Sitting of 7 March 1978

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday next.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (SELBY) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday at Seven o'clock.

ORKNEY ISLANDS COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

  SHEFFIELD GENERAL CEMETERY BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  MR. SPEAKER'S STATEMENT
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call Question No. 1, I have a very brief statement to make. Question No. 1 can lead only to what I call a shot-in-the-dark question. Since Ministers are not able to transfer Questions directly related to their Departments, there is no reason for an hon. Member not placing on the Order Paper the Question that he really wants answered. Of course, the Prime Minister's Questions are different because the Prime Minister is able to transfer Questions.
  I do not think that the ancient custom of our House with regard to Questions should be changed except by a conscious decision taken by the House as a whole. In any case, other hon. Members have a right to have notice of the real Question which is being addressed to the Minister.
  Hon. Members know that there is no prescriptive right to be called to ask a supplementary question. I must inform the House that, in order to guard our long-established custom, I may well in future exercise the discretion given to me by the House with this type of Question.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) had no notice of this statement, so I shall call him for his supplementary question.
  Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the statement which you have just made, Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall gladly and willingly answer points of order on this matter at the end of Question Time, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
  Mr. Adley: Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful to you for your guidance. Perhaps it would help if I advised you, as I intend to advise the House, that I told the Secretary of State as long ago as last Wednesday what would be the subject of my supplementary question to him.
  Mr. Speaker: That was a secret. Questions are open.

  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Secretary of State (Engagements)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list his official engagements for 7th March.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): I shall be meeting informally the Chairman of the BMA Council and the Secretary of the Council.
    Mr. Adley: In view of the fact that I told the right hon. Gentleman last Wednesday what I was going to ask him, will he please be so kind as to tell the House why, 48 hours after that, he had a Question placed on the Order Paper by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), a perfectly bland and innocuous Question, which he chose to answer last night in great detail about his version of the Scott affair? Will he enlighten us?
    Mr. Ennals: I had noticed Questions that had been tabled for today. I thought that it would be helpful for the discussion today and for any supplementary questions for me to set out a complete statement in order that any hon. Members could refer to it if they so wished and in order that I could refer to it if I so wished.

    Benefits and Pensions (Local Payment Facilities)
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the existing means of distribution for social security benefits and retirement pensions, in the light of the continued closure of village post offices.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Stanley Orme): Yes, Sir. In September 1977 there were about 11,800 rural sub-post offices, and I am satisfied that they provide an adequate service. This is a net reduction of 160 over the preceding year, but this reduction reflects movements of population rather than a planned withdrawal of services.
    Mr. Farr: Can the Minister say whether consideration has yet been given to the recommendations made by the Post Office Users National Council that the Government should compensate the Post
    1200
    Office for maintaining services at remote sub-post offices which cannot be continued on an economic basis?
    Mr. Orme: Along with the work of the joint working party of officials on inter-bank research and payment through banks, this matter is under consideration
    Mr. Woodall: Will my right hon. Friend consider opening temporary premises in villages such as Upton in my constituency, which is a village with a closed colliery and in which there is a high rate of unemployment and many elderly people who are inconvenienced through having to travel to the next village of South Kirkby to receive their benefit?
    Mr. Orme: I understand that this matter has arisen in a number of mining areas. Where there are elderly and disabled people, special arrangements can be made at present. But where people are signing on for unemployment benefit this must be done within the six-mile limit once a week. Over the six-mile limit, where special consideration can be given, it can be done by post.
    Mrs. Chalker: As 72 per cent. of those on the unemployment benefit trial of fortnightly payments preferred fortnightly payments, what proposals does the Minister have to extend the use of fortnightly and monthly payments, and perhaps quarterly payments, to others receiving benefits so as to ease the administrative burden?
    Mr. Orme: The experiment that the Government have carried out has now been completed. The results are being examined by Ministers. A statement will be made in the near future.
    Mr. Skinner: In relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) had to say, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in certain areas of the coalfields miners on the so-called early retirement scheme are able to get their money, arising out of the closure of some of these offices, on an extended basis, and that it should be made applicable to all? Whilst we are on the subject, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a drive towards amalgamation of post offices, registry officers for births and deaths and so on, and that this is bad and it is about time

    1201
    that it was stopped? He and his colleagues ought to intervene and stop the Tory county council in Derbyshire from closing registration offices there, particularly in my constituency.
    Mr. Orme: Only the electors in Derbyshire can do that.
    Mr. Skinner: I have done my best.
    Mr. Orme: On the wider point that my hon. Friend has raised, amalgamation of offices is done for the sake of efficiency, and it assists the staff in many areas who assist people claiming benefits. I understand the fact that there are difficulties. If my hon. Friend and some of his hon. Friends, or any hon. Member, would like to raise any specific cases with me, I shall be quite prepared to discuss them.

    Breast Cancer Screening
    Mr. Wardasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what facilities exist within Cambridgeshire for the screening of women for breast cancer and other mammary disorders.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): In Cambridge Health District there are no routine "Well Women" clinics, but a full mammary advisory service is available at Addenbrooke's Hospital through referral by GPs.
    There are two open access clinics for women in Peterborough Health District. One is at Doddington Hospital and the other at Peterborough District Hospital. Both clinics cater primarily for cervical smears, but the staff are willing to do breast examinations where patients request them.
    Mr. Ward: In view of the concern being expressed by women's organisations in my constituency about the inadequacy of primary facilities, may I ask my hon. Friend what progress is being made in the development of secondary techniques for diagnosing this sort of condition?
    Mr. Moyle: Secondary care for this sort of condition is vital. Further research is being commissioned through the Medical Research Council, and on the advice of a working group chaired by Sir Richard Doll screening trials are being set up in four localities. They will consist of two types, both replicated
    1202
    and with controls. They will take the form of, firstly, annual clinical examination over seven years with mammography every other year and, secondly, instruction in and encouragement to undertake regular self-examination, and direct referral to clinics. The sites selected are Edinburgh and Guildford for screening trials and Huddersfield and Nottingham for self-examination.
    Mr. Freud: In view of the fact that I told the Minister's right hon. Friend and twice wrote to the Minister himself about a constituent who was in acute pain for 18 months while waiting for a cervical smear, does not the Minister feel slightly ashamed of the answer that he gave—a two-year waiting list in Cambridgeshire?
    Mr. Moyle: There are a variety of reasons for waiting lists, but I informed the House that cervical smears were available at Doddington Hospital and at Peterborough District Hospital.
    Mr. Freud: A two-year waiting list.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will my hon. Friend accept that even more important than mammography and other techniques is the self-examination by a woman of her own problem? In order that she does not defer early diagnosis, will my hon. Friend ask the Health Education Council to have a massive campaign to get rid of fear, so that if there is just a calcified lump it can be removed without all the problems faced by women in regard to worry?
    Mr. Moyle: As I have said, we are conducting trials to see what effect regular self-examination will have. Once we have conducted those trials, the position will be clear and we shall be able to decide whether to launch a campaign along the lines that my hon. Friend has suggested.
    Mrs. Knight: What help and support does the Minister give to the Women's National Campaign for Cancer Control, particularly in its excellent educative work on self-screening?
    Mr. Moyle: I should want notice about that question if I were to inform the House about the question of grant. However, we are most anxious to establish what the effectiveness of screening facilities of this sort will be, because it is

    1203
    probably the key to treatment in this particular field. That is why we are conducting the tests.

    Battered Wives
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what research is being financed by his Department into the problems of battered wives.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): A study of the incidence of violence in marriage and legal, medical and social services implications; a study of the provision and assessment of services for battered women; and a study of women who have left a refuge and how their stay helped them.
    Mr. Hooley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that information. Is he aware of the valuable work being done by the Sheffield Association for Battered Wives? Will his Department take some interest in that work, either by way of study or perhaps by way of direct help?
    Mr. Skinner: What about battered husbands?
    Mr. Deakins: We are always pleased to hear of research that is not being sponsored by my Department. We provide a big grant to the National Women's Aid Federation, and I hope that we can maintain contact with research that is going on in various refuges up and down the country through that national organisation.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that battered wives—and, no doubt, battered husbands—change their minds and that frequently, having made a complaint to the police, they will then withdraw and refuse to give evidence when the matter comes to the courts, either out of a desire for reconciliation or out of fear? However, there is a very real problem in getting the evidence brought forward in order to make cases stick in the courts.
    Mr. Deakins: With respect, that is another question, and I am not even sure that it is a matter for my Department. I suspect that it is a matter for the Home Office.
    Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend aware that absolute rubbish is talked on behalf of the police about battered wives withdrawing their complaints? The police are wholly unsympathetic to battered wives.
    1204
    Therefore, will my hon. Friend discuss with the Home Secretary the need for a change in police attitudes to this terrible problem?
    Mr. Deakins: I certainly take note of what my hon. Friend has said. So far as my Department is concerned, we are well aware of the problem of battered wives and fully sympathetic towards the problems that they have to face.
    Mr. MacKay: Does the Minister agree that there is an element of sex discrimination in this question when we learn from certain experience that there are just as many battered husbands in our society?
    Mr. Deakins: With respect, this is a Question about battered wives, and not battered husbands. Most of the public concern about the need for refuges which has been expressed in the past few years has been in favour of women and not men.
    Mr. Hodgson: Does the Minister's research confirm that there is an urgent need for homes in which battered wives can make the transition from the emotionally fraught atmosphere of their homes to more normal living conditions? Has this urgent need been confirmed by his research?
    Mr. Deakins: The research that we have sponsored so far has not dealt with that particular problem. We are looking at the possibility of doing something to aid Chiswick Women's Aid, which claims to be a unique therapeutic community. At present we are in discussion with the Royal College of Psychiatrists to see whether there is anything in this claim.

    Staff (Winchester and Dorset)
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many staff, other than doctors and nurses, were employed in the Winchester region and the Dorset area at 1st January 1975 and 1st January 1978, respectively.
    Mr. Deakins: Complete figures are available only for 30th September 1975 and for 30th September 1976, when the whole-time equivalents of staff in post for Wessex Region were 17,818·1 and 18,283·3 respectively; and for the Dorset area they were 3,566·1 and 3,665·2 respectively. I am circulating details in the Official Report.
    Mr. King: Although they are not, perhaps, figures for identical dates, does the

    1205
    Minister accept that the number of hospital beds provided has actually declined and is still declining? If that is to be so and other medical services are no better than they were, should there not be corresponding reductions in administrative staff? Will the Minister watch this matter?
    Mr. Deakins: First, on the question of figures, the number of administrative and clerical staff in this one area, in the Wes-sex Region, rose by 11·9 on a figure of roughly 5,000, and in Dorset it rose by only 4·9 on a figure of 1,000, so I would have thought that the record was fairly good in that area.
    On the more general question of administrative staff, my right hon. Friend has taken determined steps to reduce management costs from the level obtaining when we came to office. We shall reduce them by 1980 by 5 per cent., and we are well on target towards that.
    Mr. David Price: Is the Minister aware that for many years the Wessex Region has done badly out of all Governments, on both capital account and current account, that it is not a matter of arguing between one district and another within the region, and that, due to the establishment of a medical school in Southampton—which we welcome—this has led to many other districts getting even less than is available?
    Mr. Deakins: The question of resources is not directly related to this, but the hon. Gentleman will know that under the Resource Allocation Working Party procedure, there is a redistribution from the regions which are above the national average to those which are below the national average. So far, Wessex has benefited under those provisions.
    Following are the details:

    Whole-time equivalent at 30th September 1975

    Wessex Regional Health Authority

    Dorset Area Health Authority

    Administrative and Clerical*

    5,094·4

    1,010·0

    Professional and Technical

    2,495·2

    513·0

    Ancillary

    8,409·3

    1,732·1

    Works

    266·4

    25·0

    Maintenance

    877·7

    143·0

    Ambulancemen/women

    675·1

    143·0

    Totals

    17,818·1

    3,566·1

    1206

    Whole-time equivalent at 30th September 1976

    Wessex Regional Health Authority

    Dorset Area Health Authority

    Administrative and Clerical*

    5,106·3

    1,014·9

    Professional and Technical

    2,800·9

    611·5

    Ancillary

    8,526·0

    1,735·8

    Works

    291·5

    27·0

    Maintenance

    890·0

    136·0

    Ambulancemen/women

    668·6

    140·0

    Totals

    18,283·3

    3,665·2

    * Includes ambulance officers and control assistants.

    Personal Files
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Social Services, if he is satisfied with his Department's arrangements for the safe custody of files relating to individual members of the public.
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the arrangements for the confidentiality of files held by his Department relating to individual citizens.
    Mr. Ennals: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Onslow: Will the Secretary of State please now tell the House what inquiries he has made into the statement on pages 175–177 of the book "The Pencourt File" that certain files relating to Mr. Norman Scott were removed from his Department by a political aide, whom we now know to be Mr. Jack Straw, and taken to 10 Downing Street and seen there by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), and that he in turn took copies of those files and has kept them?
    Mr. Ennals: It is for Ministers to decide for themselves, bearing in mind the need to respect the confidentiality of personal information, what papers they need to consult and what advice they need in order to perform their ministerial functions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) evidently thought it necessary to inform himself about this case, as he has since made clear to the Press.
    Mr. Lawrence: With reference to the Secretary of State's answer, and to the Written Answer which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 27th February,

    1207
    will he say what exceptional circumstances there were to justify the disclosure of the files of Norman Scott to the then Prime Minister and his political secretary? Was it in order to meet statutory or welfare requirements, was it to stop duplication of payments out of public funds, or was it to assist the police with the prosecution? Was the consent of Mr. Norman Scott ever obtained?
    Mr. Ennals: It is for the Prime Minister of the day to decide what information he needs to see, and what information he asks of a responsible Secretary of State, to enable him to decide whether there is any impropriety or anything else. It was on precisely that point that I made a statement yesterday. I assured the House that I had made a thorough investigation when I came into office. I also assured the House that there had in no sense been any impropriety on the part of my Department.
    Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the book "The Pencourt File" has about as much validity as "Babies for Burning" turned out to have? Is he aware that no files relating to any person were taken out of the Department by Mr. Jack Straw to the Prime Minister of the day or to anyone else? Can we not stop the Tories trying to stir up mud as a result of the fevered imagination of a couple of journalists?
    Mr. Ennals: I agree with my right hon. Friend in terms of her comment on the book. It certainly is a package of rumour, innuendo and tittle-tattle. But, since it was perfectly clear that some Conservative Members wished to pursue this, it was for that reason that I thought it quite proper to make a statement to the House and to reveal the fact that, when I knew that allegations were made, I carried out a very thorough investigation and assured myself, and now assure the House, that there was no impropriety.
    Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Dentists (Payment)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services
    1208
    whether he is satisfied with the present methods of paying dentists for their NHS work.
    Mr. Ennals: The present methods of paying dentists have been jointly agreed with the dental profession. But I am always ready to look at proposals for improvement in the arrangements or any reasonable alternative.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Berkshire some dental practitioners are so dissatisfied with their remuneration that they are withholding certain services, in particular the supply of false teeth, to my constituents, and that when they are supplied the dentists are no less than £12 to £15 out of pocket?
    Mr. Ennals: I am aware that some dentists in some parts of the country are refusing to provide some types of treatment, such as dentures, under the National Health Service. I deplore the fact that the British Dental Association has given such advice to its dentists—to be selective. It was for this reason that I sent a personal letter to all dentists asking them not to make patients suffer. But the House will be encouraged to know that the figures for dental treatment under the NHS for the first two months of this year show an increase of 280,000 over the first two months of last year. The number of cases treated is steadily increasing.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Secretary of State confirm or deny weekend Press reports which suggested that his party was proposing in future to finance private pension schemes for the staff of family doctors? Do similar schemes exist for the staff of dentists? Does he agree that if resources are being used in this way the NHS is being further starved of badly-needed resources?
    Mr. Ennals: I ask my hon. Friend to put down a Question on that matter.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the Secretary of State realise that he will never be able to reach a satisfactory agreement with the dentists, or any of the National Health Service professions, as long as many of his colleagues, in Cabinet and on the Labour Back Benches, continue

    1209
    their campaign of sniping and vilification against professional integrity and professional independence? He may mean well, but his party does not.
    Mr. Ennals: What the right hon. Gentleman said is absolute rubbish. It is not true that there have been such allegations. The relations that it has been possible for the Government to maintain with the professions have been on a very civilised basis. I regret that at the present time the British Dental Association has decided to withdraw from the dental rates study group, an independent body on which it has co-operated up to now and which has the responsibility for determining expenses. I have pleaded with the BDA to return to this independent body, because at present it is depriving dentists of a new assessment of their expenses. For this reason, I have now referred the matter to the Review Body. The accusations made by the right hon. Gentleman are quite untrue.

    Mexborough Montagu Hospital (Casualty Department)
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received from people in the Mexborough and surrounding districts requesting that the casualty department of the Mexborough Montagu Hospital be reopened to provide a 24-hour daily service.
    Mr. Moyle: I have received a petition from people served by the hospital and a letter from Mr. O'Donaghue, Secretary of the Rotherham Hospital Branch of the National Union of Public Employees.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does my hon. Friend realise that people in the Mexborough and surrounding districts do not object to his Department building hospitals in the town centre, but they object to their lives being placed in danger because they have to travel so far and also to the indifference of the authorities to this?
    Will my hon. Friend bear in mind what I have said and put pressure on the Trent Regional Health Authority and the Rotherham Area Health Authority to make sure that the casualty department of the Mexborough Montagu Hospital is open on a 24-hour basis?
    Mr. Moyle: The lives of my hon. Friend's constituents are not likely to be
    1210
    in danger, because there will be a modern accident and emergency department at the new Rotherham Hospital, fully equipped. Certainly no indifference is being expressed by the Trent Regional Health Authority, which has approved the establishment of a clinical assistant to work at the Montagu Hospital. As a result of interviews last Friday, the authority has now filled that post, so that the accident and emergency department will be opening. The aim is to give a service from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m.
    Mr. Wainwright: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients were awaiting admission into National Health Service hospitals at the latest date for which figures are available.
    Mr. Ennals: The revised provisional figure for patients awaiting admission into NHS hospitals at 30th September 1977 was 594,000.
    Mr. Knox: Does the Secretary of State agree that the figure is very high? Does he realise that in Staffordshire the size of the waiting list increased by 20 per cent. between September 1976 and September 1977? What practical steps is he taking to deal with this very alarming situation?
    Mr. Ennals: I agree that the figure is too high. I have to say, with sadness, that it has always been too high. The total number of people awaiting admission to hospital has fluctuated around 500,000 since the inception of the National Health Service.
    As I said in reply to an earlier question, we reached a peak of 607,000 at the end of 1976. Fortunately, the figures are now lower than that. But I have made a number of suggestions for dealing with this problem, drawn from the experience of health authorities. They include the centralisation and streamlining of admission procedures, greater flexibility in the use of hospital beds, the use of day surgery, five-day wards for minor operations, added facilities for investigation, and other methods.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one factor in reducing waiting lists would be to take over all the private beds in the National Health Service, especially as many of those who get the privilege of using them do not even pay for them at the end of the day?
    Mr. Ennals: We are already making good progress in fulfilling the terms of the National Health Service Act in that we are steadily phasing out pay beds from the National Health Service and shall be moving forward towards common waiting lists in the National Health Service.
    Mr. Bowden: Will the Secretary of State consider giving special priority to the elderly when they are on lists for routine operations? Obviously, a routine operation at the age of 30 or 40 is very different from one at the age of 70 or 80.
    Mr. Ennals: It is for the hospital consultants to decide what priority should be given to what patients. But in terms of particular types of operation—I am thinking of joint replacements, which are particularly for the elderly—they have a high priority.
    Mrs. Castle: Do not these high figures show the urgent need to establish common waiting lists, which would prevent private patients jumping the queue? Can my right hon. Friend say when he proposes to take action on the excellent report on common waiting lists produced some time ago by the Health Services Board?
    Mr. Ennals: I have received the report of the Health Services Board, and I am now consulting about the best ways in which it can be implemented.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that misleading the House about the extra money which was supposed to have been put into the reducing of waiting lists helps the problem in any way? Why, on 22nd November, did he talk about an increase of £9·5 million when there was nothing of the sort? There was no extra money at all. Does he think that helps?
    Mr. Ennals: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I neither misled the House nor sought to mislead it. I made it clear that there was roughly £8·5 million which had been identified by the health authorities as being directly attributed to easing
    1212
    the problem of waiting lists. I made no suggestion that there were new resources.

    Crawley Hospital
    Mr. Hordernasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will review the proposals for the additions to Crawley Hospital; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Moyle: Construction of phase III, which will provide additional beds and other services in support of the existing accident and emergency department, is due to start within the next few months.
    Mr. Hordern: Is the Minister aware that there is an acute shortage of nurses at Crawley Hospital, and is he aware, further, that the Government propose to expand the number of passengers at Gatwick Airport from 6 million to 24 million? In view of the fact that the facilities at Crawley Hospital are already grossly inadequate, does not phase III need to be expanded and consolidated still further?
    Mr. Moyle: There is a longer-term plan to provide further beds after the completion of phase III which is being considered by the area and regional health authorities. It is true that there was a shortage of nurses in the earlier part of this year. That was due to a misunderstanding of some local policies. But that has now been rectified—at least, it was last week—and by the time phase III comes into operation there will be a new nurse training school which should provide all the nurses needed by the hospital.

    Supplementary Benefit (Fraud and Mistakes)
    Mrs. Knightasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the total sum of money lost in supplementary benefits through fraud and mistakes in 1977; and what steps he will take to cut down this sum.
    Mr. Orme: Cash losses due to irrecoverable overpayments of supplementary benefit recorded during the financial year ended 31st March 1977 amounted to about £8 million. Although this sum is small in comparison with the total of £1·8 billion supplementary benefit paid in that year, we take our prevention responsibilities very seriously. The methods

    1213
    used in taking and processing claims are designed to minimise the risk of fraud and erroneous payments, and these methods will continue to be reviewed in the light of experience.
    Mrs. Knight: In answering my supplementary question, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that I am not asking how much money which could have been claimed was not claimed? Can he please confirm that the biggest rise in the amount lost comes from official errors, which represent about 40 per cent.? Will he perhaps consider the possibility that the impossible complexity of the benefit system is contributing to these errors?
    Mr. Orme: I might tell the hon. Lady as a background to my answer that we make 100 million Giro payments a year of short-term benefits and 900 million order book payments of long-term benefits a year. That is the size of the operation. I recognise that the staff errors which were made amounted to a little more than £3 million. We spend a great deal of time and money on training, monitoring standards of work and other forms of checking, and this has to be weighed against the results achieved. Obviously we want to continue to improve them, and we examine them continuously.
    Mr. Stoddart: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is odd that Questions from the Opposition about fraud are always about social security recipients? Would not it be better if they concentrated some of their Questions on the enormous amount of money lost to the Exchequer through tax frauds?
    Mr. Orme: Some Opposition Members make these accusations continuously, and they are wrong. I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend said about tax frauds.

    Back Pain (Report)
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has yet received the report of the Committee on Back Pain.
    Mr. Moyle: No, Sir, but I understand that Professor Cochrane's working group intends to submit an interim report within the next few months.
    Mr. Jessel: As back pain is known to cost the country about £1 million a day in sickness benefit, medical care and lost production, and as Professor Cochrane's working party has been sitting since 1976, will the Minister see what he can do to speed up matters? Will he also say what support he will give to the pioneering work of the Back Pain Association?
    Mr. Moyle: It was because of the work of the Back Pain Association, amongst others, that we set up the working party, which has been sitting since the end of 1976. It is a subject which needs study in depth. It was because of the importance that we attached to the subject that the working party was created.
    Mr. Heffer: Although undoubtedly this is a particularly serious Question, is my hon. Friend aware that some of us feel that many of the Questions coming from the Opposition are a pain elsewhere than in the neck?
    Mr. Moyle: I shall bear that in mind when dealing with Questions other than the one raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel).

    Child Benefit
    Mr. MacKayasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to take further decisions about the level of child benefit.
    Mr. Orme: I can add nothing to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) on 7th February.
    Mr. MacKay: Bearing in mind that the level of child support under this Government is now even less than it was 30 years ago, is not it time that we inflation-proofed child benefits in line with tax allowances for adults and other supplementary benefits?
    Mr. Orme: I remind the hon. Member that child benefit will increase to £2·30 per child next month and that this Government introduced child benefit for the first child. Although we always want to improve it, there has nevertheless been a considerable improvement in child support.
    Mrs. Hayman: Before succumbing to the demands for index-linking, will my

    1215
    right hon. Friend ensure that child benefit is at a reasonable level? Does he agree that at the moment it is far too low to be index-linked, that it needs to be raised substantially in the forthcoming Budget and that in the interests of fairness it should be at the same level as the child portion in national insurance benefits?
    Mr. Orme: I agree that child benefit is not yet at the level where it should be index-linked. I note what my hon. Friend said about the Budget. No doubt she will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Labour Party Conference that he would not use any of the available money to increase child benefit because it would be unfair to single or married people without children? Does he share that view?
    Mr. Orme: I have not the words of my right hon. Friend before me, but he has been consistent in supporting an increase in child benefit, and it is the intention of this Government to continue that support for children and the family.

    Ambulance Service
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he remains satisfied with the efficiency of the ambulance service.
    Mr. Deakins: Yes, but, as with all services, it is capable of improvement.
    Mr. Arnold: Does not the Minister agree that there is a continuously increasing demand for this service? How is this to be financed in circumstances where, as in the North-West, only some of the service is used for emergency work?
    Mr. Deakins: Finance is part of the wider problem of extra resources for the NHS. In the meantime, under the RAWP principle, the North-West Region and areas within it will be benefiting from this and will continue to do so for the next few years.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that these questions demonstrate beyond peradventure that it is the desire of all the House of Commons completely to
    1216
    refurbish the NHS and social allowances? All sides of the House want an injection of extra public expenditure in order to refurbish the NHS and the social services. A massive minority of one is opposed to this, and that is the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Deakins: Those views are held strongly by all Ministers in my Department.
    Dr. Vaughan: Does not the Minister realise that the efficiency of the ambulance service is seriously reduced by industrial unrest? There is widespread industrial unrest within the NHS. Why does not the Secretary of State condemn industrial action in the Health Service?
    Mr. Deakins: My right hon. Friend has already dealt with that in reply to an earlier question.

    Drug Safety (Warning System)
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that the warning system by which his Department notifies doctors of possible dangers of drugs is working effectively.
    Mr. Moyle: The Committee on Safety of Medicines is at present consulting on proposals to improve the post-marketing surveillance of drugs and is constantly reviewing its methods of communicating with the professions.
    Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend aware that these constant reviews are completely ineffective, because after doctors were warned that hormone drugs like the pregnancy test drug Primodos could cause babies to be malformed they were still prescribing these drugs? Despite the negative response and complacent replies I have had from his Department, this matter is of growing public concern.
    Mr. Moyle: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a matter of proper concern. That is why we are seeking to reinforce the yellow card system by the new system of surveying about 20 drugs every year and the patients who are taking them. We are consulting upon this new approach. When we have had the replies, we can take a decision on what needs to be done.

    Dentistry
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what

    1217
    action he is taking to ensure there is enough NHS dentistry available for those who need it.
    Mr. Ennals: The increasing number of dentists being added to the Dentists Register each year provides the basis for continuing improvement in National Health Service dental services.
    Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are certain parts of the country where no NHS dentistry is available, not even for emergencies? I have evidence of patients who have been asked to pay £200 for bridging and £450 for capping teeth. Does he not think that that is a scandalous situation, especially when we are supposed to provide complete NHS dentistry for all patients who need it?
    Mr. Ennals: Yes, I think that it is disgraceful. My hon. Friend will know, that I have no power of compulsion with regard to which patients a dentist will treat and what services he will provide. I made it clear earlier—and I have done so publicly—that I deeply deplore the decision of some dentists to limit the amount of NHS service which they are prepared to give. It is encouraging that there is a steadily increasing number of dentists providing services, and an increasing number of treatments, under the NHS.
    Mr. Nelson: Does the Secretary of State also accept that the long-term aim should be to provide a greater degree of preventive dentistry, as opposed to corrective dentistry, under the NHS? In particular, will he give greater impetus to the possibility of providing voluntary fluoride treatment such as fissure sealants and topical applications under the NHS?
    Mr. Ennals: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I would go much further. He will know that the vast majority of area health authorities have now given their approval to fluoridation. I only wish that it was now possible for health authorities to fulfil these recommendations in order that the whole country can benefit.
    Mr. Pavitt: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in April 1976 my working party submitted 37 recommendations and at the same time was able to show that if they were all implemented we would
    1218
    have precisely the same problems about the dentistry provisions under the NHS? In view of this, will he now take the dust off the file and try to implement some of those recommendations?
    Mr. Ennals: The recommendations made by my hon. Friend's working party were of very great value. Some of them have been implemented, but I shall have a look at them again to see whether further action can be taken.
    Dr. Vaughan: Why does the Secretary of State condemn the dentists but not the hospital porters?
    Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman knows very well the position that I have taken with regard to industrial action in the Health Service, whether it applies to doctors, nurses or others who work in the Health Service. Fortunately, the vast majority of those who work in the NHS recognise that when they take industrial action they are taking it against the interests of patients.

  DENMARK (PRIME MINISTER)
  Mr. Whiteheadasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet the Prime Minister of Denmark.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I expect to meet Mr. Jorgensen at the next meeting of the European Council at Copenhagen on 7th and 8th April.
  Mr. Whitehead: At that meeting, will my right hon. Friend raise with the Council of Ministers the question of Japanese car imports into this country in particular and the EEC in general, bearing in mind our vulnerability to manufactured imports, especially cars? Does he agree that EEC action is now needed to prevent the Japanese, who have recently refused to continue voluntary restrictions, from exporting unemployment to Europe? Will not that lead later to a savage trade war?
  The Prime Minister: The European Community has up to the moment regarded this matter as being best dealt with by bilateral discussions between the motor car industries. Such discussions have taken place. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade will be answering a Question on

  1219
  the Japanese situation later this afternoon which indicates that the Japanese motor car industry expects to take a lower market share in this country during 1978 than it took in 1977. If, therefore, our own production can increase, we can fill that gap very easily.
  Mr. Welsh: When the Prime Minister meets the Danish Prime Minister, will he ask him for lessons on how to defend the interests of the agriculture industry in the Common Market? Is he aware of the present drastic fall in United Kingdom livestock numbers caused by the failure of Government policies to defend adequately the United Kingdom livestock industry? What will he positively do about that?
  The Prime Minister: I was not aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was regarded as having failed to defend the interests of British agriculture in the Community. Indeed, I thought the protests were that he was defending them too well. I must say that I think there is a period of expansion ahead for British agriculture at the present time.
  Mr. Roper: Will my right hon. Friend take advantage of his meeting with Mr. Jorgensen to discuss the possibility of a meeting between the leaders of the Socialist Parties of the European Community in order to discuss preparations for direct elections?
  Mr. Skinner: No. Leave it alone.
  The Prime Minister: If I need any guide to my conscience, I shall take my hon. Friend with me and we can talk about it together. I must say that, however sympathetic I might be, there is no ministerial responsibility for party meetings.
  Mr. Marten: When the Prime Minister meets the Danish Prime Minister, will he take with him a copy of the excellent article in yesterday's evening newspaper by his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), who spent a year at the European Assembly and has written a very critical article saying what a farce the whole thing is?
  The Prime Minister: If that is the case, I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is so intent on opposing any additions to
  1220
  the European Assembly or opposing the elections that would take place.

  CBI and TUC
  Mr. Wrigglesworthasked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI and TUC.
  The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) on 2nd February.
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC and CBI, will he confirm that the Conservative Opposition are totally out of step not only with trade unionists but with the CBI with regard to incomes and economic policies? Will he remind them of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) in which he said that he was depressed by the Tory leadership at present following nineteenth century Tory free market principles that would lead only to squalor, slums and injustice in our society?
  The Prime Minister: I would not like my hon. Friend to think that when I meet the CBI and the TUC we spend a lot of time discussing the Opposition. As regards the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), I agree that he follows the line of people like R. A. Butler, Macmillan and Macleod who cared about one nation. The only difference is that they were then in charge of the Conservative Party, whereas the right hon. Member for Worcester has to speak in exile from below the Gangway.
  Mr. Forman: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC and the CBI, will he strongly resist any calls for a return to protectionism through Government policies, bearing in mind that this would not be in the interests of British consumers? Also, if this is done through the EEC, it may well mean retaliatory action from the Americans, which would be very damaging to our prospects for recovery.
  The Prime Minister: We have, since the war, attempted to lower trade barriers. Now it seems that the tide could be turning the other way because of the growth of industrial unemployment throughout the Western world. For Britain this would be a serious reversal as

  1221
  21 per cent. of our gross national product comes from foreign trade. This does not mean that we cannot take selective action—and we have done. The United States has a great complaint against the EEC now in relation to agricultural products, and I have some sympathy with it.
  Mr. Stan Crowther: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC and the CBI, will he discuss with them the advisability of reducing the standard working week for manual workers and the retiring age for men? The development of technology means that manual labour will be reduced progressively. It is far better to pay men in their 60s a decent pension to retire than to have men in their 30s and 40s with families out of work.
  Mr. Cormack: Retire!
  The Prime Minister: I fear that, on that basis, about three-quarters of the present House of Commons would have to go—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must not be personal.
  The Prime Minister: I thought that all the cheers were coming from the younger generation. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) has a serious point and one which will concern the industrial world increasingly over the next decade—the question of the extent to which the manufacturing industry can provide additional jobs. We have not yet solved this problem. Constantly I press upon the TUC the need to raise these matters within the European TUC, so that through the European Council as a whole action can be taken internationally, or at least on an EEC basis. We cannot make it impossible for this country to compete by increasing our costs unduly.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Does the Prime Minister recall the industrial growth targets for manufacturing industry that were accepted by NEDC in the year of the economic miracle—in August 1976—after they had been presented by the Chancellor? The target was for a growth rate in manufacturing industry at an annual average rate of 8 per cent. over
  1222
  four years. What is the target for next year, since that target has not yet been revised?
  The Prime Minister: I do not recall that particular figure. I really do not see why the Leader of the Opposition should expect me to come here charged with every figure in my head that the gang of four has sedulously fed her for Prime Minister's Questions. I would agree with the right hon. Lady that efforts to overcome inflation combined with the problems of the oil-producing countries have created a situation in which it has not been possible to grow. However, we have broadly overcome inflation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said "broadly". Perhaps I had better repeat the figures. When the Conservatives left office, inflation was running at 15·2 per cent. It is now 9·9 per cent. and steadily decreasing. I hope that the Chancellor, when he makes his Budget Statement, will be able to give the right hon. Lady a reply on the growth figures this year.
  Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister refers to the gang of four. The trouble here is the gang of one at the Treasury. This manufacturing growth rate, which the Prime Minister does not know, is the basis for what is known as scenario II, which is based on the assumptions of all the sector working parties. Is not the Prime Minister aware that his own industrial strategy has always consisted of pie in the sky tomorrow and an appalling performance today? Would it not be better to turn to an incentive strategy, instead of high taxation and no incentive for the individual?
  The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the right hon. Lady for that information. I am always ready to receive it. However, it is a case not of giving information but of digesting and using it, and that is what I sometimes wonder about. As far as industrial strategy is concerned, I would suggest that the Opposition stop behaving in this Pavlovian way. Manufacturing industry—employers, managers and trade unionists—strongly supports the Government in trying to get a new approach to industrial strategy. They are working hard in the industrial working parties, and I hope that at some time the Opposition will pay tribute to what they are doing.

  BELFAST
  Mr. Litterickasked the Prime Minister if he will pay a visit to Belfast.
  The Prime Minister: Such visits are not announced in advance.
  Mr. Litterick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, there are now 32,000 armed men who are vainly attempting to make Northern Ireland governable? In this the ninth year of the present conflict in the Province, does he agree that that figure is evidence of the failure of all political initiatives by both Labour and Conservative Governments, and will he therefore consider seriously the ending of British sovereignty in Northern Ireland?
  The Prime Minister: It is much easier to attack what is being done than to propose a solution to end the violence. I do not think for one moment that any suggestion that we should withdraw from Northern Ireland would do anything but increase to a savage extent the violence in the Province.
  Mr. Powell: When the Prime Minister comes again to Northern Ireland—and he is always welcome there—will he note that the latest bout of terror has left the people of Northern Ireland as unshaken and determined as ever? Is he aware that the only effect of IRA violence in the past eight years has been to strengthen the Union? Will he see that that message gets across to the IRA?
  The Prime Minister: I also suggest to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that the violence has had the effect of separating a great many of the minority population from what would seem to be the aspirations of the old IRA and the existing PIRA. My own experience of Northern Ireland—which is far less than that of the right hon. Member and his colleagues—is that an overwhelming proportion of Catholics and minority groups strongly dissociate themselves from the violence that has taken place. We should all pay tribute to that.

MOTOR VESSEL "ENTERPRISE"
Mr. Henderson Mr. Henderson (by Private Notice) asked whether the Secretary of State for
1224
Trade would make a statement on the disappearance of the Fraserburgh motor vessel "Enterprise".
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): The "Enterprise" sailed from Fraserburgh and was known to be fishing the waters east of Shetland. Her last known position was at 21.30 hours on 23rd February when she was approximately 90 miles east of Lerwick and was in radio contact with the trawler "Grampian Castle". Weather conditions in the area at that time were known to be extremely severe. The Coastguard was not informed about any anxiety concerning the vessel until 15.45 hours on 28th February. Inquiries were put in hand forthwith and a broadcast to shipping was made accompanied by a request for an air search to be undertaken at first light.
At the earliest opportunity a Royal Air Force Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft began a search. In addition HMS "Orkney", a Royal Navy offshore protection ship, and subsequently a number of fishing vessels, also carried out a search of the area in which it was thought the "Enterprise" might be located. Despite this, nothing was found and the search was discontinued at last light on 2nd March.
A preliminary inquiry was ordered on 1st March.
I am sure that the House would wish to join with me in expressing deepest sympathy with the families of the crew of the "Enterprise".
Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that my constituents will appreciate that message of sympathy? Is he also aware that the relatives of crew men whom I visited at the weekend expressed their deep appreciation of the dedicated work carried out by the rescue services, co-ordinated by Her Majesty's Coastguard at Wick, and of those who volunteered in the search? In the light of this appalling tragedy, will he consider inviting the industry to consider yet again the system of position reporting so that as far as possible every precaution is taken to ensure that Coastguard knows where boats are at all times? Indeed, will he consider that matter now?
Mr. Davis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to the work

1225
of the rescue services, a tribute that is justly deserved.
In regard to vessel reporting arrangements, I would inform the House that at a meeting in June 1977 the Scottish Fishermen's Federation reviewed the reporting arrangements then in force for vessels fishing on more distant grounds. Unfortunately, despite the efforts made by the Coastguard to try to enforce the situation voluntarily, there has been a reluctance—I think unwisely—by fishermen to disclose their fishing whereabouts. Despite that factor, a modified system was introduced, because the original system was not being adhered to, whereby vessels would report whenever in difficulty or danger or if there were cause for anxiety in respect of the safety of any other vessel. This matter will have to be pursued in the preliminary inquiry that is being undertaken.
Mr. James Johnson: Since we suffered the loss of "Gaul" four years ago, may I on behalf of Humberside extend to my Scottish colleagues our sympathy in this grievous loss. May I ask the Minister about the IMCO safety regulations? Norway, Australia and the United States make it mandatory to carry electronic position-indicating radio beacons. Is it not correct that the Norwegians, who fish in similar waters to those fished by our vessels in the North Arctic, are equipped with radio beacons? If that is the case, will my hon. Friend say what Her Majesty's Government are doing on these lines?
Mr. Davis: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have been pursuing inquiries into these matters with diligence. But up to the present time no fully satisfactory advice has been obtained, and on that basis it would be impossible to impose a mandatory requirement. But I am requesting very strongly indeed that the Fishing Industry Safety Group, which I set up not so long ago, should investigate this matter, among others, at its meeting in May.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that Conservative Members wish to express our sympathy at the tragic loss of life in this disaster? He will also be well aware that many of these fishermen have left young families. Although loss of life cannot be avoided in such dangerous employment, does he not agree that this
1226
great tragedy should give us new resolve to take every possible step to minimise the dangers? Is he willing to review the findings of the Holland Martin Report which followed a similar tragedy? Will he accept the advice of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) and initiate fresh discussions with the industry in Scotland and with the GPO about the possibility of arriving at an effective and acceptable system of position reporting, which works effectively in some areas of the United Kingdom but not in others?
Mr. Davis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for joining in the condolences to the relatives and friends who have suffered this appalling bereavement. This matter cannot be applied only to Scotland. Whatever the tragic circumstances, we have to examine the general position. This points to the essential need for the implementation of the fishing vessel safety rules—rules which were introduced but which, I regret, met with considerable opposition within the industry. We have done our best in introducing those rules to try to enjoin the full support of the industry. A precondition of their application was the establishment of the Fishing Industry Safety Group. I am confident that at its next meeting that group will consider the comments made in this discussion.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: This is a Private Notice Question. I shall call the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the other two hon. Members who rose earlier.
Mr. Grimond: May I join in the expressions of deep regret over this tragedy, which has been a disaster not only for the relatives concerned but for the whole town of Fraserburgh? Will the Minister ensure that the question of adequacy of the radio links round the coast is examined because there has been some anxiety on this score on the part of fishermen in many parts of Scotland.
Mr. Davis: I do not think it is so much a question of the adequacy of the radio links round the coast as of the reluctance of fishermen to disclose their fishing positions. I hope that the impact of this

1227
tragedy will emphasise to them the importance of ensuring that there is radio contact, so that similar situations are made clear to the Coastguard at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Buchan: May I on behalf of Labour Back Benchers express sympathy with the bereaved relatives? I was in Fraserburgh last week and I know the deep shadow that this tragedy cast over the whole community, an area with which I am closely connected. I agree with the Minister that it is not only the technological aspect that needs to be strengthened, although steps may have to be taken in that regard. I wish to ask whether the Minister will have an early meeting with the fishermen and their association. Safety must be a priority and must be taken against all the other attitudes taken by the fishermen. However, perhaps in view of what has happened, safety will be regarded as the first priority in similar circumstances.
Mr. Davis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. It is so often the case that when a tragedy happens the House and the industry become truly alerted to the dangers and difficulties, but those anxieties seem to be dispelled with time. It is the fatalities that occur to fishermen that appear to be paramount in our consideration. I hope that the lesson of this appalling tragedy will be learned by the industry and everybody concerned with fishing.
Mr. Watt: I appreciate that no amount of legislation could avert a danger such as this, but does the Minister not agree that there was an undue length of time before a search was initiated? Should it not be up to the fishing office through which the boat operates to ensure that each vessel reports at least once in every 24 hours?
Mr. Davis: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remarkable criticism of the search and rescue services. Indeed, it was not for some considerable time that the owners reported any anxiety about this vessel at all. If what the Department of Trade has been recommending for a very long time had been implemented, there can be no doubt that this matter would have been reported to the Coastguard very much earlier. I hope, as I have said before, that the full lessons will be learned fol-
1228
lowing the preliminary inquiry and possibly a formal inquiry which will follow that.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer to the statement that you made about the putting down of Questions to departmental Ministers, such as "if he will list his official engagements".
I am certain that you did not want to mislead the House. You should leave that to the rest of us, because we can usually do that much better than you. You said that this practice should not be condoned or encouraged because departmental Ministers do not in fact transfer Questions. At least, that is the drift that I got.
I have news for you, Mr. Speaker. Three weeks ago I put down a Question, No. 8, to the Department of Employment. It was a very important Question regarding the necessity, or lack of necessity, for miners having to go to employment offices to sign on when they are ostensibly retired early. After getting to the important position of No. 8, I found subsequently, last Tuesday, that it was on the agenda of the Department of Social Services, the result being, of course, that it is now No. 46 or something like that.
I have a novel suggestion for both of us, Mr. Speaker. On the basis that you were to some extent wrong regarding the guidance you had been given and the fact that the Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] There was just a little shade of difference. As the Secretary of State for Social Services is here and as the Question is extremely important to many thousands of miners, will you encourage the Secretary of State to stand up and give me the answer that he should have given me in any case?
Mr. Speaker: I should tell the hon. Gentleman that Ministers transfer Questions when they consider that they are not for their Departments. The point that I was making to the House was that if a Question was directed to a Minister's Department, by long and ancient custom that Minister was expected to answer it.
Mr. Adley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that you

1229
were trying to help the House when you made your statement on my Question. But surely an open-ended Question of that nature helps hon. Members to raise current issues which may not be known about two weeks beforehand.
In addition, I should like to illustrate the point made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) with another specific example of the transferring of Questions. I have tried to question the Department of Transport about British Rail's attitude to development land tax, but that is out of order because that Department is not responsible for taxation. I am equally unable to question the Treasury about British Rail's attitude, because it is not responsible for British Rail. Therefore, there are occasions when hon. Members have to resort to this tactic to raise a particular issue.
Mr. Speaker: I must stand firm by what I said to the House this afternoon. If the House wishes to change a custom that has endured for many years and to change the whole character of Question Time, the House must consciously take a decision to do so.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I may raise the question of hospital waiting lists which arose on Question No. 11. I invited the Secretary of State to recognise that, in an earlier Answer at the end of last year, he had misled the House about the expenditure of £9½ million for the National Health Service to reduce waiting lists. The Secretary of State denied that he had misled the House. On 22nd November last year he said:
"The amount of money available to assist the Health Service has also increased. The health authorities are spending £9½ million this year."—[Official Report, 22nd November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1291.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should make a point of order that I can answer rather than score a point.
Mr. Jenkin: I wish to establish that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House were misled and that, indeed, one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in another place was misled. In those circumstances, is it not open to you, Mr. Speaker, to invite the right hon.
1230
Gentleman to say that, however inadvertently, he did in fact mislead the House?
Mr. Speaker: The general custom is for a motion to be put down on the Order Paper rather than to seek to raise the matter in this way.
Mr. Ridsdale: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to Question No. 1, the Prime Minister said that there was to be a statement by the Secretary of State for Trade about Japanese cars. Am I to understand that there is to be no such statement?
The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may clear up that matter quickly. I certainly meant to say that the Secretary of State was to answer a Question on that matter. There is a Written Question on the Order Paper about that issue.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the Fishing Boats (Faroe Islands) Designation (No. 2) Order 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 288) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

NEW MEMBER
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Vivian Walter Hugh Bendall, Esq., for Ilford, North.
Mr. Speaker: The reason why the usual custom of new Members signing the book was not followed was that for some reason the book was not available at that moment.

DISABLED PERSONS (MOBILITY AFTER RETIREMENT)
3.48 p.m.
Mr. Tony Newton: I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise payment from the National Insurance Fund to persons over pensionable age of a mobility allowance equivalent to any mobility allowance awarded to them before reaching that age.
As the House will recall, the mobility allowance began to be introduced rather more than two years ago. It is an allowance to help those severely disabled

1231
people who are unable to walk, or virtually unable to do so, with the financial problems of getting about.
Because of practical problems—in particular the need for medical examinations in many cases—the allowance is being phased in by age groups, and that process is not yet complete. The eventual aim is to make it available to all those who are qualified between the ages of five and the pensionable age—that is to say 60 for women and 65 for men.
For a step which has been generally welcome, the allowance has had rather more than its fair share of controversy. There has been controversy over the rates—originally £5, now £7, and soon to be £10—and whether they are sufficient. There has been controversy about allowances being taxed and whether they should be taxable. Above all, there has been controversy about the phasing out of the three-wheeler which has come to be associated with the allowance and which in due course led to the Motability scheme, in which, with private sector help, the allowance could be more effectively used to help the disabled to buy and run a car.
But, fourthly, there has been controversy about the cut-off at pensionable age. It is with one limited aspect—I emphasise the phrase "limited aspect"—of that part of the controversy that my Bill seeks to deal.
I emphasise that it does not seek to change the situation whereby new mobility allowances are not granted to those who are already over pensionable age. I have not sought to do that for two reasons. First, the cost of removing the age limit altogether has been estimated at £260 million. That is far too large a sum for a private Member to attempt to deal with under this procedure. Secondly, I think that in all honesty we must recognise that there is a real problem about extending the mobility allowance to all over pensionable age simply because it will be increasingly difficult to distinguish between disability in the conventional sense and the sheer consequences of old age. Therefore, I am not seeking to do that.
But we face a situation not only in which those who are already over pensionable age cannot get a new allowance but in which those who already have an allowance, when they reach pensionable
1232
age, will lose it. In other words, at the very point when severely disabled people face the general financial problems of retirement, we are to add to those problems by taking from them a gross extra income of £520 a year at the forthcoming rates of mobility allowance.
Putting the matter another way, the very purpose of the Motability scheme is to assist the severely disabled through the allowance with buying and running a car. As soon as we think of that, we recognise that to withdraw the allowance when such people retire is tantamount to saying to them "Now that you have retired, we do not see any more need for you to get about. The right thing for you to do is to stay at home." That is a heartless attitude. That is what I want to change.
One subsidiary aspect has been brought to my attention in my conversations with hon. Members and others in the last few months. I refer to those approaching retirement who have not yet been, but will be, phased into the allowance over the next year or two. I have a constituent in the age group above 55, which the mobility allowance has not reached. He is severely disabled. His family have clubbed together to buy him a modest car, which he is now struggling to run. He approached me because he was desperately worried that the escalator of his rising age would keep him permanently ahead of the age group in which he would get an allowance.
With the Minister's help, in a courteous letter, I was able to assure him that at some time within the next year or 18 months he should be able to get the allowance if he proved to be qualified. Of course, I could not assure him that he would get it, because I could not make the medical judgment. But what I had to tell him was that, even if he qualified for the allowance at some time in the next year or 18 months, within a year or two after that it would be taken from him again. That is the situation which we should change. There are many people in that position.
The purpose of my Bill is to stop that happening. Although for procedural reasons it has had to be cast in the form of apparently inventing a new allowance, its essential effect would be to provide that anyone already getting a mobility allowance when he reaches pensionable

1233
age would be able to go on getting it afterwards. I do not pretend that if that situation came about it would be entirely free of anomalies. But I think that the anomalies would be less glaring and indefensible than the present prospect.
Moreover, I believe that when we consider the problems of the disabled person who has not been able to work in the normal way during his working life, and therefore has not been able to build up for the financial problems of retirement, it is not unreasonable to giant such people special consideration under the mobility allowance in their retirement.
The cost of my proposal would he modest. The Minister has estimated it at £2½ million. However, I should guess that it would be a little less when account is taken of the fact that the allowance is taxable and, in some hands, would bear tax. On that figuring, if my arithmetic is right, about 5,000 people will be affected in the first year when the allowance starts to be withdrawn—namely, 1980.
If I sought to be controversial, I should point out that £2½ million is very little more in a year than—about the same as—the losses of the British Steel Corporation in a single working day. I believe that if we plan for it now, in the context of our social security expenditure, this modest annual cost could be managed.
1234
The problem has not yet arisen. Because of the way the allowance is being phased in, it will be 1980 before people begin to lose it. But there is already a great deal of anxiety. I believe that when it starts to happen there will be hardship and protests which Parliament will not easily be able to ignore.
My Bill seeks for once to deal with a problem before it arises and to relieve anxiety before it builds up any further. I hope and believe that it will be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House who care about the problems of the disabled.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Newton, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, Mr. Robert Boscawen, Mr. John Cope, Mr. Robin Hodgson, Mr. Giles Shaw, Dr. Gerard Vaughan, Sir George Young and Mr. Michael Mates.

DISABLED PERSONS (MOBILITY AFTER RETIREMENT)
Mr. Tony Newton accordingly presented a Bill to authorise payment from the National Insurance Fund to persons over pensionable age of a mobility allowance equivalent to any mobility allowance awarded to them before reaching that age; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12th May and to be printed. [Bill 73.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WALES BILL
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 2nd March.]
  [Mr. Oscar Murton in the Chair]
  3.57 p.m.
  Sir Raymond Gower: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I apologise to you and to the Committee for raising one matter again.
  Last weekend many of us obtained the impression that the guillotine was operating to exclude discussion on particular parts of the Bill—above all, the relationship between this legislation and possible changes in local government. This is a matter of deep concern.
  I appreciate that you, Mr. Murton, and the Committee are in great difficulty. We are almost hamstrung by the procedural problem. Yet I hope that something can be done to solve this problem; otherwise, there will be grave misunderstanding outside if we fail to discuss what many people regard as one of the most important parts of the Bill.
  I wonder whether anything can be done. Is it possible for the Government to co-operate to introduce a motion to vary the terms which bind our discussion? I plead with the Government and all present to appreciate that this is a matter of the utmost importance, as has been revealed not only in correspondence that I have received, but in conversations with many of my constituents over the weekend.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: On a similar point of order, Mr. Murton. My point relates specifically to Clause 13. As you know, I have raised this matter on two previous occasions. I fear that we may reach 7 o'clock this evening without having had adequate discussion on a vital clause—Clause 13—which calls upon the Assembly to review the structure of local government in Wales and to report its conclusions to the Secretary of State.
  I understand the difficulty of trying to select all the amendments and clauses that must be dealt with before 7 o'clock. How-
  1236
  ever, according to the list of amendments, there will have to be 32 debates before we reach the amendments dealing with Clause 13. I believe it is physically impossible to have an adequate discussion on 32 groups of amendments before we reach Clause 13. It is regrettable, but it appears that the House will have to reach without adequate discussion a decision on an immediate issue of importance that will affect the decision in Wales about whether we shall have an Assembly.
  I understand that it might be possible for us to make reference to the matter because it is related to Schedule 2. May I have your ruling, Mr. Murton, that we shall be able to discuss this matter on amendments to Schedule 2? Otherwise the Committee will not have the opportunity to debate a matter which is of paramount concern to local government in Wales and which involves both district and county councils.
  The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) for raising this point of order. Indeed, I expected it to be raised. The Chair has to abide by the terms of the Business Resolution which was passed by the House. The Chair also has a duty to make a provisional selection of amendments. It has done that.
  The suggestion has been made that some reference to this issue could be made when we reach Government Amendment No. 52. I am aware that Amendment No. 73 is the last amendment to be taken before 7 o'clock. I know that hon. Members desire to debate that issue, but I regret that, with the best will in the world, I cannot allow this. Clause 13, in all respects, goes beyond the matter that will be discussed on Government Amendment No. 52. The difference is fundamental. I am genuinely sorry that I cannot allow it.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I appreciate the matter that has been raised and I shall try to be of help to the Committee. Would it not be possible to bring in many of the issues that hon. Members wish to raise under Amendment No. 53 which has been selected for discussion with Amendment No. 52? I know that it does not cover the exact powers of Clause 13 but I am sure that that solution would afford some scope for debate.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. There is a shift of unusual hope coming from the Plaid Cymru Benches. In view of your previous ruling, which I understand to be offered with the best of will and in an attempt to help the Committee, there will be limitations on discussions on the important question of local government reform because an opportunity is not given to scrutinise and debate Clause 13. I know that your job is particularly difficult, Mr. Murton, because of the cramped way in which we are to discuss this Bill, but the Welsh people are anxious about the whole question of local government reform. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), in an uncharacteristic exaggeration, said last Thursday that it was a popular clause. That is a question that we should debate.
  The idea is a jewel in the Government's crown and, if I may be allowed to mix my metaphors, the Government deliberately want to hide under a bushel in the way that they wish to conduct the guillotine. It is important for us to have a clear avenue in which to discuss the issues that are involved in Clause 13.
  I hope that you, Mr. Murton, will use the maximum generosity when we discuss Amendments Nos. 52 and 53, by not excluding any considerations that might arise which are not specifically included in the amendments.
  The Chairman: The great problem with which the Chair is faced in reviewing the amendments which have been mentioned is that Government Amendment No. 52 and Amendment No. 53 deal with existing powers, whereas Clause 13 is different: it concerns the review of the structure. I understand the concern that has been expressed by hon. Members, but there is also a secondary point. If one were to allow a debate on the terms of Clause 13 at an earlier stage it would cut out many other important amendments. The Chair feels that that should not be allowed to happen. I am bound by the terms of the timetable motion.
  Sir Raymond Gower: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Is it not appalling that discussion on constitutional changes of this magnitude should be prevented by the terms of a guillotine? Constitutional changes of this kind should not be dealt with in this manner. It is
  1238
  inconsistent with our reputation for democratic discussion. Discussion has been stifled at an important point.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) makes these comments but the Chair is in no position to answer them.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. We have less than three hours, until 7 o'clock, for 32 debates. Between 7 o'clock and 11 o'clock there are five debates. Is it possible to ask my right hon. Friends, through you, to allow Clause 13 to be taken earlier than proposed? Is it possible to change the timetable? I voted for the guillotine. If I had known what was going to happen I should have voted differently.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member for Aberdare has had an ingenious idea. However, the guillotine has been approved by right hon. and hon. Members and there is nothing to do but to accept the terms of it. That is the timetable motion and that is the way in which we must proceed.

Schedule 2

  EXISTING STATUTORY FUNCTIONS
  The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 36, line 27, column 2, at end insert:
  'The function under section 5(3)(b) of determining disputes between a local authority and excepted statutory undertakers.'.
  This corrects a minor error in the entry in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 for the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953. At present the entry transfers all ministerial functions under this Act to the Assembly. However Section 5(3)(b) of the Act contains the rarely used ministerial function of determining disputes between local authorities and statutory undertakers concerning the erection of bus shelters by local authorities. The effect of the amendment is that the function will be exercisable by the Government, not the Assembly, where an excepted statutory undertaker is involved in the dispute.
  Mr. Kinnock: It is difficult to understand my hon. Friend. Is he saying that the power to erect omnibus shelters will not be devolved? If so, I am utterly shocked and dismayed.
  Mr. Smith: It has been my function to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on some of his wilder thoughts. I am delighted to be able to reassure him on this occasion. This amendment concerns disputes between statutory undertakers and local authorities.
  Excepted statutory undertakers are denned in Clause 81(1) and include all undertakers for whom the Government will continue to be responsible—for example the British Gas Corporation and British Rail. It is policy throughout the Bill that functions in relation to such undertakers should be reserved or exercisable subject to consent. The amendment brings the entry for the 1953 Act into line with this policy. It is a technical amendment. I hope that it finds favour because it improves the Bill.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: We do not intend to waste time on this amendment, or on the one that follows it. The mind of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) will be put at rest if he puts this amendment in the context of the relevant chapter of the Act which deals with the power of local authorities to establish certain funds for the provision and maintenance of bus shelters and queue barriers. The amendment assumes that any such cause for dispute would involve a statutory undertaker. Is that a wise assumption? Ought not the Government to have limited the words of the amendment to
  "The function under section 5(3)(b).",
  which procedure has been followed in Amendment No. 54?
  Mr. Ioan Evans: The amendment refers to
  "line 27 … at end insert"
  but at the end of line 27 are the words "Enactment" and "Excluded junctions". Presumably the amendment should have been made to line 28, otherwise the wording does not read on.
  The question under discussion seems to concern undertakers. I believe that the Bill will be going to the undertakers
  1240
  when the matter is put to the people of Wales.
  Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) asks why we have limited the provision to statutory undertakers. The policy followed throughout the Bill is that the functions relating to statutory undertakings should be either reserved or exercisable subject to consent. That is the line of policy followed in the amendment, and that was why we decided that matters concerning disputes between local authorities and accepted statutory undertakers should be reserved.
  I think that the printing of the amendment is correct, but I shall check the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans).
  Mr. Wigley: The amendment appears to be fairly trivial, but I cannot follow the Government's logic in differentiating as they have between Section 5(3)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 and paragraph (a) of that same section. The latter refers to a dispute between a local authority and the Minister of Transport being referred to and determined by an arbitrator. Presumably only matters that did not fall within that definition would go to the Minister of Transport.
  The list of statutory undertakers in Clause 81 of the Bill is essential. It deals with
  "any railway, light railway, road transport, dock, harbour, pier or lighthouse undertaking or any undertaking for the supply of electricity, gas or hydraulic power".
  But it deals only with these matters in relation to Wales. I cannot see why it is necessary to relate those to the Ministry of Transport. In any case, it is a question of arbitrating in a dispute. I would have thought that the Assembly was perfectly competent to arbitrate in a dispute even though it might not have all the powers for all the functions concerning the accepted statutory undertakers referred to in Clause 81. If the Government are seeking to devolve as much as possible, surely there is no case for saying that the matter must be kept in London when the Assembly can do the job perfectly competently.
  Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member referred to Section 5(3)(a) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions)

  1241
  Act 1953 which deals with disputes between a local authority and the Minister of Transport which will be referred to an arbitrator to be appointed. In this context the Assembly will carry out the functions of the Ministry of Transport, and that is therefore a different matter.
  The hon. Member says that he does not see why we should not devolve these matters. As I have explained, however, it is clear policy in the Bill that functions relating to statutory undertakers should be reserved or should be exercisable subject to consent. The hon. Member may not agree with the Government's retaining responsibility for the statutory undertakers, but It is our policy, and it is upon that that we rest.
  Mr. Ian Gow: Ought not the Minister of State to be able to clear up the simple point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans)? Part 1 of Schedule 2 is difficult enough to comprehend as it is. As the hon. Member pointed out, line 27 contains the words "Enactment" and "Excluded functions". Should not the Minister's amendment be changed by manuscript amendment now? Ought we not to be amending line 28?
  Mr. John Smith: I think that the amendment is correct as it stands, but I have given an undertaking to have the matter checked.
  The Chairman: I am convinced that it is correct. It is a matter of printing that will come right in the Bill.
  Sir David Renton: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) will find that the same method is used in several other places. It is either right in all of them or wrong in all of them.
  The Chairman: I am glad to have the right hon. and learned Gentleman's support on that. What he says is the case.
  Amendment agreed to.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, in page 36, line 34, column 2, at end insert—
  "The power to fix rates of interest in respect of advances made under section 3 or 4 for the erection of industrial buildings (within the meaning of section 66 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (c. 78))."
  1242
  The amendment corrects a minor error in the entry in Part I of Schedule 2 for the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963. At present the entry transfers all ministerial functions under this Act to the Assembly. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act enables local authorities to make loans for the erection of buildings on land sold or let by them; and Section 3(4) provides that the Minister may in the case of a particular advance fix the rate of interest for such loans. The effect of the amendment is that this function of fixing the interest rate should continue to be exercised by the Minister, and not be transferred to the Assembly, in cases in which the loans are in respect of industrial buildings.
  Although certain powers of industrial development, for example, by the Welsh Development Agency, are transferred to the Assembly by the Bill, there are always safeguards to ensure that the Assembly cannot distort competition between firms in Wales and elsewhere. The purpose of the amendment is to reflect this approach by ensuring that any loans for the erection of industrial buildings are not made at interest rates which are more favourable than those available in other areas.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: This is another addition to excluded functions and it refers to the Local Government (Records) Act 1962. Section 3 of that Act, which is referred to in the amendment, deals with the power of local authorities to appoint sub-committees to perform functions in relation to records. Section 4 deals with the financing of record preservation functions. What these sections have to do with the erection of industrial buildings is not immediately clear, but one can guess what has happened. The maintenance of records has now become a major business requiring the erection of buildings which can be classified as industrial buildings. These cost money which is available from local authority or Exchequer sources according to Section 4 of the 1962 Act.
  The reference in the amendment to the power to fix interest rates presumably refers to the moneys that may be provided by Parliament under Section 4 of the Act, and I shall be glad of the Minister's confirmation of that.
  Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I regret having to interrupt the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), but he is referring to an Act which does not appear in the amendment. His error is probably due to the numbering of the lines, which appears to be wrong. The amendment refers to line 34, whereas the relevant line in the schedule is line 35. The hon. Member for Conway is referring to the wrong Act.
  Mr. John Smith: Perhaps the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) was slightly misled by the printing, but I think that he grasped the essential point which is more important than getting the right line. He asked me to confirm the approach which I explained in introducing the amendment which is that it is for the purpose of avoiding the distortion of competition between firms in Wales and elsewhere. It refers to the letting of land and the interest rate fixed by the Minister. Those are reserved. The hon. Gentleman got the point absolutely, although he referred to a different Act. The Act in question is the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963. There is, however, no difference between us on the essential point.
  Mr. Wigley: I wish to underline the importance of industrial development powers for the Assembly and for local authorities in Wales coming under the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963. It is a fact, whether it is intended or not by Westminster legislation, that local authorities have the power to influence the attractiveness of an area to industry. Only last night I was hearing of the way in which industrialists, notably the Japanese, have been attracted to Merthyr Tydfil to sites provided by the Welsh Development Agency because of initiatives taken by a district council, in this case Merthyr Borough Council. That council has taken initiatives in providing land and buildings for industry in a way that undoubtedly gave the area a differential of attractiveness compared with some other area, perhaps in the same geographical region, which had had its industrial infrastructure provided by the Welsh Development Agency. Therefore, whether or not one puts the control on the rate of interest, the reality of the situation is that there is extensive power in the hands of local authorities to provide facilities in infrastructure and services that will make a differentiation
  1244
  between their areas and others which do not undertake such initiatives.
  To the extent that we allow, acknowledge and accept that local authorities validly can take these initiatives, and are right to do so, to try to meet the employment problems of their areas, I cannot see why within the global controls that exist on local authority finance—and goodness knows those are severe enough, for they can hardly move in any direction without some restriction—it should not be possible for local authorities to vary the interest rates they charge on the amount of funds they have at their disposal for these functions.
  The sum of money we are discussing is minute. I do not know whether this legislation arises under EEC powers for securing competition but if it is against that background what we are discussing is peanuts. But it can make a marginal difference, particularly when a small company is just setting up and is having difficulty with high interest rates. In the last two or three years abnormally high interest rates have made it impossible for many small companies to start up or expand and to take advantage of the facilities which local authorities have been providing in various parts of Wales and will certainly provide after the Assembly comes into existence.
  I cannot see, therefore, why it should not be part of the power of a local authority to use the loan funds it has at its disposal to reduce the interest rate on those elements that come through the provisions of the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963. I realise that the Minister will say "Yes, that is precisely what I would like to see, but it is not what the Act is intended to facilitate". I suggest to him that there is nothing inconsistent in considering that; and even if the Government had not intended it in the first place, when the Bill was printed in its present form, it is a form which should commend itself to them because of the additional power given to local authorities to help to solve the industrial problems of Wales.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: May I say a word or two on the concept of exorbitant interest rates? Wolverhampton previously was very prosperous but it has been severely affected by Government interference of

  1245
  all kinds, especially by Government interference in subsidising industries in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is precisely because hon. Members like the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) have so often said there was great need to subsidise their constituents, and a need to prevent their constituents having to pay, as they put it, exorbitant rates of interest, which I understand to be the way in which any market rate of interest is regarded by anybody who has to pay it.
  Mr. Wigley: Surely the hon. Gentleman would accept that in the past, particularly during the last 18 months when interest rates were running at 15 per cent. to 18 per cent., that has meant that the money-factoring industry has had to adjust risk investment in such a way as to give perhaps 30 per cent. on capital; and given the constraint of competition within the EEC that we are forced to face, that rate cannot be described as anything but an exorbitant rate which has been carried by manufacturing industry.
  Mr. Budgen: Of course it is a high rate and it kills investment, but it is not an exorbitant rate for anybody lending money at a time when, at given stages, he is suffering a decline in the value of money of between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. per annum. Therefore, interest rates, though high, are in fact negative.
  It is a point which should be levelled against the present Administration which has presided over a period of unparalled high rates of inflation, but that is not an argument for further distorting the market economy to prop up little businesses in Wales, perhaps in an area which happens to have a particularly vocal Member of Parliament who wishes to roll out the pork barrel for his constituents. What Wolverhampton and every other constituency wants is a great deal more free market and less of the political log rolling about which the hon. Gentleman has spoken.
  Sir Raymond Gower: My hon. Friend will appreciate that ever since the end of the last war successive Governments have recognised that areas like Wolverhampton have had a much more variegated pattern of industry and far more alternative employers than area; like most of Scotland, parts of Wales, the North-East of England and Merseyside, which have been
  1246
  handicapped by having very few industries and have suffered much more viciously in the inter-war years. I hope that my hon. Friend will recall that.
  Mr. Budgen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. If he has been a supporter of regional policies in the past, I remind him that their purpose was not only to support a region but to damp down economic growth in more prosperous areas; and in so far as there is now a high rate of unemployment in Wolverhampton—
  The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The hon. Gentleman is now confusing the question of merits with the question of functions. This amendment deals with the question of functions.
  Mr. Budgen: With respect, Mr. Murton, I was dealing generally with interfering in market rates and particularly in interest rates; and with great respect to you, Sir, this is part of the general question of a regional policy.
  I conclude by saying that I congratulate my hon. Friend in that Wolverhampton has been depressed and impoverished by regional policies and those who support such policies are to be congratulated on the success of their activities.
  Mr. Gow: This amendment seeks to reserve to the Minister powers which otherwise would be transferred to the Assembly. I listened carefully to the Minister when he introduced his amendment. He, or the Official Report, will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I heard the Minister of State tell the Committee that the sections which are referred to in the amendment, which unfortunately do not refer to the Act, were Sections 3 or 4. I submit that the reference should be to Sections 3 and 4, but we shall let that pass.
  I thought that the Minister told the Committee that the Act of Parliament whose reserve powers were to vest in the Minister derived from the Local Government (Records) Act 1962.
  Mr. John Smith: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to intervene, I said no such thing. I referred clearly to the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963. It was another hon. Member who referred to the Local Government (Records) Act

  1247
  1962, I believe in error. I categorically deny that I made any such reference as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Perhaps he should listen more attentively.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the Minister give an assurance that, as the amendment refers to "line 34" and there is opposite to that a reference to the Local Government (Records) Act 1962, he will look at this matter again and ensure that the amendment refers to the proper line?
  Mr. Smith: Yes. This matter arose on the previous amendment. The amendment is correct as it stands, although I can understand how hon. Members may be misled by the way in which it appears. I have given an undertaking to check that carefully.
  Mr. Roberts: With respect, I do not believe the numbering is correct as it stands. The schedule is confusing enough already without Ministers adding to the confusion. I believe that the wrong line is mentioned in the amendment moved by the Government.
  The Chairman: It is highly probable because a reference to the Local Authorities (Land) Act appears in line 35 and the remainder appears in the following line. However, the hon. Gentleman need not trouble himself too much about this matter. It will be put right.
  Amendment agreed to.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. John Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 37, column 1, leave out lines 2 to 26 and insert—
  'The Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) sections 55, 68(1) to (7) and 74 and Parts V to IX, XI and XII.'.
  The Chairman: With this we may take Amendment No. 53, in page 37, line 4, column 1, leave out 'section 55(4)' and insert
  'sections 53 to 61 and section 64'.
  We may also take Government Amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 56.
  Mr. Smith: The amendments are minor in character and tidy up a number of inconsistencies in the entries for the Local Government Act 1972 in Part I of Schedule 2.
  Amendment No. 52 reorganises the column 1 entries for the 1972 Act so
  1248
  that they are all placed in a single group. At present, the spacing in column 1 is such that the column 2 entries for Schedules 12 and 13 of the 1972 Act are incorrectly lined up opposite Parts XI and XII of that Act when they belong to Parts V and VIII. The amendment, which is purely technical, removes this error.
  Amendment No. 55 is again purely technical. It removes an unnecessary entry for Sections 245 to 247 of the 1972 Act from the list of exclusions in column 2. These sections which are consequential on the reorganisation of local government, relate to the granting of borough status to district and community councils, and the transfer of Royal charters and armorial bearings. In each case they contain powers exercisable by Her Majesty on the advice of the Privy Council or by Order in Council, and the intention is that they should not pass to the Assembly.
  However, Clause 10 of the Bill is expressed in such terms that the only functions transferred to the Assembly by inclusion in column 1 of Schedule 2 are those exercisable by Ministers. Order in Council powers are not ministerial, so in order to achieve reservation there is no need specifically to list Sections 245 to 247 in column 2 as being excluded. Silence is sufficient to ensure that the powers contained in them are not transferred to the Assembly.
  Amendment No. 56 excludes ministerial functions under Schedule 12 of the 1972 Act from those transferred to the Assembly. The schedule concerns the meetings and proceedings of local authorities, and contains only two ministerial functions in relation to Wales. Both relate to polls consequent on community council meetings. The first, in paragraph 34(5), is already correctly excluded as presently drafted. The effect of the amendment is to exclude the second, which is in paragraph 37(1). This reflects the broader policy that all electoral matters including those relating to local authorities are to be reserved. This will arise on Amendment No. 53.
  Amendment No. 54 is a technical amendment and there is essentially no change in policy. Section 119 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides for the making of an advance to widows or dependants of those who have been in

  1249
  local government or linked services until probate has been settled.
  Sir Raymond Gower: Is it the case that, before this amendment, the Bill provided that electoral matters were not reserved?
  Mr. Smith: No. We are seeking to correct a minor matter by way of Amendment No. 56. Electoral boundaries are reserved. Amendment No. 53 in the name of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) seeks to reverse that position by transferring responsibility for electoral boundaries to the Assembly. It would be wise to allow the hon. Member to explain his amendment before my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales deals with it.
  The ministerial regulation-making powers deal with applying the powers to various classes of employees under the local government superannuation scheme. Although this matter is not strictly part of the superannuation scheme it relates to it more than to any of the devolved aspects of local government. Local government superannuation is not devolved and is best dealt with also on a uniform basis for England and Wales.
  I hope that the House will find our amendments acceptable. We shall have to discuss Amendment No. 53 before the Government amendments can be passed.
  Mr. Wigley: Amendment No. 53 broadens the issue slightly and brings in local government's relationship with the Assembly, albeit in the context of a Boundary Commission and related matters.
  I must stress the feeling of dissatisfaction in Wales over local government matters following the reorganisation of local government undertaken by the last Conservative Government.
  There are areas of great concern, most of which relate to the growth of bureaucracy and the clogging-up of the system of local government because of the present structure. One problem that arises frequently in public and private meetings is planning. Planning applications are submitted to district councils, moved up to county councils to see whether they are within the framework of a county plan and downwards to community coun-
  1250
  cils for their blessing. They can also go backwards and forwards on technical points. I am told that if they were returned, reversed or stopped at every point at which they can be disputed, they could be stopped on 24 occasions.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that planning applications can also be called in by the Secretary of State under various sections of Town Planning Acts? There was a particularly reprehensible case in my constituency. The district council's application for a refuse disposal unit was called in by the Secretary of State who organised a public inquiry and decided that the council could not go ahead.
  The Welsh Office also intervenes in other areas and, since the process is quasi-judicial, the reasons for the intervention cannot be questioned. The transfer of these functions to the Assembly would result in far more democratic decision-making in planning.
  Mr. Wigley: I certainly accept what my hon. Friend says. I was stressing the delay in planning applications between the initial submission and their resolution. These delays cause great dissatisfaction and irritation among people in Wales and the splitting of the planning function has made the situation worse.
  County authorities have planning departments staffed by specialists and district councils have their own specialists in planning departments. There is often a large area of overlapping. We also see duplication of functions in the services provided by district and county councils in Wales, including legal, financial and computer services. We need a back-up service for district and county councils.
  Before I came to the House I had the advantage of serving on the old Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council, which was an all-purpose authority. There was a great advantage in having all the functions relating to the borough under one hat. The problems arising from demarcation between social services, which are now a county function, and housing, which is a district function did not arise to half the extent that they do under the current set-up. Demarcation between education and functions such as planning, now undertaken by district councils, did not arise. The functions were all under one hat.

  1251
  If one imagined that the Bains principle would be adopted in local government after reorganisation and that there would be a policy directorate in local government to ensure that all departmental functions were co-ordinated, a logical corollary would be to have the type of all-purpose authority that existed in some of the county boroughs before reorganisation. I believe that that would be beneficial in Wales.
  Sir Raymond Gower: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says, but can he explain how the amendments will effect this great change? I cannot understand it.
  Mr. Wigley: I was stating this by way of background to the issue of the local government structure in Wales. Clause 13, which we cannot discuss in detail in this short debate, provides that the Assembly will have the authority to
  "review the structure of local government in Wales".
  If that is so, the powers provided in Section 53 and subsequent sections of the Local Government Act 1972 should also go to the Assembly.
  Amendment No. 53 relates to proposals for changes in local government areas and boundaries and for substantive changes in electoral arrangements for local authorities in Wales. Section 53 of the 1972 Act sets up the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales. The remaining sections referred to in the amendment set out the functions of the Wales Boundary Commission and of the Secretary of State regarding alterations in boundaries between county, district and community councils, and with regard to substantive changes in electoral arrangements for all such local authorities in Wales."
  The Bill provides that the Secretary of State's functions will be retained by him. Our amendment provides that they should be discharged by the Assembly. These functions include, first, the power to direct the Commission to conduct a review of Wales as a whole or of any one or more local government area or part of such area in Wales. Secondly, the Commission should make proposals to the Secretary of State for effecting changes appearing to the Commission desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. Thirdly, the Secretary of State has power, if he thinks fit, to
  1252
  give effect by order to any proposals made to him by the Commission, either as submitted to him or with modifications.
  These functions relate exclusively to local government in Wales. Their discharge has no relevance to or any effect on local government in any other part of the United Kingdom. They are precisely the kind of functions that should be discharged by the Assembly, and are eminently suitable for discharge by it, as the Assemblymen will have expert local knowledge—in each case. It must be difficult for any Secretary of State to have such knowledge when he is reviewing such recommendations.
  It is strange that the Government have seen fit to retain those functions while rightly proposing that the vast majority of the Secretary of State's functions in relation to local government in Wales should be discharged by the Assembly. As the Assembly will have power to discharge most of the Secretary of State's functions, under the Local Government Act 1972, it appears incongruous that the functions in the sections referred to in my amendment have been retained.
  In the event of the amendments being accepted, we should be happy to see the provisions of Schedule 11 of the 1972 Act—
  "Rules to be Observed in Considering Electoral Arrangements "
  —made applicable to the Assembly as they now are applicable to the Secretary of State. No doubt the Government could look after this by a consequential change in Section 78 of the 1972 Act, either during the passage of the Bill or under Clause 80 when the Bill is enacted.
  It would also appear to us that the amendment would be in accordance with the spirit of Clause 13, which provides that the Assembly should review the structure of local government in Wales. If it should appear to the Assembly, having carried out this review, that the structure of local government in Wales should be amended by alterations in boundaries between authorities, the Assembly could order the Commission to carry out a review of boundaries between local authorities, and it could implement the Commission's proposals without reference to the Secretary of State.
  Therefore, there are valid and cogent reasons why the Secretary of State's functions in the sections referred to in the

  1253
  amendment should be discharged by the Assembly. There is no logical reason why he should not be discharged of them by the Assembly and why they should not be undertaken by the Assembly. In the absence of such reason, one is forced to conclude that the Government's only reason for retaining the power is to enable the Secretary of State perhaps to change boundaries in a way that the Government would want rather than a way acceptable to Assemblymen.
  4.45 p.m.
  We believe that the Assemblymen in Cardiff will be people whom we can trust with this kind of work. We believe that they will be close to the reality of local problems. In the context of the Commission's work on parish councils and community councils in Wales, I have seen the need for local knowledge if a meaningful decision is to be taken. I have seen the boundaries of community councils drawn in the most obscure way and I have seen the great difficulties of persuading people who are not attached to an area, or do not have knowledge of it, of a need to have changes implemented.
  That observation is equally valid of other units in local government, and is a reason for giving the ultimate decision to the Assemblymen representing all the areas of Wales. That would give more chance of ensuring that the units making up the new pattern would fit in with the pattern of existing communities.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) says that his amendment is in line with the spirit of Clause 13. If that is so, I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment, although, as the hon. Gentleman said, it gives us the opportunity of debating matters related to the clause without debating the terms of the clause. We are discussing the transfer of local government powers from the Secretary of State to the Assembly.
  We should remember that the first page of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says:
  "This Bill gives effect for Wales to proposals described in the White Papers 'Our Changing Democracy: Devolution to Scotland and Wales' (Cmnd. 6348) and 'Devolution to Scotland and Wales: Supplementary Statement' (Cmnd. 6585)".
  1254
  On page 47 of "Our Changing Democracy" we find that the White Paper said about local government:
  "Responsibility for central government supervision of most aspects of local government in Wales will be devolved. The administration will oversee the work of local authorities in devolved matters. It will allocate rate support grant to them, control their capital investment in the devolved fields and be responsible for the application of the local taxation system."
  Then comes the important sentence:
  "The devolution Act will make no change in the structure of local government in Wales."
  When the Scotland and Wales Bill was published I said that I believed that local government in Wales would be affected if the Bill were passed, although at that time there was no clause about reorganising local government. Then the Government Front Bench rightly accepted the advice of many on the Labour Benches that we should divide that Bill into two Bills. Now we find in this Bill Clause 13, which says specifically:
  "The Assembly shall review the structure of local government in Wales and shall report its conclusions to the Secretary of State."
  Therefore, although the White Paper says that the Bill will have no effect on local government it certainly will have an effect.
  This is an important matter, and we should spend some time on it. I believe that the Government have gone the wrong way about devolving powers to the people of Wales. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) was Secretary of State he said that we would try to have in Wales—I believe that this has been said, although the issue was not debated—one body covering the whole of Wales, with a unitary local authority underneath. If my right hon. Friend had been allowed to have his way at that time, which was before the Kilbrandon Commission met and before the reorganisation of local government by the Conservative Party, such a proposal would have been a sensible one that would have worked well in Wales.
  What then happened? The Government set up the Crowther Commission and later the Kilbrandon Commission to look into the constitution of Wales. They then began to look at how we could improve the constitutional relationship between the people of Wales and of the rest of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, while the Kilbrandon Commission

  1255
  was discussing and determining what should be the remedy, the Conservative Party proceeded to reorganise local government.
  Mr. Ian Grist: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Evans: I shall give way in a moment, but I do not want to lose the thread of my argument.
  The Conservative Party proceeded to reorganise local government. It did not do it in the best possible way. I am glad that I carry my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) with me on that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey had a far better method of reorganising local government than that proposed by the Conservative Party. But what we have to take into account, and what the Government did not take into account when they produced their proposals for an Assembly, is that the Government proceeded on the evidence that the Conservative Party had put forward to Kilbrandon, ignored the fact that local government had been reorganised and proceeded to create an Assembly.
  Therefore, we have the worst of both worlds. We have our community councils, district councils, county councils, a Welsh Office and a Secretary of State. As well as all those, we are now to have an Assembly. We have now reached a situation in which we are maintaining the existing structure and creating another tier of government. It is nonsense for my hon. Friends to suggest that the Welsh Assembly is not even a tier of government. To say that the Assembly is not a tier of government but that the community council, the district council or the county council is a tier of government is playing with words. It is true that powers are being transferred from the Welsh Office to the Welsh Assembly. But what we have is the Welsh Office, which is a form of tier of government in the House of Commons, and we are having another tier of government in the Welsh Assembly.
  Mr. Grist: Is the hon. Member aware that the discussion on the White Paper of his right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) was welcomed by most parties in Wales? Had his party gone ahead at that stage with those proposals, they would have met with general approval. Does he also remember
  1256
  that following the Redcliffe-Maud Report on local government reform in England, it was proposed to have unitary authorities in South-East Wales and dual authorities in the rest of Wales? Was that not the maddest proposal ever, and did it not show that the Labour Party was not prepared to go ahead with reform at all?
  Mr. Evans: I carry the hon. Member with me in saying that if we had resolved the matter in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey proposed, we should not have got into the difficulties we have in recent months.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Member has just told us that this proposal now for a Welsh Assembly to have a review of local government is the worst of all possible worlds. Will he advise the Committee of the policy of the local authority in his constituency, the Cynon Valley Borough Council, towards a Welsh Assembly?
  Mr. Evans: The Cynon Valley Borough Council has thrown out the White Paper. I do not know why the hon. Member is referring to both of my local authorities. I am one of the few Members who can say that not only is there a Labour Member in my constituency but a Labour local authority and a Labour county council. Both the county council and the borough council in the area I serve have rejected devolution. They have rejected the White Paper.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: This Bill?
  Mr. Evans: I do not know whether it met yesterday, but the view of the Cynon Valley Borough Council is that it rejects the White Paper on which the Bill is based. That local authority is now intervening. I have told the hon. Member time and again that Plaid Cymru Members have been standing in my locality putting forward the views of his part) and they have been rejected time and again. Those candidates who fought for my party at county and borough levels have been strongly opposed to the ideas that Plaid Cymru represents.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the hon. Member confirm that the Cynon Valley Borough Council supports the Bill?
  Mr. Evans: I shall not make any such confirmation because, as I know it, the

  1257
  Cynon Valley Borough Council has rejected the White Paper on which the Bill is based. There will be many other opportunities in the debate, and I shall return specifically to that point. To my knowledge, the vast majority of the members of the local authority who represent my party on the Cynon Valley Borough Council reject the establishment of an Assembly.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are not dealing with the proposals of Plaid Cymru in the Bill? Presumably that party wants to go much further than the proposals in the Bill. Indeed, the essence of the Bill was unanimously agreed by the Members of the last Parliament. That is why the Government are now acting upon it. That is why they are acting upon the decisions that were arrived at then—and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). He attended every meeting and was a party to the unanimous agreement that was reached.
  Mr. Kinnock: Utter rubbish!
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend the Member for Newport is quite right. I would not accuse the Government Front Bench of going all the way with Plaid Cymru. Heaven forbid that anything like that should happen. However, my hon. Friend must realise that in this discussion we are addressing ourselves to an amendment that Plaid Cymru has put forward.
  To return to the argument I was developing, I believe that we went wrong. The difficulty with the present Bill is that the Government, realising that the previous Government had reorganised local government, thought to themselves "Look, this is difficult. We have reorganised local government once. We have uprooted it and created an anomaly in the present local government set-up. How can we say to people that we shall abolish the counties and the boroughs once again so soon?" In Wales the signposts are only beginning to go up to tell us where Dyfed, Gwynedd, Clwyd, Powys, Gwent and all the other counties are.
  Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: As my hon. Friend has referred to what the Conservative Party did, will he agree that it pre-empted any kind of reorganisation along the lines of Crowther or Kilbrandon because it
  1258
  jumped in and reorganised local government so that the scene could be set for the present situation, and it explained "We cannot reorganise local government again in view of the fact that we have done it a little while ago"? Can my hon. Friend set a date when we can start to think again about reorganising local government, or is he totally opposed to such reorganisation?
  Mr. Evans: If my hon. Friend wants a quick answer, all I can say is that it will be some other time, but not now. My hon. Friend has confirmed what I have been saying—that the Conservative Party went ahead and reorganised local government, and that made it impossible for the present Government to bring forward proposals so soon, and, an omelette having been created, to try to unscramble the egg.
  We are going to make changes, but we must not rush into making them. We must be sure that the next changes follow a complete examination, because in Wales we need not only to get the best form of local government but to take account of nominated bodies—a point that has been raised time and again in this Chamber.
  5.0 p.m.
  The Government went ahead with then-plans and tried to ignore the fact that local government reorganisation had taken place. They then introduced a measure which was to unify the kingdom, but it is creating a method that has built-in obsolescence. It cannot possibly survive the period ahead. Hon. Members who have interrupted me are more or less conceding that point.
  In Wales we cannot possibly have a system in which there are community councils, borough councils, county councils, the Welsh Office, a Welsh Assembly and a Secretary of State. I repeat what I have said elsewhere: London has 9 million people, and has a county council and metropolitan boroughs. Yet we have all these forms of government in Wales. What is proposed cannot survive.
  Therefore, if we make changes we must make them correctly. We must not proceed with the Bill and then hand matters over to a new Assembly. We do not know what the composition of the Assembly will be. We do not know what

  1259
  the expertise of its Members will be or of what political complexion it may be. That matter may be of relevance to some hon. Members. We do not know what experience the Members of the Assembly will have had. The vast majority may be ex-county councillors, but we do not know. It is possible that we shall elect to the Assembly people who have no experience of local government whatsoever. That is a hypothetical consideration that we should bear in mind.
  Mr. Roderick: It would be a good thing.
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend says that it would be a good thing, but we are organising an Assembly and transferring power to it, and it is important that its Members should have some knowledge of local government.
  Mr. Roderick: How many Members of the House of Commons had experience of local government when Parliament reorganised local government previously?
  Mr. Evans: I think that my hon. Friend will find that there are many hon. Members who have had local government experience. There are many barristers and journalists in the House, but on the Labour Benches, and on the Conservative Benches, very many hon. Members have had local government experience and have served on local authorities. Even if an hon. Member has not served on a local authority, is there any who can say that he has not had considerable experience of dealing with local government? Every Member has had some sort of local government experience.
  Here, however, we are going to elect an Assembly, and we do not know its composition.
  Mr. Kinnock: Is not the great difference, in any case, between the House of Commons considering comprehensive local government reform and the Assembly conceivably doing so that the House of Commons, as the law-making body—which the Assembly apparently will not be—bears a responsibility for both the evolution of the powers and the fulfilment of those powers, and for the response to those powers, and therefore carries all the can and is not, there-
  1260
  fore, interested in trying to ride some local bandwagon without having the responsibility of fulfilling its own plans, which may be the characteristic of the Assembly in this respect and in many other respects?
  Mr. Evans: Further to that, what we shall be doing is creating in Wales, in an Assembly, a body of people who will have a vested interest in ridding themselves of the local bodies underneath them.
  Mr. Roderick: Such as the county councils.
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is mentioning only half of the truth, because it would be the district councils as well. Not only will the county councils go; the district councils will go, too. I shall say why.
  The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) smiles. He must wipe the smile off his face, because one cannot give to a borough council the powers that are now given to a county council, because a borough council is too small. If we are to create a unitary authority in Wales, either the borough councils will get the power—and they are too small—or the county councils will get it—and they are too large.
  The Government are trying to dodge a difficult problem. I understand that they want to rid themselves of it, but it will not go away. It will remain with us. That is why it is imperative that we do not rush through a Bill saying "We made a commitment in the manifesto. Let us tell the people that we have fulfilled it." The people will have to live with the consequences. It is regrettable that we did not do earlier what my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey suggested. That opportunity was missed. The Government are now trying to make the best of a bad job.
  I am afraid that we cannot leave local government as it is and talk about the unity of the people of this kingdom if we create another tier of government and place it on top of the existing tiers.
  Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that the Assembly could well do away with the county function and the district function—if I understood him aright. Surely he is not seriously suggesting that an elected Welsh Assembly

  1261
  will do away with all other tiers of local government in Wales. If that is what he is suggesting, he is clearly out of touch with the main stream of thinking in Wales in most parties. Those areas that had unitary authorities before now regret that they have lost those unitary tiers and many districts, such as Anglesey and Pembrokeshire, form natural units, and this gave considerable benefits to local government.
  Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman does me the justice of reading what I have already said, he will see in Hansard tomorrow that I have answered the points that he is making. I am sure that other hon. Members will have followed my argument.
  I was saying that we cannot give the powers to the counties because they are not small enough to be near to the people, and we cannot give the powers to the districts because they will not be large enough. We cannot think in terms of each of 37 borough councils in Wales having a director of education. We shall have a growth of bureaucracy.
  The Labour Party has tried to improve the Government's proposals. It has said that we must unify and bring together existing borough councils. The figure varies—15, 17 or 18—and they are only proposals, anyway. The district councils and borough councils will be too small and the counties will be too large.
  What disturbs me a little is that in this Chamber we keep talking about bringing local government and government nearer to the people. But what do the local authorities say? Concerning the Assembly, the score was seven against the Assembly and one for it.
  Mr. Roderick: That is what the counties say.
  Mr. Evans: Seven counties are against the Assembly and one is for it. However, regarding the local government proposals, and this measure, the eight counties, including the county of the hon. Member for Caernarvon, are unanimous in saying that the Bill should not try to make changes. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) is not in the Chamber. I have confirmed what I have said with the chief executive of my county, who happens to be the secretary of the eight countries.
  1262
  How can we say that we are taking government nearer to the people if we bring Gwynedd County Council down to Cardiff for it to be run there, or Powys, Dyfed and the others?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): My hon. Friend surprises me. I understand the difference of view expressed by various county councils in Wales. However, I find it astonishing that it is said that all the county councils are opposed to the proposals, when I have in front of me a Press report from the Spectator of 4th March which contains this advertisement by the Gwynedd County Council:
  "Gwynedd County Council wishes the Secretary of State for Wales success in his efforts to establish an elected Assembly for the Principality."
  Mr. Evans: The trouble is that hon. Members will not listen to what is said. I mentioned that Gwynedd is the sole exception. It is the only county prepared to spend money on advertising, to tell the Secretary of State what it thinks.
  As for Clause 13, which we are not able to discuss, Gwynedd is in line with the other seven counties, and the Welsh counties are unanimous—
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it right that public money should be spent by a public authority in sending greetings to the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Evans: I shall not follow that up. The counties are doing things now but before long there will not be any counties to do anything, because they will lose their powers completely.
  I hope that the amendment will be rejected. I hope also that in some way time may be found to look at Clause 13. Fears are growing in Wales. Uncertainty is developing and it will continue to develop until a final decision has been made. If the clause remains in the Bill, the uncertainty will continue until the Assembly meets and states what is to be the future of local government. It is wrong that those who are working at county and borough level should have these anxieties about their future.
  Sir Raymond Gower: I sometimes disagree violently with the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) but I cannot dissent from a lot of what he has said

  1263
  today, except to point out that when the last Conservative Government enacted the changes in local government they were sustained by some very formidable advice from very large commissions in England and Wales and Scotland. I refer, of course, to the Redcliffe-Maud Report and the Wheatley Report. It was praiseworthy that the Government got down to the task of implementing the sort of findings which are sometimes left on the shelf for a very long time.
  The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) wants powers to pass to the Assembly, and he remarked that as a result the Assembly will be nearer to the people. I do not follow his argument there, because I believe that the Assembly will be far less near the people than are the local authorities. The Assemblymen will be representing much bigger areas than are represented by members of the county or borough authorities.
  Mr. Wigley: Perhaps my comments did not come over clearly to the hon. Gentleman. The powers in the Local Government Act 1972, Sections 53, 54 and 55, are those which will be exercised by the Secretary of State, unless the amendment is carried. The choice, therefore, is between the Secretary of State and Assemblymen. My point is that 75 or 80 Assemblymen must have a greater local knowledge than one person, namely, the Secretary of State.
  Sir R. Gower: I should have thought that Assemblymen, recently returned or arrived, and embarking on the great undertaking of the Assembly, would have comparatively little to do. It has been said that they will not have enough powers and functions, but I believe that the Assembly should be the last body in the world to examine local government. It is absurd to give the Assembly a power which is specially prescribed in a special clause. The Assembly, presumably, will want to prove that it is doing something, and therefore, by the very nature of things, it will want to achieve one success—to make far-reaching proposals to alter local government. There would be a far more dispassionate examination of matters of this kind by the Secretary of State. He is far more likely to be objective in his examination than the Assemblymen would be.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Does not the hon. Gentleman recollect that the Conservative Government refused to have a commission on Wales? There was no commission on Wales for local government purposes. There was for England and Scotland but not for Wales.
  5.15 p.m.
  Sir R. Gower: There was a joint commission which reported on local government in England and Wales. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that perfectly well. He is just playing with words. I suggest that there was no finding in the Redcliffe-Maud Report about Wales. I am sure that persons engaged in local government in Wales would undoubtedly regret anything which tended to separate them from local government in England. I have spoken to many people who worked in local government, and they are able to move from an authority in Wales to one in England and to get experience of a different kind. They are then able to move back again, if they wish to do so, but they cannot do this in the case of Scotland. They like this interchangeability and the career structure which is made possible for them.
  Mr. Roderick: The hon. Gentleman said that the Redcliffe-Maud Commission pronounced for England and Wales. At what points did the reorganisation coincide with the recommendations of Redcliffe-Maud for Wales?
  Sir R. Gower: I do not think that it would be in order for me to attempt to deal with that question, or even possible in a speech of the length that I propose to make. The ultimate proposals were not greatly dissimilar from the proposals made by the successor of the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes).
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Is it not the fact that we had a White Paper drawn up for Welsh local government reorganisation when my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) was Secretary of State for Wales? Its implementation was held up by the new Secretary of State, following my right hon. Friend's change of office. Our proposals was held up because of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission investigating local government in England. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)

  1265
  is absolutely right in saying that the Commission did not examine Wales.
  Sir R. Gower: I recall that the proposals brought forward by the successor to the right hon. Member for Anglesey were slightly different from our proposals, but in essence they were similar.
  I give one example of a change which was made. Instead of having a single county in North Wales, it was decided to have two separate counties. Similarly, instead of having a unitary authority in the county of Glamorgan, there was a dual arrangement.
  Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the proposals for the reorganisation of local government in Wales were brought forward long before the Redcliffe-Maud Commission reported is of great significance? They were brought forward without the help of a public commission or a public inquiry of any kind. They were, in fact, the fruit of the work of civil servants. It was a Civil Service job, done here in London. That is the big difference between what is now proposed and what happened then.
  The people who will be elected to the Assembly will be sensitive to public opinion. They will not act foolishly, otherwise they will be thrown out on their necks. Surely it is very sensible to allow elected people to be responsible for an inquiry of this kind.
  Sir R. Gower: I think that the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time and will recall what happened. I was not a member of the Committee dealing with local government reform, but there was cross-voting and the proceedings were not at all of a partisan nature. At the time I was sitting in Committee on another Bill, connected with housing, and we used to contrast our Bill, where the proceedings were quite partisan, with the other one.
  The clause by which the new Assembly will be required, as one of its first duties to examine local government is, I believe most unwise. I do not believe that a power of that sort should be given to the Assembly in its early days. Similarly, with regard to the powers which the amendment seeks to transfer, I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdare that these are better exercised by the Secretary of
  1266
  State. I do not suggest, as the hon. Member for Aberdare did, that the Assembly will be a non-effective body. However, in its early days it will have to move slowly and, in my view, it should not be required to do something of a very big order such as the re-examination of local government.
  That is my attitude, and I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdare that the amendment should not be accepted.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am glad that the Committee is having this debate and that you, Mr. Murton, have been wise enough to allow the debate to go a little beyond the rigid confines of Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. That is appropriate in view of the possibility that we may not be able to look at Clause 13 in detail, although I do not take the enthusiastic view of a wide ranging debate on Clause 13 of some of my hon. Friends.
  It is important for the Committee to remember that, following the 1973 legislation which changed drastically not only the boundaries of local government but also aspects of the National Health Service and of our water undertakings, we suffered traumatic consequences. I do not think that it is exaggerating to say that in all these matters of health, water supply and local government reorganisation we have not yet recovered from the shock that we suffered on their implementation in 1974. The boundaries of local government were changed and functions were transferred to much larger authorities, and there is no doubt that the change took away much of the democratic proximity which existed as between councillor and ratepayer under the old system, and replaced it with the very large counties which now govern Wales.
  Mr. Grist: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I hope that the hon. Member will allow me to continue my theme. This constant interruption does not help the debate.
  I concede immediately that there are strong arguments on both sides of this case. But the major obstacle to reorganising local government in Wales effectively is due largely to the comparative poverty of Mid-Wales, by which I mean the area south of Llanfyllin

  1267
  virtually to Merthyr Tydfil. Whichever way it is looked at and whatever permutation is considered, we are left with that intractable problem. We have the wealth of Gwent, Glamorgan, Deeside and the Wrexham area and other pockets alongside the comparative poverty of the remaining areas which have extraordinarily difficult problems, especially in the county represented by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) and other comparable areas in the heartland of Wales. That, therefore, is the basic problem. After very careful consideration over a period of time, this is what impelled me to the conclusion that some national organisation in Wales was necessary to deal with the problem.
  Of course, we have our nominated bodies, and a proliferation of those, as we know. I came to the unavoidable conclusion, however, that the only way we could tackle the problems properly, bearing in mind the traditions of our people, was a democratic way, and that is what led me to the inescapable conclusion that it should be done on a national basis.
  In addition to local government, we had water reorganisation, with appalling consequences in terms of increased charges, and the reorganisation of the National Health Service, again with some undesirable results. I say to my hon. Friends who are slightly critical of this Bill that, when we were debating the local government Bill, the criticism from the Labour Benches was uniform. There was no argument in its favour.
  I shall not weary the Committee by quoting from the relevant speeches made by my hon. Friends, powerful though they were, in their criticism of the Bill. Nor shall I refer to the speeches of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), who took an honest stand on behalf of his constituency at the time. However, listening to those speeches it was easy to believe that my hon. Friends could not wait for the moment to abolish the new structure and to replace it with some better alternative. Certainly that was the impression that they left with me.
  However, their objection may be not to the reorganisation of local government but to the proposal that the Assembly
  1268
  should look at it first and make recommendations. I think that those of my hon. Friends who are against this proposal in all honesty must believe in their hearts that local government needs to be looked at again. The subdivision of Glamorgan needs to be examined again. One of the difficulties is that it can be argued, as the seven county councils argue, that it is too soon to look at reorganisation. I understand the argument that they should for the time being be allowed to get on with the job. I understand the attitude of conscientious and hard-working officials who want peace to get on with their work. But there is the equally valid argument that, if they are allowed to go on for a few years, they will become more entrenched and reorganisation will again be that much more difficult.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the reverse argument is equally valid, is he bearing in mind that the Government have not accepted that case for England? In their paper on possible devolution for England, they say clearly and explicitly that the first point of view put forward by the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes)—that there should not be a further upheaval at this time—is the right point of view. That at least is the view of the right hon. Gentleman's Treasury Bench.
  Mr. Hughes: Wales provides enough material for us, without embarking further afield—[Interruption.] Very well. Let us take a look back. Redcliffe-Maud made substantial recommendations, and the Conservative Government turned them upside down. They did not implement them. They put their own ideas into effect. What is more, it is not a satisfactory organisation of local government in England. I am prepared to argue that at length, but this is not the occasion to do so. We have our problems in Wales, and I have not the confidence, which hon. Members representing English constituencies have, to poach on their preserve.
  I must answer the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) when he dealt at some length with Gwynedd, and I shall set the record straight. Gwynedd County Council has written to me at some length. It takes

  1269
  the view that, whilst it would be wrong to rush into a further review of local government simply as a result of the establishment of the Assembly, it would be unrealistic to regard the present system or any system of government for that matter, as sacrosanct for all time and immune from any kind of review. The county council would like a review of the structure of local government by some sort of commission with the duty of reporting to the Assembly on the structure of local government, the National Health Service and the water authority in Wales.
  It is only right that I convey that view to the Committee. It is not a view that I necessarily share. The last report on local government reform in Wales was produced by an appointed working party. Redcliffe-Maud was a commission. Why should we be so resistant to the idea of a democratically elected body being capable of making recommendations on a matter of this kind?
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put the record straight in respect of the Gwynedd case. If he will turn over the page—
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is a friend of mine, but at this stage he does me no justice because is is not allowing me to proceed "over the page". The letter continues:
  "They, like other Welsh County Councils, feel that it would be entirely wrong for the Assembly itself soon after its formation to review local government. It is questionable whether it would act dispassionately and objectively having regard to the over-emphasis that has been given in the past few years to the concept of an Assembly resembling more a local government body than a national forum exercising powers delegated from Parliament, and it is very possible that the Assembly might be tempted to draw from local government activities and functions which properly belong to local government and are not part of the total central government function. This would facilitate the formation of an emasculated pattern of local government which would be contrary to the best interests of the populations in diverse parts of Wales and contrary to good government in the Principality as a whole."
  That is the view which is stated hi the council's letter. But as I understand it, the Government do not propose that the functions of county councils, or district councils for that matter, should be transferred to the Assembly. It has always been made clear in all the White
  1270
  Papers that the powers of the Assembly would be those exercised by the Secretary of State and nominated bodies, not by local government. That is where I must disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: I have not been in contact with Gwynedd myself, but the letter confirms the opinion that I have received from the England and Wales County Councils Committee which said that it was opposed to Clause 13. I sought confirmation of this because there has been previous misunderstanding between the Welsh counties and the England and Wales counties. I understand that the position of the Welsh counties, as well as that of Gwynedd, is unique in that they support the Assembly legislation, unlike the other counties. But they were unanimous with regard to local committee organisation. I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that that in no way detracts from what I said earlier.
  Mr. Hughes: I made clear that I did not agree with everything stated by the Gwynedd County Council. But I felt it right to read out its views. That I have done. However, it certainly does not conform to the impression that my hon. Friend gave in his speech.
  There is a final point that I wish to make. I can see that there is a long, hard road ahead before an Assembly comes into being. The opposition to it in some quarters is profound. But those of us who believe in the Assembly will fight for it as strenuously as those who oppose it. Having said that, it is necessary to emphasise that the Assembly will make recommendations to this House of Commons. It can do no more than that. That cannot be repeated too frequently. It is not what Plaid Cymru would favour. It is for the Government of the day of whatever complexion, to decide whether to proceed further with such recommendations. They might decide to do nothing. We might even have a Conservative Government—
  Mr. Kinnock: No.
  Mr. Hughes: It is a remote possibility. And one does not know what a Conservative Government would do. We are contemplating a very long process. We are talking about the setting

  1271
  up of the Assembly, the consideration of the problem by the Assembly, the report of the Assembly to the Secretary of State, the consideration of that report by Cabinet and Cabinet Committee, the White Paper which would be debated by the House of Commons and possible legislation to follow. That is a considerable—
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend concede that whichever body makes the recommendations, those recommendations will eventually come back to this House of Commons? Should not a non-interested body—a detached body—make such recommendations rather than a body that is interested in aggrandisement or has a vested interest in the decision?
  Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend has unwittingly advanced the classical case for "nominated bodies" as against "democratic bodies". I do not happen to share the view, which some of my hon. Friends harbour in the recesses of their hearts, that Wales is incapable of electing a national body of which it would be proud.
  Mr. Kinnock: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend. I shall ask a brief question to which he can give a brief answer. Will my right hon. Friend name which of my hon. Friends he has in mind when he states that people do not have confidence that Wales is capable of electing whatever it wants to elect
  Mr. Hughes: Wales elects Members of Parliament who are honourable and elects to local authorities men who give good service. There are, of course, one or two black sheep in every walk of life in every country. There is in spirit and tradition no more democratic country in the world than Wales. Wales is capable of electing a national body to serve it. I do not think that my hon. Friend should ask me to name hon. Members. It is not a fair question. I believe that my hon. Friend is trying to make an unfair debating point.
  Mr. Kinnock: No.
  Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that speeches have been made by hon. Members indicating that
  1272
  they have no confidence that Wales is capable of electing an efficient body to run certain of its own affairs. My hon. Friend, is perfectly at liberty to ask such questions.
  I am saying that this House of Commons will in due course have its opportunity to reach a decision on local government after the Assembly comes into being. It will be a long process, but the safeguards that are necessary do exist. In my estimation—I am open to correction—it would take at least four years before we could hope for legislation. That is not unreasonable in the light of the view which Welsh people at present take of their local government.
  Mr. Hooson: The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) has made a very sensible contribution to the debate. The more I listen to the debate the more I think that it is a tragedy that the previous Government implemented their plans for local government reform without waiting for the Kilbrandon Commission to report. In acting in this way they put Wales in an impossible position. When local government is reformed new bodies are created with vested interests.
  Some Labour Members have said that we cannot touch local government now. They claim that because the Conservatives succeeded in placing an impediment in the way of the Welsh Assembly by creating rival interests, we must abide by that situation.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. and learned Member did not hear my speech.
  Mr. Hooson: I came in about halfway through the hon. Member's speech and I must say that I am grateful that I missed the first part.
  There is a real problem involved, but we must accept that when new local government bodies are created they will have vested interests. We see the county councils reacting more violently against the proposed Assembly than the district councils. That is because they feel more threatened. Most speeches attacking local government in Wales have attacked the county councils rather than the district councils, and, as a result, the counties feel that they are more likely to be changed or reformed by the Welsh Assembly.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: Although there has been a certain amount of pitting the district and county councils against each other, if this arises as a result of the Welsh Assembly being set up in years to come, the whole of local government is back in the melting pot. That is what will happen if this Bill goes through.
  Mr. Hooson: I do not accept that. I share the view of the right hon. Member for Anglesey. I think that it is taking an impossibly pessimistic view to suggest that the people of Wales cannot elect their own Assemblymen and women who are capable of doing a first-class job. I agree that there is prejudice to overcome and I have never made any bones about that. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has put forward the view on several occasions that there is a danger of corruption in the Assembly. I am sure that this problem could be overcome without any trouble at all.
  As a Liberal I believe, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) shares my view, that no power should go to the Assembly from local government. All powers should derive from the Secretary of State and this House. The Assembly should not take any powers from either the district or the county councils. Therefore it is quite a wrong concept of the Assembly to suggest that it can or will take powers away from local government.
  Mr. Anderson: If that is so, where are those powers that are exercised by the middle tier—the county councils—such as education and social services to go, other than upwards to an Assembly?
  Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member assumes that there will be a great change in local government. Whatever views I held six years ago on the proposed local government reform, I feel that it is unlikely to be changed again in the near future. There will be some small changes. For example, at present planning powers are exercised by both the district and county councils. These should be exercised by only one area of local government, and I think it should be the district councils.
  Also, I believe that when Labour Members talk about county and district councils they should remember that if local
  1274
  government in Wales is changed eventually they must not make the mistake of believing that unitary authorities should necessarily be the answer in every part of the country. In rural Wales an all-purpose or most-purpose authority should be the existing district council, which used to be the county council. In Glamorgan and Gwent the position could be quite different. We make the mistake of believing that it must be the district or the county council, but that depends very much on the area and the circumstances.
  The right hon. Member for Anglesey mentioned the particular difficulties of what he called the Welsh heartland. These sorts of difficulties occur where there is sparse population. In my constituency we have one soul to every 11 acres and the position is about the same in Brecon and Radnor, Cardigan and Carmarthen where, by and large, the rateable product is very low.
  However, if the boundaries were changed, the financing of local government in these areas would be the same. I disagree with the suggestion that it is a question of adjusting the boundaries to deal with mid-Wales where rateable value is low. Whatever changes take place, unless there is a dramatic change in the economy of the area, it will still be heavily dependent on central Government funds for financing. The only question is, who should administer these funds—and that is what the debate is all about. I was all for having unitary authorities in these areas, and I rarely meet anyone in local government who does not agree with me.
  What we are concerned with in Clause 13 is that the Assembly should review the structure of local government in Wales and report to the Secretary of State. It would be most valuable to have an elected Welsh Assembly to report its own views on local government structure in Wales. This would be the first time that an elected Welsh body had been in such a position, because it is the first time that we have had an opportunity to have such a body. I cannot understand why hon. Members should object to that provision.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Geraint Morgan: I listened carefully and with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for

  1275
  Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) who played such an important part in the consideration of local government reorganisation in Wales in the 1960s. I gather from what he said that he envisaged certain changes taking place again in Welsh local government within the next four years. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said the opposite—that it was unlikely to be changed in the near future. However, he welcomed the thought that the Welsh Assembly should make recommendations in that respect.
  This is the position quite simply, as I see it. Although the terms of Clause 1 as drafted do not make further reorganisation of local government in Wales inevitable, the wording of the clause does appear to extend an open invitation to the Assembly to initiate such a reorganisation, and that only four years after the already extensive reorganisation of 1974 with all the upheaval that that involved. This is what is causing concern at the moment.
  For this very good reason the Welsh Counties Committee of the Association of County Councils takes objection to this clause. The point it makes trenchantly in letters and memoranda to Welsh Members is that local government in Wales, and England as well for that matter, needs a period of stability following the last reorganisation, and that it is much to soon to contemplate further changes. It emphasises in this connection that any proposals for change would be bitterly controversial, would undermine the morale of local government and would involve considerable costs at a time of great financial stringency for local government generally.
  The matter is succinctly put in a discussion paper recently produced by the Welsh Counties Committee. One passage in that paper reads:
  "Local government should be allowed to get on with its job. An efficient organisation cannot possibly waste so much time and money in repeatedly considering reorganisation. For 30 years, more or less the entire post-war period, there has been talk of local government reorganisation."
  The Welsh Counties Committee could properly have added that Wales suffered more than any other part of the United Kingdom from the unsettling uncertainty of the seemingly endless talk about local government reorganisation during the period after the war, and in particular
  1276
  from the early 1960s onwards. It is now generally forgotten that Wales was the "guinea pig area" on which the Local Government Commissioners, appointed under the provisions of the local government Act 1958, first got to work. I was surprised to see some vagueness, even among Welsh Members, about what happened during the 1960s. Perhaps I might remind the Committee of what happened.
  It is now generally forgotten—certainly forgotten other than in Wales—that the Welsh Local Government Commission commenced its labours as early as 1960. That was well nigh a decade before Redcliffe-Maud was ever heard of. It is also forgotten by many that Welsh public life was bedevilled for years by the proposals and counter-proposals that appeared from time to time in the form of various reports from the Commission and White Papers from the Government.
  Those proposals suggested widely differing solutions. Indeed, the zig-zagging between the Commission's initial proposals in 1961 and those which it subsequently came up with in 1963 after the initial ones had been ill-received was quite bewildering.
  With the benefit of hindsight, it may fairly be said that the first or "provisional" proposals, as they were euphemistically called, probably more correctly reflected the spirit and purpose of the 1958 Act than any later ones, including those that were ultimately adopted. The fact that they were ill-received was probably due to their novelty more than anything else. Some of the later ones, notably the 1963 proposals which would have involved the tearing apart of historic counties rather than joining them together as entities, which, broadly speaking, was the system ultimately adopted only served to fuel the general discontent with the whole subject of reorganisation.
  Mr. Gwynfor Evans: The hon. Gentleman has given us a little background, but I should like him to go back a little further. Discussions were held on local government reorganisation in Wales in the middle 1940s. They had much in common with the proposals put forward in the 1960s, but the proposals in the 1940s were turned down by Aneurin Bevan.
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that addition to my little

  1277
  excursions into history. I am quoting this sorry story—and I am content to settle for 1960 as a starting date—in order to underline the fact that we must at all costs avoid a repetition of such a costly, time-wasting and, worst of all, morale-destroying exercise in Wales.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: It appears to me that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) and his hon. Friends the Members for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) and Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) require the Assembly to run before it can walk.
  I wish to oppose Government Amendment No. 53 because I do not believe the Assembly should decide on the boundaries in the first instance. Parliament should decide that matter. At this stage in the history of the proposed Assembly we should be content to provide that it will merely recommend.
  I believe that the Bill is about right in regard to this proposal. The people who are likely to be elected to the Assembly and who live in these areas will be well acquainted with the local situation. Many of them will have vast experience of local government. It is people of that sort, who possess talents in local government, who are likely to stand for the Assembly.
  Before I became a Member, I served on one of the largest local authorities in the country, Coventry City Council, an all-purpose authority. Therefore, I can claim not to be unacquainted with these problems. I agree with the hon. Member for Caernarvon that there is likely to be a good deal of duplication, particularly in planning terms. Such people probably could undertake a far better job in helping to rejuvenate manufacturing industry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) was concerned that the White Paper did not affect local government reorganisation. I wanted local government reorganisation to be included in the proposals, and indeed I have pressed for this all along. Therefore, I am glad that the Bill provides that one of the first jobs to be undertaken by the Assembly is to draw up proposals for a more sensible reorganisation of local government.
  I regret that some Members, even Labour Members, are now becoming
  1278
  rather partial to the 1972 Act. I have always regarded that Act as a disaster for Wales. One receives almost every day circulars and letters from county councils which have a vested interest on such a scale that those interests almost jump out of the envelopes containing them.
  I give all credit to many Conservative Members that they now oppose the local government reorganisation that was carried out by the Conservative Government a few years ago. I reiterate that local government is very much a key feature in the Assembly proposals and the Bill in general.
  I very much regret that we are not to have a full-scale debate on Clause 13. Perhaps in that event there would have been a possibility of my amendment for a one-tier system of local government for Wales being called.
  The Conservative Party has talked a great deal about consultation on the Assembly proposals. However, consultation to meet the wishes of local people in Wales on the 1972 local government legislation left a bitter taste. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare suggested that the 1972 legislation rendered abortive any proposals for a Welsh Assembly. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare was not a Member in 1972. I remind him that our conclusions were reached after the enactment of the Local Government Bill 1972, when the authorities started to implement it. It is because we reached our decisions after that measure was enacted that the suggestion went in our election programmes for both the 1974 General Elections that we should have a Welsh Assembly.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: We were talking about an elected council for Wales in the February election. My hon. Friend talks about the recommendations put forward by the party. At the time we were talking about a top tier local government system for Wales. That is why I believe that local government reorganisation is very much bound up with the whole issue of what sort of council or Assembly we should have.
  Mr. Hughes: It is a rose by any other name. If we want to call it a council or an Assembly, I agree with my hon. Friend—
  Mr. Anderson: Or a Parliament.
  Mr. Hughes: In any event, I am sure that we can agree. If amendments are tabled, we can consider the question of the title.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare has access, as secretary of the Welsh Labour Group, to all the decisions that were made. He knows at first hand that we met often to consider the proposals. The conclusions that were eventually arrived at were not, to say the least, based only on the idea of the Assembly being the top tier of local government.
  My personal experience in Newport of the way in which my constituency has been affected by local government reorganisation is that it has been a tragedy. Newport is a town that is well able to stand on its own feet as a local government unit.
  I notice that the Department of the Environment is suggesting that the norm for an education authority is a population of 200,000. That is a lot of nonsense. Newport is a county borough of approximately 120,000 people. We had an education system, including a fully comprehensive system, that was far ahead of the Monmouth County Council's system. I appreciate that the Monmouthshire education authority was essentially a good one.
  I give the Committee another example. I remember seeing Lord Eccles, the then Minister for the Arts, when the local government proposals were passing through the House. I was with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who is now the Minister of State, Treasury. We went to see Lord Eccles with the purpose of trying to retain library powers for our respective local authorities. Lord Eccles expressed himself as being favourable to the idea as regards Rhondda and Llanelli, but said that Newport was an entirely different matter. He said "We want your library for the county". That is an indication that the services provided in Newport as a single tier authority were first class in character and that they were required, according to the Conservative Government, for the county council.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: I know that, like myself, the hon. Gentleman is a staunch devolutionist. If we are to devolve power to the people of Wales, does he agree that we should give more authority to the community councils, which understand the local problems?
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman's experience in these matters is different from mine. I have said repeatedly that we in Newport do not want community councils. One sensible argument that some of my hon. Friends have advanced in opposition to the Bill is that we are creating too many tiers of government. I entirely agree with that argument. The point that I have tried to make all along is that we should have one tier of local government plus a Welsh Assembly.
  I hope that the proposals contained in the Bill will go ahead and that the final say on the whole matter will lie with the House of Commons.
  Mr. Grist: The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) spoke, as many others have done, as though the arrangements for local government had been fine. The hon. Gentleman cited Newport as an example. I remember that Newport ran out of space, and, having absorbed the Bettws housing estate, it went on to build in the county of Monmouth.
  The Minister of State, who moved the amendment that most of us are now discussing, had experience of local government as a councillor at Merthyr Tydfil, the smallest county borough in the whole of the kingdom. That is a prime example of why it would be idiotic to return to where we were. Those who continue to blather on about how marvellous the system was are misleading the public. Some of us are inclined to forget the difficulties that local government suffered in those days. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) was right, as was the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan), in saying that Wales was a guinea pig area. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen said, we had local government reports in 1947, 1948 and 1949, all of which recommended between seven and eight counties in Wales instead of the former 13. All those reports were dismissed by Aneurin Bevan.
  These reports were followed by the 1958 review, with the temporary or preliminary report in 1961. The final report

  1281
  appeared in 1963. The trouble with that report was that it dealt with boundaries and not functions, which is what Amendment No. 53 does.
  The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) went on about making more democratic decisions. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Assembly would be more democratic. How true is that? The advice that the Assembly would receive and the plans that would be drawn up would stem from the same civil servants who are now in the Welsh Office. Presumably they would be transferred to the employ of the Assembly. They would produce exactly the same advice to the Assembly as they now present to the Welsh Office. The uproar following any recommendations for change would, indeed, be democratic; we all know that. However, I consider that the greater distance that this place provides means that the decisions that are taken are more objective and less liable to local political pressure.
  Some hon. Members talk about dissatisfaction with local government. Surely a great deal of that dissatisfaction came about because reorganisation coincided with the enormous burst of inflation following 1974. If we were to consider the rise in the charges of local government from 1970 until today, we should see a more or less constant graph. It would, unfortunately, be rising sharply, but that merely reflects the way in which inflation itself has risen.
  The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said that planning is one of the areas in which there is the most friction. I have not noticed that it is a problem in my county. Both the districts and the county have said that they have now worked out a satisfactory understanding on planning. However, if we were to have more unitary authorities and smaller authorities under the Assembly, what would happen to strategic planning? Presumably that is one of the items that moves upwards to the Assembly. The smaller unitary authorities would not be able to carry out strategic planning. It would be an obvious power to pass to the higher authority.
  Mr. Wigley: The counties now draw up their own county structure plans, which are passed to the Secretary of
  1282
  State for ratification. The Secretary of State can reject certain suggestions that are made in the plans. There is already an all-Wales level of co-ordinating and changing structure plans. The problem is that that process takes place at a bureaucratic level and not at a democratically answerable level.
  Mr. Grist: For a start, the Secretary of State is democratically elected. Apart from that, if we are to have 20 or 25 unitary authorities, the likelihood is that the expertise and agreement in respect of the various strategic plans appearing before the Assembly would be much less than if they came from the relatively few counties that now submit their plans to the Welsh Office. Clearly, there would be a greater chance of the Assembly stamping on or altering the structure plans coming from the new unitary authorities than under the present system.
  Some Labour Members say that there is great dissatisfaction with local government and go on to blame those on the Conservative Benches for that state of affairs. I can only say that it is extraordinary how many Conservative councillors have been elected in Wales, despite the change in local government. The argument of some Labour Members is not borne out in the various elections.
  The hon. Members for Caernarvon and Newport spoke as people who have served on county boroughs. In both instances the boroughs were inadequate. Both of them were far too small. I represent a seat that is part of a county borough, the major county borough in Wales. We still hear moans about old powers and the old position, although part of my division consists of housing estates built outside the old Cardiff city boundaries in the county of Glamorgan. That was because Cardiff had run out of space as well. The complaints come from those who essentially live under a single tier of government. The overwhelming majority of people in Wales have lived under a twotier system all their lives. They are used to it. They see it as logical in a country of large spaces and small population. That is a natural way of exercising local government in Wales and it is not a source of conflict.
  Mr. Tom Ellis: When I last spoke in Committee I went on for rather a long time. I assure you, Sir

  1283
  Myer, that I shall be relatively brief. As a matter of fact, I had not intended to say anything at all. I was on the verge of leaving the Chamber. I was so impressed by the low level of debate that I thought I should emulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and walk out, but I should not have done it as brazenly as he did.
  However, I stayed, and I am glad that I stayed because I had the privilege of listening to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). I thought that he lifted the debate from its previous low level to something approaching the level at which this important subject should be discussed. Up to that point, it had really consisted of emotional prejudices, non-sequiturs and so on. But my right hon. Friend began to deal with what is a difficult and serious problem. It is the problem essentially of coping with the demands of mass democracy.
  My right hon. Friend referred to what the Assembly ought to do and wondered whether various functions should or should not be within its power. With the kind permission of the Chair, we considered the extent to which the Assembly should deal with local government reorganisation.
  I had intended merely to pay a sincere compliment to my right hon. Friend. However, as I am on my feet, I should like to refer to the argument—the alleged argument—that the Assembly should not deal with these matters because it would be too concerned with its own self-aggrandisement. The argument was that it would be so passionately keen to blow itself up into some kind of glorified, bloated balloon that it was not the body to consider these matters. I find that argument, if not arrogant, certainly sickeningly patronising.
  Mr. Anderson Mr. Anderson rose—
  Mr. Ellis: Last time I spoke, I went on and on because I was tempted to give way.
  The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): I hope that the hon. Member is not going to burst the balloon. That is all I am concerned about.
  Mr. Ellis: I shall not be tempted into giving way, because I wish to be brief.
  1284
  This argument is not very relevant. We are all elected Members and we would not necessarily claim that we were any better or worse than the elected Members of any Assembly in Scotland, Wales or any of the regions of England.
  This is a crucial matter. It depends on a fundamental point—the unique response of the elected Member to the electorate. That is the basic way in which we try to organise our democracy. That is the key point about having decisions made by elected Members. I should like to illustrate what I mean.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ellis: No, I shall not give way, because I wish to be brief. I want to illustrate the situation into which we get when we rely unduly on the experts. I am a little sceptical about the experts. An "ex" is a has-been and a "spurt" is a concentrated drip. Who wants a has-been and a concentrated drip making decisions?
  The Health Service is a typical example. It is in many ways throughout the whole of Britain in an unsatisfactory state. The reason why the Health Service is not in as happy a position as it should be is that the dominant managerial voice within it is that of the expertise which is supposed to serve the NHS. That has come about because of the lack of an elected representative of the public at large having some influence. The Health Service presumbaly exists to serve the public—the patients. However, it could be argued that it exists to serve the expertise of the medical profession. The reason is that there is no dominant voice from the public within the Health Service.
  When the Health Service had a tripartite structure, one facet of the three parts where there was some kind of consumer insistence was the local authority part. If a patient wanted an ambulance, he was able to get one fairly quickly, but if he wanted an operation he might have to wait several months.
  I suggest that completely demolishes the argument by one or two of my hon. Friends about the elected Assembly not being competent to consider the important question of the reorganisation of local government.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: This series of amendments has become more extensive in debate than appeared at first sight. That was largely due to the generosity of the Chair and the strong desire of hon. Members to debate local government. But the Committee should not try to escape from the fact that this two-hour debate is no substitute for debates on the 26 pages of the Bill which are being ignored because of the guillotine.
  I turn now to the amendments. Amendment No. 52, on the face of it, appears only to improve the layout of the column, but in fact it does rather more. It gives responsibility for the whole of Section 55 of the Local Government Act 1972, rather than subsection (4) only, to the Assembly. Section 55 deals with the duty of the Welsh Commission to review local government areas in Wales and the areas of new towns.
  The whole of Section 74, as opposed to subsections (3) and (5) only, is also given to the Assembly. That deals with name changes of counties and districts. Perhaps here we have a hint of what is to come in future.
  Mr. John Smith: In fact, it makes no difference, because what is involved in this Act is within the ambit of what is devolved. It is a matter of style to put in the whole section rather than to limit it to particular subsections. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it does not widen the scope for devolution.
  Mr. Roberts: Nevertheless, the Government have seen fit to amend it. I do not think that the Minister will deny that the amendments have the effect that I have described.
  The significance of this series of amendments is that it has opened up for debate the whole subject of the transfer to the Assembly of responsibility for vast tracts of the Local Government Act 1972 since it refers to Parts V to IX and Parts XI and XII of the Act. Those parts contain 190 clauses and 17 schedules. Therefore, it is the greater part of the Local Government Act 1972.
  I remind hon. Members who may not have a copy of the Act to hand that Part V describes general provisions as to members and proceedings of local authorities.
  1286
  Part VI covers the discharge of functions, including the appointment of committees, standing orders and so on.
  Part VII deals with the miscellaneous powers of local authorities—the appointment of staff, land transactions, premises and contracts.
  Part VIII is headed "Finance" and covers all expenses and receipts, rates and allowances to members.
  Part IX, entitled "Functions", covers all aspects of the environment—public health, water and sewerage, town and country planning, national park and countryside functions, together with town development, traffic, transport and highways. The next sub-heading of Part IX is "Education, social and welfare services", which includes housing. The final heading "Miscellaneous functions", covers the police, fire services and a number of other matters. Part XI relates to general provisions—legal proceedings, documents and notices, byelaws and other powers. Part XII deals with the status of authorities, the power to direct inquiries and various consequential matters.
  Hardly an aspect of local government in Wales does not fall within the scope of this amendment to the schedule which is related to Clause 10. That clause provides:
  "The Assembly shall exercise as regards Wales the functions given to Ministers of the Crown by or under the enactments specified in the first column of Schedule 2 to this Act, with the exception of the functions specified in the second column."
  The Local Government Act 1972 is one of the major enactments referred to in the schedule and it heralds, in Part I of the schedule, many of the matters that are referred to, in greater detail in the remaining 19 parts of the schedule which we shall not debate at all. I must again express regret that these matters are not the subject of proper debate.
  Mr. Wigley: Surely there was a good opportunity to discuss these powers in the clause stand part debate on Clause 10.
  Mr. Roberts: I recall that Clause 10 came right at the end of our debate when the proceedings were coming to an end at 11 o'clock.
  As the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said, the Plaid Cymru

  1287
  Amendment No. 53 seeks to place the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales entirely within the power of the Assembly and to take away the Secretary of State's power to direct the commission to conduct a review of Wales as a whole or in part and to implement its recommendations as he thinks fit. The amendment would also take away Parliament's powers of annulment, under Section 58(4) of the Local Government Act. If the amendment were to be accepted, it is questionable how much need there would be for Clause 13, although that clause is primarily concerned with the structure of local government in Wales rather than with areas.
  However, the Assembly could instruct the Commission to review local authority areas and could implement its recommendations independently of any other body. Such an overdose of power might cause indigestion in the Welsh body politic.
  Clause 13 is bad enough. Amendment No. 53 is just as bad. Local authorities would be totally at the mercy of the Assembly. I hope that local authorities note my words and the contents of the Plaid Cymru amendment. The hon. Member for Caernarvon at least was clear in implying that the amendment was a paving amendment for Clause 13.
  I turn to the Government Amendment No. 54. This adds the powers under Section 119 of the Local Government Act to exclude functions. This is a curious section. It deals with payments due to deceased officers of local authorities, not being a pension, allowance or gratuity. The exclusion of powers under Section 119 suggests a slight distrust on the part of the Government of the Assembly's relationship with the local authorities. There is a faint suggestion of corruptibility, even in death.
  Perhaps the exclusion of powers in Section 119 is, indeed, a maudling concession to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who expressed the view in the Welsh Grand Committee that the possibilities of corruption were never ending, which led one to suspect that hands might reach into the public purse even from beyond the grave.
  Government Amendment No. 55 adds to the Assembly's powers and removes Sections 245 to 247 from among the ex-
  1288
  eluded functions. These sections relate to the granting of borough and community status, the preservation of powers, privileges and rights of existing cities and boroughs and the transfer of armorial bearings from old to new authorities. We live in stirring times.
  On the other hand, Government Amendment No. 56 removes powers from the Assembly and makes Schedule 12 an exclusive preserve of the Secretary of State. Let us examine what the Assembly has lost. It has lost the rule-making powers over the conduct of a poll among local electors after a parish or community meeting. We do not have parishes, so presumably we are now referring to community meetings. Perhaps it is no great loss in itself, but once again it seems to be indicative of a modicum of distrust on the part of the Government towards the Assembly. Yet this is the body that is to be entrusted with the review of local government structure.
  There are one or two major points that I wish to make about the Government amendments. The Minister of State at the end of Thursday's debate said:
  "There are problems at the edges."—[Official Report, 2nd March 1978; Vol. 945, c. 813.]
  —of this piece of legislation. The Government have had ample opportunity to consider what functions to devolve to the Assembly and what to exclude. Yet they are still shifting powers from one category to the other—from column 1 to column 2, from the Secretary of State to the Assembly and vice versa.
  The more I look at the division of functions, the more I am reminded of the tall, vertically split tree that Peredur, one of the heroes of Welsh mediaeval tales, the "Mabinogion", saw on his way to slay a monster:
  "From roots to crown one half was aflame and the other green with leaves."
  The green-leaved half represented the real world while the half of the tree that was on fire represented the uncertain other world.
  This split schedule of powers is much the same. We know how the right-hand column of powers will be exercised, but the left-hand column of powers is riddled with uncertainties. If the Bill goes through, I fear that there will be a fire there before long.

  1289
  There is deep concern in the county authorities in Wales about the transfer of supervision of these statutory functions to the Assembly. They do not know how it will work out in practice. When the supervision of local authority functions is coupled with the requirement that the Assembly reviews the structure of local government and allocates rate support grant, the concern mounts to alarm of disruptive proportions. What the authorities plead for and need is stability. They want no change and no reorganisation for the time being. Their feelings are exacerbated because they know, we know and the rest of Wales knows that the supervision of the local authorities and their possible reduction in every sense to be the puppets of the Assembly is part of the price that Wales will have to pay for the Assembly itself.
  The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) was absolutely right. What began as a move to bring government closer to the people is rapidly becoming a move to take government further away from them.
  Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Member honestly believe that members of a local authority elected in his area—be it an all-purpose authority or one under a new structure—would be puppets? Does he believe that could happen in his own patch? Is that his opinion of his own people?
  Mr. Roberts: The hon. Member for Caernarvon represents a Gwynedd constituency. He should read the letter which arrived this morning and which the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) read to the Committee. It is fairly clear from the extent of the transfer of functions to the Assembly, particularly the supervisory functions, that the local authorities will become puppets of the Assembly. To me that is taking power away from the people and removing it to another place.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Roderick: I do not accept Amendment No. 53, which is the Plaid Cymru amendment, in that I would not give the Assembly the final say in deciding on the structure of local government. I would, however, give the Assembly a say. It would be wise for it to have advisory powers in this respect because the Assembly would be much closer to the
  1290
  views of the people of Wales than would be the House of Commons. There are many right hon. and hon. Members from Wales here, but we do not have the overall say on what is decided in this place. It would therefore be worth giving the Assembly advisory functions.
  If the Assembly were given the final say its members would have a vested interest just as the members of county councils in Wales have a vested interest in what they are writing to Members about.
  Mr. Anderson: If that is the case, will my hon. Friend explain why it is more logical to give that responsibility to the Assembly than to the group of county councils, since each one has a vested interest?
  Mr. Roderick: I was saying that it would be worth allowing the Assembly to have a say, but not the final say, because that would rest here with the Secretary of State and the Government, which is as it should be.
  Hon. Members have quoted widely from the letter from the county councils association about what the Welsh counties committee has to say. I have noted an absence of quotations from the district councils. Is that because any reorganisation of local government is seen to be not so much a merger as an abolition of the county councils, with the district councils coming to power?
  Frankly, any reorganisation of local government in Wales must be a total abolition of the present local authorities and a restructuring, starting from the beginning. We have as a party put for-forward certain proposals. We think that there ought to be about 20 to two dozen authorities. If someone says that we cannot have that number of directors of education, for example, he overlooks the fact that we used to have 17 directors of education in Wales. So it is not way out to consider having just that few more.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there are 36 district councils in Wales?
  Mr. Roderick: The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) has not been listening. We have put forward reorganisation proposals for 20 to 24 local authorities in Wales. The Assembly might think differently, but the final result will be

  1291
  determined here at Westminster. It would be wise to have about 20 unitary authorities. I do not think we could have all-purpose authorities and still retain the number of 36 or 37, because that would be unrealistic.
  Some of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members managed to get the whole basis of the legislation changed when the Government agreed to drop the Scotland and Wales Bill and instead introduce two separate Bills. Those hon. Members must not be surprised if in the process some of the proposals in the original Bill were also changed. The subject of local government was introduced into this Bill. The Assembly is to review local government—and I stress that the Bill says "review"—but it should not proceed. It is then to advise the Secretary of State. It must report to the Secretary of State, not initiate legislation as some hon. Members have suggested in the debate.
  Some hon. Members have suggested that there would be an extra tier of government. May I suggest that the extra tier of local government they are referring to is already there? We are attempting to introduce some democracy into that tier.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: We can argue this point time and again in Committee. The House of Commons and the Welsh Office represent a tier of government. There are also the community councils, the district councils and the county councils, and they represent tiers of government, too. By the Bill powers are being taken away from the House of Commons and given to a new body—the Assembly. Surely that Assembly, although it is to take over existing powers, still represents another tier of government. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Assembly is not a tier of government?
  The First Deputy Chairman: Before the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) replies to that point, may I remind him that the Minister has yet to reply to the debate and that the guillotine falls at 7 o'clock?
  Mr. Roderick: Thank you, Sir Myer. I shall briefly reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). The Bill is taking powers not from the House of Commons but from the Secretary
  1292
  of State. We do not seem to have the opportunities in this Committee to deal with the very powers that we are talking about. We hear little of the views of the district councils. What is so sacrosanct about the county councils that we should listen to them and not to the district councils?
  While recently discussing this problem with a number of county councillors I had to remind them that they were as opposed as I was to the 1972 reorganisation. At that time they wanted to retain the old structure. Suddenly they want to retain the present structure. I was appalled to find Labour county councillors—radicals—who were more conservative than the Conservative Party. Now that they have this new structure they do not want any more changes. I believe that they should look at this anew. We want to merge the powers of these authorities into one reorganisation.
  I shall bear in mind your stricture, Sir Myer, or perhaps I should call it a kindly reminder, since the Minister wishes to reply to the debate. Let me deal briefly with the question of the referendum.
  It has been agreed that a referendum should be held on the Bill to see whether it is acceptable to the people of Wales. It is a pity that the Conservatives who supported the referendum proposals did not listen to the views of the people on local government reform in 1972 when ballots were conducted in certain areas on the question of boundaries. The Conservatives ignored them. Now they agree with the referendum, and that makes me sceptical about their views on the whole issue of the Bill.
  Mr. Alec Jones: I am glad to have the opportunity of responding to this debate. At one point I did not think I would be able to do so.
  Let me indicate quite clearly at this early stage, in order to put the Committee out of its misery, that the Government cannot accept Amendment No. 5. Even if there were a vote on it, which there will not be, we would recommend that it be opposed. We say that because the determination of local government boundaries is bound up with local government structure and electoral matters, and these are properly reserved to legislation in the House of Commons, Amendment No. 53 has opened the door to a wide-ranging

  1293
  and interesting debate that I suspect that many hon. Members feared at one time that they were not going to get while others feared that they were.
  It is plain that there is a fairly clear difference between the two sides of the Committee. Most Conservative Members who have spoken in the debate certainly gave the impression that they were satisfied with the present set-up of local government in Wales, whereas everyone else who has spoken indicated quite clearly the considerable dissatisfaction that exists in Wales today regarding the structure and set-up of local government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) said that we cannot leave local government as it is. He said he did not regard the previous Tory local government reorganisation as of the best. If my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare genuinely believes that the Tory local government reorganisation was not of the best, it is the responsibility of the House of Commons to do something about it and to do it as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Anderson Mr. Anderson rose—
  Mr. Jones: No, I shall not give way to my hon. Friend at this time.
  Mr. Ioan Evans Mr. Ioan Evans rose—
  Mr. Jones: I am prepared to give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Evans: While I do not think that that reorganisation was of the best, the weakness of this Bill is that it is trying to go on dealing with government in Wales, affecting local government also and the existing local government structure. If my hon. Friend says the Tory Party did not do as well, what the Government are now doing here will not deal with the problem.
  Mr. Jones: I was trying to indicate that there was clear agreement on this side of the Committee, and acceptance by Conservative Members, that the present structure was not of the best. In my view, it is true to say that whether or not devolution occurred, some government in Wales at some time fairly soon would have to grasp this nettle of local government reorganisation.
  1294
  I recall that at the time of the passage of the local government reorganisation Bill there was not one county council in Wales which accepted or suggested that the existing structure was attractive to it. I recall how Glamorgan County Council mounted a long campaign, how representatives of the county of Pembrokeshire came to hon. Members to explain how the structure under which they were forced to live was completely unacceptable to them.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts Mr. Wyn Roberts rose—
  Mr. Jones: I do not propose to give way at this time.
  I recall how district councillors throughout Wales came to us at the time when the Bill was going through with petition after petition showing how the boundaries and functions laid down in the Bill would be positively disastrous for efficient local government. I further recall how trade unions involved in local government, and other interested bodies, clearly spelt out that the local government reorganisation was not acceptable to them.
  Mr. Ioan Evans Mr. Ioan Evans rose—
  Mr. Jones: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend. I am trying to deal with the points made in a debate which has gone on for two-and-a-half hours and there are some things which must be said.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts Mr. Wyn Roberts rose—
  Mr. Jones: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman at this juncture.
  I have said that in my view, and in the view of the Government, the present structure of local government in Wales is completely unsatisfactory, and I believe that what was felt strongly at the time of the local government reorganisation is felt today. Hon. Members are constantly reminding me at Question Time and in debates how disastrous it has been. When I travel throughout Wales meeting local authorities I am told of the difficulties they experience. Local authorities in one part of Wales will tell me that the district planning officer is hardly on speaking terms with the county planning officer and yet they are supposed to be dealing with planning as it affects Wales. Certainly the people concerned are in considerable doubt as to who is responsible for the functions and services that they need.

  1295
  What staggers me is that, while what I would describe as the discontent has been expressed, we have heard expressions of enthusiasm, love and affection for the Welsh Office which I never hear on other occasions. The Welsh Office has never realised that it had so many admirers as we have heard about today.
  There is a feeling of discontent and the Government have to consider what should be done about it. One hon. Member has suggested an immediate reorganisation of local government. That would be a form of de-reorganisation which perhaps has some attractions. It is, of course, possible to consider some refinement of the present structure, or even to throw the whole lot overboard.
  We have had many suggestions of various kinds, but it seems to me that, in view of the points that have been made today, we ought not to contemplate any action within one or two years of the setting up. But certainly a review could measure the extent of the discontent, and areas of discontent, and it is felt that a review of that kind should be carried out.
  We are therefore forced into the position of asking, who should carry out the review? This is where we differ. We could set up a special advisory committee which would be another nominated body, something on which I am never keen, and I do not remember my hon. Friends being keen on it in the past.
  It is suggested that we might have a commission. I am not greatly enamoured of commissions, for in the 11 years that I have been a Member it has seemed to me that successive Governments, in setting up commissions, have endowed the members of those commissions with a wisdom which they do not of necessity have and an impartiality which it is impossible for them to have. So I disregard the idea of a nominated special advisory Committee to carry out the investigation.
  Mr. Kinnock: Or a Select Committee?
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Jones: I come back to the alternative of leaving it to the civil servants. I assure the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) that if it were to be done by civil servants they would not be civil servants in the Welsh Office in Gwydyr House. They would be located in
  1296
  Cardiff. I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman would want that. When there have been civil servants in the Welsh Office in Gwydyr House in the past they have always been attacked on the ground of being a great bureaucracy.
  Mr. Leon Brittan: That is an Aunt Sally.
  Mr. Jones: Clearly, the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) is an expert on Aunt Sallies.
  The next question is whether the review should be carried out by the Assembly itself. We came to the view that that appeared to be a reasonable body to deal with a review of local government. When the first White Paper and succeeding White Papers were introduced, and when the first Scotland and Wales Bill was introduced my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House clearly indicated that, in response to representations made to them, the Government were prepared to amend their proposals. My hon. Friends will find in the Bill not one but many instances of our having responded to representations made to us. I am glad that we have. I am glad we responded to the recommendations made to us by the teachers.
  First, it would be an Assembly consisting of Welsh men and women coming together from all over Wales. It would be an elected body, a democratic body, a body which in the ultimate would have major responsibility for supervising local governments in Wales. It is the body which will have to work more closely with local government in Wales than any other body. It seemed to us, therefore, that this was the right body to carry out the review. We accept that there are criticisms and we believe that the only sensible way of measuring them and finding out the areas to which they are directed is to provide for the review to be carried out by an elected Assembly.
  I understand the fears of county and district councils that one group or the other—or both—might be wiped out. The Assembly will conduct the review as honestly as could any other body. It could suggest the scrapping of county or district councils—or both—it could suggest a modification of existing structures, or it could leave matters as they are. Without a review, we should never know what

  1297
  needs to be done. All the views, including those of county and district councils, can be examined, recommendations can be made to the Government and the House of Commons will have the last say on boundaries. That is why I reject Amendment No. 53.
  Mr. Anderson: The Minister has argued powerfully that the Government believe that there is a fundamental flaw in the 1972 Act and have long thought that local government should be reorganised as speedily as possible. But that hardly accords with their unwillingness to suggest that local government should have been reorganised immediately the Government came to office in 1974.
  We know why Clause 13 has been put into the Bill at this late stage. At the start, the Government were trying to argue that the Bill would not affect local government. They were wooing local authorities and saying that they would not be affected—just as it was claimed that the House would not be affected.
  It was only when the Government were rumbled and people began to see that, through the rate support grant and in a whole series of areas, local government would be fundamentally affected that a strange alchemy began to take effect. The Government changed their tune and thought to themselves that as local government was unpopular—mainly because of the immense inflation and the rate demands of 1974 and 1975—they could use that to their own advantage and say in the referendum that the way to get local government reform was to vote for the Assembly. That is the real reason for the afterthought and the sudden Paul of Tarsus-like conversion on the way to the Assembly.
  There probably is a case for local government reorganisation. I can see that there is a need for varied treatment within Wales because of our special features, but if there is that need, which could be met on the lines of the organic change suggested for English authorities, one thing is crystal clear: the Assembly is not the body to do it—any more than would be district or county authorities. Clearly it would have a vested interest and could not take as detached a view as could a local commission. It would be involved in aggrandising their powers and
  1298
  in seeking a role in education, social services and so on to justify itself.
  One cannot conceive of 24 district authorities dealing with structure plans, and the major planning powers will float up to the Assembly which will seek to have as many bodies as possible below it so that it can argue that there cannot be 30 directors of education or 30 directors of social services.
  These are properly bodies for the super tier and the House of Commons is the only feasable super tier. The Government's proposal is not the way to reorganise local government. If the case is as formidable as the Government claim, the reorganisation could take place irrespective of whether an Assembly was established.
  We know the motive for the change. It is an attempt to sell the Assembly to a sceptical Welsh electorate. For that reason, many of my hon. Friends and I will have no hesitation in voting against it.
  Mr. Kinnock: I shall be voting with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for similar reasons to those that he has spelt out.
  Clause 13 and all that emanates from it, including the considerations in the amendment, are nothing more than a convenient afterthought for those who gave no consideration to this development until they were made aware that a heavy majority of Welsh people were against the devolution proposals.
  In order to try to sweeten the pill, the Government have tried to mobilise the justifiable resentments felt against the present structure of local government and offered the prospect of getting rid of that structure through devolution. Even then, the Government could not get it right. Even then, they were not prepared to follow the logic of Plaid Cymru and the Wales TUC who advocate the granting of real power to the Assembly to make conclusive decisions on local government. We have the least competent of formulae for change.
  Whether the Assembly has vested interests or not, it will invariably be accused of having them. It is in direct association and close locality with the local authorities that it is to be asked to review. It will not be trusted by the local authorities or by the people.

  1299
  Rightly or wrongly, the people will see the Assembly, as a body which, in order to justify its forlorn existence, will have to take power from whatever tier of government it can get it. This is the centralisation that the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), with his federal lunacies, and Plaid Cymru, with its decentralist delusions, always criticise when talking about this place. Nothing will insulate the Assembly or the Welsh people from that process. It is normal in the development of politics. Having got this hopelessly incompetent formula, the Government will not go the whole honest hog. They suggest that the review will take a few years. The present structure will become even more entrenched and, therefore, more difficult to change. Submissions will be made to the House and proposals will have to go through precisely the same legislative process as would proposals made by the Government for local government reform now.
  The House can reserve for itself the right to throw out the review and confront the opinion of the so-called national voice of Wales—the Assembly—and so inflame the relationship between Wales and the House. That is a formula for absolute disaster and the most catastrophic waste of manpower, resources and time of everyone involved in the Assembly, among the civil servants serving the Assembly, local authorities and the House. And none of it will be free.
  If the Government consider that there is a function for devolution in this sort of decentralisation, let them relieve the people of England of this dread local government reorganisation. I voted against the reorganisation and even Conservatives try to disown it now. Let the Government relieve English people of

  Amendments made:

  No. 54, in page 37, line 16, column 2,

  at end insert—

  "The powers under section 119.".

  No. 55, in page 37, line 30, column 2, leave out from "under" to end of line 31 and insert "section 244".

  No. 56, in page 37, line 39, column 2, leave out from "under" to "Schedule" in line 40.

  No. 57, in page 37, line 51, column 1,

  leave out "32(3)".

  No. 58, in page 38, line 18, column 2,

  at end insert—

  "The powers under section 26(6)(b).".

  No. 59, in page 44, line 37, column 2,

  at end insert—

  'The powers under section 108.'.

  their long night of post-reform suffering. Let them also bring this reform to Wales. Let them do it directly or let them give the Assembly or English Assemblies the function. But do not let the English people or the people of Wales be crushed between the idiocy of what they propose now and the reality of politics in Wales.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I have less than a minute to support what the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has just said.
  It strikes me that of all bodies the Assembly is the least apt to conduct this reform. It suffers to an aggravated extent from precisely the trouble from which this Chamber suffers. When it comes to considering detailed proposals for reform, coalitions of interests form to frustrate them. We saw that again and again in the working out of the local government proposals—
  It being Seven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [1st March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.
  The First Deputy Chairman: It is now my duty under the Allocation of Time Order to put the Question on all Government amendments proposed to Schedule 2. The Government amendments on the Notice Paper are Nos. 54–60, No. 208, No. 209, No. 210, No. 65, No. 212 and No. 213.
  I understand that the Government also wish to move Amendment No. 69, in the name of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans). Is that correct?
  Mr. John Smith Mr. John Smith indicated assent.

  No. 60, in page 44, line 37, at end

  insert—

  "The Adoption Act 1976 (c. 36) sections 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 28(10) and 57.'.

  No. 208, in page 48, line 39, at end

  insert—

  'The Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 (c. 49) sections 3 and 5 and paragraphs 10., 11 and 12 of Schedule 1.

  The functions under section 3(1) so far as exercisable where the compulsory purchase order is or would be made or confirmed by a Minister of the Crown.

  The functions under section 3(4) so far as exercisable where the apparatus belongs to excepted statutory undertakers.

  The functions under section 5 so far as their exercise is incidental to functions which remain exercisable by a Minister of the Crown.

  The functions under paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 so far as exercisable in relation to excepted statutory undertakers.'.

  No. 209, in page 49, line 26, leave out '4'and insert '5'.

  No. 210, in page 49, line 46, column 2, at end insert—

  'The functions under section 54(4) so far as exercisable by the Treasury or in relation to excepted statutory undertakers.'.

  No. 65, in page 52, line 24, after '5(3)', insert 'and (5)'.

  No. 69, in page 57, line 13, leave out '1972' and insert '1974'

  No. 212, in page 58, leave out lines 14 to 28.

  No. 213, in page 58, leave out lines 33 to 49 and insert—

  'The Transport Act 1968 (c. 73) Part 11 and sections 56, 57, 135(1)(d) and 158.

  The functions under section 20(6).

  The powers under section 158 so far as their exercise is incidental to functions which remain exercisable by a Minister of the Crown.'.

  THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Seven o'clock.
  Question put, That this Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill: —
  The Committee divided: Ayes 222, Noes 193.

  Division No. 135]

  AYES

  [7.01 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Campbell, Ian

  Dempsey, James

  Anderson, Donald

  Canavan, Dennis

  Doig, Peter

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Carmichael, Nell

  Dormand, J. D.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Dunn, James A.

  Atkinson, Norman

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Eadie, Alex

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Edge, Geoff

  Bates, Alf

  Coleman, Donald

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Bean, R. E.

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Beith, A. J.

  Corbett, Robin

  English, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Cowans, Harry

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Crawford, Douglas

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Boardman, H.

  Cryer, Bob

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Flannery, Martin

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Davidson, Arthur

  Ford, Ben

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Forrester, John

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Buchan, Norman

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Freud, Clement

  Buchanan, Richard

  Deakins, Eric

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  George, Bruce

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Golding, John

  Gould, Bryan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Gourlay, Harry

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Silverman, Julius

  Graham, Ted

  Madden, Max

  Skinner, Dennis

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Magee, Bryan

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Mahon, Simon

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Snape, Peter

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marks, Kenneth

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Spiggs, Leslie

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Stallard, A. W.

  Harper, Joseph

  Meacher, Michael

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Henderson, Douglas

  Molloy, William

  Stoddart, David

  Hooley, Frank

  Moonman, Eric

  Stott, Roger

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Horam, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Moyle, Roland

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Huckfield, Les

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Thompson, George

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Noble, Mike

  Tomlinson, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ogden, Eric

  Torney, Tom

  Hughes Roy (Newport)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hunter, Adam

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ovenden, John

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Padley, Walter

  Ward, Michael

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pardoe, John

  Walkins, David

  John, Brynmor

  Park, George

  Watt, Hamish

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Parker, John

  Wellbeloved, James

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Parry, Robert

  Welsh, Andrew

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Panhaligon, David

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  White, James (Pollok)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Radice, Giles

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Kerr, Russell

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Reid, George

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Lambie, David

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Lamond, James

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Lee, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Litterick, Tom

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Woodall, Alec

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Woof, Robert

  MacCormick, Iain

  Roper, John

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  McElhone, Frank

  Rowlands, Ted

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Sedgemore, Brian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Mr. Thomas Cox and

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mr. James Tinn.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Alison, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Arnold, Tom

  Costain, A. P.

  Hannam, John

  Atkins. Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Crouch, David

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Awdry, Daniel

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Banks, Robert

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Bell, Ronald

  Durant, Tony

  Hicks, Robert

  Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hodgson, Robin

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hordern, Peter

  Benyon, W.

  Elliott, Sir William

  Howell. David (Guildford)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Emery, Peter

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Biffen, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hurd, Douglas

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Body, Richard

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  James, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Jessel, Toby

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Forman, Nigel

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Brittan, Leon

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Jopling, Michael

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Brooke, Peter

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Goodhart, Philip

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Goodhew, Victor

  Kimball, Marcus

  Buck, Antony

  Gorst, John

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Budgen, Nick

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Burden, F. A.

  Gray, Hamish

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Carlisle, Mark

  Grieve, Percy

  Knox, David

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Grist, Ian

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Grylls, Michael

  Lawson, Nigel

  Clegg, Walter

  Hall-Davis. A. G. F.

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  1304

  1305

  Lloyd, Ian

  Percival, Ian

  Spence, John

  Loveridge, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Sproat, Iain

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Stainton, Keith

  McCrindle, Robert

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McCusker, H.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stanley, John

  Macfarlane, Nell

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Raison, Timothy

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Marten, Nell

  Rathbone, Tim

  Tapsell, Peter

  Maude, Angus

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Tebbit, Norman

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mawby, Ray

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Rhodes James, R.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Wakeham, John

  Mills, Peter

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Walker, Rt Hon P (Worcester)

  Moate, Roger

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Wall, Patrick

  Molyneaux, James

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Walters, Dennis

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Warren, Kenneth

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Morgan, Geraint

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Wells, John

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Shersby, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Nelson, Anthony

  Silvester, Fred

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Neubert, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Younger, Hon George

  Onslow, Cranley

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Page, John (Harrow Went)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Mr. John MacGregor.

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Speed, Keith

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 11

  CULTURAL AND RECREATIVE ACTIVITIES
  Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 223, Noes 191.

  Division No. 136]

  AYES

  [7.14 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Cowans, Harry

  Ford, Ben

  Anderson, Donald

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Forrester, John

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Crawford, Douglas

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Freud, Clement

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cryer, Bob

  George, Bruce

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Golding, John

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Gould, Bryan

  Bates, Alf

  Dalyell, Tam

  Gourlay, Harry

  Bean, R. E.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Beith, A. J.

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Deakins, Eric

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Boardman, H.

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dempsey, James

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Doig, Peter

  Henderson, Douglas

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hooley, Frank

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Dunn, James A.

  Horam, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Eadie, Alex

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Edge, Geoff

  Huckfield, Les

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Campbell, Ian

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  English, Michael

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Carmichael, Nell

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Hunter, Adam

  Carter-Jones, Lew's

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  John, Brynmor

  Coleman, Donald

  Flannery, Martin

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Corbett, Robin

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Stoddart, David

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Stott, Roger

  Kerr, Russell

  Padley, Walter

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Pardoe, John

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Lambie, David

  Park, George

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Lamond, James

  Parker, John

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Lee, John

  Parry, Robert

  Thompson, George

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Tinn, James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Panhaligon, David

  Tomlinson, John

  Litterick, Tom

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Torney, Tom

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Tuck, Raphael

  MacCormick, Iain

  Radice, Giles

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  McElhone, Frank

  Reid, George

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Ward, Michael

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Watkins, David

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Watt, Hamish

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Wellbeloved, James

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Welsh, Andrew

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Madden, Max

  Rooker, J. W.

  White, James (Pollok)

  Magee, Bryan

  Roper, John

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mahon, Simon

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Rowlands, Ted

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Marks, Kenneth

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Selby, Harry

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Meacher, Michael

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Silverman, Julius

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Molloy, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woodall, Alec

  Moonman, Eric

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Woof, Robert

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Snape, Peter

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Moyle, Roland

  Spiggs, Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Stallard, A. W.

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Noble, Mike

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Ted Graham.

  Ogden, Eric

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jessel, Toby

  Alison, Michael

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Arnold, Tom

  Elliott, Sir William

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Emery, Peter

  Jopling, Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Banks, Robert

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Bell, Ronald

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Kimball, Marcus

  Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Benyon, W.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Forman, Nigel

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Biffen, John

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Knox, David

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Body, Richard

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lawson, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lloyd, Ian

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Gorst, John

  Loveridge, John

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Brittan, Leon

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Gray, Hamish

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Brooke, Peter

  Grieve, Percy

  MacGregor, John

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Griffiths, Eldon

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Grist, Ian

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Buck, Antony

  Grylls, Michael

  Marten, Nell

  Budgen, Nick

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maude, Angus

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Burden, F. A.

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mawby, Ray

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hannam, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Clegg, Walter

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Mills, Peter

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Hicks, Robert

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hodgson, Robin

  Moate, Roger

  Costain, A. P.

  Hordern, Peter

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Crouch, David

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Hurd, Douglas

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Durant, Tony

  James, David

  Neubert, Michael

  1308

  1309

  Onslow, Cranley

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Page, Rt Hon Ft. Graham (Crosby)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Viggers, Peter

  Percival, Ian

  Shepherd, Colin

  Wakeham, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Shersby, Michael

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Silvester, Fred

  Walker, Rt Hon P (Worcester)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wall, Patrick

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Walters, Dennis

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Smith. Dudley (Warwick)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Raison, Timothy

  Speed, Keith

  Wells, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Spence, John

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Sproat, lain

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Stainton, Keith

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Stanley, John

  Younger, Hon George

  Rhodes James, R.

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Mr. Peter Morrison and

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mr. Jim Lester.

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

  REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE
  Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill: —
  The Committee divided: Ayes 213, Noes 206.

  Division No. 137]

  AYES

  [7.25 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Huckfield, Les

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dempsey, James

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Doig, Peter

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hunter, Adam

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Bean, H. E.

  Dunn, James A.

  Janner, Greville

  Beith, A. J.

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Eadie, Alex

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Edge, Geoff

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  John, Brynmor

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Boardman, H.

  English, Michael

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Faulds, Andrew

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Kerr, Russell

  Buchan, Norman

  Flannery, Martin

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert o

  Buchanan, Richard

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lambie, David

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Lamond, James

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Ford, Ben

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Campbell, Ian

  Forrester, John

  Litterick, Tom

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Carmichael, Nell

  Freud, Clement

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  George, Bruce

  MacCormick, lain

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Golding, John

  McCusker, H.

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Gould, Bryan

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Gourlay, Harry

  McElhone, Frank

  Cohen, Stanley

  Graham, Ted

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Coleman, Donald

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Corbett, Robin

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Maclennan, Robert

  Crawford, Douglas

  Harper, Joseph

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Madden, Max

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Magee, Bryan

  Cryer, Bob

  Henderson, Douglas

  Mahon, Simon

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Hooley, Frank

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Marks, Kenneth

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Horam, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Deakins, Eric

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Meacher, Michael

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Roper, John

  Torney, Tom

  Mitchell, Austin

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Molyneaux, James

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Moonman, Eric

  Rowlands, Ted

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Selby, Harry

  Ward, Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Watkins, David

  Moyle, Roland

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Watt, Hamish

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Noble, Mike

  Silverman, Julius

  Welsh, Andrew

  Ogden, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Snape, Peter

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Padley, Walter

  Spearing, Nigel

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Pardoe, John

  Spiggs, Leslie

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Park, George

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Parry, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Panhaligon, David

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Sloddart, David

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Radice, Giles

  Stott, Roger

  Woodall, Alec

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Wool, Robert

  Reid, George

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Thompson, George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Tinn, James

  Mr. Alf Bates and

  Rodgers. Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Tomlinson, John

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Rooker, J. W.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Elliott, Sir William

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Alison, Michael

  Emery, Peter

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Anderson, Donald

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Arnold, Tom

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Knox, David

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lawson, Nigel

  Awdry, Daniel

  Finsberg Geoffrey

  Lee, John

  Banks, Robert

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Bell, Ronald

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Lloyd, Ian

  Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Loveridge, John

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Forman, Nigel

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Benyon, W.

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Biffen, John

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Body, Richard

  Goodhart, Philip

  Marten, Neil

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maude, Angus

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gorst, John

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mawby, Ray

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Brittan, Leon

  Gray, Hamish

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Grieve, Percy

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Brooke, Peter

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Grist, Ian

  Mills, Peter

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Grylls, Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Buck, Antony

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Moate, Roger

  Budgen, Nick

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Molloy, William

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hannam, John

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Clegg, Walter

  Hicks, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Hodgson, Robin

  Neubert, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hordern, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Costain, A. P.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Cowans, Harry

  Hunt David (Wirral)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Crouch, David

  Hurd, Douglas

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Parker, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  James, David

  Percival, Ian

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Jessel, Toby

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jopling, Michael

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Dunlop, John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Durant, Tony

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Raison, Timothy

  1312

  1313

  Rathbone, Tim

  Sinclair, Sir George

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Viggers, Peter

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Wakeham, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Speed, Keith

  Walker, Rt Hon P (Worcester)

  Rhodes James, R.

  Spence, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Sproat, Iain

  Walters, Dennis

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Stainton, Keith

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Stanley, John

  Wells, John

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Winterton, Nicholas

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Tapsell, Peter

  Younger, Hon George

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Shepherd, Colin

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Shersby, Michael

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Sir George Young and

  Silvester, Fred

  Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)

  Mr. John MacGregor.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  The First Deputy Chairman: This concludes the Questions which I am required to put at this hour.
  Mr. Francis Pym: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I wanted to draw your attention to the situation in which the Committee now finds itself. We understand that you have to operate within the terms of the business motion, but what has happened up to the end of Clause 14 is this. The Government dropped Clause 1 altogether. We completed our discussion on Clause 10. We began to debate one amendment to Clause 2 and one or two amendments to Schedule 2. Apart from that, the rest of the clauses have gone without any debate whatsoever, and I think that that is a legislative scandal. It is worse than what happened over the Scotland Bill. I believe that the Committee ought to express to you its feelings that this is a legislative scandal.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. As the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) knows full well, file Chair is bound to operate by the Business Committee's decision, which was, I remind hon. Members, passed unanimously by the House.
  Mr. Pym: Further to the point of order, Sir Myer. It is right to say that in the interests of time the business motion was not voted against, but our proceedings do no credit to the House of Commons.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I do not know about that. All I know is that it
  1314
  was passed unanimously. I do not know the reasons.
  Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Sir Myer. You will have seen from the provisional selection of amendments that there were 32 amendments or groups of amendments selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means. In fact, during this afternoon we were able to debate only three of those amendments or groups of amendments. May I reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said—that this is not the way in which even the Government themselves intended the guillotine to operate and that the way in which we are debating the Bill is bringing the House of Commons and the legislative process into the greatest contempt?
  The First Deputy Chairman: There is no point in pursuing the matter. We are discussing the Bill according to the recommendations and suggestions of the Business Committee.

Clause 16

  STANDING ORDERS
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Brittan: I beg to move Amendment No. 220, in page 7, line 17, at end add—
  '(4) The standing orders shall not have effect until they have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
  In this part of the Bill we come to consider the detailed operation of the Welsh Assembly, thereby adding flesh to the skeleton of the Assembly's creation. This amendment gives the House of Commons the power to approve the standing orders of the Assembly and requires those standing orders to be approved by the House of Commons if they are to have effect.

  1315
  I stress that this is not a case of the House of Commons taking over from the Assembly a specific function. It is not suggested that the House of Commons should decide what the standing orders should be. It is merely a matter of the House of Commons having a reasonable degree of supervisory power and the right to veto standing orders proposed and formulated by the Welsh Assembly.
  In moving this amendment, I stress that in the Wales Bill we are creating what is in effect a written constitution for Wales. The fact that the Welsh Assembly does not have penary legislative powers, although it has very substantial legislative powers, does not any the less make the Bill a constitution for Wales. As such, the standing orders of the Assembly assume crucial importance.
  The reason for this is that the way in which the Assembly is to operate, the way in which it is to exercise its very substantial powers, appears in the context of this Bill only in the barest and most general outlines. All the rest is to be left to the Assembly.
  Mr. Dayell: I wonder whether I am in order in bringing to your attention, Sir Myer, the fact that there are present on the Government Back Benches a Scot who thinks this whole idea preposterous, my hon. Friend the Member for Stock-port North (Mr. Bennett), who is interested in freedom of information, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), who has his own view of world government. There is no one else connected with the Government side. Who on earth wants this Bill?
  Mr. Brittan: I welcome that intervention. It is a salutary one. It is all too easy to go on absorbed in the detail of the Bill, which requires careful analysis, and not realise the artificiality of the debate. The Bill has no significant or substantial body of support. It does not appear to attract sufficient interest among those who support a Government who choose to put it forward for there to be other than the scantiest representation of the Bill's supporters.
  Mr. Tom Ellis Mr. Tom Ellis rose—
  Mr. Brittan: No. I must not give way to the hon. Member, especially in view of the guillotine. I think that it would be better for me to carry on with my argu-
  1316
  ment about the standing orders of the Assembly.
  Mr. Ellis: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Brittan: If that was the hon. Member's point, I am happy to relieve him of the necessity to make it.
  The Bill sets out only in the most general terms the powers of the Assembly and the way in which it is to operate. In Clauses 18 and 19 and the subsequent clauses, the Bill sets up for the Assembly this very curious hybrid, concealed form of government in which there is a Cabinet system which is concealed as being other than a Cabinet system, an Executive which pretends to be other than what it really is, and a Chief Executive, who is not what that name means to anyone who is used to the term.
  The Bill also contrives to set up a committee structure of a particularly undesirable kind which we shall consider in greater detail later, and it really seems to consist of the worst possible features of the local government system in the creation of an Assembly which is purporting to be an Assembly acting for the whole of Wales and exercising powers at the moment granted to and exercised by central Government.
  That aspect of the operation of the Assembly is provided by the Bill, and this curious form of Cabinet government under another name—the crime which is not prepared to disclose its identity—is a matter which we shall want to debate.
  Apart from the operation of the Assembly, there is little in the Bill about what is to happen. We are told in Clause 16(2) that
  "The standing orders shall include provision for the election of a presiding officer".
  Is it necessary to insert that in the Bill? Then, in Clause 16(3) we are told that
  "The standing orders may include provivision for preserving order in the proceedings of the Assembly, including provision for excluding a member from such proceedings."
  That is an extremely important provision. It means that, if we do not retain some form of scrutiny of what the standing orders actually say, the standing orders may include provision whereby a Member who is elected by the people of his constituency can be excluded from proceedings for an indefinite period which is not specified in the Bill and which is up to the

  1317
  Assembly to decide, for reasons which are described in the most general terms as the preserving of order, which can cover almost anything or nothing.
  I am not suggesting that a Welsh Assembly elected by the people of Wales is likely to abuse that power of the standing orders. But I think that as it is a subordinate body deliberately created as such by this Parliament, it is not unreasonable that so Draconian a power should at least come under a measure of supervision by the House of Commons with the House of Commons having at least a power of veto, if no more than that, which is al] that this amendment proposes.
  I shall not go into the implications of Clause 16(3) in great detail. However, I draw the attention of the Committee to the debate that we had on the comparable clause in the Scotland Bill. On that occasion the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed out that under that innocent provision there were fundamental constitutional implications and that merely to say in an innocent sort of way, as though it was like saying that a teacher could control traffic in a school playground, that the Assembly could prescribe standing orders which might include excluding Members from its proceedings was a totally unsatisfactory way of legislating if we were seriously electing an Assembly which had any right to that title.
  In Clause 17 one sees that the standing orders
  "shall include precision for securing that members with pecuniary interests, as defined by the standing orders … disclose them".
  Of course, the standing orders can define "pecuniary interests" in any way that they like.
  Clause 21 gives an even clearer indication of the importance of the standing orders for the future of the people of Wales and their Government. But there is a total absence of control by regulation as to what those standing orders should say. Clause 21 states that subordinate legislation which is handed over to the Assembly, but which would continue to be exercised by the Welsh Office, would be subject to
  "annulment or approval by either or both Houses of Parliament".
  1318
  In those circumstances, the Assembly cannot exercise the power of making such subordinate legislation by means of one of its infamous committee. It has to be done by the Assembly as a whole. So far, so good. But Clause 21(3) goes on to say:
  "In such cases of urgency as may be specified for the purposes of this section by the standing orders of the Assembly, a committee may be charged with the exercise of a power."
  in respect of the previous provisions of Clause 21. Therefore, one is saying that if the standing orders state that the case is an urgent one, then, in spite of Clause 21, the Committee alone can exercise legislative power—because that is what it is—and if the enactment is couched in wide terms, the legislative power can be a very substantial one.
  As we saw in the debate last Thursday, a major change of policy, such as the abolition or the creation of direct-grant schools, can be secured by subordinate legislation and not by primary legislation. If the standing orders of the Assembly are so couched as to enable the situation to be regarded as one of urgency, then a Committee of the Assembly can pass an enactment of that kind and there will be nothing that anyone can do about it.
  If we are to have a provision of that kind, if the Assembly is to have a power of that kind and if a Committee of the Assembly in cases of urgency is to have a power of that kind, it does not seem too much to say that the House of Commons should at least have the power, not to define what cases of urgency may be, but at least to be satisfied that the description of cases of urgency in the standing orders devised by the Assembly itself is adequate and reasonable. Only if this amendment is passed would that power lie in the hands of the House of Commons.
  I have concentrated on the vaguenesses of the clauses which specifically related to the standing orders of the Assembly. But I prefaced my remarks by saying just how few such clauses were. For the most part the Assembly can create the standing orders at will and in whatever shape or form it wishes. In that situation, it seems to me, the proposal that the House of Commons should have a veto over the standing orders—and no more than a veto—is not a case of interference in the domestic affairs of the

  1319
  Assembly or trying to keep the Assembly on apron strings; rather, it is saying that if the constitution of Wales is in part to be created by the Welsh Assembly itself—and the standing orders will indeed form part of that constitution—at least the body which creates the constitution should have a final say with regard to such matters.
  I believe that this is of great practical importance as well as constitutional and theoretical importance. Some hon. Members who are interested in what goes on in Scotland may have read in the Press recently suggestions—I do not know how authoritative—to the effect that the Labour Party in Scotland, which may have an influential role in the Scottish Assembly, proposes to use the Scottish Assembly as a laboratory of constitutional and parliamentary change and to turn parliamentary procedure upside down.
  One reads from the reports that the Scottish people are less than happy about the changes that are proposed in the operation of the Assembly. It is suggested that certain proposals will be subject to the control of outside bodies and so on. That is a vivid illustration of what could happen. Already, before the Scotland Bill is anywhere near enactment, let alone approved by the people of Scotland, we have a situation in which one of the major interested parties is telling us of the major constitutional and parliamentary changes that it proposes to use through the standing orders and through its hoped-for power to control those standing orders.
  It may be entirely healthy that the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, if they are to be set up, should be used as a laboratory for constitutional and parliamentary change. I do not rule out the possibility that one or other or both of the Assemblies, through their standing orders, may have a great deal to teach this House of Commons about the reform of it's own procedures, which we Conservatives in no sense regard as perfect or the last word. But the proposals that have so far emerged are in some respects alarming. Let us hope that they will be as healthily invocative as one could wish. If that is so, there is nothing in the amendment which prevents this House from taking note and adopting or adapting such procedures. If anything, it ensures that
  1320
  the standing orders—if they are so invocative—will come formally to the notice of this House and we shall learn the better for being required to approve or to disapprove of them.
  If those opportunities for constitutional and parliamentary change are abused—at this stage I do not think that can be ruled out as inconceivable—it is not asking too much of the House of Commons to be the arbiter not of the contents of those standing orders but of their adequacy and reasonableness. If they are rejected, it would still be for the Assembly to have another go in order to produce an alternative set of standing orders which would exclude the parts objected to or which would alter them in a way that would render them unobjectionable.
  For these reasons I ask the Committee to give serious consideration to what we regard as a wholly constructive proposal. It would not be inconsistent with the measure of devolution granted by this Bill—strongly as we oppose it—and it would give a safeguard to the constitutional viability and desirability of the scheme for Wales as a whole.
  8 p.m.
  Mr. Dalyell: May I place on the record that the reason that you called me first on the issue of the nuts and bolts of the Welsh Assembly, Sir Myer, was that no Welshman was standing up to be called.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Member is wrong. I shall let him into a secret. While I have been sitting here occupying the Chair I have been listening carefully to the debate, and I am sorely tempted to offer my services as the First Chairman of the proposed Assembly.
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: On a point of order, Sir Myer. May I point out that not every one who is a Member for an English constituency is necessarily English. A Welsh Member did stand up but he was on this side of the Committee, not the Government side.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I know that the hon. Member qualifies under the heading that the hon. Member for West Lothian has outlined, but I do not think that I shall change my mind about whom I shall call.
  Mr. Tom Ellis: On a point of order, Sir Myer. May I point out that in the previous debate nine Welshmen spoke, six of whom were in favour of the Bill and three against?
  Mr. Dalyell: I still think that it is very odd that if there is an overwhelming desire for a Welsh Assembly, at the critical moment when we are discussing the nuts and bolts of the Bill—
  Mr. Hooson: This is not critical.
  Mr. Dalyell: If it is not critical, then I do not know what we are doing here.
  Mr. Hooson: Many hon. Members consider that the amendments that follow this amendment are more important. That may be why they want to curtail the debate on this one so that they will have time left to discuss the more important amendments.
  Mr. Dalyell: That is the reason why I shall be brief in my contribution. I simply want to ask the Front Bench one question. Before I do I might add that I believe it rather strange—with respect to the Under-Secretary—that on this kind of issue there is no Law Officer present. I would have thought that the presence of a Law Officer was highly desirable to answer the points put forward by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan).
  I shall confine myself to one question. Is it conceivable that if there is an elected Welsh Assembly, it will have more powers than those outlined in the Bill? I go back to an intervention earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), with which the Government Front Bench agreed. He suggested that there would be no trouble of this kind and that the Welsh Assembly would not ask for more powers. He claimed, and the Government Front Bench agreed, that the Assembly would be content to be circumscribed within the powers in the Bill.
  However, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and I are Members of another Assembly—the European Parliament. That is not a powerful body. However, its members spend an unconscionable amount of time in Strasbourg, Luxembourg and Brussels bemoaning the fact that that Assembly does not have sufficient power. Its Members spend hour
  1322
  after hour, day after day, complaining about the nature of the Parliament. Our colleagues in Italy, Germany and France say that if only they had other powers they could do so many more things. That is the very nature of any Assembly—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am beginning to realise that I may have made a mistake in calling the hon. Member for West Lothian. The argument that he is expounding has nothing whatever to do with the amendment, which says that the standing orders of the proposed Assembly shall not have effect until they have been scrutinised and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not wish to delay the Committee, Sir Myer, but as I said on the Scotland Bill, this is a discussion of the nuts and bolts issue. This cannot be swept aside as a matter of order. In fact, it would be very dangerous to do so. This is the nitty gritty of the whole scheme under discussion. If the Assembly will not ask for more powers, what on earth are these Committees going to do with themselves?
  I ask the Front Bench a very simple question. Are the Welsh Members to be full-time or part-time? If the Undersecretary would answer that it would curtail my speech considerably.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Chair can curtail the hon. Member's speech by ruling it completely out of order.
  Mr. Dalyell: This Bill is even more ill-thought-out than the Scotland Bill. I do not usually make bargains with the Chair, Sir Myer, but I shall make a bargain with the Committee. I shall sit down straight away if the Under-Secretary will tell me whether the Welsh Assembly will be full time or part time.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Under-Secretary is not answering. This is not the proper time to answer that question.
  Mr. Dalyell: But it is a simple matter. If the Under-Secretary would say whether the Assembly will be full-time or part-time I could finish my speech.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Perhaps the hon. Member for West Lothian would tell us

  1323
  whether the House of Commons is full time or part time.
  Mr. Dalyell: This is a full-time House in my opinion. Will the Welsh Assembly be meeting for 37 weeks a year? Can Members of that Assembly expect to earn a reasonable living out of the Assembly? Will this be their main job and will they be able to support their families on their Members' salaries? I find it absolutely astonishing that the Under-Secretary will not answer. Here we have a Bill that has been guillotined and yet I still cannot get an answer from the Minister to the most simple down-to-earth question.
  Mr. Alec Jones: That has nothing to do with the amendment.
  Mr. Dalyell: If the Under-Secretary wants to shut me up he will tell me whether the Welsh Assembly Members will be full time or part time.
  Mr. Budgen: Perhaps the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) would inquire whether Welsh Members of the Assembly will be paid on the basis of the Assembly being full time or part time. There is a distinction between Members and the Assembly. We could have a full-time Assembly which had part-time Members. Perhaps the hon. Member could lever out of the Government Front Bench some information on the basis of how the Welsh Assembly Members are to be paid.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The next question that the hon. Member will ask is whether the Members of the Welsh Assembly will be males or females. That is the sort of situation that we are getting ourselves into. The hon. Member for West Lothian can raise this matter on Report or Third Reading. He may get an answer then. Obviously, he will not get it this evening.
  Mr. Dalyell: Some hope, Sir Myer! I did ask questions about the Scotland Bill on Third Reading and the Lord President said that he would devote his speech to these points. However on reading his speech neither you, Sir Myer, nor I could be very much wiser about the questions that he was supposed to answer. This is one of our great failures. We have failed to winkle out of the Front Bench the most elementary facts about the Bill.
  1324
  I want to ask another question if I cannot get an answer on that last one. Are the Welsh Assemblymen to be paid as much as the Scots for the Standing Committees. What are the Government's ideas on this? If a Welshman comes from North Wales he will have to keep two homes going, as I do, or, he will have to make hotel arrangements. One cannot come from Dolgellau or Merioneth and commute to Cardiff without having such arrangements. A Member of the Welsh Assembly travelling such distances would have to have the same expenses as a Member of the House of Commons. This is a matter of public interest. People want to know whether a Welsh Assemblyman will be paid as much as a Member of the House of Commons.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I have a high regard for the hon. Member for West Lothian, which extends over many years. I want him to accept the assurance that he will be given the answers at the proper stage.
  Mr. Dalyell: You have an odd way of showing your affection, Sir Myer. I wish I had your confidence. On the Scotland Bill we asked some simple questions, but four years after the project had been launched we still did not know the answers. Is this to be a 37-weeks-a-year Assembly or not? Unless we know whether it will be part time, full time or half time, how can we discuss an amendment such as Amendment No. 220? This matter has the greatest relevance to the standing orders, committee work and all the rest of it.
  Mr. Budgen: Has the hon. Gentleman written to Ministers and asked them whether they will answer these questions? Sometimes in the heat of debate it is said that answers will be given but in the end they are not given.
  Mr. Dalyell: I write endless letters to the Privy Council. There is a whole series of them, which is worth reading.
  I do not want to try the patience of my colleagues. I am not surprised that the whole scheme was never thought out. Again, we have come up against the sheer bare rock of incredulity. It is incredible that the Minister are not willing to shut me up straight away by telling me the nature of this animal. It is disgraceful that a scheme should be brought this far

  1325
  with no clear idea of what the Assemblymen are to do or the nature of their duties. If they are expected to work 37 or 38 weeks in a year, as we do here, without legislative powers and without the powers which the Scots will possess, what on earth are they to do other than meddle in local government?
  We know that the Welsh are great orators, but can they keep talking that long? I know that the Welsh are much more eloquent than the Scots. The Welsh have beautiful voices and they have everything going for them. They are great orators and marvellous politicians, and I have the greatest respect for them. That is why they are such a power in the Labour Party. However, even the Welsh politicians will be hard put to it to keep the Assembly going five days a week, 37 weeks in the year.
  I do not apologise for mentioning these matters, because they are the guts of the present argument. I hope that I have given the Minister ample time to provide some answers. I see on the Government Front Bench my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), who is a Government Whip. I wish that he were able to come to the Box to explain these matters. With that impossible thought, I give up. I do not think the Front Bench occupants know what they are talking about.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will never give up but will continue to ornament our debates.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I must inform the Committee that I am leaving the Chair. I know that my successor will have all the answers to give the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).
  Mr. Temple-Morris: Now that you have taken the Chair, Mr. Godman Irvine, may I repeat to you the hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian will not give up, anguished though he may be on the devolution question? I hope that he will continue to contribute to our proceedings.
  The central point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was very much akin to the point adumbrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). We are dealing
  1326
  with the subject of power. Indeed, it was suggested when the amendment was moved that we were dealing with a Cabinet system, which appears to be completely new terrain.
  I wish to reinforce the basis put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby. We all appreciate that any political body will clamour for more power. The amendment seeks a reasonable degree of supervisory power, because we do not know how this system will work. It may work out in a different way, but this could develop into an even greater power centre than the one we are used to in this country. It could have far greater power than the House of Commons has ever exercised.
  We are dealing in this discussion with a Cabinet or Committee system, and we shall come later to the detail. We shall later be discussing words such as "leaders" and "chief executives". In terms of committees whose standing orders we are now discussing, we have a combination not only of executive-type power but of democratic power as expressed by the representation of the Assembly as a whole. Those committees will mirror the representation of the Assembly as a whole. There will be a concentration of executive and democratic power all within the same committee.
  We all know that our committee system at Westminster is developing at present, but it is dissimilar from the combination of power that reposes in the committee system in the United States. That system is often vaunted and given as an example. In the United States the committee system is applied purely to the legislature and the separation of powers from the executive. Therefore, it is important to stress that potentially there is an immense amount of power that can be exercised in a way that we do not at present envisage.
  We ask in our amendment, which is a constructive provision, for a reasonable degree of supervisory power. Indeed, I hope that everything we put forward in this debate is reasonably constructive. I hope that the Minister in his reply will deal seriously with our points. He was less than charitable to the hon. Member for West Lothian. We know that the House of Commons is a full-time body,

  1327
  but we also know that not all Members are full-time Members. No doubt in the Welsh Assembly there will be a balance.
  Therefore, we should have a ministerial answer on that matter. We shall be dealing with standing orders that will govern a sector of power that may be far greater than anything we have seen in this country. If the amendment is to be resisted, we are surely entitled to a reasonable explanation from the Minister.
  Mr. W. Benyon: I am in some disagreement with my hon. Friends since I do not believe I can support this amendment. I regard standing orders as extremely important. We all know that the Standing Orders of the House of Commons are most important. I personally believe that one of the easiest ways to control the Executive at Westminster is by having entrenched Standing Orders.
  In this discussion we are envisaging the setting up of an Assembly, and it is surely extraordinary to take that course and to insist that that Assembly should submit its standing orders to this House for scrutiny. This House cannot add to them but can only reject them.
  We do not take a similar course in respect of local government. We say to local government "Your powers go so far, and if you exceed them you will be ultra vires. If that happens you will be surcharged." Then regulations are laid down to prevent corruption. However, we do not supervise the standing orders of local government, and we should not do so if the worst happens and the Assembly is set up.
  As the Bill is drafted, the House of Commons retains the right of veto. If the Welsh Assembly were to take some terrible step and become so corrupt or heavy handed that we had to take action, it would be open to the House of Commons to respond to the feelings expressed by the Welsh people and to get rid of the Assembly. One cannot see that happening, but it is technically possible under the Bill.
  There is so much more in the Bill that is objectionable in every way that to tinker with this aspect of it is to fail to see the wood for the trees.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I oppose the amendment, although I welcome the fact that some time has been given to probing what sort of standing orders might be forthcoming when the Assembly is established.
  I oppose the amendment because it appears to be a hidden veto. We could have a situation in which the referendum is held, the Assembly is set up, elections are held, and the Assembly meets and draws up its standing orders, and because they do not meet with the approval of the House of Commons they can be vetoed. We might have an unfortunate situation in which the Assembly could not get on with any of its business. That might arise because of a change in the political party that controls the House of Commons, the incoming party exercising a veto. It seems that the proposal is unsatisfactory.
  The problem is that we do not have spelt out in the Bill specific and clear standing orders. The Scotland and Wales Bill went much further than this measure in setting out proposals for standing orders. One suspects that because the Government did not want to have a long Bill, and wanted to try to reduce the opportunities for debate and argument on it, they cut out most of the standing orders. One suspects that they chose to cut them to the very minimum. Their excuse is that it is up to the Assembly to make its own standing orders. I suspect that convenience in getting the Bill through the House was a more important consideration.
  We have the unfortunate situation that candidates will have to stand for election without knowing what sort of body they are to be members of if elected. They may assume that it will involve part-time work. They may assume that the remuneration will be for part-time work. They may feel that they want to have an open government system. They may want to have a clear definition of Members' interests. They will want to know the exact position of the Welsh language in the Assembly. If they are elected, they will begin to participate in the work of the Assembly. They may find that it draws up standing orders that are contrary to their beliefs. If they are in the minority, they will probably find it difficult to influence the drawing up of the standing orders. They may have a set of

  1329
  standing orders imposed on them that is contrary to their beliefs. What should they do? Should they resign and cause by-elections straight away?
  It seems only logical that we should have clearly set out the standing orders of the Assembly before the referendum so that the people of Wales know the sort of Assembly that they are to have. There are the simple points of a declaration of interests, how far there will be open government and access by everyone in Wales to the documents that the Assembly will use. There should be clearly set out the position of the Welsh language and its use in the Assembly, including its proceedings. Unless these matters are set out before the referendum, the people of Wales will be asked to vote for a pig in a poke. They will not be clear how the Assembly will work.
  When the elections take place, candidates will be asked to stand for an Assembly whose rules and regulations they do not know.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: The hon. Gentleman, like myself, has been in the House of Commons for some time. Did he understand the rules and regulations of this place before he became a Member?
  Mr. Bennett: I agree that I did not understand fully the rules and regulations. However, since I entered this place we have dealt with the whole issue of Members' declaration of interests. We have tried to impose on the House an alteration of its standing orders. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the House failed to carry that through because one Member vetoed the proposal on the register of Members' interests. As a consequence of political difficulties, the House refuses to resolve that difficulty. That clearly illustrates the difficulty of imposing standing orders after candidates have been elected.
  I am sure that the problem that we have experienced would not have occurred if we had formally set out that those who stand for elections to this place will be expected to sign a declaration of interest when elected. If that were done, no one could complain that the rules had been changed. It seems fundamental that for the Welsh legislation we set out the rules before the people vote and
  1330
  before candidates put themselves forward for election.
  I hope that we shall throw out the amendment. I hope that between now and the Bill's enactment, during which it will pass through another place and, if necessary, return here, the Government will further consider the standing orders of the Assembly and either have them clearly set out or, ideally, come forward with amendments to put standing orders into the Bill. That will enable a public debate to take place. By the time that the Bill is enacted there could, in that way, be some consensus.
  The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) took up the criticism of the Labour Party in Scotland. At least it has begun to discuss these matters and to put forward suggestions for the standing orders of the Assembly. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should be criticising it for taking that course. Indeed, he should be welcoming that approach and saying that we need a major debate on the standing orders that will be used in both Assemblies. In my view, they should be incorporated in the legislation and not imposed on the Assemblies by themselves afterwards.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: I shall be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) has spoken on the lines that I wish to pursue.
  I am not arguing for or against the principle of devolution in considering the amendment. Given that we have a Bill that purports to entrust the Welsh people with a greater and more direct portion of their own government, it seems that we have to entrust the Welsh people, first, to elect whomsoever they wish to their Assembly and, secondly, that having happened to entrust the members of the Assembly with the power to decide how they should organise their affairs, in particular we should entrust the Welsh people with the responsibility of deter mining what standing orders the Assembly should have.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), with his usual ability, dexterity and charm, has moved that the Assembly should not be allowed in the ultimate total power to decide what standing orders it should have. I ask myself why.

  1331
  I believe that there are two reasons. First, my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the somewhat extraordinary new system of government—namely, the blend of Cabinet government and local government—that is proposed within the Bill. My hon. Friend is right to criticise that system. We shall be criticising it later, if time allows, when we reach other amendments. It may be a reason for the system proposed in the Bill for the establishment of standing orders to be unsatisfactory and for the amendment—at least in the judgment of my hon. Friend—to be required.
  There is another matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby did not draw attention. Last week we debated briefly a proposal that election to the Welsh Assembly should be on the basis of proportional representation. It was argued—unfortunately only too briefly—that the first-past-the-post system would not produce a representative Assembly. Worse, that it would produce an Assembly which almost certainly would produce one-party government for as long as any of us cared to look ahead, unless the Welsh people either changed their political allegiance or decided to vote against their political judgment and principles. I do not agree with their political judgment and principles in the main, but I believe that they should be enabled to vote in such a way if that is what they wish.
  8.30 p.m.
  The trouble about a system which produces one-party government endlessly is that, if the voters stick to their political principles, it will be utterly impossible for them to get rid of a Government of the ruling party in the Assembly which may, in the drawing up of standing orders, do things which are contrary to what the Welsh people want and, indeed, approve of.
  A system of proportional representation would reflect more accurately the different balances of political opinion within the Principality and would be likely to shift power, if not totally, certainly adequately, to ensure that one party did not have monopoly control. That might have been at the back of the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby when he suggested that Parliament should have overriding control of the design of standing orders for the
  1332
  Assembly. My hon. Friend did not say that, because I know full well that he has doubts about proportional representation, but perhaps this debate is not unimportant in that it may be the first time that my hon. Friend has begun to see the light and to realise that there are many reasons why a system of proportional representation would be best for Wales—indeed, for the whole of Great Britain. I think that we may be setting out in a new direction and that we may look forward to better and greater things from my hon. Friend in future.
  In the meantime, despite these reasons, one of which has been put forward by my hon. Friend and the other by myself, why the amendment should be supported, the Committee cannot have it all ways. Either we give the Welsh people the power to make decisions about their Assembly—that means giving them considerable power—or we do not give them an Assembly at all. That may well be what the Welsh people will ultimately decide in the referendum, but it is up to them, not us.
  Mr. Tom Ellis: I have found this little debate curiously heartening in some respects. Some hon. Members are not so passionately committed to or against this measure as not to be able to apply a critical and objective intelligence to the issues. One or two hon. Members appear to apply this objectivity which has not been prevalent so far in Committee. That is why I say that this debate has been somewhat heartening for me.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) was a little unsure of himself when he introduced the amendment, knowing that he was proposing something that might not be entirely right. Indeed, he seemed to go out of his way to say that this was not a case of the House of Commons taking over the functions of the Welsh Assembly. He said that there was no intention of keeping the Welsh Assembly on the apron-strings of this place; it was a matter of a reasonable degree of supervisory power. Those were the kind of remarks that he made and they seemed to imply that he felt that there was something about the proposal that might not be 100 per cent. sense. Indeed, I thought that his hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) and Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and my hon. Friend the

  1333
  Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) made the point fairly and objectively.
  Mr. Brittan: I said that not because I had any doubts about the amendment, but because it was an accurate description of what the amendment seeks to do.
  Mr. Ellis: If that is so, the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) do not seem to have grasped the issue in the way in which the hon. Member for Devizes has grasped it. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby said in effect that we were creating a constitution for Wales. That is strange because, when compared with the provisions of the Scotland Bill, these provisions are well within the unitary State of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the ultimate decision and veto is in the hands of the House of Commons. To that extent, the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby is making a profound mistake.
  Mr. Dalyell: Can my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham answer a question that the Front Bench cannot answer? Are we to have part-time or full-time Assemblymen?
  Mr. Ellis: I shall come to that. That is a misconceived question.
  Mr. Dalyell: It is a simple question.
  Mr. Ellis: It is perhaps simplistic but far from simple. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian has missed the point. Reference has been made to the to the possibility of the Welsh Assembly abolishing direct-grant schools. Hon. Members have said that it would be a terrible thing if the House of Commons were not able to supervise the standing orders to prevent that abolition from coming into effect.
  Mr. Brittan: I am sure that the hon. Member for Wrexham, whose care in these matters I respect, would not wish to mislead. The reference to direct-grant schools was not made because hon. Members argued that they should not be abolished by the Assembly. The reference was made to illustrate the serious things that the Assembly could do even without primary legislative power. It was made
  1334
  to ensure that the standards which prescribe whether the Assembly, or even a Committee of the Assembly, could do this are examined carefully, We were not seeking to prevent them from doing it but saying that great care should be taken over the manner in which they could.
  Mr. Ellis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby. He has put the matter more precisely, but that does not alter my argument. If the Welsh Assembly were to abolish direct-grant schools, it would do so as a fully elected, democratic constitutional body and it would be within its wisdom to do so. It would receive either the retribution or the cheering of the people at the next election as a result.
  The great disadvantage is that which the hon. Member for Devizes mentioned. For a long time Wales has been a one-party country. The Labour Party has been dominant for many years. I believe that one-party government is bad, however good the party. That is why I should have liked to see some form of proportional representation. That would mean that decisions would be taken on an elected democratic basis and with the backing of a larger proportion of the people of Wales. The opposition would be proportional. At present the opposition in the form of various parties commands between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the vote. That would be the proportion of opposition within the Assembly. Public debate would be sufficient to ensure a wise decision on that or any other issue.
  We are dealing with the setting up of a political structure—a political institution. There are a number of ways of looking at political institutions. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian seems to take a static and very formal view. He seems to believe that one can write down precisely what the constitution will be. In the past we have prided ourselves on the fact that we have not had a written constitution and that that gives us a flexibility that other poor misbegotten and misguided countries do not possess. My hon. Friend wants to know whether the Assembly will meet on Tuesday or Thursday afternoons, and whether the Assemblymen will be paid £10 a week or £100 a week—
  Mr. Dalyell: No.
  Mr. Ellis: There are scores and scores of such questions that one can ask about an institution that is being created. But that approach misses the point. The point is not how the Assembly will do its work and the work that it will do. We need to spell out the overall functions and powers of the Assembly, and they are spelled out in the Bill. It is only necessary for the Assembly to be charged with the responsibility to control every detailed function. It is the Assembly's function to determine such minor details as how much the Members are to be paid and how long they are to sit.
  The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. As I understand it, we are discussing the way in which the standing orders are to be set up, and whether they are approved by Parliament. We are not discussing the question of powers.
  Mr. Ellis: I am making the point, Mr. Godman Irvine, that the standing orders must surely be determined within the body that they are supposed to control. For someone outside the Assembly to attempt to exercise a supervisory role seems to be completely misguided. If we were to supervise what the Assembly did, that would be a different matter. But the running of the Assembly itself and what the standing orders will provide is fundamentally a matter for the Assembly.
  When the Assembly is created, it will be crucially important that relations between it and this Parliament and local government institutions in Wales should be happy. The same applies to the Scottish Assembly. That is vital for the well-being of the people of Wales. The relationship should be a free, easy and happy one. The Assembly must be able to devise its own standing orders, and it can do that only when it is established. No one else can perform that task in any meaningful sense. It would be disastrous for this House to reject a particular feature of the Assembly's standing orders. Imagine the political uproar in Wales if that were to happen. The whole arrangements would have got off to a disastrous start.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I accept that it would be unfortunate for this House to impose a veto after the Assembly had
  1336
  met and drawn up its standing orders. However, does my hon. Friend feel that it would be reasonable for people voting in the referendum to know, for example, whether the Assembly was to meet and conduct its proceedings in public, or whether it was going to hold some of them in private, excluding the Press and the public? Surely these are things that people should know when voting in the referendum.
  Mr. Ellis: Certainly anyone voting in the referendum should have as much knowledge about the future as possible, but no one can say with certainty that the Assembly will do its work in a particular way. That would be aspiring to the perfect. We are in danger of rejecting the good on the ground that it is not perfect. It seems impossible that anyone could begin to say what the standing orders should provide and how the Assembly should work before the Assembly is created.
  Certainly, it is not for this place to lay down standing orders for a political institution, for a structure, politics being a dynamic, growing, lively thing—certainly not the kind of static thing my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian seems to think it is, so that we can ask questions such as what salary is to be paid and whether Members are to meet on Tuesday morning or Thursday afternoon. That is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of political business.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend must not misrepresent questions that I have asked. It is really very simple. It is not about such questions as whether Members are to meet on Tuesdays afternoons or Thurs day mornings. The question is simply in relation to this clause, to which it is highly pertinent and relevant. Do we have in mind a group of full-time politicians serving in the Assembly or is it to be a part-time body? I feel I am entitled, the Bill having reached the stage, to ask the Front Bench whether this is to be a part-time or whole-time set-up? I see the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has just joined us. If he thinks he has come in at the moment when I am—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I heard enough of what was going on

  1337
  before I took the Chair to appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is returning to ground that has already been dealt with.
  Mr. Dalyell: The question was asked but not answered.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: It appears not to have been in order.
  Mr. Ellis: I shall give my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian a fairly precise and explicit answer. This has nothing to do with standing orders as such. The answer is that Members will be as full-time or as part-time Members of the Assembly as hon. Members are of this House of Commons.
  Sir A. Meyer: This has been a very interesting debate on whether this House should have power to oversee the standing orders of the Assembly. I confess to being in something of a quandary how to react to the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) but there is a deep question which bothers me. I cannot see in this Bill that the Assembly has been given power to draw up its own standing orders. That is very clear from the Explanatory Memorandum, on page ii of which we read:
  "The Assembly is to make standing orders which must include provision for the disclosure of pecuniary interests."
  That is fine but the Explanatory Memorandum is no part of the Bill. When we come to the Bill, Clause 16 says:
  "(1) The procedure of the Assembly shall be regulated by standing orders of the Assembly;"
  Nothing is said so far about who is to draw up the standing orders. Subsection (1) continues:
  "but the Secretary of State may give directions for regulating its procedure pending the making of standing orders."
  Making by whom? As far as this Bill is concerned that could be by the Secretary of State. The clause goes on to say, rather amusingly:
  "The standing orders may include provision for preserving order in the proceedings of the Assembly …"
  which is a very fair comment on the kind of Assembly we may perhaps expect; but it seems to me that the Government have not made provision for the Assembly to draw up its own standing orders.
  Sir Raymond Gower: I should like to dissent from my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) in that respect. It seems quite clear to me from Clause 16(1) that the procedure shall be regulated by the standing orders of the Assembly, but then there is something quite contrary to the usual procedure in that
  "… the Secretary of State may give directions for regulating its procedure …"
  It seems to me that there is a very strong implication that the procedure will be drawn up by the Assembly. That, I would think, is implicit in the wording, but I may be wrong. Perhaps the Minister can give us some official guidance on this. Like my hon. Friend, I am not very keen on this amendment. I feel that if an Assembly is set up along these lines it should have the power to regulate its own procedure. I do not think that that is going very far. It seems unreasonable to lay down a detailed kind of straitjacket. I have not heard enough from those who are putting forward the amendment to persuade me to support it. If I do not hear more reasons in favour of the amendment, I shall not vote for it.
  Mr. Budgen: I am delighted to give my wholehearted and loyal support to the amendment moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Britain). He was right to say that it is an important amendment. It goes to the heart of our consideration of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in asking his highly pertinent and detailed questions, points again to the basic defect of the concept of devolution—the inherent instability that arises in any such proposition. The hon. Gentleman faced squarely the points approached with total inconsistency by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), who put forward two opposing propositions. The hon. Member said that he wanted the relationship between the Assembly and this House to be free and happy. He went on to say that the politics of the relationship would be dynamic, organic and lively.
  The second proposition is correct because the Assembly will be for ever trying to grab powers. Sometimes it will

  1339
  be grabbing them from its weaker brethren among the county and district councils in Wales and sometimes, puffed up with pride, it will be trying to take on the Westminster Parliament. Certainly there will be a dynamic, organic and lively relationship and that is inconsistent with a relationship that is free and happy.
  If we are to have a satisfactory relationship between this House and the Assembly, it is vital to establish who is boss. The important points about the amendment is that it establishes from the start that this House has a vital supervisory role over the subordinate Assembly and makes clear that it is no more than a puffed up county council.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: If my hon. Friend thinks it is right that we should have control over a subordinate Assembly, why, to use his own analogy, do we not have control over the standing orders of county councils?
  Mr. Budgen: When county councils were set up, there was no dishonest subterfuge by which it was pretended that they were equal to the Westminster Parliament. They were subordinate and they knew themselves to be subordinate. The basic dishonesty in relation to the Assembly is that some people in Wales are being conned by the suggestion that they are getting something equivalent to a Welsh Parliament. We should tell them that they have been conned and that we want them to understand that the Westminster Parliament remains sovereign and supreme. We can demonstrate that sovereignty and supremacy by providing that, in the last resort, we can supervise the Assembly's standing orders.
  Standing orders are the very meat of power and concern the practicalities of where the Assembly can extend its powers in what the hon. Member for Wrexham calls a dynamic, organic and lively way. Of course, it will be attacking the powers of local government as hard as it can.
  But we must also remember—this is important to hon. Members who represent other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly parts not so far distant from the Principality—that the whole basis of the Assembly's powers is somewhat uncertain. However, Clauses 38 and 39
  1340
  make it quite plain that there will be industrial and economic powers. There can be no doubt that the Assembly will be trying to distort the economy of the United Kingdom so as to attract to Wales industry and commercial activity that might otherwise go to other parts of the United Kingdom.
  That is an area where this dynamic, organic and lively body will be trying to get more power to itself, an area where the House would do well to give itself the power to supervise the standing orders, to make sure that power-grabbing can be contained at the very beginning.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: My hon. Friend should not be quite as anxious as he makes out. There is nothing fixed and final in the scope of the legislative powers that are being given to the Assembly. Under the Bill, certain existing statutes and certain parts of them are being transferred, but every time we pass an Act in future the House of Commons will then have to decide how far that measure applies to the Assembly. That will make for the kind of lively relationship that my hon. Friends describes, but that is not to suggest that the Bill completely takes away from the House the authority in relation to the Assembly.
  Mr. Budgen: It is true that as each power is passed over there will have to be particular legislative powers passed through the House of Commons. I accept my right hon. Friend's point—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also accept the point that has been made repeatedly by successive occupants of the Chair that we are dealing with standing orders, not powers.
  Mr. Budgen: I want to put into the Bill a second line of defence, because if it be that the Welsh Assembly by its persistent blaming of the United Kingdom Parliament for all the ills of Wales, because no doubt all those ills will be in no way attributable to the Assembly but will all be considered to be the fault of the domination of the United Kingdom Parliament—
  Mr. Wigley: Quite probably.
  Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt preparing the great orations that

  1341
  he will make a bout all the ills being everybody else's fault.
  At least if there has to be another change in standing orders, that is another safeguard. I hope that the loyal members of the Tory Party will be voting in favour of the amendment in the belief that it preserves the sovereignty of the House of Commons, and that it most of all prevents the power of the Assembly extending itself so as to distort economic advantage towards Wales. In doing that, we shall certainly be defending the interests of the West Midlands.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: I, too, have misgivings about the amendment, adding a fourth subsection to the clause, although one can understand the desire to know the standing orders determined by the Assembly.
  There is a vagueness about the clause. Subsection 1 reads:
  "The procedure of the Assembly shall be regulated by standing orders of the Assembly".
  We shall presumably give the Assembly powers to determine its standing orders, but the subsection continues to say
  "but the Secretary of State may give directions for regulating its procedure pending the making of standing orders."
  That is a vague concept in the clause. Will the Secretary of State give directions? I think that the Committee is entitled at this stage to know what is in mind.
  9.0 p.m.
  Why should there be vagueness at this stage of the Bill? We are now debating in Committee the clause that relates to the forming of standing orders. The Committee is told that
  "the Secretary of State may give directions for regulating its procedure pending the making of standing orders."
  I presume that something will have to be done about the ordering of proceedings until the Assembly sets up a standing orders committee or a working party to create a model for standing orders.
  Clause 16 goes on to say:
  "The standing orders shall include provision for the election of a presiding officer from among the members of the Assembly and for his tenure of office."
  It would appear that the only direction that we are giving to the Assembly, the only definite standing order that we are
  1342
  saying that the Assembly must apply, is that the presiding officer must be from among the Members of the Assembly, and
  "for his tenure of office."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) mentioned the point about why the matter could not be left to the Assembly. I do not know why the House of Commons should tell the Assembly that it must do it in that way. Before the subsection that the Conservative Party wants to put forward there is subsection (3), which states:
  "The standing orders may include provision for preserving order in the proceedings of the Assembly, including provision for excluding a member from such proceedings."
  I should have thought that there should be no "may" about that. There must be something in standing orders that says that there should be some provision for preserving order in the proceedings. Why should we put in a Bill of this nature the word "may"? Many of us are asking, even if it should or should not be in the Bill, why put it in at all? The clause has been put together in a strange manner.
  The Opposition amendment says:
  "The standing orders shall not have effect until they have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
  Let us presume that the Assembly has a form of standing orders with which the House of Commons finds itself completely in disagreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham has said that the matter should be left entirely to the Assembly and that it is not for us to get involved. But there could be a form of standing orders which Members of the House of Commons might find objectionable.
  I realise that we are in a unique situation. We have not done anything like this in Wales before. It has been a long time since Simon de Montfort summoned the first Parliament. It has taken a long time to get round to doing this sort of thing. It is not strange that we should not think of telling the Assembly what it standing orders should be, but at least of having a model form of standing orders which the Secretary of State could say somebody had looked at and would suggest to the Assembly to give it some guidance as to what should happen.
  Although it has been stated in Committee that the matter will be left entirely

  1343
  to the Assembly, if the Bill is implemented there are already some clauses that we have considered that will affect the standing orders. The House of Commons has reached its decision about the time of election, about elections, by-elections, disqualification from membership, expenses and powers. All those matters will affect standing orders. Those are issues which we have already determined. Matters such as the conduct of business, the first meeting, standing orders, pecuniary interest and the Executive Committee will affect standing orders.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The majority of the points made by my hon. Friend would be applicable in the case of the Greater London Council—an authority with considerable powers, as my hon. Friend well knows, and with extensive, carefully worked out standing orders. Such standing orders never come before the House of Commons for approval. Can my hon. Friend give one reason or more why the standing orders of the Welsh Assembly should have to come here for approval, and presumably debate, when the standing orders of the GLC do not?
  Mr. Evans: I did not say that the standing orders would necessarily have to come here. We in the House of Commons have Standing Orders amounting to about 118 pages with the index.
  My right hon. Friend is quite correct. The GLC, district councils, community councils and county councils all have standing orders. All local authorities and most other bodies have them. I cannot understand why there is not some indication at this stage as to the type of standing orders on which the Assembly is to model itself. If my right hon. Friend says that the Assembly should look at the GLC's standing orders and that that should be the model, I take the point.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: With all respect, that is not the point. The point I was making is that the GLC has the power to draft and approve its own standing orders without going to the Secretary of State for the Environment for approval. Why is my hon. Friend now trying to argue that the Welsh Assembly in similar circumstances would have to take its standing orders all over the place, from Alaska to the Secretary of State for Wales, for approval?
  Mr. Evans: I do not think that anyone has mentioned Alaska.
  Mr. Hughes: If my hon. Friend thought that there was a point against Wales he would mention it.
  Mr. Evans: That is an offensive remark. I know that it is getting late, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not want to be as offensive as that. It should be the people of Wales who decide this issue, as he knows, and he does not know whether the people of Wales want the Bill. Let us allow them to decide. We are in Committee. I have not supported the amendment. If my right hon. Friend had been listening to my speech, he would have realised that I did not accept the amendment, so he should withdraw that part of his remarks.
  Mr. Hughes: I did not make that point.
  Mr. Evans: We are now discussing the question of standing orders. I should like an interpretation of the clause when the Minister replies to the debate, and I hope that he will outline how the Government think the Welsh Assembly will go about setting up its standing orders and on what it will try to model them.
  Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes rose—
  Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend was not in the Chamber earlier. Other questions have been raised, such as whether the Assembly Members are to be full-time or part-time Members. We should like an indication of what guidance the Assembly will get from the Secretary of State in framing its standing orders.
  Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes rose—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The point with which the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) was dealing will arise in the clause stand part debate. At present we are dealing with the amendment.
  Mr. Evans: I should like to reply to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Hughes: The point was not clear to me. It was entirely my fault, and for that I apologise to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Evans: I accept my right hon. Friend's apology. I know that he is

  1345
  usually courteous in these matters and that he, like most of us on the Government side of the Committee, does not want to personalise the issue. There are differences between us, but what is needed is that through our discussion of the Bill the matter should be put clearly before the people of Wales without us getting involved in scoring personal points.
  That is all that I wanted to say on this issue. I hope that this matter will be dealt with in the reply to the debate on the amendment and, presumably, in the clause stand part debate.
  Mr. Geraint Morgan: In view of the lateness of the hour, my intervention will be very brief indeed. I intervene only in order to show that there is at least one Welsh Member on the Opposition side of the Committee who firmly agrees with the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) and Devizes (Mr. Morrison).
  As I understood it, the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) presupposes all sorts of possible abuses of standing orders, but, frankly, I think that he was raising bogies. If he had his way, it would really be a case of keeping the Assembly on the apron strings of the House of Commons.
  I agree entirely with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes. If the Welsh people decide ultimately that they want an Assembly, the making of standing orders must be left to the good sense and fairness of the Members of the Assembly.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: I must defend my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), because I believe that he is very well intentioned in his amendment, but the amendment would not be necessary if there were a sensible electoral system other than the first-past-the-post system.
  Mr. Morgan: I promised to be brief and will not be distracted into dealing with other forms of election.
  I think that the point was very properly put in a nutshell by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), when he said that standing orders must of necessity be a matter for the body concerned,
  1346
  in this case the Welsh Assembly. The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) drew a very apt comparison between the lack of control by the House of Commons over the standing orders of the Greater London Council and what is now proposed by way of control over the standing orders of the Welsh Assembly. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham again put it very well when he said that this was an extraordinary way of setting about things.
  If standing orders were referred back here and rejected, there would be a grave ground of conflict between the Assembly and the Westminster Government, and serious friction could develop. That is one of the things which those of us who are unenthusiastic about the creation of the Assembly have always feared. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham summed it up very well when he said that there is so much that can properly be criticised in the Bill that it is a pity we should be wasting time on this sort of amendment, which I regard as totally unnecessary and which many in Wales will find most objectionable.
  Mr. Alec Jones: We have certainly had, in those immortal words, a very wide-ranging debate. We have ranged over salaries, Members' interests, the Welsh language, proportional representation, the powers of the Assembly and the relationship between it and this House.
  I say to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), before he leaves the Chamber, that I do not believe that the sort of words he used are conducive to establishing a good and proper relationship between the House of Commons and the Assembly. "Who is boss?" is never, in my view, the best sort of expression to use between two bodies which have separate but important functions to carry out.
  I certainly do not object to the fact that we had this wide-ranging debate, but it will ill become hon. Members if they later complain that they have had less time to discuss other major and important issues.
  Mr. Benyon: That is unfair.
  Mr. Jones: Of course it is, but it is equally unfair to complain when time has been used discussing various extraneous matters, and when the amendment

  1347
  is specifically concerned not even with the content of the standing orders but basically with whether those standing orders need the approval of both Houses of Parliament. That is what the amendment is about, and I suggest that we have moved away from that somewhat in our discussions. Far from the guillotine having been our enemy this evening, we shall have been our own executioners in regard to many of the later debates which some hon. Members have wanted.
  The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) began quite reasonably, saying that all he wanted was a reasonable degree of supervisory power. But then it appeared that what he really wanted was a veto of what was in the standing orders. Although I am a Welshman, my knowledge of English would not suggest that a veto can be described as "a reasonable degree of supervisory power." I felt that the hon. Gentleman was really asking for a complete and final say as to what should be in the standing orders. That may be what some Conservative Members want but it was not what I understood him to mean when he initially asked for a reasonable degree of supervisory power. Therefore, I was glad to hear that we had support from the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), Devizes (Mr. Morrison), Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) and Barry (Sir R. Gower), who indicated that in their view this matter should be left to the Assembly.
  9.15 p.m.
  It is the Government's view that to give Parliament control over the Assembly's standing orders is neither practicable nor desirable. Our own Standing Orders are contained in a booklet of some 118 pages, and in my view it is nonsense to believe that the House of Commons could find adequate time to discuss its own Standing Orders and those of the Assembly. We change our Standing Orders frequently. It is nonsense to suggest that we could find time to deal with those changes and supervise all the changes in the Assembly's standing orders which obviously will be necessary as time goes on and the Assembly develops experience of running its own affairs.
  We are talking of a responsible elected Assembly. If the House of Commons can give that Assembly all the functions
  1348
  that we have just finished discussing and some others, and that Assembly receives the approval of the people of Wales in a referendum, it is the height of nonsense to suggest that the standing orders of such an Assembly should be subject to a veto of both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would resent it greatly if anyone suggested that any body outside this Chamber should have a say in the Standing Orders under which we operate.
  Clause 16 provides that there are to be standing orders, and subsection (1) provides that they shall be made by the Assembly, and I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) that certain of those standing orders have to be mandatory.
  Sir A. Meyer: But it does not say anywhere in the text of the clause that they are to be made by the Assembly. That is the point that I was making.
  Mr. Jones: I am advised that subsection (1) provides for that. However, I shall discuss the matter further and, if there is some fault in the wording, the Government naturally will seek to correct it.
  But because we understand that certain functions will need standing orders, we have included a provision in subsection (2) dealing specifically with the election of the presiding officer and his tenure of office. In Clause 17, we have dealt with the declaration of pecuniary interests. In Clause 20, we provide for a mandatory standing order dealing with the authorisation of payments out of the Welsh Loans Fund. In Clause 22, we provide for the scrutiny of subordinate legislation. So in certain key areas we have ensured that the standing orders shall be mandatory and, until the Assembly is set up and draws up its own standing orders, there will be standing orders provided by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State which will continue until the Assembly makes its own. Those interim standing orders will surely provide the sort of guidance for which hon. Members have asked.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, whatever view one takes, it is relevant to ask in relation to pecuniary interests whether the Members are to be

  1349
  full-time or part-time? One cannot sensibly discuss pecuniary interests without having a clear idea—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has returned to this matter on a number of occasions. However, it is not part of the amendment under discussion.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. That is a judgment from the Chair. However, I think that it is reasonable and sensible to argue that one cannot make up one's mind about pecuniary interest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Standing orders."] Pecuniary interest is one of the matters that we are discussing, and a part-time Member of the Assembly whose bread and butter the Assembly is not should be subject to very different standards of declaration of pecuniary interest than a whole-time Assemblyman. So I return to my question—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: On at least four occasions the Chair has explained to the hon. Gentleman that this is not what we are discussing.
  Mr. Jones: I understand that that is not the point that we are discussing, but since my hon. Friend has specifically asked questions about salary he must be aware that four amendments are down to Clause 33. We shall then discuss this matter provided that we get there. At the rate at which we have made progress since 7 o'clock, we are not likely to get any further than the issue that we are now discussing because of the long meanderings that have taken place since then.
  However, in reply to my hon. Friend I would say that whether Assembly Members are full time or part time will depend on the Members themselves. Just as the hours, days of the week and period of time which this Assembly sits is decided by this Assembly, so will that decision be made by the Welsh Assembly. Whether a Member is full time or part time will largely depend on that Member's own conscience. But I have sufficient faith that Assemblymen who are elected will work as long as necessary in order to ensure that Wales is adequately governed.
  Mr. Dalyell: If my hon. Friend is right in what he says—I have no reason to suspect that he is not—then I for one hope that those Assemblymen will be
  1350
  paid no less than Members of the House of Commons, because some of them will have to keep two homes going and will have the same kind of expenses as we have.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: That may well be so, but it has nothing to do with Amendment No. 220.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

  PECUNIARY INTERESTS
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move Amendment No. 80, in page 7, line 23, at end insert
  "and such disclosures of pecuniary interest shall be entered in a register, compiled in such a form as the standing orders shall provide, and deposited with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council".
  The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, we may take Amendment No. 81, in page 7, line 27, leave out "£500" and insert "£1,000".
  Mr. Bennett: Perhaps I may turn first to Amendment No. 81. I have put this down as a probing amendment. I tabled a similar amendment on the Scotland Bill, although on that occasion the official Opposition tabled further amendments not only to raise the sum but also to impose disqualification for anyone in breach of this particular part of the standing orders.
  During discussions on the Scotland Bill, the Minister suggested that the Government were having second thoughts about imposing a duty on the courts to supervise the standing orders of the Assembly. At that stage he suggested that the Government might alter the Scotland Bill at some later stage. Before I develop my points further, will the Minister say whether the Government are having second thoughts about the Wales Bill? Do they consider that it is appropriate for the courts to supervise the standing orders of the Assembly? Will my hon. Friend enlighten me on that point?
  Mr. Alec Jones: In the event the Government decided not to bring forward a proposal such as my hon. Friend has mentioned but to retain the penalty of

  1351
  £500 because, on balance, we believe it to be at an appropriate level.
  Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. I therefore take it that it is the Government's intention to set up this rather odd situation of the courts having to supervise the standing orders and also to impose a fine, or the possibility of a fine, of only £500. If one considers the possibilities for people to behave corruptly, that is a very small fine indeed. If the Government are to retain this proposal they ought to consider making the penalty rather more severe by accepting the amendment that I have tabled. The Government should consider on Report the possibility of disqualifying someone from continuing as a Member of the Assembly if he has been found guilty of that sort of offence.
  In Amendment No. 80, I have suggested that we should have had the standing orders set out before the referendum and certainly before the election takes place. I accept that the Government are reluctant to do that, but certainly on the question of pecuniary interests the Government should make absolutely clear the kind of standing orders that they would require.
  We have heard suggestions that in local government it is left to local government bodies to provide their own standing orders. On matters of open access, information and declaration of interests, local government has been particularly bad at making standing orders covering the rights of the Press and public to hear proceedings and at declaring interests. In this area we should have something tied down in standing orders.
  The Bill uses the word "shall" in relation to standing orders dealing with pecuniary interests. However, I believe that it should be spelled out much more clearly. We have seen the difficulty of imposing this sort of standing order on a body. We had a long debate on Members' interests in this House. We amended the Standing Orders and then found that because one hon. Member refused to comply with that, he brought the whole question of a register of Members' interests into disrepute. Because of the political composition of the House of Commons, it is reluctant to deal with the problem.
  Do we approach the problem in a dif-
  1352
  ferent way and set it all down in the statute? Plainly this would have been more satisfactory. This problem of a declaration of Members' interests in the Welsh Assembly should be treated in this way. Ideally, Members should have to make a declaration of interest before they are elected. We should require that each candidate make a declaration so that it is quite clear what interests people are representing and what financial interests they have. It is unsatisfactory for the Assembly itself to impose regulations.
  I hope that the Minister will look at this carefully and make it clear that the Government expect the Welsh Assembly to make sure that people declare their financial interests before they speak and that there is a register of Members' interests. The Government should say that this will be a statutory register, and it will not be permissible for Members of the Assembly to waive this requirement. I hope that the Government will look at this sympathetically.
  Mr. Brittan: I intervene briefly to take up the points made by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett).
  I have considerable reservations, as do many of my hon. Friends, about Amendment No. 80 in view of the experience of the House of Commons with the Register of Interests. It does seem a little wry that we should be debating a matter of this kind when we cannot deal with it satisfactorily in the House of Commons. We should resolve our own problems first—if they are capable of resolution—before we tell anyone else what to do about a register of interests.
  I have a considerable degree of sympathy with the thinking behind Amendment No. 81. It is important that there should be as great a degree of protection that is possible against improper financial activities in the Welsh Assembly, or in any other deliberative or legislative body or Executive set up by this House.
  9.30 p.m.
  I note, in passing, that in the Scotland and Wales Bill the fine was set at £400. However, by the time we reached this Bill the fine had increased to £500. Whether that is an adequate reflection of the degree of inflation experienced by the Labour Government, I leave for others to consider and to probe.

  1353
  The principle that there should be a proper sanction against financial impropriety is important. I do not wish to tread on delicate areas, but it is right to say that if over a period of time a body is dominated by one party, there is always the risk of financial impropriety. That risk is less likely to occur where there is hotly contested balance between the parties. That is nothing special to Wales, although it has received a great deal of notoriety because of the trials which have taken place in the last few years in regard to the activities of some members of Welsh local authorities. Since I come from a North-Eastern constituency, I assure those hon. Members on both sides of the political fence who represent Welsh constituencies that the North-East is by no means immune from the same problem. The problem is not a function of a particular part of the country, but illustrates the dangers that can arise if there is one-party government.
  Clause 17 in its unamended form is no guarantee against the kind of deplorable activities about which some of us read in the Daily Telegraph on 28th February. Amendment No. 80 is not a protection against such events occurring because corruption will occur, and often occurs, where there is one-party government. Nevertheless, it is right that there should be as high a degree of protection as can be obtained by means of statute, and the fine is the only sanction that is available to us.
  I believe that many Conservative Members will feel sympathetic towards Amendment No. 81 since it increases the sanction that is available to prevent improprieties from occurring.
  Mr. Alec Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) introduced an identical amendment in Committee on the Scotland Bill. I understand that he is concerned to see a common United Kingdom standard in declaring pecuniary interests and wants the Bill to provide clearer guidelines. But that is not so easy to achieve when one realises the vast variety of bodies—whether it be this Chamber, an Assembly, county council or district council or the whole gamut of semi-public bodies—that exist throughout the country.
  What we have done in Clause 17 is to say that the disclosure of pecuniary interests shall be mandatory. The Assembly's
  1354
  standing orders will require Members to disclose their pecuniary interests, and the provision goes on to say that contravention of the standing orders would carry a criminal offence and a fine of up to a maximum of £500.
  The question is how the disclosure of pecuniary interest is to be carried out. It is true that the Assembly could follow the pattern in the Local Government Act 1972, in which disclosures are recorded in a book that is kept specifically for the purpose. When we take into account that that provision is regarded as sufficient for a council the size of the GLC, which is responsible to 10 million or 12 million people and for many millions of pounds, it is somewhat difficult convincingly to argue that it is necessary to go much beyond that when deciding how the Assembly should approach the matter.
  The Assembly could follow the example of the House of Commons, which has a Register of Members' Interests. It is maintained by a registrar, who is an Officer of the House, and overseen by a Select Committee. However, I suspect that some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North, would not regard our register as being perfect by any means. It seems that we have been somewhat reluctant to do much about that. That is a failure of the House of Commons.
  If we take into account the variety of worries that have been raised and the many examples that have been put before the Committee, it seems that this is a matter that should be left to the Assembly, given the instruction in Clause 17 that the standing orders must require Members to declare their interests and the criminal offence nature of the fine. We can argue about the size of the fine, but I believe that we have gone as far as is reasonable in laying down instructions to the Assembly as to how the issue should be handled.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend has suggested that I find the present system operating in this place unsatisfactory and that it is a failure of the House of Commons. Does not that illustrate the danger of leaving the determination of standing orders to the Assembly? It may or may not be convenient for it to deal with this matter. If standing orders were laid down in the Act, it would not be for the Assembly

  1355
  to decide on its standing orders and, presumably, to enforce them. We are in difficulty with our Members' interests because it has been left to us to impose sanctions upon ourselves and to carry them out.
  Mr. Jones: I should have greater sympathy with that point of view if what we were discussing was an attempt to impose some similar strict regime as we are seeking or would seek, to impose on the Assembly, or any other body. If we were taking that course, I should be far more sympathetic. However, as we are talking only about the Assembly, I take the view that we have probably gone about as far as we can go at this stage.
  As for the level of the fine, I accept that the level of any fine, like all numbers, is often a balance of judgment. It happens that £400 was included in the Scotland and Wales Bill. When the Criminal Law Act 1977 came on the scene, which revised fines for summary offences, it became necessary to revise the fine and to take into account that Act. The fine in the Local Government Act 1972 for nondisclosure remains at £200, but as we were taking into account the Criminal Law Act when revising the fine it seemed that the £400 fine should be brought to some point on the scale and that £500 was probably about the right figure.
  The fine is not a small sum. If someone were to ask me to prove that £500 was absolutely the correct figure, in all honesty I must say that I should find it extremely difficult to do so. I should probably try to talk the matter out. I believe it right that we should have a mandatory standing order dealing with this matter, but at this stage I believe that it should be left to the Assembly. Without going to the gallows on the issue, I believe that the fine of £500 is just about right.
  For these reasons I invite my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am beginning to wonder precisely what the Assembly will spend its time doing. It will have a fruitful time discussing its own standing orders, freedom of information, and its own this, that and the other. If the Scottish Assembly has problems finding enough for its Members to do and if the Welsh Assembly is to be full time and to operate along the
  1356
  lines of this Parliament without legislative and economic powers, what on earth will it find to fill in its time for 37 weeks of the year without discussing its own standing orders?
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

  SUBJECT COMMITTEES
  Sir David Renton: I beg to move Amendment No. 177, in page 7, leave out lines 31 to 36 and insert—
  '(1) The Assembly may appoint committees for the discharge of any of its functions.'.
  The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
  No. 178, in page 8, line 6, leave out
  'by the leader of the committee or'.
  No. 179, in page 8, line 13, leave out from 'chairman' to end of line 14.
  No. 180, in page 8, line 14, at end add—
  '(4) Any such committee or sub-committee may authorise an officer or officers of the Assembly to take such action as may be necessary for the discharge of any of the Assembly's functions which the committee or sub-committee has been appointed to discharge.'.
  No. 181, in Clause 19, page 8, line 17, leave out 'leaders' and insert 'chairmen'.
  No. 182, in Clause 19, page 8, line 20, leave out from 'Committee' to the end of line 25.
  No. 145, in Clause 19, page 8, line 16, leave out from 'Committee' to 'and' in line 19.
  No. 144, in Clause 19, page 8, leave out line 21.
  Sir D. Renton: It would seem to be convenient to discuss the next seven amendments, although there are three separate issues raised. I shall begin with only two of those issues, leaving it to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench to deal with the other issue.
  Amendment No. 177 proposes to leave out subsection (1) as it stands. Before going any further, I should mention that Clause 18, according to the side notes and its contents, would seem to oblige the

  1357
  Assembly to appoint a wide range of subject committees relating to all the powers conferred by Clauses 10, 11 and 12. Of course, Clause 18 provides for other things besides those, as I shall try to explain.
  If there are to be subject committees on all the powers conferred on the Assembly, there will be such an enormous range of sub-committees that even an Assembly of 100 Members would not find enough Members to man them satisfactorily to study all the subjects to be considered.
  Mr. Dalyell: I wonder whether it would be in order to point out that on this matter of vital importance to Wales the only hon. Members present on the Labour Back Benches are the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis), who admittedly is of Welsh extraction, and myself, who thinks that the whole proposition is preposterous. That demonstrates the enthusiasm there is for this Bill.
  Sir D. Renton: I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for pointing out that fact. It is rather shameful. We are moving constructive amendments which seek to improve the Bill. They concern matters which deeply affect the future of Wales, especially existing local authorities. Yet we find the most elaborate provisions for imposing this new Assembly upon Wales These provisions overlap the responsibilities not only of the Secretary of State but of the local authorities. It seems that we are to have complete duplication of the committees of the local authorities. That is not all. If we were merely to have the Assembly, so to speak, matching the committees of the local authorities, that might be fair and sensible. But under Clause 18 as drafted, with the cross references which t contains to other parts of the Bill, the multiplicity of committees will be astonishing.
  9.45 p.m.
  References have been made to the Committee not being able properly to discuss Schedule 2. Under the heading "Local Government" there is an enormous number of references to the Local Government Act 1972 and to other provisions affecting local government. Part II of the Schedule which is headed
  1358
  "Local Matters" deals with the Burial Acts, fairs, cinematographs, theatrical employers registration, airport shops and food and drugs. It deals with the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, the Licensing Act, the Theatres Act and even the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act. I have mentioned only about half of them. Which of the possible subject committees relating to powers conferred on the Assembly would deal with this extraordinary variety of matters? I have mentioned nine or ten different subjects. The whole thing is too ridiculous for words.
  There is a part dealing with education. For once that is plain enough. The Assembly will have an education committee, as do local authorities. The next part of the schedule is headed
  "Landlord and Tenant and Housing".
  There is a variety of subjects to be considered under that heading. Some of them bear upon agriculture. The Rent (Agriculture) Act is listed. Will that come under the housing committee, the landlord and tenant committee or what?
  The next heading is "Fire Services". That is another straightforward matter. But then there is "Health and Social Services" which covers three pages of statutory references. I shall not weary the Committee with them.
  The next part is headed "Pollution" and the next "Planning and Land Use". There is a tremendous section there which covers not only planning matters in the way in which we normally consider them but the safety of sports grounds, mobile homes, harbours, the Gas Act, the Commons Registration Act, and the Inclosure Acts. Fancy, we are still having to deal with that! One wonders which of the committees of the new Assembly will deal with the multiplicity of subjects which are given the generic description "Planning and Land Use".
  Mr. Hooson: I share the doubts about a committee structure in the Assembly, but was it not recommended by the Kilbrandon Commission of which the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) was a member? Did he dissent from that recommendation?
  Sir D. Renton.The hon. and learned Member is falling into the error perpetrated by 100,000 people at least. I should have thought that 100,000 people talk of the Kilbrandon Commission as though it was of one mind. He knows that we split four ways in our recommendations affecting Wales and four ways in our recommendations affecting Scotland.
  I did not want more than a consultative Assembly for Wales, and to the extent that the hon. and learned Member is right in saying that some members of the Commission wanted an Assembly with some executive powers—others wanted it to have legislative powers—I did not agree with them. I therefore decline to answer for them. They must answer for themselves. In defence of them all, which ever way they split, let me remind the Committee that none of the members of the Kilbrandon Commission put forward the fantastic scheme proposed in the Bill.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler (The Wrekin): Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that it is widely accepted in the House that the Kilbrandon Commission produced the most remarkable do-it-yourself report in history, and that it ill becomes any member of that Commission to criticise a Government who try to make sense of the mess that the Commission left? After all, at the end of the day the Commission left us roughly where we started. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that?
  Sir D. Renton: Again, I must appeal to the hon. Member's sense of fairness. I seek refuge once more in the fact that two of the other members of the Commission and I put forward a proposal which would have enabled Welsh matters to be discussed in Wales without all the palaver of an elaborate new tier of government, because that is what it is, and no amount of talk by the Secretary of State or anyone else can get away from that.
  I must press on. Why I should have to go on explaining away opinions with which I do not agree, I do not know. It is something that I as a parliamentarian find strange.
  Let me now deal with the other headings. They include "Development", "Water and Land Drainage", "Freshwater Fisheries", "Countryside", "Forestry", "Ancient Monuments and
  1360
  Historic Buildings", "Tourism", "Transport", "Road Traffic"—to the extent that they are separate. I do not see why they should be so regarded. Then we come to "Registration Services", and so on. In other parts of the Bill we find other subjects which would have to be the responsibility of specially appointed subject committees.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: Does the scheme permit the setting up of an additional vehicle registration centre at Swansea? If so, that would be the ultimate in over-government.
  Sir D. Renton: I agree that that would be the ultimate in over-government. The registration services that are mentioned here, however, appeal to me very much. One of them is the Population (Statistics) Act 1960. We need population statistics. There are also the Marriages Validity (Provisional Orders) Acts of 1905 and 1924. The provision on registration deals with matters such as that rather than the registration of vehicles.
  Then, of course, there are the various matters which are to be the subject of concurrent responsibility with the Secretary of State, including the Community Land Act 1975. We must bear in mind the possibility that some powers mentioned in Schedule 4 are exercisable only with the consent of a Minister of the Crown. But if the Assembly is to have a committee covering each of its functions, it must also have committees covering those potential functions, because their functions can be exercised, although only with the consent of a Minister of the Crown; so by insisting that there shall be the subject committees related to all powers conferred on the Assembly by those sections, and of course the schedules they invoke, and such other functions, if any, as the Assembly may determine, it is difficult to imagine how many committees there might be.
  I feel, as do my hon. Friends who support me on this—and I trust that I might perhaps have the support of my Front Bench on these amendments—that it would be so much simpler and more courteous to the Assembly, and more reasonable, and would give them a better start, if we have the very simple provision contained in the amendment I am moving, No. 171, which is to leave out subsection (1) altogether, with all its palaver and

  1361
  simply say—and I am staggered at the simplicity of my own words—
  "The Assembly may appoint committees for the discharge of any of its functions".
  That is all. The provision is "may" and the Assembly is not obliged to do it for every function, and it is not necessarily related to each subject or anything like that.
  If I may make a rather general comment which applies to all legislation, if we want it to be good legislation—and I say this in deep humility but not without some experience—we ought to avoid unnecessary detail if we can possibly do so. When we are dealing with human rights, the rights of the individual, police powers or powers of inspection or entering people's homes, it is right that we should spell these things out so that Parliament can scrutinise them; but when we are merely creating a new public body we can sometimes go into too much detail, and I believe that the Government went into too much detail on subsection (1). Therefore, the simpler form would be better.
  I come to Amendments Nos. 178, 179, 180, 181 and 182. They are not quite consecutive on the Order Paper because some amendments moved by the Front Bench come between them, but Amendments Nos. 178 to 182 inclusive, numerically in sequence, deal with quite a separate matter from that which I have mentioned. By the way, I must apologise to the Committee for my imperfect drafting of Amendment No. 182. It was intended merely to be a consequential amendment and I have not got it quite right, but it is something that can easily be adjusted.
  May I deal with the substance of the matter? For reasons which, as far as I know, have never yet been explained in any White Paper or speech from the Government Front Bench, the Government are taking it upon themselves to use the word "leader" as a new term of art in a way in which, so far as I know, it has never before been used in our constitution. We talk about the Leader of the House of Commons but, as far as I know, that is not a statutory term at all.
  Mr. David Crouch: It is not an exact term.
  Sir D. Renton: That could be said but we all know who the Leader of the House is. He represents a Welsh constituency. We know that although the Leader of the House is a parliamentary party manager of the Government of the day, he is expected to help the House as a whole and is enjoined to pay special regard to the views of minority parties and so on. He does not always do that, but it is hoped that he will.
  10.0 p.m.
  The way that "leader" is used in the Bill is not analogous to the leadership of the House. The only other way that I know of "leader" being used in public life is when we talk of the Leader of the Greater London Council, of the Huntingdon District Council or the Cambridgeshire County Council. These people are not normally chairmen of committees and they do not have the same responsibility to the council as a whole as the Leader of the House is supposed to have to the House of Commons. They are essentially leaders of the majority party on the council and, because a council cannot operate without a majority, they are called, for convenience, leaders of the council.
  In the Bill, the word "leader" is used in another sense. Clause 18(2)(b) says:
  "where any committee appointed under this section is charged with the exercise of any powers it may arrange for all or any of them to be exercised by the leader of the committee".
  That is the first mention of the leader. At that point, we do not know what is meant by the leader of a committee. We have to read on. The paragraph goes on to say that, alternatively, the powers may be exercised by a sub-committee. It seems that a sub-committee has the same powers as the leader of a committee.
  Subsection (3) says:
  "the Assembly shall name one of the members of each such committee as its chairman and another as leader of the committee, and the leader of a committee shall be known as its executive member."
  Maybe I am too simple-minded, but to have to have such a complicated arrangement imposed on an Assembly which will have a hard enough job anyway to get over its teething troubles seems not only unnecessary, but unkind.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: As we have heard from the Government that the Assembly should decide its own standing orders.

  1363
  does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the same applies in regard to this amendment and that all this verbose nonsense is completely unnecessary?
  Sir D. Renton: I am exceedingly grateful to my hon. Friend. I had worked out a number of arguments in my mind, but that important argument had not occurred to me. It will enable me to bring my remarks to an end fairly soon. It is such an overriding factor that what I was going to say can be shortened.
  Assembly committees will have a chairman and a leader. Surely it would be better to have simply a chairman and no leader. Why is every committee to have both a chairman and a leader? Will the leader be the party manager type or the Leader of the House type? Will this follow the precedent of local councils which have this well-established practice or is it a feeble attempt by the Government to break away from that practice?
  That is the sort of thing we need to know simply to understand the clause. What is the policy behind it? We have tabled the amendments to try to have the matter explained to us, first, and then I have made my own poor, inadequate attempt to draft amendments which would carry out what is intended.
  After what I have said about not going into too much detail in legislation, someone may try to throw it in my face that that is just what I am trying to do in Amendment No. 180. But that is necessary in order to clarify the committee's position and to simplify it. Those in the outside world dealing with the Assembly need to know who has the authority to act and negotiate on its behalf. The subsection that would be added by Amendment No. 180 makes that clear. It says:
  "(4) Any such committee or sub-committee may authorise an officer or officers of the Assembly to take such action as may be necessary for the discharge of any of the Assembly's functions which the committee or sub-committee has been appointed to discharge."
  That is simplicity, clarification and well worth while.
  I am grateful to this Committee and to you, Sir Myer, for listening to me at such length. I hope that I have made the case clear.
  Mr. Dalyell: As the evening has worn on I have been conscious of taking part in
  1364
  the biggest fiasco that I can remember in 15 years as a Member of Parliament. It even surpasses the Scotland Bill. Never on any subject has one seen such an absence of conviction all round the Committee.
  Mr. Hooson: Surely the hon. Gentleman remembers the European Assembly Bill, when there was a green desert on his side of the Committee and very few hon. Members were interested.
  Mr. Dalyell: At least on that Bill there was conviction in quite a section of my party. Seventy or 80 Members, of whom I happened to be one, really believed in it, and on the Opposition Benches there was a great deal of conviction. On this occasion, as far as I can make out, there is no conviction. Even the hon. and learned Gentleman wants something totally different from this, and those in Plaid Cymru who argue for a "Yes" vote want something totally different. Therefore, the argument for the "Yes" vote is a false description of the goods. It is a prospectus that is not what it says it is, in Wales as in Scotland.
  I shall not take up time except to ask the question that I first asked 37 long days ago in all these discussions. Is my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), who deserves a medal for good attendance and is sitting on the Front Bench now, to be concerned about forestry in the New Forest and not in East Flint? Is the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), who is temporarily absent, to be concerned with the water in Wolverhampton but not with the water in West Flint? Is my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) to be concerned about ancient monuments in Alnwick but not with ancient monuments in Aberdare? Is the Secretary of State to be interested in transport on Tyneside but not transport at Port Talbot? That seems to me to be a situation that cannot conceivably endure. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) is doubtless concerned with pollution in Peterborough but not pollution in Pontypool.
  Then we get to altogether bigger fish, education. Is my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) to be able to vote money and be concerned with education in Exeter but not with education in Ebbw Vale?
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: It is a courageous thing to raise what is called the West Lothian question in a debate on the Wales Bill. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that certainly everybody will be concerned with all those matters, because the voting of the moneys will be in the House of Commons and the legislation on all these subjects will be in the House of Commons.
  Mr. Dalyell: I take issue with my right hon. Friend, who is a former chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. I know how expert he is. But there are two interpretations of the matter. If my hon. Friend were right, this would put the Welsh MPs and Scots MPs in a very dangerous position, because they would be seen to have one function above all others, namely, to get the maximum amount of lolly out of the parsimonious English Treasury.
  I do not think that Welsh Ministers of great pre-eminence, of whom my right hon. Friend was one in a former Cabinet, exactly saw their role in that light. I wonder what the shade of Aneurin Bevan would have to say about that. Of all the things that Aneurin Bevan thought of himself, somehow I do not think that he thought of himself as a venal Welshman trying to get as much as he could for Wales from a United Kingdom Government. I do not want to be pompous or diffident about it. We shall not call it the West Lothian question. Let us call it, for the sake of courtesy, the Cardiff, South-East question, because I think the question goes directly to the Prime Minister. How long can a Prime Minister, or anybody else representing Cardiff, South-East—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am surprised that any hon. Member, realising that a guillotine is due to fall at 11 o'clock, should indulge in material which is wholly irrelevant, which we have
  1366
  heard for hours on end and which has prevented hon. Members from taking part in discussing important amendments. I see nothing of any relevance in that which is now being said by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).
  Mr. Dalyell: Whatever else is said about it, it is not irrelevant. It goes to the heart of the matter. As I sit down I simply put this question, because it has not been answered. How long can a situation endure in which our Prime Minister, or anybody else representing his constituency, can vote, for example—to be alliterative—on the Community Land Act in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) but not in his own city of Cardiff?
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): My hon. Friend must compare the position with the Scotland Bill. The very Act which he has now quoted, if introduced in a post-Assembly period, would affect my right hon. Friend's constituency, be it in Cardiff or any other part of the world, in exactly the same way as it would affect parts of England. On this matter my hon. Friend has completely misunderstood the Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not think I am wrong about this, because I have read the Bill very carefully and I have asked lawyers about this point. At first, I took it that the West Lothian question, so called, was irrelevant to the Wales Bill. I took legal advice about this and I gathered that in fact the issue is more complicated than that and that a great element of the West Lothian question applies to this Bill.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: On a point of order, Sir Myer.
  The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has finished his speech.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I do not want to pursue that point because I would not want to trespass on your good temper, Sir Myer, at this hour of the evening, nor in any way do I want to cut out from the debate anyone who wishes to take part—rather the reverse. I want to broaden out the issues a little beyond the point at which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) left them. He dealt with the amendments in his name, and I want to refer to those amendments and to Amendments Nos. 144 and 145, in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, which deal with the question of the Executive Committee and the particular structure—indeed, I might say the peculiar structure—imposed by the Government in the clause.
  This group of amendments brings us to an examination of the committee structure that is supposed to provide us with all the advantages of both the local government and the Cabinet systems of administration.
  In the words of a document which was approved by the executive committee of the Labour Party in Wales in 1975, and which drew attention to the advantages and disadvantages of both systems,
  "We would therefore seek a system which would be a hybrid between the Westminster and the local government patterns, and which in our view would combine the strong points of the two."
  But, in my judgment, that is not what has happened in practice. With that unerring sense of political ineptitude that characterises everything they have done in connection with this Bill, the Government have in reality succeeded in combining the worst parts of the two systems in a way which will make the structure unstable, will disguise where political responsibility lies, and will encourage the development of the caucus system of majority party control, which in South Wales has too often in the past proved a synonym for all that is worst in local government.
  It is not surprising that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)—I am glad to see him in his place—a keen supporter of devolution in general, should have cried out so
  1368
  strongly in our debate on 15th January 1976
  "if we are to have an Assembly, for heaven's sake let us have it based on a parliamentary rather than a committee system. Let us have it open, public and esteemed, not following the model of the county councils."
  When dealing with the details a little further on, the hon. and learned Member quite rightly observed:
  "What does that mean in practical terms in Wales? It means delegating the power to the party boss on that committee."—[Official Report, 15th January 1976; Vol. 903, cc. 656–57.]
  This is a central feature of what we have to consider now. I have not always agreed with the hon. and learned Member, but on this occasion our judgment and our experience of the precedents has led us to identical conclusions. I hope that the hon. and learned Member will join us in supporting a series of amendments that will start the job of dismantling the structure. I freely concede that this series of amendments does not necessarily take us to the point to which the hon. and learned Member would want to go. I shall have a little more to say on that matter later.
  Ministers may plead—indeed, it has already been pointed out—that in the Kilbrandon Commission's Report there is some support for what the Government are proposing, though as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire so forcefully and rightly observed, this was the recommendation of only some of the commissioners, and there is nothing sacred in any case, as has been suggested from the Labour Benches, about what the Commission proposed. The commissioners saw their report as a basis for further debate. But in any case, the Government have made a number of very significant changes from what the commissioners proposed. The commissioners proposed that it would be the chairman of the functional committees that would form the Executive. There was no talk about the leader in the commissioners' report.
  The Government propose a new creature, the leader, while the chairman is apparently to be an impartial figure. There seems to me to be an unwarranted confusion, and I do not believe that the implications have been very thoroughly thought through. It is one thing to be an

  1369
  impartial chairman of a debate, as you are, Sir Myer. It is quite another to attempt the task of chairing impartially a functional committee in which there is a strong politically oriented leader. Either the chairman will come from the majority party, in which case his impartiality may not be all that obvious, or he will come from a minority party, in which case there will be a weakening of what is already bound to be a small and fragmented representation in the committee as a whole. There seems to be nothing to gain from this particular variation other than confusion and a general blurring of responsibility.
  The second variation is more serious. In paragraph 899 of their report, the commissioners made it quite plain that the Executive Committee would not have functions delegated to it by the other committees. It was specific on that point. This Executive Committee was to provide for the discussion and co-ordination of policies over the whole field of regional government. But even in that limited sense, the commissioners recognise that it would, in effect, be a regional cabinet of members of the majority party. The Bill, on the other hand specifically states that the Assembly may charge any of its committees—and that includes the Executive Committee—with the exercise of its powers, and further, that any committee may delegate its powers to its leader, that is to say, to the party boss, to the member of the Executive Committee.
  It does not need an enormous amount of imagination for us to recognise that that is exactly what the majority party will do—see that the powers are delegated to the so-called leaders, the party bosses, the Ministers, for that is what they will be, to the Cabinet, for that is what it will be, and to the party caucus, for that is what it will be, as well.
  There is no requirement in the Bill that the minority parties need to be represented in this key Executive Committee. They may be, it is true, but there is no requirement, and in practice I think it clear that they will not be. One does not facilitate Cabinet government—and Cabinet government, though disguised, is what we are to have—by inviting into it the Opposition when there is no obligation on one to do so. Where would the so-called advantages be?
  1370
  The Labour Party document, in referring to a Cabinet system, mentions the inadequacy of parliamentary control over the Government, and goes on to refer to
  "the ineffectiveness of back bench Members, the exclusion of the opposition—and back bench government supporters—from access to civil servants. A committee system, in contrast, would give better opportunity for minority parties and back bench Members of the majority party to participate in decision making."
  That may be the idea in theory, but the only thing that would survive under the system proposed in the Bill would be the access to civil servants. But, with authority delegated to the party bosses, where would be parliamentary control, and where would be the effective intervention by Back Benchers and by the Opposition?
  The tragedy is that the whole thing is a charade or, worse than a charade, an elaborate disguise. Power would lie with the caucus but responsibility would be shared by the committee as a whole and by the unfortunate minority parties represented in it. Credit or blame would fall on all Back Benchers, Opposition and Government, as collective members of the Assembly and its committees, while all the time there would be a Cabinet Government in operation. Clear personal and collective responsibility, which is one of the great advantages of the Cabinet system, would not exist.
  Even at its best and without the added function to which I have referred, the local government system has its drawbacks. It is true that there is a general involvement by members. But, as the Labour Party paper acknowledged, it is accompanied by delay, confusion and ineffectiveness, and too often that means that administration and power are taken over by paid officers. We are all aware that this happens in many local authorities. The elected members become no more than a sort of democratic screen for the real decision takers.
  We also know that, because people tend to think collectively in terms of the council rather than in terms of the political leaders or the political parties within the council, there is too often a lack of response from the public to what is done. Much less than at national level people, blame or praise the majority. There is instead a generally rather hostile reaction to local government affairs, and this leads at least in part to the lack of enthusiasm

  1371
  displayed at local government elections and also to the frequency with which so many people turn to their Members of Parliament rather than to their local councillors when they have matters which concern them.
  Despite those faults, however, the local government system has some advantages, especially if we believe that we have too much polarisation of political attitudes and too much party strife. I suppose that there is also something to be said for a system which cushions arbitrary executive power. So that is one direction in which we could move and in which the House of Commons might decide that it would be an advantage to go, and it is in fact the direction in which the amendments direct us.
  I find it indefensible so to adapt this system that there is a potential for arbitrary Executive power, a system which in reality places decisions effectively and completely in the hands of the leaders of the majority party and which produces what is in effect an Executive in that there is a Cabinet and a Prime Minister and the whole thing is wrapped up in cotton wool and discussed behind this confusion of committees, thereby ensuring that the general public do not know who is responsible.
  Therefore, the alternative to a local government system is not this murky morass but a move in the other direction towards a Cabinet structure which establishes clearly where responsibility lies. The Government no doubt have shied away from that solution not just for the reasons advanced in the 1975 paper which I have quoted but because they want to play down what they are doing. They want to avoid setting up an Executive which could prove to be an effective rival to central Government. They do not want anyone strutting round in Cardiff calling himself the Prime Minister of Wales.
  That is no doubt why, in order to add further to the confusion, they insist on retaining the absurd and almost ludicrous title of "Chief Executive". It is absurd because everyone is now used to the idea that in local government the chief executive is a paid officer—a civil servant. Only a Government who were intensely devious or incredibly obtuse or both could give the same title at different levels of government to the political lead-
  1372
  er of the majority party and to the senior civil servant. They have stuck so obstinately to this cause in the face of sustained criticism and hostility that it seems that it is really their intention to create confusion.
  Whatever else Parliament decides it must insist on changing the title as, indeed, Amendment No. 144 does. The Government must go further. They must remove the disguises and the wraps and decide whether they want a committee structure or a Cabinet structure for the Assembly. Either way there are drawbacks. As I have observed so often in these debates, the Government have produced a structure that is fundamentally unstable. We may seek to amend and improve, but we cannot make what is basically unstable a solid foundation for good government.
  10.30 p.m.
  If we are to avoid a challenge, competition with the central Government and a decisive advance down the slippery slope, it is tempting to make the whole thing as ineffective as possible and reduce it to the status of a glorified county council. But there would be practical drawbacks in such a course.
  The Assembly is being given many appellate functions of government, and it is difficult to operate them on a purely committee system. More serious is the consequence of the division of legislative powers in the Bill. It is not true to say that this body will be purely administrative. It has a vital part of the legislative job to do and it will need a structure that produces far clearer cut decisions than are likely to be had from a committee system.
  Then, of course, there are political considerations as well. There is the consideration that arises inevitably from what we are doing in this Bill. The Bill is responding to, and seeks to enshrine, national aspirations. In so far as it does so, and thought to do so, the public will demand something like a Cabinet structure rather than a committee structure. The nature of the Welsh Assembly, focusing, as it does, those aspirations, will guarantee that.
  If we are to set up the Assembly it is impossible to believe that it would for long accept a purely local government structure. By one means or another, within its own rules of order, it would

  1373
  seek to transform itself into something different. Either that, or it would fall back on the well-tried and wholly unsatisfactory expedient of caucus government.
  However thick the disguise, however complex the arrangements proposed, whatever the language used by Ministers, what we are in practice doing in the Bill as it is presently drafted is setting up a separate Executive and a separate Administration responsible for a large part of the government of Wales. As a result we shall have two competing Administrations. That, therefore, seems another reason why we should provide a Cabinet structure rather than the other system. That is the way to make absolutely clear to this House of Commons, and to the people of Wales, precisely what we are doing.
  If we have an Assembly, and if we give it responsibility for a major part of the administration and part of the legislative functions, we are starting down a long path that might well lead to separatism. We are creating something that is fundamentally unstable and dangerous. The House of Commons should understand what it is that we are doing. There seems to me to be a clear-cut reason for getting away from the confusion enshrined in the Bill as it is presently drafted. That is perhaps the most important reason of all why I commend these amendments to the Committee.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: This has been a remarkable debate so far. I listened with interest to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). Basically he expressed puzzlement. I hope that I can enlighten him and relieve him of some of his puzzlement.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the West Glamorgan question at some length. How that arises under this amendment, or this clause, is beyond my comprehension. We are simply discussing the structure and leadership of the committee within the Assembly. In passing I would say that I do not believe that the West Glamorgan question arises at all. Welsh Members of this House will remain party to legislation that affects every aspect of life in Wales, as well as England. It is absurd to draw parallels between Scotland and the powers of the
  1374
  Scottish Assembly given in that Bill and the powers given to the Welsh Assembly in this Bill.
  I have no desire to stray into the irrelevancies of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, so I shall restrict myself to discussing this clause and these amendments.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point—
  Mr. Fowler: I have already left that point. I do not want to compound the error of discussing the West Glamorgan question on every clause, whatever its nature.
  I listened carefully to the fantastic speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards). The Conservative Front Bench appears to be advocating a Cabinet system for an Assembly in Wales which it does not really want, except on a consultative basis. That is the most remarkable turnabout that I have ever seen in politics. The Conservatives say that they do not want an Assembly at all, except as a consultative Assembly, but then they say that if there is to be an Assembly, it must have a Cabinet.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Member should not distort what I said, and mislead the Committee. I said that a wholly unworkable system had been imposed upon us by the Government. If we were to have such a system, the Government's intentions should be set out explicitly in the Bill. I want something more explicit than the total confusion that we have at present.
  Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member has just resiled somewhat from the position that he took earlier. Why do we have a Cabinet system or a committee system? What are the virtues of each? There is no doubt at all about the situation in which we have a Cabinet system. It is a system in which certain powers and functions rest with individuals, and these individuals collectively form a committee in which differences are hammered out, and then that committee exercises collective responsibility. A Cabinet system is needed in a situation where the exercise of individual responsibility is necessary. The extreme case of that is when a Minister stands before the House answering for his Department, or more importantly, defending a Bill for which

  1375
  he, and he alone, is responsible—just as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for this Bill. The Cabinet system is about individual responsibility of Ministers and collective responsibility of those Ministers acting in committee.
  There is only one alternative to that—the committee system. If power is divided between two Ministers then those two Ministers are a committee. There is no half-way house dividing power among one and a half people. Executive decisions are taken by more than one person, after wide debate. The virtue of the committee system is that executive decisions are discussed more openly in public, and they are not the decisions of one person alone. In that sense they are more democratic.
  The purpose of the provisions is to obtain a compromise between the two positions. What is the argument against having a Cabinet system? The argument is simple, namely, that the Welsh Assembly will not be a legislative Assembly. There will be no Welsh Minister who will be required to stand at a Dispatch Box and defend a Bill for which he and he alone is responsible.
  Why should one want Ministers, or a Cabinet system? Yet that is what the hon. Member for Pembroke has been saying we should have if we are to have an Assembly of this sort. But there is to be wide executive responsibility. Therefore, it is sensible to have some kind of executive committee to determine overall policy for the Assembly, and it is sensible to have one person in a committee to whom power can be delegated in case of need for the ease and efficiency of administration, but not necessarily a person to whom powers shall be delegated. That is exactly what the Bill provides for. If we did not have that situation, we should find that were the burden of executive decision so great that a committee system could not digest it without such delegation, the power of delegation would not exist. Alternatively, if we followed the hon. Gentleman's line of argument, we would find that all powers were automatically delegated. That would be a reduction of democracy and of open discussion in the Assembly. Neither course is desirable.
  1376
  The hon. Gentleman believes that power will be automatically delegated. I do not know what leads him to that view. I do not know what leads the hon. Gentleman to the view that in this House, if the Parliamentary Labour Party or the 1922 Committee were to be given its head and were to draw up a new constitution, it would create a Cabinet system in which most Back Benchers were powerless and would know that they were in that position. What leads him to believe that people would willingly resign any share of power which they had been given by legislation? To think that they would do so is a totally absurd argument.
  Let me refer to the distinction between chairman and leader. The hon. Gentleman said that Kilbrandon did not draw that distinction. I do not regard Kilbrandon as holy writ. If I did, I would regard it as singularly self-contradictory holy writ. It is the most remarkable do-it-yourself report that I have ever seen. There is in Kilbrandon material to support almost any case. Kilbrandon suggests an executive committee, but an executive committee composed of chairmen.
  Why should one separate the offices of chairman and leader? There are two reasons. The first is simple—namely, that the skills of chairmanship have little to do with the executive skills that one looks for in a leader or a member of that committee who will be a member of the executive committee. It is as if you, Mr. Murton, were to be selected for the post that you occupy with such distinction by virtue of the fact that you were deemed to be ministerial material. I would deem you to be ministerial material, but that would not be the right criterion.
  Sir David Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. The hon. Gentleman has already been reminded that we want to hear the Secretary of State for Wales. One hopes that there will even be time for a reply to some of the points covered by the hon. Gentleman himself.
  Mr. Fowler: I have been asked to give the Secretary of State time to reply, and I shall do so. There is still time for me to do that. My point is that the skills of chairmanship and leadership are distinct. But there is another point, and it is as important.

  1377
  We have been told not to look a gift horse in the mouth. The likelihood in the foreseeable future is that on most occasions the Welsh Assembly will have a major Labour majority within it and will want to combine the offices of leader and chairman. That distinction has another virtue, apart from the one that I have mentioned. If there is a majority party in the Assembly, it may elect—I hope that it will—to chair the committees those who should be so elected by virtue of their skill as chairmen, irrespective of their party membership. It seems that there is a wish to deny the Conservative Party and other minority parties in Wales the chance to exercise some office in the Welsh Assembly if there is a Labour majority. I hope that that is not the intention and that the amendment will be withdrawn.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Raison: This has been a short debate, but it has given us a chance to consider what may prove to be the Achilles heel of the Bill, perhaps even more than the West Lothian question, the West Glamorgan question, or whatever we care to call it. The question is how the Assembly is to function.
  We have been talking about the way in which committees will function within the scheme put forward by the Government. How are the committees to work on behalf of the Assembly? How are they to exercise the powers that are to be conferred upon the Assembly? Above all, how are we to ensure that Acts of Parliament will be implemented by the Assembly which is to hold this quasi-delegated power? I believe that these questions highlight what would prove to be the Achilles heel of the whole of the system were it ever to come into being.
  For example, the Education Act 1976—to me the Act is completely odious, but I do not wish to go into that—requires local authorities to go comprehensive. The basis of that Act is a sort of interplay or counterpoint between the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the local authorities. The authorities are meant to put forward schemes and the Secretary of State is meant to ensure that certain things happen.
  Let us suppose that we had a Welsh Assembly that, very rightly, was totally opposed to the Education Act 1976. Unless I have misread the whole scheme,
  1378
  I understand that it would be given the duty that at present lies with the Secretary of State of carrying out the Act's requirements.
  Who in the Assembly would have such duties? I assume that they could be exercised collectively by the Assembly or delegated to one of the committees that we are discussing. They could be delegated to the leader of one of the committees, to the chairmen of the committees or to the Chief Executive. I should like to know what the Government have in mind. Whatever the answer, it seems that we are getting into an impossible situation.
  The bodies that will carry out the functions now undertaken by the Secretary of State may be totally opposed to the Act. It may be said that that is a common occurrence in local government, but that is a different matter. In local government there is in the background the Secretary of State, who has almost the function of a district commissioner if he considers that local government is failing. The Minister of State laughs, but what I say is true. The Secretary of State has the power to put in commissioners. That power is given under Section 99 of the Education Act. There are powerful reserve powers. However, those powers will not remain with him. They will be transferred to the Assembly.
  The Assembly may decide that it does not like the Act. The Chief Executive may decide that he does not like it. He may decide to be dilatory in implementing it. He may not carry out what Parliament has required. As a result, we shall see complete and utter chaos.
  It seems that there is no way out of these difficulties under the Government's scheme. If the Secretary of State has an answer, he should tell the Committee. I feel that this will prove to be the fatal flaw in the Government's scheme, even more than the West Lothian question, and one to which there is no answer.
  Mr. John Morris: Having listened attentively to the debate, I am somewhat mystified about the difficulties that hon. Members see arising from the clauses. The position is simple. We are proposing a basic framework for the Assembly. We believe that it will ensure the efficient working of the Assembly. As a Welsh Member of Parliament who has had the

  1379
  honour of serving his constituency for a number of years and seen both Westminster and local government at work and can more than guess what the political complexion of the Assembly is likely to be, I believe that, in addition to the need for efficiency, there should be the maximum opportunity for minority parties to participate. Those are the twin strands of our approach to this problem.
  I concede immediately that it would have been easier and less likely to cause the imaginary fears of hon. Members if we had no arrangement of any kind, shape or form and allowed the Assembly to do what it might. That is an attractive course. But we have come to the conclusion that the Westminster model is not the only model that should be given to a new constitution for an Assembly in the Principality. Indeed, hardly a week goes by when there is not a complaint about the lack of opportunity in the House of Commons to influence the Executive and to participate in its decision making. There are severe criticisms about the way that we are content to organise our business.
  I was not sure how hon. Members were venting their objections. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) said that if there were to be an Assembly—I do not say that he in any way accepted the idea of an Assembly—he would prefer a Cabinet system. On the other hand, he said that this Assembly would develop into a Cabinet system. If he thinks that it will develop into such a system, where lies his objection? What has he to fear? He cannot have it both ways.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said that there would be a mass of committees. He went through subject after subject. There was to be such a galaxy of committees that there would not be the manpower—or the person power, to be correct—to man them. There is no need to have a committee for each subject.
  Sir David Renton: The subsection provides that
  "the Assembly shall appoint committees … with functions relating to all the powers conferred on the Assembly."
  Mr. Morris: Precisely. My interpretation is that it is open to the Assembly
  1380
  to appoint a committee or committees which could be charged with more than one function. The right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to suggest that there would have to be a committee dealing solely with burials, another committee dealing with markets and fairs, and so on. That is not my understanding and advice to the Committee. It would be open to the Assembly, within this framework, to decide the number of committees that it would have. If that is the burden of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's fear, let me put him out of his misery on that score straight away.
  We are seeking to ensure that there is an arrangement for participation and the utmost flexibility as regards delegation. Of course, different situations may arise. Some maters will need speedy decisions. In these circumstances it will be open to the Assembly and the committee to delegate responsibility to the executive member. There will be time and opportunity for lengthy consideration and that decision will be taken by the committee.
  Given this framework and the need to have such committees, given the provision in another part of the Bill to have members who reflect political representation on the committee, there is a new opportunity for minority parties—and there will be a number of them in the Assembly—to take part in decision-making.
  Mr. Hooson: If Clause 18 and 19 are excluded from the Bill the Welsh Assembly will set up its own procedure and it will be answerable to the Welsh people. If it misuses the procedure laid down by Parliament it will blame Parliament.
  Mr. Morris: That is an attractive argument. But the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) should be the first to recognise that this is an opportunity for minority parties. I suspect that his party will be a minority party in the Assembly. I should have thought that he would be seized of this opportunity to ensure that his party participates in decision-making.
  I see this as an advance on the democracy in which we take great pride. It is an improvement on our principles. If it develops in certain ways, so be it. That is for the Assembly to decide. We have provided the framework for the Assembly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) said that different

  1381
  skills are necessary for chairmanship. Separating the two offices will ensure that there is a bigger, more creative and helpful role for all parties than there would be if both offices were held by one person. This is an advance. All the fears advanced will not be borne out.
  It has been suggested that we are introducing into the Bill the worst features of local government. This feature is not new. The situation applies to chairmen, leaders of councils, mayors and chairmen of Committees of the House of Commons. It is not novel to divide the chair and the leadership. The need to get decisions through is the responsibility of the majority party.
  We have devised a system which is, perhaps, not familiar to hon. Members who are not involved in local government. But it is not entirely novel. It is a system which works in local government. What we propose is a development of that to combine efficiency, speed and flexibility, for the Assembly to use its powers of delegation, and at the same time, to ensure maximum participation
  by those with different political views. That will result in an improved quality of decision-making. My advice to the Committee is to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Hooson: I do not believe that the Secretary of State is right to say that this is a safeguard for minority parties. The fear is that too many decisions will be taken by unpublicised manoeuvre instead of by open government in a Cabinet system. If the Assembly is to be entrusted with setting up its own orders and so on, it can be entrusted with setting up its own system of government, whatever it is. It is an unwise precedent to follow. There is the local government precedent in this matter and it would certainly—
  It being Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [1st March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 177, Noes 203.

  Division No. 138]

  AYES

  [11.0 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Knox, David

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Alison, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Arnold, Tom

  Forman, Nigel

  Lawson, Nigel

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Loveridge, John

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Freud, Clement

  Luce, Richard

  Banks, Robert

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Goodhart, Philip

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Benyon, W.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Gorst, John

  Marten, Nell

  Bitten, John

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Body, Richard

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gray, Hamish

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Bottomley, Peter

  Grieve, Percy

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Mills, Peter

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Almond, Rt Hon J.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Brittan, Leon

  Grist, Ian

  Moate, Roger

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Grylls, Michael

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Brooke, Peter

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hannam, John

  Morgan, Geraint

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Buck, Antony

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Budgen, Nick

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Mudd, David

  Burden, F. A.

  Hicks, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hodgson, Robin

  Neubert, Michael

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Onslow, Cranley

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Clegg, Walter

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Panhaligon, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Percival, Ian

  Costain, A. P.

  James, David

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Crouch, David

  Jessel, Toby

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Dales, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Jopling, Michael

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Raison, Timothy

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Kilfedder, James

  Rathbone, Tim

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Elliott, Sir William

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Emery, Peter

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Rhodes James, R.

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Wakeham, John

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Riffled, Malcolm

  Speed, Keith

  Walker, Rt Hon P (Worcester)

  Roberts WAN (Conway)

  Spence, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Sproat, lain

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Stainton, Keith

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wells, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Stanley, John

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Shepherd, Colin

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shersby, Michael

  Tebbit, Norman

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Silvester, Fred

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Younger, Hon George

  Sims, Roger

  Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Jim Lester.

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Mr. John MacGregor.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Allaun, Frank

  Forrester, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Anderson, Donald

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Freud, Clement

  Moyle, Roland

  Armstrong, Ernest

  George, Bruce

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Golding, John

  Noble, Mike

  Atkinson, Norman

  Gould, Bryan

  Ogden, Eric

  Bain, Mrs Margaret Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Gourlay, Harry Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Orbach, Maurice Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Bates, All

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Ovenden, John

  Bean, R. E.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Padley, Walter

  Beith, A. J.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Pardoe, John

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Harper, Joseph

  Parker, John

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Parry, Robert

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hayman. Mrs Helene

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Henderson, Douglas

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Hooley, Frank

  Radice, Giles

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Horam, John

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Reid, George

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hoyle. Doug (Nelson)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Huckfield. Les

  Roberts Gwilym (Cannock)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Campbell, Ian

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hunter, Adam

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Jackson. Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Janner, Greville

  Roper, John

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Cohen, Stanley

  John, Brynmor

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Coleman, Donald

  Johnson. James (Hull West)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Cowans, Harry

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Cronin, John

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Lambie, David

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Cryer, Bob

  Lamond, James

  Snape, Peter

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  MacCormick, lain

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  McCusker, H.

  Stoddart, David

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Stott, Roger

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  McElhone, Frank

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Deakins, Eric

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Dempsey, James

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Thompson, George

  Doig, Peter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tomlinson, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Torney, Tom

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Madden, Max

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Magee, Bryan

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Dunn, James A.

  Mahon, Simon

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Eadie, Alex

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Ward, Michael

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Watkins, David

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Watt, Hamish

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Welsh, Andrew

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Meacher, Michael

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Mendelson, John

  White, James (Pollok)

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Mitchell, Austin

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Flannery, Martin

  Molloy, William

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Molyneaux, James

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  1384

  1385

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Woodall, Alec

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Woof, Robert

  Mr. Ted Graham and

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Mr. James Tinn.

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put Question put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.
  Question put, That the clause part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 201, Noes 173.

  Division No. 139]

  AYES

  [11.13 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Gould, Bryan

  Padley, Walter

  Anderson, Donald

  Gourlay, Harry

  Parker, John

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Graham, Ted

  Parry, Robert

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Panhaligon, David

  Atkinson, Norman

  Grocott, Bruce

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Radice, Giles

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Bates, Alf

  Hayman, Mrs Helena

  Reid, George

  Bean, R. E.

  Henderson, Douglas

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Beith, A. J.

  Hooley, Frank

  Roberts. Gwilym (Cannock)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Horam, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Huckfield, Les

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Roper, John

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hunter, Adam

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Janner, Greville

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Campbell, Ian

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Canavan, Dennis

  John, Brynmor

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Carmichael, Neil

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Snape, Peter

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Coleman, Donald

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Lambie, David

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Cowans, Harry

  Lamond, James

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Stoddart, David

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Stott, Roger

  Cronin, John

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Cryer, Bob

  MacCormick, Iain

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  McCusker, H.

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Thompson, George

  Davidson, Arthur

  McElhone, Frank

  Tinn, James

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Tomlinson, John

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Torney, Tom

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Deakins, Eric

  Maclennan, Robert

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Madden, Max

  Ward, Michael

  Dempsey, James

  Magee, Bryan

  Watkins, David

  Doig, Peter

  Mahon, Simon

  Watt, Hamish

  Dormand, J. D.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Marks, Kenneth

  Welsh, Andrew

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Dunn, James A.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Eadie, Alex

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Meacher, Michael

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Mitchell, Austin

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Molloy, William

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Molyneaux, James

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Woodall, Alec

  Flannery, Martin

  Movie, Roland

  Woof, Robert

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Noble, Mike

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Forrester, John

  Ogden, Eric

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Orbach, Maurice

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Freud, Clement

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  George, Bruce

  Ovenden, John

  Mr. A. W. Stallard.

  Golding, John

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Grist, Ian

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Grylls, Michael

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Alison Michael

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Percival, Ian

  Arnold, Tom

  Hannam, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Banks, Robert

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Benyon, W.

  Hicks, Robert

  Raison, Timothy

  Biffen, John

  Hodgson, Robin

  Rathbone, Tim

  Body, Richard

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hordern, Peter

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Rhodes James, R.

  Brittan, Leon

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  James, David

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Brooke, Peter

  Jessel, Toby

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Roberts. Wyn (Conway)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Jopling, Michael

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Buck, Antony

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Budgen, Nick

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Kimball, Marcus

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Burden, F. A.

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shersby, Michael

  Carlisle, Mark

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Silvester, Fred

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Sims, Roger

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Knox, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Clegg, Walter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Costain, A. P.

  Loveridge, John

  Speed, Keith

  Crouch, David

  Luce, Richard

  Spence, John

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Sproat, lain

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stainton, Keith

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  MacGregor, John

  Stanley, John

  Drayson, Burnaby

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Marten, Nell

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Elliott, Sir William

  Mawby, Ray

  Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)

  Emery, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wakeham, John

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mills, Peter

  Walker, Rt Hon P (Worcester)

  Forman, Nigel

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Wall, Patrick

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Moate, Roger

  Warren, Kenneth

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Wells, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Morgan, Geraint

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Goodhew, Victor

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Gorst, John

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mudd, David

  Younger, Hon George

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gray, Hamish

  Neubert, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Grieve, Percy

  Onslow, Cranley

  Mr. Peter Morrison and

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Anthony Berry

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 19 to 24 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 [16 th November].
  Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (MEMBERSHIP)
Ordered,
That with effect from 13th March Mr. Christopher Price and Mr. John Evans be dis-
1388
charged from membership of the European Parliament and that Mr. George Cunningham and Mr. Alan Fitch be designated members of the European Parliament.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

BRITISH LEYLAND (SPEKE PLANT)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]
11.27 p.m.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: The Adjournment debate tonight

1389
is about the proposal to close British Leyland's No. 2 plant at Speke, and it has to be set against the background of Merseyside's unemployment, because my view is that the proposal is completely unacceptable on a number of counts.
The House will be well aware of the unemployment and job opportunities position on Merseyside. It will be readily appreciated that the loss of a further 3,000 jobs represents a serious setback to any hopes of industrial recovery. This not only applies to Merseyside; it extends into the North-West Region. It will have a serious effect on the attempts being made to reduce unemployment in the area, which is at present running at a level of 11·6 per cent. It will also affect job opportunities in an area which is already starved of jobs It will make it even more difficult for young people to find employment and certainly it will create serious problems for the new generation of job seekers going into industry in the near future, it paints a picture of real despair.
This is happening at a time when both the Department of Employment and the Department of the Environment are attempting to remedy the problems in that part of the world. The inner city or inner area programme of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Employment's youth opportunities programme are designed to deal with areas like Merseyside, in terms of job creation.
These policies are directed towards bringing resources to the area in order to improve the social, economic and industrial fabric of hat part of Merseyside. While this is going on on the one hand, the axing of 3,000 jobs—if this proposal is carried—means that much of the work being done by those Departments will come to nought. It makes a nonsense of almost every policy designed for this purpose.
Merseyside is a special development area. The efforts that have been made by this instrument will be of no avail if jobs in Merseyside are slashed at their present rate. In addition to the Speke closure, we have heard that the Birds Eye factory in Kirkby intends to close, Courtaulds has already declared that 400 with the loss of a further 1,200 jobs.
1390
jobs will go from the Aintree plant. The accumulation of these job losses represents a most serious loss for Merseyside.
One can well imagine the amount of investment that will be needed to create the number of jobs that I have outlined. We all know that it is not simply the jobs that I have mentioned that will be lost. If we apply the multiplier, it means that we are talking of about 10,000 or 12,000 jobs. The sub-contractors at Speke, transport, the small shopkeepers, the community generally, the loss of £750,000 to the rates, will all have a dramatic and serious effect upon industrial recovery and employment opportunities on Merseyside.
Indeed, it was through the industrial development certificate that British Leyland first went to Merseyside. It seems an absolutely blatant contradiction of Government policy that in view of the way that this industry was brought to Merseyside we should now be talking about the axing of jobs in the car industry to the extent suggested. On another count it also means that the plans of British Leyland have virtually taken a U-turn. Indeed, that is as serious an argument and problem as the one relating to Merseyside jobs.
What has really happened to the plans of yesteryear and to the Ryder concept of a British-based, British-owned car industry? At the time this House supported the rescue of British Leyland and the Ryder plan which gave hope and opportunity for the development of a British-based, British-owned car industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), the then Prime Minister, said on receiving the Ryder Report:
"The choice facing the Government on receiving the Ryder Report, the choice now facing the House, is this. Is Britain to have a major indigenous automobile industry, or should we have decided that British Leyland could survive profitably on a diminished scale, selling up-market cars together with trucks and buses? Are we, through a lack of courage in responding to a tremendous and costly challenge, to endanger a million jobs, and at the same time to see a shrinkage of exports, and vastly greater imports for the home market, which would be bound to affect our balance of payments disastrously?
The Government have decided that Britain must remain in the world league so far as a British-owned automobile industry is concerned."—[Official Report, 24th April 1975; Vol. 890, c. 1747–8.]

1391
It would appear that the Government have at least begun part of that U-turn, when one considers closure of the Speke factory and the context of the whole corporate plan.
There may be differences among us as to how the objectives of the Ryder plan could be achieved, but one thing that we all know is that one way of not achieving it is to close the second most modern plant in the Leyland network. That is what is happening at Speke.
Some of my hon. Friends and I have met the Leyland management. I for one remain basically dissatisfied with the reasons that it has given for the proposed closure of Speke. The question of the number of sales of the TR7 has remained unanswered. I understand that shop stewards have been unable to elicit information on sales of the TR7 in the United States.
Also, why were the plans for the closure of Speke not made known at the meeting when Mr Michael Edwardes was presenting the broad lines of the corporate plan to the trade union movement? Why was the closure decision taken when the trade unions had made the strike official, and there was every likelihood of a quick return to work? Why was the decision not discussed in the car council? One of the things that we agreed on was a worker participation scheme for Leyland. Participation means the involvement of workers in their industry. Yet at no time was the question of the closure of Speke discussed in the car council. Nor were there any discussions about the broader implications of the corporate plan.
Why, also, did the management take so long to decide to adopt the next stage of the procedure in the recent dispute? It was evident that the plant was working under a procedural agreement and that had the next stage been proceeded with the issue could have been settled. Yet there was resistance by the management to take the next steps.
As a shop steward of 30 years' experience I know that the procedural agreement forms a very important part of industrial relations. In many cases it is the Bible of industrial relations. Yet here is the management refusing to take the next steps on the procedural agreement, resulting in a prolonged dispute, a further lowering of the morale of workers,
1392
and the beginning of the justification for the closure of the plant.
If the full capacity at Speke was not being reached why was other work not sent there? Obviously, there is work going from Leyland to other parts of Europe. I do not want to argue the case for Liverpool against that for other parts of Europe, or even other parts of the world, but there was an obligation on Leyland to see that additional work that was being done in Belgium was done at factories that were working under capacity. None of these decisions emanated from the workers. They are all part of management's responsibility. One very much doubts whether the reasons given by management for the closure of Speke are the real ones.
When the management was asked whether the closure had occurred because of the bad performance of the Speke work force, the company's representatives said that there was a poor record of performance. But when figures were requested, they were not available. There were merely vague statements that the work force was somehow or other responsible for the situation.
The management was also asked whether, if Speke had produced every car asked of it, it would still have been closed, and the answer was in the affirmative. Therefore, despite the tirade of abuse from the Press and the Opposition directed against the workers at a factory, it has undoubtedly been market considerations rather than anything else which have led to the present situation. The Leyland management said that Speke had in a sense been self-selected as a plant for closure.
Many people wonder whether there is not a more sinister motive behind the closure. Let me quote one headline from the Runcorn Guardian.
"Plant closure manufactured by bosses".
The writer claims to have evidence in leaked documents showing top secret sales figures appearing to indicate market resistance to buying the TR7, or "the Bullet" as it is called. The figures show that even after a month's strike and lost production, when not a single car was produced, there were still 2,263 "Bullets" in the showrooms. The argument is that if production had continued at its normal rate of 12·5 cars per hour on a 17-hour

1393
shift, by now the market would be swamped. That situation was not the responsibility of the Speke factory workers.
Accusations have been made about poor performance and disputes at Speke, but figures issued by the National Enterprise Board in 1976 show that in the last five or six years Speke has been more affected by lay-offs than by disputes. In other words, the situation over the last five or six years has been reasonably peaceful.
That position is borne out by the National Enterprise Board report. It shows that from October to March 1975 349,000 man-hours were lost through disputes as against 629,610 through lay-offs. In the period to April 1975, 117,366 man-hours were lost through disputes and 500,093 through lay-offs. In the period October 1975 to May 1976, 151,492 man-hours were lost through disputes and 250,380 through lay-offs. The Speke plant, even prior to the recent dispute, had a lay-off of six weeks, which meant that it had been idle for six months.
On every occasion the media and the Opposition have hit out at the workers. They have made no constructive proposals. As has been evident from Day 1 of the Leyland rescue, they have been opposed to the concept of a British car industry. Many of us believe that the decision to close Speke could lead to further closures and the breaking up of British Leyland. The attacks on Leyland and its work force, especially by the Opposition and sections of the media, will be welcomed by Tokyo, Bonn and other car manufacturing capitals. They do nothing for Leyland workers, except to undermine them and the British car industry. This is at a time when we are talking about the major problem of the penetration of the United Kingdom market by Japanese and other car manufacturers.
When the car industry came to Merseyside it was hailed as a turning point for the area's industrial future. Some of my hon. Friends who were members of the city council will recall that when Fords, and then Standard Triumph, came to Liverpool those developments were in accordance with the general policy of the then Government, namely, that regions with areas of declining industry and
1394
declining job opportunities should be the places where there should be industrial development.
I feel that we have reached another turning point for Merseyside. It is a turning point for the northern regions as well as Merseyside. It appears to be one of the arguments used by the Leyland board and the car industry in general that the industry should be located in geographical centres. If that is to be the industry's policy, the future of the northern regions will be grim.
I do not believe that the decision will stop at Speke No. 2, and neither do many of my hon. Friends. The decision will be divisive. It will turn worker against worker. I believe that in many ways that is intended. It will turn area against area. That will be done in pursuing a policy of reducing employment in the industry. That is not the policy to be pursued by a Labour Government.
The House has the responsibility to examine in the closest possible detail all aspects of Leyland's decisions. Before any decision is made by the Government on the Speke No. 2 plant or on the corporate plan generally, the Government must go through every aspect of the plan with a fine-toothed comb, with a view to meeting two objectives. One objective is to ensure that the social consequences of those decisions are taken fully into account by the Government. The second objective is to see that British Leyland is not starting on the road to break-up and, therefore, missing the opportunities that are presented in fulfilling the objectives of a free-based British car industry.
I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will be able to say that the Government will do just that and keep in line with the policies and ideologies upon which the Government were elected.
11.47 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) for giving me an opportunity to speak on an issue which has understandably raised a great deal of concern. That is because the proposal to close Speke No. 2 assembly plant has some wide-ranging implications for British Leyland and for Merseyside. As my hon. Friend has

1395
said, I am sure that on both sides of the House we all wish that the British Leyland management did not need to take difficult decisions of this sort.
That need is dictated primarily by the state of British Leyland, which, as the chairman of the company, Mr. Michael Edwardes, made clear in his speech to employees on 1st February, is critical. The company has made no secret of the fact that its performance has been unsatisfactory. That is reflected in the fall in British Leyland's market share from 33 per cent. to less than 25 per cent. last year, and to 21 per cent. in January.
I am glad to note that provisional indications are that British Leyland's market share for February has shown some signs of improvement. Nevertheless, one thing is clear: the company needs a period of sustained production accompanied by a major effort to reduce costs so that British Leyland can compete with other European manufacturers both at home and in export markets. This means adjusting capacity and manpower in line with realistic market prospects, taking account of the impossibility of recovering market share overnight and of the fact that British Leyland still has power and manpower levels geared to production on the pre-Ryder scale.
If the company fails to adjust capacity now and its market share continues to decline, the result will be that many more jobs will be lost than those affected by the closure of Speke 2. The collapse of the company would have unthinkable consequences for employment in this country. Not only is British Leyland dirt country's seventh largest employer; thousands of wage earners in supplier industries are dependent on the survival of the company. As Michael Edwardes has made clear, without realistic measures to improve production and reduce costs, that survival must be in doubt.
This is the task facing the management at British Leyland. It is the management which, in consultation with the National Enterprise Board, must decide on the specific measures necessary to restore the company's fortunes. The Government have accepted the view of the British Leyland Board and the National Enterprise Board that British Leyland's capacity, including manpower, must be brought into line with market prospects, but the
1396
Government cannot set themselves up as an alternative manager of the company, so that means to achieve this must be left for British Leyland management to decide in consultation with the National Enterprise Board.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House on 31st January, the Government have full confidence in the new management at British Leyland and are committed to supporting Michael Edwardes in his attempt to improve the company's performance. A start has been made. As hon Members may know, steps have been taken to restructure the company, and at the meeting at Kenilworth on 1st February Michael Edwardes secured the backing of employees for his proposals. At the same time the British Leyland board has submitted to the National Enterprise Board its corporate plan for 1978 outlining its proposals for a future strategy for the company.
It would, however, be difficult for the Government to justify both to this House and to the public at large further investment in British Leyland, especially on the scale that British Leyland is likely to need, unless the management can clearly demonstrate that firm steps are being taken to tackle the company's problems. Those steps may be unpleasant and, in the case of the proposal to close Speke 2, they have been made all the more difficult to take by the fact that the plant is located on Merseyside.
I fully understand what my hon. Friend said about the situation on Merseyside. It was because of our concern for Merseyside that we designated it a special development area in August 1974. This means that Merseyside gets regional development grants, Government factories, regional selective assistance, removal grants and grants to encourage the movement of offices and other service industries. In fact, Merseyside is among those places which are given the highest priority in the steering of new investment.
We estimate that Merseyside received about £302 million of regional financial assistance over the five years 1972–73 to 1976–77. The assistance under Section 7 of the Industry Act has safeguarded or created 40,000 jobs since 1972.
As my hon. Friend realises, we had a report from the NEB on investment

1397
potential in the North-East and North-West. That report made recommendations particularly in favour of widening the differential in regional selective financial assistance in favour of special development areas. The Government also increased the maximum rent-free periods on Government factories to five years.
The role of the NEB has been strengthened following the establishment of an NEB regional board for the North-West. We have commissioned a firm of consultants to identify the types of business most likely to prosper close to the port of Liverpool. The Liverpool partnership area, which Speke immediately adjoins, will benefit from increased resources under the Department of the Environment's urban programme, and the greater powers to assist industry given to them under the Inner Urban Areas Bill. I could give my hon. Friend more details about my Department's small firms information centre in Liverpool and about assistance under Section 8 of the Industry Act.
Under the Hardman decisions on the dispersal of Government work from London, Merseyside probably comes out as one of the best areas. The bulk of the 4,000 dispersals to the North-West, nearly 3,000 posts, will go to Merseyside. The Hardman dispersals will inevitably take some time to carry out, but I am sure that hon. Members will welcome these additional office jobs and appreciate that this shows recognition of the serious problem.
There are achievements on the plus side. I shall name but a few. Vauxhall has recruited 2,000 workers at Ellesmere Port. The Co-operative Bank will provide 600 new jobs at hard-hit Skelmersdale. Cross International has announced a £2½ million investment programme with 200 jobs to come over four years at Knowsley. YKK is recruiting at Run-
1398
corn. Tate & Lyle is investing heavily. Shell Chemicals has planning permission for a £50 million plant at Stanlow. These are a few of the projects in Merseyside.
In co-operation with the Manpower Services Commission, the Government have introduced a wide range of special schemes designed specifically to alleviate increased unemployment. They include the job creation and work experience programmes, the youth employment subsidy, the job release scheme, the temporary employment subsidy and the small firms employment subsidy.
It is estimated that over 41,000 persons, many of them young people, have been assisted by these measures in Merseyside. The temporary employment subsidy has been of particular benefit—with applications approved in respect of over 16,000 workers in the area.
It is difficult to satisfy my hon. Friend in a debate such as this. I fully appreciate the statement that he has made on behalf of his constituents. I and the Department understand the problems of Merseyside.
There are plans for a new 100-place skillcentre to be established in the Wirral and for a smaller 60-place centre for adults and young people in Liverpool itself. Both of these should be in operation by 1980–1981.
It is, as I have already made clear, for British Leyland management to take the difficult decisions necessary for the company's survival and, in this particular case, to decide whether to proceed with the closure after—
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 three minutes to Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Fines
  Fines
  Race Relations (Expenditure)
  Race Relations (Expenditure)
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
  Women Prisoners (Children)
  Women Prisoners (Children)
  Police (Attacks)
  Police (Attacks)
  Police (Disciplinary Offences)
  Police (Disciplinary Offences)
  Isle of Man
  Isle of Man
  Police (South Yorkshire)
  Police (South Yorkshire)
  Police Constable Glastonbury
  Police Constable Glastonbury
  Indictable Offences
  Indictable Offences
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  LUXEMBOURG
  LUXEMBOURG
  ILFORD
  ILFORD
  CBI
  CBI
  SPAIN
  SPAIN
  WINDHOEK
  WINDHOEK
  TUC
  TUC
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  SCARBOROUGH
  SCARBOROUGH
  TARVIN
  TARVIN
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT (SPEECH)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT (SPEECH)
  WEST GERMANY
  WEST GERMANY
  WILLENHALL
  WILLENHALL
WALES
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PAY, ALLOWANCES AND PENSIONS)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PAY, ALLOWANCES AND PENSIONS)
TABLE 2
  PENSION ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARLIAMENTARIANS IN EEC COUNTRIES
  PENSION ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARLIAMENTARIANS IN EEC COUNTRIES
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Refreshment Department
  Refreshment Department
  Refreshment Facilities
  Refreshment Facilities
TRADE
  Japan (Motor Cars)
  Japan (Motor Cars)
  Securities Industry
  Securities Industry
  Mail Order Firms (Statistics)
  Mail Order Firms (Statistics)
EMPLOYMENT
  EEC Advisory Committee of the Asbestos International Association
  EEC Advisory Committee of the Asbestos International Association
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Earnings (Cheshire)
  Earnings (Cheshire)
  Pay (Statistics)
  Pay (Statistics)
ENERGY
  British Gas Corporation
  British Gas Corporation
  North Sea Gas
  North Sea Gas
TRANSPORT
  Breathalysers
  Breathalysers
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  India (Ships)
  India (Ships)
ENVIRONMENT
  Community Relations Expenditure
  Community Relations Expenditure
  Housing Density
  Housing Density
  Improvement Grants (Television Advertisements)
  Improvement Grants (Television Advertisements)
  Urban Aid (Walsall)
  Urban Aid (Walsall)
  Weather Damage (Compensation)
  Weather Damage (Compensation)
  Rates (Differentials)
  Rates (Differentials)
  Rents (Cannock Chase)
  Rents (Cannock Chase)
  Construction Contracts
  Construction Contracts
  Substandard Housing (Oldham)
  Substandard Housing (Oldham)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Agriculture and Farms
  Agriculture and Farms
  Sandwich Courses (Wales)
  Sandwich Courses (Wales)
  Awards (Residence Qualifications)
  Awards (Residence Qualifications)
  Evening Institutes
  Evening Institutes
  Sir Benjamin Truman (Gainsborough Painting)
  Sir Benjamin Truman (Gainsborough Painting)
  British Library
  British Library
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Health Service (Industrial Relations)
  National Health Service (Industrial Relations)
  Consultants (South-Western Region)
  Consultants (South-Western Region)
  Hospitals (Private Beds)
  Hospitals (Private Beds)
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Retirement Age
  Retirement Age
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Kidney Dialysis and Donors
  Kidney Dialysis and Donors
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
  Low Income Groups (Fuel Costs)
  Low Income Groups (Fuel Costs)
  Supplementary Benefits Commission (Report)
  Supplementary Benefits Commission (Report)
  Personal Files
  Personal Files
  Community Homes (Unruly Juveniles)
  Community Homes (Unruly Juveniles)
  Private Patients (Debts)
  Private Patients (Debts)
  Hospital Advisory Service (Report)
  Hospital Advisory Service (Report)
  Hospitals (Wisbech)
  Hospitals (Wisbech)
  Consultants (Regional Allocation)
  Consultants (Regional Allocation)
  Supplementary Benefit (Bus Fares)
  Supplementary Benefit (Bus Fares)
  Sickness Benefit (Married Women's Dependants)
  Sickness Benefit (Married Women's Dependants)
  Supplementary Benefit (Polygamous Households)
  Supplementary Benefit (Polygamous Households)
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  National Insurance Advisory Committee Referrals
  National Insurance Advisory Committee Referrals
  Departmental Fuel Costs
  Departmental Fuel Costs
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Family Doctors
  Family Doctors
  Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Supplementary Benefit Claimants
  Supplementary Benefit Claimants
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Disables Persons
  Disables Persons
  Ealing (New Hospital)
  Ealing (New Hospital)
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  National Spinal Injuries Centre, Stoke Mandeville
  National Spinal Injuries Centre, Stoke Mandeville
  Hospitals (Birmingham)
  Hospitals (Birmingham)
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Cremation Certificates
  Cremation Certificates
  Hospices (Terminal Patients)
  Hospices (Terminal Patients)
  Invalidity Pensions
  Invalidity Pensions
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Perinatal and Infant Mortality
  Perinatal and Infant Mortality
  Retired Persons
  Retired Persons
  Children (Medical Examinations)
  Children (Medical Examinations)
  Abortion (Preston and South Ribble)
  Abortion (Preston and South Ribble)
  Funerals
  Funerals
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pay
  Pay
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
  TRIAL COSTS
  TRIAL COSTS
INDUSTRY
  Industrial Development Grants
  Industrial Development Grants
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Diesel Engines
  Diesel Engines
  Special Development Areas
  Special Development Areas
  Giro
  Giro
  Planning Agreements
  Planning Agreements
  Shipbuilding (Polish Contract)
  Shipbuilding (Polish Contract)
SCOTLAND
  Geriatrics
  Geriatrics
  Hospital Sheeting
  Hospital Sheeting
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Haddo House, Aberdeenshire
  Haddo House, Aberdeenshire
  Weather Damage (Compensation)
  Weather Damage (Compensation)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Tractors (Cost)
  Tractors (Cost)
  Wheat (European Community Regulations)
  Wheat (European Community Regulations)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Earnings (OECD Countries)
  Earnings (OECD Countries)
  Imports and Exports
  Imports and Exports
  Taxation Forecasting
  Taxation Forecasting
  Whisky
  Whisky
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  European Community
  European Community
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Dependent Relative Allowance
  Dependent Relative Allowance
  Pension Funds, Life Assurance and Retirement Annuities
  Pension Funds, Life Assurance and Retirement Annuities
  Heritage
  Heritage
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Age Allowance
  Age Allowance
  Productivity
  Productivity
DEFENCE
  NATO
  NATO
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Fuel Allowances
  Fuel Allowances
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Balance of Payments Costs
  Balance of Payments Costs
  Missiles (Research)
  Missiles (Research)
  Service Men (Family Allowances)
  Service Men (Family Allowances)
  Chemical Warfare
  Chemical Warfare
  BAOR (Civil Servants and Teachers)
  BAOR (Civil Servants and Teachers)
  USSR (Aircraft Carriers)
  USSR (Aircraft Carriers)
  USSR (Tank and Motor Rifle Divisions)
  USSR (Tank and Motor Rifle Divisions)
  Guns and Helicopters
  Guns and Helicopters
  RAF Officers (Voluntary Release)
  RAF Officers (Voluntary Release)
  Milan Anti-tank Weapon
  Milan Anti-tank Weapon
  NATO (Military Manoeuvres)
  NATO (Military Manoeuvres)
  Royal Navy (Mines)
  Royal Navy (Mines)
  Seadart and Seawolf
  Seadart and Seawolf
  Blowpipe
  Blowpipe
  Civilian Manpower
  Civilian Manpower
  Chieftain Tank
  Chieftain Tank
  Army (Manpower)
  Army (Manpower)
  Munitions (Stocks)
  Munitions (Stocks)
  Anti-armour Weaponry
  Anti-armour Weaponry
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Price Indices
  Price Indices

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

ANTI-RABIES EXERCISE IN HALESOWEN
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: 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 under what authority the West Midlands County Council embarked on an antirabies exercise in the area of Halesowen in severe weather conditions on 14th-15th February by the rounding up, impounding and threatened destruction of unclaimed dogs and the indiscriminate release of impounded cats in the areas from which they were taken; what is the statutory authority for public expenditure for this purpose; what was the estimated cost of the exercise; and whether similar rehearsals are to take place elsewhere.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the West Midlands County Council took its own decision to test, on 13th and 14th February, its rabies contingency plans drawn up to meet its responsibilities under the Rabies (Control) Order 1974. The estimated cost of £3,500 was authorised by the Council's Finance Committee, and is defrayed as expenses for special county purposes under Section 69 of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950. The seizure of dogs was carried out in conjunction with the police under the provisions of the Dogs Act 1906. Cats were trapped only on private property with the property owner's consent.
The cost and details of the exercise are mainly matters for the council, which is to be congratulated on taking this initiative, and its exercise report will be of considerable value nationally. I am not
686
aware of firm plans at present for similar exercises elsewhere, but the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would certainly give its encouragement and cooperation to any local authority which proposed to stage one.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if it is important to hold this test exercise in one locality, it may be equally important to hold exercises in others? In those circumstances, would it not be a good thing if those concerned consulted fully organisations representing the interests of our canine friends in the community, and did not confine their contact only to the RSPCA, of whose work I have great admiration and of which I happen to be a vice-president? Is my noble friend aware that this isolated instance gives rise to questions which could be better solved if there was wider consultation on the detail of them?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I must tell my noble friend that there is wide consultation, which is co-ordinated by the Ministry. There were liaison representatives from Hereford and Worcester present in the control centre, and I understand that an observer was also present from the neighbouring county of Warwickshire. But it was decided to keep the number of observers down to the minimum. With regard to the animal welfare societies, in addition to the police in the pound there was a veterinary surgeon in attendance throughout the exercise. RSPCA officers were also present, as were observers from other animal welfare bodies.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether the Government intend to publish the results of the lessons learned during this exercise and, if so, when?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, that is a very useful suggestion which will certainly be considered.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, can my noble friend assure us that there is adequate public notice given in the locality reasonably well beforehand, so that people can lock up their dogs and other animals, rather than find them suddenly being rounded up?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, of course there is no notice when there is a rabies outbreak. But, with regard to this exercise, wide publicity was given through the media prior to the exercise, and leaflets were distributed to libraries and other public buildings in the area, warning pet owners that dogs permitted to stray were liable to seizure and informing them how to reclaim impounded dogs.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I attended this exercise and that, for a first attempt, it set up a very fine basic organisation for any urban area which wanted to organise something before an outbreak? Is the noble Lord further aware that there was no attempt to collect dogs, except on the second day when 25 dogs were collected? Furthermore, there was vast publicity, both nationally and locally, which went on for three days and could not be faulted. Finally, would the noble Lord agree that for 25 dogs to be collected in two hours, fifty minutes shows an extremely irresponsible attitude by pet owners?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the interest that he has taken in this exercise, and for what he has said. The reason why dogs were not taken in on the first day was that that day was used for briefing those taking part. The second day was devoted to the exercise itself. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord about the number of dogs taken in. There are over 3,500 dogs licensed in the area and I believe that there is a considerable number—probably double—still unlicensed. Of that number, only 25 were found to be strays by the time the exercise took place, which I think is encouraging and shows that the message got across.

BLACKBUSHE AERODROME
2.43 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: 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 Hampshire County Council
688
intend to acquire Blackbushe Aerodrome and, if so, to what use they intend to put it.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, some years ago Hampshire County Council accepted from the previous owner a notice requiring them to purchase Blackbushe Aerodrome, but I understand that, more recently, discussions were held with the present owner with a view to his keeping it, subject to agreement on its future use. I am informed that the county council have so far taken no decision on the use of the aerodrome, if and when they become the owners.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply, which is encouraging. Is the noble Baroness aware that Blackbushe is a very useful and happily sited airfield, particularly for the general aviation community? May I ask the noble Baroness whether or not it would be better to consider developing that airfield rather than Biggin Hill, as foreshadowed in the Government's recent White Paper on airport policy?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the White Paper proposals were formulated in the knowledge that there was this question mark over Blackbushe and that there is still sufficient flying accommodation in the South-East of England. What we cannot do at this stage is to assure the existing users that the flying facilities will be maintained at Blackbushe because the question is subject to the outcome of an appeal on commons rights which is to go before the Appeal Court in April.

TERRORISTS: SANCTIONS
2.45 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have taken steps recently in conjunction with other civilised nations to deny air facilities to countries which train or permit the training of terrorists or harbour them.
Lord STRABOLGI: No, my Lords. For sanctions to be effective they must be agreed internationally. The special conference of the International Civil Aviation Organisation at Rome failed to reach agreement. When the international community is ready to agree effective joint action, Her Majesty's Government will wish to play a leading part.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this matter has been before the civilised world for many years? Unless effective steps are taken to prevent hijackers and other terrorists from being trained, and unless Governments other than civilised Governments are prepared not to harbour or train these people, the lives of innocent people throughout the world are at stake, as also, of course, are those of the pilots. Is it not time for this country to take a definite step and get together the civilised nations of the world in order to ensure that the kind of action which is so prevalent now is stopped?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. If everyone ratified and implemented the Hague, Montreal and Tokyo Conventions, the results would be generally beneficial for aviation security. In particular, as my noble friend has said, hijackers would not be able to find any safe haven where they could escape from extradition or prosecution. If widely ratified, the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism will usefully supplement these world-wide Conventions.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, can the Minister say whether this subject has been raised in the European Parliament or at the Council of Ministers of the European Communities? If not, will the Government undertake to raise this subject, and in particular will they draw the attention of the Republic of Ireland to this matter?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the United Kingdom has taken the lead in developing a programme of close practical co-operation with our European neighbours. This is directed by EEC Ministers of the Interior and aims at preventing international terrorist activities through exchanges of information and expertise. I will pass on to my right honourable
690
friend the second point made by the noble Baroness.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, was not the original Answer of my noble friend a little complacent, in that it suggested that this country would just follow the lead taken on international action? Can we not take the initiative, not only in the EEC but in the international field?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we have, of course, taken considerable initiative. The United Nations General Assembly has taken action on aircraft hijacking. On 3rd November last, the Assembly adopted by consensus a resolution appealing to all States to ratify or accede to the existing three international Conventions on civil aviation security, and the United Kingdom has strongly supported this resolution.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he realises that the point I have raised strikes at the whole question and is essential if we are to protect innocent people throughout the length and breadth of the world? This is not a question which relates to any particular person or persons or to any particular State. May I ask my noble friend whether or not it is time that we should insist upon collecting together all those people who do not harbour and train hijackers and terrorists to see what can be done in addition to what we are doing on the European scene?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe that the only sanctions which are likely to be effective are collective sanctions agreed by the international community as a whole. The primary method of preventing hijacking is by the universal application of adequate security measures, in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organisation standards and recommendations, and we are taking action to concert this.

REFUSE DISPOSAL (AMENITY) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BILL
2.50 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg to move that the European Assembly Elections Bill be read a second time. The main purpose of the Bill which I present to the House this afternoon is to provide for the election of United Kingdom representatives to the European Assembly. This gives effect to a Decision of the Council of Ministers which was agreed to on behalf of Her Majesty's Government by the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 20th September 1976. The Bill is both short, and, I hope, straightforward. It consists of only nine clauses and two Schedules. But I believe the House will recognise that it is a Bill of considerable constitutional and historical significance. As your Lordships will know, there is similar legislation in the other Member States of the European Community, but not until this legislation has been passed in all the Member States of the Community can the elections to the European Assembly take place.
As the House will know, the principle of a directly elected Parliament was incorporated in the Treaty of Rome as a necessary eventual part of the Community institutions. The arrangement under which delegates were designated by national Parliaments was adopted as an interim measure. But the goal of direct elections has always been clear. Our participation in such elections eventually was one of the goals which we, too, assumed when we joined the Community. At the same time, we have always made it clear that our participation in direct elections could be only on a basis approved by our own Parliament. The Council's Decision of September 1976 represented a political decision taken by the Governments of the Member States, including our own. It is, however, for national Parliaments to decide whether to pass the legislation that is necessary to enable that Decision to be implemented.
It was the Government's view that on a matter of this importance and significance both for the United Kingdom and for Europe as a whole there should be a
692
full opportunity for public consultation and debate. Even before the Decision of September 1976 the Government had published a Green Paper and had arranged for a Select Committee of another place to be established. Subsequently, the Government published their own White Paper in response to the Select Committee's reports and recommendations, and there were of course extensive debates in both Houses of Parliament in the last Session; indeed, more than one in this House. The Select Committee received evidence from a wide range of organisations and individuals, and this evidence has been published as a further contribution to Parliamentary and public debate.
In addition, there are other organisations, such as the European League for Economic Co-operation, and at least one of the universities, that have sponsored conferences and produced reports on direct elections. The subject has also aroused a great deal of attention in the Press. In the Government's view, this has enabled the most important issues to be identified, and, we hope, resolved. I should like now, if I may, to consider each of the major issues that have been identified in this fashion.
I shall deal first with the question of the electoral system. As the House will know, Article 7 of the Decision of September 1976 provides that:
"… pending the entry into force of a uniform electoral procedure and subject to the other provisions of this Act, the electoral procedure shall be governed in each Member State by its national provisions".
This is, therefore, one of the most important questions for every Member State of the Community to decide.
On this issue, as I believe on others, the Government have been keen to stimulate a wide public discussion. It was for this reason that the White Paper of April 1977 outlined three possible electoral systems for use in direct elections to the European Assembly. These were the simple majority system, the regional list system and the single transferable vote system. I know that there are a great many noble Lords who take a great deal of interest in electoral matters and many who believe that a change in the electoral system used for elections to another place would be of benefit to the country as a whole. I would not wish to become involved in a

693
debate on that wider issue today. Certainly, it has been the Government's view that the question of the appropriate electoral system for elections to the European Assembly, which has advisory and supervisory rather than legislative powers, could be considered quite separately from the question of the appropriate system of election to Westminster.
The Government came to the conclusion that a regional list system of election would be appropriate to the special circumstances of elections to the European Assembly. As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill that was introduced in another place by the Government contained two alternative electoral systems to enable that House to form a judgment on the basis of a full understanding of both. The Government recommended the regional list system of election but recognised that Members of another place would have strong views on the matter. In the event, powerful arguments were deployed in favour of various systems, including the single transferable vote and the alternative vote. On 13th December, however, another place finally rejected the Government's recommended regional list system of election, and subsequently confirmed its preference for the simple majority system for Great Britain and for the single transferable vote system for Northern Ireland.
As I have indicated, the Government suggested that Parliament should adopt the regional list system of election. We believed that this system was the simplest and most effective form of proportional representation in the circumstances. This view was rejected by another place, and I must say this to the House: the decisive nature of that rejection suggests that there is no realistic prospect of persuading another place to change its mind on this issue. I believe, therefore, that we must now accept the simple majority system of elections as the feature of this Bill, and that we must proceed on that basis.
As I have indicated, the situation for Northern Ireland is different. It has always been the Government's view that, if the simple majority system of election was adopted for Great Britain, then the STV system would be appropriate for Northern Ireland. We have taken the view that the very special circumstances of Northern Ireland deserve recognition in this way, and that it is essential, for the
694
reasons which the House will, I am sure, appreciate, that there should be a real chance for a representative of the minority community in Northern Ireland to be elected to the European Assembly. I am glad to say that this view was accepted in another place.
I turn now, if I may, to the second major issue; that is, the allocation of seats. The United Kingdom has been allocated 81 seats. As the House will know, there were lengthy, and at times indeed difficult, negotiations at the highest level of the European Community before agreement could be reached on the number of seats for each Member State in the enlarged Assembly. The Council of Ministers had to weigh in the balance the needs and interests of the small States, such as Luxembourg, as well as the claims of the larger States for electoral equality. The Government believe that the agreement of September 1976 represents a sensible compromise agreement.
It is thus for Parliament to decide how to allocate the 81 seats for the United Kingdom. Clause 2 of the Bill proposes that England should have 66 seats, Scotland 8, Wales 4, and Northern Ireland 3. This is in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee, and broadly allocates seats in proportion to electorate. It is true that there is a certain amount of rounding up and rounding down. Northern Ireland's entitlement, in particular, has been rounded up to three seats to enable the system of STV to work satisfactorily in that Province. Scotland is also slightly over-represented. Once again, I believe that the proposed allocation of seats represents a sensible and acceptable compromise between the needs of the larger and smaller constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
Thirdly, I should like to turn to the powers of the Assembly. This issue is covered by Clause 6 of the Bill which states that,
"No treaty which provides for any increase in the powers of the Assembly shall be ratified by the United Kingdom unless it has been approved by an Act of Parliament".
A good deal of concern was expressed in another place that, when the European Assembly is directly elected, it will automatically acquire new powers, and will widen its scope of activities to the detriment of national Parliaments. Direct

695
elections will undoubtedly give the European Assembly a new democratic legitimacy. This may well stimulate demands by the Assembly for greater control and influence over the other Community institutions, especially the Commission. I believe that this is to be welcomed. It is indeed, in my view, one of the main reasons for favouring direct elections to the European Assembly. At the same time, this Parliament will wish to be sure that any increase in the formal powers of the European Assembly which will require an amendment to the treaties is the result of careful and deliberate action by both Houses of Parliament. For that reason Clause 6 was introduced into the Bill in another place.
I have dealt so far with the three major issues raised in the Bill—the question of the electoral system, the allocation of seats, and the powers of the Assembly. I should like now to deal with some of the other matters covered in the Bill. Clause 3 provides that Assembly elections shall be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 1. Schedule 1 contains the provisions for the franchise, the times of elections, and who may stand for election. It also provides for regulations to be made by the Secretary of State for the conduct of elections, including the registration of electors and the limitations of candidates' election expenses. These regulations will apply the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts to the circumstances of elections to the European Assembly. The intention will be for these regulations to follow the Westminster procedures as closely as possible, making amendments only where this is necessary in the different circumstances of elections to the European Assembly. There will also need to be separate regulations for the single transferable vote system in Northern Ireland.
Schedule 2 to the Bill provides for the determination of the European Assembly constituencies by the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland and Wales. The Schedule proposes that for the initial division the Commissions should invite representations on their provisional recommendations, but should not hold local inquiries. The Government believe that this is a reasonable curtailment of the traditional procedures which is necessary to enable the
696
United Kingdom to be ready for elections next year. The full Boundary Commission procedures would apply to subsequent reviews of the European Assembly constituencies.
Clause 4 of the Bill makes a specific addition to our normal electoral laws governing double voting, to cover the situation which will arise when elections are held simultaneously in all Member States. The clause is aimed at preventing those who might be eligible to vote in more than one Member State from doing so at what would in fact be a European General Election. Clause 5 exempts Assembly Members from jury service. Clause 7 provides for the expenses of organising the elections. Clauses 8 and 9 are the interpretation and citation clauses.
As noble Lords will know, the Decision of September 1976 contained a target date of May to June 1978 for the first elections to the European Assembly. For various reasons it has not proved possible for the United Kingdom to meet that target date. And I think that at least some of our Community partners might have had similar difficulties. In any event, it has now been recognised by the Council of Ministers that a new target date must be set. Consideration is being given to this particular question at the moment, but at present I cannot forecast what the outcome will be.
So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the adoption of the simple majority system for Great Britain means that we must allow time for the three Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland and Wales to draw up the single Member constituencies. As I explained a moment ago, the Bill proposes a curtailed procedure for the initial division, but even that truncated procedure is likely to take some four and a half months. It is also necessary to allow time for Parliament's consideration of the Commissions' final proposals, and for the political Parties to select candidates and organise themselves for the election campaigns. I think that in practical terms this means that the new target date will be some time in the late spring or summer of next year.
My Lords, I should like to say this in conclusion. This Bill was passed by

697
another place with a decisive majority. I am sure that it will receive overwhelming support today in your Lordships' House, and that the Bill itself will fairly soon be on the Statute Book. I believe that this is a moment of great importance to this country, and, indeed, to the whole future of Europe. We are here establishing an Assembly which will for the first time introduce the voice of directly elected representatives of the people of Europe into the institutions of the Community. It marks a major step forward in the extension of democracy in Europe. Less than three years ago in the referendum the people of Britain gave their overwhelming support to Britain's continued membership of the European Community. Today we have the opportunity of giving a new significance to that decision, by passing a Bill which will create an entirely new relationship between the European Community and our people. It is, I believe, a moment of great hope for Europe, and for Britain. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
3.9 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, we have waited for this Bill since the Government's undertaking in November 1976 to introduce legislation for direct elections to the European Parliament. Since that time the principles upon which the Bill is based have been debated many times in your Lordships' House, including during the Second Reading of two Private Members' Bills which have been introduced into your Lordships' House, one by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan and the other by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. Therefore, no one can accuse your Lordships' House of being dilatory in that regard.
I believe that this Bill transcends Party divisions and, although there may be some Members in all parts of your Lordships' House who may be opposed to direct elections, just as some of them—very few, believe—are still opposed to the European Communities, I believe that the Bill will recommend itself to your Lordships. Each time that we have debated this matter we have urged the Government—and in this the vast majority of your Lordships have joined both my noble friends and I and other parts of the House
698
—to introduce a Bill which would fulfil our international obligations, both under the Treaty of Rome and in accordance with the present Government's undertaking when they signed the Decision of 20th September 1976 relating to the holding of direct elections in the Member States.
The need for democratisation of the relevant institutions of the Community increases the whole time as it becomes clearer how the Decisions are taken by the Council of Ministers and the Commission and how these Decisions affect the daily lives of the citizens of Europe, both of this country and of the other Member States—for example, measures concerning the application of VAT, company structures, employment rights, freedom of establishment for the professions, to name only a few areas of discussion and decision.
Yet at present the citizen has no direct way to know how these matters will or do affect his life; nor is he able to seek information or to know, through any identifiable representative, how his view can be put for him to the Commission and to the Council. Many prejudices, myths and misunderstandings have been fostered, largely I believe because there is no Member in regular contact to dispel those myths or to give full and adequate explanation to his constituents on European matters. Therefore, the introduction of direct elections will be a major contribution to the better understanding of the objectives and purposes of the Community; the people will be better served and it will be in their own interests. Thus, the need for elections is clear.
But when are these elections to take place for the first time? We all know that the date agreed—and the noble Lord the Minister has already referred to it—was to have been May or June of this year. We know that that is now impossible. The Foreign Secretary reported on 17th January to the Council of Ministers that we, in the United Kingdom, would not and could not be ready. The reasons are well known. The Government have found it convenient—perhaps they may find it even entertaining—to blame for the delay those who voted for the "single past the post" method. That, of course, was not so and no one believes that for one moment. In fact, the reason was the Government's attitude or at least

699
that of some Members of the Government towards the Bill—their failure to complete the legislation in the Session ending July 1977; their failure to give it priority during this Session. It appeared that they were more willing to risk internal destruction of the United Kingdom than to strengthen areas of co-operation outside it.
The Government have maintained that the Bill must receive Royal Assent at least six months before the chosen date for direct elections throughout the Community. That, as the noble Lord the Minister also explained, is to allow time for preparing a selection of candidates, the system of elections and so on, regardless of the method of voting chosen. That means, in effect, that Royal Assent was needed by December or early January if we were to have had elections this year. We are now well into March and the Bill has just reached your Lordships' House. Following the Government timetable it was never possible for the Bill to be ready for 1978, even though a guillotine was introduced in another place—supported, I must add, exceptionally by the Leader of the Opposition and other Members of the Conservative Party. I think that makes it clear that in no way has any action been taken by the Party which I represent and by the Party of my noble friends to delay the Bill. On the contrary, every effort has been made to co-operate in improving the Bill in the time available.
As we must accept the impossibility of direct elections this year, I should like to ask the Minister whether a date for 1979 will be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of the Council of Ministers in April, and whether the Government have a date in mind. If so, when do they expect a decision on the date to be made? I know that the Minister has referred to the possibility of a date, but perhaps he could give us further information on this. I should also like to ask the Minister about the kind of timetable envisaged in the light of the various procedures necessary for preparation for the elections.
Following the decision of another place on 13th December last, by an overwhelming majority in favour of the "single past the post method which has already been referred to by the Minister, it has been stated by the Home Secretary that
700
from Royal Assent to the report of recommendations of the Boundary Commission to Parliament would take about 18 weeks—that is, allowing for representations but not local inquiries. That would be equivalent to the recommendation of Option B in the White Paper and now contained in Schedule 2 to the Bill.
If elections are to take place in May or June 1979, as I calculate it all the procedures must be completed by November this year, including consideration of the Boundary Commission's report. Could the Minister give us some information on how the Government envisage dealing with the report and, above all, when? Do they intend to recall Parliament in October, or will they wait for the next Session? This, of course, is not irrelevant to the way in which the Bill is handled in your Lordships' House, because even if it has a smooth passage—and I sincerely hope it will—it is essential to get the Bill on to the Statute Book as soon as possible. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the only way of ensuring that the Bill gets on to the Statute Book in due time is to leave it substantially as it is.
The method of voting, to which some of your Lordships may feel very keenly attached—and rightly so—is, I believe, of less importance than the time factor. I have said, speaking personally at this Box before, that the system was secondary to the overriding importance of being ready on time. I propose a system based on regional lists, ostensibly to save time. But the Government never undertook—even with regional lists—to be ready by this year. In fact, it has been clear from their actions that they were not taking the necessary steps to ensure readiness. It should be recalled that the regions themselves would have been keenly debated if that system had been chosen, and no doubt we might still be waiting for the Bill to come to your Lordships' House. As it stands, the Bill is acceptable and convenient for a first-time election. With the Bill as it is we could be ready, as I understand it, for a May or June 1979 election.
The Government have undertaken to discuss with the Parties after Royal Assent details concerning electoral matters—regulations concerning polling, deposits and other electoral matters which would come before both Houses in the form of

701
Affirmative Resolutions. I believe that your Lordships can be assured that there will be ample opportunity for debate of these details, which are extremely relevant to the holding of these elections. I should like to ask the Minister a further question. Can be say, subject to the date of Royal Assent, how long afterwards we can expect in your Lordships' House—and, indeed, in another place—to be ready to approve these regulations?
If it appears to your Lordships that I have concentrated overmuch on the timing of the Bill rather than on its substance, it is because, first, we have discussed the principle of this Bill frequently in the past and I believe have always reached a good measure of agreement. Secondly, many noble Lords will themselves be raising issues which to them are of particular importance and to which they wish to give particular emphasis; we shall have the opportunity in Committee to discuss the matters in detail which have already been outlined by the noble Lord the Minister, for which we are grateful.
Thirdly, I believe that timing is of the essence because it is vital for the good name of the United Kingdom that we shall be ready on the next chosen date. It would be disastrous if once again the citizens of the other eight Member States were prevented from voting because of the negligence and express dilatoriness of the Government or, indeed, of anybody else. For the United Kingdom it would also mean further loss of respect, and consequently loss of bargaining power in the Community. We are now among the last in the economic league of the Nine. Let us not any more be last on the list of those ready to go forward to a real and necessary democratic forum which, while retaining the same powers as the present European Parliament, would be able to exert its influence for the benefit of the citizens of the Community. I beg to support the Bill.
3.19 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, first, I should like to express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for his explanation this afternoon of the principal features of the Bill. As he said, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has said, we have already discussed direct elections in this House on many occasions. In
702
particular we have discussed them at length when we debated the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill, which I introduced into this House last year, and also the subsequent Government White Paper.
We on these Benches of course fully support direct elections for the European Parliament, and we regret the postponement of the date for these elections from May/June of this year to what we hope will now be May/June of 1979. The holding of the first direct elections will undoubtedly be, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris said, a very significant event. It will make clear first the commitment of the European Economic Community to democracy. Secondly, it will help to develop a European consciousness. Already we see political organisations across national boundaries as a result of these elections. The political Party to which I belong is a member of a Federation of Liberal Parties drawn from eight of the nine EEC countries, and they have drawn up a joint programme on which to fight the direct elections in due course. Thirdly, the European Parliament will be the first institution of the Community to be derived not from Governments or national Parliaments but directly from the people.
The founding fathers of the Community intended to create a supranational community; that is to say, a community with certain elements in it over and above national Governments. That is why they provided for a Commission whose members would pledge themselves to look at matters from a European point of view and to put on one side national considerations. That is why they provided for majority voting in the Council of Ministers, and that is why they provided for a directly elected Parliament.
There has in recent years been a movement away from that supranational principle towards, instead, a loose association of sovereign States. The Commission has lost ground to the Council of Ministers, and that was pointed out in the Vedel Report in 1972, and that tendency has been accentuated since by the establishment of the European Council. The Council of Ministers has worked on the principle of unanimity, which has meant that any national Government has virtually had a veto of what transpired. The

703
direct elections to the European Parliament will help to restore the balance between the supranational and the national in the institutions of the Community.
A Study Group of the British Council of the European Movement, on which the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and I served, reported in 1974 that, in its opinion, direct elections would, of themselves, provide a valuable means of maintaining or of re-establishing the momentum of the European Economic Community. I think that most of us would agree that we need at the present time to re-establish the momentum of the EEC. It is, of course, the aim of the Community to unite the peoples, and direct elections will help to do this, yet the Bill provides no more than the Treaties required. We knew when we joined that we would be involved in direct elections. We knew, during the referendum, that we would be involved in direct elections.
We on these Benches have as our ultimate aim the concept of a Federal Britain in a Federal Europe. We know that it would no doubt take us a long time to reach that point, but that is our aim, and undoubtedly tremendous constitutional changes are taking place at the present time in an unrelated and piecemeal fashion—and that comment would be as relevant in the debate we are to hold on the Scotland Bill next week as it is this afternoon.
We believe that all these developments should be looked at together; that they should in fact be part of a pattern. We have a new relationship developing between nation States in the Community; we have a new relationship developing between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. We believe that this demands a new type of political union both in Europe and in the United Kingdom. Of course there is a great debate between this point of view and the point of view of those who place all their reliance on the sovereignty of this Parliament, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, who distrust all supranational institutions and all written constitutions, and who insist on a piecemeal, pragmatic approach. Of course there are a whole series of intermediate positions which can be taken up, and are taken up. I fully recognise that many who accept the institutions of the European Economic Community,
704
many who want direct elections, do not share our enthusiasm for a developing political union.
One thing is clear: no advance to such a union can take place without amendment of the Treaty. That, under Article 236, requires ratification by each of the nine States according to their constitutional requirements. As a result of an Amendment introduced in another place, the Bill prevents any Treaty providing for any increase in the powers of the Assembly from being ratified by the United Kingdom unless approved by Act of Parliament, so no developments of the kind to which I have referred, and of the kind which, as I say, we on these Benches would like to see, can take place unless the Governments and the national Parliaments want them. But, as I explained earlier, the Bill is a step on the road which we want to take, and we support it.
However, the Bill, from our point of view, has one major blemish, and in our eyes it is a very serious one. It provides, as has been made clear already this afternoon, for the use of the first-past-the-post system of election. Now we know that this can well lead to a gross distortion of the representation of the Labour and Conservative Parties in the European Assembly because of the large constitutencies which are to be used. We know that it can well mean no representation for substantial minorities within the country if their support is widely distributed. We know that it can well mean over-representation for less substantial minorities if their support is concentrated.
The Liberal Party might poll millions of votes and secure no seats. If the Liberal Party were to poll the 9 per cent. that it was credited with in the most recent Gallup Poll, in proportionate terms that would mean seven seats of the 81. But, under the first-past-the-post system it could quite easily mean no seats at all.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Could the noble Lord say, in view of the vote at Ilford where I understand the Liberal Party got 5 per cent. of the votes, how many seats that would mean in the European Parliament?
Lord BANKS: My Lords, on a proportional basis it would mean approximately 5 per cent. of the seats. I think

705
that is a simple proposition which follows naturally from what I said, but I was taking the figure of 9 per cent., which is the current Gallup Poll rating. I said that that would involve seven seats but that we might well get no seats in the Parliament, and that is perfectly true. The point I want to emphasise is this. The sister Parties of the Liberal Party in other countries in the Community are appalled that we should have to face that situation. But the first-past-the-post system could well upset the political balance of the European Parliament as a whole for all the different political groupings, and we have to bear that in mind.
We should bear in mind, too, that in these elections we are not electing a Government, and that all the arguments which are related to that, whatever we may think of them, do not apply in this case. Also, all the other countries will be electing their members by proportional representation. For all these reasons, I hope that this House will put a proportional system of election back into the Bill at the Committee stage, and give the other place the opportunity for second thoughts.
We on these Benches prefer the single transferable system. In fact, we have put it forward on the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill. That is a system which is to apply under the Bill we have before us this afternoon for Northern Ireland, but it is not only in Northern Ireland that minorities have a claim to be represented. Although we prefer the single transferable vote system, we accepted the regional list system put forward by the Government.
The Study Group of the European Movement, which I mentioned earlier, was inclined to favour the German system, the added member system, for 198 members, but thought that the single transferable vote might be preferable if the Parliament was considerably enlarged. With 410 members to be elected, and with a possible further 100 members when Greece, Portugal and Spain join, the Parliament has clearly been considerably enlarged and the case for the single transferable vote would appear to have been underlined. However, no doubt the regional list system would be more likely to secure the support of the Government since they sponsored it in another place
706
in the first instance. What is important is not so much which proportional system should be adopted but that a proportional system should be adopted.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer briefly. I very much regret that, as I understand it, British subjects resident elsewhere in the Community are not to have a vote, as was provided for in the Bill which I introduced. In my view, everybody who is a citizen of a Member country of the Community should, whether or not he is residing in his home country, have a vote in direct elections. To conclude, we support the Second Reading of this Bill. We believe that the introduction of direct elections is an event of great significance and we hope that that event will not be marred, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, by the use of an electoral system which is totally unsuitable for the purpose.
3.31 p.m.
Lord THOMSON of MONIFIETH: My Lords, like all those who have spoken so far, I believe that the introduction of this Bill represents an important development in the European Community. As a starting point I think it was laid down quite rightly by my noble friend the Minister that the people of this country, by a majority of two to one in a referendum, decided that their future lay in the European Community. It is our obligation now to make the most of that future and to avoid the temptation that sometimes seems to afflict us to make the worst of it. The European Community is going through a period of considerable difficulty. It faces many hesitations. Like any other form of government, it is a Community which is sometimes capable of downright blunders. But the European Community steadily edges its way forward and I think has ahead of it three big challenges: first, to seek the convergence of the national economies of its Member States, rather than the present degree of divergence; secondly, to tackle the immense problems of enlargement, and, thirdly, to bring about the democratisation of the institutions of the Community. The most immediately achievable bit of progress in the European Community is the democratisation of its institutions that lies in the provisions of the present Bill. I do not think one ought to exaggerate

707
the significance of changing from indirect to direct elections. It will create problems as well as solving some problems, but things in the Community will never be the same again. As my noble friend said, it will give the European Parliament a democratic legitimacy which it lacks at the moment.
Against that background, I turn to the difficult problem for this House of timing. As the noble Baroness said from the Opposition Benches, it is true that this Bill has taken a long time to reach this House. It was originally introduced in the Queen's Speech of 1976 when I was still a commissioner in Brussels—and that seems a long time ago. There is no doubt, too, that our snail's progress has done us a good deal of damage with our partners. I do not think one should take the delay too tragically. As I have said on many occasions, I regret that the United Kingdom—as too often—has maladroitly attracted to itself blame for a delay that was in fact welcome to a number of other members of the Community. I recollect that when the European Parliament sought to lay down a timetable it was perhaps more realistic than the overambitious Council of Ministers thought. It laid down 1980 as the target date. In fact, I think that an election in the summer of next year has many advantages in practical terms, in terms of preparing the citizens by information and education, for a new dimension in elections. Having said that, it is important, especially if the present first-past-the-post system is finally maintained by Parliament, that there should be no undue delay in regard to the Royal Assent. This presents a real dilemma for this House and for those in this House who want to see these elections take place. Having spent 20 years in another place and having only recently arrived here, I hope I have a proper diffidence about speaking in a nonelected Chamber about what may be good for the Members in an elected Chamber.
I have, however, looked at the list of speakers today, and I also recollect that this is now predominantly a House of nonhereditary democrats, many of them with long experience of Parliament and public life in one way or another. I suppose we have an opportunity in this House to take a more detached judgment about these matters than is possible in another
708
place. I certainly think we also have a duty in terms of public opinion to make our views known from this House. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that the decision to set up gargantuan first-past-the post constituencies was greatly the poorer of the alternatives that were debated in another place. It might very well eliminate one of the historic national Parties of this country, and I regard that as a gross inequity. If that was so it would deny a substantial body of Liberal voters any effective voice in the new European Parliament. Therefore, I believe it is unjust on these domestic grounds. It also risks producing a highly distorted European representation of this country between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, depending on what happens to be the position of the electoral pendulum at the time when the elections take place—and who can say at this point in time what that will be?
To the Continentals, it represents one more example of Britain being obstinately out of step. Whatever the result, it is likely to distort the Party balance in the new directly elected European Parliament. After all, at the end of the day, it is really the politics of Canute, since we are committed to a uniform system of direct elections next time and that is bound to be one form or another of proportional system. I therefore greatly regret the rejection by another place of the advice that the Government gave, though I recognise the force of the Minister's argument. I think we shall need to consider what is likely to happen in another place if we take a different view here, and what effect that is likely to have on our timetable. The one view I have held consistently throughout the argument is that we must seek to keep to the timetable. In a sense, the timetable argument has turned upside down. Apart from the merits of a proportional system, the very strong argument for the regional list system—and I do not wish to go into the details of the timetable argument—was that it gave the possibility of it not being the United Kingdom that prevented the 1978 timetable from being kept. If we were to get this wrong now it might create the possibility of the United Kingdom being responsible for a further delay in a 1979 timetable. I certainly agree that we should look at that a great deal more closely.

709
Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I also very much regret the omission from the Bill that has come to us of any provision for British citizens in other parts of the European Community to vote in this first democratic election. Many of these are Britons who are helping to make the Community work. Many of them are the people who are selling British goods and services and making such an important contribution to our economic future on the Continent and I think it very unjust that these people should be disfranchised. On the other hand, I agree with one change made in another place in the text of this Bill. That was the change relating to the question of approval by Act of Parliament of any treaties increasing the powers of the European Assembly.
This Bill is an historic step in creating a direct link between the ordinary citizen and the European Parliament. It does not of itself, as has been said, alter the European Parliament's powers; it is a big enough step in itself. Personally, I hope that a directly-elected Parliament—I echo the words I was happy to hear from the Minister—will in due course seek more effective powers, but that is for the future and that can happen only in a way that affects the powers of national Parliaments, and it therefore seems to be wholly proper that these should be subject to formal legislation in our national Parliament here.
On this matter, I hope that we will try to keep our minds clear about the problem of Parliamentary control of Community institutions. The present scrutiny committees, especially the Scrutiny Committee in your Lordships' House, do excellent work, not least in creating an informed body of opinion inside the Palace of Westminster about the realities of Community procedures. But there is nothing sacred—this is sometimes forgotten, particularly in another place—about the Palace of Westminster. It has evolved over the generations; it has never been a static institution and I have never seen any inconsistency in our seeking to devolve powers to a Scottish or Welsh Assembly in one direction and seeking to devolve them to a European Assembly in the other direction, but I do not want to anticipate future debates on devolution.
710
So far as the issue we are discussing today is concerned, while national Parliamentary scrutiny has its own value both in creating informed opinion here and in controlling the actions of the national Government at the Council of Ministers, it is no substitute for democratic control by the European Parliament. Indeed, if Community decisions were to be the subject, as some in this country argue, of separate national Parliamentary approval in nine national Parliaments, then of course the Community would grind completely to a halt, and that is no doubt one of the reasons why some people are so passionately in favour of that particular form of democratic Parliamentary control.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to make a little more clear in his admirable speech what he means by democratic control by the European Parliament?
Lord THOMSON of MONIFIETH: My Lords, I mean that at the present stage of the development of the European Community it should be in the European Parliament that the main democratic verdict is taken on the various Directives and proposals that come out of the European Commission; I think that should happen much more in the European Assembly than in the various national Parliaments. The right solution, I was going to say, is not the nationalisation of European Parliamentary control but the creation of a truly democratic European Parliament.
Belated though this is, this is, as the Minister said, an historic step. Next year nine countries, nine ancient nations, nine Parliamentary democracies who have spilt so much blood between them will elect their own European MPs to European constituencies for the first time and begin the clumsy and no doubt immensely slow, but at the end I think inevitable process of creating European political Parties. This is something that I believe should excite the imagination of any European democrat. Perhaps the Minister will allow me to say that I see precious few signs most of the time that it excites the imagination of Her Majesty's Government. I sometimes wonder whether Her Majesty's Government have any imagination at all where the European Community is concerned; indeed, the best

711
words I have heard about the European Community came in the speech with which this Bill was introduced today.
I searched conscientiously and hopefully through the main ministerial speeches in another place on this Bill. I like to love my right honourable friends in another place and I do love them on a number of occasions, especially on the domestic front, but I must say that on reading the debates in another place I thought they treated this Bill as if it were not an historic step forward but a rather dull and dreary machinery measure, something like the Dundee Municipal Water Works (Extension of Powers) Bill. I say to Her Majesty's Government that what often matters in the European Community, in my experience, is not what you say but the way that you say it. Certainly I am the last person to say that Her Majesty's Government should not vigorously defend national interests within the European Community; other countries do that. But a great deal depends on the way it is done and I think a great opportunity has been lost because of the tone with which the Government have conducted the whole process of introducing this Bill for direct elections.
Not the least of the hopes I have about a directly-elected European Parliament is that it will enable the issues about the future of the European Community—they are many and varied and the different points of view on them are very legitimate—to be debated as they should be debated; namely, at a European general election and through continued debate in a European Parliamentary Assembly instead of, as has been happening over the last year or two, regrettably becoming the small change in national Party politics in this country. For these reasons I very much welcome the Bill as an historic step forward.
3.47 p.m.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, it is a very great privilege to speak following the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, with every word of whose speech I wholly agreed. I was proud to be able to take part in debates in the European Parliament with him during his term of office as a Commissioner. His services to the Community are very well
712
known and we should be proud that he has taken part in this debate. I also agreed very much with all that my noble friend Lady Elles said and, for that reason, I shall be very brief indeed because I do not wish in any way to delay the passage of the Bill. Thus, despite the fact that I am, like other noble Lords here, a declared electoral reformer, partly because I am a Member of the European Parliament, I feel that the importance of getting the Bill through with all speed is greater on this occasion than the precise electoral method to be employed.
I have on more than one occasion stated in your Lordships' House that I am in favour of the additional member system, which does not seem to have been put forward adequately in another place, and I would be in favour of that additional member system for the European Parliament—a system similar to that which was adopted by the British for the British Zone in Germany and later for the whole of the Bundestag. It seems to me that that system combines the best of both worlds, in that the elector knows who his member is, and yet having a second vote for a regional list with proportional representation enables some minority Parties such as the Liberal Party to be represented reasonably fairly. I should therefore like to see that system adopted when it comes to all Nine countries adopting the uniform electoral procedure for the second general elections to the Assembly.
However, in view of the vote in another place in favour of single-member constituencies and the first-past-the-post system, I do not think it very appropriate for a non-elected Chamber such as your Lordships' House, and certainly not for an hereditary peer like myself, to suggest changes in the method of election adopted by the elected Chamber. Moreover, I infinitely prefer the first-past-the-post system to the kind of regional list system originally proposed by the Government, which could well lead to the election of some Members who, by themselves, hold very few, or even conceivably no, votes at all.
Of course, if it seems clear that there could be a majority in this House in favour of the additional member system and that Members of another place might be willing to change their minds—and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich,

713
seems very doubtful about that—then I should certainly vote for an Amendment proposing such a system, but not one which tried to reinstate the Government's regional list proposal. Also, if it is thought that another place might be willing to reconsider the matter, I should support an Amendment enabling British subjects residing in other parts of the Community to vote in these elections, for reasons which were well stated by Lord Thomson.
Above all, however, let us get on with the adoption of the Bill, so that other Member States do not again accuse us of being responsible for delaying the first international elections the world has ever seen. It is an exciting prospect, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, has said. I agree with the Government: it is a major step forward in European integration; and I believe that it will increase, if not the powers of the European Parliament, at least its influence, which is not inconsiderable, even at this time. Influence can be more important than technical powers. Therefore, in my view it is a great hope for the future, and I hope very much that a decision in regard to the date will be taken at the earliest possible moment, and that the Bill will get onto the Statute Book in good time.
3.51 p.m.
Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE: My Lords, like the noble Earl, I shall seek to be brief, but I doubt whether I can quite emulate the brevity which he himself so commendably achieved. I should like, however, to begin by thanking your Lordships' House for the confidence that was reposed in me when I was elected Chairman of the Select Committee on the European Communities. It is an opportunity for serving this House which I greatly appreciate, and for which I am most grateful. I am only sorry that my election should have been made necessary by the ill health of the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie; and certainly those of us who serve on the Select Committee are very sensible of the extent to which we are indebted to Lady Tweedsmuir, and to her predecessor, my noble friend Lord Diamond, for the foundations which they laid for the work of the Select Committee.
The Select Committee and its subcommittees now number nearly 90 Members or your Lordships' House, and I hope
714
that I may say, without too greatly stimulating the gastric juices of those who want to gobble us up, that those 90 Members of this House combine a wealth of experience which I think few Parliaments in the world could match; and I believe that, for that reason, the Committee is capable of making a very substantial contribution to the working of the Common Market.
I am quite sure that our strength in this House is that we are not still fighting the battles of yesterday. I find on the Select Committee that those who, like myself, doubted the wisdom of going into the Community, are as determined as anybody to make it work. I find, too, that those Members of your Lordships' House who were very strongly in support of entry are just as determined as anybody else to keep a close watch on the Community, and to subject its working to the most rigorous scrutiny.
Of course, much of such success as we have had has stemmed from the staff who serve us—and who not only serve us, but also inspire us. We are grateful, too, to Sir John Eden and those Members of the House of Commons who are doing similar work in their House. We are grateful to noble Lords who represent us in the European Parliament, to Ministers and their Departments, and not least to the Whips, all of whom are most constructive and helpful in their approach to us. I think that it would be only right to thank especially the Government Chief Whip, who is generous in finding time for us and, who, I think, has given us an opportunity in this House of filling some of those lacunae which were so inexplicably left in the consideration of the Bill in another place.
It is not my intention today to become involved in the controversial aspects of the Bill. However, perhaps I may say that my heart warmed particularly to some of the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth. But it is not for me to argue whether direct elections are good or bad. I will say only that my own personal view is that, having decided to join the EEC, there is a clear, inescapable moral and legal obligation upon us to provide for direct elections.
My main purpose today, therefore, is to tell the House how the subcommittee is handling the question of relations

715
between a directly-elected European Parliament and the national Parliaments of the nine Member States. For that purpose, we have set up a special new sub-committee under my chairmanship. We have brought in some new blood, and we have also enlisted the help of a number of noble Lords with special political experience in this country. We propose to report to your Lordships' House at about the end of May.
It is true that a number of reports have been prepared, both here and elsewhere, and that a number of papers have been written, but very few conclusions have been reached and very few positive recommendations have been made. I shall not try to summarise the views expressed in those reports and papers. I shall simply say that I sought to do so in very general terms in a paper which I submitted to the sub-committee of the Select Committee in December, and which is available to Members of your Lordships' House through the Overseas and European Office of the House. I will say only that I think, with respect, that my noble friend Lord Harris is right when he says that it is generally expected that a directly-elected Parliament will wish to have greater powers than the existing one.
But I must say that I hope this will not be pressed too early, nor be pressed too hard. When one thinks that any extension of powers would call for an amendment of the Treaty, which would have to have the unanimous support of the nine Member States of the Community, one realises the gulfs that such efforts could produce, and the dangers that they might create. Therefore, I am not as appreciative and as optimistic as my noble friends Lord Harris of Greenwich or Lord Thomson about this demand being made.
I believe, too, that once the directly-elected Parliament is in existence, we could have a situation in which the European Members of Parliament from the United Kingdom belonged to one Party, while the majority of Members of Parliament at Westminster belongod to another; one can see something of the strains that that might well create. I believe, too, that the political Parties themselves must do much fairly deep thinking before they have to face fighting elections to the European Parliament. After all, they may have
716
views on the difficulty created by having Members who are mandated from their own country; I think it right that they should be applying their minds to these problems.
But these are only examples of just a few of the problems that I foresee, and next week in our sub-committee we shall be considering a further Paper from myself on the subject, and hearing evidence from the Clerk of the Parliaments and from Black Rod. We shall then invite representatives of the political Parties to meet us. We should like to talk to the Secretary-General, and the other officials of the European Parliament; we should like to give the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers a chance to express their view; we want to consult the Civil Service Department because of the infrastructure problems that may arise; and we should also like to learn from the experience of other Parliaments in the Community. Not least of all—and. I think this is most important—we should like particularly to consult with Sir John Eden and his colleagues in another place.
Finally, my Lords, may I emphasise once again that I believe these are real dangers that we are facing, and that we have to take them seriously. We have to do everything we can to avoid a conflict, because if a conflict or a division were to develop, I think it could do great harm to the democratic institutions of this country and could also prevent the steady and progressive development of the Community itself. I think, my Lords, that that broad view is one which will be accepted by your Lordships as a whole.
4.1 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords have greatly enjoyed hearing the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and the account that he has given us of the splendid work being done by the Select Committee and its sub-committees, of which I am sadly no longer a member. I think we have heard from all sides what a very competent job the noble Lord is doing.
But for Britain's default, direct elections would probably have been held in May or June of this year, as we all know. So, my Lords, shame on us! However, better late than never, and I think it would

717
be churlish not to welcome this Bill. Almost as regrettable as the quite pointless delay is the fact that the method of election proposed in the Bill is probably the least satisfactory that anyone could devise—in my opinion, anyhow, and I think that opinion is fairly widely shared in your Lordships' House, at any rate. This system, the first-past-the-post, is bound to produce a distorted and unfair result; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has reminded us, it is almost certain to produce no Liberal delegates at all—something which I think we would all deplore. Why was Parliament given only the choice between the unfair first-past-the-post system and just about the most ridiculous system of proportional representation that anyone could devise? The regional list system amounts to very little more than Party patronage through nomination. It is very little different from the system we have now, when the Party Whips choose the Members. They choose them very well, but it is not an election. How the Liberal Party can tamely accept this situation in the way in which STY was dropped as a third alternative (it was described in the Green Paper, or was it in the White Paper?), I really do not know; it is a mystery to me. So much, or so little, for the Lib-Lab pact.
What should your Lordships' House do about this aspect of the Bill, the system of election? If noble Lords had the final say here, which of course they do not, I have no doubt at all—I think my noble friend Lord Bessborough hinted at this—that we would choose a genuinely proportional system, giving voters the option between candidates of any Party or perhaps of none. In my belief, in a free vote, other things being equal, we might very well choose a proportional system by about two to one, judging from past debates we have had on the European question; but that is only my guess.
It could be that the system which would find most favour would be the alternative member system, which I think has a lot to be said for it as a sort of halfway house between the direct representation of a constituency and a proportional system. But, never mind; that is, I suppose, all water under the bridge, though it raises the question, of course, whether we should send the Bill back to another place amended as far as the system is
718
concerned. What would the reaction in another place?—we must ask ourselves. What, above all, would be the risk of delay? Would it be right or sensible to give the Government an excuse for yet further delay, which they could well seize, though I like to think that they would not? So my conclusion is the same as the conclusion of both Front Benches and that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and other noble Lords who have spoken: that it is probably best not to amend the Bill so far as the electoral system is concerned.
Nonetheless, I think it will be agreed that there are many advantages in fully debating alternative systems for the election of Members of the European Parliament. I have no doubt—and this is my last point on this subject—that the fear that proportional representation for the European elections might be a precedent for Westminster Elections, because it could be so easily seen by the electorate to be fair, accounts for the reluctance of both major Parties to consider seriously the need for electoral reform. This, I think, is understandable, though I think it is regrettable; and I think, with respect to another place, that it shows how sadly out of touch Parliament can get with public opinion, which I think is substantially in favour of considering electoral reform with an open mind. So in this Bill I see the choice of electoral system as a major fault.
I, too, like other noble Lords, see a serious deficiency in the Bill, and that is the failure to provide for United Kingdom subjects living in other EEC countries to vote in direct elections. I do not think there is any real problem here. It has already been solved, I am given to understand, by Denmark and Holland. France has solved it in an even wider way by I think, giving the vote in European elections to all French subjects living in any country in the world, just as they do in French national elections. So it can be done even on that scale, although it is not what I myself would recommend. But we appear to be alone in doing nothing; and if we continue to do nothing we shall find ourselves in the extraordinary situation that a Frenchman living in Ireland, which has some very strange legislation on this subject which it has just passed, can vote twice, once for an Irish delegate and once for a French delegate, although the voter

719
is living in Ireland, whereas a British subject working in the Commission in Brussels cannot vote at all. That really seems to me to be a pretty absurd situation—I was going to say, an Irish situation.
We appear to be alone in doing nothing; and I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who has just returned to his scat, will take particular note of that point. I should like to tell him, if I may, that I have been talking, as have other noble Lords, about the fact that United Kingdom subjects living in other EEC countries will not be able to vote, and that we appear to be alone so far as this is concerned. I very much hope that the Government will consider very seriously putting down an Amendment in your Lordships' House; and I find it hard to believe, in spite of the rather ragged debate on the subject in another place, that such an Amendment would not be acceptable. There is certainly no administrative difficulty where this is concerned, because it would be necessary only to establish the principle, leaving the Home Office, as I understand it, to introduce the necessary regulations in the autumn.
My last point relates to the powers of the European Parliament. Before the Treaties were amended to increase the powers of the European Parliament, as I think we all know, the Luxembourg compromise would require unanimity in the Council of Ministers. It is inconceivable to me that a British Minister would give approval to amendments to the Treaty without being assured of support in the British Parliament. A directly-elected European Parliament would be bound to exercise greater power; for instance, in making the Council of Ministers and the European Commission more accountable for the policies they pursue—surely something which we all favour. The influence of the European Parliament, as opposed to its power, is already greater, I think, than is generally realised. This arises largely through what is generally called pre-legislative consultation, something which is very valuable indeed. There is, too, the regular dialogue with the Commission, even after draft legislation has been presented; and there is the joint consultation between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, something which can be developed still further.
720
So the European Parliament is gradually gaining in authority and influence, and that is much to be welcomed. The increase is its power and influence in these and other directions is, I think, inevitable, and will be setting a really first-class example where democracy is concerned; because real influence amounts in many ways to power, if not actually to "formal power", to use the words that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, used in introducing the Second Reading of this Bill.
The European Parliament should provide safeguards against too much executive power in too few hands; against the growth of a top-heavy bureaucracy that becomes a law unto itself and gets increasingly out of touch with public opinion. The late Sir Peter Kirk put this extrordinarily well in the first speech ever made by a British delegate to the European Parliament—a speech which my noble friend Lord Bessborough and I as his two Deputy Leaders heard with admiration. He said:
"The health of this Parliament is essential to the health of the Community as a whole. Without an effective Parliament our Community is in danger of strangling in bureaucracy or drowning in apathy."
It could hardly be put better.
My Lords, I see the work of the European Parliament, as I think does the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, to judge from his speech, as complementary to the scrutiny work done by the national Parliaments, perhaps even adding to it, and not as detracting from it. I am sure that noble Lords share my view that our main object where this Bill is concerned must be to speed it on its way. Disappointing as the Bill is in certain respects, it is all we have and we must make the best of a bad job and get the show on the road. To delay it unnecessarily, however good our intentions, could, I believe, all too easily kill it.
4.11 p.m.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, in welcoming the Bill, I should like to declare an interest because I would hope to be a candidate in the direct elections when they come. But if I am not successful in that ambition, then I should like to thank the Government for second best in at least being allowed to vote for the Labour candidate

721
as a Peer in that direct election. I think this Bill is necessary because I think it supports and strengthens what should be the Government commitment to the European ideal. What has happened, I am afraid, in the past couple of years is that the argument about direct elections has been an extension of the argument about Yes or No to Europe; and the fanatics on both sides, whose idea seems to be as unsinkable as the "Titanic", have used this argument as an extension of that argument. I hope that this Bill will settle it once and for all. I am doubtful about that, but I think it drives another nail into the coffin of those who would want to sow dissension and not just to say No to direct elections but No to Europe completely and have us out of the EEC by tomorrow morning at the latest.
I think we have to show to our neighbours in the Community that we intend to be full Members and not half-hearted Members of the Community, as it sometimes appears; because I believe that when the British people voted in the referendum in June 1975 they were voting for more than was on the ballot paper; they are not simple enough to be confused by just Yes or No. In that referendum, which resulted in overwhelming support for Britain's remaining in the Market, I believe that they voted for a commitment to Europe, and within that commitment for Britain and themselves to play a greater role in the Community.
I think that we should be unwise to accept all the blame which is being pushed on to Britain for the delay in the direct elections, because there have been delays in other countries within the Community. They have had their difficulties; they have had their arguments within their political Parties and within their Parliaments about the timing of the direct elections and about the method of direct elections. Last year in an opinion poll taken within the Community it was shown that at least two other nations of those polled were against having direct elections, and indeed five nations, including Germany, one of the strongest Members of the Community, were two to one in terms of indifference, as against the United Kingdom, to the direct elections. I think that to some extent there has been an attempt within Europe, and within our own country and Parliament, to blame Britain for the slowness of the direct elections.
722
Most concern I think has been shown over the question of the powers of the new European Parliament. The French, within the Act they passed, have made it clear that in fact it will mean no greater powers for the European Parliament. This is linked with the arguments against federalism. Those that have been violently anti-Market have used the direct elections argument in saying that it is the road to federalism. It may well be. Nations within Europe may change their minds about federalism. I am certain that if you had taken an opinion poll in the dark days of 1940/41 among people coming out of air raid shelters and had asked them whether they wanted a trade alliance with Germany and Italy, the answer would have been less than enthusiastic. I think that nations change their minds. If it means, in the years to come, that this will lead to federalism, it will be as a result of public and Parliamentary opinion moving towards this goal. I do not think that we can say that there will never be federalism within Europe. We must accept that opinion will change in these matters, and if it does it will be, I hope, through the will of the people.
So far as the method of elections is concerned, I should, for two reasons, have preferred to have had some system of proportional representation. One would have been that within five years we have to slot into a uniform European system of elections and it is very doubtful whether the rest of our neighbours in Europe will say that they will opt for the first-past-the-post system. One of the other reasons, which is a bald political reason, is that I think there would have been more seats in the proportional representation system for the Labour Party as opposed to the first-past-the-post system.
What I want to see in Europe is a Socialist Parliament. I want to see the Socialists, as they are now in the present European Parliament, as the major Party; and to achieve that we need more Labour seats than we shall get in the first-past-the-post system. Fortunately, with the systems that will be operating within the Parliament, I would have guessed that we shall get a Socialist majority within that Parliament; and certainly I am hopeful of that. My Lords, I think that the Bill has its defects—as I have said, and one is the matter of proportional representation

723
—but I think it is to be welcomed. I think that this House should give its wholehearted support for a speedy passage to this Bill, thus strengthening the European ideal.
4.18 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, like other speakers in this debate, I should like to start by welcoming this Bill on direct elections. Like others who have spoken in it, I have my reservations. In the first place, I am very glad to see that the regional list system has been dropped. I find myself at variance with the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Gravesend, partly because I believe that we in this country vote for the candidate and not for the Party. We do not vote the ticket. Only very recently have we even shown on the voting paper the name of the Party to which the candidate owes allegiance. To meet particular circumstances, we may compromise a little on this, but I believe that we ought not to throw away the principle. I think that we would do that at our peril. If Parties had distinctive attitudes towards the Community there might be some reason for the emphasis on the Party, but attitudes cut right across Parties—even across the Liberal Party.
One of the most important points made—it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, himself, and it was strongly developed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson—is that under this Bill we are going to have European constituencies. This will have the greatest educational value because it will open the eyes of the electors—in many cases for the first time—to the meaning of the Community and to what is its real impact on our daily lives. That is itself of very great value.
I do not think that we can consider in a debate like this the character of the electoral system that we ought to have unless we also consider the purpose for which candidates are being elected. What are the functions of the Assembly? The Assembly has great authority and influence. It has no powers except the power to dismiss the Commission with a two-thirds majority. What are the functions? I would put them as three-fold: first, to examine what the Commission are proposing and to restrain the Commission
724
from unwise proposals. Secondly, to suggest to the Commission what they might propose. Thirdly—and perhaps most important of all—to think about and discuss the long-term development of the Community and the ways in which its unity of purpose and of action can best be promoted.
Needless to say, the representatives of the various countries will be concerned to ensure that the interests of their country and of their constituencies are strongly advocated and, so far as possible, safeguarded. Each Assembly Member is there to make his own individual contribution through his own political experience and his own knowledge of his constituency towards fashioning the future of the Community and developing a sound and lasting union of a kind which has no precedent in history.
I suggest that the candidates at the direct elections should belong to the constituencies which they seek to represent. It happens in the United States of America and I see no reason why it should not happen here. I do not mean that they should currently reside in constituencies, but their roots should be there. Whether the Bill should provide for this is a matter for discussion. I recognise that this may exclude highly eligible candidates because there is available an even more eligible local candidate—if a constituency of half a million souls can be called "local" But the principle that it is the constituency that is to be represented too is important to allow that disadvantage to be treated as overriding.
Direct elections are surely intended to mean that countries are not sending national blocs to the Assembly but are sending representatives of the various and diverse parts of their land. Where elections to a European Assembly—especially one without legislative powers—are concerned. I do not believe that Party considerations should be dominant. Candidates for election to an Assembly without powers are not being elected as lobby fodder. It is not the Parties we should want to represented but the people and the constituencies. That is one good reason why we should not have the regional list system, which the Home Secretary described in his Second. Reading speech as "the elector voting for the Party."

725
What matters for the good of this country and for the Community is that each constituency should return its best candidates. I hope that a high proportion of electors will vote for the men and women rather than for the Party label, that they will vote for the best qualified and the most sensible person for the job that the Assembly has to do. It may be that direct elections will lead in the end to the formation of Community Parties in the Assembly; perhaps in the course of time there could be one Party which favours stronger central government and another laying more stress on State rights, as used to be the case in the United States of America. But that will not be so in the first elections to the Assembly.
What then, my Lords, is the system that will be the best for this purpose? The single transferable vote system? That is favoured by the Liberal Party. The main defect is that it is complicated and, except in Northern Ireland, unfamiliar to the electorate. Therefore, there is not much point in changing to a complicated system just for one election. Under the first-past-the-post system the constituencies would be much smaller, a mere 400,000 to 600,000 electors, I suppose. The results, however, could be so unfair as to bring the whole system into contempt. For example, I have been told that if the Scottish National Party scored 27 per cent. of the vote in Scotland, it might not win a seat; but if it scored 38 per cent., it would gain all eight seats. It seems to me that both Scotland and the United Kingdom—and even the Scottish National Party itself—might find this embarrassing. The outcome for the United Kingdom as a whole might be grotesquely unrepresentative. Personally, I would prefer the additional member system on the West German model, as adapated, if I may say so, in the Mackintosh-Kershaw Amendment at the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill in another place. Adapted, my Lords, but not adopted.
The constituencies would be somewhat larger than under the first-past-the-post system. How much larger depends on the proportion of the total number of seats reserved for added members. Under this system, the additional Members would be chosen on a regional basis from the losing candidates with the highest proportion of votes in the individual constituencies so as to equate roughly the
726
number of Members of each Party to the number of votes cast for them in the regions. Alternatively, on the West German model, Parties could nominate candidates who had fought and been defeated in the election.
The reason why I prefer this system is that, first, it will give both a wider and fairer coverage of various shades of opinion than the other three systems. Secondly, so far as the elector is concerned, he would vote in the same way as he does at present, and therefore there would be no change for the electorate. Thirdly, the link between the elected candidate and the constituency will be preserved as under the first-past-the-post system, even though the constituencies will be rather larger. The additional Members will represent the region rather than the constituencies. Lastly, the adoption of this system need not add to the time required to prepare for the first elections, given that drafting could be done while the Bill is still going through this House, nor need it hold up the passage of this Bill for more than a week or a fortnight for the time the Bill would go back for consideration in another place and possibly come back here again.
It may be said that it would be difficult to add Members separately for Scotland and Wales because of the smallness of the allocation of seats for those two countries. I see no difficulty. Scotland's eight seats could include two for added members, and the four seats for Wales could include one for an added member. There is of course the proportional representation single vote system on the Finnish model, but that suffers from the same disadvantage, in that it would be based on a regional system and would produce regional and not constituency Members and therefore weakens the constituency link. I have stressed throughout in what I have had to say the great importance of the constituency link. Large as the constituencies will be, this will be very important for the future of the Assembly and for the educative process of electors.
Traditionally, the main argument for the first-past-the-post system is that it tends to favour strong and stable Government. The argument, to put it midly, has worn rather thin in the past few years. But what matters in considering the electoral system for the European Assembly

727
is that the argument is totally irrelevant. We are not concerned with government; we are concerned with an Assembly without legislative powers—with authority and influence, but no powers. The object should be to ensure that the British contingent in the European Assembly represents all statistically significant opinion in the United Kingdom. As I have said, the first-past-the-post system could produce results which would make us a laughing-stock in Europe. Our partners in the Community might well ask: "Cannot the Mother of Parliaments devise something more appropriate than this?"
Before I sit down, I would wish to pay a very genuine tribute to those from both Houses of Parliament who have been representing the United Kingdom in the Assembly. Sitting both in Parliament and in the Assembly has put a heavy burden on them, and a burden which may well have cost Peter Kirk his life. One advantage of the present system of appointment is that it has enabled the representatives in the Assembly to keep closely in touch with Parliament here. It is by no means clear how directly-elected Members of the Assembly will in future keep in touch with Parliament in this country.
Finally, I hope it is not too late to reconsider the electoral system to be adopted in the first elections. I believe that the system at present enshrined in the Bill is inappropriate and that it will suggest to our partners in the Community that we are not treating direct elections to the Assembly as seriously as the matter deserves. Should it prove impossible within the time to proceed with something of the nature of the additional member system, so be it: we cannot say more than that. However, I hope at any rate that Britain will, between now and the second elections, be pressing for a system along the lines that I have suggested.
4.33 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I should like to ask the indulgence of my noble friend Lord Harris, of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for the fact that I was unable, being absent on EEC
728
business, to have the advantage of listening to what they had to say. I trust the House will grant me its indulgence also.
I cannot entirely share the atmosphere of euphoria which has characterised so many of the speeches made by your Lordships so far. It seems to me that this euphoria rests on a number of assumptions which, however desirable they may be and however attractive they may appear, do not really conform to the facts of the situation or indeed to the prospect, in so far as that can be foreseen. I have noticed in previous debates that have taken place on this subject in your Lordships' House—and there have been eight on this very subject prior to this one today, all on the subject of direct elections—that enthusiastic reference has been made to the "European Parliament". This is, of course, an error that the Bill before your Lordships does not fall into. It calls it "an assembly", which of course is all that it is. It may well be that with the passage of time it may become a Parliament, although the time-span is somewhat uncertain; but it is not—I repeat not—at the present time a Parliament in the sense that we in the United Kingdom understand that term.
It has no powers to legislate; no Governments are put in or out of Office as a result of its votes and it cannot even propose legislation. It has a certain number of limited powers but it can initiate very little at all. Moreover, within the text of the existing Bill appears an almost faithful reproduction of a provision in the French Bill and of one shortly to be incorporated into the Dutch Bill. It will be noted that there can be no increase in the powers of the European Assembly without Parliament's consent and, as I say, there are exactly the same provisions in France, in the Netherlands and also. I believe, in Denmark. So it is important that we should not raise a lot of false hopes by assuming that the European Assembly, directly elected, will be able to do the same kinds of things on a European scale as the British Parliament is able to do in relation to the United Kingdom.
The Press and the media are already conscious of this. They are only interested in where power is and that may perhaps explain why, apart from organs such as The Times, the Guardian and the Financial Times, the media, including the

729
broadcasting media, almost completely ignore the entire proceedings of the European Parliament—the European Assembly—whether it meets in Strasbourg, in Luxembourg or wherever it may be. It is not a matter of news so far as the British media are concerned. Why is that? The reason surely is that the media know full well that the European Assembly has no power, and therefore give it the news importance relative to its power. It may well be that over the passage of time it will acquire new powers and that interest will grow accordingly. But I suggest that, if we exaggerate the importance of this Bill beyond its real factual content, we are doing not only Britain but also Europe a grave disservice.
There are times when the pursuit of an ideal, expressed in idealistic terms, serves an uplifting purpose and also helps to focus our minds on those aims and purposes which must essentially remain to some extent in the future. All this is wise, but it is never wise to keep one's mind permanently concentrated on the distant vistas without paying attention to the practical problems of today. Generally speaking, that is the way in which the activities of the European Parliament tend to be treated by the media today, precisely because they do not realise the extent of its involvement with day-to-day affairs—again understandably, because it has very little power to influence what happens in Europe. I fear that the powers of the European Assembly to influence events in Europe will be lessened, rather than increased, by the passage of this Bill.
Many noble Lords have referred to the undue delays that have taken place on the part of the United Kingdom in opting for direct elections. Of course, we now know that, when it has passed through Parliament as a whole, this Bill will be at a more advanced stage than the legislation in at least three other Member States, and I sincerely hope that the same pressure will be applied upon them as has been applied upon us. It is a good Bill, in the sense that it expresses the wishes of another place, and I sincerely trust that your Lordships' House will give it a smooth passage precisely on those grounds alone.
But one should realise that the extent to which Europe has worked more closely together during the last two or three
730
years has been very largely due to the existence of the dual mandate. Reports of disagreements among the Nine are about the only matters that are reported in the Press. What is not reported is the very large measure of agreement that has been achieved over very wide fields among the nine Member States. Nor is it generally realised that the degree to which cohesion has been achieved has been very largely due to the degree of influence which the dual mandated MPs have been able to exercise upon their own Governments—who, indeed, are chosen from their ranks—and also to the fact that the Commission, knowing the powers of existing Members of Parliament within their own Parliaments under the dual mandate, have tended to give Parliaments' activities in the European Parliament a greater degree of respect than might otherwise have been the case.
One thing is quite certain. The newly-elected members of the European Assembly will have no power base in the United Kingdom, save that which rests on their election from a very wide and diffuse constituency approximately eight times the size of an existing constituency. I share the caution of my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, that progress on that account alone will be very limited, and that it may well emerge that the powers and influence of the directly elected Members of Parliament will probably—at any rate, for some time—be less than the influence at present exercised by those elected under the dual mandate. So that we should not expect miracles.
Turning to one isolated aspect of the Bill relating to election expenses, which may attract your Lordships' attention at a later stage, legislation in the United Kingdom is at present fairly restrictive. It defines certain dates beyond which it is not possible for campaigns to be entered into on behalf of political Parties, without attracting a certain liability from the candidate himself in relation to that expenditure. I do not know to what extent this has been anticipated by Her Majesty's Government, but I can foresee difficulties arising. As is known, the Commission itself will be an active participant in the election. It will spend the equivalent of some 5,000 million European units of account on publicising Europe, on publicising the Community—
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting, I think that the intention of the Commission, and of the Parliament, is to engage in a campaign before the political election campaign begins.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of my noble friend. But that is not the position as I have understood it, particularly in regard to timing, because at the time when the expenditure came before the Budgets Committee it was confidently anticipated that the elections would take place this year. Furthermore, from the conversations that I have had on this subject with Members of the Commission, including the President of the Commission himself, it is quite clear that there will be publicity from the Commission immediately before the election, in the course of which campaign Commission policies will be outlined.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord really correct in saying that the Commission has the intention of spending no less than 5,000 million units of account? Is not that £2,500 million?
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful for the correction of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. The amount is 5 million units of account. The noble Lord will appreciate that, in connection with the Budget, I am so used to dealing with thousands of millions these days that, perhaps occasionally, I may be forgiven a slip. But I still want to confront your Lordships with some considerations that arise from that.
There will be certain candidates in the election, not necessarily confined to any one of the political Parties, who will venture to support the Commission's concept of what it ought to do, and the Commission's account of what it has done. There will be other candidates who will dissent from what the Commission has done, and may dissent from the Commission's proposals; and indeed its whole angle towards progress in the future. This means to say that one set of candidates will, in effect, be backed by the publicity of the Commission itself, which will be fairly powerful, while the other set which dissents from the Commission's whole attitude towards the common agricultural
732
policy, the fisheries policy, the regional policy or whatever it may be, will be disadvantaged, because they will have no Commission on their side with supporting publicity. I do not want to exaggerate the importance of this matter, but it is a very important factor and I should have thought—
Baroness ELLES. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. May I draw his attention to Article 4 of the Decision of 20th September 1976, which states that representatives shall vote on an individual and personal basis, and shall not be bound by any instructions or receive a binding mandate. I should have thought that that would apply to all candidates standing for any Party, and I do not think they could be pro or against the Commission, or have the Commission's support or not have it. Each individual candidate will be responsible for his own policy and support the policy of his own political Party.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am well aware of the point made by the noble Baroness, but I think that she has altogether missed my argument. What I am saying is that there may be one set of candidates, or even an individual candidate, who conscientiously believe that substantial portions of the Commission's policy carried out so far are wrong, and that its proposals for the future are either wholly or partially wrong. Such candidates will be at a disadvantage, compared with those candidates who wholeheartedly support the Commission's line, and who are, in effect, being assisted by Commission propaganda. I should have thought—
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a rather important point. I hope that he is not suggesting for one minute that the Commission would identify individual candidates who are with them for their advantage and those who are against them for their disadvantage.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: Certainly not, my Lords. I would make no suggestion of that kind. But may I draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the document put forward on this matter by the Commission, which is Cmnd. 77114 Final of 25th March 1977,

733
where she will see exactly what kind of propaganda the Commission propose to put forward. It has to tell of the Community's successes and difficulties, its origin and its future. It will put forward the common policies that have been put forward by the Commission. There may be some dissent as to whether these policies are right or wrong. All I am saying is that one section of candidates may gain an advantage through the massive propaganda of the Commission, whereas other candidates who dissent may not. I should have thought that, by and large, it would be far better if the Commission kept out of direct elections altogether. If the European Assembly is to have its own elections, let them be fought out in exactly the same manner as Parliamentary elections are fought out—that is, without the organised intervention of the Executive in this way.
Subject to that point, which may be taken up in Committee and which my noble friend may care to expatiate on when he replies, I am happy to ask your Lordships to agree to the Second Reading of the Bill. It will not be an historic occasion, as will be found out hereafter. However, since so much discussion has taken place upon it—there have been about 20 debates in both Houses—let us pass this quite harmless piece of legislation in the hope that in the future something significant may emerge from its provisions. I can see nothing of very great significance emerging from it immediately. One only hopes that the wisdom of men in Europe may ultimately be able to create a European Parliament; which will certainly not be created from the Bill in its present form.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, in the course of his very pungent observations, the noble Lord seemed to refer with some complacency to the neglect by the media of the proceedings of the European Assembly. May I ask the noble Lord whether or not he would feel a spot of satisfaction if prominence were given by the media to the observations which he has just delivered?
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I apologise if I gave the impression that I am complacent about this in any way. I am not. It is a scandal that the media do not report these events so that
734
the public at large may judge them. I sincerely hope that in the future the media will see fit to give as much prominence to the constructive words of wisdom that will undoubtedly be spoken by the directly elected Members of the European Parliament as they do to some of the scandals of a slightly more salacious type which adorn their pages at present.
4.53 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, from this position on these Benches I had hoped to add a few brief, tender words of welcome to this new baby which will be growing up into the European Parliament that both the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and I want to see develop over the years. However, after some of the comments which the noble Lord has just made I am afraid that I must go back to first principles. Once again the Whips have put me in a position to speak immediately after the noble Lord, so that he and I are taking up a sparring partnership on European matters. It is not, of course, based on any personal malice on my part; as the noble Lord knows, it comes from a real understanding of the major contribution which he has made to the working of the European Parliament as Rapporteur for the Budget.
So far as the noble Lord's most recent comment about the nature of the Commission's participation in direct elections is concerned, I share his anxiety that if the Commission in Brussels became involved directly in the Party political campaign it would be not only dangerous but could lead to the most unlikely and undesirable consequences. I hope that the noble Lord will agree with me that the Commission has a continual role: to inform the public about the nature of the decisions taken by the European Community, to give publicity to draft proposals, and in general, through its information offices, to spread knowledge about the way that the Community works. Surely that role should continue in the run-up to the direct elections campaign.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me?
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to finish, since I have been speaking for only

735
a minute. The point upon which the noble Lord was laying particular stress was this: that certain candidates might be benefited by propaganda or by the dissemination of information by the Commission because they were in favour of what the Commission had done, whereas others would be disadvantaged because they were against what the Commission had done. On the whole, candidates fighting in the elections for the directly elected European Parliament will be neither totally in favour nor totally against what the Commission is doing. Their Parties will pick out areas in which they believe that the Commission has done well, while in other areas there will be criticism of the Commission. Therefore I believe that the specific fear of the noble Lord about the intervention of the Commission in direct elections is based on a not wholly realistic prognosis of elections, although I admit that the noble Lord knows more about elections than I do.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am concerned not so much about the exercise of the Commission's duty to inform the public of what it is doing as about continued justification and argument in support of what it has done against other arguments that tend to negative what it has done. I was concerned more about the Commission getting involved in the argument rather than about its reportage and its duty to inform, which it must continue to do.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, the Commission will have to be very careful about how it gets involved in the argument, but it is inevitable that it will be involved in it because it is an essential part of the working of the Community.
May I turn to the main purpose of today's debate and reply to what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, saw as his purpose in intervening, which was to disperse euphoria, to dash some false hopes and to stop looking at the distant vistas. I believe that the Bill that we have before us today is not a Bill for federalists or for Europeans. It is a Bill for democrats. It is a Bill for everybody, because all of the people in this country will now be given the chance to send their representatives to Strasbourg—or, as I hope it will be soon,
736
to Brussels all the time—to argue persistently for the type of European Economic Community which they and their constituents believe to be the most desirable.
Is it really feasible that the great mass of the British public want a leap, a surge towards federalism? Is it really conceivable that the Danes or the French will be giving away any more of their national sovereignty simply by committing themselves to this act of setting up direct elections? We are going to have much more direct representation of the people's views at the centre of the Community's institutions than we have had up to date. I find it strange that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and some members of his Party can argue against more direct communication and more direct transmission of the people's views to the centre of the European institutions. We all know that we have given away some sovereignty, or have pooled it by joining the Community. The way to reclaim it is by sending over to Brussels full-time people to speak up on our behalf.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, made other points, but may I concentrate upon the necessity to make this Bill work. I believe that the Bill will not alter at once the way in which the Community functions. I share that view with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. This new institution will take some time to settle down. People will have to get used to working within it. Many of them may never have been in a Parliament before. The question of immediate granting of new powers is scarcely raised, because these people will take some time to accustom themselves to using the old powers they already have and to learning how to use them. I think any question of new powers is not one which should alarm us.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and others who think like him, need not worry about talk of distant vistas and unrealistic dreams for the future. This is something that happens in the Commission from time to time; we all know this. There are some people there who have to justify their existence by turning out proposals, often for harmonisation. These need bringing down to earth. These people need stopping in their tracks. They are, by definition, remote from public opinion in

737
that amazing Berlaymont building in Brussels; they feel as if they are going into space, not constructing Europe. That is what we need these elected European Parliamentarians for; we want them to make this distancy of vistas realistic and to make those proposals something workable and useful and really down to earth.
My Lords, I do not want to take up your Lordships' time any longer. Speaking as, I hope a prospective candidate, perhaps I should declare an interest, and, it may be useful to have one voice in this debate looking forward to what the role of this new type of Parliamentarian will be. I would very much go along with the list of subjects that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn put forward as a likely workload for a European Parliamentarian. Of course, these British European Parliamentarians will have to work together with their counterparts in the House of Commons. There is going to be necessity for machinery to be set up to liaise with them, so that in such matters as applications to the Social Fund, applications for ECSC grants and loans and all that sort of thing, each of the two sides of the Parliamentary sphere will know what the other is doing. But the most important role—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Gravesend, would agree with rue in this—is to act as a continual regional ambassador, if you like, a spokesman for the concerns within the areas which these European Parliamentarians represent, and as a transmitter of information from Brussels and the European institutions to the areas which the European Parliamentarians will represent.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? How does he think a European Parliament, directly elected, but independent altogether of the national Parliaments, is going to exercise any really influence or power?
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I am delighted the noble Lord has intervened, because that was my closing point. If these European Parliamentarians are to be really effective they must liaise closely with the national Parliaments. It is going to be a difficult matter. Therefore I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, in setting
738
up a sub-committee to look at the relationship between the European Parliament and our own Palace of Westminister. This is something which can only be worked out gradually. There will have to be a series of links between the civil servants who work for the European Parliament, and the groups within the Parliament, and the civil servants who work here, and the Party political structures here. There is no simple or automatic answer. But there is one way in which this link between the two Parliaments can be made, and that is by sending as many Peers as possible to the European Parliament. I urge all of your Lordships to consider standing. If I can give any tips to your Lordships about the likely lifestyle and conditions, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and I can at least agree on this matter. Otherwise, I give this Bill my blessing.
5.5 p.m.
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, in company with all noble Lords who have spoken today, I welcome this Bill, but I must confess that my welcome is somewhat grudging. It is gruding on two counts; in the first place, the Bill arrives here too late; it should have been here many months earlier; and, in the second place, and more importantly, I regret that it does not contain the recommendation of Her Majesty's Government for a regional list but instead has decided in favour of the system known as first-past-the-post. I do not want to spend a great deal of time on this issue, because we shall probably be coming back to it in Committee, but I do think there are three points which are worth making, even though they have been made on many occasions before.
The first is this. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and others have quite rightly pointed out, the European Parliament is in no way analogous to the British Parliament. It is not a legislative body, it is simply a consultative body. I think it is perhaps worth remembering that all Parliaments have started in that way; in most cases, certainly in Europe, the early Parliaments were simply a gathering together of certain people, elected on a very limited franchise, to advise the Sovereign, to express their views, to give an indication of what might be possible and what might not be possible,

739
and no more than that. Power resided elsewhere, and that is exactly the case with the European Parliament.
I have no objection to it being called a Parliament rather than an Assembly so long as we realise the very great difference between a consultative assembly and a legislative body. That being so, there is no reason whatever for us to say that because we have always elected or today elect our national Parliament in such and such a way it is essential that we should stick to such a way for the European Parliament. It is a different body that we are electing.
I would also suggest that the Member of the European Parliament is a different animal to the Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. He has a different role to fulfil, and different functions. We all know that his constituency, however it is to be delimited, will be a very much larger constituency than the constituencies of the United Kingdom Parliament. It will in many cases contain something like half a million people. It is impossible for any Member of Parliament adequately to represent half a million people as individuals. He cannot hold surgeries and be available to half a million people to come with all their problems. He cannot cope with the multitude of problems that arise and all the different personal factors dealing with which is such an important part of the role of the British Parliamentarian. What he must be, as I think Lord O'Hagan said, is an ambassador for his constituency; he must represent the interests of his constituency and he must be available to all the different interests and pressure groups of his constituency.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Is it not true to say that any Member of the European Parliament is representing not his constituency but his country as a whole?
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, I hope it is certainly not true to say that. In my view, he must represent his constituency and the interests of his constituency. He does not go there as a national delegate, waving his Union Jack of Tricolour or whatever it may be. He goes there as the
740
representative of the constituency of a certain part of London, of East Anglia, of Wessex or whatever it may be, to represent their interests, to look after their interests and to promote the efficient government of the European Community as a whole. Therefore, we cannot argue that it is essential to follow the pattern that has already been laid down. We can start, if we so wish, with a completely clean sheet because we are electing a different type of person to a different type of Assembly.
The second point that I should like to make is that the Members of the European Parliament from, let us say, this country must bear some relationship—indeed, as close as possible—to the general political complexion of their country. We know that under our present system of first-past-the-post it is very rare for either of the major Parties to get more than 5 per cent. more votes than its nearest rival. Yet, it is quite frequent, and not by any means undesirable, that in spite of having only 5 per cent., or fewer, of the majority of the votes a Party may have a majority in the House of Commons of 60 seats or more. In other words, our present system frequently exaggerates the general national trend.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for giving way. Earlier the noble Lord emphasised that, according to his way of thinking, the new elected Members of Parliament would, in fact, represent a region and would not be waving Union Jacks, Tricolours or whatever it may be. In those circumstances of what relevance is the national complexion of the Members themselves?
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, the relevance is that we happen to belong to individual countries and therefore we cannot divorce ourselves from that fact even if we wish to do so, and I do not think that many of us would wish to do that. Moreover, it is also relevant to remember that on the whole the attitudes of mind, and the interests even, of different regions within the United Kingdom, bear a closer relationship to each other than they do with, let us say, Sicily, Bavaria or Southern France. That, to my mind, is the relevance of the national aspect.

741
I shall return to the second point that I was making. If we adhere to the system of first-past-the-post, it may very well be that, although the total number of votes cast for the Conservative Party and the Labour Party—I hope that my Liberal friends will forgive me for excluding them, but it simplifies the argument to have just the two Parties—was between 40 and 45 per cent., as is normal in a General Election, showing a very even balance throughout the country, out of the 81 Members, 60 may belong to the Conservative Party and 21 to the Labour Party. That is not a very effective balance and not a very effective way of representing the political mix that exists in this country at any given time.
Even more important, although that imbalance may not be of very great significance, provided we have a Conservative Government, if the Government were to change—we must remember that the European Parliament is not synchronous with our own Parliament and therefore it will change during the lifetime of Parliament—we could well find ourselves with a situation where our European Members of Parliament still comprised 60 Conservative and 21 Labour Members and yet we have a Labour Government. That could not lead to an effective and happy relationship between the United Kingdom Government and Parliament and the British Members of the European Parliament which all those who have taken part in this debate have said they desire. Therefore, on that ground also, I suggest that the system advocated in the present Bill is by no means the right one.
The third point that I should like to make, which was made by my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is that this system of election is only for the life of the present European Parliament. Eventually, after this one, or possibly with one delay, there will be a common system, and undoubtedly that system will be something closer to some form of proportional representation. I suggest, in the first place, that it is better for us to have a system today which is moving in that direction. Secondly, I would say to those who are afraid of anything approaching proportional representation—even the very cautious approach of the regional list—and who oppose it on the grounds that it is the thin end of the wedge and creating a precedent for our own
742
Parliamentary elections, that that argument cannot hold water for not only the reasons I have already given (that the type of Assembly is different and the type of Member is different) but also for the reason that it is for only a very limited period of five years. For those reasons, I believe that the Government, although timorous, were right to put forward their original proposals, and it is most unfortunate that they were not able to press those proposals with sufficient strength in order to obtain the support of all the Members of another place.
Finally, I should like to reinforce what other noble Lords have said concerning the need for far greater thought than has been given so far to the contacts between the Members of the European Parliament and our own organisations at home. I deliberately say, "organisations", because although primarily it is a question of contact between Members of the European Parliament and Members of Westminster, it is also a question of contact between the Parties to whom the Members of the European Parliament belong; between those Parties in this country and their European counterparts; between Members at Party level as well as at purely political level; and contact—as much as is possible—between all the officials who are engaged and who play such a vital role in the Governments of the European Community.
Although I share the pleasure that has been expressed as regards the activities of my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale and his Committee in giving thought to this matter, I would urge other Members who have great experience and great wisdom to turn their minds to this problem. The real success of the whole concept of Europe, of the Economic Community and of the political rapprochement of the countries composing the European Economic Community, will depend upon the close working together of national Governments, the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and Parliament, and the slow changes in emphasis of the responsibilities and power as between one group and another. Those are the things to which we must now look forward and we must do all we can to ensure that the new "baby" of the European Parliament grows and develops not over the centuries, as other Parliaments have done, but over the decades.
5.19 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, not for the first time I feel somewhat like Daniel in the lions' den, given that I think every speaker until now in a fairly long list has been in favour of this Bill—indeed, some very strongly in favour. However, I am fortified by the knowledge that outside the "den"—if I may so term it—the majority of people in this country have come to share my views on the merits, or rather the demerits, of Britain's membership of the EEC, as recent public opinion polls have demonstrated.
At least one noble Lord has pointed out that in 1975 the British public voted by a majority of over two to one to stay in the Community. Indeed, they did: precisely as I forecast—and in the same proportions—in your Lordships' House five-and-a-half-weeks before the referendum. I refer your Lordships to the Official Report of 29th April 1975, col. 1222. How could it be otherwise when the pro-Market lobby had at least 20 times as much funds, directly and indirectly, at its disposal as the anti-Market camp, and when every national daily large-circulation newspaper was editorially committed to a "Yes" vote.
But I think that if the "Yes" campaigners are honest with themselves, they will concede that the passionate, committed European idealists comprised no more than 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. of those voting "Yes". The rest did so faute de mieux, as they conceived it, with resignation rather than with enthusiasm. Indeed, I suspect that the majority of Conservatives. Liberals and Labour moderates who voted "Yes" were not so much passion ately for the European Economic Community as passionately against Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn. It must have been rather disconcerting to such people when Mr. Benn accepted the electorate's verdict with such alacrity—as many of us suspected he would do all along. Perhaps this is not so surprising when one considers that the policies of M. Mitterand's Socialist Party—which looks like coming to power in France shortly in coalition with its Communist allies—are to the left of those of the Tribune Group, and this is really saying something.
Why has the Market become so unpopular in Britain? Part of the reason is
744
what Professor Ralf Dahrendorf—a commited enthusiast for the EEC, of course, but a sensible one—has castigated as "obsessive harmonisation". No sooner has one silly idea, like the standardisation of bread and beer, been knocked down than another one pops up to take its place. Only yesterday we read that the EEC is pressing British rail to make school children pay full fares on trains from the age of 12 instead of from the age of 14. The irony of all this is that in the United States of America such obsessive harmonisation does not exist. Every State of the Union is free to decide for itself on such diverse and wide-ranging matters as the retention or otherwise of capital punishment, the age at which a person can marry or obtain a driving licence, whether or not alcohol can be consumed, the conditions for the issue of gun licences, speed limits, the taxation on packets of cigarettes, and so on and so forth.
The next reason is the exploding of the always astonishing assertion that adherents to the EEC would in some undefined way transform the cultural and, indeed, the spiritual scene in Britain—that somehow our exposure to Bach, Beethoven, Verdi, Goethe, Dante, Racine, Molière, and so forth would be doubled or trebled by a "Yes" vote. This was always extraordinary logic, but it appears that some people fell for it in 1975.
Next there is the question of our defences. If there is one valid reason which I would concede for giving up or at least pooling some of one's sovereignty, it is surely in the field of defence. Yet there is no greater degree of real cooperation in defence matters now than there was a few years ago. I need hardly remind your Lordships that NATO is by no means synonymous with the EEC; while, on the other hand, one very prominent member of the EEC is, for all practical purposes, outside NATO and is likely to remain so if the imminent elections in France go as predicted.
What does that leave us with? Surely only the material benefits to be derived from EEC membership, if, indeed, they exist on a net basis—that is to say, if the advantages to Britain outweigh the disadvantages; in other words, sheer, down-to-earth pork-barrel politics. In passing, I may say that it looks as though our fishermen, and our farmers who are trying to export lamb to France at the moment,

745
are getting no more than a few gristly lumps of congealed lard from their respective barrels!
If my assumption is right, how will this affect the role of the Members of the European Assembly? If one accepts that the industrialised world in general and Western Europe in particular had gone "ex-growth"—partly as a result of the quadrupling of the oil price and the consequent slow down in world trade and generalised lack of confidence, and partly because the supposed benefits of mergers, amalgamations and giant multinational corporations (old-hat concepts dating from the early 1960s) are now seen to be illusory, such economies of scale as there are being outweighed by the poorer labour relations inherent in large manufacturing units—then it seems clear that benefits conferred on one region within the EEC, whether by way of grants, subsidies or temporary protective tariffs, can be paid for only by indirect levies upon other regions. They will not necessarily be richer regions; they could be those simply less capable of throwing their weight around—those with less political clout, as the saying goes.
To the extent that it is the relatively richer regions that must pay, Britain will certainly fall into that category once poorer countries like Spain, Portugal, Greece and ultimately perhaps Turkey, enter the Community. It will no longer be possible for us collectively to hold out the begging bowl, particularly as the present generation of West Germans understandably no longer feel personal guilt about what happened 35 to 40 years ago, and are no longer prepared to act as the uncomplaining paymasters of the EEC.
If Members of the Assembly wish to have any chance of retaining their seats, therefore, they will have to put the wishes and interests of their constituents first and considerations about being "good Europeans" second. By "good Europeans" I mean someone who puts the supposed interests of the EEC as a whole above the short and medium-term interests of his constituents. This is because although people are prepared to make sacrifices for their own country and countrymen, they will not willingly do so for abstractions to which they feel no loyalty or patriotism: a man may be
746
prepared to die for England but he is hardly likely nowadays to wish to lay down his life for Luxembourg. Indeed, to the extent that any Briton nowadays is prepared to die for a country other than his own, he is far more likely to do so for our former wartime ally, Norway—a country which is outside the EEC—than for Luxembourg or, indeed, for France or West Germany which are members of it.
On this score—and I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, is no longer in his place—in a most interesting letter in this morning's issue of the Daily Telegraph he suggested, if I may clumsily paraphrase him, that the only way in which the various races and tribes of an independent Zimbabwe could become a cohesive, united society, is by fighting shoulder to shoulder against a common enemy. Similarly, I believe that only war or some similar common sacrifice against an external threat will ever unite Europe in the way the federalists wish. Pray God that nothing like that ever happens.
It may be asked, in view of the very welcome probable tendency towards a Gaullist Europe des Patries as opposed to a federal Europe, why I do not support the Assembly which, if my earlier reasoning is correct, will tend to accentuate the Gaullist tendencies and knock out some of the less attractive features of the EEC as it exists at present: indeed, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, indicated that an Assembly was likely to clamp down hard upon obsessive harmonisation.
There are at least two reasons—I shall not go into them fully. The first is that human nature will dictate that the extremely well-paid Members of the Assembly will, understandably and rightly, seek to justify their salaries by trying to extend their powers. I suspect that the House of Commons will resist this under Clause 6 of the Bill and that this will lead to endless conflict—just as there is likely to be endless conflict between the House of Commons and a Scottish Assembly in Edinburgh if the latter should come into being.
Even more likely to lead to division and conflict is the question of the salaries to be paid to members of the Assembly. For a married man with two children

747
under the age of 11 the salaries suggested are equivalent, on a grossed-up basis, to between £55,000 and £85,000 per annum before tax at United Kingdom rates. What young man or woman with drive, energy and ambition, anxious to do the best for his or her family, will put himself or herself up for the House of Commons in such circumstances, where salaries are so very much lower? I believe that this will drain talent from the Commons in particular, and possibly from Britain in general. It will weaken the cohesion of an already confused and divided United Kingdom. Although I recognise that the passage of this Bill is to all intents and purposes a fait accompli, and I have no intention of opposing it, I feel that I must register my forebodings.
5.29 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I was waiting for the punch line in the most interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. It was really a speech presenting all the cogent reasons which exist for this country to leave the European Community, but it did not actually ask that we should do so; nor would it be reasonable to do so only three years after a referendum which said that we should stay in. It was not a speech giving reasons against increasing the element of democracy in the institution's of the Community, as I expect the noble Lord would agree.
I should like to raise one point about salaries. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, quoted a figure which has been proposed. He did not say who had proposed it and I do not know who proposed such an enormous figure. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us?
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I have taken these figures from House of Common's debates. I have taken the salaries net of tax of between £16,000 and £21,400 and grossed them up at United Kingdom tax rates.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I assume that some Member of the House of Commons reported a proposal made by somebody else somewhere, I do not know who or why, but the salaries of the
748
directly elected members remain to be decided. The matter is completely open. They may approximate to the British level which, apart from the Irish, is the lowest in the Community, or they may approximate to the German level which is the highest. There is a wide discrepancy, so I think that nobody should allow their opinion to be swayed by any guess as to what the salaries will be.
In opening the debate my noble friend Lord Harris spoke about the provision in the Bill whereby there should be no public inquiries, and so on, when the Boundary Commission lay down the first boundaries of the new big constituencies, and I expect that that is welcome to all sides of the House. We have to get on. He also spoke, though, of provision for traditional public inquiries—this is how I understood him—if there were any consequent change to the boundaries laid down now under this Bill.
That worried me a bit, because I do not know whether the Government are losing sight of the decision which already exists that we shall have direct elections under our national systems only once (we hope next year), and that the second time we have direct elections they will be under a uniform system. If we are only going to do it this way once, there will surely be no need to adjust the boundaries before the next election, because in the next election it is to be done under a different system which we do not yet know. My ear just caught that whizzing past and my heart missed a beat. I hope that the Government are not weakening in their agreement with other Members of the Community that the second direct elections to the European Parliament, or Assembly, shall be by a unified common European system.
Speaking first for the Opposition the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said that nobody should reproach the Conservative Party in the House of Commons for the delay because they had chosen to insist on first-past-the-post. I do not do so, but I do reproach them for insisting on first-past-the-post. For reasons which have been explained very lucidly by my noble friend Lord Walston, and which I shall not repeat, I think it would have been better to go some way towards the common stock of continental systems even in this first election.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to interrupt? I apologise for not having listened, but I was engaged in what was a rather urgent conversation for political and not personal reasons, and I apologise for not having heard his former statement. Perhaps I should make the point here that the Conservative Party had a free vote on the method of election, and well over 40 members of the Conservative Party in fact voted for proportional representation. I think that that can be checked in Hansard. I have not got the exact figure, but a very good number of Conservative Members in fact voted for the other system; so it is not correct merely to ascribe just to the Conservative Party the vote on first-past-the-post.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, unless I am mistaken, more Conservative Members voted for first-past-the-post than Labour Members, and the House of Commons' decision was due to a Conservative vote, though not a whipped one, and all honour to them for not having had a whipped vote. The point about this is that I hope that the Conservative Party and leadership, between now and the second direct elections, which we expect to be in five or six years' time, will be thinking about matters and coming to terms with the absolute certainty that we shall have to have PR, and that we are the only country in the Community not to have PR of one sort or another for our own domestic elections. We are the only country in the Community to have first-past-the-post, and one may hope, supposing—which I can hardly conceive will be the case—there were a change of Government between now and the second direct elections to the Community, that a Conservative Government would not oppose or delay the adoption of a common European system which would not be first-past-the-post.
A word only about the question of Commission intervention in the elections, which my noble friend Lord Bruce raised with such vigour. I agree with him that this is a dangerous possibility. I think I prefer Lord O'Hagan's formulation, that the Commission must proceed with extreme caution, rather than Lord Bruce's outright request that they keep out, if only because my noble friend seemed to take it for granted that anybody who backed the Commission's record and
750
intentions would stand a better chance in the direct elections.
I am not sure that that is automatically so. I could see quite a large political future for a candidate who put himself up as the little man standing against the big battalions and saying, "Look, there are 5 million units of account against me in justifying the Commission record. I say that the Commission record is lousy. I say the Commission's intentions are bureaucratic, despotic," and so on. I know who would get the bigger headlines; it would be the little man, and not the man who agreed to accept the kiss of what might very well be only suspended animation if not outright death from the Commission. However, hat is a sideline, and I want to conclude simply by adding my voice to those who welcomed this Bill. I wish it had been earlier. I am glad that it is here. It does not matter what system of election we have this time because it is only once, and so let us pass the Bill as quickly as possible without amendment.
5.37 p.m.
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, I think your Lordships should all be grateful to another place for having overcome so many of their objections, suspicions, and general wariness of our politically crossing the Channel, so that we have been given a Bill which can, so it seems from this afternoon's showing, get on to the Statute Book without a great deal of hindrance and with very little change. In that I associate myself, of course, with most of the speakers this afternoon, including my good colleague my noble friend Lord Bruce, with whom I have to say at the beginning I disagreed passionately on certain emphases. That is a sad thing to me because we have walked so many roads together, including the one from Aldermaston. To differ from him on such a fundamental thing as the importance and evaluation of the rôle of the European Parliament vis-à-vis the Commission and the Council is a saddening thought. I am quite certain that on reflection, and after further experience of the Parliament outside of the close confines of that Budget Committee, he will realise what opportunities there are for us, the ordinary Members of Parliament, to be of great influence.

751
This afternoon I think that we owe the ease with which we look forward to further debates on this Bill to the completely negative attitude of the Opposition in the other place and, so far as I can see, the Opposition here today. Not one person has stood up and said that the present system of selection of members to that Assembly is to be preferred to that of election. If some person has dared to advocate that—the finger is pointed at my noble friend Lord Bruce, but I did not know that he had gone that far—it is due entirely to the fact that opponents of this Bill have attempted to sidetrack the major purpose for which we exist in these two Houses by talking about funny distractions like the levels of salaries which, at this stage, as has been pointed out, are purely and simply hypothetical and the creation of journalists, and so on, in Brussels.
Each week we get a dossier of gossip from gossips which purports to be news, but to most of us it never is news. We can therefore debate this matter with the knowledge that we need not talk about whether or not it is going to be more profitable to be a Member of the European Parliament and devote five years of one's life to that purpose, or to be a Member here.
For me the accepting of the verdict of the public in the three and a half year old plebiscite and the sighting of the new horizons which it opened up make this Bill the essential next step towards the democratisation of the European Community. Hopes are now high in Europe among all parties that in the next few years Greece, Spain and Portugal will be with us. At the moment they are showing a healthy eagerness to join the family. What an insult it would be to them, whom we feel we have converted to a democratic way of life, if the first thing they found was that the European Parliament scorns direct elections as its means of getting Members. To them it would be a "con" trick of the worst kind. I am certain that we have a duty to these newcomers to democracy to make the European direct elections work and properly reflect the spirit of our countries. If doubts still persisted or were given voice to by the leaders of our Parties or our Press about the need for a democratic way of selecting
752
the Members of the European Parliament, then I believe that expansion itself could be endangered.
This is a simple Bill but it may be the signal for opening an entirely new chapter in world politics. Certainly it will demand a new kind of politician. Of course, the need for the old will still continue. I am quite prepared to concede that there will always be a place for a Jim Callaghan or a Mrs Margaret Thatcher. The rewards for such a new politician, a new Member of a new Parliament in Europe, will be the knowledge that he is making decisions not only on behalf of the people of one country but for the people of nine. Then, if he is as lucky as I am to be on the Development Committee, will be the realisation that he is deciding the rate of development for the people of 53 nations associated with us through the Lomé Commission. This is a tremendous challenge and I believe that it needs the dedication of people to the job to which we shall elect them. It will not give them time to continue as Members of the other place. I am certain that the job if properly done is so gigantic, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, believes to be of little significance.
I recall being in Europe last Tuesday and then sitting on two different Committees, the Development Committee and the External Trade Committee, during the morning and afternoon of that week, and the many profound decisions which I was called upon to make—highly professional, highly intricate—decisions regarding GATT for which a thorough knowledge of the background papers is required and recommendations from various sources have to be studied. There were recommendations about what should happen to the next Lomé Convention; what our relationship with those 53 underdeveloped countries should be; whether there was an opening for intensifying trade with the Comintern countries; whether there was a possibility of intensifying trade with China and with Yugoslavia. These are but a few of the world important items on which a decision had to be made. One would be neglecting one's duty if one did not attempt to equip oneself to be in a position to question the Commission, perhaps to differ from the Commission and its representatives who are always at these Committees. I and my colleagues

753
attempt to be in that position, but we could not do it if we were to say we could also fulfil a double mandate.
I think the British public owes a tremendous debt to generations of Members of the other place who at great sacrifice have served their local, geographically confined constituencies—if I may put it that way. They are men who have worked double the average working week in order to find out at the grass roots what the problems, hopes and possibilities are for the ordinary people whom they represent. We cannot discharge our debt to them. But it is no disrespect to them and to people who went before in the same jobs to suggest that that is not the qualification which Europe will require. One wants a wide-angle political eye.
I am sure that some of the items I have mentioned indicate to your Lordships that a half-timer on this job is no good. That is why I think that in the next few months the political Parties have a tremendous duty to see that the job specifications which I have indicated—an intensity of interest in the world at large and the inter-relationship between various nations, the Community and the world—are met, and to see that those people get a fair show at these election conferences. It is in their court and I hope my own Party, which has been laggard up to the moment, will make amends and produce a fine body of men and women.
5.49 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, if I may say so the speech of my noble friend Lord Castle has cheered me enormously, and perhaps when I come to the end of my speech he will realise why I say so. I am a convinced European. Ever since I was a member of our delegation to Strasbourg, to the Council of Europe in the early 1950s, I wanted this country to be much more closely connected with our European friends. We have waited what seems an interminable time for this debate. Indeed, there must be many who wondered if it would ever come. When I got here today and looked at the list it seemed to be as far away as ever, but everyone has exercised a self-denying ordinance and I do not propose to break that procedure.
When Britain's membership of the European Community was endorsed, and
754
endorsed decisively, in the referendum in 1975 I anticipated with great pleasure the debate we are having today. But in spite of the help given me by my noble friend Lord Castle, that pleasure has evaporated. I have no doubt, and I am sure nobody else has any doubt, that this House will give the Bill a Second Reading today and I wish I could leave it at that, but I am afraid that is not possible. I am unable to leave it at that because I believe that certain people in my Party have done almost irreparable damage to the Community and certainly to themselves and to the Labour Party. Whether they have irreparably damaged the British attitude to Europe I do not know, but what I am afraid they have irreparably damaged is the European attitude to us.
I am proposing to give the noble Lord, Lord Monson, the answer as to why the attitude in this country towards the Community has changed; he may not accept it, nor may some of my colleagues, and I may be in trouble all round, but it is what I believe and I am therefore going to say it and I have been wanting to say it for a long time. Personally, I was not in favour of a referendum, but it was pressed for and campaigned for by anti-Marketeers. They were so sure of victory that they agreed to abide by the result. As we all know, the British people said, Yes, and, since then, a steady and constant campaign has been waged against, originally, the Prime Minister, and including those MPs who supported him. I know it is old history to say that whenever the price of tea, coffee, petrol or the price of anything went up it was used as added fuel to the fire; all the rises had come about because we were members of the Community. Although such statements did not bear examination, they were repeated so often that a great many people believed them to be true.
All this antagonism to what the British people voted for—all this deliberate attempt to downgrade the Prime Minister, the Government and the Community—has brought about the hostility to this Bill. That is what the extremists intended and that is what they have done, and it is my belief that it is what they will continue to do above ground or below ground. I believe they seek to weaken and destroy the Common Market and I believe that those of us who believe in the

755
Common Market would be very ill-advised to think otherwise.
Obviously, as my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich said and as everybody else agrees, this is a Bill of major constitutional importance. The Government pledged their honour to use their best endeavours to secure the passage of the Bill in time to meet the 1978 deadline. Furthermore, in the case of this agreement to direct elections to the European Parliament, the Government underlined their obligation under international law and practice by promising the necessary legislation in the Queen's Speech of last year, as has been said; so that, briefly and succinctly, what we are discussing today is whether or not a Government commitment made to our partners in the Community and to the country in two Speeches from the Throne should be honoured.
Going back to 26th May of last year, my noble friend Lord Harris said:
"Every single mainland area of this country cast a decisive vote in favour of British membership of the European Community."
To remove any possible doubt, which for any person who cared to listen could no longer have existed, he went on to say:
"The commitment made in the gracious Speech remains the position of the Government. We have in no way retreated from that position."—[Official Report; 26/5/77, cols. 1543 and 1549.]
Today we are not debating the system to be used in these elections. I support a regional list system both on the grounds of merit and because I believe that a simple majority system, if applied to the European elections, would lead to a wholly unrepresentative result so far as this country is concerned, and that seems to be the opinion of most speakers in this debate. It seems so incredible when it can be only one election anyway, but that is the position we are in.
Looking at this from a Party angle, it seems to me that the Labour Party would gain very few Members under this first-past-the-post system, and I should have thought normally that any such prophecy, if correct, would unite a political Party to look for a more favourable solution; that is surely common sense. After all, Socialists are the largest political group in the European Parliament. Direct elections would link Britain's Labour
756
voters with their fellow Socialists on the Continent, and surely Socialist Parties working together is the best way to build a Socialist Europe. I should have thought that was irrefutable. But irrefutable or not, it is not likely to influence those in my Party who campaigned so hard for a referendum and then refused to accept the result, and those are the people I am talking about today. I am not talking about some of my noble friends, and very good friends in this House, who may not have been in favour of the Common Market but who, I think, have done their best to make it a success; so I am not talking about them at all. I almost said that was why I was surprised at Lord Castle's speech, but that would be an innuendo and would not be meant that way.
I remain convinced that if Parliament supports this Bill—I am sure this House will today—I still believe that this anti-EEC element in my Party, which has done so much harm to the Community, would welcome a result which gave Labour Members so small a membership of the new European Parliament; it would be a further stick with which to berate the Community. We could have done so much for our country and for Europe had we behaved differently. That is why my pleasure has gone. That referendum, the first in British history, produced a more decisive result than any General Election has ever done, and our partners expected so much from this democracy of ours, and, I repeat, we could have done so much.
We could have played our full part in an evolving Community to the benefit of all concerned. Instead, what have we had since the referendum? We have had a persistent cry that our membership of the Community has not gone well, is not going well and presumably will never go well. Perhaps here I might quote a remark by Eirlys Roberts in The Times of 31st May last when she said:
"It is scarcely surprising that the Common Market's boat goes a little slowly when so many of the people in it are rowing backwards."
It seems to me that the people I am talking about have done all they could to dissipate the friendship, and certainly the hopes, of our friends in the Community. I have been re-reading two debates in this House; on the United Kingdom and the European Communities on 27th October

757
1971 and the Third Reading of the European Communities Bill on 20th September 1972, and neither gave me pleasure.
As I have no desire to rake up the past, I will say quite simply that the official Opposition in another place at that time emerged with very little credit. If I were at a public meeting and said that I did not wish to rake up the past, I would be asked why I mentioned the matter. I do so simply because I believe that these people will never change. Not for them the voice of the people as expressed in a referendum if the majority does not go their way. They reopened Europe as a political issue when the common voice of the British people had given their decision. I am quite sure that they wish to weaken and destroy the Common Market. But with a General Election on the horizon, however distant, and a Prime Minister determined to stand firm against extremists, tactics have changed. And the intention is to destroy the Common Market from within, rather than, too obviously, from outside.
The main reason why we have not yet made a success, or a full success, of our membership of the Community, is that we have never really tried. The delay in direct elections I regard as both regrettable and unnecessary. I know that my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth—and we all know what he stands for—said that this was not too tragic, and my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington said, if I heard him aright, that other countries are not even as far advanced as we are. But, while accepting both those points, I still think that it was regrettable and unnecessary. To our friends in Europe it seemed an incredible tactic. They believed that our Parliamentary democracy would be one of the principal gifts which Britain would bring to the Community.
Surely at last—though this is not necessary in this House, where we do this—we could let our hopes outweigh our fears. I should like to quote from The Times of 26th November:
"A directly elected European Assembly will not so much diminish the power of nations as provide another dimension of influence. It will force the Commission to take into account not only governments but directly elected representatives."
I suggest once more, and greatly daring, I suggest it to my noble friend, or to my
758
friends in another place, if I have any left, that we in the Labour Party who believe in the Common Market should now stand up and say so, and give support to the Prime Minister. To be silent supporters is not enough. That is why the extremists always win, and that is why I felt that I had to say what I have said today. I believe that a constitutional issue such as this should not be one where we, on my side, stand idly by listening to the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party assuming dint they are the Government of this country. I support the Bill.
6.2 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I could not agree more with everything that the noble. Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, has just said so eloquently. The whole way in which this important matter has been handled in this country is, I regret to say, a sad commentary on the extent to which the European idea here has lately fallen into some disrepute, partly owing to the fact that all our economic ills since 1973 have been successfully attributed by the more fanatical anti-Europeans to the Common Market rather than, as they should be, to the world recession, and partly owing to the intervention of Party politics into a debate which should have been conducted solely on the basis of the national interest.
Had it not been for these two factors, the Government could have introduced the necessary legislation well over a year ago and some form of proportional representation would naturally have been approved, if only for the fact, as has been mentioned once or twice in the House today, that the so-called European Parliament is not a Parliament in the ordinary sense of the word but rather, as it were, the expression of European public opinion. What is or is not desirable in this country as a voting system is consequently in no way relevant to it.
Of course the Liberal Party is in favour of PR in any form 9f election—preferably the single alternative vote system which operates perfectly successfully, as we all know, in Northern Ireland. So as a matter of fact is about two-thirds of the population of this country, according to the polls, to say nothing of at least a

759
couple of hundred Members in another place, or perhaps even more. But until circumstances dictate its adoption—and one day they will—it is impossible to have it here, chiefly, I am afraid, because quite a number of Members of the other place would cease to be Members if it were adopted. It is as simple as that.
But fears that the adoption of PR for the European Assembly might encourage its adoption here were undoubtedly a major factor in the decision in another place on the first-past-the-post system. There is no doubt about that. And when to this there was added that of the numerous and determined anti-marketeers who wanted, as I think the noble Baroness has just said, above all to delay the direct elections and if possible to scupper them altogether, a large majority not unnaturally decided against the only system before the House the adoption of which could have resulted in the elections being held this year. It was thus essentially a rather strange combination of the Tories and the Tribune group which dealt the European idea a blow from which it is possible it may never recover.
However, all that is water under the bridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has told us that in his view it would be useless to send back the Bill to the Commons with the PR clause reinstated. This opinion is apparently also shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. My noble friend Lord Banks, on the contrary, made a powerful plea that it should be referred back with the original clause reinstated. He made that plea on behalf of the Liberal Party. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, seemed to be (unless I misunderstood him) rather hesitant.
All that is a matter which we can best discuss at the Committee stage, so I shall not dwell upon it now, except to say that at one time I thought that this House might be well advised to send the Bill back with a new clause based on the German "topping-up" system. I did not agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said. I thought, for instance, that he rather ignored the fact that the directly elected Parliament will have to be based on some Party system if it is to function at all and that
760
the elections in this country must also be conducted on a Party basis, otherwise it will be impossible to get them organised. I did not agree with him altogether on that, but I agreed with much of the rest he said and I certainly agreed with his eloquent plea for the adoption of something similar to the German system, which would be very fair and indeed very easy to work.
But I am told—and I believe that this is fact—that even if such a scheme were approved here an Amendment to that effect would not have the slightest chance of going through the other place, so I shall not press it, even in a purely personal capacity which otherwise I might have done. In any case, we must all hope that the Bill will become law as soon as possible. There may still be a slip between the cup and the lip and our general objective should certainly be to ensure that direct elections take place not later than May or June next year. I do not want to appear pessimistic; nevertheless it is true that, even by then, if things go on as they are now going on in the world generally, we may all of us, under the force of the recession, have been swept over the dam, as it were, into the dangerous currents of economic nationalism. It is not even certain, especially in view of the dismal example we have set, that all our partners will pass the necessary legislation. After all, we have successfully demonstrated that one veto can hold up a whole operation. In other words, the outlook is still obscure.
But does it all matter? If one takes the view that seems to be held by a majority in the Government (and here I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said in this respect), namely, that since the European Parliament, whether or not directly elected, cannot ever have any real powers, or is very unlikely ever to have any real powers, it can only be a talking shop, which we nevertheless have to put up with owing to a rather ridiculous Treaty obligation, then there is, under that thesis, admittedly no cause for alarm in any further delay. It is possible that, generally speaking, this is the view of some of the official Opposition too. I do not know. Maybe it is even the prevailing mood of the country at large. I would not necessarily deny that.

761
But, my Lords, it is a view which is profoundly mistaken. Far from being a useless talking shop, there is every likelihood that the directly elected European Assembly, if it is ever established, will be the one means capable of making the Community work, resulting, in the end, in what might be called some new form of political entity. This is exactly what the more intelligent of the anti-Marketeers fear; and from their narrow, nationalist point of view they are quite right in so fearing.
In the few remaining minutes, my Lords, I shall attempt, therefore, to summarise what I have in fact been saying for a long time now in justification of this general idea. As we all know, the new elected Parliament will have no formal powers, as has been said again and again, additional to those of the present nominated ones unless all the Nine Governments and all the Nine Parliaments agree that it should have such powers. But this will in no way prevent it from having very considerable political influence—and this is whore I would take issue, if I may, with something which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said. Why? Because the Parliament will work, as indeed it works now, in the closest co-operation with the Commission. At all the meetings of its committees there will be a representative, often a high-ranking member of the Commission, who will freely take part in the debates and in the framing of the resolutions. Then, when these resolutions are discussed in the plenary, again the Commission will participate fully in the long debates; and when it is finally approved it will therefore undoubtedly represent the views not only of a large number of acknowledged experts—because that is what the the members of the Commission really are—but also something which after all reflects what will no doubt be a large majority, possibly regardless of Party, of informed European public opinion.
I say "perhaps regardless of Party" because it may well be that when we get down with the Commission to a realistic—and I repeat, "realistic"—investigation of some of our major problems even the major political groups such as the Socialists, the Christian Democrats or the Liberals may sometimes find themseves divided. They are now, occasionally.
762
Of course, purely nationalist considerations must sometimes influence the Assembly, too; but the great thing is that when the elected Deputies representing European public opinion, as they undoubtedly will, discuss these great matters they will be forced by the very fact that they are sitting in a European body to look at things from a European rather than a purely nationalist point of view.
In the Council, of course, it is much more difficult to arrive at any form of consensus, as we all know all too well. The Ministers sit surrounded by the serried ranks of experts all normally intent as far as they are concerned on one thing; namely, to succeed in asserting the particular interests of the nation and to see that our country is not done down in any way by our partners. Compromises are therefore slow to come by and often the very opportunity to arrive at them is lost. But if the Commission backed up by the elected Parliament submits some scheme for approval it is much more likely to be considered favourably; and in any case, since it will undoubtedly represent the considered public opinion of the whole Community, it will be impossible not to take it seriously.
Your Lordships may again ask, "Why?" I will tell your Lordships. It is because once they have agreed on a resolution there is no doubt that the elected representatives will for the most part come back to their constituencies and make speeches in its favour, and they will of course also seek directly to interest their own Party colleagues in their national Parliament. The point has been made already; I have forgotten by whom, but obviously it is a sensible thing to do. They will come and seek to get into contact with their own Party colleagues, and since they will not necessarily be under the same compulsion to support purely local interests—because, after all, they are elected to a European Parliament—they will probably be able to make many converts to some proposal which may perhaps not be supported in the Council by the Government concerned. I am not necessarily referring to this Government, but any Government in the Community.
Anyhow, my Lords, this, very broadly speaking, is how I see the new Parliament functioning. Indeed, unless it does function

763
more of less in this way it may be that the Community will lose all impetus and thus most probably go into some form of slow decline. That is what the President of the Commission, Mr. Jenkins, said recently in Brussels, and I think he is right. Either you go forward steadily or you go backwards. It is like riding a bicycle: if you do not go on you fall off. However, there will certainly be some—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—who will say "Why not? Why should it not go into a slow decline?" The EEC in spite of what many of us—
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Will the noble Lord explain exactly when I said that I hoped the Community would go into a slow decline? He should not put words into my mouth, surely.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I apologise for that. I did not really mean to say that the noble Lord wanted it to go into a slow decline, but I thought perhaps that he was not very optimistic about its future. That is all; I may be wrong. If I have it wrong, I apologise.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am just a realist, that is all.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I would say that it was I who was being the realist! After all, even if the Community does not progress towards the federation of our dreams, which after all is quite possible—I myself doubt whether it will ever be something like the United States Of America, but that is my personal view—it may well be thought therefore to be an idealistic concept which is bound to fail when confronted with harsh reality and that it would be fitting that we should soon revert to what is the only political reality; namely, the nation. That is the argument of people who think that way. My Lords, these so-called realists just do not know what they will be in for if things could indeed turn out like this.
Although we could indeed all go back in theory to some kind of system based purely on nation States, this could only now in present circumstances in the world be possible on the basis of a protected and therefore inevitably a directed economy. No doubt this could work. Whether it
764
was directed by the Left or the Right hardly matters; everybody would simply have, as in war-time, to do just what they were told. In other words, a directed economy would function only given a total suppression of liberty, and democracy as we know it would naturally disappear. There is no doubt about that.
Nor is it any good thinking that, if the Community should break up, we would all simply revert to something like a free trade area, which has been suggested by a good many of the anti-Marketeers. The nationalist forces which had resulted in the disruption of the Community would be far too strong to contemplate any freedom of trade whatever form that might take. It need hardly be said also that even if some new free trade area were possible, which I do not think it would be, it would not be compatible with any attempt to create some common foreign policy, still less some common defence policy, among what are, after all, the few remaining contiguous democratic outposts—because that is what we are.
What, too, would be likely to happen—and I entirely agree with the noble Lord who mentioned this matter; I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Castle—in that event, to the system of aid established by the Convention of Lomé? What, in short, would be the whole relationship of a nationalist Europe to the third, the fourth and indeed the whole developing world? My Lords, we are going through a very difficult and dangerous period—I repeat, a dangerous period—in world affairs. I suggest that the safest way out for us is to make the Community work, and the best way to make it work is to get the elected European Assembly working. It is a shame that by our own action we have held this up. But let us now try to forget the past and concentrate all our energies on preparing for the successful advent of the new Assembly in just over a year from now. I agree with all those noble Lords who have said that this, far from being meaningless, is a great and welcome event in the long history of this country.
6.20 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, as I have before now had my fair share of twitting the Government, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in particular, at the

765
slow production of this Bill, it is only right that I should preface my remarks by saying that it is with considerable pleasure, and one might say relief, that one now sees it appearing to go through its various stages in your Lordships' House. Because we have waited so long, and because we have so frequently debated the principles which really encompass this Bill, perhaps I may be forgiven if I say that for all the importance of this Bill this does not seem to be a very great Parliamentary occasion.
It may be because there is, as I have tried to say, such a wide measure of agreement among noble Lords as to the desirability of the Bill and its speedy passage through this House. Indeed, there have been very few objections to the Bill. There was the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who took what may be called the traditional anti-European view; and I shall leave him there. That is how I understood it.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I did not take an anti-European view but an anti-EEC view. Europe is not synonymous with the EEC.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I will not exchange casuistic sophistry with the noble Lord. There was his view for what it is worth. There was also the view of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, who took a rather different view. If I do not misrepresent his attitude, he said that this is a good Bill because it came from the Commons, but that the European Parliament or Assembly is an insignificant sort of place, it is not important now, it is unlikely to develop much importance in the future and, therefore, by inference this is not a very important Bill. I think that is a fair way of summing up his attitude. To drive his point home, he says that with the possible exception of The Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Observer, and one or two other papers, nobody mentions the European Parliament; neither the papers nor the media. If we think of the Sun and the Mirror, they do not very often mention this House unless one of us gets into trouble—and if the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is going to be on page 3 not only must he get into trouble but he must also show quite a lot of flesh as he does it.
766
My Lords, I do not think we can measure the importance of this Bile and the importance that it will be to all those who live in Europe, whether within the. Community or without it, by what the more popular parts of the newspaper industry think of it. But I suppose that we all of us have our own ideas as to how the European Community will progress in the future. I suppose that some of us, like the noble Lord, Lord Banks, think in terms of federalism; some of us, perhaps, are more concerned that we should try to contain the sillier forms of harmonisation which are sometimes pressed upon us. But all of us realise that any directly elected Assembly will certainly play, as I think at any rate, a very much greater part in the future.
If one considers for a moment an Assembly which is directly popular, directly-elected, with Members who are able to devote all their energies and time to European affairs, who are properly paid, and, I hope, with the proper back-up service to be able to do their job, it may be that this will be a matter which might commend itself to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. If I may say so, she made a courageous speech, but it was a speech in which I did not detect very much hope. I agreed with much of what she said. I should have thought that those of whatever Party who are subversive to the European ideals and our democracy might well find their rôle much more difficult in the future if those who are elected to the European Parliament can say, and say with truth, "We are just as democractic as anybody else."
For myself, I think that once this Bill is law and once we elect our Parliament, it is going to be a new dawn. I remember when some of my noble friends and I got out of the rather uncomfortable aeroplane for the first plenary session at Strasbourg—and I think that I walked up to the Hemicircle; and I daresay the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, arrived in a large car. We all, playing our various rôles, humble and not so humble, greeted the whole idea as a great and exciting experiment. I suppose that by the time the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, had got there—I had gone—there was a change of Government and a good deal less excitement. I venture to think that this is something which the newly-elected Members will generate for themselves in

767
the future. I think that these people—I was going to say "will carve out for themselves a degree of jurisdiction"; but it is the wrong phrase—will compel the Commission and the Council of Ministers to pay attention to them in their consultative rôle.
One of the reasons why there is so much hostility to the European Parliament is that some of our colleagues, particularly in the other place, do not understand the difference between a legislative assembly and a consultative assembly. A consultative assembly, as I understand it, has a perfectly honourable rôle in Europe and is well-known to them; but we see any assembly as a rival. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will agree with me that it was partly for that reason that Clause 6 was added to the Bill. It was to forestall what was thought of (and probably is still thought of) as a dangerous extension of power to be assumed by the European Parliament. I had no such fears myself because I think that if it does get more power it will be in its own way behind the scenes; that it will command a greater consultative rôle; and it will achieve that directly through the Commission and the Council of Ministers.
My Lords, how then has this debate gone? It seems to me that mostly noble Lords were concerned with a number of matters and, above all, with the system of election. Many noble Lords allowed themselves the indulgence, if I may so call it, of talking about their favourite system of proportional representation. I think that we may talk ourselves into a wholly unreal position in the later stages of this Bill if we do not stop and consider very carefully where we are going. The House of Commons by a majority, I think, of 97, dismissed the idea of the regional list system. I have no quarrel with that decision at all. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in one of his few Party references, said that he blamed the Opposition for voting it down in the other place. I think I got the sense of what he said. I see him nodding.
I must say that I regard the regional list system as the most unsatisfactory of any form of proportional representation. Why? For this reason; if Caligula's horse is ever going to be re-elected to anything, it is going to be on the tail-end
768
of some Party list. One can vote, if one wants to, for a brilliant and undoubtedly satisfactory candidate on one's Party list. The others may be rubbish. But all that one can do if one wants, as my noble kinsman Lord Murray would have, as many Labour candidates as one can possibly get elected, is to have the good, bad and indifferent. That cannot be a sensible method of going about an election, in my submission. On the other hand, if one wants to give one's first preference to somebody of one political persuasion and one's second to somebody who is, perhaps, an independent or a "Flat Earther" or something like that, one is stopped from doing so.
It follows from that, that the power of patronage over the list is almost supreme. I for one would not care for that. What in the other place they were up against was voting for something which they knew about and may or may not have approved of, or voting for a new system of which they did not know and probably did not approve.
I suggest that when this matter comes to Committee and later stages we should pay serious regard to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. We are, after all, living on borrowed time so far as this Parliament is concerned. It is not impossible that we would get to a certain stage with this Bill only to find it does not receive the Royal Assent because Parliament has been dissolved; and then, whatever happened in a General Election, the whole thing would be back to square one, and the odium with which that would be greeted by the rest of Europe would be mild now as compared with what would follow. I suggest that the electorate of this country, who are going to be faced with a number of elections of one kind or another in the next year or 18 months, should have the matter kept as simple as possible. I would hope that the major Parties big and small, between the first election and the second one, could possibly work out the common approach which they would put to our European partners, and say, "This is what we think should be the common system for future elections", and do it that way rather than try something new now which probably will not be adopted at the end of the day by the Community as a whole.

769
Other noble Lords were concerned with the extension of the franchise to British subjects temporarily living and working abroad, in the sense that they are outside the jurisdiction of this country. I suppose that would be a desirable amendment, if it could be achieved, and if it could be done in such a way that it would not impede the progress of the Bill. That is something we must all continue to worry about; otherwise, the powers of Parliament are something which will concern us mildly in the future. I do not think these are necessarily matters which need worry us too much because I do not think the European Assembly is going to prove much of a rival to the Palace of Westminster in the foreseeable future.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will either answer the pertinent questions which my noble friend Lady Elles put at the beginning of this debate or, if he does not, will indicate when he will; and, if he cannot, will at any rate take them on board so that he can tell us at a later stage of the Bill. Otherwise, we may turn nasty; but, save for that, we on these Benches will do everything to speed this Bill on its way. We have asked for it for long enough, and now it comes, we greet it.
6.34 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, may I begin by welcoming the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, back among us. He has been away from us for a number of weeks with a disagreeable illness. We are all delighted to see him back despite his threat that he may in certain circumstances turn nasty. We have had an interesting and well informed debate. Most speakers have inevitably concentrated on the central issues which I defined when I introduced the Bill. The issues of the principle of direct elections to the European Assembly; the electoral system to be used, which has obviously dominated our discussions today; the allocation of seats; and the powers of the Assembly, which have been touched on by the noble Earl. There are a number of other questions which have been raised particularly in relation to various aspects of the electoral procedures to be followed. Obviously, we will have the opportunity of discussing these when we come to the Committee stage.
770
There are one or two issues of some considerable importance which have been raised in this debate to which I should like to turn my attention now. The first is a matter raised by my noble friends Lord Thomson of Monifieth and Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and the noble Lords O'Hagan and Lord Drumalbyn. The first of these is the relationship between the directly elected Members of the European Assembly and Members of our own Parliament here in Westminster. This is a matter of great importance. We are indebted to our colleagures for having raised this particular matter. A number of Members of this House are, under the present arrangements, nominated as representatives to the European Assembly; and, I am glad to say, a number have spoken today. I believe that since the United Kingdom's entry into the European Community in 1973 Members of this House and another place have made a most important contribution to the work of the Assembly. Undoubtedly in the case of Peter Kirk he laid his life down for Europe. There can be absolutely no doubt about that.
The pressure of membership of the European Assembly is a formidable burden to Members of either House. We should recognise this, and on an occasion such as this, pay tribute to many of our colleagues who have played such a notable rôle in Europe. It is proposed under the Bill that Members of this House as well as another place should be eligible to stand for election to the European Assembly under the new arrangements. But, giving a personal view, I am bound to say that I would find it surprising if many Members of another place were able to get through a selection conference of any of the political Parties, given the burden of work to which I have referred.
However, I am glad to say that we have had the opportunity today to hear the beginning of a number of election campaigns by some of our colleagues. I hope I will have the opportunity to vote for my noble friend Lord Murray of Gravesend as a representative to the European Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan; indicated that he too would be contesting the elections. I will be saying a word or two in a moment about some of our election procedures, but I can give both noble Lords the guarantee that, despite the fact that they both used this opportunity

771
of beginning their campaigns, there is no danger that this will be set against their election expenditure in any regulations laid down by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Obviously, if Members of this House get elected to the European Assembly this is one way in which there would be a relationship between that Assembly and our Parliament in Westminster. As the House will be aware, there have been proposals that all the directly elected United Kingdom Members of the European Assembly should be given membership of this House. That is one of the proposals which has been made. Alternatively, it has been proposed that such directly elected Members of the European Assembly should be given speaking but not voting rights in another place. I do not think that these suggestions have found general favour in either House and there would be obvious difficulties about implementing either of them.
The Select Committee of another place suggested that the most sensible way of proceeding would be to allow the informal links between this Parliament and the European Assembly to be established before considering the need for more formal arrangements. This is an area where we cannot hope to solve all the many problems of the inter-relationship between Parliament at Westminster and the Assembly in Strasbourg at once. Nevertheless, it is right to say on an occasion such as this that I very much welcome—as I am sure everybody else did—the speech by my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale indicating that some thought is going to be given to this by one of the Sub-Committees of this House. It is a matter of great importance and it is most desirable to get this particular matter right. The other main issue to which I want to refer is the timing of the first direct elections to the European Assembly.
There are two particular aspects to this problem. The first relates to the arrangements which must be made within the Community; the second relates to the arrangements which have to be made within the United Kingdom.
On the first point which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, Article 10 of the Council decision of September 1976
772
provides for the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously after consulting the Assembly, to determine the Thursday-to-Sunday period for the first elections. As I mentioned in opening the debate, consideration is currently being given by the Council of Ministers to a new target date. The noble Baroness asked whether this would be discussed at the Heads of Government meeting in April. I can say to her that we expect the new target date to be considered and, we hope, decided at meetings—I use the plural—which will take place in April.
On the second point, there are various steps which will have to be taken within the United Kingdom before we can finally be ready for these elections. Once the Bill has received Royal Assent, the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland and Wales will publish their provisional recommendations for the single member European Assembly constituencies. They will then allow a month for representations to be made to them by the political Parties and, of course, by others. These representations will need to be considered by the Commissions, which will then make their final proposals in reports to the Home Secretary.
The noble Baroness—and I am now, I hope, about to answer some of the questions she may be about to raise—asked about the timing of Parliament's consideration of the Boundary Commissions' reports and of regulations for the conduct of these elections. As I have indicated, it is expected to take the three Parliamentary Boundary Commissions some four and a half months from Royal Assent before they submit their final reports. We would expect these reports to be laid before both Houses of Parliament in the autumn, although whether it would be at the end of the present Session or early in the new Session, frankly, I cannot predict at this stage.
On the question of the regulations raised by the noble Baroness, we would hope to publish these in draft, perhaps in the form of a White Paper, in the course of the summer, as a basis of consultation with the political Parties and others. We would then plan to lay the regulations before Parliament for approval by the Affirmative Resolution procedure in the autumn, possibly at about the same time as we invite both Houses to take a

773
decision on the reports of the Boundary Commissions.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for answering my questions. There is one further point which arises from his answer with regard to representations by political Parties. Are they to be in writing, will they be oral, or are they alternative? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could comment on that.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think they would probably be both. I think we would invite political Parties to make representations both in writing and, if they wished, to make representations to my right honourable friend or any of my colleages; I am sure they would be glad to meet them. I think it will be clear from what I have said that a great deal will have to be done after this Bill receives the Royal Assent. It is for this reason that the Government wish to press on with the Bill as rapidly as possible.
That brings us to the question of proportional representation, which is a central feature of the argument. I have no doubt that there is in this House a substantial majority who favour proportional representation. There is a very substantial number—and I say this as an old campaigner in debates on this subject over the last four years—of the Party opposite who favour this, as indeed do a number of my noble friends and an overwhelming majority of the Liberal Party. So I do not doubt that in this House there is a majority in favour of proportional representation. But I think we have to ask ourselves, in this connection, one extremely important question: that is, are we really going to send this whole Bill back to another place on an issue of this kind, when there is absolutely no doubt whatever that another place will not decide to change its mind on this question? There would be a significant period of delay if this Bill is sent back to another place. I must make that absolutely clear, and it is only fair to say that a number of noble Lords opposite have proclaimed themselves as firm supporters of proportional representation.
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, have both drawn attention to this danger and
774
I think it is a real one. This is obviously a matter to which we can turn our attention during the Committee stage, but I think it would be an act of folly to disregard some of the risks involved if we decide to reopen this entire question and send it back to another place.
The same point, I regret to say, applies to the narrower question of votes for United Kingdom residents abroad. Again, if an issue of this kind is once again raised in this House and carried, as it may well be in certain circumstances, the whole Bill would have to go back for reconsideration on this important question and again there would be a significant period of delay. I am not saying there should not be full debate on these important questions in this House, but the considerations I am now putting to the House should be taken very seriously, as indeed I am sure they will be, by Members on all sides of the House.
There are two final points I should like to make. I very much welcomed the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. If I may say so, it was a trip down memory lane, because we had all those dear old familiar arguments about the referendum campaign. We had the old "media conspiracy", of course—that was a major element in the noble Lord's speech. On the question of a "media conspiracy", to which the noble Lord was rather attracted, I must draw his attention to one rather uncomfortable piece of historical evidence which appears to go against him. That is that in 1936 Mr. Roosevelt was opposed in the Presidential election by a massive majority of the entire Press of the United States, and in that election he carried every State in the Union, with the exception of Maine and Vermont. It seems to me that we sometimes slightly overstate the power of the Press in these matters. I do not believe that that is the reason why the overwhelming majority of the British people voted as they did in 1975. I think they knew exactly the issues which were put to them, and they consciously decided to vote in favour of continued British membership of the European Community.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I never mentioned the word "conspiracy". I do not doubt for a moment that the majority

775
of the editors of the Press are quite sincere in their beliefs, and the word "conspiracy" was never used or implied.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: However, my Lords, I think that all those who were in the House and who heard the speech of the noble Lord would come to the conclusion that he was suggesting something pretty adjacent to a conspiracy. I turn now to the speech of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, who, as always, made an interesting, hard-hitting speech—one which, I regret to say, I did not wholly agree with, for reasons which I will come to in a moment. My noble friend referred to what he described as "euphoria" by those who were in favour of the Bill. He said that in his view the enthusiasm of those who favoured the Bill was misplaced because the European Assembly was an organisation of no particular importance and under the new arrangements it was going to become an organisation of even less importance. That was the view of my noble friend. That being so, I was slightly puzzled by his anxieties about the publicity campaign of the European Commission because obviously, if it is an organisation of absolutely no importance whatever and under the new arrangements is going to be of even less importance, it is a little surprising that he is so concerned about the publicity campaign of the European Commission, which is of course aimed at drawing attention to the fact that people, for the first time in their lives, are going to vote for an Assembly which is to cover the whole of Western Europe. With great respect to my noble friend, it does seem to me that he must have it either one way or the other.
He raised the question of the cost of this campaign. He was very concerned about that, and obviously it is right that when these regulations are discussed we should devote some attention to the question of election expenses. Certainly I agree with the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that it would be wholly improper if the European Commission were in any way to adopt a partisan position during this campaign. But there is not the remotest likelihood of their doing so. The fact is that a publicity or information campaign of this kind is aimed at simply giving essential background information to the
776
voters of this country. There would, indeed, be a cost of some five million units of account, but this would not be spent in the United Kingdom; it would be spent throughout the whole of the European Community.
That is all that I wish to say to the House on this occasion, save for this. As I indicated when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill, I think that this is an important day for Europe and for this country. It will be an even greater day when this Bill is on the Statute Book, and I hope that we are going to ensure that that day arrives as swiftly as possible.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CUSTOMS ANNUITY AND BENEVOLENT FUND BILL
Examiners' Certificate that no further Standing Order is applicable: Ordered to lie on the Table.
  LEGISLATION: RENTON RECOMMENDATIONS
  LEGISLATION: RENTON RECOMMENDATIONS
  TERRORISM AND HIJACKING: ICAO ASSEMBLY
  TERRORISM AND HIJACKING: ICAO ASSEMBLY
  HIJACKING: SANCTIONS
  HIJACKING: SANCTIONS
  HIJACKING AND TERRORISM: OVERFLYING RIGHTS
  HIJACKING AND TERRORISM: OVERFLYING RIGHTS
  INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM: SANCTIONS
  INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM: SANCTIONS
  EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BILL: GUILLOTINED AMENDMENTS
  EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BILL: GUILLOTINED AMENDMENTS