise because in the crude outline of legislative policy the details would be left to the Assembly.
  Is it not clear that there is bound to be dispute? Above and beyond having an Assembly we shall have, if Wales remains true to its loyalties as it has done for the past 40 years or 50 years, a Labour Assembly and the unfortunate possibility that one day there will be a Conservative Government at Westminster. There will be then the obvious conflicts and the day-to-day conflicts. They will be in addition to the annual conflict that may arise when there is dispute about the block grant. There will be a constant war.

  507
  The war will mean that the Assembly will quickly come to the conclusion that the Royal Commission is said to have come to—namely, that the Assembly should have a swollen Civil Service of its own, not a shared one with Whitehall. Such an Assembly would cost Wales a high price financially.
  On the Government's figures, which I do not accept, each Assemblyman would cost Wales £37,500 a year by way of salary and supporting services. I tell myself that of course the Government did not have the insouciance today to do what they did before—namely, to claim that in terms of the clause that was being proposed the unity of the United Kingdom would not be affected. I believe that the people of Wales want to retain the unity of the United Kingdom. Above everything else, I believe that the Labour movement of Wales wants to retain the unity of the United Kingdom. Above everything else, I believe that the Labour movement in Wales wants to retain the unity of the Labour movement of Britain. It does not want to see a State come into existence in which it finds that, when faced with the issue of the distribution of resources of Britain it is judged not according to its needs but as an ethnic group, may be a spurious ethnic group, or according to some bizarre geography.
  In debating the clause we are debating a fundamental principle. The Bill will subvert the influence of Wales at Westminster. It is a Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Davies), bringing with him great experience from the Welsh Office—
  Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman rightly when he referred to a spurious ethnic group? Was that meant to be a description of Wales, of a nation that has existed from at least the time of St. David, in the sixth century, and whose tradition has most remarkably survived? If it is meant to be a description of Wales, I am sure that it will be greatly resented by the Welsh people.
  Mr. Abse: In Pontypool we are well aware, as we are in the whole of Gwent and in the city of my birth—Cardiff—of how many streams come into the identity of Wales. I need no lectures from the hon. Gentleman on the Welshness of Pontypool. The hon. Gentleman has only to consider our rugby team. He will
  508
  realise that we know how to express our Welshness in the front line of the Wales pack. We know in this place how to express our Welshness. That is not by retreating to the parish pump and becoming ancient Britons, but by the affirmation that we are to be modern Britons. That sense of Welshness is felt particularly keenly in Gwent.
  I referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower and the experience that he brings from the Welsh Office, where he did so much good work. He has said that the inevitable consequence will be that the role of the Welsh Office will be diminished.
  The junior Ministers who are here today should not believe that there will be three Ministers representing Wales when the time comes—if ever it does—that we have a Welsh Assembly. I am not surprised that there are rumours—I know not whether they are true—that perhaps they may not share the enthusiasm of the Secretary of State for devolution. It was as a result of the initiative of the Labour Party that Wales was able to have a clear voice in the Cabinet. That was a great triumph but I doubt whether it will continue in the long run.
  The Welsh Labour movement will understand that in the interstices of the political argument that we have heard today from the Opposition there is a clear admonition to Wales that there would be a severe reduction in the number of Members who would represent Wales if the Welsh Assembly were to come into being at some time in the future.
  My conclusion, as the Committee may well have gathered, that this is a bad Bill, and that in particular it is bad for Wales.
  Mr. Peter Thomas: I start by congratulating the Secretary of State for Wales. As he has absented himself, on this St. David's Day, from the first important debate in the Committee stage of the Bill, and incurred nothing but mild and tolerant criticism from the House, it appears to me to be a matte: worthy of congratulation.
  Things have changed since the days when I was Secretary of State for Wales. If, in a similar situation, my junior Minister had put forward as an excuse that I was at 10 Downing Street meeting the Wales Trades Union Congress,

  509
  and that later I was to take part in a television programme, I think that the Opposition at that time would have almost slaughtered me. I therefore congratulate the Secretary of State on having an Opposition who are very tolerant and gentlemanly, and a little more civilised than the Opposition of my day.
  I regret that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is not here at present—he is probably appearing on television—because he referred to me in his speech and I want to say one or two things about what happened in the past. Just over 25 years ago, when I first came to this House as the Member for Conway, we had as a part of our programme the appointment of a Minister for Welsh Affairs. That was criticised very much at the time by our opponents, but nevertheless the appointment was widely acclaimed in Wales.
  When I made a speech from the Government Benches shortly after the appointment, I likened it to the door being left ajar for further devolution, because I believe that it was the beginning of devolution in Wales of an administrative nature. I believed that in the course of time, should our experience show that it was necessary, vie could move towards a body such as an Assembly.
  My mind was never closed, and as time went on and the first Secretary of State for Wales was appointed, I was never opposed to that idea, although I was critical of the fact that it was very little improvement on the previous position, as the Secretary of State's powers related only to local government, transport and housing as far as I remember. It was really just an additional title, and the former Minister for Wales, who then dealt with housing and local government throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, would probably have had greater authority in the Cabinet. But since then greater powers have been devolved to the Welsh Office, and my experience in the three and a half years that I had there was that it served Wales well. One thought, therefore, in terms of evolution towards greater administrative devolution for the benefit of Wales.
  5.45 p.m.
  I looked at the idea of a Parliament or an Assembly for Wales in the hope
  510
  that I would find something which would be of benefit to Wales and which would provide more industry and reduce unemployment, as well as improving the social services, and so on. When the proposals were first advocated, I was particularly concerned with the matter which goes to the very kernel of Clause 1, namely, how it would affect the unity of the United Kingdom.
  I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and other hon. Members who have said that they are satisfied that the Bill, if it goes through, will undoubtedly affect the unity of the United Kingdom. I say so—I have mentioned this before—because I have no doubt at all that if the Bill is passed and the referendum allows the Assembly to come into being, it will be a source of considerable conflict not only between the Assembly and the Government, or the Assembly, the Welsh Office and the Government, but also between the Assembly and the local authorities in Wales.
  I have no doubt at all that the Secretary of State for Wales will be emasculated in his functions. I have no doubt at all that the Members of Parliament will have sterile responsibilities, and that the demand for a reduction in the number of Members from Wales will be not only inevitable but ultimately irresistible. I have no doubt at all that the Assembly, if it comes into being, will be a source of irritation and conflict and will ultimately be disastrous for Wales.
  It is for that reason that I express my view, as I have in the past, that it is not in the interests of Wales that the Assembly should come into effect. At the time when I had responsibility, I put forward what I considered to he the proper policy, namely, further devolution of an administrative nature through the Welsh Office.
  I am obliged to you, Mr. Murton, for letting me make a short contribution and to say that I wholly support what has been so excellently said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). I think that his argument is irrefutable and that this House should give no support to the Bill.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: I shall be dealing later in my speech with some of the points made by the right hon. and learned

  511
  Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas). Several hon. Members have already made reference to the fact that the debate is being held on St. David's Day. I think that St. David would not have boasted about his Welshness. I believe that he had strong Irish connections, which is fair enough, because St. Patrick had Welsh connections. This is typical of the Church, is it not, with its belief in the brotherhood of man? But it is unfortunate that on the day when we are celebrating our patron saint we should be debating the Wales Bill, which is trying to separate one group of brothers from another.
  I am delighted with the good will of the Government Front Bench, in the sense that the clause is to be permitted to go out of the Bill. That is a very good start. I can nominate some other clauses—not a short list, either—on which I hope the Government will take similar action.
  We had a debate on a similar Bill for Scotland. Amendments were made to that Bill, which improved it. There is an argument whether this Bill can be improved, but it has already been improved. The people of Wales are to decide what is to happen to it. It is important that we put before the people of Wales a Bill which is not full of bristling inadequacies.
  It could be argued that the people of Wales will accept the proposal. I do not know when the referendum will be. Since this is St. David's Day, perhaps we can have an early announcement that the, referendum will be held on St. David's Day next year. Let the people of Wales decide on that day whether they want the Bill.
  It has been argued that the Government have changed the rules. They included a clause in the Bill and now they want it removed. I hope that we shall not experience the situation that we experienced on the Scotland Bill when, whenever an amendment was successful, the Government were accused of changing the rules as they went along. We are in Committee. It is the time for discussing the Bill clause by clause and considering amendments. It is the height of impudence for the nationalists to criticise us because we changed the Scotland Bill with the 40 per cent. rule. No less than
  512
  64 amendments to this Bill are connected with Plaid Cymru Members. Apparently those three Members have the right to change the Bill but if anyone else attempts it they are accused of changing the rules.
  Mr. Wigley: The majority of these amendments are connected and will be taken together. They will not take up a large proportion of the time.
  Mr. Evans: I know that some of the amendments are consequential upon each other. That does not alter the wrath that we get from Plaid Cymru Members when we seek to move an amendment.
  Tonight we shall discuss an amendment that is similar to one that was moved during the consideration of the Scotland Bill. The Committee on the Scotland Bill decided that it did not want Clause 1. The Government have taken note of the will of that Committee. They are now not going to move Clause 1 of this Bill. That is legitimate. However, when any hon. Members from any quarter moved amendments to the Scotland Bill they were accused of changing the rules.
  We shall shortly discuss an amendment dealing with proportional representation. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) wants to change the rules on how we vote for an Assembly. He says that he has that right but that no one else has. I hope that his party does not have a majority in the Assembly.
  Mr. Wigley: In the last debate that we had on proportional representation the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) argued that the rules could not be changed. He said that he wanted to retain the status quo. Now he is only too willing to change and fiddle the rules.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Member for Caernarvon completely misinterprets my remarks. I said that it would be wrong to have the first-past-the-post system for this Assembly and a different system for other elections. The hon. Member should not mislead the Committee about what I said. I was opposed to PR but I did not deny the right of hon. Members to persuade the Committee to accept that system.
  I welcome the fact that the Government are not to include Clause 1 in the Bill. This is the wrong time to embark on this measure and to change the machinery of government. This is a time

  513
  when we do not have a majority, when we are in the run up to the election, and when we have not formulated the correct proposals to change the procedures. The Government have made concessions. Originally they included proposals for Scotland and Wales in one Bill. That was wrong, and we defeated that proposal on the guillotine motion. Now the Bills are separate.
  These are major constitutional issues. We should not say that the Bill does not affect the unity of the United Kingdom because we are not sure of its effect. No one can put his hand on his heart and say that the Bill will have no effect. We are leaping into the dark.
  We made a demand for a referendum so that the people of Wales could decide. There was tremendous opposition to that proposal. Some people said that there was an overwhelming demand for an Assembly in Wales. We said that we must put it to the test by way of a referendum. Some of us argued that the referendum should be held before the Bill was considered, so that the benefits and disadvantages of such an Assembly could be put to the people. We could then have put forward the Bill in the House. The Government could then have said that there was a majority in Wales which wanted the Bill and that therefore they would proceed with it. We cannot be certain whether the people of Wales want the Bill. That is as much as we can say. Some of us feel that there is great opposition to these proposals. The issue is now to be decided in a referendum.
  I find the Bill extremely divisive. It is divisive among parliamentary colleagues, and there is no unanimous feeling about it in the Labour and trade union movements. We are only at the beginning. Wales has a population of fewer than 3 million. Scotland's population is 5½ million. There are fewer people in Wales and Scotland than in London. There are 9 million people in London, but in Wales we have an enormous number of community bodies. We have 30 district councils, eight county councils, the Welsh Office, and a Secretary of State in the Cabinet, and now we are to inject a Welsh Assembly in Cardiff into the system.
  I believe in an increasing role for government but I do not believe in over-
  514
  government. It could be said that we shall be over-governed if we impose an Assembly on to the present structure.
  Mr. Ian Grist: The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) may remember the splended discussion document "Devolution: The English Dimension." It gives the lie to the argument that is often made by Ministers and others that we are not to have an extra layer of government. The document, dealing with regional government in England, states that
  "To sum up, the case for change is seen to lie in: —… providing a layer of government to deal with such matters as may be better dealt with at a level intermediate between central and local government as they now exist."
  The Government have enumerated this sort of body as a layer of government.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Evans: There is the semantic argument about what is a tier of government, but the Assembly is a new form of administration and it represents an extra part of government. Industry that comes to Wales or is already there will have to deal with an additional body, and that is not good.
  But what is to happen to local government? Earlier I said that if the Assembly proposals go through it will lead to the scrapping of local government in Wales. That brought forth loud protestations. Local government would not be touched, we were told. I realise the difficulty. The previous Conservative Government proceeded with the reorganisation of local government before the Kilbrandon Commission presented its conclusions. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party rushed ahead with its local government proposals. If it had waited to see the Commission's recommendations, proposals could have been presented that would have made sense.
  The Welsh Office realises that local government has been reorganised. It does not want it to get around that it may be reorganised again and that there will be an upheaval. So the White Paper says that local government will not be affected.
  Mr. Gwynfor Evans: How many Welsh Members voted for that reorganisation?
  Mr. Evans: I cannot do that research for the hon. Member. He will have to do it for himself. I was not a Member of the House at that time. I believe that Labour Members opposed the proposals that were put forward by the Conservatives. The hon. Member should address that question to one of my colleagues. He was not in the House at the time. He had been thrown out by the people of Carmarthen, and I had lost my seat in England. He should not ask me what was happening here when neither of us were Members.
  Sir Raymond Gower: Does the hon. Member not consider that the Assembly would in any event be a most unsuitable body to examine the framework of local government since it might have an incentive to reduce local government powers in order to gain powers for itself?
  Mr. Evans: If the hon. Member had been patient, he would have heard me make a similar point.
  The problem is that the Conservatives went ahead with local government reorganisation. The present Government, in presenting their proposals, have tried to leave local government to one side. The evidence given by the Labour Party to the Kilbrandon Commission dealt with what was virtually a top-tier local authority which would cover the whole of Wales and would have beneath it a unitary authority. I would have agreed with that because it would have made sense, but it does not make sense to maintain the existent structure of local government and impose an Assembly on top of it. Having imposed that Assembly, the worst possible approach would be to ask it for recommendations on how local government should be reorganised.
  The association representing the county councils in Wales has said that the eight counties want the Committee to delete Clause 13 because it bestows on the Assembly a function that it should not have.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: Would the hon. Member be in favour of devolving power to the people of Wales if the Government did away with one tier of local government?
  Mr. Evans: I believe in devolution, but I do not accept these proposals. There is no obligation on hon. Members to
  516
  accept proposals just because they are put forward. I do not believe that the proposals in the Bill will prove to be accetable in Wales or will deal with the problems that they seek to deal with. The Bill leaves more questions unanswered than it answers. That is why I welcome the fact that the people of Wales will be given the opportunity to decide what to do with the Bill.
  The basic weakness in the Government's approach is that the proposals for devolution should have applied to the whole of Britain. There is a case for regionalism for dealing with the nominated bodies. There is also a case for electing rather than nominating representatives, and it is better for that to be done throughout the whole of the United Kingdom rather than just for Scotland and Wales in isolation. That is why I do not accept these proposals and why I shall be campaigning for a "No" vote in Wales.
  The Bill will endanger the existing number of Members of Parliament representing Wales. There are 36 of us here and we can express the points of view of our constituents. That representation will suffer if we do anything to diminish the number of Welsh Members of Parliament. Further, that would introduce disunity into the relationship that exists between Wales and the rest of Britain.
  If the Assembly is created, what will be the future function of the Welsh Office? If functions now exercised by the Welsh Office are to be transferred to the Assembly, will functions that are exercised by other Government Departments then be transferred to the Welsh Office?
  What guarantee do we have that the Secretary of State for Wales will have a seat in the Cabinet after the Assembly is established? I can imagine that a future Prime Minister might feel that since Wales and Scotland had their own Assemblies he should reduce the number of Cabinet posts, and the two respective Secretaries of State would be left out. That, too, would lead to disunity.
  What is to be the role of Members of Parliament when the Assembly is established? There has been much discussion about the so-called West Lothian question. Basically it means that Scotland—and in this case Welsh—Members can raise matters that relate to England but

  517
  be denied the opportunity of dealing with their own constituencies. Further, Scottish and Welsh Members would have the privilege of dealing with English matters, but English Members would be unable to deal with Scottish and Welsh matters. Perhaps in our debates on the Wales Bill we should refer to this as the West Glamorgan question. West Glamorgan has anxieties about its future, as have those hon. Members, who represent it.
  I do not think that there are any sinister motives behind the presentation of the Bill, but I do not think that those who have formulated it have sufficiently taken into account the changes that have taken place through the reorganisation of local government. We are creating in the Assembly a Frankenstein monster which will gather its own momentum and could well have a separate existence from the House of Commons. We are dealing, in the Bill, with a chemistry of conflict and confrontation; we are dealing with the biology of breakup and possibly breakdown in Wales' relations with the rest of the United Kingdom; we are dealing with the physics of friction and protestation which will arise if the Bill becomes law; we are discussing the science of separatism.
  I know that the intention is to maintain the unity of the United Kingdom, but we should not ignore the fact that the people who have been wholeheartedly behind both the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill from the beginning are the nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales. They have been enthusiastic for these Bills, yet they cannot call themselves "devolutionists" because they do not believe in the unity of Britain. Their whole purpose is to destroy that unity
  I have deep anxieties about the Bill, but I am pleased that the Government are prepared to take into account the views of the Committee, and I am delighted that the Government do not intend that Clause 1 shall be retained and that we shall soon be moving on to Clause 2.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I think that I can enlighten the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) a little further on the matter of local government, which is dealt with in Clause 13. Surely he must realise that Clause 13, which gives power to the Assembly to reform the structure of local
  518
  government in Wales, was a very late entrant into the Bill. I suggest to him that it was put in by the Government because of the criticism that there would be over-government, too many tiers of government, if the Assembly was installed on top of the existing set-up.
  I do not think that the Committee has realised fully the monumental admission of original error on the part of the Government in that they have no intention now of pressing Clause 1. They are wise not to do so, for obvious reasons. It was voted out of the Scotland Bill, and what is not good enough for Scotland is certainly not good enough for Wales, especially on St. David's Day. The case made against the inclusion of Clause 1 in the Scotland Bill is equally valid in the case of Wales, and it is as well to put that on record.
  The most damaging legalistic point was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) in the debate on Clause 1, as it then was, of the Scotland Bill—the same clause as we are now discussing. He said, and has repeated the point again today, that
  "It is an important and long-established principle of legislation that a Bill should contain law and not expressions of opinion or propaganda. Expressions of opinion, whether right or wrong, good or bad, controversial or agreed, have for years been considered irrelevant to legislation."—[Official Report, 22nd November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1337.]
  There is no doubt in the Committee's mind that this clause contains such an expression of opinion where it states that the provisions of the Bill.
  "do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom".
  The historical coup de grace, as it were, had already been delivered to the clause a little earlier in that same debate by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) when he referred to the fact that a similar clause had been used in the 1912–14 Government of Ireland Act. He pointed out that it
  "was exploded before that Act could ever be put into effiect".—[Official Report, 22nd November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1333.]
  6.15 p.m.
  If the Government propose to drop Clause 1 from this Bill, it has an important repercussion on the very last part of the Bill, namely, the form of ballot paper to be used in the referendum. The negative

  519
  theme of Clause 1 is transformed into a positive theme there in the form of the ballot paper, and the people of Wales are to be told:
  "The Act provides that…Wales should remain part of the United Kingdom."
  If it is a matter of opinion whether the provisions of the Bill do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom as stated in Clause 1, it is similarly a matter of opinion whether the Bill provides that Wales should remain part of the United Kingdom.
  The Bill is, to my mind, a stepping-stone in the other direction—towards the independence or separatism that we have heard so much about, as some amendments put down by Plaid Cymru Members clearly suggest. If the Government are withdrawing Clause 1, they are in honour bound to remove the words on the ballot paper which are based on that clause. I am glad that the change has been made in the Scotland Bill by a Government amendment, and I hope that we can have an assurance before the end of this debate that a similar change will be made in the Wales Bill. If that change is not made, I think that the people of Wales will be grossly deceived.
  I mention the matter now because it is doubtful whether we shall be able to discuss the form of the ballot paper at the end of the Bill on the eighth Allotted Day. Incidentally, I must say that the people of Wales would be horrified and appalled if they realised how scanty and cursory our discussions of the Bill are to be. Some key clauses and schedules will hardly be touched upon. I therefore hope that the Chair will be very generous in its interpretation of the rules of order so that we may make cross-references from amendments under discussion to other parts of the Bill affected.
  The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Gentleman appears to be trying to get an assurance that the Chair will divert or depart from normal practice. If an amendment is not before the Committee, obviously it will be out of order to discuss it.
  Mr. Roberts: We were given certain assurances earlier, Sir Myer, with particular reference to this clause.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Let us be clear on the matter. I was present when the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) raised a whole string of points of order, but what the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) is suggesting now is that, when we come to a group of amendments, hon. Members should be able to discuss amendments not included in that group. If I am wrong in my interpretation, I apologise to him, but I thought he was trying to get an assurance that he would be allowed to refer to amendments not included in a particular group before the Committee at the time.
  Mr. Roberts: I think I expressed the hope that the Chair would be generous in its interpretation of the rules of order so that we might make cross-references from the amendments under discussion to other parts of the Bill affected by those amendments.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement as to what he wants from the Chair, but I could not give such an assurance at this stage. It will all depend on how deeply an hon. Member would go into the matter of cross-references.
  Mr. Roberts: I rest on your generosity, Sir Myer.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I am in a generous mood at the beginning. I do not know what I shall be like in half an hour's time.
  Mr. Roberts: My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) began the debate with a major speech on the Bill as a whole. He was entitled to do that because the provisions of the Bill are the subject of the clause.
  I wish to look at the Bill briefly from the standpoint of the government of Wales, which is also referred to in the clause. I look at it as one who lives under that government and who has constituents living under it. I know very few who relish the prospect of the Bill's provisions coming into effect, and those few are clearly misguided as to a number of facts.
  As we have said time and time again, there will be interminable conflict between the Welsh Assembly and Westminster over money, powers and functions. If

  521
  the Government think that through the Bill they will finally divert Welsh criticism from Westminster to Cardiff, they are very wrong. That transference of criticism may be short-lived. If the Government think that conflict will be creative, the answer is "Yes" in the sense that it will stimulate nationalism and "No" in the sense that it will not remove the grievances or improve the lot of our people.
  Reference has been made to the resources allocated to Wales. I think that the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) said that: he found the subject distasteful. Distasteful or not, I think that the matter of the allocation of resources is vital. I have here a Written Answer given to me on 17th November on how resources are allocated to England, Scotland and Wales. Whereas identifiable public expenditure per head in 1974–75 was £543 in England, it was £583 in Wales. A year later it was £686 in England and £776 in Wales. The provisional figures for 1976–77 are £754 in England and £875 in Wales, a difference of £121. The difference is growing. We have been doing better and better in terms of per capita expenditure under the present system.
  Let me add one more set of figures, those for Scotland, which has done best of all. I give only the figure for 1976–77, which was £948.
  I ask myself this key question: shall we do better than that under an Assembly? I am sure that in the long run the answer is "No". Perhaps in the first year or so we shall appear to do better, but it will not be for long, because when greater demands are made on the Treasury we shall be asked "Why don't you raise your own resources through your own taxation?"
  Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is another possible interpretation of the figures he has just given? He says that Wales and Scotland receive more from the public purse. Is not that because Wales has more unemployment, and more poverty and because the social services there demand more? Are not those facts the consequence of misgovernment, and is not that an argument that there is more misgovernment in Wales than in England?
  Mr. Roberts: When we receive more per head than England, I cannot regard that as misgovernment or lack of generosity by the Government of the United Kingdom as a whole. The hon. Gentleman can provide his own interpretation, but let us also be absolutely clear that the expenditure is not totally raised in Wales. I am certain that we could not raise it through our own taxation.
  That is where the hon. Gentleman's party fails. It must say honestly to the people of Wales "We could have independence, we could have a separate Wales, but it would mean that Government expenditure per head would be considerably lower than it is now."
  As so many hon. Members have said, one of the consequences of the Bill is that the power of Wales at Westminster and the role of the Secretary of State for Wales will decline. As a result of this legislation, the Secretary of State will have a weaker voice in the Cabinet.
  Incidentally, we are glad to see the Secretary of State now on the Government Front Bench. We understand that he has been to No. 10 today. I hope that he had a strong voice there. One thing is sure: that his voice will be weaker in the Cabinet. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that he has not been to No. 10? We were told earlier that he had been there. We also understand that he took part in a television programme. It may interest him to know that I turned down an offer to appear in the same programme.
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): May I correct the impression that, I gather, the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) gave the House? I took no part in any television arrangement of any shape or form.
  Mr. Roberts: The Secretary of State has still not explained his absence from this important debate. He owes the Committee rather more explanation than he has given.
  Mr. John Morris: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be here a great deal of the time within the period allocated to the Bill. The fact that I am not here at every possible moment is not unusual in the proceedings on any Bill, especially in view of the approach that the Government are adopting towards

  523
  the clause, which the hon. Gentleman knows.
  Mr. Roberts: I still do not think that the Secretary of State has fully satisfied the Committee on this matter. But I leave it to his conscience and to the knowledge of the Committee.
  Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman must not adopt this posture of humbug.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: It is justified.
  Mr. Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman contain himself? He has been away and has now returned to the Chamber. He must not behave as he used to behave.
  There are a whole host of things going on, a whole host of committees and other meetings that I must attend. But I give the assurance that I shall be here for the overwhelming part of the time that it is necessary for me to be here, and if I ame not here, another Minister from the Welsh Office will always be present.
  Mr. Roberts: I am prepared to withdraw the statement that the Secretary of State had taken part in a television programme towards 6 o'clock. But we were firmly told by the Under-Secretary that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been at No. 10 earlier today. That was brought forward as an excuse for his absence.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Roberts: I go on to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."]—that, if the Bill is passed, the Secretary of State will no longer be directly responsible for the administration of a large body of legislation. In fact, he will exercise, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire said, a residue of powers. I doubt whether the Secretary of State will be able to co-ordinate the whole of Government activity in Wales. As a result, the cohesion of policy and government in Wales will be affected. After all, economic policy is often affected by decisions on planning, housing, transport and so on.
  Indeed, in their White Paper in 1974 the Government admitted that the Secretary of State for Wales would disappear, at least in his present form. Indeed, he has—during the earlier part of this debate.
  524
  We are glad that he has returned in his present form—although he tends to remind me of the schoolmaster in "The Deserted Village" whose pupils had learned
  "to trace the day's disasters in his morning face."
  The White Paper said that even if the Secretary of State were retained, he would have more limited powers.
  The Secretary of State will himself be involved in endless wrangles with the Assembly over powers and functions and their exercise. When he is not doing that, he will be trying to keep the Assembly and the county councils apart in a bitter dogfight that has already begun even before the Assembly has been created.
  We have talked of over-government and the relationship between the Assembly and local government. This matter will be debated when we come to Clause 13—I hope. This is St. David's Day. St. David was, indeed, a man of peace. It is ironic that the Government should be introducing the Committee stage of this contentious Bill on our saint's day. It is a Bill that will bring bitterness and divisiveness to Wales and possibly unwarranted fear to many people in the Principality.
  Mr. Ronald Atkins: The clause states that the Bill will not affect the unity of the United Kingdom. That would be true only if Wales were really a nation, but it is not a nation. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) spoke about the beginning of Welsh nationhood in the Middle Ages. In fact, nationhood did not exist in those days. Tribal warfare and feudalism existed, but it is very significant that nationhood in this country and, indeed, in the world did not really start until Tudor times, when a Welsh dynasty took over England, just as a Scottish dynasty took over England as well.
  Therefore, let us look at the criteria of nationhood, because it is the chief reason given for separatism or devolution rather than regionalism. One criterion would be that Wales has been an independent State for centuries. It has not been so It has not really existed on its own ever, any more than Northumbria or Mercia have existed on their own. Though there may be reasons for having separate regions for Mercia and Northumbria, they

  525
  do not mean devolution of the kind contained in the Bill. There has been no separate existence for Wales.
  Mr. Wigley: The hon. Member has said that there has not been any such thing as Welsh nationhood. He is surely confused between the terms "nationhood" and "statehood". There has not been an existing Welsh State as there was a separate Scottish State prior to the Act of Union of 1707, but that does not mean in any way that there has not been an existing nationhood and in fact, a nationhood that has been recognised in many aspects of life other than the constitutional aspect, in, for example, sport and other activities.
  Mr. Atkins: I have referred to one criterion which is a very important criterion in a list of criteria on what nationhood is. The other criterion that is frequently mentioned is language. Language on its own is not sufficient. In Switzerland, for example, there are many languages but a very strong nation.
  To the great majority of people living in Wales Welsh is a foreign language. The introduction of road signs in Welsh, for example, in many parts of Wales is not only expensive but causes confusion to the great majority of motorists. Despite all the money spent on the Welsh language, it is not surprising that it continues to decline. That is because it is a weak language compared with the most important and the strongest language in the world—English. Welsh does not have an earthly chance in competition with English—which has become the language of the world.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the hon. Member agree that the Secretary of State for Wales is doing his utmost to try to save the language of which we are so proud in Wales? Does he disagree with me when I say that what the present Government are doing is trying to save the Welsh language?
  Mr. Atkins: Yes, I disagree. I feel that education in general in Wales will suffer, as it has in the past, by the preference given to Welsh-speaking teachers. As a teacher, I have suffered having to go to England, being English-speaking—although I was born in Wales, as were my parents—because preference is given to
  526
  Welsh-speaking teachers despite the fact that they may be inferior teachers.
  Hon. Members talk about the unity of the United Kingdom. We may well have increasing disunity in South Wales because of the bigotry and arrogance of some of the demands of Plaid Cymru and people who have already established themselves in leading positions in Wales and have been doing so for years.
  When I was still a grammar school boy in Barry, it used to be said that there was a foreign language department in University College, Cardiff—not the Welsh language, let it be said—at which, if one happened to be a strong Welsh nationalist, there was no difficulty about getting a first-class honours degree, whatever the examination paper was like. That was said at Barry County School. Some of my schoolmates were advised about that.
  Nevertheless, there have been jobs for the boys in many of the establishments in Wales if those boys happened to be Welsh nationalists. That is why Plaid Cymru is so articulate and so well represented in the public discussions that take place in South Wales.
  Mr. Wigley: The hon. Member has mentioned Plaid Cymru and teaching jobs in South Wales. He will be aware that Plaid Cymru has never controlled, unfortunately, and does not control any education authority in South Wales. There have been stories about certain appointments in South Wales, but what the hon. Member cannot do is to lay anything contained in them at the door of Plaid Cymru.
  Mr. Atkins: One does not have to be a member of an education authority in order to favour one's own party. I remember that in South Wales, and particularly in Glamorgan, it was a disadvantage to be a Labour teacher because of the hierarchy in the education authority. It it possible to control a hierarchy without doing so through a party, but that is a most undemocratic and insidious way of forwarding one's own interests.
  But there are other criteria. There is ethnology. The Celts—their language is the basis of Welsh—were closely related to the Anglo-Saxons. But neither the Celts nor the Anglo-Saxons were the original inhabitants of Wales. Basically, they were a Mediterranean people. The Celts conquered the original people—
  Mr. Padley: I am sorry that I was not here when my hon. Friend began, but he has referred to the Celts. I am a Celt from the Cotswolds, but I represent Fforddygyfraith and Nantyffyllon. As an old international Socialist in the tradition of Keir Hardie and James Maxton, I shall defend the cultural inheritance of my constituents while rejecting the separatism of Plaid Cymru.
  Mr. Atkins: By all means let my hon. Friend defend the culture of his compatriots, even if it happens to be an English culture—as the South Wales culture obviously is. My hon. Friend was brought up in the tradition of Shakespeare and Chaucer, and not that of some Welsh poet of whom neither of us can quote a word.
  Mr. Padley: I am an adopted Welshman. My wife is Scottish, but she was brought up in Wales and was taught to speak the Welsh language. I became an adopted Welshman nearly 30 years ago. But, whatever can be said about the Welsh valleys, theirs is not an English culture. It might be called a universal culture based on the values of a humane philosophy, but there is a distinction. I am proud, as a Celt from the Cotswolds, to challenge this view.
  Mr. Atkins: I am not an adopted Welshman. I was born and bred in Wales, as were my father and mother. But their fathers and mothers came from Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Dorset, as did so many South Waleans. Those who came from the Midlands and from Ireland were accepted by the Socialists of South Wales, who believe in internationalism. "Workers of the world unite" was the sort of thing on which I was brought up in South Wales—not "Workers of South Wales unite against the workers of England".
  My grandparents came to South Wales and were welcomed there when the Cornish tin mines were petering out and agriculture in the South-West of England was in great depression. They as much as the inhabitants of Wales built up the industry and the culture of South Wales, particularly its Socialism. They regard themselves as part of the whole community and not a narrow, bigoted and arrogant one on their own.
  528
  There is regionalism in South Wales, however, but it is based not on nationhood but on economic development and communications. For instance, Bristol used to be regarded as the commercial capital of South Wales and Liverpool the commercial capital of North Wales. Although I was born a Welshman and lived most of my life in Wales, I did not get to North Wales until I became the Member of Parliament for Preston, North.
  It is very difficult to get to North Wales if one lives in South Wales, and vice versa. I have always felt a stronger regional feeling with Bristol, which I knew, than I did with North Wales. When I was a boy, there was frequently stronger feeling against some North Waleans than there was against some Englishmen.
  Like other people from Wales, I will cheer the Welsh rugby team, but the kind of feeling that goes into cheering Welsh teams is not national. When Swansea plays Cardiff at rugger, there is a similar feeling and expression. When one's own local team is not in the contest, one takes sides with the team which is nearest. Since Preston North End fell into the Third Division, for choice of First Division teams we cheer Manchester United or Liverpool. So one cannot relate nationhood to the team that one supports.
  6.45 p.m.
  There is room for regionalism in Wales, although, having studied the subject, I believe that South Wales feels more sense of identity with South-West England and North Wales with Merseyside than North Wales does with South Wales. Nevertheless, for sentimental reasons Wales could be considered a region. But that has nothing to do with nationhood. In fact, the imposition of a "phoney'" feeling of nationhood on people who resent it in South Wales will bring more disunity than unity.
  For instance, although I am glad that there is to be a referendum, I am confident that it will show a majority against devolution. The feeling in South Wales against the extreme nationalism of a minority is causing a counteraction. Sooner or later, people will regard Welsh nationalism, so-called, for what it is really worth. I think that this minority feeling is the development only of a protest vote against the two major parties.

  529
  It is significant that the Liberal Party has not done so well in the Celtic fringe since the development of nationalism as it has done in England.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Atkins: I am sorry, Sir Myer, I had sat down only because I thought that the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) wanted to intervene at that point.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I see. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the guillotine falls at 11 o'clock.
  Mr. Atkins: I apologise. Sir Myer, but I had a number of interventions which required the courtesy of replies. I have been taken away somewhat from my theme.
  The attitude of the Wales TUC and the Welsh Labour Party, which has been mentioned, in a recent development based, I believe, on electoral considerations. Both major parties brought this situation on themselves by bargaining for the floating, possibly nationalist, vote. The Conservatives started it—at least, they took the first important step forward in 1970—and we followed. Then the Tories pulled out.
  We get hung up on this matter, and it is time that we restored a little sanity. The feeling that I knew in the Wales TUC and the South Wales Labour Party, which is essentially the Welsh Labour Party anyway, was one of internationalism, of a welcome to all nations and all people. There was not bigotry or arrogance but a feeling for one's community, based on social compassion and justice, not on national bigotry.
  The Welsh lobby, after all, goes throughout the political spectrum, from the extreme Left to the extreme Right. As a Socialist, I am concerned that that great community spirit should not be destroyed. I fear that it will be destroyed in the controversies which will follow the passing of the Bill if it leads to a referendum and to a loss in the referendum for the anti-devolutionist movement. However, I am confident that that will not be so.
  All the same, it needs to be said that we should drop this "phoney" talk about nationalism and turn our attention to the problems that matter and affect South
  530
  Wales and Scotland. I refer to the problems of unemployment and poverty, lack of justice, illness and all the other social problems that need to be dealt with. It is a pity that we have to waste time, but I hope that we shall learn the lesson from this debate before the Bill is concluded.
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I shall speak fairly briefly. It is appropriate that I should follow the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) because I, like him, am yet another expatriate galloping back into the fold, drawn to my native land by the tremendous attractions of this most interesting Committee.
  One of the points made by the hon Member for Preston, North is that he is here representing an English constituency and that he is a Socialist but, as he says, an international Socialist. That is a point which has constantly been made in the Committee, not only by those who participate but by those who take an interest in our proceedings, even if they have not spoken in them. Let me explain what I mean. We saw very recently in the Chamber the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), who comes from South Wales. I come from Cardiff and represent an English constituency. We even have a Cotswold Celt who has gone the other way. We have someone from Preston. We hope that at some time we shall hear from my hon. Friend the Member for no less a constituency than City of London and Westminster, South (Mr Brooke), who happens to have two parents in another place, both of whom have taken Welsh titles. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) was in his first incarnation in this place the Member for Newport, and he comes from a Monmouthshire family.
  Within the United Kingdom there is ample scope for hon. Members from whichever part they come to represent other parts of it. It is a very healthy thing.
  Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does the hon. Member share my experience that the Englishmen whom I represent have none of the national prejudices and small-mindedness which might be found in certain parts of Wales?
  Mr. Temple-Morris: Coming from Cardiff. I could not agree with that. The hon. Member spoke earlier about "jobs

  531
  for the boys" in Wales. Having contested elections in other areas, as I have done, my experience is that those things go on everywhere. It might be that the Welsh are a little better at it than other people, but it is in no sense exclusive to any part of Wales or to South Wales in particular.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the hon. Member agree that if an Englishman now living in Wales wished to stand for the Welsh Assembly he would have the right to stand and be elected by the Welsh people to represent an area in Wales?
  Mr. Temple-Morris: With due respect, I think that it would be a very optimistic Englishman who went across the border to stand for the Welsh Assembly with the thought that he might get elected.
  Mr. Padley Mr. Padley rose—
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I am not giving way at the moment. I am afraid that the Anglo-Celts or the Cotswold Celts are even more excitable than the genuine variety who represent most of Wales.
  Our Parliament is one Parliament. The hon. Member for Preston, North and I are saying that it is the universality of the United Kingdom and the freedom of movement to and fro which is very much at stake through the shrinking that might take place as a result of this sort of Bill. Many of us on both sides of the Committee are frightened that that may happen if the Bill is passed and eventually—I do not believe that it will—becomes law. That is what we are anxious to protect.
  A number of hon. Members on both sides have referred to the legislation being clearly unwanted. The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) is one of the very few Labour Members to speak in support of it. We have had some active Liberal interventions and quite a few from Plaid Cymru. But had the Secretary of State been here throughout our proceedings he would not exactly have been overcome by the support that he has been receiving from the Benches behind him.
  The right hon. Member for Anglesey claimed that all sorts of people supported the measure, from his own party, the
  532
  Church and so on. The point was made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee at the time of the referendum argument: why should we waste time here now when there is to be a referendum after this measure, and there could so easily have been a referendum before? I agree with the hon. Member for Preston, North on that.
  Hon. Members from the Welsh nationalist party have been less than forthcoming on the referendum question and less than anxious to face the people before the Bill went through.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: As the hon. Member has virtually invited me to intervene at this point, I should say that we have always advocated a referendum on all constitutional changes in Wales. As far back as from the 1960s we have been supporters of a referendum on our own policy for national status. Any constitutional changes in Wales must take place with—to use the famous phrase—the full-hearted consent of the Welsh people.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: If I have said anything to draw the hon. Member from the Welsh nationalist party to make it clear that he wishes to go to the Welsh people, and this has always been the wish of his party. We are pleased to hear it. Many of us have not much noticed it before.
  Mr. Abse: It is not surprising that the hon. Member had never heard of it before, because the catalyst which brought about the referendum, as the hon. Member will recall, was a reasoned amendment in my name and the names of 150 Members of all sides of the House of Commons except those representing Plaid Cymru, who gave no support to the idea of a referendum.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Pontypool. I was hoping to be called to follow him so that I could compliment him on his speech, which was one of the best that I have heard for a long time. His speech was appreciated by myself and many of my hon. Friends and Labour Members.
  We realise the role that the hon. Member and others who have supported him have played. It is because of that role played by the hon. Member and others that the Bill starts as a shambles, to quote the very words that I believe he used when

  533
  dealing with the; commencement of the Bill and the admitted and acknowledged falling of the Clause 1—a falling by consent, which, in view of what has gone by with regard to the Scotland Bill, shows the state to which we have come.
  While I have claimed my expatriate status, may I say that I think that such is my status, so fresh, that I knew every place mentioned by the hon. Member for Pontypool from Sketty to Cyncoed or the Gower, or whatever it was, as well as Newport, which I contested in the General Elections of 1964 and 1966.
  The right hon. Member for Anglesey dealt with the question of confrontation by playing down the Welsh Assembly, which suddenly assumed a small and inferior status. The hon. Member for Pontypool has dealt with that.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the example of Stormont. The answer crept in in a completely different context when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) was dealing with the behaviour of the Opposition and referred to the absence of the Secretary of State. My right hon. and learned Friend said "See how nice we are about such things, and how quiet we are" and then went on to make a point similar to the one that I am about to make.
  Let us consider what would have happened if our roles had been reversed. I shall deal with the question of Stormont in a moment, but if a Conservative Secretary of State for Wales had been talking to the Welsh CBI in Downing Street one can imagine the reaction from the Opposition Benches.
  7.0 p.m.
  It is claimed—I hope it is true—that we are reasonable and pleasant people, but what will happen if the proposals now before us eventually go through? I do not wish to be derogatory, and I say this with due respect to the Unionist Members now in the House of Commons and the gentlemen of their party in Northern Ireland, but one recalls the difference between what happened at the time when they had comparatively great authority as Unionist gentlemen and events since 1969, when Stormont was dissolved and there was a great change.
  There is an analogy here. If the Con-
  534
  servatives were to have power in Wales, as we have in the county councils now, it is pretty clear what the reaction would be on such matters as comprehensive education. Even such magnificent people as we are—at least, I hope that we are—would tend to resist the authority of the central Government and have Conservative County Councils.
  One recalls also the Clay Cross affair and the resistance of Labour-controlled local authorities throughout the country to the Housing Finance Act. Again, reversing our positions, one begins to get a reasonably firm answer to the argument presented by the right hon. Member for Anglesey.
  There is another point which should be made. We have heard about the nature of Wales, but the discussion has been somewhat academic regarding its national identity and status and no one has spoken directly about whether there is a genuine national cohesion. If the Welsh are asked to orient themselves upon Cardiff, they will be asked to do something which most of them have never done. I agree here with the implication of what was said by the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins). With the greatest respect to those who come from Cardiff or represent Cardiff constituencies, it must be said that Cardiff is not the Welshest of places. As most of us know, the Cardiff accent is a Cardiff accent. I could drop into it pretty quickly myself, and it is quite different from the Welsh accent.
  Mr. Thomas Swain: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that at 10 minutes past four this afternoon we were informed that the Government were prepared to withdraw this clause? Why is he still rattling on?
  Mr. Temple-Morris: To tell the truth, I am rather enjoying myself, although the interventions by hon. Members on both sides have considerably prolonged my brief speech. If only hon. Members would resist the temptation to interrupt me, we might get along more quickly. One might say that I am having a bit of practice for later stages.
  I was about to say that there is no national cohesion in Wales. There were references earlier to newspapers, and they gave a good indication. We heard of the Argus and the Echo in South

  535
  Wales, and then the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock)—I think it was he—went straight up to the Liverpool Daily Post. Thus, the point is made.
  North Wales is oriented one way. There is then central Wales, whose problems of rural depopulation and so forth are far more akin to those of the English rural counties adjacent to it. Then there is the South Wales conurbation, with its very pleasant capital city which will, as it were, be the centre for the Assembly, if it comes, but which none the less is a town towards which most of the rest of the Welsh nation do not orient themselves.
  I have mentioned in passing the affinity of central Wales for the rural areas on the other side of the border. I endorse here what various of my hon. Friends have said about Wales doing very nicely now. It so happens that in rural Herefordshire, an English rural area adjacent to the border, people are concerned to see the vast benefits now going to Wales because of its automatic development area status.
  The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) talked about his motorways and about getting money for ring roads. I cannot get my county council even to adopt a lane. I am not in the same league with the hon. Gentleman because I do not have the sacred status which hon. Members from Wales enjoy—that is, their easy access to money even in present circumstances, let alone under the Assembly system, which is not wanted anyway.
  I mention now a local problem for my area which mirrors or exemplifies much that has already been said. Water and inland drainage in the English border areas adjacent to Wales will come under the control of the Welsh National Water Development Authority, under the Secretary of State, and under the Assembly. Its various functions will therefore be divided among the Assembly, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, so that there will be three different governing bodies for that important sector of operations which engulf those on either side of the boundaries settled under the Water Act 1973. Thus, an English area will look for a material part of its living standards—namely, water supply and land drainage—largely to an Assembly in which it will
  536
  have no voice, for that Assembly, if it is any good, will have a fairly dominant influence there.
  Finally, I turn to the position of the House of Commons itself. The hon. Member for Pontypool spoke of the demeaning of the role of the Member of Parliament. I shall be interested to know, and I imagine that some of my hon. Friends will be interested to know, what the Plaid Cymru Members will do if our role here will be so magnificent with regard to Welsh affairs as they seem to indicate by their interventions. For which Parliament or Assembly will they opt when the time comes? Will they seize the opportunity to go back home as it were, where they see power lying? I suspect that they will. I suspect that they will endeavour to control the Assembly at some time or other, depending on the tide of national politics and fortune to gather protest votes.
  In my view, there is opportunity for adequate control in the House of Commons and it could be used for Welsh affairs. If I may add a word without trespassing on the next debate, a bit of proportional representation here and there would produce a much more effective body. In other words, a few more Welsh Conservative Members in this place would give it a far better opportunity to control affairs. If it is said that the House of Commons is inadequate, the answer does not lie in going for a Welsh Assembly. It lies rather in making a few changes, which, with due respect, are badly needed in this place as well.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: Throughout the debate, with its host of speeches thus far, I am the first, I think, after my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) to defend the Bill, and I think it sad that it should be left to an Englishman—and, what is worse, an Englishman from the Welsh Marches where one would expect the maximum hostility, and, worse still, a laryngitic Englishman—to offer that defence. I can claim also to be a Celtic Englishman, so I hope that that will be taken as a qualification in my favour.
  I am provoked to speak by the speech of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), which I thought was semi-hysterical. If I had not known the content of the Bill, I should have assumed that he was describing a Bill for the

  537
  independence of Wales. That was certainly the implication of his speech, and I shall deal in detail with the arguments that he adduced.
  However, before coming to that, I must allude to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I do not join the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) in thinking that it was a fine speech. It was magnificently delivered, if I may say so, but it consisted of three parts, the first being a personal attack upon my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey. I had hoped that we could manage to debate this question as a matter of principle, without indulging in personalities, which does no credit to the House of Commons or to individual Members.
  Mr. Abse: Since he is indulging in a personal attack upon me, perhaps my hon. Friend will identify with greater clarity the basis of his charge. I commented quite diffidently on the absence of the Secretary of State for Wales on such an important occasion. Does my hon. Friend regard that as a personal attack? Is not the presence of the Secretary of State something owed to a Committee of the House on such an occasion?
  Next, I commented on the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) delivered a speech in which he named and attacked me and then, as has been his habit, left the Chamber. Was my comment on that a personal attack?
  Mr. Fowler: My right hon. Friend subsequently returned to the Chamber. If my hon. Friend ever achieves that seniority in politics which I suspect he thinks—and some may think—his due, he may discover that senior persons in politics cannot always be present in the Chamber throughout a debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] I repeat that I deplore the degradation of our debate on this crucial issue to the level of scurrilous personal attacks, whoever makes them, whether it be my hon. Friend or others.
  Mr. Abse: Or you.
  Mr. Fowler: If such attacks are made, I think it right and proper that other hon. Members should comment upon them.
  538
  The second part of my hon. Friend's speech was an attack upon the phantas-magorical creations of his own fertile imagination. Some of them were exceedingly amusing. He constructed a series of arguments that were advanced only by himself and he destroyed them. That does not help the course of this debate at all.
  The third part of my hon. Friend's speech consisted of the remarkable argument that what is wrong with the Bill is not that it lessens the democratic rights of the people of Wales or that it provides an inadequate democratic check upon the activities of executive officers in Wales. The argument was that it might lessen the existing power of certain Welsh Members of Parliament. That was the burden of my hon. Friend's argument. It is not an argument that impresses me.
  My hon. Friend said that I represent the new town of Cwmbran. I want to be able to represent the needs of Cwmbran in the House of Commons. My hon. Friend will recollect that an argument frequently adduced from the Labour Benches is that the more, we can transfer the assets of, and the responsibility for, the new towns to local authorities, the better, and that the quicker we reduce the power of development corporations for any particular new town and hand over the assets for which they are responsible to the locally elected councils, the better it will be. Those are the arguments frequently adduced from the Labour Benches.
  When, however, we have a Bill which transfers responsibility for these new towns to a democratically elected Assembly in Wales—presumably, on the figure, Cwmbran will have its own Member—my hon. Friend says "No, because I cannot question the Secretary of State in this Chamber." That is not an argument which has any relevance at all to the argument for Welsh devolution.
  Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is an expert on constitutions. Can he tell the Committee of any constitution in which various groups of members have differing powers? Would he say that such a situation would represent a stable constitution? Can he cite any parliamentary constitution in which that would occur?
  Mr. Fowler: Yes, the constitution which obtained in the United Kingdom

  539
  since 1921 with regard to the creation of the Stormont Assembly. That is the easy answer to the question.
  Whatever the difficulties that arose, oddly enough, with regard to most legislation, Stormont did not get out of line with the House of Commons. Strangely enough, whether the majority in the House at the time was Conservative or Labour, Stormont stayed in line. It is remarkable how similar are the social provisions which existed before direct rule in Northern Ireland to those which we have on this island. Whatever the special problems that have arisen in the Northern Ireland context, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's argument was a very powerful one.
  I want to turn to the main burden—
  Mr. Kinnock Mr. Kinnock rose—
  Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is clearly intent on diverting me from the main burden of my argument.
  Mr. Kinnock: I intervene only because my hon. Friend is not the first hon. Member to have used the analogy of Stormont. If it is the case that there was such unanimity of legislative provision, why was it necessary for the people of Ulster to develop and use a civil rights movement the like of which has not been seen and which never existed in this country? Was not that a product of the kind of devolution that we had in Northern Ireland? Would my hon. Friend be proud of that as a precedent for what is being proposed?
  Mr. Fowler: That is a most remarkable irrelevancy from my hon. Friend, for whom I have the highest respect. Had he made such an intervention on the Scotland Bill, I could well understand what he was saying. He has made it on the wrong Bill. We are talking here of executive devolution, not legislative devolution.
  Mr. Kinnock: Stormont did not have executive devolution. Why is my hon. Friend talking about that?
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Fowler: I was asked a specific question about a constitution in which there are Members with two different sets of powers. There was a simple answer
  540
  and I gave it. I shall not be diverted further into the considerations of the problems of Stormont.
  Mr. Grist: But it was not stable.
  Mr. Fowler: I turn to the arguments of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. The right hon. Gentleman told us that it was quite monstrous to consider devolving responsibility for subordinate legislation to an Assembly in Wales and that we must retain the right in the House of Commons to debate orders made by the Secretary of State. That is a quite remarkable situation.
  Can any right hon. or hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench tell me how many orders made by the Secretary of State for Wales have been debated in this Chamber in this Session of Parliament?
  Mr. Kinnock: None.
  Mr. Fowler: The answer is "None at all". The Secretary of State for Wales makes far more orders than any other Secretary of State—
  Mr. Kinnock: No.
  Mr. Fowler:—with the possible exception of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Mr. Kinnock: Environment.
  Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend says the Secretary of State for the Environment. That may conceivably be true. But do not let us argue the toss. The Secretary of State for Wales is nearly at the top of the list. I think that my hon. Friend and I would agree on that.
  Yet we debated none of the orders made by the Secretary of State for Wales, although the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire believes that it is a constitutional necessity and a constitutional imperative that we retain the right to debate such orders in this Chamber.
  I believe that it is a constitutional imperative that we begin to debate secondary legislation of a sort which can have a profound impact on the lives of the individual. Here we have a proposal for a forum in which it can be debated, a forum which is not congested with legislation and other matters, as this Chamber is.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to the problem which defeated the Kilbrandon Commission and has so far defeated the Government also? They have given no explanation whatever as to why we should not discuss the question of debating orders in the House. Those orders are prepared by the Government who initiated the legislation. It is part of a continuing process. Under the proposed scheme, however, a different Assembly will produce the secondary legislation orders although it may totally disagree with the Act under which they are made. How is that source of conflict to be resolved?
  Mr. Fowler: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. In the first place, he says that the orders are prepared by the Government who prepared the legislation. Has the hon. Gentleman never heard of changes of Government? Does he not know of continuing legislation? His right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire suggested that orders were laid with regard to comprehensive education. Has not the right hon. Gentleman heard of the 1944 Education Act? That would be the Act under which any orders with regard to education are likely to be laid.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) and I were not present at that time. That Act was introduced not by a Conservative Government but by a national Coalition Government. It is quite nonsensical to suggest that orders are laid in the House by the Government who prepared the primary legislation.
  It is equally nonsensical to suggest that in the Welsh Assembly orders will be laid which contradict the primary legislation, because they will be drafted in terms of that primary legislation. If those orders are not within the terms of the primary legislation, they are ultra vires. Therefore, the problem described by the hon. Gentleman simply does not arise.
  I return to the speech of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. He objected to the principle that secondary legislation affecting Wales should be considered by the Welsh Assembly. He and his colleagues, if in Government, would have a simple remedy, because it is the Government who lay primary legislation before us who create the necessity for
  542
  subordinate legislation. Subordinate legislation is not something that exists as of divine right. It is something that exists by the terms of primary legislation.
  One of the great elements of flexibility in the Bill is that it will be within the power of future Governments of the United Kingdom and future Houses of Commons to determine the scope and possible volume of subordinate legislation affecting Wales. It could be none, or it could be very wide indeed. If we adopted the practice of producing what some people would call "framework" legislation, we would be allowing a wide measure of choice in terms of subordinate legislation to the Welsh Assembly.
  I turn to the control of executive acts. One would have thought from listening to the speech of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire that we in the House of Commons were constantly questioning and scrutinising the executive acts of the Secretary of State and forcing him to change his mind. I challenge the right hon. Member to produce one good example of a debate in the House which has forced the Secretary of State for Wales to change his mind on a decision taken by the exercise of power conferred on him by an Act of Parliament. I challenge him in the knowledge that there is not one such case.
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire suggested that this was a power that we must retain. Is it not better that the power should be exercised by an Assembly which has the time to examine executive acts before they are taken and where it is possible to get the view of more than one person, expressed in the cut and thrust of debate, on the right action for a given situation? This is an extension of democracy. I found it profoundly disturbing that the whole tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was essentially anti-democratic.
  We have heard it suggested that there will be constant wrangles about the level of financial support for the Welsh Assembly. Quoting again from the speech of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, I believe he said that the real danger was not that the level of support for Wales, measured by needs, is higher than that for parts of England, but that devolution would focus attention on that fact. In other words, it is all very well for us here to show a bias

  543
  in favour of Scotland or Wales or other more remote parts of the United Kingdom, in terms of the distribution of resources, as long as the great constituency outside does not realise that that is what we are doing.
  Mr. Kinnock: Rubbish.
  Mr. Fowler: I think that it is right and proper to get that fact out into the open. We should adopt the principle that in our democratic society our constituents should know exactly what we are doing with their money. If that means a certain type of dispute because the South-East does not like supporting other parts of the country, it is to our advantage that people realise this fact and take the arguments on board. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said "rubbish", but I must tell him that he will not win the argument for Socialism in the South-East until that argument is clearly stated. We certainly shall not win it by continuing to hide it.
  Mr. Kinnock: I am all in favour of exposing the league tables and showing the distribution figures. All I am saying is that if Wales and Scotland are entirely integrated within the United Kingdom, they can fairly claim a disproportionate distribution on the basis of need. It is when a new situation and a new demarcation arises that there is a much stronger argument against a larger share of resources for my constituency, which simply cannot live without them. That is the issue that arises on the response to different allocations. I hope that my hon. Friend will take account of the political effect of that in terms of Labour representation in the House, because he has talked about winning the case for Socialism.
  Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend's argument turns entirely on the claim that the Bill produces a less-than-united United Kingdom. If we were talking about the Scotland Bill. I might begin to understand that argument. However, in respect of this Bill, which merely confers executive and secondary legislative powers on a directly elected Assembly in Wales, the argument is incomprehensible. There is nothing in this Bill which in any way derogates from the unity of the United Kingdom.
  544
  The argument has been put forward that it does not matter that there are so many nominated bodies in Wales. It has been said that we do not need an Assembly to take over the powers of those bodies. That is totally anti-democratic. We have too many nominated bodies in the United Kingdom as a whole, and I detest them. They give Ministers too much power, or, at least, Ministers think that they have power in their hands. In reality, Ministers are presented with a list of the good, the true and the faithful, and the list is handed down from Government to Government, or, at least, from under-Government to under-Government, because the list is transmitted by the Civil Service. When these people are appointed, they are no longer responsible to this democratically elected Assembly.
  In Wales we have more than 50 nominated bodies, and it is high time that we had a democratically elected Assembly, responsible to the people, to take over the functions of such bodies.
  I listened very carefully to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) as he discussed the concept of nationhood. His speech was absolutely fascinating but irrelevant. I am not concerned with the theoretical question of whether Wales is a nation. The differences between North and South Wales, the differences of degree of Welshness and the culture of individuals, are not relevant. I am concerned that here we have a part of the United Kingdom which in many ways has its own history and culture, and many of its inhabitants have another language. But, above all, it is a geographical entity, even if one cannot travel from north to south without going through Shrewsbury.
  Mr. Ronald Atkins: I have an honours degree in geography and have done special studies on the regions, but I have yet to find a single geography textbook which regards Wales as an entity. I should like my hon. Friend to list major phases in Welsh culture that are alien to English culture.
  Mr. Fowler: The last time I was at Cardiff Arms Park, I felt as if I were in a totally alien environment. If I, as an Englishman, drive into Wales and go into a shop or a pub, I have not the slightest doubt that I am in another part of the

  545
  United Kingdom. I put that very carefully. I do not say that I am in another country, but I am quite sure that I am in another part of the United Kingdom which has certain unifying features.
  I believe that in the interests of good government we have to look at the possibility of interposing a democratic tier between the House of Commons and Whitehall and local authorities. In industry, it is a crude rule of thumb that one man should not be controlling more than about seven. There are eight counties in Wales, and it seems right to have a democratically elected Assembly to debate, for example, what should be the precise division of the rate support grant among those counties.
  We debate the formula of the grant. It gets more complex and incomprehensible each year and is totally inequitable between a large number of authorities. Indeed, we cannot even predict its effect on individual authorities. Is that good government? Let us get away from that situation and get some functions down to a manageable level where they will be subject to democratic control and scrutiny.
  That is what the Bill is about. It is not about Welsh independence, as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire seemed to think.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am not a Welshman and I have never lived in Wales. I am a representative of the Marches on the England side of the border and wish to make a short intervention on that basis. It would be wrong to say that devolution is top of the pops in Hereford or the Marches generally, but there is a gut feeling that something is not right.
  For more than 1,000 years, the Marches were a battle ground between tribes on the Welsh and English sides of the border and we have an enormous number of castles and relics that bear witness to the battles that raged for so long. An early attempt to resolve the conflict was Offa's Dyke, but that did not work very well, and the singular lack of development of the villages in the border country between Wales and England in my area shows that no great love was lost between the Welsh side of the border and the English side.
  546
  However, since the end of direct conflict in 1536, in the reign of Henry VIII, there has been a steady rapprochement. I do not think that hon. Members in other parts of the country understand the intensity of feeling that exists on either side of the border. In the past 450 years, we have increased understanding, and no longer will a man get thumped in Hereford on a Saturday night if he says he is Welsh. There is tolerance.
  We have a fine relationship with our Welsh friends. One of the most successful social clubs in Hereford is the Hereford Welsh Social Club. The greatest conflict nowadays occurs when Hereford United football team plays Newport County—with more or less success.
  As we have established such a level of understanding and unity, hon. Members will understand why we are wary about a Bill that seeks to re-establish differences. In our part of the world, we put a high value on the unity of the United Kingdom. When I first read the Bill, the quotation about the Queen in Act III of Hamlet came immediately to mind:
  "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
  It seems that the inclusion in the Bill of the words:
  "They do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom"
  causes just that fear—that the opposite result will prevail. I have heard nothing in the debate to persuade me otherwise.
  In his powerful opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Pym) drew the attention of the House to what might happen if the majority party in the Assembly were of the same political colour as the Opposition in this House. He explored some of the problems that would arise. There is another possibility. The Assembly might fall into the hands of men who are not men of good will. There are those in Wales who are bent on splitting Wales from the United Kingdom, and bent on a separate path.
  As far as I can see, the Welsh nationalists feed on dissension and people's un-happiness. They were described earlier as seeking the dissenting and unhappy votes. We have seen in Scotland how the nationalist vote can develop into something bigger than itself and go beyond

  547
  what people expect of it. It is not impossible that the Assembly could accidentally end up with a substantial number of nationalist members. I hope that it would be accidental and would last for only a short period, but if the Assembly is comprised of men who are not necessarily men of good will towards the unity of the United Kingdom, they may well manoeuvre the Assembly into a path of confrontation with this House. The seeds of the disunity that worries me so much are contained in the reserve powers in Clause 35.
  It would be a legitimate tactic for Members of the Assembly to try to force the Secretary of State or this House to annul or override instruments of Wales. The Assembly Members could then turn to the people of Wales and say "This is what comes of being part of the United Kingdom" and demand a greater nationalist presence, increased powers for Wales and a Welsh voice within the framework of Europe or in some other context.
  The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) tried to minimise this possibility and to show that fears were groundless by referring to the happy co-operation between Stormont and this House when the two bodies had Governments of different natures. However, the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) laid that ghost nicely when he said in an intervention that Stormont was not a happy or stable institution. If it had done what the hon. Member for Anglesey was talking about, we would still have Stormont and we would not have the troubles that we are experiencing in Northern Ireland. These are the sort of pitfalls lying ahead of us.
  I am glad that the Government have recognised the nonsense of Clause 1. I have no wish to see an Assembly for Wales. I do not want to see differences between the two sides of the border—differences that have been broken down so carefully and patiently over many years—re-established, with visible differences being seen from the Marches in the supply of resources for Wales. The Bill sets in train a process of separation to the detriment of the unity of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Kinnock: In one respect I disagree with the hon. Member for Hereford
  548
  (Mr. Shepherd), because I have been thumped in Hereford on a Saturday night. It was after the Ebbw Vale youth team, for which I was playing, had defeated the Hereford youth team by about 21 to 7. That was in 1960 or thereabouts. I still bear the scars. I confess to having made a contribution to the tension that existed that evening. I hope that what the hon. Gentleman says is absolutely true for myself and fellow countrymen.
  I owe the Committee an apology because for part of the proceedings I was absent, together with the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones)—the Under-Secretary of State for Wales—and the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). We were doing our best to try to transpose the argument from the Chamber to television. One day when democracy and technology come together we shall not be faced with that necessity. I am sure that when that day comes the Chamber will be full and everybody will be able to make his contribution without the necessity of nipping off to the television studios. I look forward to that day.
  Today one is left with the feeling—I am sure that it afflicts you, Sir Myer, more than it does me—which the French call déjà vu and which the English also call déjà vu because they cannot think of a suitable word in their own language. The only Welsh that I can think of is unwaith eto Cymry annwyl—once again dear Wales. I am sure that we shall hear that many times during the course of our proceedings. Our proceedings would be lightened if we were to sing it on occasions, but certainly not tonight, Sir Myer, and certainly not while you are in the Chair.
  The arguments that we have heard from both sides of the Chamber have been similar to those that were rehearsed during the Scotland and Wales Bill, and to some extent when we debated the ill-fated first clause of the Scotland Bill. The great difference is that whereas, during the passage of the Scotland Bill, we heard the Government insisting that the first clause was crucial, and that it was the only means of assuaging fears and assuring opinion in Scotland and Wales that there was no possibility of a division or fracture of the unity of the United Kingdom, we now have, instead

  549
  of an hour's contribution, which was very welcome, from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, a meek speech of commendable brevity—it did not last for four minutes—from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to explain that the Government did not intend to pursue Clause 1, so that hon. Members could sidle off and the Committee could move on to the first round of new clauses.
  That was not really good enough. The proposal in Clause 1, even though my right hon. and hon. Friends now disown it as if it were from the wrong side of the devolutionary blanket, is absolutely central to the whole conception of devolution as the Government have presented it. The proposition that my right hon. Friend the Lord President has made repeatedly in a more articulate fashion than many other right hon. Members is that it is the means of binding the unity of the United Kingdom. He has said that the devolution Bills are the wax and string that will wrap this Emerald Isle forever, and ensure that there are no surreptitious—
  Mr. Norman Buchan: Is my hon. Friend referring to Ireland?
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Kinnock: My hon. Friend asks whether I am talking about Ireland. In fact, most of the analogies used by my right hon. Friend relate to Ireland and the Irish experience. They have to do with Ireland more than they have to do with contemporary British experience, whether in Scotland or in Wales. Some of the fears that he has communicated to us have a great deal more to do with the debates surrounding the consideration of Irish Home Rule than with the reality of the present needs of the people of Scotland and Wales.
  My right hon. Friend has been articulate in his insistence that this form of devolution is the means of ensuring the continued existence of the United Kingdom. It is my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) who has hit the nail on the head or, to put it more properly in the case of devolution, hit the nail right: on the thumb. My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey—I admire him intensely, he is a very close friend of mine and I think of him as the von Clausewitz of the low profile
  550
  —is a man who is able to make the most poisonous and uproarious proposition sound and feel like honey on the tongue. He is a master of that. I give him full credit for it. I wish that he were in the Chamber to hear that tribute. I know that he would glow with pleasure. It was my right hon. Friend who said in his concluding sentence that if we do nothing we may have to do more.
  There is the essential proposition, too, of the Government's devolution proposals. I welcome the return of my right hon. Friend. His ears must have been burning with pleasure when I was giving him the most fulsome praise that I could offer. He will know that it was genuine and fulsome.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Not having heard it, I shall give my hon. Friend the benefit of the doubt.
  Mr. Kinnock: I frequently have to give my right hon. Friend the doubt of the benefit. As a consequence, I am sure that it is reciprocated.
  My right hon. Friend defined the central purpose and motivation behind the Government's proposals. I shall endeavour to repeat his words, and I hope that he will correct me if I am wrong. He said that if we do nothing we may have to do more. That was the strategy behind the whole proposal, as it was orginally—it has now been disowned—to guarantee the idea of unity and offer reassurance. The proposal is that we can have disunity by unity. The proposal is that the best way to stand up to the nationalists is to lie down in front of them. That characterises devolution.
  If we were promoting devolution as it has been conceived by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey, and as it was orginally conceived by the Labour Party in Wales and endorsed after subsequent consideration by representatives of the Labour Party at conferences and in the House, "devolution" meaning an executive council that would replace the unelected wedge, for which I have no more affection than has any of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have the advantage over me of experience in appointing unrepresentative or unelected people, different considerations would apply. However, that is not what we have before us. We do not have that elected executive council. We do not have that

  551
  replacement of the unelected tier. In fact, we have a demarcation. We do not have a mere diversity of government, a constitutional change that is modest, dispassionate and objective. We have a panicky sop to nationalism. That is the nature of the Bill. That was the nature of the Scotland Bill, as it was the nature of the Bill's predecessor, the Scotland Wales Bill.
  It is significant that the guarantee of unity has gone. I wish that that owed more to intellectual honesty and a confession of the weakness of the Bill than to the majority that we managed to command to defeat that guarantee when considering the Scotland Bill. I put it to my right hon. Friends that that is the consequence, given the way in which the Government have assented to the demise of Clause 1.
  When we discuss the form of question in the referendum we shall also erase the ridiculous and unsupportable proposition—I say that it is a highly pejorative proposition—that it contains, namely,
  "The Act provides that there should be an elected Welsh Assembly and that Wales should remain part of the United Kingdom."
  The fact is that with the removal of the clause the Bill does not provide for that eventuality. However, we shall have a much more honest situation from henceforth than we have had hitherto, when the Bill proposed that by some means we could offer not only a solution or guarantee but provide for the unity of the United Kingdom.
  The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): My hon. Friend need not worry himself unduly on that score. If he reads the Order Paper he will see that the Government have tabled an amendment to amend the referendum question on the lines of the Scotland Bill. As he was urging that the Government should make changes, and the Government have listened, he should be a little more charitable.
  Mr. Kinnock: Indeed—in victory, magnanimity always—I am very gratified by what my hon. Friend has said. I must confess to my ignorance in not having seen the amendment. I am very grateful to him and I only hope that in the course of the Bill, and the development of many other policies, my right hon. and hon. Friends will continue to be
  552
  as responsive to my well-argued and intelligent contest of some of their propositions. I hope that we shall go on to greater things.
  If we are getting rid of this central proposition, with what does it leave us? Given that there is no guarantee in law that Wales will remain part of the United Kingdom, we really have to put ourselves in a much clearer position in considering the problems that devolution will provoke
  Much time has been spent today, as previously, in considering the prospect of devolution in Wales bringing about an encouragement of nationalism and sponsoring a demand from the people of Wales to peel themselves—I think that was the phrase used—from the United Kingdom. Frankly, I think that the probability of that is remote. There may, indeed, be a flirtation with nationalism, which will hypnotise the nationalists as much as it unnerves the other parties. It may encourage the nationalists to think that there is a real, spontaneous and developing demand for independence in Wales. If they believe that, they are even more stupid than I have always taken them to be, which is saying something.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, with great respect to Plaid Cymru, all they have done is to flirt with nationalism?
  Mr. Kinnock: I agree with my right hon. Friend that few of them have ever been really serious about it. To some extent the party has purged or at least disowned those who were most serious about it, particularly Saunders Lewis and those who have sought to provide a genuine nationalist answer. What we have seen is nationalism used as a vehicle by populists who wish only to mobilise the resentments which are inevitable in a two-party system.
  Nevertheless, if we have devolution, it may be that through the further mobilisation of resentments and of material jealousies, the nationalists will be able, especially in a time of economic difficulties, to secure additional votes and support. That may be the case. If so, it will still never amount to a demand from the people of Wales to split themselves off, because the people of Wales realise—I hope, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr.

  553
  Fowler), that it will be a matter of public debate—that they rely for a substantial part of their sustenance, economic and social, on the willingness of people in other parts of the United Kingdom to pay their taxes.
  I repeat—I have always said this—that there is no cause for shame in Wales. It is a historic, economic, demographic and geographical fact that we are, relatively speaking, an expensive country to run, and we need and deserve compensations for the disadvantages that we have. Consequently, I cannot see the Welsh people surrendering that, even for the sake of massaging some kind of jingoistic ego, as the Welsh nationalists would have us believe.
  But a much more serious consequence of devolution and a much more serious prospect of division arise from this. It was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin and other hon. Friends who view the prospect of a national elected Assembly, sharing out the rate support grant according to Welsh priorities, with great favour and with enthusiasm. They see devolution, in the words of the 1975 White Paper, as bringing some of the spending decisions nearer home. I think that that was the cosy phrase of whoever wrote the White Paper, although expect that the Government, as with the first clause of the Bill, would seek to disown that person, just as they have disowned the clause.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: I was the one who wrote it.
  Mr. Kinnock: I wondered if it was my hon. Friend. With ill advice and ill timing, and an unusual lack of judgment on the part of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my hon. Friend was disowned. I think that that decision was entirely unsupportable. He should still be on the Government Front Bench, joining with my other hon. Friend, the Minister of State, as a double-barrelled partnership, a positive double-barrelled howitzer, for devolution. Our debates would have been greatly enlivened. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin is willing to do it unpaid. That must be good news for the taxpayer.
  My hon. Friend, as I was saying, favours the prospect of the Welsh Assembly bringing some spending decisions nearer home and responding to clear popular demand in Scotland and Wales
  554
  for devolution. I am not talking about 1536. This was in the White Paper in 1975. It was apparently put in by my hon. Friend and it has subsequently been supported by others of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) said, Wales is not an entity. It is a nation of sharply differing although mutually friendly communities—the North and the South the English, the Welsh; the rural, the industrial; those with problems of depopulation and isolation, and those with problems of industrial decay and depression. They all have massive financial and social needs. They are all, to a greater or lesser extent, deprived, whether they live in Tiger Bay in Cardiff or in Cefn Gwlad, in the middle of Anglesey. Wherever they live, their need might be for a bus more than once a day, or for a school which is up to modern standards, and universally in Wales there is the need for a hospital.
  I contend that the best means of using resources, the best means of seeking to satisfy needs on the basis of local representation, supported by Members of Parliament, and the best means of satisfying the demands of those communities, is not by instituting a cockpit in Cardiff which will simply formalise and highlight the divisions of the communities in Wales, but by acting on the basis of need, as we currently do it, on the basis of strength of argument, as we currently do it, and on the basis of calculation of how the interests of an area can be maximised. That is how it should be done, rather than on the basis of how votes in an Assembly can be mobilised to serve some parochial or sub-regional interest. I think that the latter is a very dangerous prospect. We shall see the people of Wales colliding.
  Just as I treasure the advantageous unity of the United Kingdom, I treasure the advantageous amicability of the different communities of Wales, with their different needs. There is nothing in the Welsh character, any more than in the character of any other nation, that insulates it or inoculates it against the kind of poison that is created when people realise that the only way to secure their parochial interest is in the depression, separation or destruction of the parochial interests of other parts.

  555
  I will tell this House who the losers will be, in that context. The losers will be the Welsh language. Incontrovertibly, the Welsh language will lose as a consequence. Incontrovertibly, the losers will be the rural areas, with their particular needs. The losers will be those who gain their living from tourism. When the allocation of moneys is simply a matter of the disposition of political powers in a national Assembly, when the major interest of that Assembly is in serving the interests of the communities which can return it and give it most power, and when it does not even have to care a toss, regardless of the needs of areas from which it draws no sustenance, we shall see divisions in Wales which are a much more terrifying prospect than that put before us of an unlikely division of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Wigley: Why does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is less likely that an Assemblyman in Cardiff would respond to the needs of rural areas, or tourist areas, or Welsh speaking requirements, than would Westminster and Whitehall together?
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Kinnock: For the simple reason that in Westminster and Whitehall we are conscious of a national need and we are able to serve the general Welsh purpose in a way that Assemblymen, with the best will in the world, would not be able to serve that interest and that need. If the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) looks at the scale of contributions to the national Eisteddfod and examines the debates of local authorities when the proposition to make a contribution is before them he will see the division of attitudes towards the fostering of Welsh culture in this its greatest institution. The hon. Member knows that. He lived and worked in Merthyr Tydfil. He knows where the division is. He knows that the Assembly will not be saddled by past colonial guilt, as is Westminster, but will be free only to achieve the minimum need of its constituents publicly and directly. The prospect of any national Assembly using its limited block grant for the development of rural communities and culture is more remote than the prospect of getting the Treasury to spend money and direct finance.
  556
  The argument for more resources after devolution is a Welsh argument. The argument for more resources now is a British argument. It is an argument from all those, whether industrial or rural, who require additional educational expenditure or higher priority for health. The sheer pressure, purpose and strength of this argument is increased because of its unity rather than being divided up.
  I am against devolution not because I am anti-Welsh, as the more paranoid of Welsh nationalists would say, but because I am pro-Welsh. Indeed, I am more pro-Welsh than those who gamble the whole economic and social future of Wales and the harmony of Welsh communities on getting a temporary transitory appeasement of a nationalist upsurge which in reality does not exist. I am more pro-Welsh than those who gamble with the economy agony in Wales. That is a political expression of the constitutional bag of tricks—this Bill.
  It is a good thing that the false prospectus of guaranteed unity has been removed. It is a good thing that that idiotic sentence has been taken out of the ballot question. What we still have to do in this Bill is to further expose the inconsistencies. There is still much left in it that is provocative, that will mean disunity and a collision of all the institutions and communities in Wales. This justifies strong and insistent objection, protest and opposition.
  Mr. Grist: It is always a joy to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). We seem to have followed each other in the last four years, and it is becoming rather tedious.
  I can think of better debates to have on St. David's Day. We could have reverted to the old practice of debating housing conditions, jobs and schools. Those are the subjects that really affect our constituents and that we used to debate on this day.
  This debate is extremely useful because, although the Government may not have wished it, it has allowed the Committee to lay down what it feels about the Bill and to lay down the ground plan for the Committee stage. Clearly the Bill is as disliked as it ever was. Only two hon. Members have sought to speak in its favour. Neither of them really spoke to the Bill itself. The hon. Member for

  557
  The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) gave a masterly exposé of an academic outlook but he did not bother to look too closely at the wording. He seemed to be speaking from first principles rather than applying his mind to the question.
  Then we had the idealistic contribution from the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). What neither he nor the hon. Member for The Wrekin did was to talk about the better government of Wales. This Bill is not about the better government of Wales. Had the Government proceeded as the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) wished and set up a Welsh Council, there might have been some sense in it.
  Increasingly, people are becoming aware that this Assembly has nothing to do with better government; it is an answer to nationalist pressures. As people have become increasingly aware of that, so they have become strengthened against the proposition. Three or four years ago opinion polls showed a clear majority in favour of an all-Wales authority; today they show the reverse. That is because people know that this Bill and the proposed Assembly are answering a demand fostered through nationalist pressure and caused by the political fear of the Labour Party. All the more honour to those who are prepared to stand up and fight.
  Others are prepared to support the Bill for a variety of motives. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) gave the game away when he spoke. He said that he simply wanted Wales to have a national elected body. He was not particularly concerned about the Assembly that is proposed in the Bill; he wanted a national body. The nationalist parties take the same view. In that respect this Bill and the Assembly do and will affect the unity of the United Kingdom. In one way or another the Bill is bound to be contentious and to create conflict. A good 50 per cent. of its supporters do not see this as the end of the line. They want to use it as a vehicle to create greater disunity. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) nods. He is an honest man. How can anyone pretend that this does not affect the unity of the United Kingdom? I am glad to see that the Government accept that view.
  558
  Many questions were raised about the role of Members of Parliament and how they will be affected in the House of Commons. The hon. Member for The Wrekin did not seem to take the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) on this issue. Nor did he take the point that I made in my intervention, when I said that there was not a country in the world which had numerous Members in its Parliament who had different powers. We shall have a Parliament here with Members from Scotland with one set of powers, Members from Wales with a different set of powers, and possibly Members from Ulster with a third set of powers. All of them will have powers that are different from each other and different from the powers of English Members. That is as plain as a pikestaff.
  We also have the Government's own word from the White Paper "Devolution: The English Dimension" which all Ministers should read again and again. That document contains a description of what will happen to the Secretary of State. This has been adduced in the course of the debate today and in all our previous debates. It has been said that the Secretary of State will be weakened, that he will not have the administrative know-how even when exercising legislative power, and that his political clout, both in party and government, will diminish sadly. It will be an odd ambition to seek to be Secretary of State in the future. He will be abused and ignored by Parliament and abused by representatives of the Assembly every time he goes to Wales.
  The White Paper says that
  "If regional authorities were able to deter- mine the allocation of resources to particular programmes within their regions"
  —that is what is proposed for Wales—
  "this would fundamentally affect the ability of Ministers to account separately and collectively to Parliament for the policies, standards and priorities of the services they administer"
  So the Government know what is going to happen, because they have written it into their own White Paper. They have said that the rights and powers of Members of Parliament will be affected. That aspect was quoted extensively in the debate on Second Reading. No doubt the Minister of State remembers it and will answer the point precisely.
  The White Paper points out that block funds would make the Government task

  559
  of economic management more difficult. This is the form of financing proposed for the Assembly. The White Paper says that
  "The composition of expenditure is important because different types of expenditure have different effects on important economic aggregates such as the balance of payments, the public sector borrowing requirement and unemployment as well as different effects on the various sectors of the economy"
  So the Government know that in setting up the block grant system for the Assemblies they will lose certain controls over the economic management of the country. If they cannot control the way in which block grants are used in Scotland and Wales, presumably any corrective actions which need to be taken will be taken in England, because that will be the only place where the Government can act directly.
  With Celtic Members here at Westminster able to vote on and interfere in English Members' affairs, and with the English Members finding that they will have to pay to correct possible economic mismanagement in Scotland and Wales, the fury of English Members will know no bounds. That will affect the unity of the United Kingdom, and it is bound to promote ill feeling.
  I keep reverting to the Secretary of State's touchstones for devolution. One of the White Papers that we had in 1974—we have had so many that I have lost count of them—was introduced by the Secretary of State for Wales at a Press conference. He laid down four principles by which devolution should be judged. They are excellent principles. They are worth remembering. Whatever amendment we look at and whichever clause we examine, we should apply these four touchstones to see whether what we are discussing measures up.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the taking of powers from a central body should meet a genuine need. He added that they should be based on widespread public support. I do not know how we are to know in advance what support there is. We know it if we are in contact with our constituents and if we move around Wales and read the newspapers. Apart from opinion polls and local election results, one knows where public support exists, but it will be argued that we should wait for the end of the programme when thousands
  560
  of pounds will have been wasted on a fruitless exercise in conducting the referendum before we decide what we all already know.
  The third touchstone was that any changes should be clear and a definite improvement. Clear? That will make progress on the Bill pretty sticky, because clarity is not a charge that can be laid against many of its clauses. The reference to a definite improvement raises other problems. Some people are very keen on change, but if they have to prove that the change is a definite improvement they will be hard put to it to get through the Bill in the time allocated.
  The fourth touchstone—this point affects the clause—is that the proposals must be designed to provide a stable constitutional framework for the future. We have it on the admission of the Liberal Party, the nationalists and numerous other factions in the House that they have no intention of this Assembly being a stable constitutional framework. They merely want it as a platform to further their aims of federalism or independence. Therefore, the proposals fail on the Secretary of State's fourth principle.
  8.15 p.m.
  The Government have produced an unworkable Bill, which is designed to fail in the medium term, let alone the long term. In failing it is bound to affect the unity of the United Kingdom. I agree with the hon. Member for Bedwellty that the Bill will not lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, because at the end of the day I do not believe that the nationalists will win. The Bill will, however, produce strains and stresses in what has so far been a happy and long United Kingdom.
  I think the Government have probably not given in to force majeure. I would like to think that they have been convinced by the arguments on the Scotland Bill and have seen that they have got it wrong. But we are not involved here in some sort of academic test or constitutional trial. This is not something that we can try out and, if it does not work, bring it back and have another go. I got the impression from the speech of the hon. Member for The Wrekin that his academic side was triumphing over what should have been his political nous. But the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) gave the game

  561
  away during the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill. He is another academic. He said
  "This is an experiment in regional or national democracy within a multi-national State. If it does not work it will be bad for all of us."—[Official Report, 22nd November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1423.]
  He can say that again.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Perhaps the most important point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) in a cogent speech was his insistence on the instability of the arrangement proposed by the Government. Those who suggest that we should support this measure because it is the only measure of devolution before us are putting the Committee in a real dilemma, because no one can seriously look at the constitutional structure proposed in the Bill and say with any degree of confidence that it will remain by and large as it is in 10 or 15 years' time.
  The proposals are inherently unstable. Perhaps the reason for that is the whole genesis of the Bill. There was clearly in the late 1960s and early 1970s some feeling of alienation and disaffection in Wales and Scotland. I believe that both major political parties over-reacted to it. There are real signs now that the degree of disaffection, which was particularly manifested by increasing support for the nationalist parties, is, certainly in Wales, largely past. We are in danger of taking an irreversible decision because of a transient mood.
  This whole progress is an indictment of the way in which we make our political decisions. If we had taken the constitutional decision properly, we should surely have sat down and looked at the whole structure of local and central Government from the start rather than having gone ahead on local government alone in 1972. One can look at the earlier White Papers of my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and of Mr. Speaker, who was at the time Secretary of State for Wales, which tinkered in various ways with the Welsh problems but which could have been largely accepted by the people of Wales. But there has been no attempt seriously to consider what is needed in the Welsh context. Instead, we have to rush many steps at a time towards this inherently unstable structure. I therefore fully
  562
  accept what the hon. Member for Cardiff, North said.
  I intervene with some reluctance now because I had hoped first to learn the views of the Welsh nationalist party on the clause. Do the nationalists support the exclusion of the clause because they accept that the Bill will lead to further disunity in the United Kingdom? Surely that is precisely what they want. They want to use the Bill and any Assembly that would result from it to that end.
  We all know that we are speaking in a somewhat academic way because the chances of this structure being approved in a referendum are pretty remote. Let us accept that fact for the moment. Do not the Welsh nationalists agree that, since they want disunity and separation, they are supporters of the concept of the Bill because they see it as a vehicle for promoting their separatist views?
  Mr. Wigley: I intervene with pleasure. I have not attempted to speak in the debate because of the pressure of time, and I know that hon. Members want to move amendments. However, since the Committee seems to want another Second Reading debate, let us have it. We made our position clear on Second Reading. We want full self-government for Wales. We have doubts as to whether the Bill brings us in that direction, but it fills a vacuum and will replace a tier of government that is centralised and bureaucratic. To that extent we welcome it.
  Mr. Anderson: As I said, the Welsh nationalists support the Bill because it promotes the disunity of the United Kingdom and will lead to independence, or "Commonwealth status" or whatever is the current orthodoxy of the Welsh nationalist party. The nationalists accept the tacit admission of the Government in withdrawing Clause 1 that the Bill will not promote the unity of the United Kingdom.
  Clause 1 simply states:
  "The following provisions of this Act make changes in the government of Wales as part of the United Kingdom. They do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom".
  The Government inserted that provision in good faith when they drafted the Bill, and now they have chosen to withdraw it. Is that not a tacit admission that the Bill will promote disunity?

  563
  Surely, if the argument, when the Government first put forward the Bill, that it would promote the unity of the United Kingdom was valid then, it is valid now. What, therefore, is the justification now of withdrawing the clause other than a tacit admission that, having heard all the cogent arguments in Committee, the Government accept that the Bill does not promote unity? Indeed, it was at best a pious aspiration, and the Government should either have omitted it from the start or had a much more lengthy preamble in the form of a normal constitution setting out what is affected by the Bill.
  Does the Bill affect the cohesion of the United Kingdom? That is a matter of judgment. If we were to take the view that there were in Wales irresisible pressures in favour of some form of devolution, of some form of Assembly, it would be unwise and foolish in the extreme to stand Canute-like against them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Anelesey said, in such circumstances there would be a respectable argument for moving some paces to meet the demand in the expectation that one would ward off some greater explosion of popular demand at some stage in the future.
  The history of the relationship between this country and Ireland is instanced as an unwillingness on the part of this Parliament to divine the pressures at work in Ireland at that time which led to such suffering in the Emerald Isle.
  Mr. Padley: A lot of history is being brought into this debate. The greatest Government since parliamentary democracy was established was the Attlee Government. They carried out all their promises except one—that was for a Scottish Parliament for Scottish affairs. There are 14 people now sitting on the Benches opposite who would not be there today if what had been promised had been given. I hope that my hon. Friend will remember that. The Labour Party's programme "Let Us Face the Future" included the phrase "Scottish Parliament for Scottish Affairs". It was more moderate about Wales.
  Mr. Anderson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) may be better sighted than I am, but I
  564
  cannot see 14 Members sitting on those Benches as he pointed out.
  Mr. Kinnock: Will my hon. Friend also take into account that in the 1920s there were simultaneous promises by the Labour Party of self-government for Scotland and the universal prohibition of alcoholic liquor? We do not hear the latter promise being revived with relish. Had the promise of self-government for Scotland been implemented, not only would the 11 SNP Members not be here but there might not be 60 other hon. Members, of whom 41 are Labour. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether he thinks that the House of Commons and Great Britain as a whole would have been better off or worse off if those Members had not been elected to the House?
  Mr. Padley: We are getting in a tangle here. Prohibition was never in the manifesto of the Labour Party.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We were conducting a very nice debate appropriate to St. David's Day—peaceful. Now it is getting a bit rowdy. We have heard all sorts of irrelevancies, including the results of rugby football matches.
  Mr. Anderson: At least the Attlee Government had the good sense not to suggest any measures like this Bill for Wales.
  Where are the irresistible pressures that have forced us along this road? It is difficult for those who know Wales to find where are the pressures that influenced my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) at the time he drafted the White Paper. Those of us who know Wales well do not consider these pressures to be strong.
  I concede that there are pressures, but might they not have been met by alternative arrangements? I shall not go over the suggestions previously put to the Government for alterations in the way we do things in this Parliament, for alterations in the local government structure, and so on. All such suggestions have been rejected out of hand. Alternative arrangements have not even been seriously considered by the Government. It is true that alternative arrangements which would have resulted in no real danger to the unity of the United Kingdom might well have built up pressures which in the end

  565
  would have taken us further along the road, but we need not have gone so far and so fast, ignoring the possibilities of organic change in our institutions.
  We see, for example, the changing views on local government. In the White Papers of the late 1960s the concept of the Assembly was as the top tier of local government. In a strange metamorphosis, by 1973–74 that had been transformed into an alternative government.
  Will the new structures promote unity or conflict? I believe that false expectations will be raised by the creation of the Assembly. This, form of constitutional tinkering and self-government has more to do with a romantic nineteenth-century concept than with twentieth-century views based more fundamentally on economic changes within our society, the Utopian idea that one can change matters by creating constitutional structures.
  Further reasons for suggesting that the new structure will lead to conflict include the fact that there will frequently be different parties in control at Westminster and Cardiff, so that what are now differences between the parties will be put on a different stage and will be differences between nations, with all the hostility and animosity that will thereby be created.
  Mr. Wigley: Why?
  Mr. Anderson: Because if there is one party in power in Cardiff and another party in power in Westminster, the former will feel constrained to say "It is those English who are not giving us the hospitals, the roads and so on that we so desperately need in Wales".
  8.30 p.m.
  There are also basic tendencies of human nature to take into account. I think, for example, of empire-building, the willingness of the Assembly always to seek to increase its powers. There is no real constitutional brake on its doing so, as there would be in any federal structure.
  I have already made the point about instability. There will be an alternative Government in Cardiff whose whole aim will be to promote that little-Welshness, that provincialism that we find all too often in Welsh society today. That is the attitude of "the men from the BBC".
  Mr. Kinnock: And the Western Mail.
  Mr. Anderson: There are people who are unwilling to lift their heads above their own valleys and who have a degree of national introspection which is an unfortunate feature of the Welsh character. Such people will have a new platform and will seek in every way to find matters which differentiate Wales from England.
  I recall an experience I had when serving on the Estimates Committee in the late 1960s. We were questioning civil servants from the Welsh Office on the Welsh roads programme and were told that special features entered into decisions on road building in Wales. We were told that the Welsh Office took account of special Welsh characteristics. That sounded very interesting, so we decided to probe a little. The civil servants put to us that special Welsh characteristics were developmental needs. Because they were Welsh civil servants, they felt the need always to find something, however strained, that differentiated us from English conditions. I think that there will be further pressure in that direction. It is a rather unhealthy tendency, a laager concept which is a part of our Welsh characteristics.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has said that until the Bills appeared on the horizon he had not considered himself to be an English Member. That is the converse of the point I am making, that barriers will be built that were not apparent before. Other hon. Members, like my hon. Friend, will consider themselves English Members in a narrower sense, fighting for their own interests as against the Welsh Members. I think that that is a fair summary of the point my hon. Friend has eloquently made.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: To underline what my hon. Friend is saying, I should tell him that I have a Welsh uncle, a Scottish uncle and a wife who is of Irish extraction. It is difficult to talk of being strictly English in the context of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Anderson: Like many of us, my hon. Friend is cosmopolitan, and a very successful mix, if I may say so with respect.
  Mr. Kinnock: Would my hon. Friend let his daughter marry him? That is the question.
  Mr. Anderson: I would indeed, but my hon. Friend's wife might have views about that.
  If we conclude that there is no irresistible demand in Wales which would ensure that we should have to react in this way, if we think that the pressures are not great, if we recognise that attempts to meet the situation in a more organic way, by adaptation of existing institutions, have not been seriously considered by the Government, and if we also accept that conflict will be promoted by the Bill, setting Welshmen against Englishmen, for the reasons that have been given, it is hardly surprising that the Government have seen fit, belatedly, to withdraw the clause.
  Those of my hon. Friends, who like myself, are very sceptical about the devolution proposals, welcome this withdrawal. We arc thankful that the Government now accept that it was a wholly insupportable proposition that the Bill would have no effect on the unity of the United Kingdom. Clearly, it would have an effect.
  Mr. Michael Roberts: The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) raised the very important question about whether the proposals affected the unity of the United Kingdom. He very reasonably came to the conclusion that it was indeed a matter of judgment.
  We have heard today the other point of view put by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who has asserted that there is nothing in these proposals that could affect the unity of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) put this point with great vigour. He asked what there is in the proposals that could be construed as a danger to the unity of the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Member for The Wrekin is supported in his argument by the leading article in today's edition of the Western Mail. I quote:
  "We have never accepted the slippery slope theories of the more rabid anti-devolutionists."
  I think that when the Western Mail, in those extreme terms, speaks of its opponents as being rabid, it is time for the people of Wales to ask themselves whether the Western Mail reflects the
  568
  genuinely held views of the majority of the Welsh people.
  I believe that we must analyse the argument and ask who are the "we" who do not accept the slippery-slope argument. It is the people who write the editorials of the Western Mail. One is a rara avis because he is one of the few who believe that devolution is all about administrative efficiency. The editor of the Western Mail stands almost alone in that he believes that it has nothing to do with nationalism or a sop to nationalism. He actually believes this, as the editor of our national daily, and he does not appreciate that this is all about the sop to the nationalists. If he has not actually written the articles himself, we have to look at those who are his supporters, known supporters of Plaid Cymru, and known supporters over a very long period, of devolution.
  I want very briefly to put to the Committee the view that there are in Wales very many people who have put forward the view, backing their judgment, that these proposals will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.
  Today we have had the view of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). We also heard the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas). I believe that their judgment coincides with the deeply held views of the majority of the people in Wales and of that tiny minority, Plaid Cymru. Plaid Cymru never uses the slippery-slope argument—but that argument is precisely the same as the "one step only" argument. Members of Plaid Cymru have always argued that a Welsh Assembly is for them one step only towards total separation. So they believe, as I believe, that it is a slippery slope.
  Mr. Anderson: And the process is irreversible.
  Mr. Roberts: The hon. Member is quite right.
  Mr. Hooson: Does it matter what Plaid Cymru thinks? We should consider the proposals on their merits. Surely one of the great factors is that Lord Crowther and Lord Kilbrandon, who followed him, were two of the most distinguished economists and jurists in this country in their turn, and they came to this conclusion

  569
  with the object of achieving administrative efficiency.
  Mr. Roberts: I always take Plaid Cymru's views seriously, because the minority whom it represents, although small, is an important element in Wales. It is moving towards separation. I believe that it represents 10 to 12 per cent. of the electorate in Wales.
  There are all sorts of arguments in answer to the question of the hon. Member for The Wrekin—what is there in the Bill which will lead to disunity?—but the basic one is contained in the first words of Clause 2:
  "There shall be a Welsh Assembly."
  The moment an Assembly is established, it will serve as a focus for those who desire the disunity of the Welsh nation, so that gradually the people of Wales will move away from the people of the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Anderson: Surely the important point is that if this were simply to do with administrative efficiency a similar structure would be proposed for the English regions.
  Mr. Roberts: Indeed, the editor of the Western Mail would have his great hope fulfilled—an Assembly for Yorkshire.
  The moment that there is a Welsh Assembly, we are moving towards a separate Welsh nation. That is why Plaid Cymru naturally supports it. The history of our nation shows the Welsh people that we have been on this road before. What defeated Lloyd George's proposals for Home Rule or an Assembly was the deep instincts of the Welsh people, particularly in South Wales, who realised that they meant separation from the United Kingdom.
  During the referendum we can argue about every aspect of democracy and administrative efficiency, but at the end of the day the Welsh people will see the matter in the simple terms that this is a step towards breaking up the United Kingdom—and they will reject it decisively.
  Mr. Heffer: As I come from the capital of North Wales, it might be worth my saying a few words. Probably we have as many Welsh people in Liverpool as
  570
  does any part of the United Kingdom. In fact, the Welsh influence there has been tremendous. Only now are the old Welsh churches beginning to lose their congregations because the Welsh are now of the second and third generations.
  Therefore, the speaking of Welsh is no longer as common as it was 50 years ago. But the influence of the Welsh in Liverpool is tremendous. Nobody who comes from my part of the world would deny it. It is as well to say a few words about this because whatever happens in Wales affects Merseyside and what happens in Merseyside affects Wales.
  8.45 p.m.
  If we are thinking of a natural regional, geographical set-up, the wisest thing to do would be to establish a regional Assembly to cover the North Wales coast and Merseyside, because economically the two areas are integrated. It is interesting that in Shotton and on the North Wales coast there is no enthusiasm for devolution. I often go across and speak at meetings of the Labour Party and at trade union meetings and so on, along the coast, and I can assure the Committee that I have never met any enthusiasm, because the people there feel that their natural affinity is with the area across the Dee—the Wirral and Merseyside.
  This is the frightening thing about the whole concept. I remember the discussions that took place in the Labour Party on the question of a Welsh Assembly. The original concept was that the Assembly should be a sort of top tier of local government. That was the whole idea. It has now got out of balance, because of the upsurge of the nationalist movement in Scotland and to a much lesser extent in Wales. These Bills are in front of us because of the reaction to the growth of nationalism.
  Let me make it absolutely clear that believe passionately that the Welsh have a right to develop and maintain their own culture and language. I have said in the House before that I used to work with a Welsh joiner at my trade, and he had great difficulty because he thought in Welsh and had to translate his thoughts into English. As a result of working with the joiner I went to extra-mural evening classes at the University of Liverpool to study the history of Wales and to put my toe in the water of the Welsh

  571
  language. I am afraid that I am not bright enough to have mastered it.
  I recognise and understand that if I were Welsh I should want to ensure that my people's culture was maintained and developed against all-corners. That is one thing. One's cultural heritage is worth preserving and must be preserved, just as the English cultural heritage is worth preserving. My family come from East Anglia. We are Cambridge people. Mine is a very old English family.
  Incidentally, looking back into my family's history, I discovered that one of my family was a poacher. I am not very proud of him, because he got into some difficulty with another poacher and unfortunately they shot a gamekeeper. There is a poem about it. In order to get out of the difficulty he turned King's evidence. So I am not very proud of this individual who, somewhere along the line, was part of my family.
  As I say, there was a poem about that event. Believe it or not, it was drawn to my attention by a Scottish colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew-shire. West (Mr. Buchan), because he is so interested in poetry from whatever part of the United Kingdom it comes. The point that I am making is that we all have our historical background, our traditions, our culture, our music, and so on and we have to maintain them. But the great thing about the United Kingdom is that we have so interchanged that we have the best from each other. That has been our great strength. We have learnt from each other. We have given each other great things.
  I am always proud that the Eisteddfod was once held in my city of Liverpool. I think that that was marvellous. I wish that we could have it again. In fact, I have made tentative inquiries to find out whether we could. Of course, that occasion was a long time ago, hut I am proud that we had the Eisteddfod in Liverpool, and I believe it to have been well worth while. I am concerned to preserve those vital parts of our national life which that event represents.
  I am not sure what will be the outcome if the Welsh Assembly is established. I regard the Scottish prospect as far more dangerous, but even a Welsh Assembly will open a crack in the door. It will
  572
  have been slightly opened towards the ultimate slippery slope.
  I do not know what the Western Mail has written. I suppose that I am a rabid anti-devolutionist, according to the Western Mail, but, whether it likes it or not, it is my belief that once we have the Assembly established the argument will begin.
  Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman is putting his argument very moderately, and I am following him with interest. Does he appreciate that over the centuries, as a deliberate act of State, there were enormous attacks on Welsh cultural and social life? There was a deliberate attempt by acts of State to kill the very culture to which he refers. In this century and at the end of the last, we began to try to restore the balance. The whole point of a Welsh Assembly is that after many centuries Wales will have a body which can speak in its name, without ever breaking up the United Kingdom or anything of the kind.
  Mr. Heffer: I do not for a moment suggest that the English have been perfect towards the Welsh. Nevertheless, it is interesting to recall that some of the greatest Kings in our history were Welsh. Let us remember that the Tudor dynasty went on for some time and, quite frankly, seemed to be doing rather well. From the historical point of view, the Tudors seemed to make quite a good job of running the whole of England and Wales.
  As for the Scots—because of these arguments we have all been re-reading our history—it is interesting to note that they spent far more time fighting one another than they did fighting the English. They were very vicious about it, too. They were not particularly gentlemanly in the way they treated one another.
  As one looks back into our history one sees a good deal of old imperialist attitudes, but in the great Empire which we used to control, who were the colonialists? Who were the people running the colonies? Many of them were Scots and Welsh, in addition to the English. We all played our part in events of which I am not particularly proud.
  But I am talking now about present reality, and I come back to the point that I was about to make. Paragraph

  573
  298 of "Our Changing Democracy" states:
  "Any change in the machinery of democratic government must bring new problems in its wake. The Scottish and Welsh Assemblies will no doubt have teething troubles, and there will be a financial price to pay."
  The first point concerns the words "problems in its wake". What will those problems be? If I were a Welsh Assemblyman or a Scottish Assemblyman and we were discussing the financial provisions, I would argue most strongly that it was "that lot at Westminster" who were holding back what we ought to be getting. The whole argument then becomes one between Westminster and the Assembly. No Welsh Member of Parliament or Scottish Member of Parliament dare get up in the House of Commons and say "They are wrong". If they did they would immediately place themselves in jeopardy. I am talking not only about local authorities but about the country as a whole.
  I do not want to see the unity of the United Kingdom broken up. I do not even want to see a step towards such a break-up for the very good reason that it seems to me that we should go beyond the concept of narrow nationalism. To my mind that is the important point.
  Of course people, should maintain their culture, traditions and history and be proud of them, but let us recognise that in the United Kingdom we have got to a stage where we are totally and completely mixed up.
  I mentioned to one of my hon. Friends that I had an uncle named Morris. Another was named Aitken. That says precisely where they both came from. Another member of the family was named Connelly. That indicates where he came from.
  Are we going to withdraw into our little fortresses and put up false barriers? That is the danger. I know that my hon. Friends do not want that. That is not their objective. That is not what they want to do. But that could well be the outcome, and it is for that reason that I have never been happy about these devolution proposals. I am not happy about this Bill either.
  It is not quite as bad as the Scotland Bill. I would suggest that there is less enthusiasm among the people of Wales for this Bill than there is among the people of Scotland for the Scotland Bill.
  574
  I believe that we shall be taking a very grave step if we go along this road. I think we shall go along this road although I trust and hope that we shall not.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: I have listened with interest to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides debating a clause which was withdrawn nearly five hours ago. I shall be brief. But on this historical occasion it would be wrong of me as a Welshman not to say a few words.
  I feel it an honour, on St. David's Day, to speak in this Committee and to say that the Welsh people are in need of their own Parliament in Wales. My colleagues and I in the Liberal Party over the last 50 years have been strong advocates of devolving powers to Scotland, Wales and the other regions of England.
  9.0 p.m.
  I have said on many occasions that if devolution is to succeed in Britain we must have parity between the people of Scotland, Wales and England. In my view it is a great pity that we do not have proposals before us to devolve power to the regions of England, or at least to England. But we must accept the proposals that are in front of us.
  By devolving power to a Welsh Parliament we shall bring government closer to the people of Wales. The Government will know and understand Welsh problems and there will be direct participation and active involvement of the Welsh people that will enable us to solve our problems and survive economically and culturally. Once we have our own Welsh Parliament in Cardiff, Wales will be able to make an important contribution to Britain.
  Mr. Fred Evans: Will the hon. Member explain the connotation? He talked about "our own Welsh Parliament". He did not say "Assembly".
  Mr. Howells: I know that the hon. Member is not in favour of devolving power to Wales. I am willing to accept that once we have our own Parliament it is up to the people of Wales to decide the future for ourselves.
  I believe that we shall be just as much a part of Britain as we were before. We cannot possibly become economically independent, but to play our part fully we must recognise our potential by tackling the problems at source—in

  575
  Wales. Only then can we make a proper contribution to Britain, Europe and the world. This can only be done with our own Parliament and a full complement of Members elected by the Welsh people through a system of proportional representation.
  What is needed is action and not words. The Welsh people have waited 50 or even 100 years for a Welsh Parliament. They deserve a Parliament of their own. Whatever side of the Committee we sit, let us give every encouragement to this devolution of power to the people. Being a staunch devolutionist I believe strongly in the principle of devolving power. We have a glorious opportunity. Let us not miss it. Let the people of Wales govern themselves from now on.
  Mr. Fred Evans: I suppose that it might be a piece of political philosophy worth considering to say:
  "Trust your enemies, but have some regard for what your friends say."
  The Leader of Plaid Cymru turned so many somersaults when the White Paper first appeared that it was little short of a dazzling display. Since then we have seen things move and move again. I accept the argument that has been put forward here tonight that things are organic and do not remain stagnant. They grow and decay. It is in this that the inherent danger to the United Kingdom lies.
  The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) may make whatever protests he likes, but we have heard him say here and announce elsewhere that the aim of Plaid Cymru is a separate, independent Wales. I have heard no disclaimers tonight from other members of his party in the House of Commons and certainly none from his followers in the country. His philosophy is summed up by a lady who was once in this House, Mrs. Margo McDonald, who said:
  "We shall eat the crumbs until we can bake our own cake"
  That is what will happen to this organic development. We shall see increasing demands for powers to be given to the Assembly and an insistence on parity with the legislative functions that are apparently to be given to the Scottish Assembly.
  576
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) spoke about the proportions of gross national product distributed to Wales and England. The figure for Wales does not look much when it is set out in raw round percentage figures, but in terms of money values it is considerable.
  The right hon. Member stopped short at this point because he thought that he was going out of order. I should have liked him to apply that differential to the general economy. He pointed out the dangers of an attitude developing among English people who would be claiming their proportionate share of GNP. How much would this differential militate against the use of regional incentives? How much would it lead to the clinging of industry to the coffin belt between the Midlands and the South-West? What greater impoverishment of the general economic structures would it bring about?
  I find myself full of fears on this aspect. I yield to no one in my pride in being Welsh—going back for as many generations as any hon. Member—but as someone who has had the privilege of studying linguistics I know that all languages are precious and they all enshrine cultures. They are part of the world heritage that we pass on, but that is different from having the ambition, willy-nilly, to assume political domination that we see in two parts of our country.
  The hon. Member for Caernarvon said that he hoped that there would not be too much bitterness in the referendum debate and that the Welsh people would be able to work together afterwards. I am pessimistic. I see great bitterness coming out of this conflict of opinion in Wales and Plaid Cymru, the party that, for years has been castigating everything English as something to be sniggered or sneered at, or treated with contempt, will reap the reward of having sown the seeds of bitterness.
  The Welsh people must have these dangers pointed out to them. The irrelevancy of the Bill as a constitutional measure was seen by many of us early on. We wanted to see the then Leader of the House about it, but he dismissed us. We then demanded a referendum. That was dismissed, but we forced the issue and succeeded. Even before that we wanted two Bills instead of one. To

  577
  all intents and purposes that concession had to be given. We had a Speaker's Conference on the issue. We demanded that no constitutional issue of magnitude should be the subject of anything but a free vote in the House of Commons, in which every hon. Member could show what stake he had in his country. Most imperative of all, we demanded that there be a free vote and that the guillotine should never be used as a method of stifling an hon. Member's conscience.
  All those demands were refused. However, there are many fights yet to come. Some of them will be dour. The Government will not come through unscathed, any more than they came through the Scottish exercise unscathed. Assuming that it is the will of Parliament that there is to be a referendum on the question whether we should have an Assembly, I feel sure of the view that the Welsh people will express. If some Ministers do not know their constituencies well enough to know the feelings of their constituents. I shall tell them. I can do so because there has been fair consultation along the line. The issue is becoming clearer and clearer to the Welsh people.
  I feel sure that the Welsh people will not be prepared to sacrifice centuries of unity. It may be that there has been occasional unease, but I do not know where unity has not met with such moments. However happy the marriage may be, there are one or two crises to be borne by one or other of the partners. The feeling that the Welsh people are to be used as an instrument to break up a well tried and inherited system will weigh very heavily.
  The Welsh people should bear in mind some of the nice, easy phrases that have been used. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, it will mean paying the piper. In this instance the piper will demand more than £12 million per year as well as the original cost of the Assembly. Whether the Welsh people will consider that the tune that the piper produces is worth listening to afterwards is a moot point.
  I accept that even 10 per cent. in a voting population is a significant element. Even if the figure is 10·7 per cent., 15 per cent. or 20 per cent.—the percentages are rather different according to the different platforms—those who incur the
  578
  odium of leading the Welsh people to an attack on the unity of the country must bear the consequences.
  Although those who would give that lead have many members of the establishment, many of the crachach in Wales and in the Labour Party, supporting them, they will live to regret bitterly the day that they put their feet on that road. Knowing of the culture of Wales, nothing of its eagerness to express itself is reflected in this exercise. What they will have to bear on their consciences is that, to my knowledge, for years and years the sniggers, the sneers and the active hatreds of all things English have been generated in Wales—
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Rubbish.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Evans: It is not rubbish. Glamorgan County Council recently had to withdraw from a school a book which carried in it a picture of the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) in a drawing room setting, with a linguistic instruction. At the back of the book there was a list of the heroes of Wales, and the right hon. Gentleman figured in the list. There is the tendency to elevate anything and everything into a stick to beat one's opponents, whether it is footballers or anything else. This is plain for all to see.
  I hope that those who have chosen to put their feet on this road, if this is to be the destiny of Wales, will see where they are leading us. It is all very well to laugh. It is all very well to say "I shall be quite happy with Wales, even if it is a peasant country". I have met people who have said that. As long as they are the people who will wield power over the peasants, that seems to be enough for them. I can only say that if the Welsh people are to be led down this road they must resist it with all the force at their command.
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) and with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) about the harm that a narrow little nationalism can do and continues to do in this century, not only in this country but in all other countries of the world. It is fuelled on emotion and is largely devoid of any Intellectual reasoning.

  579
  We have heard from one hon. Member after another representing Welsh constituencies, with all their inborn eloquence and passion, how much harm the Bill will do to the Welsh people. I believe that it will do harm to the English people as well. That aspect of it has not been given much attention. But, representing as I do, people in the South-West of England, and coming from the South-West of England, I can say that all the problems of Wales are shared by the people of the South-West.
  The people of the South-West of England have great affinities with the people of Wales. Some parts of our area share the same ethnic background. We certainly have the difficult communications. We certainly have the low wages. We certainly have the difficulty of attracting industries. Unfortunately and sadly, our level of unemployment is a good deal higher even than that in Wales, yet we have in our region almost exactly the same population—2,750,000. In the South-West we have 116,000 unemployed today. In Wales the total figure at the latest count was 91,000.
  The people of the South-West of England share and understand the problems of the people of Wales. We have our little local nationalism. I am a Cornishman and I can vouch for that. We have our little local cultures. We can look across to the shores of Wales from our homes and realise that we share with the people of Wales many of their problems, hopes and aspirations. We have at the present time no resentment, or very little resentment, of the fact that the Welsh people get considerable advantages in the way of aid and assistance from the United Kingdom as a whole.
  We do question some of the dispersal of industry that goes to South Wales and not to the South-West. We do question some of the improvements to roads and communications that go to South Wales and not to the South-West.
  But those are not burning issues. We understand that the people of South \Vales have had great poverty and many problems in the past. We accept that. However, if through the Bill the people of Wales are to have greater powers through their Assembly to obtain more of the share of the economic growth of the United Kingdom as a whole, and if they
  580
  seek greater gains for themselves, we in the South-West will feel deep resentment. This will do grave harm to the social fabric of the South-West and to the unity of the United Kingdom.
  It will also do harm to the balance of parliamentary representation. The Welsh equivalent of the West Lothian question affects us as much as it affects Scottish Members. If the 36 Welsh Members, mostly Labour, representing 2,750,000 people were to vote on a problem which we in the South-West experienced, being largely represented by the Conservatives, with 27 Members and also representing 2,750,000 when we could do no such thing in their part of the country, that would add fuel to the flames of social discord in the United Kingdom.
  We have deep problems in the United Kingdom. They are far deeper than many of us foresaw a few years ago. We have deep and lasting problems which require the efforts and energies of all the people in these islands. Anyone from outside would think us mad to try to create at present foolish divisions amongst ourselves for the sake of trying to relieve the pressures of petty nationalism in some corners of the United Kingdom. We should not be made to push ahead any measure that would disrupt our unity. Right hon. and hon. Members should continue to oppose the Bill at every stage and try and throw it out at Third Reading.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: We have already had a long debate on Clause 1. I was interested in the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans), who talked about organic development. I would rather say that there is nothing constant but change. Of course the Assembly will change over the years. In the immediate years ahead it is likely that it will be controlled by the Labour Party. It is a little mysterious that any hon. Member, particularly anyone who represents Welsh Labour constituencies, should oppose these proposals.
  Mr. Fred Evans Mr. Fred Evans rose—
  Mr. Hughes: I have only just begun.
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) should not have started on such a controversial note if he did not wish to be interrupted. Am I right in saying that his argument is

  581
  based on pure expediency and that he is throwing any consciousness of unity down the river?
  Mr. Hughes: Far be it from me to do that. The clause says that the Bill will make no change; in the government of the United Kingdom and that it does not affect its essential unity. Neither does it affect the supreme authority of Parliament. I certainly agree with that. I cannot understand what this argument is all about.
  The Conservatives will always oppose any extension of democracy in Wales. They always have done over the years. That is why the people of Wales have rejected the Tories so overwhelmingly over such a long period.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) talked about the proposals being a nineteenth-century concept. I appreciate that my hon. Friend was not in the House in 1972 and 1973, but I can tell him that those of us who were here spent a lot of time on those proposals, meeting almost every day. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are now opposing these proposals were party to what was agreed at that time. They even went as far as to put a specific promise in their personal election addresses. All that the Labour movement in Wales is asking them to do is to honour the promises which, presumably, they made sincerely to their electors and to Wales as a whole.
  These decisions and proposals have been endorsed by the Labour Party and the TUC both in Wales and nationally. There may be a feeling that the proposals are not all that popular, but if Keir Hardie had advocated at the beginning of this century only those things that were popular, our movement would not have got this far and there would not have been so many of us on these benches or so many good careers ahead of certain of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  The proposals are essentially practical in character, and they do not affect the essential unity of the United Kingdom. Circumstances in Wales do not compare with those in Scotland. In Scotland the argument about the effect on unity is strengthened, but that does not apply to Wales. The function of the Welsh Assembly will be only executive in character. One of the reasons for pro-
  582
  posals of this sort is the growth in the number of nominated bodies. One can name any sort of nominated body, and we in Wales have got it. It is time that these bodies were made democratically accountable.
  We know that the Tories will oppose these proposals. Many of the Conservative Party's nominees serve on these bodies. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that the proposals do not have the support of the people of Wales. I can assure him that neither did the people of Wales support his Government's local government re-organisation proposals which have cost the ratepayers and taxpayers so dearly. Local government has been an absolute disaster. For that reason, I welcome the proposal in the Bill that one of the elected Assembly's first jobs will be to look into local government with a view to drawing up proposals much better suited to the needs of Wales and preferably based on a one-tier system.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Grist: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that the Assembly will only be able to produce a report or recommendations. The legislation will still lie with the House of Commons. We in the House will still discuss it, and Ministers will still have to produce proposals. All these things can be done now without an Assembly.
  Mr. Hughes: That only goes to indicate the minimal powers that the Assembly will have. But the representatives in the Assembly will be from the grass roots in Wales. I am sure that they can be relied upon to draw up perfectly sensible proposals. It will ultimately be up to the House of Commons to decide whether to accept, reject or amend them.
  Mr. Kinnock: If the House were to reject such proposals, what does my hon. Friend think would be the consequences in terms of the attitude of the people towards this place, democracy and the Assembly? Does not he acknowledge that it is still perfectly feasible for the House to make changes to those local government provisions which he and I dislike equally without having to go through the wasteful procedures of creating an Assembly? It appears sometimes that the whole justification for creating an Assembly is that it will rescue local

  583
  government in Wales from the mess in which the Tories left it.
  Mr. Hughes: I cannot believe that the present Government would reject outright proposals from the Welsh Assembly. No doubt they might amend parts of them, but I am sure that the Assembly would be capable of drawing up proposals for local government which, by and large, would be acceptable not only in Wales but to the Government.
  Then there is the question of the Welsh Office, and we have heard a good deal of emphasis on the situation of the Secretary of State. It is worth remembering that the Welsh Office is in Cardiff. That is where the Welsh civil servants are. There is only a skeleton staff in London. The idea is that the civil servants in Cardiff should be accountable to an elected Assembly there, because we know that Parliament here has not the time to scrutinise these minute functions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has freely admitted that he is taking decisions from day to day which, honourably, he believes should really be made by elected representatives.
  Many of the speeches about Clause 1 and the proposals contained in the Bill have been exaggerated out of all proportion. I have always supported the essential unity of the United Kingdom, and I believe that the basis of these proposals is sensible. We know that the proposals have been thoroughly gone into, particularly by the Labour Party and by the Royal Commission. What more exhaustive investigation can we have? It is my feeling that Clause 1 and the proposals contained in the Bill as a whole should be supported by every Member on this side of the Committee.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The debate has been very wide ranging. We little thought that in the course of the evening we would hear about prohibition in the Labour Party's programme of 1922 and poaching among the ancestors of the hon. Member from Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
  We welcomed the brief speech by the Under-Secretary of State at the beginning of the proceedings. Many Welsh people would have welcomed on this St. David's Day a much longer speech by a Welsh Minister, more closely related to the matters that immediately concern the Welsh
  584
  people, the great social and economic problems that confront us and have not been debated in a proper Welsh debate in the House of Commons for more than 15 months. A Government who neglect their duties in this place cannot advance as adequate justification for legislation of this kind the fact that they have failed to provide time for proper debate.
  The significant fact about the debate is that the clause, included by the Government at the outset and regarded as important, has now been dropped. That is not because the Government have suddenly had wiser thoughts about what has been described by both Labour and Liberal supporters of devolution as no more than a pious expression of hope or window dressing but because, as a consequence of what happened on the Scotland Bill, the Government have had to accept that the House of Commons does not believe the statement in the clause to be true. I must make it clear that we want the clause out.
  Sir A. Meyer: Does my hon. Friend share my astonishment at the manner in which the Committee became aware that the clause had been dropped? As far as I am aware, there was no announcement by the Goverment. The information was dragged out of them as a result of a series of points of order.
  Mr. Edwards: No. We had a one-minute speech by the Under-Secretary, who rose to make an announcement that had been leaked over the past two or three days in private conversations with hon. Members.
  The debate has made it absolutely clear why the clause had to go, despite the fact that on the Scotland Bill, as the Committee was reminded by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), the Government fought long and hard for its retention. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) pointed out that they regarded it then as critical and crucial to their legislation, as central to the whole concept of devolution as they presented it.
  During the consideration of the Scotland Bill the nationalists suggested that our hostility to the clause and our vote against it represented a statement of hostility to the Union. They know perfectly well that it does nothing of the kind. We are against the clause because it is

  585
  a lie. It reverses the truth, and we do not believe that it is the business of the House of Commons to pass legislation that does that.
  The point is made for us by a series of nationalist amendments to Clause 10 that we shall debate tomorrow. Plaid Cymru Members declare the Bill to be inadequate as it stands and seek to extend it by giving the Assembly legislative and economic powers.
  The whole scheme advanced by the Government is a catalyst for conflict and disruption, conflict with central Government and with local government. It is interesting that, although the Government seek to argue otherwise, there is agreement on this point between those who want devolution carried to its extremes and those of us who seek to maintain the fundamental unity of the kingdom. Nationalists and Conservatives at least agree that the structure created by the Bill cannot endure.
  Despite the fact that the Western Mail in an article referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts), says that there is no case for thinking that we are advancing down the slippery slope and that the slippery-slope argument is unsound, there is no clearer statement of the slippery-slope argument than that in a recent book by John Osmond, "Creative Conflict—The Politics of Welsh Devolution."
  John Osmond is a journalist working in Wales for the Western Mail. He has become an advocate of nationalism. He looks to a de-centralist, confederalist solution—I think that I summarise his case fairly—which is curiously ill defined but is to be based on local community. He aims at something that he describes as a British union, which he compares with attempts to create a Nordic union. His objective is not far removed from the Commonwealth status referred to by Plaid Cymru.
  Mr. Osmond welcomes the Bill not as a solution, not as a structure of government that will or can endure, but as a source of conflict. He positively luxuriates in the kind of creative conflict that he believes the Bill will create. He values the Bill only as an instrument to take us
  586
  down the slippery slope to something entirely different. In his book, which I recommend to hon. Members for our debates, he very clearly identifies the various sources of conflict. After describing the political compromises within the Labour Party that produced the Bill, he describes it as a fundamentally unstable system. The missing legislative function is identified as the first stress area, an obvious focus for the Assembly's ambition and one already being pressed by amendment to the Bill.
  Mr. Osmond then turns to the point to which I referred during the proceedings on the Scotland and Wales Bill—that is, the obvious impossibility of separating the primary and secondary legislative functions. This matter was referred to at length by the hon. Member for ale Wrekin (Mr. Fowler), who attacked my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) for his speech and sought to argue, referring to that speech, that it was absurd to suggest that there was anything fundamentally dangerous about the Bill because, after all, there was no legislative function in it. But the hon. Member entirely failed to address himself seriously to the possibility envisaged by the Kilbrandon Commission that an Assembly will simply fail to carry out the general policies produced for it in primary legislation in this place, and will fail to fill in the necessary details or will do so in a deliberately contradictory way.
  The Royal Commission had this to say at paragraph 860 of its report:
  "If, for example, regional assemblies were required to make regulations to give effect to some policy laid down in the statute, there would need to be some means of ensuring that suitable regulations were made. However unlikely it may be, the possibility would at least exist that a particular assembly which was opposed to that policy might either fail to make the regulations or make them in terms which were deliberately unsuited for the purpose."
  After referring to local government, the report said:
  "It is possible that regional governments with greater weight, and perhaps strong national or regional feeling behind them, would not always be so amenable. Some measure of disagreement, forcibly expressed and at times acted upon, could be expected. The central government would, however, need to be in a position to secure the implementation of its policy and to step in if a region either exceeded the limits of its devolved powers or failed to exercise them."

  587
  In paragraph 863, the report went on to say:
  "It must be recognised, however, that there would be strong political resistance to the use of any of these powers of coercion "—
  powers that had been described in the preceding paragraphs.
  9.45 p.m.
  Thus, the Kilbrandon Commission at any rate recognised that fundamental difficulty. Although the Assembly has been described frequently tonight as a purely executive body, it is more than that. It has to fulfil a vital part of the legislative function. Interestingly enough, in the book that I have mentioned there is a quotation from a paragraph said to have been written by Lord Glenamara, as he now is—Ted Short as he then was. I shall not quote it in full, but I may refer to it when we return to the question of legislation.
  He is quoted as saying, on page 155 of this book:
  "The line between primary and secondary legislation has often in the past been a matter of convenience (related, for example, to considerations of Parliamentary time). In the 'devolved' situation, it would have much greater importance. This might someimes be an additional complication in the management of the Westminster legislative programme. It is possible also that Parliament might choose actually to draw primary legislation more tightly, rather than more loosely, in order to constrain the options of the Welsh Assembly (which might have a different political majority)."
  John Osmond notes:
  "After listing these 'limitations', Short offered a very revealing comment. He wrote, ' I have no proposals for countering these limitations'".
  That is the reality of the situation. There is a potential source of conflict between the two parts of the legislative function which simply has not been resolved. One has only to think of an example like housing finance, where legislation might be passed in this House which simply would not and could not be implemented through secondary legislation elsewhere.
  Mr. Osmond lists next as a potential source of conflict—I think rightly—the hybrid Committee solution. That Committee structure is complicated and is made possible because there is no primary legislative power. He says:
  "The instability created by the absence of primary legislative powers, together with the instability inherent in the separation of primary
  588
  and secondary legislation for Wales (both described at above) would in themselves produce instability in the committee structure."
  He points out that that Committee structure would inevitably move towards a Cabinet system, and I think that he is right.
  Mr. Osmond then turns to the fourth area for conflict, arising from the role of the Secretary of State, the economic aspirations of the Assembly and the profound arguments which would inevitably go on over the scale of the finance provided. The Civil Service and Westminster override provisions are then identified as a further source of conflict.
  He concludes his chapter by telling his readers that it has been intended to demonstrate that it was littered with opportunities for either Assembly or Westminster to promote confrontation. That confrontation he welcomes as something essentially creative, which will lead either to a federal solution or—as he regards it, more desirably—a confederal one.
  Believing that the present constitutional provision is inherently unstable in any case, he welcomes the fact that the Government's response
  "is guaranteed to create even more constitutional instability".
  He positively glories in the fact that the block grant system is, as he describes it, "a recipe for conflict".
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman replying to the Government's proposals as contained in the clause and the speeches made in the debate, or is he replying to the Western Mail?
  Mr. Edwards: I am trying to summarise the sources of conflict and the fundamental reasons why, as the House of Commons and the people of Wales should understand, the Government have withdrawn this clause. The clause is fundamental to our understanding of the Bill. If we do not understand why the House of Commons would not accept it in the Scotland Bill and why the Government realised that the Committee would not accept it in this Bill, we shall not understand the legislation at all. I quote widely from this interesting book so that the Committee and the people of Wales may understand what the proponents of devolution are about.
  It is surely important that, right at the start, when we debate Clause 1 we should

  589
  all understand that we are not being asked to produce a stable constitutional settlement. Instead, we are being asked quite deliberately by people who believe in it to stimulate conflict in the vague and ill-defined hope that what eventually emerges may be better than we have at present.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) said that the Bill as it stands, if it did not go any further, might be acceptable. I say that a Bill that is so charged with conflict cannot be acceptable as it stands. In setting out the causes of conflict referred to by Mr. Osmond I have omitted two others that are equally important. The first has been dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, when he referred to the position of Welsh Members of Parliament and their influence on the Government of England. It has become known as the West Lothian question.
  The fact that the Government have proferred no solution is a clear indication that there is no way of avoiding the conflict that this question will create with English Members and the English people. Nor can any change in the present arrangements be anything but damaging to the Welsh people.
  Hon. Members should not imagine that because Welsh Members will have a legislative role in this place in regard to Wales the problem will not arise in the same way as it does in the case of Scotland. I suggest that in this place the fate of Governments is decided not simply by a legislative programme but by a whole series of debates on Supply Days, on motions tabled by the Government, on orders and questions. Indeed, the present Government are showing skilfully how they can survive by submerging their legislative programme altogether. Even on this Bill the Government are having to withdraw Clause 1, which is not a very clear sign of their total domination of the House of Commons.
  As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) told the House on 29th November:
  "…legislation and the right and necessity to legislate must spring out of involvement with and, indeed, responsibility for the subjects to which the legislation relates. The notion of reponsibility for administration totally divorced from responsibility for legislation is a chimera. The two hang together."—[Official Report, 29th November 1977; Vol. 940, c. 330.]
  590
  But Welsh Members will have no responsibility for administration in Wales, on a huge range of subjects in their own constituencies—only in England—and their contribution to the legislative process will be divorced from the experience of administration in their own constituencies.
  The final area of conflict to which I wish to refer is that with local government. There is an oversight, supervisory and appellate role of government which is being transferred to the Assembly. Later, if the guillotine allows us, we shall want to explain the incredible potential for conflict which will arise as one committee seeks to supervise the work of another committee—quite different from the present arrangements—or as one committee deals with appeals against the decisions of other committees.
  I have said enough to show that the grounds for conflict and disruption are as great in the Wales Bill as they are in the Scotland Bill. Indeed, because of the division of the legislative function and the extraordinary committee structure, they are in some ways greater. Of course, in the case of Scotland it could be argued throughout that there might be an even greater cause for disunity and disruption because the demand of the Scottish people was such that if it were denied it would be an even greater cause of conflict than any contained in the Bill.
  That argument cannot conceivably be advanced in the case of Wales, because not even supporters of the Bill now put forward the proposition that there is a strong public demand for it. The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) was eloquent in his moderation when he referred to public opinion on this issue. He could not make more than the most tentative claims.
  Some members of the Committee have been suffering from the remarkable delusion that the Bill is less important than the Scotland Bill, and that its consequences are potentially less damaging for the United Kingdom. I do not share that view. There is an inevitable connection between what happens in one part of the kingdom and what happens in another. A small fracture appearing in the body of the State weakens the whole. It will lengthen and spread until the State as we know it falls apart.

  591
  That is the objective of the nationalists. That is what they propose to use the Assemblies for. The John Osmonds of this world, having created the pressure for the Bill, hope that that will, in fact, be the consequence.
  Mr. Hooson Mr. Hooson rose—
  Mr. Edwards: I am coming to a close. We have had a long debate.
  No doubt the Minister will reply that he acknowledges no such objective. He is the tool of those with greater determination and clearer vision than he possesses. His Bill is a cause of conflict, and, as I see it, not creative but destructive conflict. What the nationalists regard as this small step is a step into the unknown, but inevitably and unchallengeably it cannot be a single step. If we take it, it will be the first of many, and it will lead to a wholly different constitutional settlement.
  Mr. John Smith: About six and a half hours ago, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales announced—in a speech which, apparently, the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) did not hear—that it was the Government's intention not to recommend that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend's was not a long speech. It was admirably crisp and brief. If I may say so, he set a precedent which did not find general acceptance throughout most of the Committee, but I do not wish to be anything but as brief and succinct as was my hon. Friend. In essence, we have had a Second Reading debate today, and I hope that it will not be the practice of some hon. Members, especially those who have spoken today, to suggest that a vicious guillotine imposed by the Government has prevented the Committee from reaching other clauses before 11 o'clock. If the Government were to devise a guillotine generous enough to accommodate the instincts which the Committee has shown today, that guillotine would have to last for several years, let alone several months.
  It has been said that the clause is inaccurate. The Government do not accept that. We believe that the Bill is consistent with the unity of the United Kingdom and nothing in it impairs the legis-
  592
  lative supremacy of Parliament. That is my view. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said that the clause was unnecessary, being declaratory in effect and, as he put it, surplusage. In our view, it was a useful declaratory clause.
  The words that I used on the Scotland Bill, in recommending the corresponding clause to the Committee, were that it was a useful declaratory clause to appear at this point. However, the Committee on the Scotland Bill did not accept that advice, and we felt that in the present circumstances it might assist the Committee and speed up the debate if the Government made their position clear at the outset.
  Unfortunately, that laudable ambition has not been realised, but I shall not take up more of the time available, since there are other matters with which hon. Members would like to deal. I end by saying that we do not recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Question put and negatived.
  Clause 1 disagreed to.

Clause 2

  THE WELSH ASSEMBLY
  Sir A. Meyer: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 15, after 'Assembly', insert:
  'the members of which shall be elected by that system of proportional voting specified under this Act'.
  The Chairman: I suggest that it will be convenient to take at the same time the following amendments:
  No. 10, in page 1, line 16, after 'initial', insert 'constituency'.
  No. 120, in page 1, line 16, after 'returned', insert:
  'by the alternative vote method of election'.
  No. 11, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'three initial' and insert 'two initial constituencies'.
  No. 12, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
  No. 13, in page 1, line 20, leave out ' 125 ' and insert '113'.
  No. 14, in page 1, line 22, leave out 'two' and insert 'one'.
  No. 15, in page 1, line 22, leave out 'members' and insert 'member'.
  No. 17, in page 2, line 1, after 'The'. insert 'constituency'.
  No. 18, in page 2, line 1, after 'initial'. insert 'constituency'.
  No. 20, in page 2, line 6, at end insert:
  '(4A) Twenty-five additional members of the Assembly shall be elected by the system of proportional voting wt out in Part V of Schedule 1 to this Act based upon the entitlement which each elector shall have at such election and all subsequent ordinary elections to cast a second vote such votes being referred to in this Act as "party votes".
  (5) The number of additional members of the Assembly other than at the first ordinary election of members of the Assembly shall be half the number of constituency members at the ordinary election concerned (rounded up to the nearest whole number).
  (6) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act the Assembly may at any time after the first ordinary election review the suitability and fairness of the system of proportional voting prescribed by this Act and may make such regulations amending that system as the Assembly shall prescribe by Bill which Bill shall be subject to the powers of rejection contained in Part VI of Schedule I to this Act and pending any such amendment the system of proportional voting prescribed by this Act for the first ordinary election shall apply to succeeding ordinary elections.'.
  No. 22, in page 2, line 8, after 'initial', insert 'constituency'.
  No. 23, in Schedule 1, page 35, line 12, leave out '125' and insert '113'.
  No. 24, in page 35, line 12, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
  No. 25, in page 35, line 14, leave out 'two' and insert 'one'.
  No. 26, in page 35, line 14, leave out 'constituencies' and insert 'constituency'.
  No. 27, in page 36, line 22, at end insert—

'PART V

  ELECTION OF ADDITIONAL MEMBERS
  15.—(1) No person shall be eligible to be elected as an additional member unless his name was listed as an adopted list candidate at the ordinary election concerned.
  (2) No party shall be eligible party so as to be eligible for allocation of additional member seats to its adopted list candidates under this Schedule unless it secured five per cent. or more of the total of all party votes validly cast at the ordinary election concerned.
  16. The process of election of additional members shall be as follows:
  594

  (1) The number of additional members to be returned at the ordinary election concerned shall be ascertained in accordance with section 2 of this Act.

  (2) Priority lists showing the priority as between adopted list candidates shall be democratically drawn up by each party and shall not contain more names than there are additional member seats to be allocated at the ordinary election concerned. A person standing for election as a constituency member may be eligible for inclusion on his party's priority list.

  (3) The valid party votes cast at the ordinary election concerned for each eligible party shall be added and the total in each case divided by the sum of the number of candidates for each eligible party returned as constituency members at that election plus one.

  (4) The results of the calculations made in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph shall be compared and the first person to be elected an additional member shall be the first candidate on the priority list of the eligible party obtaining the highest number as a result of those calculations who is not already a member.

  (5) The calculations made in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph shall be repeated after adding the additional member elected in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph to the denominator sum of the eligible party of which he was an adopted candidate.

  (6) The results of the calculations made in sub-paragraph (5) of this paragraph shall be compared and the next person to be elected an additional member shall be the first candidate on the priority list of the eligible party obtaining the highest number as a result of those calculations who is not already a member.

  (7) The remaining addtional members shall be elected one by one by application of the same system of calculation and election as is prescribed in the preceding subparagraphs of this paragraph.

  (8) In this paragraph "party" means a political party whose principal objects include the adoption of candidates for election to the Welsh Assembly.

  (9) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make regulations for the drawing up and publication of priority lists by parties and the form of ballot paper to be used for ordinary elections to the Assembly under this part of this Act but no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make such an Order until a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

PART VI

  REVISION OF PROPORTIONAL VOTING SYSTEM
  17.—(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State that an instrument made by the welsh Assembly under the Provisions of section 2

  595
  of this Act would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole he may by order revoke the instrument and any such order may contain such consequential provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.
  (2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph revoking an instrument shall be subject to the same limitations and procedures as are contained under section 36 of this Act.'.
  No. 34, in Clause 5, page 3, line 27, at beginning insert 'constituency'.
  No. 35 in page 3, line 38, at end insert—
  '(5) Subject to subsection (4) of this section where the seat of an additional member of an Assembly is vacated the vacancy shall be filled by the first willing candidate of the party of the vacating member on the relevant party priority list as prepared at the preceding ordinary election under the provisions of Part V of Schedule 1 to this Act such candidate not already being a member and having indicated his willingness to fill the vacancy as required by the standing orders of the Assembly.'.
  10.0 p.m.
  Sir A. Meyer: We now have just one hour in which to have a debate on proportional representation. I shall try to set a spanking pace so that there will be as much time as possible for other hon. Members to contribute to the debate.
  This amendment is the first of a series of interrelated amendments to provide that the first elections to the Assembly should be held under a system of PR. The sponsors of this amendment are drawn from all the parties concerned with the Wales Bill and, in addition, represent the two camps with regard to the Bill—that is to say, those who support the Bill and those who oppose it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) and I are strong opponents of the Bill, but other hon. Members who have put their names to the amendment are strong supporters of it. The amendment was to have been moved by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), but, as a Member of the European Parliament, he is unable to be present. That is why I am carrying out this job.
  I reiterate that I am a strong opponent of the measure. But, if we are to have an Assembly, clearly it must do the job that it is elected to do. As I read the Bill, the prime function of the Assembly is to carry out certain executive activities through a complicated structure of committees. Fruthermore, it is expressly provided in the Bill that those commit-
  596
  tees should be multi-party committees—as it were, power-sharing executives. Because of that, it seems to me that the case for PR of some sort is stronger and more incontrovertible in the case of the Wales Bill than it was with regard to the Scotland Bill and perhaps as strong as it was in the case of the European Assembly Elections Bill.
  We must bear in mind that the strongest arguments adduced by the opponents of PR—namely, that it does not produce a clear-cut majority for one party, and that a majority for one party is essential to sustain single-party government and single-party responsibility—are simply not applicable to the Wales Bill.
  Furthermore, there is an additional powerful argument in the political makeup of Wales for introducing PR into elections for the Assembly. In Wales we traditionally have one very large party and three smaller parties. There is, therefore, the constant risk of distortion if the first-past-the-post system is applied. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members that the present system of first past the post exaggerates Labour dominance in Wales.
  I take only the example of the October 1974 General Election, in which the Labour Party got 49 per cent. of the votes but 66 per cent. of the seats. In the long run, that cannot be healthy for the Labour Party. I am glad that the hon. Member for Wrexham had the courage to support this amendment. Being a man of far sight, he recognised the unhealthiness of that situation for the Labour Party It is much more obvious that this is not a healthy situation for the other three parties, which, naturally, do not like it.
  I am glad that it has fallen to me rather than to any of my co-sponsors to introduce the amendment, because as a Conservative I can be acquitted of any bias whatever. It so happened that in the October 1974 General Election the Conservative Party got 19 per cent. of the seats but secured 24 per cent. of the votes. If that result were transposed in order to calculate the number of seats which the Conservative Party would have won in an Assembly election—under a first-past-the-post system as set out under the Bill—the extraordinarily neat result comes up that the Conservative Party with 24 per cent. of the votes would have got 23·9 per cent. of the seats. Therefore, with regard to

  597
  the October 1974 figures—which are reasonably representative for Wales—the Conservative attitude is a disinterested one.
  I am asking for a system of proportional representation because it would be fairer. As far as the Welsh Assembly is concerned, fairness is more important than producing a clear majority, because one of the primary functions of the Assembly is to reflect the balance of political opinion in Wales.
  I am also asking for a particular form of PR. This amendment coincides with an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who wants a different form of PR. I am asking for the additional Member system, which has certain special advantages.
  The system retains the existing constituencies. It is fairly common ground among hon. Members on both sides of the argument and on both sides of the Committee that there is great value in the link between the constituency and its Member, whether this applies to the Westminster Parliament or to the Welsh Assembly. The additional Member system also could be introduced without any delay because it does not entail the redrawing of boundaries or the regrouping of constituencies.
  There is another point in its favour. I do not wish to make too much of this because the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) made a lot of it on the Scotland Bill. The system enables people who have great political, practical, scientific or technical expertise to contribute to become Members of the Assembly even though they do not have the special talents qualifying them to stand for election as constituency Members. I do not intend to make too much of this or I shall hear cries of "Elitism" from Labour Members. But there is merit in allowing people of that calibre to participate in the Assembly.
  The principle of the additional Member system as applied to Wales in this series of amendments would be that at the first election to the Assembly, 50 Members would be elected by the first-past-the-post system. Thirty-six of these would be from the existing 36 constituencies—one Member for each constituency. In addition, them would be 14 constituency Members from the 14 largest con-
  598
  stituencies, defined in the amendment as those whose electorate is 113 per cent. of the electoral quota of the United Kingdom. That gives 50 constituency Members on the first-past-the-post system as proposed under the Bill.
  Those Members would be topped up by an additional 25 Members allocated to parties in such a way as to give proportional representation as nearly as possible. The 25 additional Members would be drawn from a list to be published by each party at the election. The list of additional Members preferred by each party would be put on each elector's ballot paper. Each voter would have two votes—one for a constituency candidate and one for a candidate from the party lists.
  In voting for candidates on the party list, the voter would have a ballot paper with a complete list of the candidates in order of preference determined by the party. Before I hear great cries of "Party machines imposing their bureaucratic views on the electorate" from Labour Members, they should bear in mind that the parties will be seeking votes in this way and will arrange their lists in such a way as to attract the votes of the electors. They will also arrange it in such a way as to put the most electorally attractive candidates at the top of the list. It gives electors a real choice.
  Provision is made for a cut-off. A political party would have to poll 5 per cent. of the total votes cast in all the elections for the Assembly in order to qualify to have even one Member picked from the list. This would eliminate parties which are strong locally but have no strength throughout the Principality, and it would suffice to eliminate local freak parties.
  The elector would be free to vote for a candidate he liked personally and, at the same time, for a different political party. I am sure that every hon. Member is more popular than the party he represents and can therefore feel confident that, if lie offered himself for election, he would undoubtedly be returned.
  The system would be fair and workable, and the case for proportional representation is overwhelming. The case for PR in the European Assembly elections was incontrovertible so that we could show our European partners that we were conducting absolutely fair elections. For

  599
  the Welsh Assembly, the practical arguments in favour of PR are extraordinarily strong.
  We are aiming to produce an Assembly which reflects the balance of political
  600
  forces in Wales. Out of it will come executive committees which are expressly designed to be power-sharing committees. I cannot see how any argument can be sustained against an election system that would produce precisely that result.
  Mr. Abse: I beg to move Amendment No. 12—
  The Chairman: Order. I must put the hon. Gentleman right. He cannot move his amendment. He must speak to the amendment that we are discussing, though he may make incidental reference to his own amendment. Subject to the provisions of the timetable resolution, the hon. Gentleman may move his amendment formally when it is reached.
  Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. While it is right that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) cannot move his amendment, surely he can make more than just incidential references to it. His amendment is linked with others in the group, and he can address himself totally to his own amendment.
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman may make incidental reference to his amendment.
  Mr. Abse: In order to clarify the position before I start, may I say that I understand that there is an amendment that—
  The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that I have not made the position clear. The hon. Gentleman is discussing his amendment in the group that is under discussion. He may make more than incidental reference to it.
  Mr. Abse: Thank you, Mr. Murton.
  An unhappy situation has arisen in which, by coincidence, various hon. Members have put down the same amendment within entirely different goals. I have two amendments in this group. One provides that in areas where the electorate is more than 125 per cent. of the electoral quota there should be two initial Members instead of the three proposed in the Bill, and the other provides that, instead of two initial Members for each of the other areas, there should be one. They have nothing to do with the contribution of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), and, in order to avoid confusion, I shall try to direct the attention of the Committee to my amendments which seek to reduce the number of Members of the Assembly.
  I observe that the hon. Member for Flint, West has obtained the support of
  602
  Plaid Cymru. I note that there is an intention to alter the rules as we go along. There is a clear and unequivocal wish that we ensure that the manner in which the Assembly is elected is fundamentally altered. To that proposition Plaid Cymru gives its full approval. I trust that all the cries of anguish that have come from Plaid Cymru in claiming that the rules of the game are being changed in respect of the demand that there should be a vote in favour of 40 per cent. and that fundamental changes are taking place will be heard no longer.
  It seems that Plaid Cymru Members are using their parliamentary right to change the rules. I do not object. They are behaving as parliamentarians, and they have every right to do so. However, they must no longer peddle the story around Wales that anyone else who does that is worthy of condemnation. Beyond that, I prefer not to pursue the argument. I am sure that there are hon. Members who will meet the views that have been put forward by the hon. Member for Flint, West.
  I am concerned with the numbers that will be elected, but I am concerned primarily to get on with establishing a fact that the people of Wales have for a long time been wishing to learn. It is not surprising that when an Assembly is canvassed the people of Wales want to know how many Members will go into it and how much it will cost. It is a simple question, and as yet we have had only part of the reply.
  We know from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum which accompanies the Bill that about £3 million in respect of salaries and related costs of Members of the Assembly is to be spent. Although I say that I am literate, I am barely numerate. However, even I can work out how much Wales will pay per Member in order to have the Assembly. If we divide £3 million by 80, it means that Wales will pay £37,500 a year so that it shall have each glorious Assembly Member. That is something that the Welsh people should understand.
  There is some restlessness in Wales about that sum. Wales is entitled to know how it is broken down. Before we decide how many Members the Assembly shall have, we want to know the salary that is to be paid to each Assemblyman. Is it to

  603
  be £10,000, £15,000 or £3,000? Obviously, the Government have in mind the sum that an Assembly Member is to be paid, but the House of Commons is entitled to know and Wales is entitled to know, in view of the eagerness of some to go to the Assembly, the basis on which the Secretary of State has worked it out.
  It seems that £37,500 is a large sum. I am sure that it will be regarded as an onerous figure per Assemblyman. How much of that sum is for support? It is described in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum as being
  "in respect of salaries and related costs … and in respect of services for the Assembly"
  Does that include secretaries and research workers? What does it include? Obviously, a sum has been calculated.
  We in the House of Commons cannot be expected to agree to a number such as 80 being represented in the Assembly, bearing in mind the cost falling on the taxpayers of Wales and bearing in mind also that the money will come out of a sum which might otherwise have gone into social services, hospitals or anything else. We are entitled to have an exact breakdown and to know what types of services are to be rendered to these Assemblymen. Are they austere in the mind of the Government, or are they luxurious?
  We are paticularly concerned, because we know that this is only a beginning. The people of Wales must understand that what is proposed in the Bill, according to the Government, is not only that it should cost £37,500 per Assemblyman per year but, more than that, that the Assembly is to be entitled, without reference to the House of Commons or to anybody, to determine the salaries of the Assemblymen. Initially the Secretary of State is to decide the matter, and his view is that it will cost £37,500 per Assemblyman. That, however, is only a beginning. The people of Wales must understand that the Bill gives power to the Assembly to decide these salaries.
  I am sure that there is not a miner, there is not a steel worker, there is not a nylon worker and there is not a worker of any sort in Wales who would not look with envy at these Assemblymen who are to be endowed with such extraordinary advantages and to be given such extraordinary opportunities that, without any
  604
  control whatsoever, they can vote whatever they like.
  If it is suggested that the check will be when the elections come, I recall that I have been in the House of Commons for 20 years and that, given a General Election within the year, I shall have taken part in eight General Elections. We as Members of the House regularly face the electorate. But, according to the Bill, after these cosseted Assemblymen have been elected they will remain in the Assembly for four years. They could raise their salaries in the first week after their election, and it would be four years before the next election took place.
  I am bound to say that when the people of Wales rumble, as they soon will, what is taking place, they will be very pleased that I, with the help of my hon. Friends the Members for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) and for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), have urged that the number of representatives should be reduced in a bid to reduce the cost.
  My first point, therefore, is that we should let the people of Wales know that a blank cheque is being given to these untried and untested Assemblymen. Let the people of Wales, recognise that some of the enthusiasm, marginal as it may be, which comes from small sections of opinion in Wales comes from people who, certainly in private, do not mask their desire and, indeed, their intention to seek election to the Assembly. Indeed, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty put it, certain people seem to have a veritable obsession about the Assembly and their desire to participate in what is deemed to be a democratic Assembly.
  When I see the Plaid Cymru Members nodding their heads, I not merely wonder but expect that they are eager to take their places in the Assembly when it is formed. I do not doubt that it is regarded by them as a very attractive proposition, although it could be a very onerous burden on the people of Wales.
  I want next to deal with the idea that there should be dual representation for each constituency. I wonder what an hon. Member here would think if he found himself in the position, as used to be the case in certain constituencies, of having to share responsibility with another hon. Member. A constituency could be

  605
  represented not by one Member alone but by others, not necessarily from the same party. As the Bill stands, many constituencies could have three Members, each one of whom could represent a different party. Is there anything more likely than this to cause democracy to be discredited? Representatives, in a veritable cacophony, could put forward diverse views which would bewilder the Assembly because they would all claim to represent their constituencies. The whole situation is ludicrous.
  The matter does not end there. What could easily happen is that I or any other hon. Member might represent his constituency in the House and belong to one party, and three Members from three other parties could represent that same constituency in the Assembly. One has only to contemplate the position to see how absurd it is. It is necessary to attempt to ensure that one Member represents one constituency. I simply put the facts before the Committee. The hour is late, and the absurdity of the situation need not be emphasised to experienced parliamentarians because they know the impossibility of the situation which would arise.
  Who would write to the Minister to seek his aid? Would one of the Assemblymen write to him and another write in a contradictory manner? Who would pursue the problems which could arise, for example, in the health services? Would one Member write to the hospital management committee demanding one thing and another Member write wanting something else? I can see the position that would arise throughout the administrative structure in Wales if we permitted more than one Member for each constituency.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Surely the hon. Member is aware of the existence of the area health authorities, which already double up on the duties of Members of Parliament. There is already a double scrutiny. The hon. Member's model of a democracy with different representatives from different political parties is the ultimate in democratic achievement.
  Mr. Abse: If an area health authority received a letter from one Assemblyman asking for a geriatric unit to be established in hospital A and another Assemblyman wrote saying that in no
  606
  circumstances should that be done, a farce would be made of the democratic process. It would be an intolerable burden on permanent officials throughout Wales. They would be bewildered. They would be pushed and pulled in all directions. It would be totally unfair to the administrators of Wales.
  Mr. Kinnock: May I introduce the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) to an entirely novel governmental concept which has not been experienced by him, myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) or anyone in the history of the world? That concept is called "Divide and rule".
  Mr. Abse: Now we are to institutionalise that concept. This is what the scheme involves. It is ludicrous. We are entitled to know what thought has been given to this possibility.
  If we had a PR system, the aim of which seems to be to achieve a so-called balance, it is far more likely that it would achieve a diversity of political views. It would be more likely that there would be three people with entirely different political philosophies and different approaches to the administration in Wales representing one constituency.
  I trust, therefore, that we shall get a reply. What is to be the salary according to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State? What check will there be that these Assemblymen do not vote whatever they like, as they would be able to do under the Bill as it stands at present? What is he to do to prevent the obvious confusions that will arise in the administration of Wales? These are simple questions, but I doubt whether the answers will be quite as simple.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Hooson: I observe sadly that even the daffodil of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has drooped and died in despair at the nonsense he has been talking.
  Mr. Neil Marten: Where is the hon. and learned Member's daffodil?
  Mr. Hooson: Since I was diagonally opposite the hon. Gentleman, I moved it to safety in case the same fate should befall it.

  607
  The object of these amendments is to change the electoral system to make it fairer and more acceptable. I am particularly concerned at the Government's reactions to them for one reason. If the Government intend to win the referendum in Wales, it is very important that they should come up with an electoral system that is fairer and a more accurate reflection on the electorate than the present one.
  The system proposed, though it is not everyone's ideal—I do not think that it is everybody's first choice—is a proportional representation system that is tried and proven. It is workable. It is the West German added-Member system which is virtually adapted to our circumstances and is supported by hon. Members in all parties in the House. It would preserve constituencies with one or two Members. It would allow proportionality to be taken into account, and in the 22 constituencies where single Members are proposed it would allow a preferential vote as well. Instead of there being 75 constituency Members, there would be 50 elected constituency Members and 25 additional Members. It is important to remember that the Kilbrandon Commission was unanimous on only one point—that there should be proportional representation in the elections to the Assemblies.
  It is worth recollecting that under the first-past-the-post system Conservative Members have been expressing a fear of what the nationalists might do at the Assembly, that they might use it for their own purposes. They should bear in mind that in the Quebec provincial election under the first-past-the-post system the nationalist party secured 41 per cent. of the votes but 70 per cent. of the seats.
  If the Conservatives want to build into the legislation the danger of the nationalists in Wales taking hold of the Assembly, they should maintain their support for the first-past-the-post system. Some more enlightened Conservatives have come round to the idea that it is better and safer to have a proportional system.
  I want to try to enlist the support of the Government for these amendments. The proportional electoral system, if adopted for the Assembly, will materially affect the view of a considerable number of people who might otherwise vote
  608
  against it on the referendum. It is important to remember, for example, that at the October 1974 General Election the Labour Party polled 49·5 per cent. of the votes in Wales and had 23 seats. The Conservative Party polled 23·9 per cent. and had eight seats. The Liberals polled 15·5 per cent. and had two seats, and Plaid Cymru polled 10·7 per cent. and had three seats. The whole picture was distorted.
  If we adopted the system proposed in the amendments, everyone would have virtually the same proportion of seats as of the votes cast. That would be a much fairer and more accurate reflection of Welsh public opinion.
  I must come now to what I think is a very important consideration. In the Welsh Grand Committee, the hon. Member for Pontypool and I had an altercation on this subject. He then used what I consider to be the most effective argument, though not the most valid, against devolution, one that in my experience worries most people—the fear that the Welsh Assembly will be dominated by one party and will invite corruption.
  The fear is that the Assembly will be dominated by the Labour Party—not by the Labour Party as represented here, but by the local government element in the Labour Party. Anyone who knows anything about Wales knows that the Achilles' heel of the Labour Party in Wales has been its local government, and I want to recall what the hon. Member for Pontypool said in the Welsh Grand Committee after I had interjected.
  The hon. Member said:
  "I believe, of course, that corruption in decision-making is a major issue throughout the world at this moment … There is nothing indigenous to Wales on this matter. But we have to accept the particular vulnerability of a small community where kinship, friendship and familial ties already play a part as social lubricants … friendliness can wander too easily over the line where the disinterested favour becomes the corrupt act."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 25th January 1978; c. 65.]
  In articulating it as he did, the hon. Gentleman did a service, because he brought out from under the carpet what I consider to be the most effective argument in the minds of the electorate against the proposed Assembly for Wales.
  The Government have to consider this matter very carefully. More than 50 per

  609
  cent. of the voters in Wales voted not for the Labour Party but for the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party or Plaid Cymru. It is important, if there is to be a successful referendum in Wales, that a fair proportion of the supporters of those parties support it. I believe that the supporters of those parties support it. I believe that the system we now propose is the fairest that can be devised, with all-party support, at the moment.
  I think that the argument used by the hon. Member for Pontypool is not valid. As I said in the Welsh Grand Committee, we have dealt with corruption charges here in the House of Commons, and there have been times in the history of the country when there has been a great deal of corruption here. But there is certainly emotional support for the hon. Gentleman's views from the spate of recent trials in South Wales for corruption in local government.
  It is, therefore, very important that the Government should appreciate the force of our argument. They must ask themselves how, if they are to carry 40 per cent. of the electorate in the referendum, they are to meet this task. The threat of likely corruption is a forceful and effective argument. I say to all those in favour of devolution that this is a nettle that must be grasped, and grasped early on, if we are to have any hope of carrying a referendum on this subject.
  If the referendum is to succeed, surely its chances of success would be enormously enhanced if the Government appreciated that if there were a proportional representation system the people of Wales would feel reassured. They would feel reassured that they would not necessarily be dominated by one party. There is a general belief that corruption is more likely to exist where there is continued domination by one party on a strict party basis.
  Labour Members in Wales often fight elections in difficult circumstances, because they must sometimes carry burdens imposed upon them by what has been a sorry chapter in the history of local government in parts of Wales.
  Mr. Abse: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not drawing from what I said the inference that the frail members of the community are confined to any one party. I do not wish to give a
  610
  catalogue of the sinners, but he and I know enough of those who have faced the courts to know that the problem about which I was talking is not particular to the majority party but has affected people in all parties. I trust, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not trying to draw so sinister an inference.
  Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman has been making sinister use of this argument. That was why I interrupted him in the Welsh Grand Committee. I asked him to spell out exactly what he meant, and he did so only after my interruptions.
  It is very important that the matter should be dealt with. Of course, nobody can suggest that corruption is ever confined to one party. All I say is that, in view of the history of Wales, it is important for the Government to appreciate that this matter worries people who are otherwise in favour of devolution. If the Government want to win the referendum, they must think deeply on this matter
  Mr. John Morris: It may be right for me to intervene now. I want to give an opportunity for at least one other Member to catch the eye of the Chair before the debate ends.
  It is a pity that we have not had more time—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] We all know where the responsibility lies. Hours were taken up in a non-debate this afternoon, after the Government had given a clear indication of their intentions. It does not lie in the mouths of those who took up so much time with long speeches on a non-event to say that they want more time. Therefore, I very much regret—
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman: Time is very short. At least two other Members wish to speak. May we please keep to the amendment.
  Mr. Morris: The Government's view is clear. There are two main strands in the amendments, the first dealing with the form of proportional representation and the other with the size of the Assembly.
  The Government are opposed to proportional representation, but it will be for each hon. Member to make up his or her mind, as in the past. The first-past-the-post system is well tried in this country. It is well known and understood, and I believe that it works reasonably

  611
  well. We are setting up a new system of administration with a new Executive, and there will be a great need for good will and understanding. To add an additional problem or hazard, call it what one will, of explaining what would be an entirely new system in this island would not help the system and its future working.
  10.45 p.m.
  Of course, like the mansions in the House of the Lord, there are many systems of PR, and the additional-Member system is but one of them.
  Sir A. Meyer: Have not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government supported PR in the form of the regional list system for the European Assembly Elections Bill?
  Mr. Morris: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that we were dealing with a quite novel system there—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—for neither a legislative nor an executive form of government. We are dealing here with an executive form of government, and people will be expecting decisions to flow from the Welsh Assembly that will affect, day in and day out, their daily lives. We were dealing with an entirely different animal in our discussions on the European Assembly Elections Bill.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Morris: The hon. Member has not been present during the greater part of the debate.
  Mr. Stewart: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Morris: No, I shall not give way.
  Mr. Stewart Mr. Stewart rose—
  The Chairman: Order.
  Mr. Morris: I have listened to the debate and I want to reply to hon. Members and be courteous to them, otherwise they will be complaining that I have not replied. I cannot win.
  I shall seek to show that the particular system of 50 Members directly elected and 25 who would be elected in an entirely different manner is a system that is not known to be working in any part of the
  612
  world. [Interruption.] That is not the system that is proposed. This is the opportunity that I wanted to show that this is not the precise system now being proposed by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir. A. Meyer). I hope that the hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) has done the courtesy to the hon. Member for Flint, West of indicating that there are differences in the system in the German Länder. They are rather different. I am saying that this precise system is not known to work in any part of the world.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Morris: No.
  One of the major objects of our proposals is to bring government closer to the people, to ensure that they are represented by those directly elected by them and not by the whole host of nominated bodies which govern us in so many of our activities in Wales. I sense here that one will have certainly directly elected Members, but in addition one will have people who have failed to be elected and who, through this alternative system, will have a second bite at the cherry.
  If there are difficulties for Members of Parliament, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), how much greater will the difficulties be if there are two forms of Members of the Assembly, those elected by a particular constituency and those who have been rejected by any particular constituency and then find their way into the Assembly? Life will be very difficult indeed for the proper, directly elected Assemblymen, apart from having someone who is answerable to hardly anyone and, as I understand the amendment, has already been rejected in the election.
  The system that we are proposing is a system that is well tried, is understood and is the best chance of ensuring that we are able to carry into a new form of administration a system that works in national government in this country, one that has worked over the years and works in our system of local government.
  I turn to the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool. Of course, there is no absolutely right size for any Assembly. Kilbrandon put forward the number of 100 as the figure that would be proper in all the

  613
  circumstances. If, however, the system proposed by my hon. Friend were adopted, we would have a very small number of Members—smaller than in many of our local authorities in Wales. Indeed, the system that we are proposing would yield about 79 Members. That is less than the largest county council in Wales, which has a membership of 85.
  We believe that the proposed Assembly, with its duty to set up a number of subject committees, needs—I would not tie myself to any absolute figure—a membership substantially in excess of that proposed by my hon. Friend. I believe that somewhere around the 80 mark is about the least that on could have in order to ensure a successful administration, a proper representation of Wales which has due regard to the varying population in different parts of Wales and the manning of the subject committees that the Assembly is obliged to set up.
  My hon. Friend asked questions regarding the arithmetic. I can give him the immediate assurance that there is no suggestion of paying an Assemblyman £37,500, which my hon. Friend canvassed from the totality of the amount that will be provided for the whole of the back-up services. It will be the duty of the Secretary of State of the day to fix the initial salary. I believe it is necessary to do that, because the Assemblymen and Wales should know before the first elections what is proposed in the first instance.
  Thereafter, it will be for the Assembly itself to fix the salary. I see nothing wrong in that—any more than that it is not wrong for the House of Commons to fix its own salaries—because Assemblymen, like hon. Members of this House of Commons, will be answerable to their electorate. That is a discipline that we all face in the House. We have faced it over the years, and I see nothing wrong in such a proposal.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool that if it is my duty to fix a salary—if I hold the office of Secretary of State for Wales—it will be no greater than the parliamentary salary. That would be my objective. One would have to look at all the circumstances, but if it were my responsibility to fix the initial salary, it would clearly be less than that of a Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Abse: My right hon. and learned Friend claimed that an Assemblyman
  614
  should have the same salary as a Member of Parliament. Since there will be two Assemblymen for each constituency, and, according to my right hon. and learned Friend's estimation, each of them will do one-quarter of the work done by a Member of Parliament, how does he expect the House of Commons to accept the idea that a parliamentary salary should be given to a man who is doing one-quarter of our work?
  Mr. Morris: I fear that my hon. Friend's hearing is not as good as it was. If he reads Hansard, he will realise that at no stage did I say that the salaries would be the same. I said that the salary would be "no greater". If I have the responsibility of fixing the salary, it will clearly be less. I hope that my hon. Friend will show me courtesy and fairness instead of adopting the absurd and hysterical posture that he has shown tonight.
  Mr. Wigley: I shall speak briefly in the few minutes remaining in this debate. As it is St. David's Day, it is particularly appropriate that we should be discussing the question of proportional representation. If he was anything, St. David was an advocate of fair play.
  We are talking about the question of fair play in the method of election to the Welsh Assembly. In Wales elections have tended to show a swing to one party, much more so than in the British context. In 1906, there was not one Conservative Member in Wales. All the seats were held by Liberals, except for one Labour seat held by Keir Hardie. In 1966, 22 of the 36 seats were held by Labour Members, even though they held nothing like that proportion of the votes.
  One slogan which has been quoted a lot in recent years is:
  "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
  To the extent that this question has been raised already in these debates, it behoves us to ensure that the system of election to the Assembly will ensure an effective opposition to the governing party in Wales. Given the characteristics of the Welsh electorate, there is no question but that we should have proportional representation. This will bring no benefits to my party. However, it is a question of fair play. The acceptability of the Assembly in the eyes of the Welsh people means that this is a necessary prerequisite.

  615
  The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) spoke of changing the rules in the middle of the game. Our objection to the 40 per cent. threshold was not so much to changing the rules in the middle of the game as to the types of rules that had been brought in. We want to avoid the sort of pitfalls that the hon. Member was warning Wales against. We hope, therefore, that he will support us in the Lobby tonight.
  Mr. Pym: By any standards, the Secretary of State has had a bad day. When he accused his hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) of suffering from hysteria, it was a more accurate description of his own speech. He started the day by not being here, which was a mistake. Then he was wrong in his opinion about the debate on the unity of the United Kingdom. Anybody who listened to it would have been aware of the very deep misgivings in the Committee about the whole concept behind the Bill.
  These 19 or 20 amendments deal with two quite separate points. The first is the method of election to the Assembly, if ever it is set up. The method proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) is entirely new. It is known that I have a great deal of personal sympathy with it, but it is utterly wrong to introduce a major change of this kind in the context of a debate of less than an hour under a timetable motion on a Bill. If a change of this kind is introduced, it should be done after a proper debate in which the issue is considered separately and on its merits.
  I do not think that it is right to go along with the proposition in subsection (6) of Amendment No. 20, which would allow the Assembly subsequently to change the method of election. We have a free vote on this tonight, but I believe that it is wrong to make a change in the
  context of a thoroughly truncated debate on such a major matter.
  The other major issue which is raised is the size of the Assembly. It is too big as it is now proposed to be constructed. The Secretary of State said that it should have about 80 Members, at least. These, together with the 36 representing Wales in the House of Commons make a total of 116. That is too many. Such an Assembly would be larger than in the case of most of the States of Canada, larger than those of all the States of Australia and larger than Cyprus and Stormont. All of those have full administrative powers, while the Welsh one has not.
  If we had had the opportunity to vote on it—but, unfortunately, we have not—I would support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Pontypool on the ground that it proposes something smaller. The hon. Member referred to the cost of individual Assemblymen. If there were a smaller number, the cost would not necessarily be any less. There would be the same amount of money to go round.
  As the Secretary of State revealed, it is within the bounds of possibility that, after the initial fixing of salaries, the Assembly may decide to pay Members a substantially increased sum. Let me say now, since there may be no opportunity later, that I believe that the decision on the level of remuneration should remain with the House of Commons.
  It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN, proceeded pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, That the amendement be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 114, Noes, 377.

  Division No. 132]

  AYES

  [11.00 p.m.

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Alison, Michael

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Awdry, Daniel

  Cockroft, John

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Ford, Ben

  Baker, Kenneth

  Corbett, Robin

  Freud, Clement

  Beith, A. J.

  Crawford, Douglas

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Benyon, W.

  Crouch, David

  Ginsburg, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Bradley, Tom

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Gray, Hamish

  Brooke, Peter

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  617

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Newton, Tony

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Pardoe, John

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Hicks, Robert

  Penhaligon, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Perry, Ernest

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Raison, Timothy

  Thompson, George

  Hurd, Douglas

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Reid, George

  Viggers, Peter

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colno V)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Walker, Rt Hon P (Worcester)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Watt, Hamish

  Knox, David

  Rose, Paul B.

  Weetch, Ken

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Lloyd, Ian

  St. John Stevas, Norman

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  MacCormick, Iain

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Madel, David

  Sims, Roger

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Younger, Hon George

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stainton, Keith

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Sir Anthony Meyer and

  Monro, Hector

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Mr. Geraint Howells.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Carmichael, Neil

  Flannery, Martin

  Adley, Robert

  Carson, John

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Allaun, Frank

  Cartwright, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Anderson, Donald

  Channon, Paul

  Forman, Nigel

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Churchill, W. S.

  Forrester, John

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Arnold, Tom

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clegg, Walter

  Fox, Marcus

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Clemitson, Ivor

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

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Fry, Peter

  Atkinson, Norman

  Coleman, Donald

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Costain, A. P.

  George, Bruce

  Bates, Alf

  Cowans, Harry

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Bell, Ronald

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Golding, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Goodhart, Philip

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Cronin, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Gorst, John

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Cryer, Bob

  Gould, Bryan

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davidson, Arthur

  Gourlay, Harry

  Biffen, John

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Graham, Ted

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Blaker, Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Boardman, H.

  Deakins, Eric

  Grist, Ian

  Body, Richard

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Doig, Peter

  Grylls, Michael

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hannam, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Dunlop, John

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Dunn, James A.

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Durant, Tony

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Brotherton, Michael

  Eadie, Alex

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Hodgson, Robin

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Holland, Philip

  Buchan, Norman

  Emery, Peter

  Hooley, Frank

  Buchanan, Richard

  English, Michael

  Horam, John

  Buck, Antony

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

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

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Huckfield, Les

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Campbell, Ian

  Farr, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Cant, R. B.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Hunter, Adam

  618

  619

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Mills, Peter

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Silvester, Fred

  James, David

  Moate, Roger

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Janner, Greville

  Molloy, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Molyneaux, James

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Snape, Peter

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

  Moonman, Eric

  Spearing, Nigel

  John, Brynmor

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Speed, Keith

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Spence, John

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Sproat, Iain

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Jopling, Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Stoddart, David

  Judd, Frank

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Stott, Roger

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Moyle, Roland

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Mudd, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Kelley, Richard

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Kerr, Russell

  Nelson, Anthony

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Neubert, Michael

  Swain, Thomas

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Newens, Stanley

  Tapsell, Peter

  Kinnock, Neil

  Noble, Mike

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Nott, John

  Taylor, R (Croydon NW)

  Lambie, David

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Tebbit, Norman

  Lamborn, Harry

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Lamond, James

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Lamont, Norman

  Orbach, Maurice

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ovenden, John

  Tierney, Sydney

  Lawson, Nigel

  Padley, Walter

  Tinn, James

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Tomlinson, John

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Torney, Tom

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Trotter, Neville

  Litterick, Tom

  Park, George

  Tuck, Raphael

  Loveridge, John

  Parker, John

  Urwin, T. W.

  Luard, Evan

  Parkinson, Cecil

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Luce, Richard

  Parry, Robert

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Vaughan, Dr Gerald

  McCartney, Hugh

  Percival, Ian

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Wakeham, John

  McCusker, H.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  McElhone, Frank

  Prescott, John

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  MacGregor, John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Ward, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Radice, Giles

  Watkins, David

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Watkinson, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rhodes James, R.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Weilzman, David

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Wellbeloved, James

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Rees, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Wells, John

  Madden, Max

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Magee, Bryan

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mallalieu, J. p. W.

  Roberts Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Marks, Kenneth

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Whitlock, William

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Marten, Neil

  Rooker, J. W.

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Mather, Carol

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Maude, Angus

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mawby, Ray

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Woodall, Alec

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Ryman, John

  Woof, Robert

  Meacher, Michael

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Mendelson, John

  Sever, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Shepherd, Colin

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock
  Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 264, Noes, 224.

  Division No. 133]

  AYES

  [11.14 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Atkinson, Norman

  Anderson, Donald

  Ashton, Joe

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Park, George

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Harper, Joseph

  Parker, John

  Bates, Alf

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Parry, Robert

  Bean, R. E.

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Penhaligon, David

  Beith, A. J.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Perry, Ernest

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Prescott, John

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Radice, Giles

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Hooley, Frank

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Reid, George

  Boardman, H.

  Horam, John

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Huckfield, Les

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Bradley, Tom

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Hunter, Adam

  Rose, Paul B.

  Buchan, Norman

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Janner, Greville

  Rowlands, Ted

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ryman, John

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton a P)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Sandelson, Neville

  Campbell, Ian

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Canavan, Dennis

  John, Brynmor

  Sever, John

  Cant, R. B.

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Carmichael, Nell

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Cartwright, John

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Judd, Frank

  Snape, Peter

  Coleman, Donald

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Spearing, Nigel

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Kelley, Richard

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Kerr, Russell

  Stallard, A. W.

  Corbett, Robin

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Cowans, Harry

  Lambie, David

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Crawford, Douglas

  Lamborn, Harry

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lamond, James

  Stoddart, David

  Cronin, John

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Stott, Roger

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Strang, Gavin

  Cryer, Bob

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Litterlck, Tom

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Luard, Evan

  Swain, Thomas

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Deakins, Eric

  MacCormick, Iain

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Doig, Peter

  McElhone, Frank

  Thompson, George

  Dormand, J. D.

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Tierney, Sydney

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tinn, James

  Dunn, James A.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Tomlinson, John

  Dunnett, Jack

  Madden, Max

  Torney, Tom

  Eadie, Alex

  Magee, Bryan

  Tuck, Raphael

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Urwin, T. W.

  English, Michael

  Marks, Kenneth

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric Q.

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Flannery, Martin

  Meacher, Michael

  Ward, Michael

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Watkins, David

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Watkinson, John

  Ford, Ben

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Watt, Hamish

  Forrester, John

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)

  Weetch, Ken

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Molloy, William

  Weitzman, David

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

  Moonman, Eric

  Wellbeloved, James

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Freud, Clement

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  George, Bruce

  Moyle, Roland

  Whitlock, William

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ginsburg, David

  Newens, Stanley

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Golding, John

  Noble, Mike

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Gould, Bryan

  Oakes, Gordon

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Gourlay, Harry

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Graham, Ted

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Padley, Walter

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Grocott, Bruce

  Pardoe, John

  Woodall, Alec

  622

  623

  Woof, Robert

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Frank R. White and

  Mr. Thomas Cox.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Goodhew, Victor

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Alison, Michael

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mudd, David

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Arnold, Tom

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Neubert, Michael

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Gray, Hamish

  Newton, Tony

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Nott, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Grist, Ian

  Onslow, Cranley

  Baker, Kenneth

  Grylls, Michael

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Bell, Ronald

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Benyon, W.

  Hannam, John

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Biffen, John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Percival, Ian

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Blaker, Peter

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Body, Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hodgson, Robin

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Holland, Philip

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Raison, Timothy

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Rees, Peter (Dover ft Deal)

  Brittan, Leon

  Hurd, Douglas

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  James, David

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Brooke, Peter

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

  Rhodes James, R.

  Brotherton, Michael

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Jopling, Michael

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Buck, Antony

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Carson, John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Channon, Paul

  Knox, David

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Churchill, W. S.

  Lamont, Norman

  Scott, Nicholas

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Clegg, Walter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Silvester, Fred

  Cockroft, John

  Lawson, Nigel

  Sims, Roger

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Costain, A. P.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Crouch, David

  Lloyd, Ian

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Loveridge, John

  Speed, Keith

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Luce, Richard

  Spence, John

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McCusker, H.

  Sproat, Iain

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Macfarlane, Nell

  Stainton, Keith

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  MacGregor, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Dunlop, John

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Durant, Tony

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Dykes, Hugh

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, R (Croydon NW)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Marten, Neil

  Tebbit, Norman

  Elliott, Sir William

  Maude, Angus

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Emery, Peter

  Mawby, Ray

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Trotter, Neville

  Farr, John

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Mills, Peter

  Vaughan, Dr Gerald

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Viggers, Peter

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Wakeham, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Moate, Roger

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Forman, Nigel

  Molyneaux, James

  Walker, Rt Hon P (Worcester)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Monro, Hector

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Fox, Marcus

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fry, Peter

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Wells, John

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Goodhart, Philip

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  624

  625

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Younger, Hon George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Michael Roberts and

  Mr. Carol Mather.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

  ELECTIONS
  Amendment made: No. 33, in page 2, line 33, leave out 'would be entitled' and insert—
  '(i) have their names on such parts of the register of parliamentary elections as relate to the Assembly constituency; and
  (ii) would be entitled'.—[Mr. Foot.]
  Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 5 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [16th November].
  Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  ENERGY INDUSTRIES (PLANNING AGREEMENTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The planning agreement concept was provided for under Section 21 of the Industry Act 1975 and it has been extensively referred to in two White Papers, "The Approach to Industrial Strategy" (Cmnd. 6315) and "The Regeneration of British Industry" (Cmnd. 5710). Yet nothing really significant has been achieved in the past four and a half years. Only one planning agreement has been negotiated, namely, that with Chrysler UK Ltd., and there have been incomplete discussions with the National Coal Board. We had a statement on that on 13th February this year.
  626
  With the British Steel Corporation, an agreement has been delayed because of contemporary problems. With British Airways, it has been delayed because of organisational changes. The Labour Programme 1976 insisted that such agreements
  "if backed by a major extension of public ownership into the main sectors of industry would provide a Labour Government with the decisive leverage it needs".
  The egregious Frances Morrell and Francis Cripps, political advisers to the Secretary of State, announced in a paper to the National Energy Conference in June 1976:
  "It has been seen that a planned energy policy would involve deciding which fuels should be used, and by whom and how they should be used, just as much as deciding how the supply industries should develop."
  Planning agreements thus provide the initial step in the phased movement towards the complete socialisation of the commanding heights of British industry, aided and contrived by the National Enterprise Board.
  The National Coal Board was recently reviewed by the Secretary of State and its position was revealed. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "the planning agreement will cover forward marketing, prospects for coal, the objectives for output and productivity, financial results with implications for prices and borrowing, investment plans, capital investment, product and process development and exports. The agreement will cover the whole area."—[Official Report, 13th February 1978; Vol. 944, c. 6.]
  For an industry nationalised over 30 years ago, already covered by at least 50 Acts of Parliament and plagued by low productivity and high costs, what conceivable benefit is expected from the conclusion of a formal planning agreement? Perhaps the Minister will tell me.
  I come to the Electricity Council, the Central Electricity Generating Board and others. Little has emerged and less is expected after 30 years of public ownership and three Acts restructuring the industry. Even the advice of Plowden on the structure of the industry seems to have been shelved, and the chairmen of the major fuel corporations are locked

  627
  in public conflict over the parity pricing of fuels.
  With the British Gas Corporation, while it is open to the Secretary of State to issue a general directive to the industry under Section 7(1) of the Gas Act 1972 to enter into a planning agreement with the Government, he has not done so. Informal discussion is thought to be sufficient, and such has been the calibre of chairmen that unnecessary intervention by a Government Department is not to be tolerated.
  With the British National Oil Corporation, although the Secretary of State may issue a specific directive under Section 4 of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Act 1975, no attempt has yet been made to cajole the corporation into a planning agreement. And while the Government hold a substantial investment in BP the Secretary of State is confused about the nature of the general agreements negotiated by the BNOC.
  The right hon. Gentleman stated in the House, in answer to a question from his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that his hon. Friend
  "will recognise that a planning agreement is involved"—
  in participation agreements—
  "and that … the oil companies have entered into a treaty relationship with the Government".—[Official Report, 17th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 14.]
  Yet in the following November he stated:
  "There are no planning agreements. There are participation agreements to which BNOC is a signatory ".—[Official Report, 18th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1018.]
  Obviously, the Secretary of State is confused and now wishes to attach to the industry both participation and planning agreements.
  The difficulty today is a plethora of rules, orders and demands made on industry quite beyond what the situation requires. Data-collecting is fashionable and it is of little concern whether the information is collated or utilised. It is enough for the Government's purpose that it is collected and stored on tapes for some future occasion. There is a general suspicion, borne out by the utterances of the Labour Party, that the data to be collected and planning agreements are supposed to give a thrust to a future Labour Government's drive forward
  628
  against what the Labour Party has chosen to term "citadels of capitalism"
  The Government should make a success of planning agreements in the public sector before use is made of then, in the private sector. That has been the experience in France, Belgium and Italy. There is no evidence that the Government have a better idea than the corporations themselves of what lies in the national interest. This was clearly evidenced over the British Steel Corporation and borne out by the Select Committee's report. It is also evident with the NEB and the Scottish Development Agency, which has lost considerable money through the purchase of bad assets. The public interest might, indeed, turn out to be based on an ad hoc Government view limited to short-term electoral advantages.
  Companies in either sector are not opposed to a continuous dialogue between the Government and industry, but they see little point in a formal written document, preferring, if anything the flexible French approach, designed to be helpful to the industry in question. If planning agreements are confined to data exchange, there is little point in companies subscribing to them in view of paragraph 13 of Command 5710, which emphasises that aid will be paid in any event.
  On the other hand, if the agreements go beyond the provision of information, the terms could contravene the Restrictive Trade Practices Acts 1956–76 and prove incompatible with the fair trading provisions of the Rome Treaties. This was recognised to be the case with participation agreements, and it took a recent Act of Parliament to correct the position.
  An attempt to involve the unions in planning agreements is short-sighted. They have proved more interested in short-term problems and have proved slow to accept technological change and to reduce overmanning. For example, the commissioning of the new steel plant at Llanwern and the retirement of old plant have been a source of concern for the British Steel Corporation for a long time.
  Participation agreements and planning agreements are cumulative and would impose an intolerable burden upon the operations of the petroleum industry. Further, they would involve an industrial inter face with two Departments, Industry and Energy.

  629
  I come to an important point which I wish to stress for the benefit of the Minister. The lessons of the past month have persuaded the House that if the 10 per cent. limit on pay increases may be enforced by unconstitutional means rather than by legislative process—namely, by refusing discretionary grants of aid or withholding contracts on public purchasing—there is no reason why the same process should not be extended to enforce acceptance of planning agreements.
  This is reported to be the argument put forward in a joint committee of the Cabinet and the Labour Party National Executive, mentioned in The Guardian on 21st February:
  "On public purchasing the report says that there can be little doubt that it can be harnessed to the needs of the industrial strategy given the 'political will to do so.' The most simple method would be to operate a black list of large firms who were unwilling to cooperate. In this respect, the study team uses the Government's black list of companies breaking the 10 per cent. guidelines as a precedent."
  Further, the policy has been outlined in Labour's Programme 1976. It says:
  "Planning agreements provide a basis for channelling selective Government assistance to those firms which agree to help us to meet the nation's planning objectives … and for making large companies accountable for their behaviour and for bringing into line those who refuse to co-operate—using … the powers of public purchasing."
  Both public and private sector companies would be vulnerable to this approach.
  Planning agreements are primarily interventionist and are calculated to achieve their purpose through agreement with the parties in an industry, including the trade unions. The purpose is the authority over or in an industry that the Government hope to secure, since they sense that Parliament would not be prepared to incorporate the authority in legislation. It is a movement away from the statute book to administrative order, thus bypassing Parliament completely.
  In a Written Answer two days ago, reported at column 10 of Hansard for 27th February, the Government disclosed their disappointment at the industrial response to planning agreements, but the Government have done little to extend the concept to de State corporations which are their direct responsibility. Perhaps the Minister of State at the time
  630
  revealed his hand when, on 15th March 1976, he said in a Written Answer:
  "There are no immediate plans to enter into planning agreements covering North Sea oil operations. Under the terms of licences my right hon. Friend has powers of control over all important aspects of operations, including field development and production."—[Official Report, 15th March 1976; Vol. 907, c. 390.]
  It would seem that paragraph 18 of "The Regeneration of British Industry" is pure window-dressing when it says:
  "The major nationalised industries and publicly-owned firms will also fall within the scope of the Planning Agreements system".
  The target, of course, lies elsewhere. Is it not the real purpose of data collection now that the answers will be used not to serve industry but to destroy it in the name of Socialism and the corporate State?
  11.42 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) on his initiative in bringing about this debate. He has raised some of the issues before, particularly during the last Department of Energy Question Time.
  I think that I can best reply to the hon. Gentleman by trying to describe the system about which we are talking, because there may then be some understanding of what we are trying to achieve. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of industries which are the responsibility not of the Department of Energy but of other Departments.
  The planning agreement system is envisaged as improving communications between Government and firms in the context of the industrial strategy. The Government's objectives for the planning agreement system are: first, better understanding and consultation with industry, and hence a better basis for formulating economic and industrial policy secondly, providing a vehicle, where relevant, for the discussion of sector working party objectives; and thirdly, better arrangements for tackling specific problems between companies and Government, and hence improving industrial efficiency.
  The Government also hope that the planning agreement system will lead to improved employee participation, building on companies' existing arrangements. The system is therefore intended to provide

  631
  explicitly for the company to discuss its long-term policies with its employees, with the object of enhancing the contribution of employees to the success of the company's plans.
  That the major nationalised industries would be included in the planning agreements system was announced in the August 1974 White Paper "The regeneration of British Industry" (Cmnd 5710). This recognised, however, that the nationalised industries' corporate plans were already the subject of close consultation between industry and sponsoring Departments. But there are advantages for the nationalised industries in entering a planning agreement.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: The Minister talks about close consultation between the sponsoring Department and the State corporation. Perhaps I may refer him to one specific example of this close co-operation—when the International Monetary Fund required the Government to do something about their revenue account and the Government ordered the British Gas Corporation, without consultation with the corporation, to increase its prices. Is that an example of close co-operation? Is it not an example of the fact that the planning agreements are nothing more than Socialist pie in the sky?
  Mr. Eadie: I thought that the hon. Member would be advancing an argument about difficulties, as anyone could, but his last question shows that, like his hon. Friend, he completely misunderstands the whole position.
  Mr. Skeet: Oh!
  Mr. Eadie: If there is time, I shall come to the question of the policy on inflation, the question of sanctions and the article in The Guardian. If the hon. Member will contain himself, I hope that I shall be able at least to answer—I do not know whether satisfactorily—what I think was a debating point that he was raising on this particular issue.
  I was saying that a planning agreement provides access to the powers in Section 21 of the Industry Act 1975, which enable the Government to underwrite certain levels of selective assistance, especially regional development grant. It encourages union involvement in strategic planning.
  632
  The House is already well aware that the Government, the National Coal Board and the mining unions have entered into an agreement on future joint planning procedures embracing a formal planning agreement. Following from this, the industry's medium-term development plan for the next five years—now submitted to my right hon. Friend by the NCB and the unions—will be the basis for a formal planning agreement. I wish that I had time to outline that planning agreement because it is very important in relation to the argument and the debate that the hon. Gentleman has shown such initiative in bringing before the House.
  But, of course, planning agreements are not the whole story. In the nationalised energy industries, we have been experimenting with various methods of achieving in the public sector the improvements in communication and consultation between Government and industry which planning agreements offer to private companies. In fact, the relations between Government and the nationalised energy industries have been conducted as though there were planning agreements for many years.
  The main element in this relationship is the discussion of the various industries' corporate plans in the course of the annual planning cycle. These plans, which are revised annually, cover all aspects of the industry's business for the next, five years. But there are other elements in the relationship—for example, discussions on longer-term strategy, both on a Government-to-industry basis and, taking the industries together, in the working group on energy strategy; and, in the shorter term, the Government's role in monitoring the industries' outturns, on capital and current account, against forecast. This is a major part of my Department's responsibilities.
  We are continuing to develop these arrangements for consultation and communication between Government and industries. The introduction of the planning letter system is a recent and important innovation. We propose to issue a planning letter to all the nationalised energy industries as part of the annual planning cycle. It will record our response to the main points in the industries' corporate plan and will convey policy guidelines for the future. Perhaps

  633
  I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have already sent such a letter to Lord Kearton, Chairman of BNOC.
  I know that the hon. Member often questions the role of BNOC. Perhaps I can assist him in this matter. BNOC's role is in fact perfectly clear. Perhaps I may restate it. First, it is a commercial oil company running operations on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf—the Thistle field, for example, where BNOC is the operator. It is also taking part in operating committees, even where it does have an equity stake, through participation. It is thus building up a considerable fund of knowledge and experience about United Kingdom Continental Shelf development.
  Secondly—I believe that this is also important—BNOC is an adviser. The Government have their own staff of petroleum engineers to study development plans. However, it is immensely valuable to have the advice of people who are actually involved in development and know about it from the inside. No one would quarrel with that. Since BNOC will be trading in considerable volumes of oil, it will be able to provide valuable advice on that aspect of the industry too, so that the balance of payments and the general benefit to the United Kingdom economy can be safeguarded.
  Mr. Skeet: The Minister has been pointing out the various operations of the BNOC. What conceivable value is there in having a planning agreement which will cover BNOC when we already have rules, regulations, Acts of Parliament and participation agreements?
  Mr. Eadie: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman has not been listening. I have tried to explain that the concept of planning agreements covers people who work in the industry. It is obviously difficult to get across to the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about people rather than companies as such. The question of participation and planning agreements really involves people. It is important that that should be established.
  During the course of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman talked about the role of the Secretary of State. I want to stress that the Secretary of State's role continues to be a regulatory one.
  Another important development relevant to the improvement of communica-
  634
  tions between Government and public sector bodies is the appointment of civil servants to nationalised energy boards. Since 1976 BNOC has had official members on its board, and we want to extend this practice to the other energy boards.
  As I said at the beginning, the main objective of the planning agreement system is the improvement of employee participation and in this area there have been very important developments indeed.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade announced on 28th July, the nationalised industries and associated unions are now developing joint proposals for improvements in consultation and participation. They are to report back before the Summer Recess.
  This exercise must be seen against the background of the good progress that the nationalised energy industries have already made. This is particularly advanced in the coal industry, and the hon. Member must concede that if he concedes nothing else. Since 1974, main policy questions in this industry have been discussed on a tripartite basis between the Government, the Coal Board and the coal unions.
  My right hon. Friend has informed the House of his intention to develop suitable joint management-union planning arrangements with the other publicly-owned fuel industries in which he is actively encouraging the development of tripartite and bipartite arrangements.
  There is one further and most important way in which the objectives of the planning agreement system—improved consultation between Government and industry, and improved employee participation—are already being met in the energy sector. Last autumn my right hon. Friend appointed an Energy Commission to advise him on the development of an energy strategy for the United Kingdom and on other energy policy issues. The commission includes representatives of the energy industries, trade unions and industrial, consumer and other interests.
  The record of the public energy sector in consultation and employee participation is, therefore, a good one, and it is getting better all the time. The hon. Member does the industries a disservice in suggesting otherwise.

  635
  In the course of his remarks, the hon. Member referred to a front page article in The Guardian of 20th February which claimed that the use of sanctions under existing legislation to force firms to negotiate planning agreements had been accepted in principle by a joint committee of the Cabinet and the Labour Party's National Executive Committee. The article was, in fact, reporting on a paper which had been prepared by the NEC for confidential consideration by the NEC—Cabinet Joint Working Party on Industrial Policy. The report gave a fairly accurate account of some of the measures suggested in the paper but was totally wrong in saying that these measures had been agreed in principle. The joint working party was not due even to consider the NEC paper until Thursday 23rd February.
  The paper argued that, since the Government were prepared to apply sanctions to firms which break the pay guidelines, it should also be prepared to use them to strengthen the planning agreement system. But there is no real comparison. The battle to combat inflation is a vital necessity and an essential part of the Government's economic
  636
  strategy. On the other hand, planning agreements, though an important part of the Government's strategy, are intended to provide the framework for better understanding and closer co-operation with leading firms in key sectors of industry. If introduced on a compulsory or near-compulsory basis, their effectiveness would be much reduced.
  If the hon. Gentleman reflects on what I have said, he will see that I have tried to outline the general philosophy behind the whole planning agreement side, which is the question of participation and involvement of work people.
  I hope that I have answered the main points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I shall examine very closely what he said, and if I can give further information by letter or in any other way I shall do so. I congratulate the hon. Member on his enterprise and—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twelve o'clock.

  DEVOLUTION (REFERENDUMS)
  DEVOLUTION (REFERENDUMS)
  DEVOLUTION (REFERENDUMS) AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION
  DEVOLUTION (REFERENDUMS) AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION
  GENERAL ELECTION (VOTING)
  GENERAL ELECTION (VOTING)
  UNEMPLOYMENT
  UNEMPLOYMENT
  LEGAL SERVICES (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  LEGAL SERVICES (ROYAL COMMISSION)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Bulls and Public Foothpaths
  Bulls and Public Foothpaths
  Liver Pâté
  Liver Pâté
  Dog Licence Fee
  Dog Licence Fee
CIVIL SERVICE
  Administration Trainees
  Administration Trainees
  Members of Parliament (Government Hospitality)
  Members of Parliament (Government Hospitality)
WALES
  Local Government
  Local Government
TRANSPORT
  M11 Motorway (Extension)
  M11 Motorway (Extension)
  British Railways
  British Railways
  Railways (Electrification)
  Railways (Electrification)
  M5 and M6 Motorways (Repairs)
  M5 and M6 Motorways (Repairs)
  Tachographs
  Tachographs
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Roads (Maintenance)
  Roads (Maintenance)
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
  Motor Vehicles (Taxation Discs)
  Motor Vehicles (Taxation Discs)
  Coaches (Safety)
  Coaches (Safety)
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  Roads (Planning Inquiries)
  Roads (Planning Inquiries)
  A2, Eltham
  A2, Eltham
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  Didcot Freight Distribution Centre
  Didcot Freight Distribution Centre
  Roads (Kingswood, Avon)
  Roads (Kingswood, Avon)
  Motorways and Dual Carriageways
  Motorways and Dual Carriageways
  Traffic Counts
  Traffic Counts
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Road Haulage (International Permits)
  Road Haulage (International Permits)
  Roads, Essex
  Roads, Essex
  Motor Cars (Diesel Engines)
  Motor Cars (Diesel Engines)
  Rail Service (North Wales-Cardiff)
  Rail Service (North Wales-Cardiff)
  M1—A1 Link Road
  M1—A1 Link Road
  Toll Charges
  Toll Charges
  Market Rasen-Caister Area
  Market Rasen-Caister Area
  M40 (Banbury Link Road)
  M40 (Banbury Link Road)
  Road Proposals (Railway Representations)
  Road Proposals (Railway Representations)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Community Relations Commission
  Community Relations Commission
  Race, Immigration and Community Relations Expenditure
  Race, Immigration and Community Relations Expenditure
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Licensed Premises Polls (Wales)
  Licensed Premises Polls (Wales)
  Electoral Registration
  Electoral Registration
  Immigrant Males (Dependants)
  Immigrant Males (Dependants)
  Mr. Manolakakis
  Mr. Manolakakis
  New Commonwealth and Pakistani Citizens
  New Commonwealth and Pakistani Citizens
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Latin American Refugees
  Latin American Refugees
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Parish Council Elections
  Parish Council Elections
  Residence Permits (EEC Citizens)
  Residence Permits (EEC Citizens)
  Police (Injuries)
  Police (Injuries)
  Crown Agents (Tribunal of Inquiry)
  Crown Agents (Tribunal of Inquiry)
  Immigration Service
  Immigration Service
  Local Government Boundary Revisions
  Local Government Boundary Revisions
  Appeals against Fines (Imprisonment Substitution)
  Appeals against Fines (Imprisonment Substitution)
  Foreign Nationals (Temporary Admission)
  Foreign Nationals (Temporary Admission)
  Police Interviews (Tape Recording)
  Police Interviews (Tape Recording)
SCOTLAND
  Playgroups
  Playgroups
  Housing (Dampness)
  Housing (Dampness)
  Housing Plans
  Housing Plans
  School Closures (Oil Delivery Drivers' Action)
  School Closures (Oil Delivery Drivers' Action)
  Referendum
  Referendum
  Education (Computer Studies)
  Education (Computer Studies)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Eaton Hall Training College
  Eaton Hall Training College
  Computer-aided Systems
  Computer-aided Systems
  Genetic Manipulation
  Genetic Manipulation
ENVIRONMENT
  Reservoirs
  Reservoirs
  Chiswick House
  Chiswick House
  Cunis Wharf, Rainham
  Cunis Wharf, Rainham
  Dog Licences
  Dog Licences
  Council Housing Rents
  Council Housing Rents
  Cadbury Schweppes Plant, Birmingham
  Cadbury Schweppes Plant, Birmingham
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Housing Finance
  Housing Finance
  Mortgage Payments
  Mortgage Payments
SOCIAL SERVICES
  School Clothing (Grants)
  School Clothing (Grants)
  Personal Social Services
  Personal Social Services
  Mental Health Act 1959
  Mental Health Act 1959
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Eraldin
  Eraldin
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Retirement Pensions and Sickness Benefit (European Community)
  Retirement Pensions and Sickness Benefit (European Community)
  Venereal Disease Unit (West London)
  Venereal Disease Unit (West London)
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Benefit Claims (Time Limit)
  Benefit Claims (Time Limit)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mercenaries
  Mercenaries
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  International Year of the Child
  International Year of the Child
ENERGY
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
  Solid Fuel
  Solid Fuel
  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
TRADE
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Craigavon New City
  Craigavon New City
  Development Land
  Development Land
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
  Wine and Spirit Industry
  Wine and Spirit Industry
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Company Taxation
  Company Taxation
  Stock Appreciation Relief
  Stock Appreciation Relief
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Retirement Pensions (Taxation)
  Retirement Pensions (Taxation)
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Income Tax Surcharge
  Income Tax Surcharge
  Earnings
  Earnings
  £1 Note
  £1 Note
  Dependent Relative Allowance
  Dependent Relative Allowance
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
EMPLOYMENT
  Apprentice Training Grants
  Apprentice Training Grants
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Labour Force (Stockport)
  Labour Force (Stockport)
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Garner's Steak Houses (Dispute)
  Garner's Steak Houses (Dispute)
  International Labour Organisation
  International Labour Organisation
  Disabled Persons (Training)
  Disabled Persons (Training)
  Chemical Plant Fire (Chatteris)
  Chemical Plant Fire (Chatteris)
DEFENCE
  Pay
  Pay
  Nimrod Aircraft
  Nimrod Aircraft
  Wessex Helicopters
  Wessex Helicopters
  Buccaneer and Canberra Aircraft
  Buccaneer and Canberra Aircraft
  HMS "Daedalus"
  HMS "Daedalus"
  Helicopters
  Helicopters
  Guided Weapon Regiment
  Guided Weapon Regiment
  Carl Gustav Recoilless Rifle and M72 Rocket
  Carl Gustav Recoilless Rifle and M72 Rocket
  TAVR
  TAVR
  HMS "Cavalier"
  HMS "Cavalier"
  RAF Personnel
  RAF Personnel
  Premature Retirement
  Premature Retirement
  Offset Purchases (United States of America)
  Offset Purchases (United States of America)
  Republic of Ireland Tricolour
  Republic of Ireland Tricolour
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  UNEMPLOYMENT
  UNEMPLOYMENT

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

LORD MCGREGOR OF DURRIS
Oliver Ross McGregor, Esquire, having been created Baron McGregor of Durris, of Hampstead in Greater London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Wootton of Abinger and the Lord Hunt, and made the solemn Affirmation.

MINISTERIAL TELEVISION INTERVIEWS AND SMOKING
2.47 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the dangers to health in smoking, they will adopt a measure of self-denial and example by Ministers refraining in future from holding pipes or cigarettes while appearing in arranged television interviews.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would hope that all my Ministerial colleagues would support Her Majesty's Government's strategy on smoking and health (which is directed mainly against cigarette smoking) in all appropriate ways and on all appropriate occasions, but I recognise that the noble Lord's particular suggestion is essentially a matter for personal decision.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that I will defend to the last ditch the right of everyone to choose whether to smoke or not but that I feel they should know the risks involved? Is he also aware that Parliamentary replies in this
472
House and in another place have stated that pipe smoking, as well as with cigarettes, has some danger? The Minister of Health and Secretaries of State for Scotland have for some time sponsored with public money health warnings on television: indeed, I started one of the first series. Does not the effectiveness of such programmes suffer when other Ministers arrange to be seen on programmes on the same evenings smoking, even if their pipes are empty or their cigarettes unlit?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think it is very appropriate that the noble Lord should raise this Question because, if my memory serves me correctly, he must have been one of the first Ministers to appear on television in regard to this matter. I would not disagree with what the noble Lord says. We are—and I believe this applies to all sides of your Lordships' House—very much against legislation and would prefer, shall I say? persuasion and education. Some of us would go so far as to say that certain people should set an example, and I do not think there is anything between us on this matter.
One of the comforting things is that a recent survey which was conducted on behalf of my Department indicated that 75 per cent. of the adult population agreed with and approved of the Government's encouragement to people to give up smoking. I was particularly heartened to learn that 68 per cent. of smokers who were interviewed also took that view. In another survey undertaken by my Department about smoking in public transport, 76 per cent. of the adult population approved of further restrictions and, when smokers themselves were asked about this, 67 per cent. of them also took the same view. I think we are making progress, but I would agree with the noble Lord that we need examples.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, has my noble friend noticed that there is an element of class discrimination in this Question, inasmuch as it criticises the smoking of pipes and cigarettes but not the smoking of cigars? Is that a matter of pandering to the late Sir Winston Churchill?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, some of us who do not smoke cigarettes

473
or pipes but enjoy a cigar do so because we want to advertise how good life is under the present Government.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is another element of discrimination in this Question? Ministers are asked to refrain from smoking when appearing on television, but there is nothing said about the leaders of the Opposition. Why are they excluded? Is this not class distinction of the worst kind? In any event, is my noble friend aware that, as one who occasionally appears on television, not being a Minister—unfortunately or fortunately—I will smoke whenever it suits me, and nobody is going to stop me?
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, the pipe is well-known as a symbol of peace, and if the last Prime Minister, Sir Harold Wilson, were to appear without his pipe, might it not be taken as a declaration of class war?
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, will the Minister agree that Ministers have other habits far more dangerous than smoking?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to enlighten us upon that?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, while congratulating the noble Lord on his ability at this time to smoke cigars, is he aware that I had no intention of discriminating where cigars were concerned? I meant to cover smoking as a whole, and if there is a danger in cigars they should certainly be included. Also, I did not mean to discriminate concerning the Opposition. It is simply that that is not a matter which I can correctly put to the Government.

STOKE-DERBY LINK ROAD
2.53 p.m.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they will announce the route of
474
the proposed new Stoke-Derby link road.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as my honourable friend in another place indicated on 16th November last, he hopes that it will be practicable to reach early conclusions on the most urgent sections, but it is bound to take some time to deal with the whole 42 miles of the link.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. Is she aware that there has already been a very long delay in reaching a decision and that this has had an unfortunate effect upon development in the area? Secondly, can she confirm that, when the Minister does reach a decision, he will take into account the recommendations of the Leitch Committee and, more especially, that recommendation which dealt with the adverse effects of land severance on the farming industry?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I can give that assurance. My right honourable friend will take note of what was in the Leitch Report. However, this is not a subject, when a road of this length is being decided, that one can deal with very quickly. We have to take account of not only cost considerations but environmental considerations. I know that at this time my right honourable friend is considering the representations that have been made to him by DeSTAG and by other bodies, and we hope to be in a position to announce a decision on the most urgent parts of the task very shortly.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us are grateful that this Question has been raised by the noble Lord opposite? Is she also aware that on this route there is a particularly beautiful little village that has been embarrassed for about 25 years by juggernauts and lorries, where the women cannot cross the roads in safety and some of them are becoming neurotic and ill? The internal combustion engine is dominating mankind, and it is time that we stood up to these damned machines.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my noble friend has not identified which

475
village he is concerned with, but I can say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport hopes to be able to make an announcement before too long on proposals for those sections of the link that are in most urgent need of relief. We expect that these lengths will be the ones that will remove the traffic through Tean, Checkley and Draycott and a number of villages in Derbyshire. Whether Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all covers the part referred to by my noble friend, I am not sure.

JUVENILE DETENTION CENTRES
2.55 p.m.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the number of juvenile detention centres meets current need.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, there is at present some overcrowding in the junior centres, but this is not unusual as the population fluctuates considerably in the course of the year. A close watch is kept on the situation to ensure that the most effective use is made of available resources.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, though I thank the Minister for that reply, I should have liked to have the figures for new detention centres that are being put up. I should also have liked to know whether, as my Question asks, they are meeting the current need, which, as I think he will agree, is to inculcate self-discipline and a sense of responsibility in these youngsters. Can he tell me whether he thinks that the centres are being effective in this way?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, these centres undoubtedly fulfil a useful role. There are six junior centres and 11 senior centres, and work on a further senior detention centre is to begin later this year.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, is it not a fact that an escalating number of young girls are getting into juvenile crime? Is the Home Office considering having one or two detention centres for girls? There is none at present.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think our view, generally, is that it is better to deal with girls in this age range in local authority accommodation. But the noble Baroness is quite right. There is a disturbing trend of delinquency among girls, and this is an important question.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what is the proportion of successes to failures, in the case of juveniles sent to detention centres? I believe that the Home Office Research Department calculates that success is when a child has not committed an offence for two years after leaving a centre. Is the Minister able to give the proportion of failures and successes?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am afraid that the rate of reconviction is rather high. In 1973, which is the last year for which figures are available, the reconviction rate of boys under 17 was 70 per cent., but that compares with 81 per cent, among those sent to Borstal.

CHILD AND FAMILY LAW
2.58 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider rationalising the many different Acts of Parliament applicable to children and young persons and consolidating at least some of the overlapping Acts which govern child and family law.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I apologise for the fact that the Answer is rather lengthy. The Law Commission have already begun and are continuing a major programme of consolidation of the law relating to children and the family. We have already

477
passed the Adoption Act 1976 and the Legitimacy Act 1976, consolidating the law on adoption and legitimation. Work is proceeding on consolidations of the law relating to child care and foster children. The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Bill, now before your Lordships' House, includes provision about the powers of magistrates' courts as to the custody and maintenance of children. This Bill will be followed by a major consolidation of the law relating to magistrates' courts, which will take account of the procedural reforms in the current Bill.
In addition, the Government hope to introduce in due course Consolidation Bills dealing with the law about the protection of children and court proceedings involving children and young persons. The Law Commission are presently engaged on a review of illegitimacy as a legal status, and their recommendations on that subject may involve further proposals for the reform of the law relating to the guardianship, maintenance and custody of children. Interim consolidation of the guardianship and custodianship legislation may, however, be useful and this is a possibility which is being kept in mind.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that very full reply on St. David's Day. After such a very full reply it would be presumptuous of me to mention that at the moment there are, I think, 12 Acts of Parliament relating to children which are administered by the social services departments and the relevant voluntary organisations and 29 Acts of Parliament relating to child and family law. Therefore I am indeed grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when I hear that progress will be made towards the consolidation of these Acts.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: My Lords, I was delighted to hear the very full Answer of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. In the light of two major debates in the last 12 months concerning children and the family, is it possible that the noble and learned Lord could draw attention to the fact that there has been a request for a Minister of the family? I believe that such a request has been made two, if not three times in
478
this House. Because of the growing pressure on families, does not the noble and learned Lord feel that the need for such a Minister is growing?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we had a very interesting debate on the family about a year ago when this suggestion was ventilated. Responsibility for matters relating to the family is now in the hands of more than one Department. I am not sure that to add yet another Minister to the penumbra of Ministers that already exist would assist the family. However, I shall certainly discuss this question with my right honourable friend, but I can hold out no great hope of an affirmative answer emerging.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend bear in mind the recent death of Lester Chapman and the tragedy that was involved there owing to a dispute between the police and the social services department?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is indeed a tragic case, but with great respect I doubt whether it arises out of the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord for his very full Answer, may I ask whether he is able to give an assurance that action will not take so long as it did in the case of the Crown Agents?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is interesting to note how a lengthy Answer seems to give rise to a large number of unconnected supplementary questions. It is a warning to me not to do it again!
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack agree that penumbral Ministers are somewhat shadowy and might perhaps be replaced by a more substantial Minister?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I suspect that the flower which my noble friend is wearing may have stimulated that question—I could see that the expression on his face did not

479
bear the normal gravity and expectation of a serious answer to which his usual questions give rise.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, if I may be allowed to ask a simple rhetorical question, is any family in the country to be considered to be exempt from the attentions of any Minister?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as happens with most rhetorical questions, I think that that one has answered itself.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS)(SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
CIVIL. AVIATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

PRAYER BOOK (BALLOT OF LAITY) BILL [H.L.]
Lord SUDELEY: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for a ballot to be taken of the parishioners of any parish in which it is proposed to introduce an alternative form of service in accordance with the Church of England Worship and Doctrine Measure 1974. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.((Lord Sudeley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LAW AND AUTHORITY IN SOCIETY
3.6 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN Lord O'HAGAN rose to call attention to the decline in respect for authority, and to the need to reassert the primacy of the law; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the ancient and moving ceremony which once again we have just witnessed when
480
a new Member has been added to our ranks, we heard, as the reasons for which each of us is summoned by Her Majesty to this Assembly, those words which always strike me deeply—"arduous and urgent affairs".
I submit to your Lordships that of all the arduous and urgent affairs which we should be considering at the moment, that which I am bringing forward this afternoon is almost the most arduous and the most urgent. I think that it is one upon which noble Lords can bring to bear their collective wisdom. In introducing this debate I am not speaking just about what is commonly called law and order; I am trying to introduce a discussion of all the restraints and constraints which are necessary for the maintenance of a democratic and civilised society, a discussion which I believe this House is very capable of undertaking. Nor am I merely issuing forth a lament for the end of a deferential society, nor am I attempting to lay the blame for the rise in crime throughout the Western World at the door of Her Majesty's Government. If I make some stern comments, I do so because the subject of today's debate is too important for bland trivialities and because our attitudes to this subject reveal our innermost and deepest political convictions.
Nearly 40 years ago my cousin John Strachey published his most famous work, The Coining Struggle for Power. I should like to read to your Lordships one sentence from that work:
"The alternative to the violence entailed by the lifting of human life to a new level is the violence entailed by the decline of human society, the breakup of such world civilisation as exists, the dawn of a new dark age of perpetual conflict."
A little before that he said this:
"For if men hesitate before the task of achieving a new civilisation, if they draw back because no new order of society can be born without violent conflict, then they will not achieve an epoch of peaceful stability."
If my cousin were alive today, I am sure that the political odyssey which took him from the Conservative Party through every other kind of Party, would have led him back with Paul Johnson, and his biographer Hugh Thomas, to where he should have been. However, the point I am trying to make is not that all noble

481
Lords opposite are individually subversive but that collectively they present a growing menace to the preservation—
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I promised something to talk and argue about, and I am starting now.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: But, my Lords, the noble Lord is already in orbit.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, if the noble Lord will follow me, he, too, will be in the right orbit. There has always been an element, a streak of thought, within the Labour movement and the Labour Party, going back to Laski and Cripps, and today manifesting itself in the tendencies towards Marxism— "Benninism"—which have once again found strength in the Labour Party. The point I want to make is, that all political Parties in Government have to have some of the tendencies inherent within them restrained by our ancient Parliamentary traditions, and one of the factors that disturbs me most in the behaviour of Her Majesty's Government is their attitude to the Parliamentary restraints—five guillotine Motions in one day.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I do not usually intervene, but I hope the noble Lord will remember that a Conservative Government pushed through the European Communities Bill without proper discussion; we were not able to amend it. To talk in this way really is to spoil a debate which I think could be useful.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I have come to this House to debate some serious issues. I may be young but I am not young enough to be treated like a schoolboy, and I intend to persist. I ask the indulgence of the House to let me continue so that I will take less time. What I want to stress to your Lordships is that, if and when the Government begin to set aside the traditional bulwarks that our ancestors have built up, which hold back any Government from implementing their policies too far and too fast, then we should begin to worry, and we have had sufficient evidence of this over recent Sessions.
482
Why do I begin in this awkward and difficult way? It is because I think that all Governments have a duty to lead, to set an example, and the general level of acceptance of authority is conditioned by the respect that they themselves show to the authority which is and should be above us all. I think this Government have a bad record; think it is a record of shame. I think the story of the TV licences, Thameside, Skytrain and Clay Cross are a catalogue of shameful episodes in a Government which should be giving a lead. And the worst thing of all perhaps was the picketing, peaceful though it might have been, on the Grunwick picket line.
Why have I decided to raise this awkward series of questions at the beginning of this debate? It is because I believe the Government are only just held back by the creaking limits which we have imposed upon them in our ancient Constitution. What I am concerned about is the need for all Governments to give a lead, as an example to those in authority, so that all the various sources of authority within our community can take strength from their example. The first point I am trying to make is that I do not believe that this Government have shown a good example for the preservation of authority in this country.
I want to turn to the role of the police force. I think the way in which any Government treats the police force is a useful indicator of the sort of importance they attach to the maintenance of law and order and the wider questions that I have raised. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord who is to reply whether he could give the full figures on recent resignations from the police force which his honourable colleague the Minister of State was unable to give in another place. The police are seriously worried about the falling off in their numbers. However quickly and however fully the Government bring into force the recommendations of the Lord Edmund-Davies Committee, that Committee should have been set up a long time ago, and much of the damage has already been done.
None of us can forget the dangers and difficulties posed by the marches at Ilford. It took a quarter of the Metropolitan Police Force, it took £200,000, to deal with that episode. If the police are to sustain their normal duties in the areas

483
which they normally police, as well as carry out these exceptional duties, then we need a stronger police force, one that is better paid and is fuller of recruits. What I am particularly concerned about, as I am sure we all ought to be, is the number of more experienced officers leaving, as well as those lower down in the ranks.
I have tried to pick out one or two of the aspects of the subject which we are debating this afternoon, and I am leaving others to continue on particular lines from their own particular expertise. Nor is it my role to put forward this afternoon specific proposals from the Party I have the honour to represent, because that has been done in another place by my right honourable friends Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Howell earlier in the week. However, there is one other theme that I should like to introduce at the beginning of this debate. Our discussions are inevitably incomplete without the presence and the contribution of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. As I cannot imitate him, all I can do is quote him. If I may take one sentence from one of his earlier works, my noble and learned friend said this:
"Conservatives believe in variety and liberty of development under the rule of law. Law they regard as something neither the enemy of liberty nor of authority, but reconciling both."
My Motion talks of the need to reassert the primacy of the law and a reconciliation, as my noble and learned friend put it, of liberty and authority.
This subject is not one restricted to the narrow confines of the responsibilities of the Home Office. We are looking at all the stresses and strains which are working against the cohesion of society. If one was not careful one would be talking about every Minister in every Department that exists in Westminster and Whitehall today. I will not attempt to talk about everything. I do want to say a word about another major challenge which has been posed to our very adoptive, very adaptive and very evolutionary social system. I want to say something about race.
I support fully what has been said by our next Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, and Mr. Whitelaw about race and immigration. In the sense in which the term is often used, too, am an immigrant. I am a descendant of someone
484
who came here looking for work, which is what many of those we now call immigrants were. If there are loopholes which can be closed, while still honouring our international commitments to our citizens and abiding by the European Convention, so be it. But as for those who advanced their political careers by dabbling in the rivers of blood, let them realise that their doctrines of racial purity have no place in British politics. Many of us were perhaps too optimistic about the ease with which an unprosperous Britain could cope with new cultures and new colours, but laments about the past are no use to the unemployed blacks of West Indian origin. What do they need? What do they want from authority? They want employment.
The challenge of race leads to inner cities and inner cities lead to the young unemployed and vandalism. One could go on all afternoon about the various aspects of this subject. However, I want to end by saying something more definite about the primacy of the law and I only wish that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, or other noble and learned Lords were present to say it better than I. As I feel it as well as believe it, the law must be above us all. As the nation grows uncertain, so the security offered by our Statutes and common law is more necessary and more reassuring.
Years ago the sovereignty of power belonged to the King, who surrendered it to Parliament. Now Her Majesty's Government, through the control of Parliament, can use and abuse Parliamentary sovereignty as they wish—nothing is beyond the reach of our newly-elected monarchs in the Government. Yet, this headlong path to Parliamentary tyranny must be diverted, if need be blocked, by the reassertion of the law. A Bill of Rights is necessary in my view, but a Bill of Rights will be merely a rickety hurdle against an overpowerful and overmighty Government unless we all reassert our support for the Judiciary and our legal system as the guardians of our Constitution.
I am delighted that so many of your Lordships are to take part in this debate. I am particularly glad that two of my noble friends have chosen to make their maiden speech on this all-important topic. My

485
role is simply that of the prologue, introducing what I believe to be a proper activity for a second Chamber fulfilling a useful and constructive role within the Constitution. At the risk of sounding like an anthology I would remind your Lordships of the words of the Earl of Chatham in 1770. Indeed, I took those words as my motto when trying to prepare for today's debate. The Earl of Chatham was speaking about John Wilkes who caused him to say:
"Where law ends tyranny begins."
I think that that is something that we need to bear in mind.
believe that all Governments must keep sight of the great division between lawful authority and the edge of tyranny. I am sure that the various aspects of this subject will be amply covered by all those noble Lords who are to participate in today's debate. I hope that what we say here today will enable this House and this country to continue to move along a constitutional path towards the preservation of authority. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I was going to begin by congratulating all the noble Lords on the Conservative Benches for having the courage to choose today—one of their Party's days—to debate a topic which is of the greatest possible public importance, but one of which, I must confess, I assumed nobody would seek to take Party political advantage. Having listened to the most able and, if he will forgive me for saying so, slightly provocative observations of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, it would perhaps not be entirely appropriate if I were to begin in that way.
We are asked today to have regard to the decline in respect for authority, but I take that not to refer to blind obedience to irrational orders promulgated by faceless bureaucrats. We are asked today to have regard to the primacy of the law. I take that to mean the primacy of reasonable laws passed after full discussions by properly democratically elected assemblies. I say that because I believe that part of the problem that has arisen in recent years in this country is that a vast gulf has grown up between the governors and
486
the governed—a gulf between the ordinary people who are expected to obey the law and the politicians, civil servants and judges who are expected to make and to administer the laws. I believe that we shall never solve this problem until we have a genuinely participatory democracy in which ordinary people feel that they are themselves playing a real part in the election of Members of Parliament and in the formulation of our laws.
We have learned one lesson in recent years. It is that it is quite idle and, indeed, counter-productive to seek to pass laws knowing in advance that the vast majority of the community are either unwilling to accept them or will positively oppose them. There is a speed at which one can go in legislation. We have, I think, exceeded that speed many times in recent years and, as a result, we have paid the penalty. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that to some extent the problem has been increased by indications from time to time that people who should know better are prepared to countenance breaches of the law. I do not forget the local district councillors in Derbyshire who quite deliberately defied the law and who were actively supported by many prominent politicians. I cannot forget that at present there is a colony in revolt against the Queen and that the Government of that colony is being actively supported by some prominent politicians. I believe that, unless the community as a whole is prepared to enforce the law and to be seen to be abiding by it, it is perhaps unreasonable for those of us in Parliament to turn round and accuse youngsters of breaking the law in one way or another at a Saturday afternoon football match.
If we talk about the primacy of the law, your Lordships' discussion will inevitably come on to what is sometimes called "the crime wave", and to ways of dealing with it. If I may say so, one ought not to become hysterical about this situation. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said, a common problem throughout the whole of Western industrial society—indeed, there are some indications that it is a great deal worse in other countries and has been growing more rapidly than it has in this country. The last set of criminal statistics that I have seen showed that in 1976 the total number of indictable

487
offences was up as compared with 1975, but by a very, very small amount—something like 1 per cent. of the whole. It appeared to show that the offence which is most frequently referred to when one is dealing with questions about the crime wave—the offence of robbery—had remained static in number as between 1975 and 1976. I mention that offence in particular, but it is sometimes called "mugging", because there are those who appear to think that, if they can in some way associate the immigrant community with an increase in violence and an increase in the crime of mugging, it may be that there are votes to be obtained on the strength of it. I doubt whether the statistics bear out their argument.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, was right, of course, to refer to the fact that the police force is lamentably below strength in many areas—lamentably below strength even though there has been a net increase in the number of police officers over recent years. I have no doubt that noble Lords in all parts of the House will want to see that situation remedied. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies is, as your Lordships know, at present presiding over a committee that will in due course make recommendations about police pay. However, I do not think that we should regard that as an easy solution. We do not know to what extent the falling off in recruitment to the police force is solely the result of dissatisfaction with the financial terms of service. We do not know to what extent pay would have to be raised in order that the police force would be brought up to its full level. We do not know what the total cost would be. Those who talk about these matters ought to have some figures in mind before saying, as though it were a simple solution, that if you pay them more that is all you have to do. Indeed, when we do discover what the figure is we have to consider whether we are prepared to blow a great hole in a wage restraint policy which, on the whole, has proved successful in keeping down the rate of inflation. These are all problems that will require time and patience.
Dealing with the police for a moment, if I may be faintly nostalgic, I am sorry that the days of the small borough police force have gone, where police officers felt an attachment to a local community which
488
was good for their morale, whereas they now find they may have to serve miles away from their own home in some amorphous county body. I am sorry that the days of the village policemen have gone—an officer who knew exactly what was going on in the village, and if he did not know was able to find out very quickly. I am sorry in a way that the increased mechanisation of the police force, which has produced many great benefits, has at the same time led to a startling reduction in the number of police officers engaged on the dull job of patrolling the footpaths on the beat by day and particularly by night. These are all matters which can be considered. Obviously we need more police as part of a solution to this problem, but equally obviously I would suggest it is a difficult road to follow. It is not going to be a complete solution and it is one that is bound to take some little time.
Having mentioned the question of the police force, which is really the means of preventing and arresting criminals, may I say one or two words about the possibility of dealing with this problem by way of punishing criminals. I assume that most of your Lordships would feel that in a civilised society, however uncivilised some of its members may be, we do not deal with them in an uncivilised way, and I hope very much that we are not going to have any observations this afternoon about hanging or flogging or severing peoples' limbs or any penalties of that sort.
The question of punishment is a very difficult one. It will be said by some that we should pass longer sentences, that we should send more people to prison. I think the short answer to that is that whether it is desirable or not—and I doubt whether its worth as a policy has ever been proved—the prisons are so grossly overcrowded that it is quite impracticable, and I doubt very much if any political Party would be prepared to go forward at the next Election and put at the top of its manifesto that it proposes to add so much to income tax in order to raise the revenue to build new prisons. I suggest that the approach must be a gradual one.
There is the question that has been raised—and I do not propose to go over the old ground which we debated in the Criminal Law Act—as to whether it is wise to have the present restrictions on

489
sending young people to prison for a medium length term. There is the proposal that was raised by Mr. Whitelaw in the other House, and which has been raised on many occasions recently, about some form of glasshouse as a solution to the problems of young offenders. I have not the slightest doubt that a strict régime of that sort, extremely unpleasant, would cause a good deal of satisfaction to the victims of the crime and a good deal of satisfaction to the community as a whole. These are not by any means unworthy objects of punishment, but I think one has to consider with very great care whether they would contribute towards deterring juvenile offenders.
I can only remind your Lordships that we used to have the equivalent of glasshouses not so very long ago. We used to have detention centres which were designed purely and simply to deliver a short sharp shock—which are the words so frequently quoted by those who are now advocating this new proposal. They were not a success. The last figures I saw before 1970, when the regime was altered to the rather more educative regime that exists today, were that the re-conviction rate was verging on 50 per cent.— one in two was being re-convicted shortly after release from an institution of that nature. I doubt very much whether, without great care and great research, a proposal of that sort is likely to help.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for intervening but 1 think this is an important matter and the glasshouse policy was one clear suggestion which came out of the debate in another place earlier this week. I agree with the noble Lord that one should not debate these matters in a partisan way, and it has always been my intention not to do so. But may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware—as I suspect he is—that the move away from the policy of glasshouses began with Mr. Maudling when he was Home Secretary, when an instruction went out from the Home Office indicating the new approach to these matters, and was continued when the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, was Home Secretary? Therefore many of us are extremely mystified about what exactly is the proposal coming from the Conservative Benches on this matter.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, my recollection was clear that it was not a Liberal Government. There is one other suggestion that has been made recently—
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I think "a short sharp shock" is a quotation from a Gilbert and Sullivan opera, and it concludes with the words:
"a chippy chippy chopper on a big black block".
It is therefore a requisition for beheading the offender.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I am grateful for that piece of information. There is one other suggestion that has been made which I might venture to support, though I doubt that it will materially contribute to the solution of this problem. It is that I believe that magistrates' juvenile courts have somewhat inadequate powers in dealing with persistent offenders. The last figures I saw for the metropolitan area showed that in one year 106 juveniles—the worst of them—had between them committed 3,735 offences, and yet they are dealt with by juvenile courts which for practical purposes have no effective power to enforce nonpayment of fines or supervision orders if they are broken. For practical purposes they are limited to making care orders to the local authority, who can then, if they wish—and they very frequently do—send the children back home. Although it is only a small contribution in regard to this problem, I believe that it may be possible to deal with some of the persistent juvenile offenders by giving the juvenile courts better powers to see that when this happens they are placed in secure places of one sort or another.
These seem to me to be all the suggestions so far put forward as a way of dealing with the crime wave. I would suggest that they do not amount to very much. The reason why they do not amount to very much is because the problem is not capable of being solved in these terms. It can only be solved if one looks at the causes of the crime wave and tries to see what can be done about those causes. One then finds that one is embarking on a vast area of social and economic affairs which are not conducive to Party political controversy.

491
May I indicate the sort of matters I have in mind. One looks at the problem of broken homes, of homes where the marriage is subsisting but the wife as well as the husband is going out to work and there is no proper discipline in the home. One looks at the problems of upbringing in the schools—very large classes and, one must say, from time to time a certain number of young teachers who are perhaps not particularly enthusiastic about inculcating in their pupils our accepted standards of society. One looks at the whole problem of religious and moral upbringing. I must say that I am sorry that no right reverend Prelate has found himself able to speak this afternoon on this aspect of the matter, because I believe that in the long run it has a great contribution to make in regard to this problem.
One looks at all the environmental problems—the decay of the urban centres, the high-rise flats and the lack of adequate leisure facilities. One looks at all the economic problems, the boredom that is induced by unemployment and the boredom that is induced by working in a monotonous job, for instance, working on a conveyer belt in some mass production factory. One is perhaps not entirely surprised that people in that situation seek a little excitement every now and again on a Saturday afternoon when they are gathered together at a football match.
One looks at the problems that have been caused by drink among young people and by the increase in the amount of drugs that are being taken. The word "drugs" leads me at once to consider the problem posed by television, which night after night relays a diet of violence to those who watch it. I should not want to say that television is responsible for outbreaks of crime—I do not know; the matter has not been researched. However, I very much doubt whether it diminishes the amount of violent crime; beyond that I would not want to go.
One can go on in these terms covering this vast area, but it would be unreasonable for me to do so. Perhaps I might add that one particular issue has arisen in recent times—and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, touched on it—namely, the very grave threat that has arisen to public
492
order in this country as a result of the growth of two political Parties, the National Front and the Socialist Workers, both of whom seek to provoke the maximum amount of civil disorder and neither of whom is in the least concerned for the preservation of our civil liberties. Again, perhaps one should try neither to exaggerate nor to minimise the danger presented by the National Front. I note, for example, that at a crucial by-election meeting last week for it as a Party it was able only to collect 500 people together by bringing them in from all parts of the country. I note that in Leicester, where it was thriving at the local elections, last year its share of the poll went down and not up. Again, I do not believe that we ought to exaggerate the threat from that gang of desperadoes. Equally, of course, we ought not to minimise it.
I cannot help wondering when we deal with them what exactly is meant by this question of their right to march. I know of no such right. People have the right to use the highway for their lawful purposes to go about their lawful business. I know of no right to assemble in strength and march along with a view to terrifying others and causing the greatest possible disorder. I believe that we should not be too mealy-mouthed, if we want to see our democratic system survive, in dealing with people who are openly and blatantly out to defy that system.
I have ventured to touch on only a few of the problems. Many noble Lords will want to speak and will be discussing these and many other problems. In passing, perhaps I could apologise for the fact that I might not be able to stay until the end of this debate, for which I am extremely sorry. My conclusion is neither optimistic nor pessimistic; it is that we are debating a vast problem with an immense number of facets to it, that there are no easy answers and that we must research and work on the problems, and make slow and steady progress in a whole series of different directions in order that ultimately we shall produce a fully law-abiding society.
3.44 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I am told by the Whips that I am normally regarded as making short speeches. If today I am not as short as usual, it will be due to the fact, first, that there are

493
relatively few Back-Bench speakers on this side of the House compared with the number on the other side and, secondly, it will be due to the responsibility that one feels as an opening batsman. This is a very big and important subject, and in any case I should not take more than two or three points because we must be selective.
First, I suppose there can be no doubt that in this country the man who knows most about the facts on crime, both here and abroad—the different penological theories, what measures have been tried to stop crime, and which have succeeded and which have not—is Sir Leon Radzinowicz, who for so long was the Director of the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge. He and Joan King have recently published a book entitled The Growth of Crime—the International Experience. I am hound to say that it is a book of almost unrelieved gloom. He points out that ever since the last World War all the Western democracies which took part in it have experienced an enormous increase in the rate of crime; that although almost every method has been tried in one country or another, practically nothing has been successful, and he asks when it will all end.
Naturally, therefore, I have been at pains to try to ascertain from the book what, if I may put it this way, he regards as our best bet; because although it is true that the rate of crime in this country is slowing down a bit and that experiences in other countries—particularly, the United States and Canada—have been worse, it is still enormously high.
I read only yesterday—I have not had time to check the sources—that in 1976 there was a burglary or a house-breaking in Greater London every 10 minutes and that every day 363 cars or their contents were stolen. Therefore, we have no right to be complacent. It is quite clear what Sir Leon Radzinowicz regards as the best bet. It is the deterrence—not the deterrence of severity of punishment—we obtain by having a high probability of detection. At page 130 he says:
"The chance of detection—or rather the chance as seen by a person tempted to crime—stands out as the most crucial factor in the whole chain of deterrence."
On 15th July 1964, which is a long time ago, with great trepidation I first spoke
494
in a Wednesday debate in your Lordships' House when, at the request of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, I opened a debate on crime and penal reform. As I told the House then, in the days before the war the position was clear. One could walk into any police district one liked and they all confirmed the same basic central fact. Although crime sometimes went up and sometimes went down, the clear fact was that if the conviction rate—by which I mean the relationship between the convictions and all the crimes known to the police—went up, crime went down; if the conviction rate went down, crime went up. I have never understood why that is extraordinary. Of course, it means that when a young man has been invited by a peer group to join in a housebreaking, no doubt he is affected by many things, including whether he has been brought up by his father and mother to know the difference between right and wrong; but what mostly determines him when he is wobbling is the fact that if he thinks he will get away with the job, he will do it, and if he thinks that, having done the job, he will be caught and punished, he will not do it. What the precise punishment will be is a secondary deterrent because, by and large, if he thinks he will be caught and punished he will not do it anyway.
In those days in England and Wales the conviction rate for indictable offences was always over 50 per cent. So if one committed a serious crime in this country the probability was that one would be caught and punished. Although I do not suggest that criminals are great readers of criminal statistics, they do have a pretty good idea of the state of the market. What has happened since the war is that the conviction rate has gone down and down. As I said in that debate 13 years ago—I had been making inquiries—I found that then in London if you did a robbery with violence it was three to one that you would not be caught or punished at all; if you did a housebreaking job it was six to one that you would not be caught or punished at all; if you stole something from a stationary car it was 12 to one that you would not be caught or punished at all.
What then was the cause of this disastrous fall in the conviction rate? It was very simple. We had never increased the police force to match the increase in

495
crime. No one Government are responsible for this. I draw no distinction between the political Parties. No Party has ever attempted to deal with it. Being interested in this subject, and having no idea there was going to be a debate on law and order in this House, on the 10th November last year I put down this Question for Written Answer:
"By what percentage the numbers of

(1) indictable offences

(2) police officers

in the London metropolis have increased since 1939?".
The Answer was this—it is a bit involved:
"The number of crimes known to the Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police in 1939 was 96,914. The number of indictable offences recorded as known to the same two forces in 1976 was 477,616. This gives an increase of 393 per cent., but because of changes in the law, in the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police District and in recording practice, the figures are not precisely comparable.
"The combined strengths of the two forces on 30th September 1939 was 19,935, as against 22,960 on 30th September this year, an increase of 15·1 per cent.".
So this is the broad picture: crime has increased 400 per cent; the police have increased 15 per cent.
Well, what do you expect to happen? When I was a boy in London you never knew when the local bobby might come round the corner. The local bobby was a bit of a gossip sometimes, and he knew his local customers. They have all gone now. Because of this steep decline in the police force in relation to crime there are not the people to do the work. Therefore, all I can say quite shortly is that I entirely agree with Mrs. Thatcher, who first raised this point recently, and with what Mr. Whitelaw said: our first priority is to increase the police force to cope with the increase in crime.
I sincerely congratulate her on her recent conversion on this point. It may not be a recent conversion; she may have thought this for some years. But if she has, since the war we have had at least four Conservative Governments occupying 17 years in power who, apart from talking about law and order shortly before a General Election, have had every opportunity of putting remedies into force. What a pity she did not tell her predecessors about this—the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, or Mr. Heath, with whom she
496
must then have been on speaking terms. I am sure she is absolutely right. As I say, I draw no distinction between the Parties. Every Government since the war have, in my view, been gravely to blame for never having increased our police force to meet the increase in crime, which is the only way in which we can increase the conviction rate and therefore lower the number of criminal offences committed.
I am not at all hopeful about anything in this field. I remain extremely gloomy, and for two reasons. The first is that, as Sir Peter Rawlinson said on Monday, this would mean a massive shift in resources. We all know that when there are additional Government resources everybody has a different view as to the field in which the money should be spent. Some will say that our National Health Service used to be our pride and joy; now most of the EEC countries spend far more on public health than we do. It is running into the ground for shortage of funds. Others will say of additional resources that we must spend them on more armaments. What the Home Office will be left with we do not know.
Secondly, I very much fear that this Home Secretary, and possibly any Home Secretary, is going to say—and I very much regret it—"If I have got any money to spend I am going to spend it on building prisons". Even in the field of treatment of criminals, I am one of those who think with NACRO, Justice, and the Howard League, and so on, that we had much better spend it on alternatives to imprisonment. But of course I understand that there is a nightmare for every Home Secretary, who fears that with 41,000 people in prison, with a far higher proportion of our population in prison than in any other EEC country bar one, with 15,000 sleeping and living two or three in cells made for one, he faces the situation that some day a judge will send somebody to prison and he will be sent back to the court because there is nowhere in prison to put him. I think that this can be exaggerated, but I understand the fear. I wish I could feel, when one knows the sort of resources involved, that at some time within the next five or 10 years a Government will spend sufficient resources on really making the increase in the police in some way comparable to the increase in crime.

497
May I close on one slightly more hopeful note on this point. On the last page of their book the authors say a word of hope:
"Yet if the massive growth in crime of all kinds is allowed to continue, where will it end? Perhaps it is possible to offer a little historical reassurance. In Germany, after the second world war, everything seemed to be breaking down. In Berlin there were 12 times as many complaints of theft as there had been before the war, seven times as many burglaries and robberies. And that at a time when many people felt it useless to go to the police at all. In the dire shortage of necessities, money had lost its value and respect for property was shattered. Trains and lorries were cleared of their loads as they travelled, farmhouses, fields and barns raided by looting parties. Food, building materials, electrical equipment, disappeared wholesale. It was estimated that in 1946 crime had swollen to five times its normal scale. Yet in 1947, as the value of money began to be restored, as social and commercial normality returned, crime was already beginning to shrink. It was the bankruptcy of the state, the falling apart of society that had released the flood of crime, not the flood of crime that destroyed the value of money or the authority of the state. Criminals do not determine what becomes of society: they merely show an extraordinary power to adapt to the social climate, whatever it may be. What is remarkable is that most people, most of the time, even in periods of violent upheaval, go about their legitimate business in legitimate ways.".
The second point on which I wish to touch is the question of the decline in respect for authority. I agree with much that has been said, but would like to stress that you cannot make A respect B: this depends almost entirely on B, and very little on A. I fear that since the war all Governments—and I do not think, again, that this Government are any worse than any other—have not done as much as they might to increase respect among those they govern. This applies all round.
We all know teachers who can maintain complete order in a class without raising their voice. Those who have been in the Services know that officers can be, and are, trained to gain and hold the respect of the men they command, and that that depends almost entirely on the officers. Every time a policeman is caught out "putting in the verbals", he lowers respect for the police as authorities both among the general public and among the criminal classes. If I say that Governments themselves sometimes treat their subjects with contempt, I am only echoing paragraph 17 of the recent special report of the Joint Committee on Statutory
498
Instruments in the lack of care of the Government in making subordinate legislation without any regard to whether it is possible for citizens to find out at all that a law has been made, when it comes into force before they have any such opportunity.
In this field, I recently asked a Question in respect of Acts which had been passed in the last two years and as to which of those Acts or sections of Acts were not yet in force. The Answer I was given was that no central record was kept and that the information could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. It is no answer for a citizen to say he does not know what the law is, but here are the Government themselves saying that they do not know and do not propose to find out which Acts or sections of Acts are in force and which are not. Therefore, as a whole, I would suggest that this really depends in the main on the proper behaviour of authority. I appreciate that it must be very annoying when those in authority feel they are not being treated with proper respect, but this, I suggest, depends very much more on the actions and attitudes of those in authority than on those in the Government.
Thirdly, the question of the rule of law is of course of paramount importance. I have devoted a great deal of time throughout my life, both here, through Justice, and as a member of the Executive Committee of the International Commission of Jurists, to upholding the rule of law. It is a very wide subject. The only point I want to make is that I do not think it helps the rule of law simply to abuse lawyers. I am not at all impartial about this because I am a lawyer, but never in my life have I been through a period when there has been so much criticism of judges and lawyers, and I do not really know what they have done to deserve it.
As a profession, I do not think they have been good at legal education or training and I think they have paid far too little attention to social security law, but they are men of integrity whom I know well. They are hard working and I know none who live lives of luxury or leave any real money. I believe that, as a group, they probably work longer hours than almost any other group in the community, and I believe I am right in saying that, as a

499
group, their divorce record is extraordinarily low—possibly because they work too hard to get into trouble—and they seem to make good husbands and good fathers. At the moment, however, it seems to be the popular sport to abuse lawyers.
I have always said that, in a democracy, the administration of justice must be open to public criticism and I stand by that, but lawyers today are absolutely overwhelmed and of this I can speak with some knowledge. I am authorised by the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Legal Services to say that the Commission has received 600 memoranda, many of them very long indeed, and 3,000 letters. It is quite impossible for the Bar Council or the Law Society, and absolutely hopeless for a body like Justice, to think that they can answer all those papers that are sent in. And just as they are completely run into the ground by it all, they are now receiving letters from the Royal Commission on Prosecution Process expecting them to do exactly the same thing.
Let me give one example of the sort of thing that is going on. I always had a high regard for the late Lord Feather and I have, too, for his successor and for the Trade Union Congress, to whose courage we owe the present success of our economic measures. They have just put in a 51-page single-space, typed report in which they make a complaint against the Judiciary.
They say:
"over 80 per cent. of the Judiciary of High Court status and above … had attended a public school".
That, if I may say so, is a very old Labour Party myth. There has never been anything in it and I got it when I was Lord Chancellor, when I naturally went into the facts. I found that the higher Judiciary numbered 78—that is, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, Lords Justices, and High Court judges—and that their average age was 61, which meant that they finished their primary education in the course of the First World War; I was a little older because I finished mine in 1913.
The picture one sees drawn is that of the man who recognises at once that his 10-year-old son is going to be a High Court judge and who says to himself, "Whatever I do I must not send him to a
500
public school". I am not speaking as a particular friend of the public schools because I think that we are still the most class-ridden country in Europe and that probably a large part of the trouble is the whole public school system, but that is beside the point. What school should he have sent the boy to? There were only the independent fee-paying private schools, in which of course I include the public schools, and the grammar schools and a very few county secondary schools. I have had some trouble finding this out and the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has ascertained for me what a minute proportion of places there were in these few secondary county schools in comparison with the numbers of all those finishing their primary education.
The other night I was reading an autobiography of Storm Jameson; she was just about this age. Her parents were far too poor to give her a secondary education and she thought she was very lucky when, on merit, she won a place at the nearby county secondary school. It was one hour and ten minutes distant in the train and then of course she had to get to the station and get to school at the other end, and the same coming home. She was not complaining about that; her point was simply that the fact that she had obtained a secondary education had changed her entire life. But of course if the man who believes his son is going to be a High Court judge and who says "I must not send him to a public school", then urges him to get a place at the local secondary school, that will simply deprive people like Storm Jameson of any opportunity of getting a secondary education, so I should not have thought that was something a Socialist would want.
This has never been made public before, but I do not see why it should not, and it might cheer the proceedings up; I will tell noble Lords what schools they all went to. There were 51 different schools. The father and mother of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, kept a small draper's shop in what was then a village in Hampshire, and he won a place to Andover Grammar School and then got a scholarship to Oxford, where he got a double First. It may be that the higher Judiciary should attain a certain intellectual level, although I see that some of the memoranda sent in to the Royal

501
Commission say it should not be necessary for a lawyer to pass any examinations at all.
To give the list of schools: Andover Grammar School, Battersea Grammar School, Beaumont, Bellahouston Academy, Bede School Sunderland, Birkenhead School, Blundells, Caterham School, Charterhouse, City of London School, Clifton, Clongewis Wood College, Douai, Downside, Dulwich, Eton, Fettes, Glasgow Academy, Gresham's School Holt, Haileybury, Harrow, Highgate School, Hymers College Hull, King's College School, Lancaster Grammar School, Lancing, Leys School, Malvern, Manchester Grammar School, Mill Hill, Mountain Ash Grammar School, Norwich Grammar School, Oundle, Queen's College Taunton, Radley, Royal Academical Institute Belfast, Rugby, St. Andrew's School Grahamstown, St. Marylebone Grammar School, St. Paul's, Sedbergh School, Shrewsbury, Silcoates School, Southgate School, Sutton County Grammar School, Trinity College Glenalmond, Uppingham, Westminster, Whitgift School and Winchester. I remember that the father and mother, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, lived in Croydon and he went to the Whitgift School, which is a day school in Croydon, from which he got a scholarship to Oxford. The other complaint is that too many of them went to Oxford or Cambridge, and this of course was at a time before the large majority of red brick universities were founded in the 1960s. What nonsense it all is! But this is the sort of stuff which the Commission are getting. So all I have respectfully to suggest is that I do not think we shall improve the rule of law simply by abusing lawyers.
On the second point, I think that respect for authority depends more on the authority than on the subject. Also, I am as convinced as I was all those years ago that the real remedy for the crime rate is to increase the police force to match the increase in crime, because this is the most effective deterrent, and the only way to empty our prisons is by reducing the number of crimes that are committed. I am sorry to have been so long. This is a subject which has always interested me, and I am quite sure we are going to have a very interesting discussion.
4.11 p.m.
Lord KINROSS: My Lords, during the last war the people of this country, and particularly the younger ones who were in the Armed Services, whether as Regulars, territorials or conscripts, very soon learned, if they did not know it already, a profound respect for authority, and recognised the meaning and value of discipline and that it was to their disadvantage to step out of line. There were many others who served their country in other capacities, such as the firemen, the air-raid wardens and the nurses, who also learned this lesson. In serving their country in those various ways they all accepted that it was necessary for them to submit to a discipline imposed by higher authority. After the war, National Service perpetuated this respect, greatly to the advantage of the country and the individuals concerned. But, alas! since the end of National Service there has been a marked and growing decline in such respect.
I remember well, shortly after the war, when there was industrial trouble in the country, asking a distinguished general, who had recently retired from the Army, who had been made managing director and who was later chairman of a large industrial concern in England, how it was that the same men whom we had led during the war and who had done all that had been asked of them, sometimes under trying circumstances, whether or not in action and at all hours of the day and night, were now, in civil life, apparently rebelling against the disciplines they had learned in war. His reply was that in the Army there was a subaltern officer with the power of leadership who was the link between the soldier and higher authority, whereas in industry—in those days, at least—there was no exact equivalent. I wish that we could find that hardworking subaltern to bridge the gap in industry.
To arrive at some plausible reason for this change in attitude towards higher authority, it is interesting to make a comparison between the life of the young and the disciplines to which the young were subject in the years immediately preceding the last war, and indeed earlier than that, and those applicable at the present time. In the earlier years parental

503
authority and that of the schoolteacher were respected, and discipline was maintained. At home the successful parent had worked hard, perhaps for very little reward, and had achieved self-respect and self-discipline, which was an example to his children at home; and, in school, the teacher was given this same respect, and so maintained his authority.
Outside school, the local policeman, a respected friend of the locality, whether in the town or the country, had great influence with the young because he knew that he would be supported by the parents, or, rather, most of them. In the event of a minor misdemeanour, such as the stealing of apples, the policeman had only to give a gentle cuff on the side of the head with his glove and warn the culprit that if the misdemeanour was repeated the boy would be reported to his father. The boy knew, and the policeman knew, that the father would administer suitable and perhaps painful punishment, and in this simple manner a repetition of the minor offence was avoided without recourse to the courts and with satisfaction to all concerned. But if a policeman should do such a thing now, he might very well find himself arraigned before an inquiry, at the instance of the parent, for assaulting a child. Fortunately, this is only an occasional happening, but it is illustrative of the change in the attitude towards the police, who do their best to enforce the law.
Similarly, in my young days the cane in boarding schools and the tawse in Scottish day schools were excellent deterrents to bad behaviour and an encouragement to good manners and respect for the teacher. The result was more time devoted to teaching, and the encouragement of self-discipline in school. But, alas!, in these modern days the authority of the teacher in a great number of schools has been seriously eroded. Many reasons for this erosion are put forward by the educationists, such as the limited resources available for schools, too many children in the class and lack of motivation among the children. These may be valid reasons to some, but in my humble opinion the reason is that too many parents give priority to their own pleasures and take too little personal interest in the wellbeing of their children. We must be thankful that there are very many parents who
504
regard the wellbeing of their children as of paramount importance to themselves and the community.
This lack of respect for authority is unfortunately perpetuated in much of industry and commerce, where, very generally speaking, employees of all grades seem to have less respect for the authority of the employer and his managers. I do not enlarge upon this aspect because other Members of our Lordships' House, more knowledgeable about it than I am, will no doubt do so; and, in any event, I must avoid being contentious.
Turning now to the second part of the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan—that there is a need to reassert the primacy of the law—I should perhaps declare my interest in that I have practised as a solicitor in Scotland for 46 years (and I might say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, that I did pass some exams), I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland and of the Society of Writers to Her Majesty's Signet, and, as such, I am a member of the College of Justice in Scotland: a humble member, indeed, of the legal profession by comparison with the two previous speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner.
I wish to interpret the expression "the primacy of the law" as meaning the primacy of the Judiciary, because, after all, it is the Judiciary which is pre-eminent in the law. I believe that in Scotland, at least—I cannot speak for England, but would be surprised if the situation is any different there—there is no need to reassert the primacy of the law in the way in which I have interpreted that expression. The Judiciary in Scotland is paramount, whether it be the High Court, the Court of Session, the sheriff court or the district court. Their duty in civil matters is to interpret the law, not to make it. This in itself is difficult enough because of the complex nature of modern legislation, much of which in recent years, I regret to say, has been ill-considered and, therefore, inevitably incomprehensible. It is not surprising, therefore, that from time to time the public and Press criticise the judges for delivering what seem to them to be strange decisions, whereas the real fault usually lies with Parliament, which makes the law.

505
So far as criminal law is concerned, the courts in Scotland administer the common law and interpret the statute law, which again derives from Parliament. It sometimes happens that Parliament lays down maximum penalties which are inadequate to act as deterrents to a repetition of the offence, and the judges are criticised for not imposing longer sentences. Furthermore, the Legislature provides for parole boards, which in themselves have the effect of reducing the length of sentences, sometimes for serious crimes. In recent years the Crown has been enjoined by the Executive not to prosecute for certain offences which, by statute, are against the law; whereas the real remedy is for Parliament to change the law.
There is no middle course, no government by edict or by any means not subject to Parliament. The distressing part of public complaint about judges is that because of their position the judges cannot reply. We can, however, be thankful that such complaints by a vociferous minority are rare. To sum up, my Lords, I agree that in Scotland, at least, there has been a decline in respect for authority; but I disagree that there is any need to reassert the primacy of the law as represented by the Judiciary.
4.20 p.m.
Lord HUNT: My Lords, it is always a singular privilege in your Lordships' House to be in a position to congratulate a speaker on his maiden speech. I do not personally know the noble Lord, Lord Kinross, but it is quite obvious that he has engaged the interest of the House in what he has had to say. I think that I would congratulate him on choosing to make his speech on a subject which is almost inevitably a controversial one and so skilfully as to have touched lightly on the most controversial matters. He actually succeeded in mentioning the cane without raising a whisper or a note of dissent from the thinly-attended Benches on my left. He struck a chord of sympathy with me on the subject of his military background and I cannot help thinking that we are all looking forward to hearing him again even though, as I suspect, at his next appearance he may remove his restraints on being controversial.
506
It is a singular privilege to introduce a new speaker but it is a double privilege, on one and the same day, to have introduced a new Member to your Lordships' House and to have been able to congratulate a speaker on his maiden speech. The height of my ambition, notwithstanding any other heights, will be if by any coincidence I am in a position to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, having introduced him to your Lordships' House, on his maiden speech in his turn.
I have two brief apologies to make before inflicting my own speech on your Lordships. First, owing to an engagement in the North of England later tonight, I may not be able to stay throughout the debate and, secondly, an apology to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on coming to your Lordships' House improperly dressed, having the pleasure to declare myself an honorary and locally adopted Welshman—and offer this apology to all good Welshman in this House.
I am glad that the noble Lord—I should like to call him "my noble friend" for he used to sit here and was and still is a good friend—put down this Motion today. It is a measure of the growing concern about the whole subject which he has raised with us that we have, in fact, touched on it on a number of occasions, as your Lordships know, in the last few years in one or other of its aspects. We have talked about—and it has receded I am glad to say—the student challenge to authority in our higher places of education; we have talked about violence in its various forms, including violence of a racial character; we have discussed riots against our staffs in our prisons; and we have discussed pitched battles against the police on our football grounds and in our streets. We have debated quite a number of measures to strengthen the law and how to raise the morale of the police and of our prison officers. We have discussed how to enable the Probation Service to play a fuller part in treating offenders in the community and, in a different context, we have looked at the problems facing teachers in the classrooms—a matter which has been referred to this afternoon—and not least the authority, or lack of it, in the social services.
I have noted very carefully as others have noted—and the noble Lord, Lord Kinross, did the same—the terms in which the

507
noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan has phrased his Motion. They go beyond those related subjects of law and order because not all authority can be imposed or sustained by legislation. Authority—and here I am speaking, I know, with the agreement of everybody, or of nearly everybody, in this House on a note of consensus—is being exploited. It is being exploited, whether to uphold it or to undermine it, from two opposite directions. We all know that it is being exploited by the Socialist Workers' Party for their objective of creating anarchy and replacing that condition with a dictatorship of the Left; and it is being exploited by the National Front—and I am surprised that so far this organisation has not come to significant mention this afternoon—which, posing as the loyal and disciplined citizens who stand for law and order and waving the national flag to good emotional effect, win support on that account alone, quite aside from their racial policies. Their purpose is also clear. It is to pre-empt a state of chaos by proceeding directly to a dictatorship of the Right.
Some of the sources or contributing causes of lawlessness and the weakening of authority in our society, as we know, in whole or in part are external to this country. Some of them, indeed, are global—and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, touched on this—but, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, this afternoon has made it clear that his Motion is intended to deal only with those aspects which are or should be within our capability to deal with and to control.
In the minds of many people—and I do not want to exaggerate: I say "many people"—authority is an outdated and irrelevant word. In some situations, like the word "establishment" which lays claim to authority, it is a dirty word; it is something to be thrown out of the window wherever it exists. It is not only on the football terraces and in the streets that opposition to authority is given expression. In many a home, attempts to assert authority are quite counterproductive. How many noble Lords know this from their own experience as fathers, mothers, grandparents! In some classrooms authority is discernible by its absence. In industry and within the
508
trade union movement, authority is often questioned and ignored. Here we are in Parliament. The authority of Parliament, if it is not directly challenged, is held in a good deal less respect than it should be; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder mentioned this, too. It certainly is held in less respect than is healthy in a Parliamentary democracy. Within the political Parties—my Lords, I shall not proceed for I should be treading on such delicate ground that I will not dare to trespass in this direction.
There are two aspects of the matter of authority raised by the mover of this Motion. First, there is the self-evident, immediate, urgent and continuing necessity to uphold the law, if necessary by sterner measures than are available or are employed at present. I find nothing objectionable—as the Labour Party seems to find—in having resort to short, sharp—and I pause at this point to take note of what my noble friend Lady Wootton has said—prison sentences of strictly disciplinary treatment, carefully controlled and monitored to observe humanitarian considerations. We already have detention centres; the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to them, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. They are, in my view, the appropriate establishments for this kind of treatment, the establishments in which it used to be applied. When I was last in a detention centre as a visitor, that was what I saw going on. It would apply and might be effective and could be just for some hooligans and young thugs. Despite the low success rate, the figures of which have been mentioned, for some success it is, in my view, justified.
I am all for increasing the strength and enhancing the morale of our police forces in any way that we can. I would make a strong plea that this increase should include the special constabulary. There is an immense amount of goodwill towards the police and a readiness to defend society against lawlessness among ordinary, decent citizens. We should use this goodwill and widespread willingness to serve the law. It is far better to have that willingness within the police force than in some private army or other.
Having said that, I make a most urgent plea that fears and anger about the growing disregard for authority and its expression in lawlessness should not prompt us to

509
overreact. I was thankful to hear the Home Secretary say the other night that he is satisfied that he has enough powers at present. I am deeply sceptical from my own experience about the effectiveness of imprisonment, at a cost of nearly £80 a week per inmate, £4,000 a year—the cost of a good class hotel—let alone to reform offenders. I sincerely hope that there will not be a reaction from the Conservative Party and its supporters against parole, community service orders and other measures for treating offenders in the community.
I hope that there will not be a change in the present policy of this Government of shifting the emphasis fom prison towards community measures, on the basis of the total misconception that these are a product of softness, woolly-mindedness and muddle-headed attitudes towards crime. They are not. Community service orders—and we have their author and inspirer here today, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger—are the nearest approach we have yet to making the punishment fit the crime. This is surely a time for cool heads and strong nerves, a time to remember there are many bright aspects in our society which could, sometimes with advantage, be more highlighted than they are. Again, I take note that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, supports me in that view.
I should like now to turn to the other side of the matter. Law enforcement and punishment alone may control the symptoms of the underlying troubles which beset us; they are quite unlikely to strike at the malaise itself. It will not help parental authority, nor will it do anything to create an orderly classroom; nor will it do anything to reduce truancy from schools; nor will it help the inclination of workers to challenge the authority of managements; nor of shop stewards to ignore union instructions.
To turn the tide of disrepect, as distinct from enforcing mere obedience to the arm of the law, in these and other areas of society calls for something much more fundamental and long-term: no less than generating a more universal sense and acceptance of responsibility to match the insistence on rights and on the freedoms which are taken for granted and sometimes abused. It might be thought a politically-unacceptable proposition to prolong the
510
obligation on young people beyond the present statutory age of school-leaving. But, in my view, a practical course in citizenship is at least as important as the minimal academic knowledge which most schools impart to most pupils; most of this other kind of education can take place only in the neighbourhood and in the community.
Mr. Peter Shore—and your Lordships will have read what he is reported to have said—was speaking recently about "the steady loss of social cohesion and national purpose", of "the need to evolve a new work ethic"; about the need "to restore individual responsibility". He also said that "the new society requires values of a different kind". He was talking about materialistic values. Of course he was right. But the question is: how else does Mr. Shore see this quiet revolution taking place?
I criticise our schools for sending out far too many young people, only two years before they will have the right to exercise their votes, inadequately literate or numerate, insufficiently informed or interested in the community in which they will live and work, ignorant of the institutions and affairs of their country and its leaders, and, in alarming numbers, without even the desire, aside from the capability, to read. How many junior citizens could define democracy and freedom in terms which would make for any confidence that democracy in Britain is a living and powerful force? For democracy to survive, especially at a time when it is under attack by its enemies, our young citizens need to understand what it means and how its loss would affect their lives. They need to acquire the will to resist the siren voices of Marxism and National Socialism.
We may not like it, but it is urgently necessary to cultivate this element of responsibility in all our secondary schools. There is only one effective way of doing that; that is, to involve the young in some responsibility themselves. The last year in all schools should have citizenship as its central theme with some practical involvement of all pupils in their neighbourhood needs. Of course a good deal of this is going on already in a number of schools. But the jealously guarded and hallowed powers of local authorities and the independence of school heads makes a

511
patchy picture of progress towards the realisation of a universal principle that education is the lifeblood of a whole nation and of a whole people; it is not for the exclusive benefit of its individual members.
I should like to see that principle extended beyond school, leading into a further commitment to day release from jobs for everyone up to the age of 18, up to the age of full civic responsibility, in which some involvement with community work would be included. Universal further education is one of those ideas which has been advocated by distinguished educationalists a number of times in the past. But their reports have been pigeon-holed because the cost has been deemed too great. Of course there is a big financial cost and there is also a price to be paid in individual freedom. But it is a price which will purchase the priceless asset of individual responsibility, a recognition of the need for authority and a willingness to respect it as a basic condition of continuing democracy.
4.38 p.m.
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE: My Lords, first of all I should like to ask where the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, presides, as he successfully "poached" half my speech and delivered it considerably better than I should have done. During the course of his speech, I felt that a certain note of anxiety crept into his remarks when he was talking about old-fashioned punishments. I should like to tell the noble Lord that, so far as this House is concerned, I think that I must hold the track record: I was beaten 27 times and birched twice at school and I still feel remarkably fit.
I shall try to deal with juvenile delinquency rather than with the subject in general. I start with mugging. This crime is growing nearly every day and it is a repulsive form of behaviour. I would rather not discuss it too deeply because, as one has seen in the Press, it is inclined—rightly or wrongly—to be put down to certain ethnic groups. It is better left out of this debate at the present moment. Then we continue to read about damage to railway property carried out by youths. Trains have had bricks thrown at them as they have passed under bridges. Bricks
512
have gone through engine windows, and the other day a guard was blinded in Scotland. Shoplifting and theft are for ever on the increase. One reads of children, even down to the age of about nine, getting into major sized vehicles and driving them away. There is football hooliganism; and no one can forget that photograph in the Press a day or two ago of the dart sticking into the person's nose—if that dart had been a fraction higher he would have been blinded. There is truancy from school and pre legal-age sex.
What is the cause of all this? I think one way of identifying the cause is to revert to Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, a considerable amount of the trouble now appears to come from juveniles. Without any doubt there is a hard core of older people, but most of the trouble-makers appear to be youths from 12 to 16. I believe that in Northern Ireland we have a force which, by its behaviour and conduct, has done what no other force in the world could accomplish. They are working under the gravest difficulties and when they are not working they suffer the greatest boredom. On the whole, I am sure that we are extremely proud of those troops.
Where we have gone completely wrong is that, at home, we have now lost pride in ourselves, and that is where delinquency and the breakdown of law comes in. The police force is badly undermanned and underpaid; parents frequently cannot be bothered to control their children and they are prepared to give them money to get them out of the house. Then the children go on to the streets and get into trouble. I also think that there is far too great a dependence on the Welfare State. That goes back to the parents again, because they are very often inclined to expect the State to do everything for them. Some of the products of the teacher training colleges are not perhaps as good as they might be. On the other hand, I think that they have a difficult task because they are not always backed up as well as they should be. I cannot believe that these comprehensive schools, which are vast and ever-increasing in size, help education at all. They contain enormous classrooms, and that cannot be right. You get children who are bored and then they start breaking the law.

513
There is a great lack of leisure facilities for children in certain places. I know full well that such facilities cost money but I think that that ought to be made a fairly high priority so as to keep children off the streets. Again, parents, whenever their children become a slight nuisance are inclined to push them in front of the television set. I do not know how bad television is for children because I do not watch it very much—as far as I can see, in this House it always seems to be on the same channel—but obviously there are good and bad programmes. One gathers from the Press that children are very much influenced by programmes containing violence. In addition, there is unemployment among children between, say, 16 and 18. That can do nothing but lead to utter boredom and then they tend to drift into crime. That is what appears to be happening. If I may, I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply to this debate whether there will in future be any further backing for teachers to enforce discipline in schools where the cane or the strap is still used, and whether those things are likely to be brought back into schools where they have been abolished.
4.44 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Marquess on his maiden speech. I looked up his entry into Who's Who and I saw that among his recreations is listed
"striving to exist after dynamic Socialism".
I do not know whether he will count the Socialist speakers this afternoon as sufficiently dynamic for his purpose, beginning with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, but I can assure the noble Marquess he need have no fears: a man who survived 27 beatings at Eton is not going to be abolished by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and others. I am sure we shall all look forward to hearing the noble Marquess again in this House in the future.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for introducing this debate. He started off with some very waspish Party remarks, but I think they will be dealt with firmly by the Minister when he
514
comes to reply. It is not for me to continue the debate on that level and, if I may, I will follow the general tone that the noble Lord adopted during the latter part of his remarks.
The Motion before us seems to assume two major facts—two far-reaching tendencies which are not unnaturally linked. The first is a decline in respect for the law, demonstrated by the continuous increase in crime, and the second is a decline in respect for authority in general, whether at home, in school, at work or anywhere else. Those are the assumptions made, not unreasonably, by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. I myself accept beyond dispute, though criminologists both amateur and professional argue about this, that in recent years there has been a great increase in crime. I think the figures given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in that very telling part of his speech are irresistible. In theory, of course, that could simply refer to what might be called the criminal or near-criminal world, but for the purposes of this discussion I must accept that there has been a considerable decline in respect for the law in our population as a whole. I personally think that fact cannot be resisted.
The question as to whether there has been a general decline in respect of authority is more complex. Certainly there is less automatic respect for authority nowadays, less readiness to govern our lives by rules laid down from outside and less fear of the consequences of breaking those rules. That is a tendency which has been going on steadily over the last half-century and whether it should be described as a decline in respect for authority in general is a semantic question, but the question as to whether it is a good thing or a bad thing is much more interesting. I would certainly not call it either bad or good, without qualification.
In my Roman Catholic Communion, if I may take an example, undoubtedly since Vatican II there has been what many extreme traditionalists would call a decline in respect for authority. Much more stress has been laid throughout the Roman Catholic world on the ultimate supremacy of conscience. There has been an enthusiastic, though sometimes acrimonious, discussion of every possible issue, some of

515
which were previously regarded as sacred and untouchable. In this, the Roman Catholic Church has reflected the spirit of the age and has also contributed significantly to that spirit. Yet I am sure there has never been a time in this country when there was more respect for the authority of a Cardinal than exists at the present time in respect of Cardinal Hume. In other words, there has been a decline in respect for automatic authority but not in any way a decline in the best kind of respect for the leaders of the Church.
Speaking generally, I would regard the freedom of discussion of every possible question under the sun as a genuine step forward in the history of civilisation; but it brings its own attendant perils. It goes hand in hand, in a democratic age, with an insistence on invididual rights—a point which was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Of course, I agree with him entirely that there has not been a corresponding recognition of duties. Individuals have not been slow to realise that these "rights" can best be achieved in collaboration—and it may be a militant collaboration—with those who share their interests. We have seen this factor operating, painfully on occasions, in the activities and pressures of trade unions and professional bodies; and businessmen have pursued their own interests just as remorselessly.
I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in discussing the sinister effects of racialism, where it has raised its head in this country. Some years ago a wealthy and well-known Peer, whom I shall call Lord Moneybags, though that does not happen to be his name, said to me—and I think it reflected his deepest feelings— "People say that Lord Moneybags can look after himself. Well, I can tell you, my dear chap, that Lord Moneybags damned well is looking after himself"; and that gave him great satisfaction. Millions of people today are, for the first time, under an impression which is false in the long run, but in the short run often correct. They are now in a position to follow the noble Lord's guidance.
Personally, I am sure that this insistence on rights has come to stay. Whatever I say about it, and whatever anybody here or in another place says about it, it has come to stay. There is no way of
516
putting the clock back, even if we wish to. The real question is how to take advantage of what is best in the modern spirit and counteract, so far as we can, the antisocial implications. Like everyone else, I am all for an effective law and order policy, and on that issue I would just say a kind of respectful ditto to the very strong argument put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner. But an effective law and order policy, based on a much larger police force, is by no means the same thing as a tougher policy based on more severe penalties for offenders.
What we need are more constructive penalties, instead of the very negative ones—and here I agree with what I think is the implication of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said today and on other occasions—which form so large a part of our penal arrangements. However, the House will be glad to know that this is not the occasion for me to make yet another speech to your Lordships on penal reform. I make only this observation. If I take the adult criminals that I have personally known over many years, I cannot think of a single one who would have been less of a criminal if he had been punished more severely in youth. I can think of very many who would have been rescued from a criminal career if they had been cared for earlier and treated as human beings. Of course, in that way a great detriment could have been avoided, not only to themselves but to society, which means the rest of us.
What does a tough policy mean in practice? I understand that Mr. Whitelaw advocated something along those lines the other day. But I also understand, simply from what I read in the newspapers, that he now regrets having been persuaded to make that speech. Perhaps we can be given more information. But we are told that Mr. Whitelaw is now sitting on the stool of penitence about his speech. If I am mistaken in saying that, then I apologise. But I am trying to give him credit for redemption. However, what does a tough policy mean in practice? I have time for only one illustration, and I am wrapping up this one for a reason that may occur to noble Lords.
Some years ago, a father known to me discovered that his son, aged 15, was associating with dangerous criminals.

517
This father loved his son and was determined to save him from contamination, so he said, "No member of my family is going to associate with criminals", and he tried to save his son from a criminal life. His method of doing so was to give his son a thorough beating. Within the hour, the son had left home and after two or three years was doing terrible damage to the community. Since then, this boy, who is now a young man, has received much kindness in prison and persistent loyalty from his family, and is undergoing an impressive moral reformation. That shows your Lordships what can happen. An illustration can never prove anything; it can only indicate a strong possibility.
What does a caring policy amount to? A friend of mine, in late middle age and in no way a wealthy person, but a strong evangelical Christian, took into his home a young man convicted of brutal offences, which was a very dangerous thing to do. My friend and his family were ready to run the risks involved, so he took prudent precautions as best he could. A great change occurred within a year, and today that young man is holding down an excellent job and has undergone a complete transformation. In one case, beating leads to grave crimes, and, in the other, there is the Christian attitude which I have just mentioned.
What of the future? As I say, it is no good trying to bring back a society based on fear, which is not to say that fear of the consequences of breaking the law can ever be altogether excluded from human society. My illuminating friend, Malcolm Muggeridge, as noble Lords may have seen, was recently distinguishing in America between the servitude of Soviet Russia, servitude towards the State, and the servitude of America—a servitude which he was bold enough to describe as servitude towards the selfish ego. He was delivering a religious message at a religious gathering. I entirely agree with what he said on that occasion, that, ideally, we must not worship the State, we must not worship ourselves—we must worship God. But today I am talking in secular terms.
Quite a number of us have studied—some of us have studied together—or even taught political philosophy. The noble Lord, Lord Fulton, will know well what I am talking about—he happens to be the
518
first noble Lord who catches my eye. The key question there, it will be recalled, is that of political obligation: Why do I feel that I ought to obey the law, even when I do not agree with it; even when it does not suit me? Many different answers have been given to this question down the ages, but, unless there is a strong sense of political obligation, there can be no cohesion in the State, which is only another way of saying—to go back to the point made so well by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—that no State can prosper if insistence on rights is not balanced by a recognition of duties.
I had this in mind yesterday in the New Horizon Youth Centre where, for some years, some of us have been helping large numbers of perplexed and disorientated young people. I was talking to a fine-looking young man who had been incarcerated twice, though he is only 21, once in a detention centre—and detention centres have come under discussion today—and once in prison; once for stealing two cars and once for possessing an offensive weapon. I found myself asking him, perhaps a little pedantically, about his respect for authority. I recalled, as I did so, a story that may be remembered by a few people who were at the same school as I was, though well before the time of the noble Marquess, about one of our schoolmasters who was called Broadbent. He had an irresistible penchant for talking Latin to all and sundry. Seeing a small boy fishing by the river he addressed him, "Ave Piscator", to which the little chap replied, "Hello, old fishface".
The young man looked at me rather as the little boy looked at Broadbent, but he gave me an answer which typifies the attitude of vast numbers of present-day adolescents. I shall not attempt to imitate the voice in which he said it, but he replied "I will play straight with the law, if the law will play straight with me". That is a very typical attitude among the adolescents of today. Stated like that, the point of view would be discouraging. But that young man went on to tell me yesterday that, though he came out of the detention centre and prison full of resentment, he had encountered real friendship in this centre—and, of course, there are many others like it—and he had formed a new kind of attitude to life. Of course, that is not the whole story.

519
What does authority stand for in the eyes of young people who have no special expectations of success and no initial advantages? There is so much in authority which they see, not altogether unreasonably, as unacceptable—the remoteness; the unaccountability of those who rule them; the corruption, no doubt exaggerated by the media, but more widespread, in fact, than it should be. Nevertheless, at the most fundamental level it comes back to this. Whether we be important in the State, or little people, we cannot determine the future of other human beings, but we can make all the difference to their prospects. Despite the noble efforts of countless individuals, we are still a society which scandalously neglects the needs of those, most of all the young, who most require our help. There is no reason why we should go on doing so for ever.
5 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I should also like to congratulate the two maiden speakers to whom we have had the privilege of listening this afternoon. The standard of all speeches so far has been remarkably high—well up to the standard of debate in this House—and the two maiden speeches have come well up to that standard. May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for bringing this subject to our attention this afternoon.
Noble Lords may be surprised to know that in a local survey undertaken for the pending by-election by the Party of which I have the honour to be a member, the first two worries of the electorate were prices and law and order; immigration was a long way down the list. I believe that it will be no surprise to your Lordships to realise that the country is indeed desperately worried at this time about the flouting of law and order.
When I was trying to think of something to say this afternoon which might possibly be original, I asked myself where we all went wrong. Surely it was we who went wrong. It seems to me that we left the straight and narrow immediately after the last war. Having been widowed once, I married again and was the mother then of two small children. I was amazed, thankful and could not quite take it in
520
that at the end of the war I had not only my husband but two small children. We were still a family. My instant reaction was to spoil that family, and I did so quite hopelessly; I was so grateful that I had got them.
I believe that we allowed our families, the present young people, to flout our laws and our authority at any time that they chose without bringing them up short, as our parents would have done. Following that period, which lasted for about five years, there was a fashion for about 20 years of freedom of expression and freedom to do as one liked, with no discipline and no respect for law and order. In the fullness of time, that has brought about what was to be expected: that the young people of today, brought up by one generation back, have no discipline. Indeed, this applied to some of their parents, too.
I do not intend to spend my time this afternoon looking back. Perhaps noble Lords will agree with me that when we were young our parents used to say, "Oh, wasn't it so much better before the war?" Each generation has said this, but we are moving forward, in which direction we do not know. Our values and standards are changing and we are part of that changing system. In my few remarks—few because time is getting on and there is a large number of speakers—I want to highlight young adolescents and their future. For 20 years we have adopted the kid glove approach to crime and punishment. Even today, some people believe that young people who take and drive away other people's cars are not committing a serious crime. I happen to think that it is. They also believe that smashing up other people's property is not very serious. In order to be able slightly to turn back the wheel we must adopt a more realistic and positive approach to young people; and by "young" I mean those between the ages of 16 and 21 or 22.
When I consider the reasons for the increase in crime to which other speakers have referred this afternoon, I also put boredom first. Boredom occurs because parents are not taking enough interest in bringing up their children and because nobody seems to have the right priorities regarding the provision of places which will prevent the onset of boredom in

521
young people. Local authorities spend vast sums of money upon new roads and new libraries. They also spend vast sums of money upon swimming pools which are, of course, of use to young people. However, except for the provision of a few skateboard parks by some local authorities, they do not provide sufficient places to which young people can go to be entertained.
The second reason for the increase in crime I put down to unemployment. I am not one of those who in this context put unemployment at the door of the Government. Indeed, in this very difficult situation I know that the Government are trying to persuade employers to take on young people and I understand that they are giving money to employers to do so. That is a help, but if you are a young person and you are bored and unemployed you turn to the easiest way to get money.
It is almost impossible to legislate for the lack of excitement and challenge in young people's lives today. One can try to adopt measures—something which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, knows a great deal more about than I do—which will provide a challenge for young people. It is not necessary to provide such a challenge for all young people. I am fortunate enough to be dealing with a wonderful set of young people all over the country who, given the challenge of looking after geriatric or psychiatric patients or subnormal children, welcome that challenge and fulfil it to the utmost of their ability. These young people represent the cream of the future generation.
Another reason for the increase in crime is the realisation that crime can and does pay. Yet another reason is the lack of parental guidance. How often do we hear any parents say, "Don't do this; it will get you into trouble"? We hear it practically never. Young people are left to find out for themselves the trouble that they can get into. One noble Lord mentioned television. I am worried about television, not necessarily because of the programmes but principally because while the parents are watching television they allow their children to go out, either to play or to get into trouble.
How do we deter the future young criminal? As has been mentioned so very eloquently by those more able to
522
speak than I, the police must be the first consideration. The police force must know from us that we think that they are a highly dedicated force. We must give them our support. For both of those reasons they must receive more pay. I understand that their morale is low. Those police whom I deal with in my juvenile court are a marvellous band of men, and I hope that as a result of this debate today the police will realise that we do worry very sincerely that they are leaving the force in such numbers.
I turn to the question of the punishment fitting the crime. When an old lady is knocked down by three youths in the street in the evening, and the youths, having knocked her down, escape, what punishment can one give if those youths are caught? Very, very few are. I suggest that crimes of robbery with violence, of which mugging is one, should be dealt with much more severely than we are dealing with them now. That is why I support my right honourable friend Mr. Whitelaw when he suggests a far more severe sentence for a very short time—I would say 28 days, but perhaps two months would be more realistic—for those who commit crimes with violence, in that category only and in the 16 to 22 age group only.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also suggested community service orders. These are working, but, unfortunately, as the noble Lord will know, no one under 17 is eligible for that particular form of help within the community. This type of order has only recently—two months ago—come to my petty sessional division, and we are beginning to use it. I hope it will have a good effect on the criminal people in our petty sessional division. To state my views, I would certainly be against the birch or the cane administered as a result of an appearance in court. However, I do not think, from all that I have heard in my long life, that a cuff round the ears or a good spank on the posterior ever did any child any harm at all if administered at once and on the spot by a parent, or, I would hope, by a teacher.
I shall not take up the time of your Lordships, but I should like to say one or two words about the future, because the future of these young people is vastly important. I am quite certain that the vast proportion of the adolescents in this

523
country today will make good citizens and, eventually, good parents. But I should also like to support the suggestion—I think it was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—that the education in the last year at school should be almost primarily given over to teaching the children about citizenship and family life. One can do this, I suggest, by giving them broader horizons during this last year. I would like them to come to magistrates' courts, to be taken to High Courts, to go round hospitals and to see people worse off than themselves—the subnormals, the geriatrics, the psychiatrics—people who are not able to go out into society and run about as they are able to do. I would like them to attend council meetings and to be taken round picture galleries, and all sorts of things that in their lives they would probably not normally think of doing.
The responsibility for the past the present and the future is ours; that is, it is the responsibility of the parents, the legislators, the teachers and the Church leaders, to name just some. But we must get our priorities right and do far more to encourage the younger people of this country to lead happy, honest and industrious lives. At the same time, we must give them the responsibility for their own future as law abiding citizens.
5.15 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I am sure we are all most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for giving us this opportunity to debate a very serious subject, though I confess I was a little saddened by his rather partisan approach, at any rate in the beginning of his speech, for surely this is not a Party political matter at all and should not be so treated. There are no easy solutions to the deep-laid problems to which reference has been made, and certainly not solutions on Party lines. If one considers, for example, the complexity of the relationship of the deterrents to crime by punishment, I cannot help but be reminded—if I may be permitted to quote a very telling illustration which I have heard my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner give—that at a time when picking pockets was a capital offence and when executions were carried out in public, the art of the pickpocket never flourished more than at the actual time
524
when a public execution was taking place.
The whole question of respect for law is one which is crucial to the survival of our democratic society, and there has undoubtedly been a steep and historical decline during this century, and especially since the last war, of such respect. This is a universal matter in the Western world; it is not just a feature of any one country, and certainly not of our own. The matters upon which stress is rightly laid are no more than symptoms of very deep malaise in our society, whether we refer to the vast increase in crime, particularly violent crime, or the increase in vandalism, which is almost a new form of activity and one which in many instances appears to display a hatred of the whole social order. We have the rejection of the authority of any of the established organisations, whether it he police, universities, schools, the family and so on. And, of course, we have political demonstrations which appear to be aimed not at the pursuing of legitimate political objectives but simply concerned with fomenting subversion and disorder, and linked with this very often the deliberate stirring up of racial antagonisms. Last but not least in this sad catalogue is something which, curiously enough, has not been mentioned this afternoon, and that is the whole problem of terrorists and urban guerrillas, with which, alas! we are not unfamiliar in the United Kingdom, whether we speak of the IRA, or the Baader Meinhof gang, where we have groups of people who appear to want to substitute for law as we understand it the law of the gunman and the total rejection of the established order.
What lies behind this, I would venture to suggest, among other things, is a breakdown of the accepted values of our society; and one of the principal sufferers in this respect is the supreme value of upholding the law itself. We find at the present day groups and sections of people who reject any law which they regard as objectionable, and engage in deliberate campaigns of disobedience to the law and the defiance of its authority.
The rather melancholy case, as I confess I regard it, of the Clay Cross councillors is, let it be admitted, no more than an example. Your Lordships could consider,

525
for example, the activities of many very respectable middle-class people—if I may use that term—in our society at present who object possibly to some highway which is to be placed across part of the country, or some arrangement as regards road traffic in their particular district and who are prepared to come along when a lawful inquiry is held and engage in a deliberate process of disruption in order to prevent the legal process being maintained. There was an example reported, imagine correctly, not so long ago where even so eminently a respectable character as the headmaster of a very well known public school was apparently associated with a process of disruption of that kind. Therefore, the problem is quite widespread and cannot be said to be located in any one particular section of society.
I venture to suggest too, that Parliament itself has made a large contribution to this departure from respect for law, by reason of the endless stream of ill-conceived and unenforceable legislation—
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, reprimanded me at the beginning of his speech for what he considered to be my partisan comments. He is now repeating them for me one by one by criticising Clay Cross and saying that Parliament is processing too much undigested legislation. To which of my remaining remarks does he object? Will he let us know before he sits down?
Lord LLOYD of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I am bound to say that I am a little surprised by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, because I thought that the way in which I approached the matter of the Clay Cross councillors indicated the total absence of a partisan spirit. As regards the question of passing an endless stream of ill-conceived legislation, that was not, as I imagine your Lordships fully grasped from the manner in which I presented this point, intended to be an attack on any particular Government—this one or any other—but simply a characteristic of w hat has been happening since the war. Government after Government have passed vast quantities of ill-digested legislation which in many cases is unwanted by the public and certainly not understood by them. That occurs
526
in matters great and small. We have, for instance, such an example as the anti-litter legislation which was passed some years ago. I am not aware of any prosecutions having been brought, although there may possibly have been one or two.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I have actually been engaged in one at Exeter Quarter Sessions.
Lord LLOYD of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Viscount has such a wide experience of every facet of litigation that it has evidently fallen to his lot to deal with one such matter. However, I think that even he would recognise that that is probably, if not a unique case, a very rare one. I was venturing to point out that we have only to look around our streets to find that the effect of that legislation is either non-existent or certainly minimal.
I hope that nobody will accuse me of being partisan, but as regards industrial relations it is my view—certainly not in a partisan sense—that the Industrial Relations Act 1971 was an extraordinarily unfortunate piece of legislation as regards the effect it had in diminishing respect for law. It was particularly harmful because it led to the disastrous misconception that law has no place whatsoever in resolving industrial disputes. It is my view, certainly based on the experience that can be derived from the practice in many other developed countries such as Australia, Sweden, and so on, that the law can play an absolutely fundamental part in producing good industrial relations. However, what one needs for that purpose is an appropriate framework of law and not a straitjacket. By introducing a piece of legislation which I think was totally misconceived, the strong tendency was encouraged—in many quarters in a most unfortunate way—that law was irrelevant to industrial disputes. By encouraging such a belief the whole task of the resolution of industrial disputes—a matter of immense importance in our society—has been made very much more difficult.
I should like to conclude my rather random remarks by making a few suggestions which might possibly serve to assist in creating a greater respect for law. First, all political Parties should combine to uphold public order. There should be a completely non-partisan approach on

527
this question. For instance, it is great nonsense, in my opinion, to put forward arguments that some fundamental freedom is being assailed when people are prevented from indulging in marches along the public highway in populated areas and shouting inflammatory, provocative, anti-racial slogans directed to sections of the populace who are known to live in large numbers in those areas.
There is really no sense in trying to make any kind of Party point that a Government which enforces the Public Order Act 1936 are in some way engaging in a fundamental encroachment on human liberty. I deplore the attempt of some of the media to run an attack along those lines. Those of us who are old enough—and I am sorry to say that I am—to remember very clearly the activities of Sir Oswald Mosley and his black-shirted fascists in the streets of London, especially in the East End, will have no difficulty whatever in accepting the philosophy of the Public Order Act.
Perhaps I may venture a point as regards the danger sometimes of having very broadly and vaguely expressed catalogues of so-called human rights embodied in Constitutions, because the control of activities of this sort may be rendered very difficult. For instance, in the United States it has quite recently been ruled by courts that neo-Nazis parading in the uniforms of SS troopers are fully entitled under the Constitution to march down the streets in areas heavily populated by Jewish residents, thereby indulging in what is highly provocative and inflammatory behaviour which, so far as I can see, is of no social benefit to any human being.
There is surely a duty on us all—Parliament, Government, the courts or the public—to do everything possible to uphold the rule of law. That means a number of things. First, Parliament should avoid conferring uncontrollable powers on the Executive. Give the Executive powers by all means, but do not give it powers which cannot be controlled. Here is where the courts have a considerable role to play. It has been left to the courts in this country to develop what we now call administrative law, and it is fair to say that until very recently they did not do it very well. However, in recent years they have adopted a more vigorous
528
approach and they are much to be applauded in this respect. But we need an administrative law similar to that which is carried out in many European countries at the present time—in France by the Conseil d'Etat—where there is power not merely to keep public authorities within their powers but also to prevent abuse of power. This is a perfectly normal thing for a judicial tribunal to do and I can see no reason why our courts should not carry out that function. Indeed, they are moving quite steadily in that direction.
This does not mean—and this is sometimes misunderstood—that the Government, the Executive, are not to be given large areas of discretion. Government means discretion. It means, however, that there must be provision within the legal system to ensure that this discretion is not abused. If one may give an example which has been much discussed recently—the question of pay guidelines and the so-called sanctions on those pay guidelines—it seems to me that there is nothing wrong in a Government laying down pay guidelines if they regard this as in the public interest, and even endeavouring to control, within their discretion and powers, the activities of those who may influence the observance of the pay guidelines. However, what we need to ensure is that the powers or discretion which the Executive is exerting are subject to law, that the courts can ensure that there is no abuse.
My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner delivered a very powerful encomium on the legal profession and the Judiciary, and as a lawyer myself I feel great sympathy with everything he said. I am sure that much of the abuse that is heaped on the unfortunate heads of the legal profession is the result of misunderstanding and to some extent to campaigns which may be worked up by the media. At the same time, I think it is fair to point out that there is also an onus on the Judiciary in these matters. I yield to no one in my admiration of our own Judiciary. I think our Judiciary is quite remarkable and, despite what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was pointing out, it enjoys considerable respect at the hands of the community. But I venture to suggest that although judges in this country normally exercise tremendous restraint and refrain from making broad assertions from the bench, there are

529
occasions when judges yield to this temptation. This is very unfortunate and is one of the things which diminishes respect for the Judiciary. The bench is not a pulpit for public admonitions or for the expression of personal viewpoints, and although this happens only rarely when it occurs it does a good deal of harm.
The public must be educated to understand that the law cannot be set aside or disregarded because it may in some cases lead to results which we do not like. If we do not like the law there is a democratic process for trying to change it.
For the reasons I have given—I am sorry to say at rather too great length—I welcome this debate, especially if it leads, as I hope it will, to a better understanding by the public—if anybody responds to it by reading Hansard—of the crucial need for respect for the law as an essential value in our democratic society.
5.35 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, as might be expected there have been many references today to the police, their numbers, their problems and their difficulties, but always expressed in very general terms. Perhaps that is not surprising because as yet we have not had any very precise lead from the Government about these difficulties. I quote from the Daily Telegraph of 24th February when the Home Secretary was reported as saying at a meeting—
"On behalf of the Government I make it clear that we will provide the resources and the manpower to enable all our citizens to go peaceably about their lawful business."
Any of us could have said that, but what we want to know is a little more about the size of the problem and what we can do to help solve it. I submit that the manpower shortage is a good deal bigger than most people realise. It is not just one of more recruits but also of conditions of service, so enabling the police to keep the good men who today are all too ready to leave after five or 10 years' service.
I shall attempt to do better than the Home Secretary and give some figures. I have tried to work out the numbers necessary to increase every relief in the metropolitan police area by two. That is not very much, and many sergeants
530
and station officers will say that it is not enough. The figure that I come to is 4,500 men as a minimum. The calculation is simple, and I will show how I arrived at it. If I am wrong it will give the Minister's advisers time to work it out and he can give the correct figures when he comes to wind up.
I believe there are something like 170 police stations in the metropolitan police area each working on three reliefs per 24 hours. That means just over 500 reliefs, and if the figure is accepted that nine men must be added to strength in order to ensure an additional two men on duty round the clock, it would come to a figure of rather over 4,500. That is for London alone. What about the rest of England? This problem is formidable enough on numbers; it is also formidable on pay. But it is not just a question of pay. Quality is as important as quantity. We must not forget that there must be a fair proportion between PCs and WPCs because for many duties a WPC is not able to substitute for a PC—and I say this with some diffidence, surrounded by women as I stand here. There must be no lowering of standards. Of those men recruited, some must be of the quality who in time will be capable of rising to the highest jobs. If not, the problems of leadership in the police, which are big enough today, will become even bigger. Then there is the time factor. While a young man in uniform with very little training can do a great deal, he cannot do everything—and I shall return to this later.
The police call the first two years of a man's service, "probation"; that speaks for itself. It takes time to become a seasoned PC and that is where we are so short today. Meanwhile, the police presence on the streets is sadly lacking. Men are just not there, and "make believe" has gone on long enough. We are all full of admiration for the success of the operation at Ilford last Saturday when, I believe, statistically more than 25 per cent. of all men on duty in the met police area last Saturday afternoon has to be drawn into Ilford. In addition, we must think of police cover in other parts of London, so drained of manpower as to leave large areas a thieves' paradise for a number of hours, and good people paying rates and taxes in London expect differently from this.

531
I shall now quote another example of what can happen today. I was reluctant to mention it; an incident where I was present myself. As I do not want to be indiscreet or disloyal, but your Lordships' House rates personal experience highly and the gist of what I shall say is familiar to every villain in London. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who is not in his place at the moment, knows that I have been trying to find out about what we all expect of a police constable of today. His life is really not so very different from that of the rest of us and it is a pity that over recent years the police have become quite so close and inward-looking.
Not long ago, in pursuit of this interest I arranged to visit a certain police station and, as the joining instructions describe, I was to arrive,
"ready to accompany an officer on normal duty. If necessary, protective clothing will be provided".
I turned up. I shall not exaggerate this story or gild the lily, as one might say, because the point of the story is clear enough, but I shall dissemble a little so as not to disclose in which part of London it happened. It was not the roughest part of London, but a lot was going on and having heard what I have to say I would not wish any noble Lord who might happen to live in the area in question to lie uneasy in his bed at night.
On that night, there were barely enough regular men to man the office and two Panda cars. Beyond that there was one special constable with less than one year's service available to patrol on foot. The whole town was his; it was not a question of being tied to one beat. He received his instructions, drew his radio and a torch and he set off with me as an extra pair of eyes and ears. I should have liked a torch too, considering the dark places that we were going to, but I was much too shy to ask for one. There was no other man walking for miles in any direction. It was only a matter of minutes before I became full of admiration for this man's skill, considering his short service, and the very good manners he had with people. By making the most of his single uniform in the high streets and at busy street corners, he not only tried to create a police presence but he did, in
532
fact, create it. In contrast, he knew how to be unobtrusive when we were exploring dark alleys and the sordid areas behind car parks where things happen at nights. Nor did we forget to patrol the public lavatories. I reckon that I have been out with PCs often enough to tell when a man is alert and doing his duty as against someone who is something of a uniform carrier.
Having a prudent nature, I made sure that he kept testing his radio, but we ran into nothing serious. There were plenty of things of minor interest, not least burglar alarms going off in error, one after another. After several hours in the wet and cold that night, we thought it time to go in, and in the spirit of this trade union age when neither of us was being paid, this was not so dreadful. Frankly, I do not know what happened during the rest of that night, but I am sure that something will have been contrived.
That night, I went home proudly feeling that I had not just been a visitor but that I had been part of the system and that he, or we—if I may say this without sounding presumptuous—had done this job as well as most 19 or 20 year-old regulars would have done it, and maybe better. Of course, we had no serious trouble calling for a young man's muscle. But we had the radio and we knew that there was a Panda car to back us up, even if it was some distance away. I shall not give my companion's age away, but our joint ages totalled 119 years. Although we must all admit that exacting police duties can be carried out only by highly trained professionals, not all police duties are so exacting and there is great scope for auxiliaries to help in increasing the probability of detection on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, placed so much emphasis.
I shall now return to a favourite theme of mine—namely, preventive policing, about which the Home Office is so coy. After neglecting preventive policing for some years, it is now becoming the "in" thing. Last year's Ditchley Conference had protective policing as its theme and I cannot understand why the Home Office has cloaked this conference in quite unnecessary secrecy, not least as one of the papers has been printed and published. In 1978, more prominence will be given to the theme of protective policing in the

533
teaching at Bramshill, and it is likely to be the theme of the next ACPO Association of County Councils Joint Conference. I am sure noble Lords will agree that all this will be all to the good.
There are, of course, experiments taking place in enlightened parts of the country. I shall mention only one. In Humberside, there are special anti-vandalism patrols which are in contact with the caretakers and headmasters of schools. This experiment is in its early stages but I believe that the system is showing great promise. If any noble Lord wants any more information about preventive policing, I recommend that he studies the writings of John Alderson, who is now Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall and who was not so long ago Commandant of the Police College at Bramshill. In November last, I quoted him in a speech as saying that many right-thinking men and women could, after some training and with professional back-up in men and resources, help the police in their own neighbourhood on limited duty. He has made much of this in some of his writings. My evenings out with policemen—not only in London and elsewhere in this country, but also abroad—have convinced me that that is so and have further convinced me that, in the foreseeable future, the task of doing all they have to is beyond the regular police alone while they are at short strength. Of this they have no reason at all to be ashamed.
I would urge the Government to give a lead to the public and not rely simply on general terms such as I quoted at the beginning of my speech. I want them to go further than guarded departmental words or else slogans about beating burglars and locking up bicycles, That is just not enough. I should like to hear a call to service in ringing terms, such as will get a response from men and women of goodwill all over the country to help the police in their task which at present stretches their resources to the utmost. This is no more than the historic duty of every fit man in the country, and it is as pressing today as it ever was.
5.47 p.m.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I do not think that I shall be able to match the stirring speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I should like to
534
make a very brief intervention in this debate, which will be strictly non-professional. My fears were originally aroused by the terms in which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, brought this Motion before us. I expected a dive into the political nostalgia of the good old days—hanging, flogging, and all that kind of thing. But my worst fears were confirmed by the way in which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, introduced this debate, because he said absolutely nothing, but made a few rather scurrilous remarks about Labour Governments. The distingushed mantle of his illustrious cousin, John Strachey, has certainly not fallen on him, for whether or not one agreed with John Strachey, he was a great thinker and a very stimulating and rather wonderful writer.
I wish to intervene with a few general remarks which I think relate to the rise of crime in this country today—in fact, in this age. However, I am not a lawyer, so I shall study what has been said by all the lawyers who have contributed to the debate; I do not simply have to read what they say, but I must study it because ordinarily I cannot follow legal language very easily. Therefore, I shall not touch upon the Judiciary, for the best of whom I have the greatest respect.
First, the words "law and order" find rather chilling. In the United Nations they are used mostly by delegates from countries which employ torture in their Judiciary, and they use them in defence of their actions. These delegates come from several Latin American countries, from some South-East Asian countries, and a few others. I believe that the accelerating changes of this technological and scientific age we live in have a great deal to do with the increase in crime, because equality and human rights have not kept up with the advance in the technological and scientific spheres. Social and economic changes have not kept up with them.
The primacy of the law is the touchstone of the Judiciary. Many of the reasons for the rise in crime come right outside this. The noble Lord, Lord Kinross, in his charming maiden speech—and I am sorry that I did not hear the maiden speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, but I shall read it—emphasised that education was one of the factors which we must take account of when we blame those who

535
indulge in crime. Really there can be no doubt that we still maintain a mostly élitist education system. We have not given most of the finance to comprehensive education; we have not improved our comprehensive education; we have not improved our primary education, to the extent that we have improved our colleges of education. This has definitely had an influence on the crime rate. For how can many of our children, without a proper education, without training and so without opportunities, face up to the glittering prizes which they see people obtain quickly in this scientific and technological society?
I call it the "temptation society". I personally am not against advertising, but I am very much against advertising when there is great unemployment, as there is especially among young people in this country, in other countries, and in America. When I was in New York at the end of the year at the United Nations I watched television. I watched the pressure of the advertising to buy, buy, and buy, and wondered what effect this had on the young black unemployed. It seemed to me that it must have a terrible effect. Of course the crime rate is very high there. It is the same here where there is high unemployment among youngsters.
People mention football hooliganism. I think that here too the lack of opportunity for glamour, for achievement; the inability to get the typical glamour and achievement of, say, pop stars, footballers and others, also has an effect. It creates an envy. It is all very fine people saying, "Oh, it is just envy, and therefore it is no good". It is just this envy which leads to a certain amount of crime. Actually, there is very little wrong with envy when it is a spur to achievement and getting on in the world, but when the opportunity is not there, of course, we sort of brush it aside.
This idea coming from the right honourable Mr. Whitelaw of all people, who was so wonderful when he was in Northern Ireland and we all admired him, of these short, sharp sentences, is really a great letdown. I think that Members of Parliament should not only visit prisons, should not only go and look at them and see what is going on, but they should have three weeks in the year to go and live in prisons, and stay there, and see what it is like, and
536
see the monotony, and then I do not think that they would talk so readily about short, sharp sentences, or long sentences. I think we would have something quite different.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, would the noble Baroness allow me to intervene? I can vividly remember the first four weeks of my National Service 20 years ago. From my observations, those days of my youth were far harder than anything that the noble Baroness is referring to now. I can remember them vividly, and I do not need three weeks in the year to go back.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am sorry; I believe that you had a very hard time, but very many young people in this country are having a much harder time than I think you could ever endure. However, I am ready to believe anything you say about it. There is very little more that I want to add. When I think of the age we live in, I think that a great surge, a great tide of equality must come about before we can have any kind of reduction in crime. After all, there have been a great many international changes towards equality. Look what has happened in the international field. We have to pay more for our oil and raw materials. There is much more equality between nations, and there has to be even more. Well, we need more equality in our own country. By that I do not mean that everybody has to earn 25 shillings a week. I do not mean anything so infantile as that. If equality does not increase—and by that I mean real equality—during this age, I shall feel rather depressed when I think of the life that our children and our grandchildren will have to endure.
5.57 p.m.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I feel sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord O'Hagan, not least because his Motion sired two splendid speeches from my noble friends Lord Kinross and Lord Tweeddale. I now know that their names will only need to appear on the annunciators for the Library, the corridors, the tea-room and the bars to be totally deserted. We must also be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for initiating this debate, for it raises issues of the greatest importance, not least fundamental juristic and political issues.

537
Referring to the juristic approach, not being a lawyer and not having been subjected to the fine intellectual discipline of legal training and practice, I find this approach most difficult, and I ask for your Lordships' understanding, in this veritable eyrie of legal eagles, of any confusion of thought and any infelicities of style. However, I believe the law to be far too important a subject to be left to the lawyers.
Before one can consider the decline in respect for authority, I feel that one must first consider the nature of authority and from whom that authority receives its mandate, and why. Should any of your Lordships feel that I am delighting in sterile semantics, may I remind your Lordships of Professor J. L. Austin's happy observation that:
"We may use a sharpened awareness of words to sharpen our awareness of the phenomena."
Fundamentally, there are three authorities, and three alone. They are, in my humble view, and in the order in which we experience them, parental authority, divine or moral authority, and sovereign or State authority, and they are all interlinked. The first and in many ways quite the most important of these is parental authority, for its mandate is found in sweet, unquestioning, natural love, affection and respect. We can safely forget Oscar Wilde's slick cynicism when he observed:
"Children begin by loving their parents. They then get to know them and they never forgive them."
It is in the very early years of understanding that the seeds of disrespect are sown. One of the most insidious and dangerous results of creeping Socialism is the erosion of respect for any individual or institution that commands authority, which is in direct proportion to the State eroding the dignity of parents by removing from them their ability to exercise their duties, obligations and responsibilities to their young and to their fellow men.
I am convinced that Socialism will be seen to have contributed more than any other single factor to the breakup of the nuclear and extended family in that, by believing, inter alia, in a high taxation economy, they have driven the mothers into the factories and offices and the
538
children into amorphous groups at too young an age. If the State treats its adults as children, they will behave like children. Even the Warsaw Pact countries are becoming concerned at the social effect on their young as a result of young mothers working and young children being herded into their much-vaunted crèches and nurseries.
I do not pretend that this is an easy problem to solve, but I believe passionately that everything should be done to make it easier in this complex society of ours to strengthen and not weaken family ties, for, once the smallest and quite the most important unit in society breaks up, the fabric of society disintegrates. There are many examples in history to substantiate this point. I despair. I see this destruction of the family happening all around us and frankly I do not know whether this distressing trend can ever be reversed.
As the child becomes older, becomes more aware, an additional and associated authority is accepted. In a Christian society we think of this as divine authority; indeed, on each sitting day of your Lordships' House we declare and accept this authority. We pray,
"O Lord, our heavenly Father, high and mighty, King of kings, Lord of lords, the only Ruler of princes."
And again:
"Almighty God, by whom alone kings reign and princes decree justice, and from whom alone cometh all counsel, wisdom and understanding".
Noble Lords will see that divine authority is analogous to parental authority, in that we vest the authority in a personal deity; this is fundamental to Christianity. However, rather than offend the delicate sensibilities of the humanists of our unholy mother the State, I will call this authority moral authority or the paramount authority of conscience. It was interesting to note only last week that the Prime Minister of East Germany, in justifying certain social policies, had the German word kommunistisch translated as "humanist"; once again, we see that authority must be given its mandate freely by those over whom the authority will be exercised.
To put it another way, every parent—and the State, if it must—has a strict and solemn responsibility to nurture and enrich

539
in the heart of the child its awareness of conscience, of the moral authority, with the guidance and influence of spiritual leaders and spiritual literature. How high a priority is spiritual education—a "leading out", for that is what education means—given in our State schools? I do not know, but I suspect that it is given meagre and thus useless attention.
Many might think that the Churches have abrogated much of their influence and guidance by passing to the State so many of the duties and obligations of their ministries. People used to go "on the parish"; they now go "on the State". Many might point to the obscene silence of the Churches on the vicious subject of Northern Ireland. However, much is said and much good is done, though no churchman would believe other than that much more could be done. But we read little of this in the media, for they persistently insist on reporting only what is had and not what is good. I ask: are the Government and spiritual leaders indirectly encouraging the erosion of moral authority by their lack of concern and understanding of this vital and very real authority?
The third authority is sovereign authority. Again, happily, we in this country see that it is a personal authority vested tacitly by the people and symbolised in the person of the Monarch, our sovereign lady the Queen, and again it has its base in love—love of country—for, as with Thomas Hobbes' men, the people agree not with their ruler but each with every other to obey the sovereign Leviathan. I ask those who may think that this is so much romantic nonsense to cast their minds back to the summer of 1977. There, they will see the reality of the mandate given by the people to their ruler and, through her, to her Government and the institutions of our country.
This leads me to attempt to illustrate how that, in the second part of the wording of the Motion, insidious Socialist thinking can enter the minds and hearts of even the most Conservative. The assumption implicit in the phrase "the primacy of the law"—namely, that the law is pre-eminent and that it is authority, something above us, something apart from us—is fundamentally unsound and confusing. It is this piece of Socialist thinking that, in my untutored view, has been responsible
540
more than almost any other single factor for bringing Parliament, the legislature and the law into serious disrepute.
The law is not authority. The law is our reward and not our master. To paraphrase the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning (I think in the High Trees case), the law is a shield and not a bludgeon. The law issues, or should issue, from the people. It is part of us. It is for our protection so that we may live in peace in the way in which we choose, subject to respect for the lives and property of our fellow men. I believe that this fundamental misunderstanding of the function of law has in the past few decades led directly to much bad law. It has led to our legislators using the law as a means whereby the State can impose its political philosophy on its people. It has led to the belief that the law can and should entrench rights. To think of the law in this way is to take the long route to totalitarianism. But it takes a great deal of juristic determination to perceive of "rights", to quote Professor H. L. A. Hart,
"As a conception of moral rules, as not only prescribing conduct but as forming a kind of moral property of individuals to which they are, as individuals, entitled."
Odd consequences must and do flow from this thinking. The Seventh Commandment does not give spouses the right not to have adulterous actions performed. We see bad law in the multiplicity and complexity of the law; in law by decree—the bundles of Statutory Instruments referred to so eloquently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. A former Lord Chancellor said in this House when speaking to a clause in some Bill, "I cannot pretend to understand this". The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said of one clause during the debate on the Criminal Law Bill in this House that it was "one gigantic intellectual puzzle". If the lawyers do not understand the law as it is enacted by Parliament, what hope is there for the people?
It should never be forgotten that it is the legislators who bring the law into disrespect. The current debate on the future of the legal profession is a good example of Parliament finding a scapegoat for its own shortcomings. I never believed that the cry, "Pity the poor lawyers!" would command anything other

541
than a horse-laugh. Now I am not so sure. Yet another of the most disturbing results of Socialism is manifest in the distressing modern tendency to cry for one's rights and to remain silent about one's duties, obligations and responsibilities. Not only in the juristic sense do I believe that Bentham was correct when he wrote, "Talk of rights is nonsense on stilts".
The Ten Commandments, the very hub of our common law, have been seen by some as an early Bill of Rights. This I believe to be nonsense; Moses was a far better lawyer than that. If anything, it is an early Bill of Duties and Responsibilities. Our rights flow from the performance of our duties, obligations and responsibilities to our fellow men, not the other way round. This continual crying for "rights —"rights against whom one might ask?—like children whining for more sweets without heeding their own long-term good or the donor's capacity or willingness to provide, is a good demonstration of the decline in respect for the peace and wellbeing of our fellow men. But, by serious misunderstanding of the function of our law, by abusing the law, our legislators have earned the disrespect that they so thoroughly deserve.
6.10 p.m.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, some time ago, when the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, was sitting on these Benches, some member of his family said, "Keep an eye on that young man and help him if you can". It is rather like my grandfather, who, on his deathbed, said, "I advise you, cultivate Winston". Winston never needed any cultivation from me, of course; and I really do not think the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, needs a helping hand from me. I have watched his progress with interest and, sometimes, with admiration. I say that because at the beginning of this debate I suffered a short, sharp shock. This was because it was at once apparent that this was a motion of censure against the Government on their mishandling of the situation with regard to crime. The second part of the shock was the extension of the whole debate to crime, which is not mentioned in the Motion. Nor is law and order, although law is mentioned separately. I shall reserve my ammunition regarding crime for a little debate which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is due
542
to lead in about a week's time, on the 8th of this month.
I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, what I was going to talk about, and he nodded his head and gave me full benediction for that particular line. But I must say that I was shocked, and wish to take no part in this partisan assault on the Government in the matter of crime. I sec no reason why it should be answered, because the debate has been first-class in all directions on crime, though it was not quite the line that I had prepared. How interesting it was; and I thought that if we had heard nothing else but the defence of the Judiciary by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Gardiner, who has just left the Chamber, it would have been well worth while to come for that alone.
There were other good speeches, too. There was that from the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale. I have always wanted to ask a question of a man who has been beaten a lot, and I think it was he who said he had frequently been beaten. Surely, beatings in public schools and elsewhere, as I know them, are reserved not for any major crime but for minor acts of indiscipline; for major offences they are totally and utterly unsuitable. I remember my daughter listening to my son saying he had been beaten nine times during the course of the term from which he had just returned. He was explaining that it was simply because he did not make his bed; he had been beaten for that reason. She said, "Oh! I wish I could be beaten. You have no idea the kind of tiresome punishment the nuns inflict upon us because they cannot beat us. If only we could get rid of it quickly." it is, I think, a punishment reserved for minor offences of indiscipline, and not for anything very serious. Of course, if the noble Marquess were to rise and say that his crimes were very grave, I should not ask any further questions; but he does not move.
I had intended to speak on authority in the broader sense, because I thought that that was possibly what a large part of the debate would be about. I remember addressing audiences in Los Angeles in May of last year on the exercise of authority by Parliament, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and by the trade unions, and on the flaws of the system. We had some interesting talks.

543
I should like to mention the flaws and the weaknesses which I see, which are weaknesses in the exercise of democracy in the new age. Perhaps I ought to say, before going on to the reform of our Parliamentary and voting systems, that the change in the attitude towards authority is worldwide and widespread. I do not quite know what the causes are, but it is very notable and not everywhere at all objectionable. In fact, it is a manifestation of a coming to maturity of people in walks of life where, at one time, they had nothing to discuss. There is a new confidence. People who used to call me, "My Lord", such as small children at school, now say, "Hello, Lord Lytton; how are you this morning?" In America, where, 50 years ago, I visited a ranch and was addressed, "Good morning, colonel"—I was then a captain—they now say, "Hi! ', and you say," Hi! "back. Everybody you pass says," Hi! "—and why not? Everybody is more friendly.
I do not look at television—I have no set—but I notice that the impact on people of the radio and television has many beneficial aspects. They know so much. They talk to you about experiences far away. I met a negro from Zaire on the campus of a university in Los Angeles. Once we got into conversation, he said, "What do you think of Amin claiming the throne of Scotland?", and we had much laughter on the subject of Scotland. I said, "What do you think of the people with bows and arrows coming to the rescue of your President Mobutu?" We had further laughter on that, and he said he thought the bowmen were winning. This was information taken from the media on that very day, or the evening before. People are interested in all sorts of things, and they argue. It is not all amiss that this tremendous effervescence of energy leads to a certain amount of crime.
Now to move on to what I had hoped to make the exclusive subject of my speech. It seems to me—and this is what I said to my audiences in Los Angeles—that we in the House of Lords have lost the power which we exercised for, say, a thousand years. We exercised supreme authority. "Do you repine?", they asked. I said, "No, not at all. What we deplore is that, within half a century of passing on our power to the
544
Commons, where it should be, it has passed out of the Commons and is no longer there. That is the trouble we are suffering from."
I merely mentioned that, with the polarisation of Parties and the system of election which we have, even a Party with a majority in the House of Commons enjoys the support of no more than 40 per cent. of the electorate. Therefore, it has another 40 per cent. against it and 20 per cent. of "don't knows". So they asked me, "Is power in the hands of the trade unions?" I said, "There again, you must look at the trade unions. It is not really. Power has not moved to them just like that". I added, "Recent reports have indicated that only half the labour force of this country belongs to a trade union; only one-tenth of that half ever attends a meeting; and only a fraction of that one-tenth of one-half takes part in the election of members". That is not representative; it cannot be representative; and if you go to the CBI to discover how they base their authority, it is even more difficult. It is democracy which we are failing to manage. We are not enlisting the participation of a maturer kind of person who wants to take part. It is not only the election of candidates which is wrong; it is the selection of candidates, heaven knows where from, behind people's backs. That is surely the trouble from which we are suffering. That is the trouble with regard to Parliament; authority has left the Commons. What I should like most is to restore to the Commons—not to this House but to the Commons—its proper authority, which it has not now got.
There is another thing in regard to industry. I get so monotonously bored by this dreadful conflict between the public sector and the private sector. What is wrong is that the huge organs of both the public sector and the private sector are so organised as to be impersonal—so impersonal, no boss, nobody knows whom he is serving, nobody can get his little problems solved over the counter. The other day my wife was in a train coming from Three Bridges to Victoria and she happened to sit among a number of railway drivers who were coming to lobby a Minister. One of them, a loco-driver, complained—and it was a typical complaint of these days—that when something went wrong with his

545
locomotive and he got on to people about it, the people who should decide, they, having heard what he had to say, always gave the answer: "Do what you think is right! You are the man on the spot." There is no authority, no boss. If you ask Sir Richard Marsh then you will hear him say the same thing: there is no authority in this organisation.
I chose the railway system simply because I happen to know of an illustration. But it is the same with Henry Ford and his huge organisation. There is this degree of impersonality. I thought that a very good point was made by one of the distinguished maiden speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Kinross, who spoke of the subaltern in wartime. I am not so sure whether it is the subaltern or the commanding officer; but there is a limit to the number of people that a man should be able to control and be in charge of. But about those he should know everything. He should know them, their names, their wives, their homes, their Children. He must know everything; otherwise how can he deal with them as human beings? It is the lack of a leader who knows how to deal with people that is at fault with the public sector and with the private sector. Heaven knows how I long for this sterile dispute between the two to be brought to an end! My Lords, I have spoken for far too long.
6.22 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I should like to do three things; first, to thank my noble friend Lord O'Hagan for initiating this debate. It may be that he was provocative at the start, but I do not think that your Lordships' House expects anodyne debates Wednesday after Wednesday. I think that we heard some notable speeches and, above all, the speeches of the two maiden speakers. I would hope that I may, with the other Members of your Lordships' House, offer my congratulations to the two noble Lords who spoke for the first time today and express the hope that we shall hear very much more of them in the future. The third thing that I should like to do is to mention to the noble Earl. Lord Lytton, that my speech will cover law much more than authority and that it may stray from some of the aspects of law and order and the more philosophical
546
bent that we have had from many noble Lords.
I should like to say something about a subject which concerns me and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross over many years, over five, six or seven years. This is a subject which may not be familiar to many of your Lordships. It is the particular behaviour of large crowds at, around and in football stadiums in the biggest cities throughout the Kingdom. The scenes at Ilford last weekend that we have heard mentioned by several noble Lords are, I regret, not abnormal throughout the autumn and winter months, in that large crowds gather in various parts of towns ostensibly to attend football matches. But often we find that a few hotheads, it may be 10 or 20 but could be up to 100, can cause immense and disproportionate trouble requiring close organisation and continual scrutiny from the police.
Ilford may have made the headlines but the threat of disruption to the lives of those of us who wish to watch live sport or wish to go about the streets on Saturday afternoons, as well as the hundreds or thousands of people who do not wish to go near a football stadium is a permanent one. Examples come readily to my mind as, I am sure, to many noble Lords. Let us take one example in Derby. A residents' association representing the neighbours of the local team had thought of asking for an injunction against the football team concerned. These neighbours were worn out with boarding up their windows against a minority of supporters from a minority of visiting teams. Happily, the football clubs concerned were able to give assurances to channel off the more aggressive supporters who came with certain identified teams and the injunctions were no longer needed. But rumbles of discontent were heard this week in Liverpool after major disturbances following a match watched by 50,000 spectators. Only 30 or 31 people, I think, were arrested within the stadium for what I shall call such relatively minor crimes as drunkenness or pick-pocketing. I shall take correction as to whether these may be considered minor crimes; but in the field that I am discussing they can be regarded as relatively minor, although breaches of the law.

547
Certainly, I understand, fights broke out with police who had carefully escorted the visiting supporters away from the ground and back to their coaches in the car parks. Fights broke out when stragglers were left without the protection they required—the police had thought that everybody had gone back to the coaches—when these stragglers had wandered off to get supplies of alcoholic beverages or food for what was likely to be a long journey. But when they got back to their coaches the local supporters were waiting for them and there were disturbances. Again, the Anfield Tenants' Association raised the problem with their councillors, I think on Tuesday of this week. It seems that at last local residents who have to put up with this fortnight after fortnight are no longer prepared to tolerate wanton vandalism, damage and assaults.
North of the Border the problem of crowd behaviour at football games is more complex; first, in the ages of the hooligans and miscreants and, secondly, in the incidence of alcoholic beverages. We have our own admirable report on Crowd Behaviour at Football. I managed to obtain a copy of this yesterday with some difficulty. It is a valuable document and I may refer to this document later. Last week-end I went home to Scotland. I did not attend any particular event or match but in the evening, as is my habit, I turned on the television for the televised evening report. This showed a serious crowd invasion of the pitch which necessitated a stoppage of the particular game for four minutes. Many of those who ran out on to the pitch were fleeing from trouble within the terracing. Any solutions which may have been arrived at by the Safety of Sports Grounds Act or the Green Code accompanying it such as the fencing of the ground in this instance would haw caused even more problems. There could have been serious injuries through crushing. The first people who came on to the pitch were children running away for protection from trouble in the terraces. I have spoken to observers who attend many such matches, journalists and others and those who know about the control of crowds and they told me that at this particular game all the ingredients for disturbance were in evidence.
548
Firstly, alcohol was being consumed in very large quantities among the spectators both outside and inside the ground while the game was in progress; secondly, there was a hard competitive match played in front of these spectators; and, thirdly, tempers were running very high among the visiting supporters whose team happened to be two goals down. The police in this instance, as in many other cases, acted swiftly and with commendable restraint. Order was restored and the game continued after, as I have said, a stoppage of four minutes.
There have been other pitch invasions even in England. This year in January there was a serious disturbance at Leeds. It seems in the main that these pitch invasions are designed to have games called off when an adverse result for either team seems imminent. Of course, the football authorities and the police have taken, and continue to take very strong action to punish the perpetrators of these crazy acts. But from what I have been able to observe—and I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Colville or anybody responsible for the administration at the Home Office may think—the police, the football administrators and magistrates regard the problem of crowd hooliganism and vandalism as one of containment rather than of outright cure.
What should we do if a young schoolboy or a 16-year-old or perhaps two of them or a small group of young people may be attacked by a considerable crowd of supporters of a rival team? If one or any of the individuals submits tamely, will he join the appalling terrible list of youngsters who have died over the week-end as a result of a disturbance outside discotheques and places where alcohol is not necessarily sold?
I believe the ingredients are just the same outside these football grounds. Will these young people, who are a minority and who are surrounded by a "pack"—that is the best way one can describe it—of rival supporters, join the young people who have died? If the attacked victims fight back, the police will, we hope, arrive and will arrest one or more of the attackers. But the police probably do not know who started the trouble and they will arrest everyone, including the unfortunate victims.

549
This may appear florid to your Lordships. I assure the House that I am not describing a scene from a nature film from the Serengeti National Park. I go further and assure your Lordships that were I to be in such a position, I would not play the part of some tame, docile prey. Noble Lords may have seen an interview at the weekend, when the weather was bad, between the Minister for Sport and one of our leading television commentators. The Minister expressed his desire for what he called "harsh penalties" for football hooligans. So do we all. Those were admirable sentiments. We come hack, particularly in your Lordships' House, after each riot or disturbance, to the problems first of identifying and then of apprehending the trouble-makers and those responsible for starting the trouble, either as a result of drink or wanton high spirits, through lack of control of their temper or, worse still, because their team is losing and they think that, if the game is called off, the match will be replayed and their team will have a better chance. This, too, can happen.
If innocent victims cannot be distinguished from trouble-makers—and the police have told me that it is often difficult to know who has started the trouble and is at fault—then I believe that the law can and does fall quickly into disrepute. This does not help to achieve the solution that we desire: respect for the law and freedom to act or speak within that law or to go about our business when and where we please without carrying banners. This may have a connotation with Ilford, but I can assure your Lordships that people carry banners and other implements when they go to football games. Small banners can be used as weapons. In many States in America banners are forbidden because they can be used as weapons. Banners are not banned in this country yet.
I referred earlier to a report of a working party in Scotland. I believe that that report contained much good sense, as did the Safety of Sports Grounds Act and its accompanying green code. Yet even those admirable measures have serious flaws. First of all, so far as the report is concerned, there is one recommendation within the report that alcohol may—I think they say, "in certain selected grounds"—be sold or distributed within the grounds where football is actually being played.
550
There is less and less evidence in Scotland of civilised drinking within that land, and the police repeat time and time again that crowd trouble is due almost entirely—certainly in Scotland—to drink being consumed within the ground or before spectators get in.
Then we come to the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. This is accompanied by an admirable green code, which is akin to the Highway Code, so far as transport, driving and conduct on the roads is concerned. This green code gives details of regulations as to ingress and egress, crush barriers, walls, stairways and the like. It is reasonable to have such a code; but the code itself stresses the need for flexibility in interpreting that code. It has been pointed out to me that on several grounds in the country regulations are too often enforced with rigidity. This takes no account of how a crowd will behave within any stadium, however safe or modern it might be.
One example occurred at the start of this season in August last year. It involved a major stadium which had a restriction on one terracing limiting numbers to 15 per cent. of what had been until April 1977 regarded by the police as eminently safe and reasonable. Consequently, the home supporters who turned up at the start of the season were unable to get in and stand in their usual places. They had to stand among the visiting supporters. This particular team manager admitted that his supporters were not the types whom he would invite round for tea. This mingling of potentially rival supporters is one problem which the police can very well do without.
Happily, at this particular game there was no disturbance during the first half. At half time, when the teams went off for refreshment and a rest, the home supporters, seeing huge gaps in their normal stand, marched in thousands—not hundreds, not tens, not as many as there are noble Lords in this House—the whole length of the pitch. Even if the police had wished to prevent this march, it would have required an inordinate force. The force would have been larger than the number we saw at Ilford. One of the earlier speakers mentioned that a quarter of the Metropolitan Police Force were at Ilford. To prevent this march would have required a vast amount of police. This is a perfect example of

551
inflexibility in the law, as well as of making law enforcement absolutely impossible. I do not want to join those who demand super stadia for league clubs playing football. I believe that we can find better uses for the scarce Government resources which are at our disposal, be they national or local.
I have seen excellent police measures to combat assaults and thuggery at Leicester. At one particular entrance, each young man was checked to see that he had no beer cans or bottles on him and no studded boots or belts or anything that could cause injury. It seemed that everyone was willing to submit to a swift and fairly cursory search carried out by the police. I stress that this was carried out by the police at one particular part of the ground which had had a very had record of violence earlier in that season. Sadly, I have also been informed that in England and Scotland police do not readily have available the power to search for weapons at the turnstiles. These are weapons which will probably turn out to be offensive. If people do not openly carry knives, or anything else which could cause trouble, the police do not have the power to search every spectator who goes in through the turnstiles. Nor do the police have power to search for bottles or cans of beer carried on the person of the spectator.
It is easy to prevent people going into a football ground with what we in Scotland call a "carry-out" a brown bag, or supermarket bag full of bottles or cans. Police can tell people to leave those behind. If a person is carying a bottle in his hip pocket it is extremely difficult to "frisk" him and 40,000 or 50,000 other people. The police are unable to do this. We do not want to advocate a change in the law just to cope with this problem, but the police are normally in a position to charge hooligans with serious crimes wherever and whenever such people can be apprehended. The problem is catching and apprehending them. I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will be replying and, as he is not at the moment in his place, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, can make a note for him. Can the noble Lord say what steps the Government can take to ensure that
552
hooligans, thugs and bullies can be charged with very serious crimes and can at some stage be cleared from the streets, the railway stations and the football grounds where so many people go for enjoyment?
This epidemic of violence affects very many people directly or indirectly. There are those of us who are unable to purchase weekend tickets on the railways. This is because it is thought by the railway authorities that if we innocent people purchase such tickets in order to make visits at the weekends, football supporters will also be able to purchase cheap weekend tickets and, where there is an incidence of violence, the railway authorities say that in order to prevent the minority of 5 per cent. who are going to cause trouble at Manchester, Leeds or Liverpool, the 95 per cent. of the rest of us who may wish to buy weekend tickets, are not able to do so. There are also those of us who would like to see the football without the police continually, weekend after weekend, being over-burdened by endless misbehaviour. There are those of us who simply want to spend our weekends in peace without vandalism and damage to gardens, walls, property and streets.
We have had a number of philosophical, wise and excellent speeches today. I want to ask the Government to follow the advice of the police primarily in this matter of crowd behaviour. It is a matter of law enforcement. Nothing would do more to help football. Such advice would reassure thousands of people up and down the country who, for any number of reasons, fear football in the idiotic, mindless violence which stains the reputations of those good natured, decent, humorous supporters of our national game.
My Lords, in conclusion, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack and who is to reply. I am sure he will be kind enough to note my possibly florid and hot-tempered remarks and answer them.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord that, in a brief interregnum of 10 minutes, I missed the privilege of hearing the whole of his no doubt excellent speech.
6.40 p.m.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, although we in this House have no particular right of participation in a General Election, the Opposition, of its charity, has today given us an opportunity to take part in the preliminaries. Those preliminaries I have been studying lately and they appear to be four-sided. They include an undertaking that if only the nation will return the Tories to power the sky will be the limit on incomes increases, but of course there is no mention whatever of prices and inflation. They have a difference with Government policy over Northern Ireland, with no indication whatever as to what that difference may be. Then they propose to put a stop to immigration, with a rather belated indication that they would honour their past promises to let in more immigrants—in which event it is rather difficult to understand why Mrs. Thatcher made a statement in the first place. Perhaps now that the Runnymede Trust has informed us that to cut immigration from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan would breach the European Code of Human Rights, we can expect a further, considered, statement on the matter from the Leader of the Conservative Party.
The fourth issue, of course, is law and order, which was debated on Monday in another place and, just in case the electors of Ilford North failed to get the message, we are staging a repeat performance in this Chamber today. My charge against the Tories is that, while they have very little to suggest in the way of worthwhile change on a number of subjects, most of which contain considerable emotional overtones, they are striving to convey the impression that if only they were in power the issues which are causing unhappiness and fear would be eradicated forthwith.
Having read Monday's debate in another place on what, I would remind the House, was a Censure Motion, and having listened attentively to most of the speeches today, I am, quite frankly, still wondering what are the accusations the Opposition are making against the Government. In view of the facts which have been revealed by the Government in another place, and indeed by statements made in this House today, I suggest that it is quite impossible for the Opposition to sustain any accusation of neglect on the lines of law and order.
554
The constant theme that we have heard has been that thousands of police have been leaving the force because of dissatisfaction with pay and also, according to Mr. William Whitelaw,
"with their status in society, with the unpleasant duties forced upon them and the disgraceful treatment that they receive from certain sections of our people".
Where is there an accusation in that of anything against this Government'? I cannot find anything, and it really is disgusting. I listened to the noble Lord who opened this debate. If only he could find the moderate words that he found to put down his Motion I think he would be a more respected Member of this House now. But his utterly unfounded accusations were not supported by one single fact of any type or description, and I will challenge him to get up now and tell me what those facts are.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I am quite willing to prolong the debate for another five hours. If the noble Lord wants that to happen no doubt he will be happy to continue; but just as the noble Lord the Leader of the House asked me to tone down, I would say the same to him.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord could continue to speak for another five hours, as he threatened, judging by his first speech he would still have said nothing. The answer to these charges of people running away from the police force in masses is that, at the end of 1977, there were 7,500 more members of the police force than when the Opposition left Office in 1974. I wonder what they did to the police to cause a situation of that type. But indeed, when Mr. William Whitelaw, for whom I have the greatest respect—I am sorry he has got into such bad company—was confronted with that fact he complained:
"The right honourable gentleman's answers to criticism about police strength always compare present figures with those in March 1974. The comparison is totally irrelevant to the solution of our problems in 1978".
Well, we all like Willie, but he had better think of something better than that. Indeed, it was pretty cool stuff after he had spent much of his time trotting out large numbers of figures designed to show that the police force was in danger of being almost deserted overnight.

555
On pay alone, last year the police received a 10 per cent. increase, and in 1975 they had a 30 per cent. increase, while other workers received £6. Is that really a record that substantiates the charges that we have heard about policemen running away because of lack of pay? It really cannot stand inquiry or investigation. Surely the very fact that there are 7,500 more in the police force is among the most highly relevant of factors contributing to the solution of our 1978 problems. It also happens to be the perfect answer to the nonsense the Tories have been churning out about the position of the police force. Indeed, the statement by Mrs. Thatcher at Northampton, that under this Government there are fewer policemen than there were in 1974 is, if I can say it with moderation, just not true. But, from experience, I doubt whether we shall hear the right honourable lady withdrawing it—at least, not until after the next General Election; and anything can happen after that.
Quite apart from the numbers of police officers, Government expenditure to combat crime has increased by £250 million in real terms since the Tories left Office. Whether the Government have had to do that secretly because of the campaign to cut public expenditure, I do not know; but, quite frankly, £250 million in real terms is, to us on this side at any rate, a figure to be rather proud of in our effort to get rid of the crime and terrorism which is worrying all of us. In the past year alone an extra £50 million for police support has been spent. I suppose that, too, is irrelevant to the issue!
The Criminal Law Act 1977 has strengthened the law itself over a wide range of offences and has effected a substantial reform of the penalties available to magistrates. We have heard references to community services. They will be operating throughout the country by the end of the next financial year, and £3,500,000 has been made available over two years for secure accommodation in the community homes system. There are now plans—the Opposition must know this—for 12 more attendance centres for juveniles, in addition to the 60 already available to provide for part-time attendances. There are also 11 detention centres for men and six for boys.
556
Of course, the problems—and we have today, very rightly, heard of the problems of terrorism and burglary and of a general decline—are increasing, and they are increasing at an even faster pace throughout most of the 'Western World. The Government, anyway in this country, have reacted to these problems in the way I have indicated. Indeed Mr. Whitelaw himself, when confronted with this, said:
"I agree it is part of a world-wide trend".
Does anybody wish to blame this Government for the world-wide trend in this matter?
But apart from howling about the problems, I put it to the House: What major suggestions have the Tories for dealing with them, and in what way do their propositions, such as they are, differ from what the Government are already doing? Indeed, if, on close analysis, there are no major differences between the political Parties, while crime continues to increase, can the criticism be levelled at the other instrument involved; namely, the police themselves? There is no restriction by Government on them. In fact, many of the leading figures in the police forces of this country, who have served both Governments, are in great demand by other countries for advice on countering terrorism and various other crimes.
Sir Robert Mark, former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whose organisation of our defences against crime and terrorism commands admiration throughout many parts of the world, and Sir James Houghton, former Chief Inspector of Constabulary at the Home Office, have been asked by the Australian Government to advise their police on anti-terrorist methods; and, since his retirement, Sir Robert has been in demand in the USA for lectures on this subject. Does all this sound to any reasonable person as though there has been neglect by either Governments or police forces in Britain of the very real problems which this nation faces? Again, I argue that there is no justification at all. There was none on Monday in another place and there has been none today, for the general accusation that the Government are not doing enough on law and order. If there are no substantial differences over methods between the Parties, and our leading policemen are advising throughout the world, one wonders what all the fuss is about.

557
I was looking this morning at the leading article in the Guardian, and I quote it because I think that it puts the position succinctly and correctly. It says this:
"Like Labour, the Conservatives want more community service orders and more use of probation".
Is there any dissenting voice? I will proceed.
"Like Labour, the Conservatives want fewer people sent to prisons and shorter sentences for the people who have to be sent".
There is still no difference.
"Like Labour, the Conservatives want the mentally sick and the alcoholic removed from prison. And, like Labour, they want more pay for the police".
The Guardian quoted Mr. Maudling as saying in the debate:
"I am appalled at the thought of an election being fought on the basis of candidates being for or against the police".
I hope that the Party opposite take very much to heart what a former Home Secretary of theirs has been saying.
"In a statesmanlike speech"
said the Guardian
"Mr. Reggie Maudling implicitly accepted Labour's support for the police ".
It is also suggested that Mr. Whitelaw is rather unhappy about the Tory campaign—I am not quoting now; this is me, as a certain man on television says—and about those in his Party, including his leader, who are very much involved in it.
When the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, opened the debate, he spoke about his ancestors coming over—I presume that he means from Ireland—to avoid unemployment and so on. He told us that they arrived in this country to find a better chance in that sense. He also quoted the Earl of Chatham in 1770. I think that he quoted him as saying: "When law ends, tyranny begins." But he could have quoted from 1970, let alone from 1770. But this connotation of Ireland, law and order and so on, reminded me of the time at the earlier part of this century when the Tories under Carson were not quite so loud in their praise of law and order as they are now, and when they staged in Ireland the only insurrection in my lifetime against a democratically elected Government. It so happened that the Government, which was threatened by
558
rebellion in Ireland, had for its Home Secretary one Winston Churchill, of whom the noble Lord may have heard. When Winston Churchill, as Home Secretary, replied to a Censure Motion like the one moved by the Tories in the Commons on Monday, his comment was:
"It sounds more like a Motion of Censure by the criminal classes upon the police".
I put it that we are not very far from that point now.
6.57 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot aspire to the very accurate information of the noble Lord who has just spoken. In the light of events in our country at the present time, this debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, is timely and appropriate, and in thanking him may I also join with others in congratulating our two maiden speakers. As I understand the intention behind the Motion, the subject is germane to all spheres of public life in every town, in every village, in every neighbourhood and in every family. I propose to move into another sphere. Indeed, I feel that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will condemn me, because I do not propose to touch on delinquents, criminals or anything at all in that sphere. I propose to stray into completely different fields. I propose to confine myself to the sphere of local government and local responsibility, and to attempt to touch on the complexities concerned with the decline in respect for authority and the value of acknowledging and abiding by the law.
I believe that responsibility for local affairs should, as far as is practicable, lie with local people in each area. I recognise that there must, of course, be guidelines laid down by the Government of the day. But where a local authority is failing to provide a service, or is providing less than an adequate service, I believe that it is appropriate for the relevant Ministry to make representations to that local authority. Furthermore, I believe that the local ombudsman is playing an essential and vital role.
The Motion is in two parts. The first concerns authority, which in the Oxford English Dictionary is defined as:
"Power—the right to force obedience; delegated authority".

559
"Law" is defined in the same dictionary as:
"A body of enacted or customary rules recognised by a community as binding".
People concerned in local government—electors, councillors and officers—question how authority is exercised and the law administered, when it is not clear where in a democracy loyalty should lie.
This brings me to the question: What is democracy? It is government by the people, direct or representative. And what is loyalty? It is defined as "true, faithful to duty, love or obligations". A loyal person is one who remains loyal in times of dissatisfaction. When it comes to practical, everyday terms, in local government what does all this involve? Some teachers, for instance, have said that their primary loyalty surely lies to their profession and to the education of children. They say that this takes precedence over their loyalty to the local education authority for which they work. Similarly, some social workers consider that their first loyalty lies to the people in trouble and in need for whom they are responsible, and not to the department or authority of which they are a part. The dilemma of loyalty applies equally to other departments—to the housing, planning and treasurer's departments.
There is a further complexity. Local government officers belong to a trade union, and rightly so. Their loyalty is divided on occasions between their authority and their union and, in some cases, their professional code. The problems of authority have been highlighted in past years because of the lack of resources, causing friction; but they are not basic to the issue. I believe in local government but it will not survive unless the electorate, the councillors and the officers together work out a code of conduct and ethics.
In order that this may be done, may I mention three points. First, the essence of the success of local government lies in people knowing people. The electorate should share the responsibility of local government. It is a cause for great concern, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that only 40 per cent. of the electorate take part in local elections.
Not so very long ago I visited a very well known city in this country, where I
560
found that if one talked to the taxi-cab drivers one could learn much about what is going on in that city. I said to a taxicab driver, "I want to go to the council offices". "Oh", he said, "you mean the Kremlin?" "No", I said, "I don't mean the Kremlin; I mean the council offices. Why the Kremlin?" He answered, "Although we're a democracy and although they have the authority, we don't know what goes on in there and we have no idea what policies they are engendering".
When one speaks about authority and law and order it is important to say that the electorate should be part of democracy. In some areas, once they have been elected, the councillors who represent the electorate do not keep in touch with their electors. Therefore, their local policies tend to be determined by ideologies rather than by the reality of the needs of the electorate at a given point in time. There are councillors who give quite outstanding service; but, sadly, there are others with very little real knowledge of their duties. Often I wonder how much councillors know about what their staff, in all spheres and at all levels, are thinking. If councillors are to administer with authority, subscribe to the law and represent their constituents, they require knowledge and aptitude for such responsibilities.
May I turn to the officers of the council. They have a difficult task. Officers are professionals who are working for lay people, which is good. Officers have the complexity of split loyalty, as was mentioned earlier. If local government is to be effective there should be a partnership between electors, council officers and councillors.
In many local authorities militant action has been taken. Militant action is flamboyant; it is assertive; it is colourful. But does militant action effect a change of heart and imbue knowledge of a subject? I believe that it may have a role to play on a few occasions, but they are very few. In the words of Trollope, "It is dogged as does it".
Persistent dialogue, well-written, cogent reports, patience in discussion and long term persistence may seem like very hard work and may be difficult, but there are those working in local government who are dedicated to their profession. If they

561
feel that they or their work are not understood, surely the best service that they can render to their profession is to work slowly and, as I said, persistently towards effecting a change of heart and giving knowledge to the electorate and the councillors with whom they work. Surely democracy and loyalty are better served in this slow but sure way, when all sectors can be convinced of an appropriate sense of authority and can build up and adhere to a law which is recognised by our community and is binding.
7.7 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, this is not a subject which one debates with any great enthusiasm, to the extent that one wants to gloat over it; but I submit that at the present time it is a subject of major importance. Whether or not we agree with all of his points, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord O'Hagan for having initiated this debate. I think it will be generally agreed that the fact that both our debate and that in another place are taking place shortly before a by-election in a very marginal seat is purely coincidental.
I speak as the husband of a magistrate who has sat for 16 years on both a juvenile and an ordinary bench, if that is the right word. My wife has also sat, as most magistrates do now, in the Crown Court. One disturbing feature at present is that magistrates as a whole do not get the support of the various means of communication and the other bodies which should be responsible that they deserve. Of course, they may make errors of judgment. So do members of the judiciary as a whole. I am not a lawyer. All of us make errors of judgment from time to time. Nevertheless, if we look at other countries, either in the Commonwealth, or in Europe, or across the Atlantic or elsewhere, I submit that we shall not find a more impartial and fairer judicial system than that which we have in this country.
The same point can be applied to our police force. I would say only this about the police. A very great friend of ours, who is a widow, has a son in the police, and this son has had to play his part in keeping order at a number of demonstrations. He has had a few knocks, but when we saw him recently he was as cheerful
562
and as warm-hearted as anybody can be. I think some of the portraits we have of our police are grossly misjudged.
I should like to follow what my noble friend Lady Macleod said about young people taking an interest in their local organisations, and particularly hospitals. My younger daughter has just started nursing at one of our big teaching hospitals. Some people have said to her, "You have a frightful job, very long hours, very dedicated". But it happens to be the job for which she is very much cut out. I think one of the tragedies here is that at a time when we are short of nurses, let alone staff in other vital spheres, there is not sufficient money available to recruit more staff in many areas. I do not apportion blame here necessarily to any one political Party; this has been a problem over many years.
Two evenings ago I paid a visit to the Old Bailey with the council of the club in the City to which I belong, and talking to the under-sheriff, whom I know very well, some very disturbing figures were quoted. I think I have them accurately. There are currently 1,800 cases awaiting trial, and, if I understood his remarks aright, 1,500 of those are for what I believe the legal profession call offences against the person. I do not want to draw too many conclusions over this, because I do not necessarily think that any Government can reform or alter the ways of certain classes of criminals. But mention has been made of what my right honourable friend the Member for Penrith said two days ago about glasshouses. I have had the experience of having to escort two people in the regiment in which I was serving in Austria just after the war to the glasshouse, at a place called Lienz; this was in 1947. Luckily I only spent about 15 minutes inside, including a meal in the sergeants' mess. It was everything at the double. But I do not think that either my right honourable friend or anybody else meant that, whether one has one place akin to the glasshouse or 20, one should necessarily have all the dreadful things which go on in those places. It should be remembered that my right honourable friend was a distinguished regular soldier himself. I think what he was meaning, and I do not think there can be overmuch quarrel about this, was that there are certain young offenders for whom a short sharp sentence involving a high standard

563
of discipline—not brutality—would not come amiss. Of course, it is better that this comes from the home.
What this debate is all about, as I see it anyway, is, first, where all this trouble starts, and, secondly, what we are going to do about it. The fact that it is taking place is something of which we are all aware. Of course, the number of broken homes is very disturbing, the number of the latchkey children, as they are often called, going to a house, probably a cold house, with no adult to look after them. That, in my submission, can be the first road, so to speak, to going off the rails. I think those who work in our social services do as good a job as they can, but they frequently come up against awkward parents, or even awkward foster parents sometimes, in the discharge of their duties. We must remember that the vast majority, particularly of our young people, in this country are law-abiding citizens. Certainly in the village where I live there is a large membership of the Church; a great many do community work. In the six mental hospitals on the periphery of Epsom a large number of youngsters from the schools go and read to patients and do other work of a very good social order.
But, my Lords, in the last analysis it is the general public who are anxious about the subject which we are debating today. Last night there was a particularly interesting programme on television, which I think was called "MPs rule, O.K.", which rather gave the impression that MPs did nothing but go to sleep in the seats, with their feet on the table if they sit on the Front Bench—nothing of those who serve on Standing Committees and Select Committees and so on. So many people get the view that those in authority, whether in Parliament or in business, the law, the captains of industry, or in the Church, are not setting an example; and they, rightly or wrongly, take the view, "If I am in the Public Gallery and I see my Member sitting with his feet on the table, why should not I go out and do something which is contrary to public order or contrary to public taste?"—a completely wrong view, but a view which is held, in the minds sometimes of responsible people.
What I think we need to do, quite apart, obviously, from getting more re-
564
cruits for the police, is to try to instil in the minds of young people, that if the law is obeyed, it is much more comfortable and comforting than going against it. Every now and again there comes a time when the courts, perhaps with the utmost reluctance, do have to take drastic action; but I do not believe that the terms inherent in this Motion imply that the Party of my right honourable friend the Member for Finchley want to see any more ruthlessness than do any other Party. What they want to see is law and order preserved as I am sure the present Government do. However, the problem is that at present there is a fringe of our population which wants to see all this thrown to the winds, and that must certainly be stopped.
7.21 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, this is a very wide debate and I propose to deal with only three subjects. Indeed, if I adhere to the notes which I have written my speech will take well under 10 minutes. First, we are rightly concerned and justifibly fearful about the possibility of losing our traditional freedoms. Any inroads into those, be it in politics such as, for example, the Government black list of firms exceeding the 10 per cent. pay guide, or overdue changes in our legal system, are seen in this light and are often opposed solely on this ground. I am quite convinced that in this country at any rate, the real danger of loss of freedom lies elsewhere. If we fail to take effective action against those who are undermining our society whether for political motives or simply through lawlessness, we shall find that our freedoms fail. Freedom cannot survive in a lawless society, and that should be our primary consideration.
With the very best intentions, we have greatly increased legal aid and made other idealistic changes in our legal system. As this debate has been rather frank, I point out that during the past few years we have suffered from what I would term "silly, soppy, emotionalist idealists and pseudo-scientists". They have been our danger and they have been, in a way, our undoing. It may well be that in the future the Nationalist Front will be a far greater threat but, at present, those people hide behind the extreme Left of the Socialist Party and one cannot help wondering

565
whether, if that Party is again elected in the next Election, these ideas which do not represent true Socialism and the majority of the Socialist Party will not once again, obtain undue prominence.
Unfortunately these changes—I am talking about the legal system—were engrafted on fundamentally traditional approaches which have needed change to meet a new situation. That has meant that justice is being exploited to a major and not a minimum extent by many who deserve little consideration from our society. All of this has been bravely said by Sir Robert Mark in his Dimbleby Lecture some years ago and far better than I could, even if I took the time in trying to do so. It is nonsense to say that any effort to prevent a miscarriage of justice occurring is worth while. Miscarriages will occur occasionally whatever is done. Like everything else, the legislator must know that perfection is impossible. Almost nothing is black and white. A reasonable compromise is the best that we can hope for.
Bearing in mind that the brief extracts of a speech reported in the media can wholly misinterpret one's views, I would hasten to say that I am not in favour—I repeat not in favour—of more swingeing sentences or of introducing birching or necessarily capital punishment. I am in favour of considering the basic causes of crime and in trying to help those who may be brought back to being useful members of our society and there are very few people, if anyone, who would not agree with those sentiments.
I am, however, if need be, in favour of increasing at this time police powers, albeit with surveillance, but not with lengthy appeal procedures. We can see where appeal procedures lead in America. I think that the ethics of defending barristers and solicitors in putting forward any defence, and in wasting court time in nothing more than histrionics or irrelevant legal argument, needs examination and a rethink of their role with professional sanctions where they fail to carry it out in the terms that I have suggested.
Secondly, on the 29th June, as some of your Lordships may remember, I spoke about alternatives to prison sentences, especially for younger and even, in certain cases, first offenders. I advocated "social
566
work camps" for those who would benefit by a short sentence which was analagous—I hesitate to say it after the remarks that have been made tonight—to army detention, but with the possibility in the evenings of some rehabilitation and social therapy. They could well be directed on worthwhile social projects such as forestry, rehabilitation of industrial wasteland and the waterways. This I regard as filling a gap between community service, which needs very careful supervision, and prison, with all the problems which are present, including over-population.
I noticed that in another place this point has been put forward. I very much hope that it will be seriously considered without perhaps attaching to it the stigma of detention and short, sharp sentences. I base the case largely on the gap which exists between social service and prison. I am not the only person to put forward this suggestion. It has been operating in Sweden for a long time which, to those on the Left, ought to make it respectable. I corresponded with the Ministry and the Ministry raised certain objections, but none of them is insuperable if it were decided that such a proposal was desirable. I hope that perhaps the Ministry and those who are interested will again read the speech that I made on the subject, because I do not intend tonight to deploy it in further detail.
The third point that I should like to make concerns terrorism. This subject was mentioned earlier. Whether we like it or not, we must face the fact of terrorism, hijacking and abduction of persons with rather more vigour than certainly we have done in the past and possibly even today. Life is not safe; I think one has to accept that, even if you take the view that what matters is only the preservation of human life. We would have saved far more human lives had we been tougher at the start. If you take the other point of view, taking the world as a whole life is not safe. There are 15 million people suffering from leprosy, one quarter of the world is suffering from starvation, yet here we talk about a few lives in jeopardy by taking effective action on a hijack. It would stop if we did.
There is the other long-term point of view, that sooner or later, whether or not we go for the nuclear programme, we will be faced with a nuclear threat; and what

567
are we going to do about it when the apparent threat is to 5,000 lives? Maybe it will not be a real threat. Almost certainly this is a vast exaggeration. But unless we get a little tougher and a little less worried about our own skins, I hold little hope for the future of our democratic society.
7.31 p.m.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, we are indebted to my noble friend Lord O'Hagan for having introduced this Motion today and certainly its terms have provided noble Lords with a broad canvas on which to air views on a wide variety of subjects. At this comparatively late hour, and rising nineteenth in the debate, I find that much of what I might have said has already been covered. Therefore, I shall try as far as I can not to be repetitive. A very sombre note has been struck. I for one share the concern, the alarm, of noble Lords who have discussed and drawn attention to the trends in our society today.
Perhaps appropriately, as I am the father of teenagers, one of whom will shortly be officially an adult, it is the problems of the young and of young adults and their current behaviour to which I should like to make particular reference at this point in my speech. Not for a moment do I wish to give the impression that I do not realise that a great deal of good is done by many very sensible and practical young people. What I have to say is no reflection upon them. But it is without question a phenomenon of our life today in this country, and in other countries overseas, that there is a great increase not only in hooliganism but in the violent and criminal activities of the younger generation.
We are all products of environment, and I suppose our moral environment is to a large extent conditioned by the example that is set. This question of example has been touched on by many speakers today. There are bad examples about which we can perhaps do very little; there are certain bad examples about which we can probably do nothing, but there are others about which I think perhaps we could do more. We could do something about the attacks upon the Judiciary, upon the Bench, whether they
568
have arisen as a matter of political pique at a particular moment or whether they are deliberate and considered attacks. About the apparent condoning of the use of violence in pursuit of sectarian or political or industrial objectives, we could, perhaps by the application of a self-denying ordinance, do a great deal.
There are other things which are obviously examples, which one could perhaps term international examples. Today, by courtesy of modern communications such as television, we are all, young and old alike, only too well aware of the violent subversive, terrorist actions overseas and of the misconduct or dubious conduct of eminent people in other countries. Can we do anything here? Perhaps we can do very little, but, to my mind, when the Government of the day—those who are in authority—are considering their attitudes and their reactions to hijackings, and are deciding what degree of recognition should be given to organisations which, all too often, are only a front for terrorist violent activities, I think consideration should be given not merely to the foreign affairs aspect but to the effect that apparent reluctance to be positive, even unilaterally, has on the climate of opinion in our country.
Before I turn from this matter of example, I should like to quote from a Press report which caught my eye a couple of days ago. The report referred to a lunch-time sermon that was given by the chief constable of Greater Manchester. In it, he is reported as having said:
"Complacency is driving good people to despair, and encouraging the lawless and subversive beyond their wildest dreams."
Later he is quoted as saying:
"Most people take their cue from what they see going on above them. The road to reformation of the character of any organisation starts in the office of the man at the top."
I think that can be applied to all the institutions in our national life.
Before I leave the question of the young and the young adults who have featured so much in today's debate, and following on some remarks of my noble friend Lord Lyell, I should like to turn to the question of alcohol in crime. In doing so, I should like to quote from the 1976 report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland. We have had quotations from two English reports

569
this afternoon and, I think, from a Scottish one also, but, since I live in Strathclyde, which has nearly 50 per cent. of the Scottish population and over 60 per cent. of its crime, it is perhaps appropriate that I should turn to this volume to see what is being said—and I assure noble Lords that the fact that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland rejoices in the name of David Gray has no influence upon my judgment. On page 36, paragraph 104, he writes:
"The most obvious example of the precipitating factors in crime in Scotland today is alcohol."
Later in the same paragraph he goes on:
"We may not yet know the exact nature of its relationship, and contribution, to crime. It is far too often pled in the courts as an excuse by those whose drinking is just another symptom of their anti-social and irresponsible character rather than the "cause" of their crime."
Later, however, he makes this observation:
"But in numerous cases the experienced police officer investigating the circumstances can make the judgment that crime, serious or less serious, would never have occurred but for the intoxication of offender or victim or both."
In the following paragraph, he says—and this point follows on from what my noble friend Lord Lyell said and also has relevence to what I have been saying about young persons:
"I am very much concerned with increased drinking by the young, who are less able to withstand its effects. In some quarters "getting drunk" seems normal and admired behaviour for teenagers and appears to be an important element in many breaches of the peace, assaults and acts of hooliganism and vandalism."
I apologise for the length of those quotations, but they bring me to my next point. Although during the passage in the summer before last of the reforming Act on licensing in Scotland we were able to introduce into the Bill some measure of additional control over what happened at off-licences, and although there are campaigns and publicity to discourage and to bring to the attention of the young the dangers of alcohol, I cannot too strongly urge upon Her Majesty's Government the need for their continuing and increased support in the field of education and assistance in this matter.
Before I close I should like to turn to the police forces of our islands. Echoing what other noble Lords have said, I should like in particular to say how strongly I share the view about the need
570
to review—with the possibility of increasing them—the establishments of our police forces as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and which equates with statements made by my right honourable friends at the other end of the corridor. We have heard statistics on manning and success quoted this afternoon and, as they are most usually referred to in percentages of crimes cleared up when we are considering police success, it is perhaps not a had thing to look behind these figures and to recognise that they really mean that there is a very large number—larger than the figures actually produced by breaking down these statistics—of people who have been the victims of crimes, vandalism, hooliganism, and so on, who feel that because the police have been unsuccessful, they have been let down. Likewise, this creates many frustrated police when they are unable to assist. Very often it is because of the lack of an adequate number of policemen actually on the beat that these crimes are not cleared up.
When we come to look at the statistics for the number of vacancies in a particular force, I recommend noble Lords and others who may be interested to look at the numbers that are available for normal duties. That is the significant figure, because I have been talking about the ordinary duties, not major crime work. Obviously, increasing police strength involves a great deal of money, of which mention has been made today. There are a number of ways in which we could release men in advance of any decision that some future Government may take to increase establishments all round. There could be the re-employment in certain categories—in certain duties—of retired police officers; there could be the rebuilding of the Special Constabulary where this has fallen in numbers.
Perhaps we should look again at the success that the police are having in graduate recruiting. We ought perhaps to look again at the ways in which—and here there is a great deal of activity—we approach the schools, colleges and young people. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, referred to his first speech in a Wednesday debate on a similar subject, although I do not think that it was his maiden speech. He referred to research that he had done then. Perhaps

571
I could take that as an excuse for quoting from my own maiden speech, which was in a similar debate some years later. I then quoted from a critical essay by Lord Macaulay. The quotation was as follows:
"We consider the primary end of Government as a purely temporal end, the protection of the persons and property of men."
I also quoted his words in an illustration of this point:
"… and that no part of its efficiency for that end should be sacrificed in order to promote any other end however excellent".—[Official Report, 18/2/70; col. 1207.]
That may be something which we would find very hard to swallow today. But if we were spending thousands of millions of pounds on creating, we hope, a caring society—a society of greater social equality—by perhaps understaffing our police and not giving them the pay and conditions which their job warrants, are we not putting at risk all this other work that we have been doing? I, personally, look forward to the day when some Government in the future have the courage to remove the Police Service once and for all from the usual round of pay negotiations.
7.48 p.m.
Lord WESTBURY: My Lords, I know that tonight I shall almost get a medal because I guarantee that I shall make the shortest speech that has so far been made.
This debate, which was introduced by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan, has come at a very relevant time. Last week a ban was enforced on the Ilford march of the National Front and on all other marches for two months, for the very good reason that the Home Secretary, in conjunction with Sir David McNee, decided—and I think quite rightly—that the police would not be able to contain the march in a peaceful way and that bloodshed and violence would break out. This would mean that peaceful citizens and their property would be in danger. As it happened, about 5,000 policemen were drafted into the area although a ban on the march had been ordered. The result was that the march went off fairly peacefully.
Although I agree with this action being right in the circumstances, it proves that the police are not able to deal with this
572
kind of situation without an immense disruption of normal police duties and vast expense. Will this happen every time that there is a threatened march?—because surely every intended march, however small, will have to be treated in the same way. I do not believe that the police can stand so much extra work and strain on their manpower.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, may be correct in his statistics, but he is not quite correct about which section of the police force is leaving. It is the middle block of policemen who are leaving. Recruits are coming in, but it is the trained policemen who are going because the conditions are so bad. I believe that really strong and effective laws must be made and enforced on anyone who violates them.
Our policemen have never been armed, and that is their strength as long as the law upholds them. But hooligans are let off with small fines, having assaulted with intent to do bodily harm, or even kill, when they should be severely dealt with. Vandals are already defying the laws and getting away with it in the United Kingdom. This situation is becoming intolerable. I must make it clear that I am in full support of the police, but understand fully their unbearable situation, in that they are grossly underpaid and undermanned.
This brings me to the Armed Forces, and especially the Army. As we know, they have two major roles to perform. First, honouring our NATO commitment and defending us from aggression; secondly, keeping the peace in Ulster, which they have done very successfully for the past eight years. I believe that unless we are very careful Ulster will only be the beginning if things are allowed to deteriorate any more. We have already had a sharp warning with mob violence in Lewisham, bombings, kidnappings, and soccer hooliganism.
Her Majesty's Government must act now or be responsible for a complete breakdown of authority and the triumph of anarchy. This can be done by improving the pay structure of the police and the Armed Forces. This will, in its turn, stop the drain of good young men leaving and improve recruitment, and will create a deterrent to violence no hooligan will

573
dare to challenge. It will also give our men in the police and Armed Forces a pride in their jobs and a knowledge that they are capable of carrying out properly whatever job they are asked to do. We have the best policemen and soldiers in the world. Why disintegrate such a fine national asset?
Improve their conditions, and all of us will be able to go about our business, walk in the streets without fear of being mugged or our property being vandalised. I pray that Her Majesty's Government will grasp this very stingy nettle now, before it is too late. I should like to summarise what I really want: better pay for the police and the Armed Forces; stronger penalties by the law against hooliganism and violence; and Government help financially for voluntary associations that help youth.
7.53 p.m.
Lord DORMER: My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour, I shall be as brief as possible, like my noble friend Lord Westbury. I should like at the outset to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, on introducing this debate. Next to defence of this realm this is the most important subject to be debated in your Lordships' House. Great concern is felt in all areas, and in all sections of our society, at the lawlessness that exists at present. A marked deterioration has taken place in the last 10 years. A very real fear of armed robbery is prevalent in large cities, vandalism is rife, housebreaking is common, and abduction and murder occur regularly.
Inevitably in these cases one must turn to the police, as has so often and so wisely been said this evening; and it must be a cause for concern that police resignations have been on the scale that has occurred. In 1975 there were 2,701 resignations in England and Wales; in 1976 there were 3,827, and in 1977 there were 5,163. The remedy for this is, of course, as has so often been said tonight by other noble Lords, greatly to increase the pay, and to increase it to a point where it attracts the best young men in the country rather than that they should go into industry.
I should like to put forward a special suggestion, that the police service career
574
be restructured so as to attract the best boys from our public schools. It has truly been said that there are better brains in the criminal classes than in the police. This, as I am sure all noble Lords will agree, is entirely wrong. The best of our young men should be offered a worthwhile career in the police force, which should be equal in pay and status to that of the Armed Services. These young men could then go on and become the senior officers of the future.
May I turn again to the rather more gloomy side. In 1976 there were 30,000 indictable crimes over the 1975 total. In 10 years the number of persons brought before the superior criminal courts has more than doubled. The figures for 1977 have not yet been published, but it appears that a further very substantial increase is envisaged. When one has looked recently at the local paper in Acton one has found headlines such as "Death in the Park"; "Home raided"; "TV Row ends in Stabbing"; "Lunchtime killing"; "Paranoid Albanian who took gun to work". These are not the work of a paranoid reporter; these are facts.
Remedies for this situation in the short term, I believe, are a far larger and better paid police force of greatly increased morale, and an increased number of special constables, particularly in the rural areas where, with their own specialised knowledge, they can perform most valuable work. I consider that preventive detention measures as envisaged by my right honourable friend in another place, Mr. William Whitelaw, should be encouraged and tried. They may not perhaps in all cases be successful, but they probably would in many.
I believe myself to be a humane person, as I believe is everybody else in your Lordships' House. But I believe that in certain cases of armed robbery the birch could be tried as an experiment. We have before us the example and the experience of the Isle of Man, where it is still in use; but, as has recently been disclosed by the superintendent there, it is extremely rare, and those who receive it do not come back for a second dose. I am not advocating inhumanity of any kind, but I believe that fact might well be noted.
Society of itself must face up to its responsibilities in this matter of law and order. In two areas especially is this very

575
apparent. One is discipline, and the other is responsibility. Discipline in the schools should be greatly increased. This is the desire of parents as well as of teachers. The other is that responsibility should be restored to parents. At present we are removing it from them. Parents should be made aware of their responsibilities to their children and, in suitable cases, mothers should be allowed to leave their place of work at 4 p.m. to provide the essential home care at that very important hour when the children return from school.
That concludes, I am glad to say, the gloomy side of this speech. There is a far happier side. One has only to look at the Services to see what discipline, interests, and opportunites for self-development can produce in the young people of today. I have been enormously struck in my visits to the Services by the obvious well-being and happiness of the young men and women in them, and in the same way their more senior members found in the Services a life of fulfilment and happiness.
There is, I believe, a lesson for society here. I should like to reiterate the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, that there is a real need for occupations such as community service in visiting the old and infirm, performing some tasks for them, and in cultural visits to art galleries, perhaps at home as well as abroad, to broaden the mind, un-isolate them from themselves, and perhaps to inculcate in them the idea that Britain is not so bad a place to live in after all and that they are indeed privileged to be citizens of it.
I believe the young people of today, properly led and with full opportunities for the development of talent and character, are every bit as fine as their forefathers and will be worthy citizens of tomorrow if they are given the leadership and the chance. It is up to the Government to provide the recreational facilities and courses in schools as well as the playing fields, and to abolish the slums and the less attractive communities which contribute so much to boredom and discontent. Society must of itself face up to the challenge of respect for authority and the law and must of itself, with the help of the Government, change the order
576
of society to provide the peace and wellbeing in our society which it so richly deserves.
8.1 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, it is clear from this debate that it is no issue of Party politics to be concerned to see that society in this country operates under the rule of law. There have been some very thoughtful speeches and among those which I know the House particularly enjoyed were the two maiden speeches of my noble friend Lord Kinross and the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale. My noble friend Lord Lyell is an expert on football crowds, as is my noble friend Lady Faithfull on the world of the local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, reminded us that even Wednesdays are still political days in this debating House of Parliament. I can only congratulate the noble Lord on having so accurately rehearsed the figures given by both Government Ministers in the debate on Monday and I hope that in the process he has not taken all the Lord Chancellor's best points.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, would the noble Viscount not agree that it was rather strange that not a single one of them came from the Opposition side?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Very few of the Government's figures ever come from the Opposition, my Lords. What I will do is to accept the invitation of the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary to seek to analyse the complicated problem we have before us, the problem of lawlessness, and I will also seek to consider what your Lordships have been doing all afternoon; namely, the behaviour and attitudes which we hope the public may be induced and persuaded to uphold for themselves and to insist on in others.
There are very many factors indeed, and I can deal with only a comparatively small number of them in the course of this debate, but certainly when I was considering the question of lawlessness, the first thing that came into my mind—and I am glad here to be at one with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner—was the question of the chance of the criminal being caught. That part of my speech was made for me by Lord Gardiner a

577
great deal better than I ever could, and I therefore need only say that his remarks expressed exactly what I think is the view of noble Lords on all sides on the subject.
But of course offenders will be caught only if the police are in strength and properly experienced. My noble friend Lord O'Hagan asked a specific question of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about police retirement, and it is on this as much as anything else that those on these Benches are a little perturbed. Whereas the figures can be made to look reasonably prepossessing, what I think has never been disclosed is the extent to which experienced police officers are retiring. Not only are they retiring in the middle of their service but I have a suspicion—I do not know whether any information can be given about this—that nowadays officers tend to retire at the very first moment they can do so, taking with them their full pension. Therefore, when officers are in their early forties we are losing the most experienced men in the police force who in previous years would have stayed on rather longer to aid the police with all that they have learned previously. It is really about that that I should like the Government to give some extra information because if they are not concerned about that, they should he. As has been made clear in this debate, it is not just a matter of pay; it is the sort of life policemen have to lead and the sort of conditions they are forced to endure, a subject to which I shall return later.
If the offender is caught, he must also be punished and a great deal has been said about that by many noble Lords today. I want to make only one point and it arose out of the debate on Monday in another place; it is about the Children and Young Persons Act. The Home Secretary gave some figures—and I am glad to see them—about the secure places that are now being built or are planned for future years. The difficulty about it is that until now we never had them and the criticism all over the country, certainly from the magistrates, is that the 1969 Act should never have been introduced until some secure places were available, and it is the absence of those during the whole of the time since that was put on the Statute Book that has been the trouble. Now I hope we will be able to put it
578
right, but we will have to consider carefully whether or not the magistrates themselves should have some say, or perhaps even the main say, in choosing which of the young offenders go to those secure places. That matter has not been resolved and it is one we shall have to think about carefully.
The next point that has a real bearing on this is the question whether people can be certain of what is the law. Lord Gardiner and others talked about the vast mass of our legislation and particularly the great volumes of subordinate legislation which nobody can possibly absorb, and I agree with that; it makes the citizen's life to keep within the law extremely difficult. This is not meant to be a Party polemic point, but I thought that the Grunwick affair illustrated this particularly well, too. First of all, there has for a long time—I think it is now the subject of legislation in another place—been a great dilemma about whether or not discriminatory refusal to deliver the mail was indeed an offence at all under the Post Office Act. If I have any criticism of the Government and perhaps of the Attorney-General, it is that it took them a very long time to state finally what were their views and that, during that period of uncertainty, which lasted from about August 1976 to June 1977, when the Attorney-General finally made a pronouncement about this, nothing was being done. It is not surprising the Attorney-General did not act, because he was not sure about the law, and in such circumstances we get the spectacle of the private citizen frustrated by inaction coming in, wrongly, as we now discover, but it is that sort of uncertainty that is undermining confidence in the law.
One other aspect of that dispute which puzzles me is that in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 there is a provision in Section 15 which permits peaceful picketing. I have no objection to that; I think it entirely proper that it should be on the Statute Book. But is it supposed to encompass what happened at Grunwick or is it not? I should not have thought that the activities of some of the more violent participants in the picket lines at Grunwick could possibly have come within Section 15. Those are the sort of things which, on account of uncertainty, lead to very grave disrepute

579
in the world of legislation and the law, because people think that the matter is clear yet they find others acting in a way which does not seem to make any sort of sense and does not in any way correspond with the legislation on the Statute Book. So that is another area which we should bear in mind.
Lord O'Hagan talked about setting an example. If we in Parliament are, as we are so often told, held in disrepute, it may well be that this disrepute—this contamination—spreads like an infection to the legislation we pass. I do not think that it is illegitimate for me to criticise noble Lords opposite in this debate, but I do it for a very particular reason. I have found—I have been looking these up, so I am accurate—three major occasions over the period of the last two Labour Governments when I was personally outraged by what I thought was a flouting of the law of the land or of the law of Parliament. It is a personal matter, and I do not think I was alone in feeling outraged; but I will remind the House what the three occasions were.
There was the occasion of the Parliamentary boundaries in 1969. Reports had been received from the Boundary Commissioners, and the law of the land required the Home Secretary to lay those reports before Parliament as well as draft orders implementing their recommendations, either in whole or in part. There was no provision in the law of the land for the Home Secretary to disregard and shelve those reports. But the Home Secretary—he is now the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister—did not wish to implement those reports. Very properly, he came before Parliament and he promoted a Bill, which passed through both Houses, which would have enabled the Government not to implement the reports after all. But the Bill failed; it never got on to the Statute Book. What did the Home Secretary do? In the following Session he laid the orders, as he was still by then bound in law to do, but he moved a Motion in the other place—and it was whipped through—inviting the House to reject them. That, I suppose, is proper Parliamentary tactics, but I thought it was an outrage against the law of the land.
Then, there is the question of Clay Cross. I am not going to be wholesale
580
about this. I have only one very narrow point about Clay Cross which I consider to be an outrage, and it is this. Some of the Clay Cross councillors had, at the time of the passage of the Bill, already been surcharged for their disregard of the Housing Finance Act; the surcharge had been quantified, and they had been disqualified from office. They had been disqualified from office by the courts because of the requirements of the Local Government Act. One provision in the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Act which was then passed by the Labour Government cancelled the disqualification imposed by the courts under the law for those specific councillors. I thought that was an outrage. I also thought that it was very foolish, because it did not achieve anything since they were also going to be disqualified for other surcharges that were coming up, and therefore it was a nugatory thing in any event. But I thought it flouted the law—not only the law of the land in the external sense but the law of Parliament.
Your Lordships will remember only too well the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act. When that legislation started its passage through another place on the second occasion, the Examiners in that House, having listened to what was said in this House when the first Bill was going through, looked at it again and said that it required to be examined in case it was hybrid. The Leader of another place put down a Motion to discharge that order and to treat the Bill as a public Bill, and that Motion was whipped through. The provision for Examiners to look at a Bill to see whether it is hybrid is not there just to be tiresome; it is there to protect individuals. When the Bill came to this House, fortunately your Lordships were sufficiently courageous to see that it did go to the Examiners, who said that, after all, it was hybrid. The result, of course, was that that part was lost to the Government.
I pick those three occasions out and I say this to noble Lords opposite, or to noble Lords in any Party: that if they wish to pick out similar, narrow points where my Party has infringed or run contrary to the express law of the land, let them do so (though I would say, please not this evening, because I must get through my speech, but on another occasion) and I will

581
listen to them, I will learn from them and I am sure that those behind me will do the same, provided that they will confine themselves to precise issues of that sort; because I believe that we should all learn from these things and see whether we can improve our own standards.
If we in Parliament decline from the proprieties and from the strict rules of law, is it any wonder that citizens outside, hearing about this, tend to suffer a decline in their own personal responsibility, and, in so doing, tend to rely more upon the increase of group power over individual responsibility, the increase of group defiance of the law and the increase of group selfishness regardless of its effect upon anybody else? I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, although I know he has had to go, would probably agree about this. When I talk about groups, I am not thinking, any more than did the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, about only trade unions. This happens all over the place, and I shall give another example a little later on.
The fourth point that occurred to me, which I am sure is an element in this tide of lawlessness, is the citizen's inability to influence events. I am not going to go into the question of vandalism in inner cities—I made a speech on this the other day—but I genuinely believe that the inability to influence your massive environment in a city can lead to a sense of frustration which vents itself in lawlessness. It is because you cannot get at the people who matter, at the people who control it, and there is no way of doing anything about it, that people have recourse to these things. But I do not want to talk about that this evening; I want to talk about another inability to influence events—and that, I think, is very well illustrated by what happened at Ilford last Saturday.
There is no question that the exercise last Saturday was a success, and I wish to join with those who have congratulated the police (and, indeed, as far as that goes, the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary for having the courage to agree to it) for a proper and successful decision. Nevertheless, I think that we should all be very careful before we allow there to be imposed bans on marches. This should be done with the greatest possible reluctance; and only if there is no way of,
582
for instance, re-routing the marchers, or something like that, should we go in for that kind of thing.
Talking in terms of the inability of the ordinary citizen to do anything, about it, I should like to read to your Lordships what the Police Federation said after their battles with the pickets on the Grunwick occasion. It requires only the substitution of the necessary terms in order to apply directly, I think, to Ilford.
This is what they said:
"The police are not concerned with the issues giving rise to this dispute. It is their simple duty to uphold the law. The police must remember at all times that both sides have rights under the law. Just as free citizens have a right to go on strike and to picket in a peaceful manner, so have other free citizens the right not to strike, to refuse to be persuaded and an inalienable right to go to work.
"Along with citizens' rights go citizens' responsibilities. A citizen who takes advantage of the right to picket or to take part in a demonstration, has a responsibility to ensure that his conduct does not deprive other citizens of their rights. He must obey the law. The same applies to organisations which take part in disputes and demonstrations. They have a special responsibility not to create situations in which maintenance of the rule of law becomes impossible.
"Amongst the crowds outside Grunwick on most days there have been elements who have no respect for law, nor any obvious connection with the dispute. Such people have a vested interest in violence and confrontation with the police. They cannot be controlled by officials of the trade unions concerned in the dispute. They can and must be controlled by the police."
The same goes, with changes of terminology, for demonstrations such as that which happened at Ilford.
It is no use, therefore, if I may respectfully say so, the Home Secretary saying, after his famous, "Watch it!":
"At the end of the day the mass of people will decide that there will be peace on the streets, and people of that nature" —
that is to say, the rowdies—
"will not determine what will happen [Official Report, Commons, 27/2/78; col. 62.]
I am afraid that, unless we are talking about vigilante groups—and I am sure that the Home Secretary was not—the people of the part of the world where the demonstration is going on are quite unable to exert any influence upon the matter. They are powerless, and we are therefore able only to depend upon the police to protect them, in the way that the Police Federation themselves explained their duty to act.

583
When considering whether or not there should be a ban on a march as there was at Ilford, I should like to add one thing which has not been mentioned by anybody else. I do not know whether or not it is relevant, and I leave it to your Lordships to decide. A Party like the National Front—and I should think that the Socialist Workers' Party is probably the same—is a comparatively small one and, in terms of radio and television time at an Election, they would get very little airspace, if any at all, to explain their views to the public. They have, however, discovered that the most magnificent opportunity for publicity is available to them for nothing. All that they have to do is to organise marches and the mere fact that they are there and that they are who they are automatically stirs up the opposite faction to create the most appalling row and they are given publicity in newspapers, radio and television for days before, during and after.
Why do people fall into that trap? Why do the Socialist Workers play into the hands of the National Front by insisting on provoking them and giving them this publicity? I do not understand it—especially as the Socialist Workers do not seem to me to be all that intent to keep within the law themselves.
Lord STONE: My Lords, from an opposite point of view would it not be the case that if no one took them up, if there was not a row they will get equal and better publicity from the march itself?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, this will always be a matter of judgment. I should have thought that if they did it on a Saturday afternoon there would be practically nobody who would bother to go out to see them and they certainly would not know what the particular issues were. It is only a point that I put forward. I think they would do much better out of having a demonstration which causes a counter attack by the opposite faction. At any rate, I say that; but it is a serious point because we must consider, if we are going to continue to ban these demonstrations for the sake of the local populace, where it will lead.
As two noble Lords have said, about a quarter of the total Metropolitan force on duty last weekend were at Ilford. The result of that has been explained by my
584
noble friend Lord Inglewood as to the effect elsewhere. In the five years ending 31st December last, there were in London 2,185 events which come within the public order category and which required special police arrangements. I hasten to say that by no means all of those were on the same scale as Ilford; but that is the number. I am with my noble friend Lord Westbury in wishing to know what plans the Government have if we have this kind of thing happening in a General Election. I know that it will be said that the numbers are few and therefore it will not be widespread on any one night. I can imagine the results on the police of having to deal with this night after night after night over the period of an Election campaign. I believe that we should be sure that we have contingency plans to deal with that sort of thing, too.
Those were two cases where I think we have the inability of the public in rather different settings. There is one other thing I would like to say and that is where I believe there is a genuine misunderstanding which is bringing the law into dispute. It was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, about the disruption of public inquiries. It happens as always that there is an expert on something in this House. I have been at one public inquiry where there were disruptions and I have advised the disrupters on another; so that I know a little about it. The situation is, I think, this. I cannot go on long about it.
People in small local areas are being asked to suffer for years and years, or perhaps for ever, a major disruption in terms of projects such as motorways or opencast mining which are in the national interest very much more than they can be seen to be in the local interest. These people are nowadays much more articulate. They know that individually they cannot oppose it; indeed, that is why they say, in terms, they disrupt. They band together, as they see others do, to try to stop the processes of law.
But I think a lot of them suffer from a major misunderstanding. I do not think that they understand that it is a process of law at all. I think they believe it is a public meeting and that it is going to be the result of a democratic vote, of how many people in the room can persuade the inspector (who is always called the chairman) to agree or not to agree to the

585
project. They do not understand that it is a quasi-judicial process which is going through and that this is the only way in which you can reach the sort of decision which these inquiries are set up to achieve. I believe that we might do a certain amount by way of educating the public about this to the effect that there is no use their disrupting these inquiries because they will have to be held in the end and it merely is a waste of everybody's time and money without achieving anything.
But, again, if people are to accept that those Ministerial decisions when given are going to be fair, they must be able to trust Ministers and—as they know it is often done by the civil servants—they must be able to trust the civil servants also to be well advised. I must tell the House that the cynicism about this at the moment is very extensive. I end very much in agreement with my noble friend Lord O'Hagan but, I am afraid, rather late. For 5½ hours now we have been talking, really, about standards. As our contribution at Westminster, I am going to make some suggestions. I agree with my noble friend Lord Morris and others that we are not the only body that sets standards and promotes authority in this country. But we can do what we can; and I suggest that we should. We should, as the noble Lord, Lord Gray, said, watch our own standards in Parliament on the sort of points I have been making. We should not make it impossible to know what the law is or to obscure it by ill-drafting. Let us try to see that the rights referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on which the individuals in our society now insist are matched by their realisation that they have concomitant rights and duties. I agree with the two noble Lords on that.
And I would say that we will do this most successfully—and I agree with my noble friend Lady Macleod on this part of her speech—by enabling individuals themselves to be able to take their own decisions, to have their opportunities for progress, their opportunities for success and their opportunities for prosperity, without the endless interpretation by local and central Government except at the absolutely minimum possible level and without recourse to pressures of mobs either for them or against them. In the context of this debate, if they are to be
586
allowed to do that in security when they go about their own affairs in this way, let us see, above all, that Government does ensure protection for that vast majority of the good and honest against the intentions of the incorrigible and wicked and that those incorrigible and wicked are detected and convicted when they act against the law. I would suggest that those are ways in which we can do something to restore the primacy of the law and a respect for authority.
8.28 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, nobody who has listened to the long and interesting debate that we have had today and who has studied the report of Monday's debate in another place can have any doubt about the genuineness of the concern that is felt both by the Government and the Opposition spokesmen and by supporters of all Parties and of none at the increasing volume of crime in our society, or about the anxiety that we should do whatever we can to contain that increase and to enhance respect for the law in the community and for the agents who have to enforce it. Inevitably, the debate that we have had has, with this large number of speeches, covered a large wide range indeed. Many points of interest have been raised in the speeches, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Kinross, and the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, in their valuable maiden speeches.
I would be tempted to take up the challenge that has just been cast down by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, to examine some of the historical and well-known infringements of the rule of law of the Tory Party in office. I have little doubt that it will more than compensate for those historical reminders, from Clay Cross onwards, that he has so attractively taken up at this late hour. But I shall resist the challenge tonight and look forward to another opportunity of taking it up. Furthermore, I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him in his important discussion of the problems raised by picketing, mass demonstrations and other matters which present serious problems for the future, as he has said, particularly at Election times.
It seems to me that four main themes dominated the discussion. I hope I shall be permitted to address myself to those. The first was the concern that we have

587
all felt—and the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, emphasised this—at the sheer extent of crime today, particularly crimes of violence, burglary and wilful damage, which is disclosed in the statistics of recent years. Though this increase tends to be exaggerated, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said, it is nevertheless serious and of course the Government take it seriously. Secondly, there is the importance of eliminating, so far as we can the social conditions which lead to crime and criminal habits and therefore to disrespect for the law and authority generally. Thirdly, there is the desirability of ensuring that the law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, are kept up to strength, that their standing in the community is enhanced and that they have the resources that they need to discharge their difficult and responsible task. Fourthly, there is the desirability of ensuring that those who, at the end of the road, have to deal with convicted criminals, have the necessary powers to do what ought to be done.
I put these themes in that order because, when we are faced with the problem of crime, we are not looking merely at the questions of how criminals are caught and prosecuted, and what is done with them, having done so; we also have to look at the more fundamental problems of why they commit crimes at all. I appreciate that, in this debate, it has been the position of the law enforcement agencies that has been mainly in the minds of speakers. It may be desirable to look for a moment at the more fundamental problem. We cannot of course ignore the extent of crime, and it is, as my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner said, a matter of serious concern. This is so, not least because it is a real, practical threat to those—and, as more than one noble Lord has said, they comprise the vast majority of our people—who want only to feel free and safe in going about their ordinary, lawful business. They are of particular concern to those—and this includes especially the Home Secretary and myself—who have a large measure of responsibility for the agencies which have to deal with crime, and my own concern raises matters to which I shall return later.
There is of course no room for complacency here. On the other hand, there is no room for panic. Crime is not something that has suddenly happened.
588
It has always been with us and covers a very wide range of anti-social conduct. I remember that when I was in another place the cry at the end of the day was, "Who goes home?" That came from the days when it was unsafe for Members to leave the place alone in case they were beset by footpads. Perhaps they are more respected these days or there may be fewer footpads: who knows, my Lords? That it has a history is of course apparent.
The more complex society becomes, the more complex its laws also become. Therefore, the wider is the range of conduct which falls within the ambit of the criminal law. As has been said more than once, the increase in crime that we have seen in this country over the past two decades is not something peculiar to our own society. It is a feature of all highly developed societies and of many not so highly developed as our own. I was relieved during the remarkable opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that at least he did not blame the Labour Government for all the crimes of western Europe, for which relief I say to the noble Lord, "Thank you very much, most kind". I thought that speech was dealt with in most devastating fashion, if he will permit me to say so, by my noble friend Lord Lee of Newton. It was good to see him in action as he used to be in those many years from 1945 onwards in another place.
With the leave of the House, I have attended international gatherings in various parts of the world, and the common picture has been of increase in criminal behaviour and of strains growing upon the forces of law and order. So we are not alone—not that that gives us any grounds for consolation. But it shows that the malady, of which we see the symptoms in the crime figures of our own country, has many causes, is deep-rooted and will not, I fear, be susceptible to any sudden or magic panacea.
We have heard a great deal about the causes of crime. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, spoke of that. I cannot claim any monopoly of wisdom on this subject, although I have been in and out of the criminal courts—I may say, in a professional capacity!—for a very large number of years. There are certain causes of crime which we can safely identify although they are by no means exhaustive

589
or exclusive. First, there is human nature itself: its occasional greed, its selfishness; its violence. I fear the instinct to break things up is fairly widespread and is not always successfully contained.
We are not going to change human nature or eradicate the "old Adam" easily. But we have to recognise that the "old Adam" will flourish where conditions are apps opriate for that to happen. If a sizeable section of our community thinks that the law is loaded against it, that the forces of law and order are hostile towards it, that the economic and social conditions in which it lives will condemn it indefinitely to poverty and discomfort, that those who have the power and resources to do something about it simply do not care, then that section will feel few inhibitions about crime, stealing, knocking people about, damaging property and generally behaving in a way which the law and enforcement agencies seek to prevent. This is something about which we have done something, are doing something and propose to go on doing something.
In this connection, I am sure that race relations are crucial. We must remember that the coloured section of our community is not by any means made up only of first generation immigrants. A large number of them were born here and have grandchildren who were born here. But, if they become persuaded that the law itself does not hold the balance fairly between them and the indigenous population, or that the forces of law and order—particularly the police and the courts—are in some way prejudiced against them, those coloured people are not going to have the respect for the law which is so desirable, and they are not going to have any inhibitions about breaking it. That is why I regard the operation of our race relations legislation as of prime importance. It was passed in 1976. It has not had a great deal of time to take effect. I regard it as a bold and far-reaching piece of antidiscrimination legislation—perhaps the boldest and most far-reaching that has ever been enacted in this country.
It is not of course easy to keep the balance between attempting to improve by legislation the relationships within our society and, on the other hand, preserving individual freedom. The Act we passed holds this balance as well as it can be held. I have a considerable measure of hope that it will go a long way to eliminating the
590
fear which some at any rate of our coloured citizens may have that the law does not hold the balance fairly, or that those who have to administer it or hold the reins of power are prejudiced against them.
If we are to tackle one of the root causes of lawless behaviour, we must ensure that this legislation is fully implemented and use our influence to combat the deliberately provocative actions of the National Front and its allies, whose avowed object is to make life unpleasant and difficult for our coloured citizens. Their actions impose enormous burdens not only on the ordinary citizen, who is afraid of violence and disruption, but also of course on the police. Elimination of this particularly unpleasant form of gutter politics would, I believe, make a very real contribution to the solution of the problems which your Lordships have been discussing today.
In this connection I ask leave to quote the words of a former Conservative Minister who seemed to me to have hit the nail on the head when he expressed the importance of ensuring that coloured citizens in Britain are given equality of treatment. It was Mr. Peter Walker. He said this:
"To succeed would not only be morally right but it would also be of immense significance that the nation which once exercised more imperial power over coloured people than any nation in history, a nation whose commercial strength was developed and built up on the trade and goods from African and Asian territories and which in the 20th century pointed the way to a world in which human beings, irrespective of racial background, united for a decent and civilised common purpose."
Those are noble words: I am sure we all endorse them.
May I also venture to quote words which I myself used when I stressed the importance of judges being sensitive to the feelings of minority groups, and in particular coloured immigrants, when I said I was confident:
"… that the courts do and will continue to administer the law fairly and impartially to all sections of our population of whatever race, colour or creed, and that they will be mindful of the need in their public utterances to respect the feelings of the members of those sections".
Another condition of our society which I believe to be conducive to criminal activity is what now goes by the name of urban deprivation. This overlaps the race relations problem, because so many of our coloured citizens live in the worst parts of our major cities. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary

591
said the other day:
"The problem of the inner cities is no doubt related to the growth of crime "—
though to what extent that was so he rightly said was difficult to decide. Nevertheless, the Government attach great importance to these steps that have been taken to increase expenditure on urban programmes, and the House will be aware that the Government are looking hard at the problem of industry in the urban areas, with a view to providing urban employment there, where unemployment is often most acute. The very factor of unemployment, which, again, the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, so fairly pointed out, is one of importance in this field.
It is not the occasion for me to embark upon a detailed examination of the economic problems which have led to the present unacceptably high level of unemployment. The only point that I wish to make this evening is that the prospect of waiting indefinitely for a decent job, with no guarantee of finding one in the end, must in the nature of things lead to young persons taking, or being more readily tempted to take, to a life of crime. Unemployment contributes to our problem therefore, and it is one reason, among others, why the Government are now spending so much on special schemes to reduce unemployment, especially among the young.
I now come to the frequent discussion with regard to the police which has been, rightly, a constant theme in the course of our debate. My noble friend Lord Lee of Newton dealt with this fully in his speech, but there are some matters which, despite the discouragement from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, I will attempt to deal with. Certainly the Government will unequivocally support the police in their difficult, dangerous and often thankless task. The police have had some considerable successes, which have been recognised today, during the last few weeks in preventing what might have been some very ugly scenes. They are under continual pressure. Many of them get seriously hurt in discharging their duties, and on behalf of my colleagues and myself and, I am sure, of the whole House, I should like to say that they have our full confidence and support.
Concern has been rightly expressed by several noble Lords about the state of
592
morale of the police and I have been asked to give some specific information about the number of premature retirements that we have seen in recent months. I do not want to underestimate the importance of this matter, but I think it is worth reminding your Lordships of what the Home Secretary said in another place on Monday:
"In the two years 1975 and 1976 the overall strength of the police in England and Wales in fact increased by 7,500. This is a figure which must be set against the net loss of 1,275 police officers from the Service in 1977. It is also the fact that recruitment for the Metropolitan Police in 1977—and they are the force causing the greatest concern—was higher than in any earlier year since 1960, apart from the two previous years of 1975 and 1976, when it was at a record level."
I do not want to take any political point on that, but nevertheless I think it is worth mentioning en passant, and I share the charming approach of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner to the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition in another place on this matter, but this is no occasion for making political points.
Now we come to the matter which does cause anxiety; namely, the premature retirement of experienced officers. The total retirements for last year were 5,166. More than half of those—that is to say, 2,726—were resignations on the part of officers who had served fewer than two years. Only 1,700 of those officers who had completed four years' service resigned. The equivalent figures for the Metropolitan Police Force for which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, asked me are as follows: less than 2 years' service 728; over 4 years' service 254. That was out of a total of 1,060. It is interesting to note that the normal age limit for police officers is 55; that is, 35 years' service for those joining at the earliest age, which is now 18½. Full pension entitlement is earned after 30 years' service: that is, before the age limit is reached by most officers. Few officers in fact serve right up to the age limit. That is the normal pattern, and has been. The great majority retired at some time after 25 years' service, when pension entitlement is first earned, and the pattern does not really seem to have changed.
In 1972, for instance, in the glorious days of the Tory Government when they had full concern for these matters, 1,080 officers retired after 25 years' service, but

593
before the age limit, and 183 officers retired at the age limit. In 1977, 3,185 officers retired after 25 years' service, but before the age limit, and 316 officers retired at the age limit. So that, at any rate, the pattern is not a diminishing one or a bad one, but it is, nevertheless, a matter of concern that there are a number of very high ranking, senior officers among those who have resigned.
Pay has, of course, something to do with it, but I do not think that it is the only factor. The Government are committed to paying the police at a level which reflects the demanding and dangerous service which they perform so well. That is not only fair; it is also prudent, because they are vital to the very fabric of our society. Like everyone else, the police stand to gain by the success of our policy of containing inflation, and for this purpose the Government regard the guidelines affecting pay as essential. Nevertheless, we recognise the strength of the case put forward by the Police Federation and, as I think the House is aware, in addition to the immediate 10 per cent. increase in police pay, to which my noble friend Lord Lee referred, the whole subject has been referred to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, and his committee for urgent review. I cannot think that this problem could be in more capable hands than those of my old friend, especially, if I may say so, as I mention it on St. David's Day. May I simply add that the Government are committed to accepting the recommendations of Lord Edmund-Davies's committee, subject to the right to consider the phasing of their implementation.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, asked me some questions about Metropolitan Police reliefs. The information I have is that it is normally considered that at least five officers, and sometimes six, are needed to provide one officer on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. So that, to provide one extra man on this basis at each of the stations, would take about 900 officers. The 4,500 figure which the noble Lord quoted would, if the Commissioner decided to use them all in that way, provide an extra nine officers at each station. Of course, the House—
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord allow me to interrupt? His calculation is that
594
my 4,500 would produce three men per relief and not two?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have given the figures and I think that that must be the result, but if I am wrong, I will have the matter corrected. However, it is reasonably reassuring, in so far as I can understand the somewhat complicated arithmetic. But perhaps we can go into it later. May I say that I entirely agree about the importance of the work of the Special Constabulary, and the noble Lord may care to know that, at the present time, a publicity campaign is being carried out in support of the recruitment of Special Constables. I hope that this will encourage more members of the public to assist the police in this important way. So that that is being done. Preventive policing is something which the House will be discussing in detail, when we consider the Motion of my noble friend Lady Phillips on the prevention of crime, which we are to debate in, I think, the coming week. Perhaps we can postpone consideration of it until that time.
I listened to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, during most of his speech, on the subject of football hooliganism. My right honourable friend the Minister for Sport chairs a working party on crowd behaviour, at which the Football Association and the police are represented, and their helpful and expert advice on detailed matters of crowd control has already proved very valuable. Football hooligans who are convicted of offences of violence and criminal damage, or threatening behaviour, may be sentenced, as the noble Lord knows, to a wide range of penalties. The Criminal Law Act, which we passed last Session, increased the maximum fine which magistrates may impose for some of these offences to £1,000, and it also strengthened the powers of the courts to deal with juveniles, particularly in regard to the making of attendance centre orders. All this, I think, demonstrates that the Government are, of course, concerned both about crowd disorder and about football hooliganism.
If I have time, I should like to speak a little of the anxieties which I face in regard to the burden placed upon the courts by the increasing number of criminal cases that fall to be dealt with

595
in the Crown Court. In the first year, 1972, for which we kept comprehensive statistics, the figures of committals for trial to the Crown Court were under 40,000. Last year, there were 57,000 and the figures have risen by about 46 per cent. over the last six years, and I fear that they show no sign of decreasing. The outcome, I am afraid, will be that in 1980 we shall be seeing about 66,000 committals for trial to the Crown Court in a year, and a decade later the position may well be worse. Waiting times before trial could be stretched not only into weeks and months but into years. This is something which we cannot accept and which, I confess, I find deeply disturbing.
I make the point in this debate, because respect for law and order will not be enhanced if, with a strengthened police force and, therefore, presumably, a higher detection rate, the courts find themselves increasingly incapable of dealing with the resulting volume of cases. Prisons will become overcrowded, waiting lists will become a scandal and the public will, I fear, lose confidence in our machinery of justice; and when they lose that confidence they lose respect for law and order. I therefore wish, as Lord Chancellor, to underline the importance of this aspect of the problem that we have been discussing.
The solution is not easy. To cope with it, there are only two basic approaches. In the first place, we can try to increase the resources of our courts by appointing more judges, building more courts, streamlining the procedure, enlarging the courts' staff et cetera. But there are limits to that process, because the resources are not infinite, neither is the judicial manpower, nor is the money. Moreover, one of the results would be to put yet further strains on the prison service, and that is something which we must watch very carefully.
The other approach is to reduce what is fashionably, in the jargon, called the input. The House will remember that we made a considerable effort in that direction—and I have sour memories about this—with the Criminal Law Act of last year. Quite apart from increasing the powers of the courts, we redistributed significantly the business between the Crown Court and the magistrates' courts, and now many crimes, which would otherwise have led to trials by jury in trivial cases, will be disposed
596
of by the magistrates. But, alas! that was not permitted to happen in the case of minor, trivial offences which still crowd courts and enjoy the full panoply of trial by jury.
If we are to keep under control the trial of serious crimes, I am afraid that the time is likely to come when we shall have to accept the need to divert to the magistrates' courts still more categories of crime which can at present lead to trial by jury. This may be unpalatable. Indeed, last year it proved to be unacceptable and a formidable range of noble and learned Law Lords was lined up against me, and the Government lost the day. But I am afraid that we cannot have it both ways and I give a solemn warning that we may have to return again to this matter, unless we are to accept delays and congestion in the Crown Courts which at present we consider to be quite intolerable.
Alas that the sands of time are running hard and fast against me! So far as the powers of the courts are concerned, I do not think that there has been much complaint about their inadequacy, save in regard to what magistrates can do in respect of juveniles. In my view, the powers are adequate, and Parliament has given discretion to the courts within the considerable maxima that are available to them. We have increased substantially the penalties which can be imposed in the courts. We have introduced measures like the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, and there is now before the House the Government's Suppression of Terrorism Bill, which is designed to deal with the threat of international terrorism, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred in his speech.
The courts are not reluctant to use the swingeing powers that they have under the law. There has been much criticism of sentences passed, in particular for rape and robbery. Indeed, I was almost publicly hanged—in effigy, of course—in Trafalgar Square because of some alleged inadequacy of sentencing, but may I remind the House that 91 per cent. of offenders convicted of rape are sentenced immediately to prison or other custodial institutions, and so are 84 per cent. of offenders convicted of robbery. There is no lack of willingness, therefore, on the part of the courts to impose these severe sentences where necessary. However, at this point, may I say that I should be totally opposed to a return to capital

597
punishment, to corporal punishment or to the adoption of any of the extravagant penalties about which we read that are imposed in other countries, from the cutting of hands—up or down as the case may be. Mutilation and branding were not unknown in this country in the Middle Ages and, as my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hamspeatd has said, they were not particularly effective then.
I have mentioned the powers of the courts, but it is also important not to underestimate, in particular in regard to young offenders, the importance of nonresidential care, including supervision, intermediate treatment, fostering and measures of that kind. And, in the face of having to deal with a limited number of serious or persistent juvenile offenders, we must not turn our backs on an approach which I believe has proved to be of value.
With regard to the absence of secure accommodation in the community home system for offenders who cannot safely be left at home, the Government have, over two years made available to local authorities no less than £3½ million for such accommodation and we are making full use of the Children Act 1975 to make direct grants for the provision of secure accommodation. There are now under construction 113 secure treatment places; 12 more attendance centres for juveniles are planned, in addition to the 60 already available to provide for part-time attendance, and we intend to establish more. There are to be more detention centres. I am not saying that they are glasshouses, as envisaged by Mr. Whitelaw, but the discipline is brisk and firm.
There is, admittedly, a dispute between the Government and Members of the Opposition over a question of policy, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has pointed out; namely, whether it should be for the magistrates to decide whether or not a secure care order should be made for juveniles or whether this should be a matter for local authorities. The Government have taken the latter view, but the improvement which has taken place is in the greater liaison with magistrates. The position was reviewed recently and I think that certain improvements have resulted from it. It is of some comfort, at any rate, that, regarding juvenile delinquency, in the last two years for which figures are available the number of juveniles cautioned or charged with
598
crimes has decreased by 5 per cent. and 4 per cent. respectively.
In conclusion, we must recognise that there is a limit to what can be done either by legislation or by the improvement of our penal institutions. This was the point which was made by the all-Party Expenditure Committee in another place when it stated that no legislation can be expected to have a significant effect on the general level of delinquency; the underlying social and environmental factors are too complex and too deep-rooted to be readily susceptible to influence by legislative means. The whole community must help in this battle. Increased community commitment is essential. So also, of course, is the factor of greater acceptance of parental responsibility, to which so many noble Lords have referred.
At least I hope that, after what I have said, your Lordships are satisfied that the issue of law and order is one about which the Government are very greatly concerned. We think that the right way of tackling the problems that have been brought out in the course of our debate is to persevere with our policy of making the law be, and be seen to be, fair to those who might have thought that it was loaded against them; to support as best we can, and within the constraints we all suffer from, the agencies of law enforcement; to do what we can to ensure the smooth running of the machinery of justice; to arm the courts with the powers that they need and which are likely to be effective in dealing with those who fall foul of the criminal law; to improve our economic situation by containing inflation and reducing unemployment so as to give to the younger members of our society the prospect of earning their living honestly in useful and rewarding work; and finally, by impressing on all concerned the very real responsibility of social workers, local authorities, school teachers and other educationalists, and, above all, parents, for the upbringing and standards of behaviour of the rising generation.
9.10 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, this has been a most useful and constructive debate. I would like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in it. I should like doubly to thank those noble Lords who have spoken in it and have actually stayed, and, as a special commendation,

599
I should like to thank those noble Lords who have not spoken but who have stayed: I think they deserve great credit.
Much to my surprise, the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, did not seem to like what I had to say. The only thing that attracted him at all was the quotations that I included, and so in a spirit of friendliness I will offer him one more, from Sir Thomas Browne's Religio Medici, which I have written in my diary:
"There is no man's mind of howsoever discordant and jarring a disposition to which a tunable mind may not strike a harmony."
The noble Lord is young and impressionable. I am sure that over the years he and I will find ourselves thinking and speaking in harmony. Meanwhile, I think we should all go home and risk the footpads. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  ALLIED FORCES HEADQUARTERS FILE 383.7–14/
  ALLIED FORCES HEADQUARTERS FILE 383.7–14/
  THE CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1977, SECTION 48
  THE CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1977, SECTION 48
  HYDROGRAPHER'S DEPARTMENT, ROYAL NAVY
  HYDROGRAPHER'S DEPARTMENT, ROYAL NAVY