Sitting of 8 March 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) AMENDMENT ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Secretary Millan presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Amendment; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 75.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ENVIRONMENT

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposal he has to boost construction industry output.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to increase the confidence of the construction industry.
    Mr. Costainasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to increase the confidence of the construction industry.
    Mr Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to boost construction industry output.
    The Secretary off State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): The £800 million of additional public expenditure which has been allocated in the past year for the
    1400
    period up to 1980 will provide a stable level of public sector demand for the construction industry. This will certainly assist in restoring the industry's confidence.
    Mr. Durant: Is the Minister aware that following a number of bankruptcies in the Berkshire area there is still no confidence in the future of this industry? Therefore, will he take three simple steps to restore confidence? Will he, first, drop the proposals to nationalise this industry; secondly, rescind the Community Land Act; and, thirdly, look at the whole question of planning procedures in order to accelerate them?
    Mr. Shore: The first two supplementary points put by the hon. Gentleman are, with respect to him, wholly irrelevant. On his third point, I am only too willing to examine our planning procedures so that we can accelerate them.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the utter depression that exists in this industry will cause more problems in the future in terms of skill, because the young people are not getting the apprenticeships that they ought to get and will be short of skills at a later date?
    Mr. Shore: It is a very serious matter. We are very much concerned to encourage industry and the various public sectors of the industry to maintain the right number of people under training for these skills and to encourage the acquisition of skills in the training centres outside the industry.
    Mr. Costain: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that if, under his blacklisting scheme, a nominated sub-contractor—that is, a sub-contractor which his Department instructs a main contractor to employ—breaks the Pay Code, the Secretary of State is claiming the right to break the main contract? Is not that absolutely abortive of human rights? Is that the way to bring confidence to the industry?
    Mr. Shore: I discussed this matter with representatives of the industry as recently as 28th February. There is a problem in relation to sub-contractors. As the hon. Gentleman knows, these matters are still under discussion between Government Ministers and the CBI.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Berkshire branch

    1401
    of the Royal Institute of British Architects believes that the present fiscal arrangements discriminate against the construction industry? What discussions has he had with the Chancellor about applying full depreciation allowances for new industrial and commercial buildings in the same way as plant and equipment are treated?
    Mr. Shore: We have to try to get this matter in perspective. It is noticeable that over a number of years the discrimination to which the hon. Gentleman refers
    has been accepted by successive Governments in favour of the encouragement of investment. The fact is that there is now a 50 per cent. depreciation arrangement in year one for firms engaging in new factory building. This is a matter that we keep under review, and I am in touch with the Chancellor about it.
    Mr. Hardy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be rather more seemly and a trifle less contemptible if Conservative Members were to encourage Conservative-controlled local authorities to engage in a higher level of construction activity than the very deplorable level which many of them undertake at present?
    Mr. Shore: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. This is particularly relevant in the whole area of house building, particularly local authority house building. However, as far as I can see, there is a very deliberate discouragement from Conservative Central Office and from Conservative spokesmen for local authorities to build.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already done in releasing more resources in this area. Does he agree that a great deal more could be done, above all on house repairs, where a great deal of new employment could be encouraged, with valuable results?
    Mr. Shore: That is why we raised the limits and generally made the conditions easier last July. I have reason to believe that there will be an increasing uptake in improvement work during the coming year.
    Mr. Heseltine: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, far from the responsibility of the Conservative-controlled
    1402
    local authorities, it is the climate within which those authorities are expected to trade that has created the downturn in construction activity, and that the climate is one for which this Government are responsible? Does he understand that the Labour Party manifesto, on which he was elected, promised a stable work force for the construction industry? Why should his assurance be any more valid today than in 1974?
    Mr. Shore: That comes ill from the hon. Gentleman, representing a party whose last major act of the almost forgotten Chancellor—the then Mr. Anthony Barber—was to cut public expenditure by £1,150 million in December 1973, of which over £850 million was in construction. Let us hear no more about stability from the hon. Gentleman.
    As for the future and what the hon. Gentleman said about the climate, at least part of the climate of confidence is reflected in industrial investment. In the past year investment by manufacturing industry in new building increased by 18 per cent.
    Mr. Madden: Is not the fact of the matter that the fortunes of the construction industry rest to a very large extent on the levels of public expenditure? In that regard, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether a massive programme of improvement and modernisation in both the public and private sectors would not only be socially useful but would help to combat high levels of unemployment among building workers? What is happening in that area?
    Mr. Shore: In reply to the original Question, I indicated that we had in fact made a substantial increase in public expenditure to help the construction industry in this coming year—1978–79—and that it would continue at a more stable level into 1979–80 and beyond. I believe that that will help the industry. As my hon. Friend knows, we also wish to see a considerable pick-up in investment in manufacturing industry. The figure that I gave indicates that there are certainly signs of that taking place.

    Weather Damage (European Community Aid)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has

    1403
    yet received an official communication from the EEC Commission about EEC aid for recent flood and storm damage in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Shore: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Blaker: Does the Secretary of State recall that on 15th February the Commission stated that the offer of nearly £1 million in aid for the East Coast of England and parts of Scotland was made after discussion with United Kingdom authorities? Did the Government in those discussions put forward the case for part of the EEC aid going to the Lancashire coast, which suffered severe flood and storm damage in November?
    Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on the point about discussion. There might have been some informal exchanges, but there was no discussion with Ministers before the Commission made its offer. I have subsequently tried to sort out the general terms of the offer that was made. I have very much in mind the point made by the hon. Gentleman, that other areas of the country have also suffered and that it would be helpful if the offer were more broadly spread.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom's contributions to the Community budget in 1977 exceeded receipts by no less than £377 million? Against that background, could not the Common Market mandarins afford to be more generous than they have been so far?
    Mr. Shore: That raises the whole question of the nature and imbalance of the monetary contributions that this country has made. We have been over this ground before. I thought that I should not necessarily raise it on this question of flood relief.
    Mr. Thorpe: Will the Secretary of State confirm that although £900,000 has been received, it has not been allocated specifically to any region of the United Kingdom, and that any suggestion that it has is totally wrong?
    Mr. Shore: I do not think that anyone has made any such suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman will understand from the nature of the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South
    1404
    (Mr. Blaker) that it would be premature to think of allocating it until we have decided which regions are eligible to receive it.
    Mr. Alison: Is the Secretary of State aware that on the basis that help should first come from home, Thanet and the Canterbury District Council, despite the fact that severe damage was caused on 12th January and officials from the Department inspected that damage on 17th January, have still not received a single penny to help towards repairing the breaches in the sea wall and that more damage is threatened later this month?
    Mr. Shore: Help will come from home. We fully accept the responsibility of looking after our own people in our own country. That is the intention of the arrangements that I have already announced. We have urged local authorities to use the powers that they have without any delay to deal with urgent cases of need. They have those powers under Section 138 of the Local Government Act. We have said that as soon as they have firm estimates they are to come to us so that we can decide how much and in what way we can assist them.

    Holyrood House
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated annual expenditure on the Palace of Holyrood House, Edinburgh.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): The estimated gross expenditure by the Department on the Palace of Holyrood House for 1977–78 is £378,940.
    Mr. Canavan: Instead of spending all that public money on a costly white elephant, which is normally used for only one Royal visit and a couple of garden parties every year, will the Government consider the Palace of Holyrood House as a possible meeting place for the Scottish Assembly? If the Royal Family are stuck for digs when they visit Edinburgh, they could apply for admission to the Royal High School.
    Mr. Marks: I should explain that the Palace is open to visitors throughout the year, except on occasions when the Royal Family or the Commissioner stay there. I am not sure whether the Scottish

    1405
    Assembly would want to emulate this Parliament by moving into a Royal Palace as we did in the sixteenth century. On that occasion the King invited the Commons into the Palace and closed the chapel for that purpose. I think that perhaps my hon. Friend's question ought to go to another place.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Joseph Deanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider banning sales of council houses by local authorities where there is a known housing shortage.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): Not at present. But I am concerned that some councils appear to be selling indiscriminately and disregarding local housing needs. I shall be ready to amend the general consent if circumstances warrant it.
    Mr. Dean: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of these post-war houses are being sold at the give-away price of £5,000 and that to replace them by new houses costs £70,000 over the 60-year repayment period? Will he look into the situation in Leeds where the council is continuing to sell council houses although there is a waiting list of over 20,000 families?
    Mr. Freeson: I shall certainly examine further the figures quoted by my hon. Friend. I am rather concerned at the extent to which indiscriminate policies are being pursued in some parts of the country. I shall watch the situation closely with a view to action, if necessary.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every survey that has been carried out has demonstrated that about 80 per cent. of all young people want to own their own homes? Are Conservative-controlled councils to understand that the Minister is now threatening that the Government will take action against them if they meet that need?
    Mr. Freeson: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should introduce a little coolness into his assessment of need in this area and should use his good offices to get local authorities with which he has contact to look at the detailed pattern
    1406
    of housing need and demand in their areas and match their action to that, and not to preconceived indiscriminate policies such as are advocated by him.
    Mr. Ovenden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Medway Borough Council is not only selling houses to sitting tenants but is embarking on an advertising campaign to persuade people living in flats and maisonettes who wish to buy houses to obtain transfers? Does he regard that as consistent with the policy of selling houses to sitting tenants and as fair to those who will have to continue to live for ever longer periods in unsuitable conditions because the houses that they need for their families have been sold off?
    Mr. Freeson: This is an important matter not only to Medway but to local authorities generally. One of the considerations that we have to keep in mind—and I hope that local authorities of whatever political persuasion will have it in mind in considering this matter—is the housing management of total estates, and the transfer of families from blocks of flats to houses which have gardens in which their kids can play. There is an indication that if present policies are per-sued indiscriminately certain blocks of flatted estates will be turned into ghettoes out of which families will not be able to move.
    Mr. Rossi: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no council may sell below the cost of the house in the first place, and that a 20 per cent. discount on current market value provides a substantial capital and revenue gain to local authorities? Will he, therefore, allow local authorities, as of right, to sell at a 30 per cent. discount, which would still show a considerable gain to the taxpayer and ratepayer and give the local authority tenant the mobility that he does not otherwise enjoy?
    Mr. Freeson: First, I have to remind the hon. Gentleman—I thought that he was a Minister in the Department of the Environment at the time—that the 30 per cent. discount introduced by some local authorities was authorised by the then Government at a time of steeply rising inflation in house prices. That was the reason given at the time, but that is not the position now. Secondly, the figuring that he has quoted is not strictly

    1407
    accurate. The 20 per cent. discount is a general rule. I believe that there are some circumstances, unfortunately, where the rule about sale below cost does not arise, and we are giving consideration to that. There is plenty of evidence to show that there is little capital gain. Most council house sales do not take place on the basis of building society mortgages. That form of sale applies to very few.

    Building Firms
    Mr. Fryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to introduce proposals to nationalise building firms.
    Mr. Arthur Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has had any discussions with private sector construction firms regarding their nationalisation.
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to introduce proposals to nationalise building firms.
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to nationalise the construction industry.
    Mr. Tim Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has had any discussions with private sector construction firms regarding their nationalisation.
    Mr. Sainsburyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with building firms regarding social ownership.
    Mr. Shore: I have no current proposals to nationalise building or construction firms; no consultations or discussions have therefore taken place.
    Mr. Fry: Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean about his own views and intentions? Does he support the Labour Party's official policy? If so, has he costed that policy? Does he agree with the late Aneurin Bevan, who said that when we talk about nationalising the building industry we are really saying "Let's nationalise every industry in Great Britain"?
    Mr. Shore: I advise the hon. Gentleman to read carefully the statement made by the national executive committee of the Labour Party that was presented to the last year's annual conference. If he does so, he will find the answer.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall call first those Members whose Questions are being answered, and then I will give a run to the other side of the House.
    Mr. Jones: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is very forthcoming on this question. Has he had correspondence with any of the major British contracting firms? I am thinking particularly of Laing, Wimpey, Wates and Taylor Woodrow. When considering nationalisation, what regard is being given to the overseas activities of such firms, which are extremely beneficial to the balance of payments?
    Mr. Shore: I shall have to check whether, on this matter, I have had individual letters from the firms that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. At present, I cannot recall. However, I understand his point about the great importance of the contribution that major construction firms play in the very large orders that are still to be won, and are being won, for British industry in the Middle East and in many other overseas markets.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that he has not carefully read the policy of the 1977 Labour Party conference on the nationalisation of the construction industry? Is it his intention to press for the implementation of that policy to be included either in the Queen's Speech or the next Labour Party manifesto, whichever is the first? If that is his intention, will he deny that the initial outlay will be £1,500 million and that the annual running costs will be £200 million in the implementation of that policy?
    Mr. Shore: I think that I can safely say that I do not confirm the hon. Gentleman's tortured arithmetic. That apart, I say to him that I have read the document. It is a very good analysis of the problems of the industry. It identifies them in a serious way. As it states, it comes forward, as an interim report, with a number of proposed solutions. There will be further studies by the NEC—and no doubt with other bodies—before further decisions are made.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reference to having no current proposals to nationalise will be severely damaging to confidence in the construction industry and, therefore, to investment and job opportunities? Will he now reassure the House that he has no proposals for nationalisation?
    Mr. Shore: If the hon. Gentleman and and his party had said at a similar stage in the life of the Conservative Government that there was no current proposal to nationalise Rolls-Royce, the Conservative Government would have been safeguarding their position against all eventualities. Thinking does not stop when Members of Parliament become Secretaries of State, and the future of the industry is something with which I am much concerned.
    Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that the Opposition Members who raise these questions today have not read the statement made by the national executive committee of the Labour Party? Is it not also clear that the statement makes clear that the proposal is to establish a national construction corporation, based upon one or two of the major companies? The statement refers to the extension of direct labour organisations and the encouragement of co-operatives at the lowest level. This is not the full nationalisation of the industry. As the Estates Times has said about those who speak for the Opposition, they want to start doing something serious before they are to be taken into consideration on this issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "They have rumbled you."] They have really rumbled Conservative Members.
    Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend knows better than most in the House what is in the document. As I understand it, he presided over the working party that produced it. However, I go slightly further than my hon. Friend. He wrote in Building Week only a short time ago that it may be possible to create a national construction corporation without taking over any contractor. I do not think that it is right for the House to judge any of these matters. They have yet to be concluded. They will be discussed and considered carefully.
    Mr. Ron Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Opposition Members continually call for public expenditure
    1410
    when it will help the construction industry? Is he aware that many Labour Members believe that the industry depends almost completely on public sector orders and that the quicker it is brought into public ownership the better?
    Mr. Shore: The matter that is of the greatest concern to the construction industry does not arise from the questions that the Opposition are throwing at us but lies in the overall demand that can be anticipated in future, in whether there can be great improvements in not only labour conditions, which are extremely important, but labour relations, and in whether there can be greater stability in the flow of orders from both the public and private sectors in future.
    Mr. Heseltine: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that his answer will confirm the worst suspicions of those who have watched the evolution of policy in the Labour Party? Does he also understand that his evasive answer has confirmed that in that policy there is not hostility to nationalisation and that it is simply a matter of timing, of when it can be introduced with the minimum electoral disadvantage to the Labour Party? Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that as long as that ambivalent attitude prevails on the Government Benches, investment will not flow and the present scandalous levels of unemployment in the construction industry will remain?
    Mr. Shore: I believe that the hon Gentleman is in a state of almost permanent political neurosis on the subject of public ownership. I do not believe that any words that I can offer will help to relieve him of that unfortunate condition.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that many Labour Members think that it is a pity that he said today that he had no further plans to nationalise the construction industry? Does he understand that one of the motives behind the Tories tabling so many Questions on this subject is that it assists them to obtain a number of directorships, bearing in mind the activities of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and his connections with Bovis? In view of the bankruptcies which have taken place in the industry and the

    1411
    dwindling number of directorships that are now on offer, obviously the Tories are running into serious problems and may even have to contemplate taking directorships of skateboard companies.
    Mr. Shore: I appreciate that there is a close connection between a number of Conservative Members and particular construction firms. Whether that enables those Members to bring the necessary detachment to bear on the affairs of the industry or gives them added insight into these problems, I leave to the House to judge. In regard to future policy, I must point out that we have yet to have the kind of discussions that are normal within the Labour Party. If and when we make firm proposals on the construction industry or anything else, they will be made public and will be part of the agreed policy of the party.

    House Building
    Mr. Ovendenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for housing starts and completions in the public and private sectors.
    Mr. Freeson: The figures for January 1978 were published on 6th March. After seasonal adjustments have been made, there were 11,000 public sector starts and 11,400 completions in Great Britain; for the private sector the figures are 11,500 starts and 12,900 completions.
    Mr. Ovenden: I congratulate the Government on the number of completions achieved in the public sector in the last three years, because it is a 50 per cent. improvement on the figure achieved by the Conservative Government in their last year of office.
    Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern on the Labour Benches about the decline in public sector starts, as is evidenced by last year's figure and the disappointing figure issued in January this year? Does he not think that the time has come to lift all restriction on local authority building in non-stress areas to compensate for the failure of Tory authorities in stress areas to enable them to meet their commitments?
    Mr. Freeson: I have expressed my concern on this subject for some time. It is a serious matter that there is a prospect of a reduction in the number of starts, not because of lack of resources provided
    1412
    by the Government but following the failure of a number of local authorities to take up those resources, with effects being felt in underspending and lack of housing investment. Before I consider the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend in seeking to solve the problem, I should like to consider other possibilities. We are now examining the matter closely.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware that the Berwick-on-Tweed Borough Council is determined to build more houses but finds it impossible to obtain tenders because of the housing cost yardstick? Will he consider meeting a deputation from the council?
    Mr. Freeson: I do not know about the necessity for meeting a deputation from that council. There are other authorities which face similar problems in the region. I am aware that there are problems in the Northern Region that are more deeply felt than perhaps elsewhere in the country. We are examining the matter closely. We shall shortly have the quarterly review of the housing cost yardstick levels and I hope to take action following that review.
    Mr. James Lamond: Since it is clear that Tory-controlled local authorities are dragging their feet on new housing starts, why does not my right hon. Friend step directly into house building by setting up an English special housing association on similar lines to the Scottish Special Housing Association, which can take over from the Tory councils when they fail in their duty to the public?
    Mr. Freeson: If one were to pursue that proposition—and this is not the first time it has been made—it would take some time, even if adopted, to implement and bring into action. In the meantime, there are other measures that we must consider in seeking to keep the level of housing activity up to that for which we have provided resource levels.
    Mr. Rossi: Does the Minister agree that it is wrong to expect local authorities to increase their borrowings for new building and yet to retain their rate demands within the limits required by the Government? Does he agree that the fall-back in the number of starts has occurred in the private as well as in the public sector? Does he not remember that Shelter condemned the Government's

    1413
    housing record in 1977 as being the worst for 15 years? Furthermore, does he believe that the current policy of mortgage restriction helps private industry to build more houses?
    Mr. Freeson: There are three or four supplementary questions tied up in the hon. Gentleman's comments. The answer to his point about the public sector is "No", because I do not think that the present state of the local rates is a reason for the hold-up in public sector starts. There are other reasons. Uppermost in my mind at present in this context are the policy decisions and influences stemming from the Conservative Central Office, from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, and from Conservatives in the town halls. As for the other supplementary questions put to me by the hon. Gentleman, I shall deal with them when they are put separately.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: If builders know that there are sufficient mortgages available, does it not encourage them? Is not the best way to help keep down house prices to increase the supply of private and council houses rather than to restrict the supply of mortgages?
    Mr. Freeson: I do not follow my hon. Friend's reasoning. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Opposition memories are short. There has been much talk from the Opposition, but there was little action by the Tory Government in the early 1970s. We all know that what happened then was an explosion in house prices and a major collapse in house building in the private sector, from which we are still recovering.
    Mr. McCrindle: If I may attempt to link the matter of starts and completions in the private sector with the subject of house prices, may I ask the Minister of State what effect on house prices will be caused by the fact that the Government are leaning on the building societies? How does that square with the movement towards building societies and the legislation on this subject which is now passing through the House seeking to provide grants and loans to first-time buyers, which may affect prices in the opposite direction?
    Mr. Freeson: If I may take the hon. Gentleman's last point first, these mat-
    1414
    ters were examined and discussed at considerable length when the legislation to which he refers was before the House on Second Reading. Those matters will also be subject to a good deal of scrutiny when the Bill goes into Committee.
    At this stage I merely wish to say that the scheme set out in the Bill to assist first-time buyers is planned to cover the kind of problem with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. The scheme will operate in such a way as to allow adjustment in the market to take place over a period of two years or so.
    On the other point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I prefer to save my comments until the Building Societies Association has considered this matter, which I understand will be not very long from now. I thought that we were all concerned—not only in this House but outside it—to attain stability not only in house prices but in the supply of mortgage money. That is why we are operating the joint scheme with the building societies through the joint advisory committee.

    Sewage Disposal
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange that payment for sewage disposal from properties not connected to the main sewers will be covered by payment of the appropriate rate, in view of the support for this course of a substantial body of informed opinion.
    Mr. Marks: The Government's intentions on this problem are outlined in the White Paper, "The Water Industry in England and Wales: The Next Steps." (Cmnd 6876).
    Mr. Hardy: Is it not time that we had a firm assurance of imminent progress on this subject? Does the Minister accept that comparisons are being drawn between the experience of those whose waste disposal depends on cesspools and the cost of operating a sewered service in sparsely populated or remote areas?
    Mr. Marks: The legislation on those matters awaits the parliamentary timetable, and it is not a matter for me. However, the White Paper outlined ways in which these problems could be avoided. In the meantime, I cannot make directions to local authorities to act as though the implemented.
    Mr. John Ellis: Will the Minister also comment on the amount of dereliction which has taken place in the provision of underground services? Is he aware that in the older areas, such as Lancashire, possibly as much as £1,000 million will have to be spent on underground sewers which are falling in and which will create a huge problem in the next decade?
    Mr. Marks: This is a matter with which many regional water authorities, especially in the North-West, are greatly concerned. It is questionable whether an amount could be fixed in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, but I repeat that this is a matter of which the authorities in the areas are extremely conscious.
    Mr. Arthur Jones: Following the previous Question on the limitation which the Government imposed on the borrowing by regional water authorities, will the Minister consider allowing them to go into the open market? Is the Minister aware that they have had to borrow vast sums at high interest rates of 15 per cent. or 16 per cent.? Does he agree that it would be much cheaper for them to borrow on the open market? Is it not time to implement that policy?
    Mr. Marks: Interest rates have not remained at that high level, as the authorities well know from their balances this year. This matter is included in the plans for the regional water authorities and is being discussed with the National Water Council.

    Council Tenants (Security of Tenure)
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to introduce a Bill extending security of tenure to council house tenants.
    Mr. Freeson: As soon as we can complete the necessary consultations and a place can be found in the Government's legislative programme.
    Mr. Watkinson: Does the Minister accept that the provision of security of tenure for council house tenants is an integral part of the last Labour Party manifesto? Is it not time we took action directly on this matter and, indeed, on the council tenants' charter? Will he do his best to bring forward legislation this Session?
    Mr. Freeson: I cannot guarantee the last request for reasons of which my hon. Friend will be aware. However, I can give him a general assurance that it is still our committed policy. We intend to bring forward legislation when we can. This will not be simple legislation. It will raise some complex legal and managerial questions, which will have to be resolved.
    Mr. Tebbit: Is not ownership the most secure form of tenure?
    Mr. Freeson: The most secure form of tenure is not in all cases ownership. I hope that the hon. Member will not join or stay with that unhappy throng of people of his side of the House who wish to see the virtual end of the rented sector, which is primarily local authority and housing association owned.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Minister aware that those with properties at Black-gang, in the Isle of Wight, certainly did not think that ownership was the most secure form of tenure? Will he look favourably at the idea of long-leasing council houses? Does he agree that that would be one way to get tenants to take more responsibility for maintenance?
    Mr. Freeson: There are a variety of ways in which we can implement the objectives that we have set out under the general heading of the tenants' charter. Long leases are just one of those ways. Some local authorities have tried three-, four- or five-year renewable leases. Others are embarking on co-operative housing, either by tenant management or tenant ownership. There are various other means that can be adopted. There is no single way forward. There are a variety of ways forward, and we shall pursue them.
    Mr. Heseltine: Does the Minister recognise that there is no better way of giving council tenants the greatest possible capital stake than by giving them the opportunity to own?
    Mr. Freeson: I wish that the hon. Member would keep off this obsession. There is more than one way of handling housing policy, both nationally and locally. If he and some of his hon. Friends would pay attention to the variety of problems and needs that have to be met instead of riding one hobby horse every time the question of housing is raised, we might make some progress with

    1417
    them in establishing a constructive housing policy.

    Direct Labour
    Mr. Matesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to extend the direct labour powers of local authorities.
    Mr. Bodyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with local authorities regarding the extension of direct labour activity.
    Mr. Shore: I have no immediate proposals in this field, but it remains my intention to introduce legislation dealing with the activities of direct labour organisations. I have not had any further discussions with the local authorities since 1976 when the original Local Authorities (Works) Bill was being drawn up.
    Mr. Mates: Since he dodged the question when he was asked it by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), will the Minister now say what such extension would cost? What does he say to the irrefutable evidence that where direct labour is used it is less efficient, more costly and less satisfactory than putting the job out to private enterprise?
    Mr. Shore: The hon. Member is allowing himself to be persuaded by a lot of ill-digested and perverted information. The truth is that there is a great range of costs in the different building sectors, whether they are private or public. I do not believe that the measure that we have in mind—which has been discussed in the House—sensibly to extend direct labour powers would lead to any additional costs.
    Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Sheffield Metropolitan District Council, since long before it was a metropolitan council, has a direct labour department which is the apple of its eye and which it guards most carefully? Is he aware that many millions of pounds have been saved by this department and that it is acknowledged by the citizens of Sheffield, who vote Labour repeatedly in order to achieve a strong Labour council?
    Mr. Shore: That is true. The experience of Sheffield can be matched by many
    1418
    other former metropolitan councils. Direct labour plays a very important part indeed.
    Mr. Budgen: Will the Secretary of State please condescend to give the House some facts? Will he tell us what evidence he has that direct labour organisations, in any authority, are more efficient or more profitable than are private construction firms?
    Mr. Shore: The hon. Member knows that the operating conditions under which direct labour organisations work are different from those under which building firms work in terms of house construction. One of the things that we wanted to do was to make it possible to sort out the different activities of DLOs so that the matter could be more sensibly judged in the future.
    Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that direct labour organisations, because of their size, have worked under great difficulties, and that there is a need to remove the restrictions from some of them? Will my right hon. Friend urge people to read the document on this question and examine the serious proposals for competitive direct labour organisations, for removing the restrictions, and for imposing serious control, which has sometimes not been forthcoming in every direct labour organisation as it has not been in many private enterprise companies which have gone out of existence?
    Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is right. There are unnecessary restrictions on a number of DLOs. As part of the general package to remove these restrictions, they should be put on an obviously competitive basis with private sector firms.

    Housing Revenue Accounts and Council House Rents
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, following the reduction in interest rates, diminishing the cost of council houses by 60p weekly on average for each 1 per cent. interest rate reduction, he will give the average fall in interest rates for local authorities on their new and total borrowing, respectively, since their peak; what future for average council rents he anticipates; and if he will now revise his guidelines and Green Paper proposals for further rent increases.
    Mr. Freeson: Local authority costs have not fallen by 60p a week. The local authority "pool rate" has fallen from 10·5 per cent. in 1976–77 to 10·2 per cent. in 1977–78, a drop of 0·3 per cent. or about 18p a week per dwelling. Expenditure on housing revenue accounts, including that from £2,000 million average investment per year, has increased.
    With permission, I will circulate the full figures requested in the Official Report. I see no reason to revise rent guidelines for 1978–79 or the proposals in the Green Paper.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that a number of housing directors and treasurers tell me that interest rates have fallen, on average, by 3½ per cent.? In view of this boon, will he reconsider the guidelines for increasing rents by 60p a week and the White Paper proposals to increase rents in line with incomes? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the vital decision last Friday to remove the condition that 60p should be added to rents if the high-price building subsidy is to remain.
    Mr. Freeson: I do not know what consultations my hon. Friend has had with directors and treasurers, but I am not sure that I should accept without further information that even in these cases the "pool rate" of interest—which is what counts—lias gone down by 3 per cent. I doubt that. It might have occurred in areas where there is a reduction in activity, but not in others. I see no reason for reviewing the guidelines in rent policy, either in the Green Paper or for 1978.
    Mr. Durant: Does the Minister accept that most tenants would agree to rent increases if they felt that they had more control over their destiny? If the Government have not time to introduce a tenants' charter Bill, will they support the Bill that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre)?
    Mr. Freeson: There are serious inadequacies in that Bill. On the general point, I and the Government need no urging to get local authorities and housing associations to do more in democratising their procedures and in involving tenants—[Interruption.] I can tell those who are
    1420
    interrupting and catcalling that it was this Government who, among other things, introduced co-operative housing into the law. There are now 200 schemes in the pipeline, after only 18 months. Nothing was done by the Conservatives. Many other things are being done under this Government on the question of tenant management. I am sure that the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) is interested, even if his hon. Friends who are interrupting are not.
    Mr. Spriggs: Many council house rents are far too high. Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would make good sense to make a national reduction in those rents?
    Mr. Freeson: I do not accept my hon. Friend's general proposition. There may be individual cases where rents are higher than they should be. I only hope that full information and guidance is given to tenants about the rent rebates that are available to them. I do not accept that council house rents in this country are too high—
    Mr. Skinner: They are.
    Mr. Freeson: I know as much about this subject as does my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
    Following is the information:

    Average rates of interest

    New local authority borrowing Per cent.

    Total local authority borrowing ("pool rate") Per cent.

    1976–77

    …

    13·1

    10·5

    1977–78

    …

    8·5

    10·2

    House Building and Improvement Grants (Birmingham)
    Mr. Litterickasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's estimate of the total amount of central Government money made available to the city of Birmingham for (a) house building and (b) home improvements in the current year; and what were the corresponding figures for the two previous years.
    Mr. Freeson: For 1978–79 Birmingham's allocation for block 1, which includes house building, acquisition and

    1421
    renovation, was £65·5 million. For 1977–78 the figure was £67·1 million. These are comparable figures at 1978–79 provisional outturn prices; similar figures for earlier years are not available. In addition, the Housing Corporation is currently investing £2·6 million in house building and renovation, and Birmingham has been allocated a further £3 million on housing for the period up to March 1979 as part of the inner cities construction package.
    Mr. Litterick: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's answer, but does he agree that these increases do not keep pace with the rate of inflation? Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the existing circumstances where there are vast quantities of unused resources—human, material and financial—this is the best time, particularly when interest rates are falling, to embark upon a more ambitious programme of house construction and renovation? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that such a move would serve also to stimulate the economy?
    Mr. Freeson: As soon as we are able to get more resources put into housing construction and other public sector working, I would welcome such a move and take the necessary steps in my area of responsibility. My immediate problem, however, is to see that the resources that we have already made available are taken up. In the case to which my hon. Friend refers there has been a reduction in the house building programme for 1978 which has led me to have to withdraw some of the resources from Birmingham and direct them elsewhere in order to maintain use of the money available.
    Mr. Eyre: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his figures deliberately obscured the truth on this matter? On home improvements, does he realise that Birmingham has suffered because the Government's programme has been cut to less than one-third of its 1973 figure? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the serious social consequences of this to Birmingham and other large cities, where large areas of old housing are having to be left to deteriorate?
    Mr. Freeson: The figures were not intended to be misleading, nor were they. They related to local authority action in terms of house building, acquisition and
    1422
    improvement, which was what I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) to be asking about. There is a problem on improvement grants. It is a question not simply of what resources the Government can make available but of the resources that are being taken up. Consistently throughout the country in recent years there has been an underspend on the budgeted figure. We are taking action to try to get a bigger take-up of improvement grants. We initiated a campaign a few days ago to get that under way.
    Mr. Lee: What action are the Government taking to deal with the bloody-mindedness of Conservative local authorities which refuse to take up resources and are thwarting the Government's efforts in this regard? Will my right hon. Friend consider the suggestion made earlier for the establishment of a housing agency on the lines of that in Scotland?
    Mr. Freeson: I cannot add to my earlier answer about a special housing association for England. There are ways by which we can secure an increased take-up. I do not want to go into detail about them this afternoon, but we are seriously examining such means and we shall be making an announcement fairly soon.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that no one else will copy the language of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee). After all, we are the Mother of Parliaments.

    Housing Finance (Sheffield)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the allocation to Sheffield for the housing investment programme for 1978–79.
    Mr. Freeson: Following my meeting with Sheffield on 26th January, further discussions are taking place with the Department's regional office.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his sympathetic and helpful attitude to representations on this point is very much appreciated? Does he agree that it is of the utmost importance that cities such as Sheffield should be able to complete their full programmes without having to cut back through lack of resources?
    Mr. Freeson: I endorse that. Here we see the contrast between various authorities. This authority wants to go ahead with a building programme. I have undertaken to be as helpful as I can to ensure that it maintains its activity in housing investment in 1978.

    European Community (Loans and Grants)
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make it easier for local and regional authorities to apply for EEC loans and grants under the regional Development Fund and Social Fund.
    Mr. Shore: Questions about the Social Fund are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Full advice about applications to the Regional Development Fund has been made available to local and other public authorities. I have no reason to believe that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Dykes: Considering the striking amounts that have been granted by the two funds over recent years—in the case of the Social Fund it has been about £200 million since 1973, and £151 million from the Regional Development Fund since the beginning of that year—will the Secretary of State reconsider his reply and make every effort to ensure that local authorities know the best; and most efficient way of applying for this kind of resource assistance, bearing in mind that there is a gross imbalance now between different areas of the country? Does he agree that some local authorities are well clued up, while others are not? Is it not the job of the Government to make sure that local authorities apply efficiency to the maximum and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether questions are as long as that in the European Parliament.
    Mr. Shore: I certainly cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's figures. I think they may refer to the Social Fund, but of course they are gross figures and they take no account of our contribution. I see no reason why the hon. Gentleman
    1424
    should go out of his way to emphasise what appears to be a gift to this country and quote net figures instead of gross figures.
    It does not surprise me that many of the potential participants in the Regional Development Fund—the local authorities and other bodies concerned—are experiencing difficulty in the workings of the fund's administration. I believe that they are becoming more familiar with the way in which it operates, however.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Will my right hon. Friend constantly make clear to those who think that the EEC acts as a Santa Claus to Britain that we always pay in more than we get out?
    Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the overall contribution and the net benefit that we gain in terms of cash flow. With the Regional Development Fund, however, it is true that, exceptionally, we gain more than we contribute.
    Mr. Marten: Does the Secretary of State recall the report of the Select Committee which looked into the Regional Development Fund and discovered that in the first three years we received £25 million a year? Does he agree that this is a minute amount compared with what our first five years of membership have cost us? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that cost is £800 million and that in 1979 and 1980 and beyond it will cost us £800 million a year to belong to the Community? The Regional Development Fund, therefore, is peanuts.
    Mr. Shore: The figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman are correct. It is about £20 million a year net to this country, and in terms of regional assistance it ought to be seen also against the background of the sum of about £600 million a year that we ourselves contribute to our regions.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Ordered,
    That the draft Social Security Pensions (Home Responsibilities and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

FINANCE (REDUCTION OF TAXATION)
3.31 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to the reduction of taxation: and for connected purposes."
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For those of us who do not know—there are so many things about which we do not know; and I am speaking, of course, on behalf of all of my colleagues, on both sides of the House—will you clarify whether a Member is entitled to bring a briefcase, or whatever that thing is, into the House of Commons?
Mr. Speaker: I must rule that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is not in order in bringing in a Dispatch Box. The real Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to do that.
Mr. Ridley: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I had no idea that there was any discrimination in these matters.
Before I reveal the details of my taxation proposals, I shall outline, as is customary on these occasions, the economic background against which my Budget has been prepared. I intend to put the facts fairly and squarely before the House.
This is the thirteenth Budget of this Parliament. I am not sure how many more Budgets it will be possible to cram in before the election. I assure the House, however, that so long as the present Government are in power, all future Budgets will be devoted single-mindedly towards one objective only—that of winning that election.
In each of the past 12 Budgets, as the House knows, we have been promised the golden decade, and an economic miracle has been predicted. In fact, it would be an economic miracle if anything happened at all. There will be ever more hysterical predictions as the election approaches.
The first miraculous prediction is that the rate of inflation will go on falling, despite the fact that the growth of the money supply is now running well above
1426
target. The rate of inflation will be measured either quarter upon
quarter or year upon year, whichever gives the lower figure. The Chancellor may even cut VAT again, as he did in order to get the rate of inflation down to 8·4 per cent. in 1974. Even that rate is higher than our main overseas competitors' rates, but they will be lectured and hectored in order to get their rates up in time for our next election.
The next miraculous prediction is that the Government are dealing with unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman the Ancient Mariner told us last Thursday that the unemployment record of Germany
"is much worse than ours by comparison."—[Official Report, 2nd March 1978; Vol. 945. c. 658.]
By this he meant that their rate had gone up from 0·8 per cent. to 3·5 per cent., while ours is stuck at 6·2 per cent. One and a half million people on the dole is hardly a success story—and in my judgment it is likely to get worse.
We are also told that our balance of payments is improving. But the surplus on trading account of £109 million for the whole of 1977 has already been wiped out by January's loss of £179 million. Moreover, anyone who mentions the fact that we have run up overseas debts of £13½ billion since 1974 will be accused of being unpatriotic. But these debts have to be paid back.
The next miraculous prediction is that next year public expenditure will rise by only 2·2 per cent., as shown in the White Paper, Cmnd. 7049. That prediction relies upon counting the nationalised industries' repayment of foreign loans as revenue, without which the increase in spending becomes 2·7 per cent. It also relies on making comparisons concerning the increase in next year's spending plans over this year's spending plans. If one compares them with this year's likely outturn, the figure becomes 6·7 per cent., which is, of course, the true but disguised figure. I think that the House would wish to pay tribute in respect of this matter to the excellent work of the chief book-cooker to the Treasury.
The next miraculous prediction is also in the White Paper. It is that economic growth, which has been completely stagnant for four years, will suddenly rise to an annual rate of 3½ per cent. How this is to be achieved with penal taxation,

1427
bureaucratic interference and the threat of nationalisation hanging over industry is not made clear. The true description of the British economy—this, again, I think, will appeal to the Ancient Mariner—is
"idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean."
It is clear that the Government do not even believe their own growth forecasts. Ministers continue to use what the Chancellor calls the "patriotic" and "self-sacrificing" trade union movement in order to hold down the workers' pay.
Next year the voluntary guidelines will no doubt entail a further drop in living standards. The Government will deal with any board of directors which they do not like and which fails to limit pay according to the new voluntary guidelines for free collective bargaining. They will use all their powers, including withdrawal of 714 certificates, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, Regulation 18B, the Mutiny Act and deportation to the colonies, against offenders. As the names of offenders are decided upon by the Cabinet, they must, of course, be kept secret because of the 30-year rule barring the publication of Cabinet papers.
By these means the Government will be successful in forcing down the standard of living still further. It has already gone down 8 per cent. since the beginning of the present Government. I calculate that if we were to go on like this for another 13 wasted years, it would disappear altogether.
If one looks not at the propaganda but at the truth of what is happening in the economy, one comes to the conclusion that it would be unwise to make any substantial net cuts in taxation. To do so would merely accelerate the increase in inflation which is likely to become evident in the autumn, anyway. If inflation is to be got down further, we need a maximum growth in M3 of about 10 per cent. for the coming year.
Nevertheless, it is so vital to reduce the burden of direct taxes that I am going to propose cuts in income tax. They will have to be paid for, in large measure, by increases in indirect taxes—VAT and taxes on petrol, wines, spirits, beer and tobacco. The absence of a Ways and Means Resolution may prevent me from doing this now, but it does not prevent
1428
the Chancellor from doing it in the Finance (No. 2) Bill to follow on 11th April.
My proposals are as follows. In order to help skilled workers and managers, I intend to restore the 1973 value of the higher rate income tax thresholds. This will cost £610 million in a full year. It is essential to do this if we are to retain these people in this country at all.
I also intend to lower the top rate of income tax from 83 per cent. to 60 per cent. If the income is all invested income, the top rate will still be 75 per cent. This would cost £260 million to do on its own, but since I have restored the value of the higher rate thresholds, it will only cost about half that amount.
My Bill will also restore the starting point for investment income surcharge to the equivalent of the value it had in 1973—that is, £4,384 a year. This will cost £140 million in a full year. It is only social justice for the elderly who have saved to do this.
My Bill also restores the value of the personal and married allowances to the equivalent of the values they had in 1973. This will cost £2,250 million in a full year. This will virtually end the poverty trap and let millions out of the tax net altogether.
I regret that I am not able to restore the level of taxation to that applying in 1973, which would entail, in addition, a cut in the standard rate of income tax from 34 per cent. to 30 per cent. That would cost a further £1,950 million, bringing the total cost of going back to Tory tax levels to £5,200 million a year.
Thus the cost of what I propose is £3,230 million. It is not, of course, as drastic as I should like it to be, but to do more expenditure will first have to be cut. I think the Chancellor should increase indirect taxes by £2,000 million, and sell another £1,000 million of British Petroleum shares in order to finance it. The remaining £230 million could properly be taken on the borrowing requirement.
It is urgent to bring the country from the abyss of Socialist stagnation and inertia by cutting taxes. Nobody—not even the Liberal Party—can trust the Government to reduce our penal taxes in order to get the British economy moving again. Parliament must therefore act, and

1429
the way for Parliament to act is to give me leave to introduce this modest Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nicholas Ridley and Mr. Ian Gow.

FINANCE (REDUCTION OF TAXATION)
Mr. Nicholas Ridley accordingly presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the reduction of taxation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5th May and to be printed. [Bill 79.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WALES BILL
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 7th March.]
  [Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

Clause 25

  STAFF
  3.43 p.m.
  Mr. Leo Abse: I beg to move Amendment No. 83, in page 10, line 10, at end add:
  'but in no circumstances shall it be regarded as appropriate that any person be not appointed in any role as an officer or servant of the Assembly because of lack of knowledge of Welsh and if any person fails to secure a post as such an officer or servant because of his lack of knowledge of Welsh then he shall have a tortious cause of action enabling him to pursue a claim for damages against the Assembly in the County Court or High Court whichever is the appropriate jurisdiction'.
  I think that I should perhaps first make it clear in moving the amendment, that I am concerned not about the detailed drafting being accepted by the Committee but that the principle should be accepted. Since, as so often occurs, there are clearly blemishes, upon which I shall comment, the Committee, if it wishes to express itself on the principle of the amendment, may decide to do so by throwing out the whole clause.
  I say this because it is clear that my hon. Friends who have signed the amendment with me certainly would not have intended, for example, that there should be a position arising in which it would not be possible in any circumstances for an interpreter or a translator to be employed by the Assembly as an officer or servant. But I trust that the principle behind the amendment will become clear as I develop my argument, and I hope that it will be acceptable to the Committee.
  I suppose that when we begin to discuss anything connected with the Welsh language we may recall the Act of 1536 passed by Henry VIII, which declared that

  1431
  "henceforth no Person or Persons that use the Welch Speech or Language shall have or enjoy any manner Office or Fees within this Realm of England, Wales, or other the King's Dominion, upon Pain of forfeiting the same Offices or Fees, unless he or they use and exercise the English Speech or Language."
  Certainly in my lifetime that Act has long since gone into desuetude. It is equally true, however, that in my lifetime, as in the lifetime of my contemporaries in the House, great changes have been seen in attitudes to the Welsh language. It is because of the current changes that I bring the amendment to the Committee. I do so with some sadness and with some regret, because, of course, it should not be necessary for such an amendment to be debated.
  The hostility that was expressed by the English establishment through the nineteenth century invoked a searing reply from Matthew Arnold in his work on Celtic literature It is true that, when I was young, that nineteenth century attitude was not so absurdly emphatic, but the effects of the disdain for the Welsh language had certainly not evaporated. When I was young parents feared that to bequeath the Welsh language to their children as part of their inheritance was to disadvantage them. Desperate as those parents were to give their children the chance to be liberated from the mines—or even more from unemployment—they gave no encouragement to the young to speak a language that it was feared would deprive them of many job opportunities.
  Mr. Gwynfor Evans: The hon. Gentleman is telling the Committee that the disdain shown by some sections of the Welsh population in the last century towards the Welsh language has now almost completely evaporated. He also said that a certain section of the Act of 1536 had long fallen into disuse. I assure him that this disdain has not yet completely evaporated. Only very recently it was necessary for a man who wished to give his evidence in the Welsh language in a court of law in Wales to have the consent of that court for that purpose, and then to have the Welsh language translated into English, although everybody in the court could understand Welsh, and then to pay the interpreter. Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that this has happened in my lifetime in
  1432
  my own village and has happened in many other parts of Wales?
  Mr. Abse: The hon. Gentleman continues to seek out wherever he can instances, real or imagined, to justify his continued paranoiac attitude to the whole of contemporary England and, indeed, to the whole of those Welshmen who are disadvantaged by not speaking Welsh. I shall come to the right hon. Gentleman's attitude if he will have the forbearance to wait.
  I turn to current attitudes which have caused me to bring this amendment to the Committee. I have recalled how parents were diffident about encouraging their children to speak Welsh because they feared that it would be a disability which might cut them off from job opportunities. It is true that in my lifetime there has been inevitably a great increase in mobility. That has meant that large numbers of Welsh-speaking people who formerly lived in rural areas, and those living in the valleys who were preponderantly Welsh-speaking, have moved into our cities. In that move they have lost the language.
  My own familiar experience is in a sense a paradigm of the general Welsh experience. My elderly mother, who will be 88 this month, can still fall into doubtlessly poor colloquial Welsh when the Welsh-speaking lady who kindly cooks for her comes into the house. My mother was born in Ystalyfera and I was born in Cardiff. Like the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Cardiff—and of Pontypool—we can do little more than sing inadequately in Welsh "Land of my Fathers ".
  The attitudes which created this sad and almost catastrophic decline in the Welsh language changed in the post-war years. They changed because people began to realise what a loss was taking place. Even those who had lost the tongue were aware that Wales as a whole would intellectually and culturally impoverish itself by allowing the language totally to peter out. There was an awareness which expressed itself inside this House of Commons.
  Certainly, when I came here at the end of 1958, I was keenly aware that within the Welsh parliamentary party—I mean the Welsh parliamentary party belonging to all sides—there was an awareness that

  1433
  some action was required. Indeed, it was because of the action of hon. Members from all parties who were concerned to try to give greater protection, particularly in the sort of circumstances which the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) recited, that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir Keith Joseph), the former Minister for Welsh Affairs, appointed the Hughes Parry Committee. Its terms of reference made is clear that at least an attempt was being made to turn the tide.
  It was the proud privilege of my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) eventually to translate some of the recommendations that came out of the Hughes Parry Report. Of course, in a sense the warning signs that have led to the present unhappy situation were already contained in the Hughes Parry Report, because that report wandered far outside its more formal terms of reference.
  The Committee will recall that its terms of reference were:
  "To clarify the legal status of the Welsh language and to consider whether any changes in the law ought to be made."
  It was in that sense that my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey, when he introduced the Welsh Language Bill, selected those sections of the Hughes Parry Report which addressed themselves properly to the exact terms of reference so that the Bill was entirely encompassed by those terms of reference and not by the extended terms of reference.
  But the Committee at the time, under cover of these terms of reference, had already put forward a whole series of proposals. The one that is most relevant to the amendment that we are discussing is the formal recommendation that heads of Government Departments in Wales should be Welsh-speaking. At the time it was formally recommended that there was a need for Welsh speakers in the Civil Service, that that need should be more widely publicised and that a knowledge of Welsh within the Civil Service should be recognised as an additional qualification of the service. It was recommended that extra allowances should be given.
  Of course, the Welsh parliamentary party on all sides at the time expressed its views on those other recommendations
  1434
  which no doubt echoed the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey who insisted that the Welsh Language Act—which he had the proud privilege of steering through the House—did not create a situation of a kind where English-speaking Welshmen would in effect be barred from ever becoming the head of Civil Service Departments in Wales.
  When I say that the attitudes which have created the present unhappy situation were incipient in the Hughes Parry Report, I am giving what is an accurate picture of what has taken place. Of course, the act of reconciliation as it were, which came into existence with the Welsh Language Act, was seen by people like the hon. Member for Carmarthen merely as a placatory gesture. It was not seen—as indeed it was—as a genuine attempt to make certain that there were no divisions between English-speaking Wales and Welsh-speaking Wales. It was seen merely as a trifle, and from the moment that it was past—even when it was going through—Plaid Cymru and its fellow travellers again and again emphasised the inadequacy of a Bill which was a healing Bill which, had it been accepted in the spirit in which it was given, would never have led to the present unhappy situation.
  But precisely because Plaid Cymru and its fellow travellers embarked upon campaigns which led to the politicising of the language question in Wales—even after the passing of the Act—we have now reached a situation where, instead of there being a relaxed attitude in the Principality to the language, it is unhappily a matter of bitter and acute controversy.
  4.0 p.m.
  There has been a campaign which has led to great pressure being applied to ensure that within the terms of that Act as many forms as possible are published in Welsh and English under the discretion available to the Minister. That campaign, by means of lobbying and demonstration, has been pushed to its utmost limits so that upon English-speaking Welshmen there has descended a deluge, a torrent, of Welsh forms which, regrettably, are meaningless to them. They see them not as an attempt to resuscitate the language but as a defiant act of political propaganda.
  Because of the existence of a vociferous minority of Welsh-speaking Welshmen,

  1435
  instead of money being made available genuinely to succour and tend the language, millions of pounds have been squandered in the erection of new signs in English-speaking areas of Wales. In the deluge of forms, in the change of street names, there has been not a genuine tending of the language but a deliberate act of propaganda.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Would the hon. Gentleman care to spell out to the Committee what precise measures he believes to be a genuine tending of the language, as he calls it?
  Mr. Abse: I have often done so. I have often thought, for example, that instead of millions being spent in Gwent upon silly road signs which irritate my constituents so much, that money could have been spent on language laboratories and upon adult education. If it had been spent on modern methods of teacher training and language training, how much good would have been done and how much good will would have been engendered. Good will was in existence at the time the Act was passed and people were ready to do all they could to remedy the serious decline in the use of the language. It is precisely because of the folly of those who are more interested in the politics of gesture than in preserving the Welsh language that millions of pounds have been squandered in a way which has been counter-productive and which has exacerbated relationships between many English-speaking Welshmen and Welsh-speaking Welshmen, instead of increasing the number of Welshmen who would otherwise have found their way to the Welsh language and, doubtless, to Welsh literature.
  What has happened with this politicisation of the language as a result of the intervention of Plaid Cymru and its allies is that there have been demonstrations which have aroused the severe hostility both of English-speaking Welshmen and of sensible Welsh-speaking Welshmen throughout the Principality. The sit-ins, the attacks upon television masts, the misconduct of large groups of people with their mock heroics have caused people to see the Welsh language as identified with an irresponsible group. Unfortunately, Plaid Cymru, instead of condemning those activities, always condoned them. The result is, undoubtedly,
  1436
  the spreading of a belief that what is intended in areas in the Principality where Plaid Cymru and those of similar beliefs exercise power is that those who lack the advantage of being able to speak Welsh should suffer a disadvantage.
  From the constituency of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas)—from Aberystwyth—I have received letters from groups which have been formed describing themselves as language freedom movements, indicating concern that, instead of a heart and mind campaign to convince the people of Wales of the inherent worth of the Welsh language as part of their Welsh heritage, what has been launched as a result of the activities of an irresponsible minority is a campaign that Welsh should be a passport to top jobs or a source of privilege.
  There is no doubt that it has been the tendency throughout Wales wherever the influence of Plaid Cymru makes itself felt that, unless anyone who applies for a job can speak Welsh, he does not obtain the job. Never mind what may be the theory and the practice in Gwynedd, it applies also in many other places. Some of us cannot forget the way in which the Welsh BBC gave evidence and expressed its prejudices to the Hughes Parry Committee. We remember how those who were in control of the BBC made clear in a blunt and brutal manner that in their view the only people who could be described as genuinely Welsh were those who were Welsh-speaking, and they used that as a justification for saying to the Hughes Parry Committee that all top tier jobs should be reserved for Welsh speakers.
  I am sure that in the course of the debate we shall hear many more instances of the disadvantages suffered by English-speaking Welshmen. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) gave some wretched and rather dramatic instances when he spoke last week. I realise that there is no need for me to catalogue the disadvantages and the fears which have come into existence. We all know about the people charged with offences who, although they can speak English, wish to inconvenience everybody to the maximum degree when they come before the court and insist on speaking Welsh. As a result of these activities, it has become clear throughout Wales that

  1437
  there is a need for a new assessment of the dangers to the English-speaking Welshmen if these pressure groups are allowed to have their way.
  It is unfortunate and unhappy that this has come about. It has not taken place as a consequence of any action on the part of the Labour Party, which initiated the Welsh Language Act. Nor do I believe—and one must give credit where it is due—that it was the result of any action of the Tory Party which set up the Hughes Parry Committee. Neither the Labour Party nor the Tory Party is in any way responsible for the situation. What has occurred as the direct result of fanaticism is that the whole atmosphere in Wales on the language question has been utterly soured.
  Every day English-speaking Welshmen are compelled to look at signs they do not understand, look at television they do not understand and listen to the radio in a language they do not understand. All this has resulted from the tactlessness and pressures of a minority. English-speaking Welshmen reluctantly must turn their aerials towards the Mendips and away from the Principality. This is because a small, fanatical and persistent group has brought pressure to bear—and the main spokesman for that group is Plaid Cymru.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Would the hon. Member explain to the Committee how people in Wales who speak only English are unable to understand bilingual road signs?
  Mr. Abse: Of course they cannot understand the Welsh. In Gwent nearly the whole population finds itself greeted twice when it arrives in its own county. If the hon. Member for Merioneth thinks that he is helping the Welsh language by insisting to the letter that every road sign must be replaced in this way, he is being extraordinarily jejune. People who cannot understand the language in the place in which they live get irritated and vexed. They do not like to feel that they are being treated like strangers in their own country. They feel that every road sign is a propaganda exercise and not an advertisement. If the hon. Member does not understand that, he betrays a singular lack of sensitivity, particularly for a Welshmen. We are supposed to be
  1438
  possessed with good reason and with more sensitivity than members of the more buttoned-up and rougher Anglo-Saxon culture.
  In this atmosphere of apprehension, the concept of creating a Welsh Assembly immediately alerts a large section of the population which is extremely concerned that if the Assembly comes into existence it should not be what I believe it will become—a gravy train for a Welsh-speaking minority.
  It is quite clear that no Welsh Assembly, if it came into existence, would tolerate for long the idea of a shared Civil Service with Whitehall. That was said by the Kilbrandon Commission, and it is self-evident that a Welsh Assembly will not agree to a shared Civil Service. Obviously, tensions would be created each year when the question of the grant arose. It would mean that in that respect, and many others, civil servants would have dual loyalties—to the Assembly and to Whitehall.
  4.15 p.m.
  The consequence that we must acknowledge in the end is that Wales would face not an extra 1,150 civil servants as indicated in the Bill's preamble, but more likely an extra 2,000. That is the number that would be needed for a totally separate Civil Service. That is predictable and inevitable, and Wales must face the fact that it will have to pay for these extra civil servants.
  Who will be included in this Civil Service elite? From which groups will it be drawn and which qualifications will its members need? We can all be certain that Members of the Assembly who come from Plaid Cymru will not be engaged in reconciling action any more than they have been engaged in such reconciling action on the Welsh language since the passing of the 1967 Act. They will use the Assembly to pursue their declared objectives. They will speak in Welsh in the Assembly. When they come to the Assembly announcing this declared intention, there will be immediate difficulties for the Civil Service.
  Therefore, members of Plaid Cymru should act in the interests of the whole of the Principality. They should act with restraint, and not expect as of right to speak Welsh. But that will not happen. The hon. Member for Carmarthen has

  1439
  repeatedly made clear that he will not accept for the Welsh Assembly the rules that apply in the House of Commons and that the intention of his party is to speak Welsh.
  Sir Raymond Gower: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and I certainly agree with many parts of his speech. However, is it not likely that the Welsh Assembly will be drawn mostly from areas of greater population and that conceivably the majority of its Members will be English-speaking only? It seems that the hon. Member's point is a bit inconsistent.
  Mr. Abse: I agree, but that is not the point. Once there is a minority which insists on speaking Welsh, it will be abundantly clear that the Assembly will need a translating system. It will need the whole apparatus that exists in international assemblies.
  I am sure that in the figures for the cost of the Assembly, the £9·5 million given for additional civil servants in Wales will not include provision for extra 800 or 900 civil servants who will be needed or the cost of the sophisticated translation services that will be in operation if the Welsh language is used.
  What the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) says is, of course, true. The majority of Welsh Members, like the majority of people in Wales, will be able to speak only English. That is the only language that four out of five of us understand. But the very fact that some—even a tiny minority—would speak in Welsh would necessitate immediately not only the apparatus of translation facilities but also what the Hughes Parry Committee recommended—that heads of Departments in the Assembly would inevitably have to be Welsh-speaking because Wales knows the fanaticism that is now at work. Let it be pursued, as it would be, and it is inevitable that they would want to communicate in Welsh. They would want to speak to the civil servants in Welsh and would want the whole top layer to be that which the Hughes Parry Commission was trying to bring about—that there should be a Welsh-speaking top tier.
  1440
  That would not be necessary if it were not a minority that were pursuing it, but I am certain that in Wales, given what I regard as the totally extravagant and fanatical attitude of Plaid Cymru, they would neither speak nor write in a language other than Welsh to all the civil servants with whom they had any communication.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure the hon. Member is aware that in mid-Wales many councillors on county councils prefer to speak in Welsh. Is he saying that those who represent mid-Wales and are Welsh-speaking should not have the right to speak in their mother tongue to a Welsh Assembly?
  Mr. Abse: The hon. Gentleman is not getting my point. I am not seeking to deny that right. I am pointing out the inevitable and predictable consequences, because the people who are now councillors and speaking Welsh will come into the Assembly and will speak Welsh there, as they are entitled to do. I am asking the hon. Member to face up to this consequence. There are certain consequences and the amendment seeks to draw attention to them. One consequence is that inevitably they will continue to speak in Welsh not only in the Chamber but in all their dealings with officials, as they would probably do now in the area to which the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) has referred.
  Mr. Geraint Howells Mr. Geraint Howells indicated assent.
  Mr. Abse: The hon. Gentleman confirms that. That is the inevitable logic of the situation. Therefore, it is clear that if we are not to get a complete jam between the Assemblymen and the civil servants, certainly the whole of the top layer would be required as a condition of their appointment to be Welsh-speaking.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I ask him a simple question? Is he in favour of a Welsh-speaking Assemblyman being able to speak in his mother tongue at a Welsh Assembly? Will the hon. Gentleman answer "Yes" or "No"?
  Mr. Abse: I am saying "Yes, of course he can do so". I have never suggested

  1441
  he could not. That is a right which the hon. Member, who has the great advantake of being Welsh-speaking, denies himself in this House but since those Members will exercise that right it is inevitable that the civil servants who will have to deal with them will have to know Welsh. It may be that Plaid Cymru will say "Hurrah".
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: I am continually in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the junior Minister at the Welsh Office, using Welsh. He will reply to me a couple of weeks later in excellent Welsh because there is within the Welsh Office a large unit of bilingually structured government with bilingual officers and bilingual Ministers.
  Mr. Abse: The hon. Gentleman is only showing the corresponding need that would come to total fulfilment inside the Welsh Civil Service where the people who would come to the top could not be expected to depend, in their day-to-day activities, upon some translation unit. It would be expected that it should be possible for them to have direct relationships with the Assemblymen daily.
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I do not think that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) puts the position precisely as it is. If an hon. Member writes to me in Welsh, I naturally reply in the same language. If hon. Members write to one of my junior colleagues, as they usually do, in whatever language they see fit, they get from one of my junior colleagues —and this has been agreed by those who made the request—a letter in English which is the language which my hon. Friends prefer and understand; but they get also, as the usual procedure, a copy in Welsh where an hon. Member has requested that. That is precisely the position. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) for permitting my intervention.
  Mr. Abse: I do not believe for a moment that it would be tolerable to accept the proposal that the Civil Service should be doubled and that for the whole morass of correspondence that would be coming into existence Welsh-speaking people would be available as doubles, so
  1442
  that business could be expedited, and so that the whole apparatus of Welsh business should proceed. We would then be talking of 4,000 extra civil servants. In practice, it is abundantly clear what is to come into existence, and I am saying that it is inevitable that, certainly in the top tiers, a Welsh-speaking bureaucratic elite will come into existence.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: That would not apply in my own constituency and that of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick). In the county council in his constituency there are only about one-seventh who are Welsh-speaking and nearly all the senior officers are non-Welsh-speaking. In the district council of my constituency, Montgomery, about 20 to 25 per cent. of the district councillors are Welsh-speaking and there are one or two senior officers who are Welsh-speaking but the others are not. It does not follow, therefore, as the hon. Member suggests, that it is inevitable that the top layer will be entirely Welsh-speaking. It is a matter of common sense. In many Welsh constituencies councillors prefer to express themselves in Welsh.
  Mr. Abse: If it were a matter of common sense, there would be no difficulty but we have to accept that we shall get not common sense but fanaticism from Plaid Cymru supporters and, as they have always done, they will exercise their right to the limit. Therefore, I repeat that I believe it inevitable and predictable that if we move forward with a Welsh Assembly there will come into existence what the Hughes Parry report wanted, a Welsh-speaking elite.
  I am deeply concerned that a young man or young woman living in Newport should have the opportunity, if that is the will in a referendum for Wales, to rise to the top of the Civil Service that will come into existence. I am concerned that no English-speaking Welshman in this Civil Service, if it ever comes about, should be in the slightest degree disadvantaged. I am concerned that any young man or woman from Cardiff or Pontypool, any of those coming from the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales who speak no Welsh, should have equal opportunity, which I believe is inevitably to be denied them.

  1443
  Because of that, I have directed my mind to how we can contain the fanaticism, how we can contain the sixth dynamic which uses language for politics, not in order that we should enlarge the knowledge of the people of Wales and give them the key to a separate culture which unhappily is denied for most. How can we contain it? I do not suggest that my method is necessarily the best or the only one, but there is a fundamental principle at work, and it is so fundamental that I would not have anything against Clause 25 if it were modified and altered sufficiently to give to the people of Newport, Cardiff and Pontypool protection and a feeling of security that they will not find themselves very largely in the hands of a Welsh-speaking elite.
  Consequences will flow from that. There is this elusive belief that the Assembly will be determining the nominations for the nominated bodies. We shall have untried and untested Assemblymen and as usual, particularly at the beginning, we shall have a more sophisticated Civil Service. Who will be appointed to the nominated bodies? The lists now prepared and maintained in every Government Department will be prepared and maintained by the Assembly civil servants. It is not only a question of preference being shown within the Civil Service to the Welsh-speaking; it is that the preference will extend further.
  4.30 p.m.
  We are dealing here with a major problem. We shall have a situation in which we shall have created an Assembly which will have no full career structure for young men and women who have no knowledge of the language.
  What action can the Committee take? My amendment is tough. It says:
  "in no circumstances shall it be regarded as appropriate that any person be not appointed in any role as an officer or servant of the Assembly because of lack of knowledge of Welsh".
  We want to ensure that people are judged on their merits and not on whether they are Welsh-speaking or English-speaking. If we are to have this Civil Service, this swollen bureaucracy, we must see that it is a meritocracy. We must ensure that those appointed are appointed solely by reason of their capacity. It must not depend upon the fact that they were born
  1444
  in a particular area of the Principality and were brought up speaking Welsh.
  Sir Raymond Gower: A consideration might arise when there are two senior civil servants of comparable ability, attainment and experience. In such circumstances one might be fluent in English and Welsh and the other only in English. Might it then be that a knowledge of the language could be deemed to be a fair advantage? This is the difficult situation in which we might find ourselves. Could the person not appointed go to the courts and seek damages under this amendment?
  Mr. Abse: Let there be no doubt about my position on this issue. If there are two boys from Newport or Pontypool, equal in merit and capacity, who seek an appointment in the Civil Service, the fact that one speaks Welsh should in no way influence the decision. I say that categorically. If we do not say that in every instance where appointments are to be made, it will be said, as it is said in the advertisements that we see throughout the Principality, that Welsh will be an advantage. That would clearly mean that in such circumstances the English-speaking Welshman is disadvantaged and is not accorded parity of esteem.
  I come to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. A person who did not gain the appointment could not go to the courts and seek spuriously to claim that he was not appointed because he did not speak Welsh. There would be a heavy onus upon him to prove his case. The balance of probabilities would be measured, as it is in every court action. It would not be easy for a person to go to the courts frivolously. My object is not to increase litigation but to make certain that it is understood by those engaged in making appointments that if they take advantage of the English-speaking Welshman in that way, there is a remedy open to the man or woman disadvantaged.
  I put this amendment to the Committee with some sadness, because it is unfortunate that the fanaticism that has raged on the language question throughout Wales should have created an atmosphere in which every English-speaking Welshman is alerted to the hazards which will arise once we create an Assembly of this kind. Sadly, but firmly, I put it to the Committee that it cannot pass Clause 25 without disadvantaging the

  1445
  English-speaking Welshman unless, either through this amendment or in some other way, protection is given to the people of Gwent and Glamorgan and all the other mainly English-speaking areas of Wales, so that they do not become aliens in their own land, governed by people who are remote from their language, which is a lively vital English, which undoubtedly receives a lot of its élan because the Anglo-Welsh reflects some of the pristine vitality of the Welsh language itself, which they do not know.
  I hope that no one will have the presumption to repeat what has been said about my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty and me. It is impertinent to say that we are anti-Welsh. The people who are anti-Welsh are the fanatics who have created the situation in Wales today in which, instead of friendliness being exhibited towards the maturing of the Welsh language, there is grave suspicion. The enemies of the Welsh culture have proven to be those who have so fanatically waged their campaigns, sometimes by lawful methods, sometimes by lawlessness.
  I hope that I have introduced a subject to which the Committee will give its mind in seeking a solution and enabling protection to be given where it is needed. If it is not given and if there is no desire or will on the part of the Government to help by accepting this amendment or some other amendment which will give the required protection, I hope that Clause 25 will be rejected.
  Mr. Hooson: I want to make a short contribution to the debate. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said that he did not use extravagant language. I wonder what he is like when he is extravagant. I think that he has done a great disservice to Wales today, because he has given the impression of being as bigoted as the people he accuses of being bigoted.
  This is a difficult problem. It is difficult because of the history of Wales. There was a determined effort, which the hon. Member rightly described, to stamp out the Welsh language in Tudor times. An odd thing about the Welsh language is that it survived very well in adversity. It is in far greater danger of being killed off by kindness in our age than by adversity in Tudor times.
  1446
  The truth is that there were very sad consequences of the Tudor settlement, such as the divorce of the common people of Wales from what used to be the aristocracy of Wales, many of whom followed the Tudors to London or became Anglicised in Wales and consequently deprived Wales, when there was no education for the masses, of the cultural leadership which it would otherwise have had and which it had enjoyed at an earlier period.
  The Welsh language was undermined, to use the language of Socialism, by the effects of capitalism in the nineteenth century. Economic pressure was allied to deliberate policy. I have read of monoglot English-speaking teachers being appointed to totally Welsh-speaking districts in order to ensure that the Welsh children could not communicate with their teachers, except in English. It was a determined effort to stamp out the Welsh language for so-called economic interest.
  Even in this century, I have known in fairly modern times of a headmaster of a school in a Welsh-speaking village who would teach no Welsh. I have also known a headmaster of a school in a Welsh-speaking village who would teach no English. Last week I heard of a school in Wales in which the music teacher refused to play "God save the Queen" at the end of the school Eisteddfod. I do not know what right she has to impose her political views on the pupils. In the same school, one master reacted to that by refusing to stand up for "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadan" the Welsh national anthem. The bigots on either side of the Committee, like the bigots in Wales, do not benefit our country at all.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hooson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
  The hon. Member for Pontypool gave a very good account of the vicissitudes of the Welsh language. If somebody had said 10 or 15 years ago "Here is £15 million that you can spend for the benefit of the Welsh language", I should not have dreamt of spending it on road signs. But if the hon. Member is honest with himself, would he have voted £15 million to help the lame Welsh language 15 years ago? The answer is that he would not. He would have suggested better ways of

  1447
  spending that money than for the Welsh language. But that is by the way.
  Mr. Kinnock: In order to put it in perspective and since the language argument is surrounded by so much historical allusion, would it not be more correct to say that, with the exception of one instance by well-intentioned but ludicrously uninformed and misinformed commissioners of education in the middle of the last century, the great crime committed against the Welsh language was not deliberate suppression but the assertion that, under an imperialist system, English was so vastly superior that it deserved to reign over any other culture—Welsh, Indian or whatever it may be—that the Imperial British system encountered throughout the world? Does that not put it in a slightly different perspective when we bring the argument up to date, which is what we should be concerned with?
  Mr. Hooson: I do not altogether go along with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). There were mainly economic reasons for the effective decline of the Welsh language. It was a matter of the dominant culture and the dominant economy being English, and there were obvious consequences from it. However, we should not hark back all the time to Welsh history to determine what we should do today.
  4.45 p.m.
  Part of the area that I represent became entirely English-speaking about two centuries or more ago. Part of my constituency—the Banw valley—is entirely Welsh-speaking. I presided at an Eisteddfod in the Banw valley in December last year. One of the adjudicators, who was a lecturer at the University of Bangor, told me that in his view the Banw valley was probably the most Welsh part of Wales because everything is conducted entirely in Welsh. I know that it is a relatively small area. My constituency varies from entirely English-speaking areas such as Church Stoke and Hyssington on the border, where one can almost feel the shades of the Marcher Lords going by, to the Banw valley which derives its culture entirely from the old Welsh background.
  As I said in an intervention, about one-quarter or one-fifth of my constituents at present are Welsh-speaking. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Pontypool is suggesting that in elected bodies of this
  1448
  kind it is inevitable that the top echelon as it were, of public servants must be Welsh-speaking, that is wrong. It is contrary to my experience. Most of the senior officers on my district or county council are not Welsh-speaking. For example, the director of education is not Welsh-speaking, but the deputy-director of education is Welsh-speaking.
  This matter of language should be left to the common sense of the elected Members of the Assembly. I have enough faith in my fellow countrymen to believe that they will be fair, just and sensible. The Committee should not try to impose any kind of rules on the Welsh Assembly.
  The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) rightly pointed out that when a Welsh Assembly is elected its Members will largely be from the industrial areas, which are largely non-Welsh-speaking. We have to assume, as in the House of Commons, that the elected Members will represent the broad linguistic pattern of Wales. Therefore, the majority of Assembly men and women will not be Welsh-speaking. It should be left entirely to those elected representatives to lay down the proper rules. In my view, nobody should be disadvantaged merely because of either knowledge or lack of knowledge of the Welsh language.
  There are certain jobs in which it is essential for people to be Welsh-speaking. In the Diplomatic Service, as the hon. Member well knows, it is considered to be a considerable advantage to be able to speak another language or two or three languages. There are merit awards for this. If the hon. Member, by the slant of his speech, was suggesting that the Welsh Assembly will be unfair to non-Welsh-speaking people, he is insulting the country which he represents.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) can before the end of the debate be persuaded to withdraw his amendment. That would be the right and the helpful thing for him to do in the circumstances.
  As my hon. Friend recognised in the early part of his speech, which I found unexceptionable, the Welsh language has survived for many centuries against the most formidable odds. Only in recent years, however, has it received some encouragement and recognition. It is part of our inheritance, and those of us who were brought up to speak the language

  1449
  cherish it. Some hon. Members—the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) and I—speak it at home. Our children speak it. It is our everyday language. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool said that it is an accident of birth, but it remains the fact. Therefore, anyone who, even by implication, criticises the Welsh language, says something which is hurtful to us.
  Those of us who do speak Welsh are a diminishing minority. We are conscious of the great task and responsibility of preserving the language and of handing it on to our children and to our children's children. Nothing arouses more emotion than language, save possibly religion. The majority in an elected Assembly of any kind in Wales would inevitably be non-Welsh-speaking Members, as is the case in the House of Commons.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool referred to the recommendations in the Hughes Parry Report. The existence of those recommendations does not, in my view, justify the amendment. I think that there was only one major recommendation in that report which I rejected. That was the one to which my hon. Friend referred. Nevertheless, that recommendation reflected the profound concern of the members of that Committee about the future of the language. As I recall, the members of the Hughes Parry Committee were not associated with any political party. The chairman—the late Sir David Hughes Parry—was one of the most distinguished academic lawyers in this country.
  Having considered the report carefully and consulted hon. Members, I had to make a judgment. My judgment was translated into a Bill which is now the Welsh Language Act. I felt that the Bill, as drafted at the time, would command the widest measure of support in Wales, and I think that events have confirmed that conclusion.
  Mr. Abse: My right hon. Friend is doing himself an injustice. It is some time since the Act came into effect. If he would care to refresh his memory by looking at the long list of recommendations which were not embodied in the Act, he would see that a whole range of recommendations are relevant to what we are discussing. For example, if those
  1450
  recommendations had been implemented, magistrates, policemen and health administrators would have had to have been bilingual. The dangers which were then apparent were avoided by the limited measure that was brought in by my right hon. Friend. I do not want to catalogue all the recommendations. However, my right hon. Friend is misleading himself in believing that all he ignored was the recommendation relating to top civil servants.
  Mr. Hughes: I do not agree with the point that my hon. Friend was trying to make in that long intervention. He gave a list of examples. I said it was the principle that I rejected, and it was the principle to which he referred in his speech. I rejected that and accepted the remainder.
  There are those who take an extreme view on both sides of the argument. They do not help to preserve the language, however genuine they may be. Long experience of this subject has persuaded me that that is so.
  The fact is that at the end of the day any Assembly would reflect its Members and they in turn would reflect their constituents. Any expenditure on the language should properly be a matter for the Assembly. I should be content to leave the matter to its judgment. It is unhelpful to make a bogy of the Welsh language. It is no service whatsoever to the Principality to give the impression that it might somehow threaten the livelihoods of people.
  I make this point without passion and as reasonably as I can. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool knows perfectly well, as does the Committee, that the majority of those who reside in Glamorgan, Gwent, the Wrexham area, Deeside and in most of Brecon and Radnor are non-Welsh-speaking people. It is sad. I regret it, because I think that in all our great cultural inheritance the language is its heart and treasure. Therefore, I regret it, but I have to accept it as the bleak reality.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool implied that in an election, somehow or other a small minority would impose their will regarding the language on the majority of the Assembly and of the people of Wales. I think that my

  1451
  hon. Friend went too far. He asked who will be the civil servants. The answer is that they will reflect the whole of Wales, as they do now.
  If we analyse the Civil Service as it now exists in Cardiff and, as to a small section, in Aberystwyth, the fact is that the great majority of civil servants now come from Glamorgan and Gwent. Aberystwyth has the Welsh Office of the Department of Agriculture, for which I was at one time responsible. The head of the Department of Agriculture today, who is a distinguished agriculturist, is in fact an Englishman from the North-East. We in Wales who have to deal with agriculture matters greatly value him. If there were some conspiracy to impose the language on Wales, would we have an Englishman in one of the Welsh centres as head of a Government Department? I do not think so. He was made very welcome, as was right. I make that point to demonstrate that much of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool is without foundation.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I am grateful for and appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's views. He is apparently assuming that we shall necessarily continue to have a unified Civil Service so that, for example, Englishmen can move easily to Wales and vice versa. I think that is a great advantage. But the Welsh TUC and a Labour Party paper on the subject take a contrary view. It is at least a possibility—I put it no higher— that the Assembly will take a contrary view. Has the right hon. Gentleman any opinion on that important matter?
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, I have. I believe in interchangeability. I think that service in Whitehall would be of great advantage to any civil servants who might subsequently move to Cardiff or elsewhere in Wales. But we shall have to discuss these matters in detail in due course.
  Finally, what would be wrong if some of the Members of the Assembly chose to speak in Welsh? My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool was ready enough to admit that there would be nothing out of place with that. But if we resisted the right of a Welshman in his own country to speak his own language in a national Assembly, we would be more
  1452
  intolerant than any country on earth, including the Soviet Union.
  My hon. Friend dealt with the question of translators. Translation systems exist not only in this and other countries. The expenditure involved in providing a translation system for a Welsh Assembly would be negligible. I do not think that anyone would object to it. In fact, it has operated in Wales in county councils for a long time.
  We require two qualities in our consideration of this sensitive issue—namely, tolerance and common sense. It would not be necessary, for example, for all civil servants to know Welsh. English is now the normal language of communication. What we require is the right to use the Welsh language as and when it is necessary, as and when we wish to do so.
  I hope that we can end this debate fairly soon. I do not find it an edifying one.
  5.0 p.m.
  Sir Raymond Gower: I largely agree with the general viewpoint of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), although I do not entirely agree that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) should not have raised the matter. It is proper that we should debate and discuss an issue of this sort.
  Unfortunately, language in several parts of the world is an incandescent subject which causes much controversy. I shall never forget the unbelievable scenes of disorder in Belgium that arose from conflict betwen the adherents of those who speak French and those who speak the type of Dutch that is spoken in the North of Belgium. There was unbelievable disorder and fighting in the streets on what would seem to non-Belgians to be a matter of fairly small importance. Similarly, we know that there has been a good deal of animosity in Canada between those who speak French and those who speak English. There has been much animosity in South Africa between those who speak Afrikaans and those who speak English. It seems that language can cause trouble.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Pontypool that some of the fears that he has expressed are expressed in our constituencies. Certainly that applies in parts of Wales. We should do all in our power to allay those fears.

  1453
  Those who express their anxiety about the future of the Welsh language by raiding BBC establishments do much harm to their cause. They do not assist the future of the Welsh language. They develop animosity whereas they should be trying to develop support. I agree that the money that has been spent on signs and forms could have more profitably been spent on language laboratories and on special forms of further education in the Welsh language.
  There are feelings of anxiety in this area. It is a delicate area in which misunderstanding is so easy. I understand why the hon. Member for Pontypool entertains real fears. I hope that the debate will go some way to lessen those fears in his mind and in the minds of us all.
  The fact is that the great majority in the Principality are English-speaking. It seems probable that for a long time in future the Assembly, whatever form it takes, will contain a large majority of Members who cannot speak Welsh. They will be an English-speaking monoglot. For the most part, they would be English speakers.
  The concept of a Welsh Assembly, as the hon. Gentleman says, increases the fears that he has explained to the Committee. However, I cannot see that the amendment as worded would deal with his fears. The amendment reads:
  "but in no circumstances shall it be regarded as appropriate that any person be not appointed in any role as an officer or servant of the Assembly because of lack of knowledge of Welsh and if any person fails to secure a post as such an officer or servant because of his lack of knowledge of Welsh then he shall have … cause of action."
  It can be imagined that there will be those with similar length of service in the Civil Service at high level who have similar qualifications and experience. If one is rejected, he might well make it a case that he was rejected solely because he was not a Welsh speaker and that the person who was appointed was given the appointment because he was a Welsh speaker. Many bogus cases could be founded in that way. I do not think that the amendment could achieve what the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
  Is the amendment desirable in its present form? Having listened to the debate, I have serious doubts. I believe that it
  1454
  would be misinterpreted. If the dangers increase and if the future as the hon. Gentleman sees it is not exaggerated, we shall have to review our attitudes. However, at present I am not satisfied that the majority who are trying to revive the language share the views of the extremists.
  Many of those who are working so hard in my constituency and in other areas on behalf of the Welsh language have a genuine wish to prevent the language from dying out altogether. At some personal inconvenience, and at considerable expense, they are ensuring that their children learn the Welsh language. I know of parents who drive their children long distances so that they may learn the language. They are not extremists. They deplore the extravagances that the hon. Gentleman has described. They deplore the raiding of premises. They deplore the invasion of studios, the shouting in courts of law and the plastering of buildings with slogans. At the same time they are devoting a great deal of time, concern and work to prevent a living language from dying.
  In that context and with that background I believe that the hon. Gentleman has done a service and not a disservice by initiating the debate. These are matters that we must debate frankly. They are not to be brushed under the carpet. It would be most undesirable if that were to happen. I hope, trust and believe that the hon. Gentleman's fears are exaggerated. Indeed, they are exaggerated. I hope that we shall be able to do without this sort of provision, which I do not think would achieve the objects that it is intended to bring about.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Mae hon yn ddadl bwysig—this is an important debate. I understand that it is an important debate, which I enter as an Englishman. I was trying to speak in Welsh because I understand what Welsh speakers feel and recognise that we talk about language with emotion. If I were Welsh, I should want to retain my Welsh language. I should want my children to retain the language and I should want their children to retain it. It would be like lopping off an arm or a limb to have one's language destroyed. I begin my argument from that standpoint.
  I am not certain that we are not getting two arguments mixed up. I am not certain whether the argument about the

  1455
  Welsh language is necessarily totally a part of the argument about devolution. Devolution is one thing and the retention and development of one's language is something totally different. Of course, both issues are allied in a sense.
  I have been worried because the Welsh language is being turned into a political football. There has been growing fanaticism over the years, certainly among some of the more extreme Welsh nationalists—but fanaticism among English speakers in Wales would be equally wrong. As an Englishman, I urge tolerance. Many people in Wales rightly wish to retain and develop their Welsh language, but many others do not, and probably never will, speak Welsh.
  The concept of bilingualism is not a bad one. It might have been a good thing if we in Liverpool had been properly taught Welsh, French and a number of other languages. When one understands someone else's language, one can not only communicate properly but can begin to understand his ideas. A nation's ideas are bound up with its language. I should therefore like to see tolerance. That is why I am not entirely happy with the amendment, although parts of it are important.
  Supposing an Englishman moved into a Welsh town and was properly qualified to become an officer of the Assembly; it would be quite wrong to deny him the opportunity. No one is suggesting that, and I trust that no one ever will. I do not know whether that protection can be written into the Bill, but it will have to be understood that qualified people, from wherever they come, should have equal rights to jobs.
  Mr. William Molloy: My hon. Friend's argument is attractive, but one could go further. The Secretary of State listed those Welsh counties where the English language predominates. As things stand, there is a danger that a Welshman born and bred could be penalised because he did not speak Welsh fluently enough. This does not apply only to Englishmen in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Heffer: I was trying to introduce an English dimension. I have listened to the Welsh argue the case and have not seen much evidence of the tolerance which
  1456
  would be shown in a purely English debate. We English are a very tolerant people, otherwise, we should not be trodden on as much as we sometimes are, particularly lately in this House. We now have debates about Scotland and Wales that seem to go on for ever. I sometimes wish that we might have a debate on problems of the English regions, which have high levels of unemployment and difficult problems. But that is not this debate, and I apologise for straying into the subject.
  I agree with the Secretary of State that it is unhelpful to make a bogy of the Welsh language. We must keep a balance. Those of us who do not live in Wales, and who would never come in contact with Welsh people if we were not Members of Parliament, should not destroy the language of the Welsh people. We must help it to continue to exist.
  But those Welsh people must in turn accept that there are vast areas of Wales where Welsh is never spoken. Those areas must have equal rights. What we need is tolerance and acceptance. I hope that this matter does not develop into a bitter internal battle in Wales. That would be unhelpful.
  5.15 p.m.
  I get slightly upset with the Welsh nationalists, especially those who used to blow up Liverpool's water supplies. That was very annoying, and it deprived the enormous number of Welsh people in Liverpool of their water as well.
  The confusion of the devolution debate is summed up in the words of landlord Ken Williams of the "Castle" Hotel, Shotton, who, referring to a previous speech of mine, said:
  "I am a Welshman and proud of it, but Wales couldn't survive on its own."
  Absolutely right.
  "Eric Heffer does not know anything about it."
  I do not think that that is right.
  "They should leave us well alone. I don't see any benefit in devolution or in becoming linked to Merseyside."
  That sums up the total confusion which now exists. To use Mr. Williams' words, it might be a good thing if the whole business were left alone.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: I am glad to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and

  1457
  I am grateful to him for seeking to cool undue passions. I shall not become impassioned by his references to water supplies because my constituency still supplies his people in Liverpool. Nor shall I go into the historical background of that question.
  This amendment and earlier speeches by opponents of devolution in the Labour Party show a regrettable willingness to stir up false fears. Some of us who support the Assembly have been accused of raising false expectations, but it is equally wrong to raise false fears.
  On Thursday, the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), who, regrettably, is not here at the moment, referred to Gwynedd County Council, but so far has not substantiated his allegations, as he said he would. I hope that those allegations about the treatment of school-children in Gwynedd will not be repeated today and that there will not be similar allegations about job prospects for young people in any part of Wales when the Assembly is in operation.
  In fact, devolution will enable us to exercise equality for both language groups in Wales. Within the Assembly we shall have for the first time a national forum which will be able to debate language policy within Wales, to take an all-Wales perspective towards language policy, and to develop that policy with the support of the majority of the population.
  Contrary to what has been suggested by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and others, I do not believe that there is hysterical opposition to measures aimed at stimulating and restoring the Welsh language within Wales. Indeed, all the surveys undertaken on education policy by the Schools Council, by education authorities and by the University College of Swansea into parental attitudes towards the teaching of Welsh as a second language and as a medium of instruction has thrown up the information that in cities such as Swansea and in the Valley areas a significant majority, amounting to as much as 60 per cent. in some areas, is in favour of maintaining the language as the national language of Wales and in favour of its being taught to children in schools.
  1458
  The impression that somehow English-speaking Wales is up in arms, or in great fear, or hostile to what might happen because of the consequences of devolution, and the impression put about by the hon. Member for Pontypool that the Language Freedom Movement in Aberystwyth has mass popular support, is false and should be corrected.
  We in Wales are not in a situation of exacerbated linguistic conflict. Our duty in the House is to resolve any potential conflict through effective measures rather than by seeking to stir up that conflict deliberately.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) referred to the criminal and illegal activities of those who are trying to bring the language issue to the fore by destroying road signs and breaking into television and radio stations. Will the hon. Gentleman and his party condemn those illegal activities, which do nothing to enhance the Welsh language?
  Mr. Thomas: Plaid Cymru has made its position clear on illegal activities. As a party we do not resort to such activities. I do not believe that illegal activities should be engaged in in place of specific political action. The reason why young people in Wales have resorted to illegal forms of action lies in their frustration and feeling of alienation within the political system in Britain that the Government of the day are not being sufficiently responsive. I do not want to be drawn too greatly on that point for fear of being out of order, but I believe that the continuing delay by the Government in implementing the fourth channel only exacerbates that frustration.
  Let me return to the amendment. The hon. Member for Pontypool was anxious to separate the language from politics. He accused us in Plaid Cymru and our fellow-travellers, as he called them, of politicising the language issue. There is often a call for such-and-such an issue to be taken out of politics. I have heard leading Opposition Front Benchers say that the Health Service, educational policy and agriculture should be taken out of politics. But the truth is that nothing that is within the realms of public policy can be taken out of politics because politics is the forum in which decisions are taken and in which priorities are allocated.

  1459
  I should not like to see the Welsh language taken out of politics; I want to see it firmly rooted in politics. I should like to see every political party with a cogently argued language policy and the Welsh Assembly as the political forum for the language policy of Wales.
  If the hon. Member for Pontypool studies Hansard tomorrow, he will see that the images he used about the continuing existence of the Welsh language were ones better associated with the survival of a hothouse plant. He talked about nurturing and of special measures to protect the situation. That attitude of isolating the language as a cultural phenomenon to be protected is false.
  We in Wales must accept that the Welsh language has its full place in our public life. That means that there should be a policy involving the restoration of language status. That is what the argument is about, namely, how best to restore the status of the language in the public life of Wales. It is not a case of separating language; it is a matter of taking the language as a part of the political structure of Wales and of seeing how, within the economic, planning, educational and social policies, it is possible to ensure that the language is gradually restored as the language of the majority of the population.
  That is my declared objective. It can be achieved only with the good will of the majority of the population. It can be achieved most effectively by ensuring public status for the language and access to the language in the media, film making and other spheres of activity, and by ensuring that the educational system provides an opportunity for all children to be taught Welsh. That can be achieved without a coercive policy, because such a policy would be counter productive. We must have the majority of non-Welsh speaking people with us in seeking to develop the creative and cultural resources of our nation. We must devise a system of public policy which can restore the language and which is not coercive.
  I wish to remind the House that attempts have been made in other countries to achieve this end. Opponents of an effective language policy tend to argue as though the position in Wales and the bilingual situation there were unique. That is not the case. Bilingualism is the
  1460
  rule rather than the exception in most of the developed and the under-developed world. Most States are bilingual. The problem of bilingual administration exists throughout the multilingual institutions.
  It has been implied that it will be the Welsh speakers who will be given the top jobs. The same argument was used about French speakers in the EEC. It was said that because the Continentals were multilingual they, rather than the British, would obtain those top jobs. That is not what the argument is about. We in Wales must work towards a system of institutional bilingualism which does not imply individual bilingualism.
  Mr. Heffer: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman in many of his arguments, and there is a certain amount of merit in his speech. However, he must agree that there should be no discrimination against people who do not know the Welsh language, or indeed against people who do not speak the English language. That was the important point that I was trying to make. I was seeking to say that, although I agree that it would be a good thing to extend facilities to ensure that more and more people are able to learn and understand Welsh, it is the discriminatory aspect of the matter which some people fear.
  Mr. Thomas: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's intervention. We in Plaid Cymru have often argued that there should be a linguistic ombudsman or commissioner of some kind to whom complaints about discrimination could be made and adjudged within the context of the Assembly. That matter could be fully debated on the Assembly floor. That would be done within that forum, and I hope that the democratic rights of all groups can be fully protected.
  Mr. Kinnock: How does the hon. Gentleman propose to safeguard the situation against action taken by zealots who use their linguistic prejudices against people or children who are not in a position to defend themselves? How will the people involved be able to redress their grievances without risk of further victimisation or bullying of some description? This is the difficulty into which we get as a consequence of the zealous pursuit of linguistic racialism. I am sure that the hon. Member wishes to avoid that as much as I do.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas: I shall attempt to remain within the rules of order. I reject utterly, as I did on Thursday, the words "linguistic racialism".
  Mr. Kinnock: That is what it is.
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member's allegations have not been substantiated. Grievances can be redressed through the normal democratic procedures by complaining to the authorities. Parliament has given them power to implement policies and complaints can be made to them.
  I hope that the Assembly will consider the case for having a linguistic ombudsman for Wales such as exist in other bilingual States. That would mean that an independent assessment could be made by both sides of cases of alleged discrimination. It would ensure one effective focus, and representations could be made to such a person.
  Mr. Abse: Would the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) insist that the ombudsman was Welsh-speaking? Would he insist that the ombudsman's staff was Welsh-speaking? Would the ombudsman also be someone who could not be drawn from the English-speaking people? Once one talks of an ombudsman a dilemma is created involving both him and his staff.
  Mr. Thomas: If I were responsible for appointing him I should give priority to a Belgian or a Canadian, who would have a great deal of experience in cases of this kind.
  Mr. Kinnock: In the event of that Belgian, Canadian or Swahilian coming to settle in Wales to exercise such duties, what would he do about sending his children to school? I have evidence that discrimination is practised in some schools. Would it not be most extraordinary if difficulties were encountered by that man or woman's children and they were therefore discouraged from making a home in Wales to contribute to the good management of Wales? We are talking about kids.
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member for Bedwellty continues to allude to the debate that we had on Thursday. I hope that a linguistic ombudsman from Belgium or Canada who would settle in Wales would be able to take advantage of the
  1462
  education policies in South Glamorgan. They would allow his children to learn Welsh. We have teachers who are as good members of trade unions as the hon. Member who pursue their profession in a sensitive way that ensures that there is no discrimination against children. The hon. Member for Bedwellty makes allegations and takes advantage of the privilege of the House of Commons. He should either convey those allegations to the right quarter or withdraw them.
  The problem about operating a system of institutional bilingualism arises on the question whether to employ bilingual individuals. It is clear to me that the only Welsh-speaking elite will be the translators who will have highly responsible and well-paid jobs and who will have to work long hours in the Assembly. That is the only elite that the Assembly needs. They will be able to make simultaneous translations of debates and translate documents, as they do now.
  If a Welsh-speaking constitutent writes to me about housing, for example, I write a letter in Welsh to the Undersecretary of State who is responsible for Welsh housing. That letter is then translated in the translation unit of the Welsh Office and sent to the housing division. A reply is drafted in English, signed by the Minister, and a translation is sent to me. I am then able to reply to my constituent in the language of his choice. That is how it works now. I see no reason why that kind of effective bilingualism cannot work in the Assembly.
  The answers to many of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Pontypool are within the technology of bilingualism as practised in many multilingual and international institutions. It is odd that someone who is familiar with international politics should raise this issue in the context of the Welsh Assembly. The Knesset and the Parliaments of Belgium and Canada are bilingual, and the European Community is multilingual. Throughout the world these problems have been resolved. The suggestion that they cannot be resolved in Wales marks a failure to recognise that the Welsh people are able to resolve and reconcile any language tensions as well as, if not better than, other bilingual institutions in the world.
  Why is this issue being raised now? It is not being raised on its merits; it is

  1463
  being raised as yet another smoke screen, yet another red herring, "un sgwarnog arall"— yet another hare, in the devolution debate. It is an attempt to cloud the whole issue in emotionalism and an attempt not to have a rational debate about the merits of the Assembly. It is an attempt to raise false fears.
  Mr. Fred Evans: Can the hon. Member seriously blame hon. Members for treating the Assembly in this way when he and his hon. Friends are openly stating that they see the Assembly as a stepping stone to the greater goal of Welsh independence?
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) is trying to lead me out of order. We had a long debate on the legislative powers of the Assembly. I have made clear that we cannot move forward at a more rapid pace than the Welsh people demand. That is our position. It has always been our position. Suggestions of its being a stepping stone or a slippery slope are not relevant. We are talking about the powers of an elected body.
  This argument is being used deliberately to cloud the issue in emotionalism. It is an attempt to prevent us having a rational discussion. I well remember the strong and stirring speech by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) in Denbigh. He said that all "North Walians"—I do not know what breed of man a Walian is—would be dominated by the terrible Socialists from the Valleys if we had an Assembly. He said that the Welsh-speaking minority in the Denbigh constituency would be dominated by the English-speaking Socialist majority of the Valleys.
  The same sort of argument, inversely presented, has been used by the hon. Member for Pontypool. He suggests that somehow 500,000 of us who are bilingual, whether by accident of birth or parental choice, will be able to dominate 2·7 million people in Wales. This kind of minority-bashing to which the hon. Member is reverting does no service to the devolution argument, and sometimes when I hear his more hysterical utterances in Wales and on Welsh television I suspect that he is verging closely upon the kind of minority-bashing that has been indulged in recently by the Leader
  1464
  of the Opposition and which I and my party abhor.
  Mr. Kinnock: Appeals have been made in the debate, first by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) for tolerance, and, secondly, by my right hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) for common sense. I think that that is the best way to conduct the whole argument that has developed about the present, future and past of the Welsh language. I shall leave aside the issue of the past for the purposes of this speech, although I suspect that we shall have to return to it, reluctantly, on future occasions. I shall concentrate on the present and the future in the context of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse).
  As my hon. Friend said, the great regret is that there should be any obligation to put down such an amendment. The only reason for that is the experience we have of the way in which the devolution argument has developed and of the way in which nationalism has advanced. I refer not to the proportion of the vote that the nationalists hold in Wales, because that is stagnating. Neither do I refer to the influence that the nationalists can have in planning the future of the Welsh people. I refer to it in terms of the reverberative effect of their advance on the attitudes of people in the Labour movement and elsewhere in Wales.
  We have said that in the event of an Assembly being established in Cardiff—a highly unlikely event, given that there will be a referendum in which the people of Wales will make their opinion known—we are conscious of the fact that the whole process of slip, slide, slither, appeasement and concession, the process of acceptance of nationalism, or at least its tokens, could mean that people were actually denied employment or posts which on the basis of merit they could command, simply because they did not have a mastery of the Welsh language. Where Welsh is of direct and positive advantage in a job, where it is a necessary tool of the Governmental trade, where it is necessary in order clearly to communicate with the people in the two main tongues of Wales—Welsh and English—it should be understood that in

  1465
  competition for a post advantage would be awarded to those fluent in both languages.
  I do not think that that goes much further than what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool. The fact remains, however, that we have to try to insert an assurance, a guarantee, that that power, that necessity, that entirely logical and sensitive and sensible way of conducting the whole policy of appointment, cannot be abused.
  It has been said that there is an immense paradox—that those who support our argument are saying simultaneously that there is a danger of linguistic dictation by the nationalists but that the Assembly will be predominantly inhabited by people who are representative of the monoglot Anglicised areas. I do not see any paradox in that. Again, I say that within the context of our experience of the way in which the argument for devolution has advanced.
  5.45 p.m.
  I give full credit to my comrades in the Labour movement who have advanced ideas and presented methods of devolution. But they recognise that the people of Wales acknowledge that we are not here discussing this Bill because of the force of the principle rehearsed by my comrades in the Labour movement or because of pressures imposed by the Welsh people or the demands articulated by the Labour movement in favour of a decentralised system of government. We are here for the entirely separate and different reason of political appeasement and convenience. If we can introduce proposals for an immense constitutional change on the basis of such a tiny tail wagging such a huge dog, it does not require a leap of the imagination to envisage a situation in which the Assembly, totally dominated by English speakers, will be wagged, again by the force of embarrassment, by that very tiny tail.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I understand my hon. Friend now to say that the Government in all these policies are impelled by pressures from, inter alia, Plaid Cymru. Does he not appreciate that the traditions in which I was brought up—the same goes for many of my hon. Friends—derive from the arguments of
  1466
  the pioneers of the Labour movement itself? When I came into politics in the 1930s I was much influenced by the manifesto laid before the nation in 1929 and by theses on the subject of devolution propounded not only by Henderson and Hardie but by many other leaders of the Labour Party. Therefore, however defective my hon. Friend may believe the Bill to be, what we are doing has a perfectly respectable antecedent in the Labour movement, an antecedent which may be underlined and spoken to at length by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley).
  Mr. Walter Padley: May I intervene briefly on that point? Without going back to ancient history, it is worth recalling that in the middle 'fifties S. O. Davies, the then Member for Merthyr Tydfil, introduced his Government of Wales Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) voted for it. I did not. Aneurin Bevan spoke against it. James Griffiths wound up against it. Let us get the history straight. I abstained because although I personally would have voted for it, my constituents were not of that opinion at that time. I endorse what my right hon. Friend says. There is a long and honourable tradition in the Welsh, British and international Socialist movements for measures of this kind, and probably for more advanced measures than this.
  Mr. Kinnock: I recognise entirely what my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have said about the hallowed antecedents for the whole proposition not for devolution but for Home Rule, as advocated in the Labour movement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey would be the last man to retreat from the realities of those, whether in the proposals of the forties or the twenties, or of an earlier period going back to Keir Hardie.
  We could have an argument—I am not sure whether this is an entirely appropriate place, though I should like to think that Parliament is the appropriate place—about the motivation of Keir Hardie and the Labour pioneers at the beginning of the century in advocating Home Rule for Scotland and Wales against the atmosphere in which every man of radical intention and liberated spirit was advocating Home Rule for Ireland. I do

  1467
  not think that what Hardie and others were saying then can be separated from the dominating issue of British politics over the previous 20 years and the following 16 years after 1900.
  If we put Home Rule into that context, we find that we are not talking about anything remotely resembling our right hon. Friend's Bill, because they talk about decentralisation and devolution. They even had a clause in the Bill—until they were wise enough to withdraw it—which said that it was the very means of guaranteeing the unity of the kingdom.
  Of course, Hardie was not pursuing the unity of an imperialistic, Edwardian capitalist State; he was putting the proposition that, because of the way in which, even at that date, the Welsh, Scottish and Irish people had demonstrated a readiness to accept Socialism in a way that England had not, fortune for Socialism lay in providing separate governmental institutions for Scotland, Wales and Ireland. We should put the whole history into that original context and bring it more into our debate.
  I recognise the long and honourable association that my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey has—and that Jim Griffiths had, and that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and others have had—with the whole proposal for forms of Home Rule. They have become either diluted or strengthened, whichever way they have gone, as the years have passed.
  However, the fact remains—I say this without the slightest criticism and in no sense crowing triumphantly over my right hon. Friend—that beyond that debate in the 1950s, the whole proposal for this kind of constitutional change dwindled in its importance as an issue in the Welsh Labour movement, until it became a matter of almost academic and remote interest to a very small number of people in the movement. It is none the worse for that. I belong to minorities in the movement and I demand the right to press my case. I only hope that I have as much success in pressing my case, from a minority position, as my right hon. Friends have had in pressing theirs. I hope to see the day when a Bill is presented by my right hon. Friends that will secure major adjustments in the Monarchy and the abolition of the House
  1468
  of Lords, and in which one or two other minor changes are brought about. Perhaps I shall have some success in that respect over the next few years, as my right hon. Friends have had in other respects.
  However, is it not the most extraordinary coincidence of history that in the immediate years following the triumph on the first occasion of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), and the shock delivered to me as well as to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) back in 1967, and the temporary local difficulties encountered by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) in 1968—in all three of whose campaigns I was very glad to involve myself—it was in that atmosphere and against that background that we had the whole delusion that somehow the demands, resentments and alienations of Welsh and Scottish people could be met by constitutional change?
  Had we had a constant thread of incessant demand in advance of the ideas of Home Rule, decentralisation, devolution, separation, independence, federation, or whatever other of the 57 varieties of constitutional change that we are being offered during this debate, and if that had been consistent and continual, if we had seen marching legions going forward, if the block votes had been cast every year at Labour Party conferences and if at the TUC there had been that consistent demand—we could say that this Bill is the consequence of that kind of development.
  I say to my right hon. and learned Friend—and, as on very few other issues, nothing will change my mind—that this Bill, all that has gone before it and all that will come from it until the Welsh people kill it at the referendum, is the product of a particular set of circumstances in the late 1960s, and in 1973 and 1974 in Scotland. Nothing other than a truth drug would expose the actual circumstances or motivations from which we have got the Bill. Nothing could persuade my right hon. Friends to acknowledge that North Sea oil or the threat posed temporarily by the hon. Member for Carmarthen had anything to do with it.
  My right hon. Friends must, of course, insist—I am talking not of my right hon.

  1469
  Friend the Member for Anglesey but of the Government—that not only has the Bill precedents more hallowed than Magna Carta in Labour movement terms but that it is the product of a consistent, insistent and systematic demand growing from the hearts of the Welsh people and from the very bellies of the Welsh Labour movement. And of course, that is utter rubbish.
  The reason why I am engaged in this debate at all is that, in the same way as the Bill has appeared without trace, in the same way that it is a patronising response to immediate and short-term political difficulties, we could have, in the same process of appeasement and the same process of retreat, the adoption of linguistic policies by a Welsh Assembly that it had absolutely no intention of implementing on its vesting day. Certainly my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government have not the vaguest intention of seeing it come to pass as they try to put the Bill through Parliament.
  That is the background against which we must try to secure legislative guarantees that that cannot happen, because there is another development. I have experienced it, and I think that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who represent Welsh constituencies experience it. Indeed, all other hon. Members experience it. I refer to the response that one makes to allegations of treachery or of lack of patriotism, or of failing to embrace the cultural identity of the people one represents.
  There are different ways to respond to this, but it takes people of the most enormous resilience not, at some stage, to say that for the sake of a quiet life, for the sake of popularity or for the sake of avoiding bitter and irrational arguments about their patriotism, they will beat the drum louder and fly the flag higher, and will concede to those who wish to use patriotism as the criterion of who is worthy.
  I have been called anti-Welsh often enough to know the temptation of making that response. However, I am fortunate in that hundreds of thousands—indeed, probably millions—of other people in Wales, who speak Welsh and who do not speak Welsh, resent as deeply as I do the allegations of being anti-Welsh that arise
  1470
  simply because we do not share the politics of those who make the allegations.
  I repeat that I know the temptation, however, of responding to those allegations—that is, that I might try to demonstrate my Welshness, whatever that may mean, in a more profound, dramatic and Thespian way than I would normally. I have seen people doing it. One has only to go into a pub or a club in London at the time of an international game, or to Blackpool, when Welsh people are taking their holidays. One has only to encounter Welsh academics or Welsh lawyers, or Welshmen of any description, in London who, in an alien environment, become so Welsh that their own parents would not recognise them if they were back in Llwydcoed, Cwmcarn, Nantymoel, Llanelli or Machynlleth.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend may know of the definition of "romantic love" as being that of someone who is more prepared to die with his beloved than to live with her. Does not that assist some of us in thinking of the London Welsh?
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Kinnock: I ask that all references to the London Welsh be ruled out of order, otherwise I should be involved in considerations of why they should have beaten Liverpool in the cup last Saturday. It is not an area into which I feel entitled to go, however equipped I might be to deal with the matter.
  I want to put a hypothetical but very serious point to the Committee. Suppose that we have an Assembly that is dominated by people who do not speak Welsh and who are constantly, because of the way in which they refuse to make concessions, accused of being anti-Welsh. Suppose that, recognising the enormous force of that superficial patriotic catcall, they begin a policy of appeasement, a policy of concession. Suppose that first they show an amenable attitude towards the language zealots. We shall then find that we are in a different situation altogether.
  We are fortunate in having our own knowledge of what has happened in Wales, not over thousands of years but over the last 10 years. We have all had our personal experience. We do not have to rely upon the stories of our fathers or our grandfathers. We are therefore able

  1471
  to anticipate what will be the effect of jingoism on the Assembly and the reaction of Members of the Assembly to the catcalls about treachery. We can appreciate how that can and will bring about involuntary and reluctant changes in policy, but nevertheless changes that will spell disaster for the Welsh people and, in the process, disaster for the Welsh language.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman talks about the "concession" that he foresees and the changes in policy. He has not specified them. If they were to be a response to a demand for more resources for bilingual education, or a response to a demand for the Assembly to make proposals to the House of Commons about any improvement in the Act of the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) dealing with the Welsh language, those changes could be achieved only through the legislative process of the House of Commons. So what is the hon. Gentleman worried about?
  Mr. Kinnock: I understand that, but it does not lie in the hon. Gentleman's mouth—bearing in mind that he supported an amendment at an earlier stage for legislative powers to be given to the Welsh Assembly—to offer to me now the guarantee that these things could never come to pass because the Assembly would never be given legislative powers. The hon. Gentleman is a very clever chap, but that dextrous employment of fortune does not come too well from him.
  Let us suppose that, for whatever reasons, good or ill, the Assembly adopted a policy on language, or encouragement and assistance for the Welsh language, which was exaggerated rather than prejudiced—possibly a misplaced use of funds. In order to get that endorsed in some way, it would have to come back to the House of Commons. There would then, I believe, be two reactions in the House of Commons. There would be people who would say "We dare not try to silence the genuine national voice of Wales, as articulated by its national Assembly, especially since it is pursuing the interests of its national culture". Then there would be the others who would say 'To hell with the Welsh. This is a grand chance for confrontation. It is our chance to put them in their place".
  1472
  I should not be in either group. I should try to calculate whether the proposition of the Assembly was sensible and in the interests of the Welsh people. But the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I would probably be in a minority, and the Welsh people and the Welsh culture would be crushed like an egg in a nutcracker if that situation came to pass. That is what happens when devolution spawns, because it is a condescension, it is incomplete Home Rule, and it gives all the disadvantages of dependence and all the disadvantages of independence. The hon. Gentleman should by now have started to learn this.
  I understand that the hon. Gentleman, in the earlier part of his speech—which I unfortunately missed—said that I did not have any evidence to back up my statement about schools in North Wales. I have received six letters in today's post giving me specific evidence from individual schools, all of which are in different places in North Wales, on both sides of the Menai. On the basis of my offer to the hon. Gentleman last week, I shall provide him with photocopies, on the strict understanding, which I am sure he will honour, that the letters will not be communicated to any other persons. I said the same thing to Mr. O. M. Roberts and have sent copies to him, since the chairman of Gwynedd education committee told me that it would be his purpose to stamp out the victimisation of children, if it exists. I say "where it exists", not "if it exists".
  Since we are at one in that purpose, we shall have to find some means of pursuing it, possibly through my right hon. Friend, for there is no better representative of public interest in North Wales or anywhere else in Wales. Perhaps some means can be suggested to me, which can be agreed between us, to ensure that the teachers who perpetrate what I consider to be a crime against these children will be brought to book and dealt with in the most severe fashion.
  I think that the hon. Gentleman deliberately misrepresented what I said in Committee last Thursday. I have at no time made a blanket accusation of any description against the teaching profession in Gwynedd or elsewhere. The whole context of my remarks, as he surely recognises, was to direct the attack against a very small number—at least, I hope it is

  1473
  very small—of teachers, of language zealots who are doing murder to the language that they purport to love. The remainder of the profession is as disturbed and disgusted as I am by that practice. Indeed, some of the complaints made to me over the years have come from career teachers who love their jobs but who, for the same reason as parents, have not wanted to invite retribution by taking their complaints through the normal channels of redress.
  I hope that that is specific and clear enough for the hon. Gentleman. What I said in the debate last Thursday is recorded in the Official Report. It will be seen that I specifically exempted the Gwynedd County Council and the Gwynedd local education authority from the charge of any deliberate implementation of a policy against children who do not speak Welsh. It appears to me, however, that there could have been a more frank and a more accurate conveying of the views that I actually expressed.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has relented somewhat from his extreme and groundless statements of last Thursday, but what he has just told the Committee is that he has now received by first-class mail, from certain parts of North Wales, letters which purport to support his allegations in Committee. What he has not given to me privately— as he indicated last Thursday that he would—is a dossier of the evidence that he had at the time when he he made his statement. He is now saying that he has solicited or obtained letters from potential supporters in parts of Gwynedd and Clwyd which purport to support his position. I have yet to receive details of the evidence which led him to make the allegations in the first place. Until he provides me—and also the chairman of the Gwynedd education committee—with those full deails, I shall not relent from my criticism of what he said last Thursday.
  Much criticism has been made of the hon. Gentleman's remarks from within the teaching profession and the teachers' unions in Wales. I should have thought that it would be fair for him to take his allegations privately to his right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), to the Secretary of State, who
  1474
  has oversight of education in Wales, and to the teachers' unions, rather than to make blanket accusations which have still not been substantiated—except post hoc by some solicited correspondence.
  Mr. Kinnock: Since the hon. Gentleman made such an infantile speech, I shall now make some accusations. If he has any acquaintance with local life in his area, he knows, and always has known, that this kind of campaign has taken place. As a public representative, regardless of party, he should have been pressing for justice. It is no good the hon. Gentleman pretending that this is the first time that he has heard these allegations or that this is the first allegation he has ever heard. He knows that that is not the case.
  It is no good his trying to colour the story by saying that I should have taken this matter up in private and that the House of Commons is much too public a place. In the arguments that we had, I went to great lengths to explain why I had been reluctant to make these allegations public. I did it in a form last Thursday which I hoped would guarantee the maximum action and the minimum of reaction.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Publicity.
  Mr. Kinnock: I would never use issues like this in order to get publicity. I am much more interested in getting justice for the kids than in getting the publicity either for myself or for anyone else. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not like the publicity. But I guarantee that he will get a lot of publicity when these teachers are punished for what they have done and he is either required to defend them or apologise and withdraw his accusation that I have solicited this evidence. That is utter rubbish. That is the only way in which I can possibly react. It is total and complete rubbish. I have not had to solicit any evidence.
  The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I suggest that another way of dealing with this matter is for the hon. Gentleman to return to the amendment.
  Mr. Kinnock: I shall be glad to do so, because I do not like being out of order. In view of what the hon. Gentleman said earlier, however, and in view of his allegation against me, I am sure, Mr. God-man Irvine, that you recognise my need

  1475
  to react as forcefully as possible. On subsequent occasions we all have cause to hear a statement from the hon. Gentleman withdrawing what he has said because of the bulk of evidence against it. [Interruption.] I have already told the hon. Gentleman that he shall see the evidence. Continued interruptions from a sedentary position do not help at all.
  I return to the amendment. The fear that my hon. Friends and I have is that there will be concessions and the prospect of "slip and slide". My fear is that such a proposal will embitter relations, diminish the support that the language has got and turn us from the situations described by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, where, 10 years ago, the language was regarded with warmth—some of it sentimental, and some of it condescending—and with the greatest of good will. I fear that a situation in which we must take up positions will divide our society because of the way in which zealotry, extremism and bigotry have divided the people of Wales against each other. This has become a linguistic consideration over and above a normal political consideration. In so doing, it has damaged our democracy as well as our belief in the culture of Wales.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has made serious allegations and appears to have evidence in his possession. My advice to him would be to keep his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State fully informed. I am sure that he will.
  The language issue is always sensitive On the whole, this has been a sensitive debate. The amendment was drawn up in as stolid and determined a mood as it was moved by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). However, the hon. Gentleman has implied that the amendment has some drafting defects. I understand that he is unlikely to press it to a Division. He believes that the best way of showing his disaffection is to vote against Clause 25. I am in agreement with him.
  Having said that, let me assure the hon. Gentleman—who unfortunately is not here at present—that we are fully aware of the feelings on his part, and on the part of many non-Welsh speakers
  1476
  in Wales, that have prompted him to table the amendment. We are led to believe that there are many people in Wales who, rightly or wrongly, fear the advent of the Assembly because they believe that it will become an instrument of political and cultural nationalism of an extreme character. They fear that their interests will be adversely affected, that they will not be able to get jobs because they are not Welsh speakers and that they will be discriminated against on linguistic grounds. That is what the hon. Gentleman has alleged.
  We have heard some of those allegations in this debate. Personally, I have rather greater fear of discrimination on party political grounds, as tends to happen now. I hope that my fears are unjustified. I am bound to admit that some preference—I use the word "preference" as opposed to "discrimination" with its racial connotations—is already practised on linguistic grounds in a limited area where knowledge of the Welsh language is absolutely essential to the performance of the job involved. I am thinking of the teaching of Welsh as a language, the teaching of other subjects in bilingual schools through the medium of Welsh and the television and radio broadcasting of Welsh language programmes.
  This was referred to by the Annan Committee. As reference has been made to broadcasting I think that I am justified in quoting from the Annan Report. It says:
  "We understand that in the past, it has been customary for the BBC Governor for Wales and the IBA's Welsh Member to be bilingual, and the BBC Management in Cardiff told us there was a bar on the promotion of non-Welsh language speakers above a certain level, although this bar was not operated inflexibly. It is often claimed that these arrangements are unfair to non-Welsh speakers and that they can seek advancement in a career in broadcasting only by leaving Wales. It is right that the top executives should be able to understand Welsh and we hope the broadcasting organisations will help staff who want to learn to speak and read Welsh adequately. But it is not right that only the bilingual, brought up with Welsh as their mother-tongue, should have access to the highest jobs."
  That is precisely what the Annan Report said.
  There are two sides to this issue, and a number of questions are begged. For example, those who leave broadcasting in Wales to advance their careers elsewhere probably do better than if they

  1477
  remained in Wales. It will be known to hon. Members that some people who started life in broadcasting in Wales have done extremely well since then by leaving Wales. There are some Welsh speakers who have been kept in broadcasting in Wales deliberately when they might have sought advancement elsewhere.
  There are counties in Wales in which the proportion of Welsh speakers is very high, if we can still rely on the 1971 census. The proportion in Anglesey was 61·2 per cent., in Caernarvonshire 57·6 per cent., in Carmarthenshire 63·6 per cent., in Cardiganshire 63·9 per cent. and in Merionethshire 65·7 per cent. For comparison, the figure for Monmouth-shire at that time was only 2 per cent., and perhaps one can understand the reaction of the hon. Member for Pontypool.
  It is not surprising that a knowledge of Welsh is regarded as a useful asset in the performance of many jobs in the health and social services in areas where there is a high incidence of Welsh-speaking. Similarly, there is an above-average proportion of Welsh speakers among the elderly. Nearly 29 per cent. of those aged 65 and over in Wales in 1971 were Welsh-speaking. Therefore, in the care of geriatrics there is a demand for Welsh-speaking people, especially in those areas I mentioned. Our current difficulty is to get experts in this field who can speak English properly, let alone Welsh. In the jobs I have mentioned, a knowledge of Welsh is either essential or a considerable asset, and no one in the Committee or elsewhere can deny that.
  The Welsh Assembly might decide under standing orders that speeches in Welsh are in order. It is inconceivable that the Assembly should decide that they are not in order. If one cannot make Welsh speeches in Wales, where can one make them? Should the Assembly decide that a bilingual official record is required, translators will be called for. Their appointment appears to be debarred under the amendment, which states:
  "in no circumstances shall it be regarded as appropriate that any person be not appointed in any role as an officer or servant of the Assembly because of lack of knowledge of Welsh".
  It is a pity that the hon. Member for Pontypool drew up the amendment in such inflexible terms.
  1478
  Again, what are non-Welsh-speaking Members and officers of the Assembly to do when faced with letters in the Welsh language? Are they simply to ignore them, or will they preserve the tradition of civility practised certainly by the Welsh Office and, I hope, by other Departments which respect the spirit of the Welsh Language Act 1967 and provide a reply in the language of the letter and the correspondent? I can foresee some Welsh-speaking officers or servants being required by the Assembly for the purposes I have mentioned, as they are required currently by the Welsh Office. Consequently, the remainder of the amendment permitting an action in tort is not altogether appropriate.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) implied, there is a danger of a host of bogus actions being brought against the Assembly by those who fail to get a job on its staff and who can allege that it was on account of their lack of knowledge of the Welsh language, whether or not there is any substance in the allegation.
  The Conservative attitude towards the Welsh language—indeed, both languages—is made clear in our amendment to Clause 11, in which we suggested that the clause should read as follows:
  "The Assembly may make arrangements to support museums, art galleries, libraries, the languages and culture of Wales, the arts, crafts, sport and other cultural and recreational activities; but shall not under this section do, or include in any such arrangements, anything which would unreasonably prejudice the interests or restrict the employment opportunities of those who do, or those who do not, speak the Welsh language."
  That is absolutely fair. We must seek to preserve a balanced judgment and approach to this question of the language. By no means all the half million Welsh-speaking population of Wales—about 20 per cent. of the whole—are devolutionists. Nor are they supporters of Plaid Cymru, which secures only about 10 per cent. of the vote in a General Election. They belong to all parties, and all parties have done their best to support the language and its culture. Perhaps the greatest mistake has been for Welsh speakers to rely too much on governmental action to save the language. I know of no language that has been saved directly and only by Government action.

  1479
  Welsh speakers do not ask for an unfair advantage over their non-Welsh-speaking brethren. I have yet to see any Welsh speaker of my acquaintance urge his or her claim to a job purely on linguistic grounds where the language was not essential to the purpose of the job.
  We would deplore the inclusion in any job advertisement of the need for a language qualification where such a qualification was clearly unnecessary. One hears stories about advertisements for Welsh-speaking baths attendants and so on, but I have never seen a copy of such an advertisement. We must remember our half million Welsh speakers, many of whom will wish to vote "No" in the referendum. We must not be insensitive to their love of the language, and I know that the hon. Member for Pontypool is not so. I remember his name heading the list of subscribers to the Royal National Eisteddfod at Cardiff some years ago—if it was not the hon. Gentleman, it was his brother.
  We in Wales certainly have not reached the stage reached by the Parti Quebecois Government in the 80 per cent. French-speaking province of Quebec. They are promoting a charter for the French language designed to give it primacy in relation to English not only in the schools but also at work. All companies, multinationals included, are under some duress to make French the language of the work people. Behind this move one senses that there is a shortage of jobs anyway and that the local people are simply using the charter to secure priority in employment for local people. There is some of this anxiety in Wales. Whenever we have a major industrial or construction development, we all seek to ensure that priority in employment is given to local people, to our constituents, rather than to others who can be brought in from outside. It is natural that we should seek to protect our own.
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: My hon. Friend referred to the Parti Quebecois, which operates in an area which has an overwhelming majority of French speakers. Is he perhaps not under-stressing the main point, that we are dealing with a minority which is outnumbered five to one? There could come a point at which, if the proceedings of the Assembly were to be broadcast, the overwhelming majority of the Welsh
  1480
  people would not be able to understand the proceedings of their own Assembly in they were conducted in Welsh.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Roberts: I really do not think that that situation is at all imminent. If my hon. Friend looks at the proportion of broadcasting in Wales that is in English compared with the proportion that is in Welsh, he will find that there is a tremendous preponderance of English language broadcasting.
  An anxiety to protect lies behind the next series of amendments, which do not think we shall reach. There is an attempt to protect local government staff and ensure that they will be given parity of treatment with the Civil Service when they apply for jobs with the Assembly. This is particularly relevant in view of Clause 13 which we passed yesterday.
  There will be no Welsh public service—that is quite clear—although NALGO has pressed for it and a document prepared by the Labour Party in its Wales executive committee said that it was "crucial" for the Assembly to have control of its own Civil Service. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) referred to these matters in his earlier intervention. Although the amendment under discussion assumes that the Assembly has powers of appointment, Clause 67 makes it clear that the appointments will be to the Home Civil Service and will be made accordingly. I believe that it would be a great loss to the Civil Service in Wales if its connection with the rest of the United Kingdom was lost. It would be a loss to local government as well.
  I do not think that we can consider this amendment properly without reference to the principle of the clause to which it is a somewhat lengthy addendum. The amendment does not make sense except in the context of the clause. The preamble to the Bill says that the Civil Service will be increased by 1,150 over the forecast levels. This includes the staff to support the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor-General.
  It does not say what the Welsh-speaking complement will be, but there are bound to be some Welsh speakers just as there are in the Welsh Office at present. It would be interesting to know the number of Welsh speakers in the

  1481
  Welsh Office now. Capital expenditure incurred on account of the extra civil servants is estimated at £1 million. Forecast annual running costs of the Assembly include an item of £9·5 million for additional civil servants, including the staff of the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor-General and accommodation costs for them. This means that the annual average cost per head is £8,261 at November 1977 prices.
  It is interesting to note how those figures have changed since the Scotland and Wales Bill. In that Bill, costs were calculated on November 1976 prices. The cost of adapting the Stock Exchange at Cardiff has risen from £2·8 million to £3 million and the cost of providing equipment and accommodation consequent upon the reorganisation of the Welsh Office has remained curiously constant at £1 million. On the other hand, the annual running costs in respect of salaries and related costs of Members of the Assembly have risen from £2·5 million to £3 million. At the same time, the annual running costs for civil servants have fallen from £10 million to £9·5 million, presumably because the numbers have been reduced from 1,300 in the Scotland and Wales Bill to 1,100-odd in the present Bill. The average annual cost of the civil servants per head at 1976 prices was £7,692. At 1977 prices it is £569 more. That is quite a significant annual rate of increase—7·4 per cent., although in fairness I am bound to point out that prices increased in that year by 13 per cent.
  A number of specific questions arise on this amendment. How are the staff increases calculated? What do the Government mean by saying that they are over the forecast levels? And what are the forecast levels? Surely this means that the Assembly does not have a free hand to appoint officers and servants as it considers appropriate without a limit of some sort, and that limit is implied in the preamble. Also, there must be a limit to the amount that the Assemblymen can pay themselves, and these limits are also implied in the preamble.
  When we talk about appointments to the Assembly, whether Welsh-speaking or non-Welsh-speaking, we must ask what these people are in addition to. It is not stated, for instance, whether the 1,150 increase includes the civil servants trans-
  1482
  ferred to the Welsh Office after the devolution of agriculture and higher education to the Secretary of State for Wales.
  A total of 1,565 civil servants were employed in the Welsh Office as at 1st April 1977. I hope that the Minister will tell us how many are Welsh-speaking. Presumably the same proportion of Welsh-speaking to non-Welsh-speaking civil servants will prevail when the staff is increased. By 1st April 1978 the Welsh Office will employ 2,600 civil servants. Are we to understand that after the establishment of the Assembly there will be 3,750 civil servants in the Welsh Office? What about the ancillary staff, and how many of them will there be?
  We cannot give full consideration to the question of appointments without reference to the method of appointment. This is referred to in Clause 67, where it is stated that
  "Service as an officer or servant of the Assembly or of the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General shall be service in the home civil service of the state, and appointments to any position as such an officer or servant shall be made accordingly".
  I am not sure how such appointments will be made in relation to the Assembly, but surely this is very relevant to the amendment. We have no precedent in the House of Commons, because the staff of the five independently administered Departments of the House are not civil servants. They are Officers or Officials of the House—the Serjeant at Arms' Department, the Clerk's Department, the Speaker's Department, the Library and the Administration Department.
  Presumably the Assembly will have similar internal authorities supported by the Department of the Environment or the Welsh equivalent. Over and above these internal authorities, there must be a full-scale Civil Service to execute the functions of the Assembly. In appointing the members of the Civil Service, those concerned are bound to ask whether applicants are Welsh-speaking, not that that question is relevant in many cases. It would be useful to know that. The Assembly staff may contain, for example, a Welsh-speaking statistician. His knowledge of the language might not be highly relevant to his job but might be indirectly useful to someone in his section or elsewhere in the service.
  I hope that the amendment of the hon. Member for Pontypool does not debar

  1483
  that question being asked of applicants. I am sure that it will not be debarred because it is customary to ask applicants for significant jobs what languages they speak and those who are Welsh-speaking will presumably include that language.
  To sum up, we shall vote against the motion that Clause 25 should stand part of the Bill as a protest against the increase in bureaucracy that it will undoubtedly create. It is not just the increase of 1,150 referred to by the hon. Member for Pontypool but the host that will come with them or after them as a result of this open-ended commitment in Clause 25. It is all very well for the Government to talk of reviewing local government and implying surreptitiously that there will then be a cut-back. By their own admission, there can be no real change there for years to come, and meanwhile Wales is to be loaded with this extra tier of bureacracy. Nor is it likely that there will be cut-backs elsewhere to compensate for the increases in Wales.
  At most, the hon. Gentleman's amendment does not, we agree, contain proper safeguards to ensure fair play as regards employment but the amendment as it stands is imperfect, as he has admitted. We might try to come back to it at a later stage with wording more in the spirit of our amendment to Clause 11 if we feel on further reflection that such safeguards are necessary. We should presently concentrate our minds on voting against the clause as an indication of our clear dissatisfaction with this highly bureaucratic measure.
  Mr. John Morris: The Committee has had an interesting debate. It has been helpful in that in the course of their speeches hon. Members on both sides have isolated extremism. Undoubtedly there is a great deal of extremism in Wales on the language issue, but we have managed to avoid that this afternoon. It is right for us dispassionately to consider whether there are problems; and if problems are established no one would be more anxious than myself to ensure that there were adequate safeguards.
  There is no monopoly in looking after the interests of both the English-speaking majority in Wales and the minority who speak the two languages. My hon. Friends in the Welsh Office and myself have the privilege of representing areas which are
  1484
  substantially, though not wholly, English-speaking, and we would none of us yield to anyone in our care and concern to ensure that those who speak either one or both languages of Wales are adequately protected, certainly so far as employment is concerned.
  The next point I would seek to make is on how the framework of the system of devolution that we have devised will operate. The Assemblymen will be representatives from all corners of Wales. A majority of the people of Wales speak only the English tongue, and, therefore, I find it inconceivable that there would be anything short of common sense in the approach of the Assemblymen from the whole of Wales, knowing as they do that a majority of them will represent electors who speak only one language. Therefore, I hope that in the course of this debate we have managed to exclude any approach other than that of common sense in the way that the Assembly will conduct its business.
  6.45 p.m.
  Earlier in the debate, an hon. Member spoke about the approach of one party. I shall not enter into that controversy now, but it would be the commonsense approach not of one party but of the whole of the Assembly that governed its proceedings. Therefore, I hope very much that in my remarks I shall be able to reassure hon. Members on both sides if there is a need of reassurance.
  Earlier this afternoon we had a most interesting historical analysis by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). Although I do not want to go into this aspect in any depth, the latter was seeking to say that we were reacting in these matters to what a former Prime Minister referred to as a "temporary local difficulty", arising from by-elections in the late 1960s and also from the later political position in Scotland. Without in any way reflecting on my colleagues and good comrades in Scotland, it should be clearly understood that long before that time we in the Labour movement in Wales had reached certain conclusions. I do not know whether that is acceptable to all my hon. Friends, but certainly a consensus had

  1485
  been arrived at in the party in Wales long before the issue in Scotland.
  I shall go briefly over the historical approach of the Labour Party in Wales. Leaving aside earlier historical references and activities in the 1950s and coming to the 1960s, in 1965 the executive committee of the Welsh Council of Labour, of which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) was a distinguished member long before becoming a Member of Parliament, called for a system of devolution. In May 1966 the annual conference of the Welsh Council of Labour accepted the recommendation of the executive committee. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) was elected to the House of Commons for the first time in July 1966. In 1967–68 the executive of the Welsh Council of Labour continued to press its point of view on local government reorganisation and the need for devolution.
  In 1968, following the 1967 White Paper on local government, the conference again called for devolution. The Labour Government set up the Commission on the Constitution, and in 196869 evidence was prepared for the Commission. I shall not dwell upon that now. What is manifest is that long before these temporary local difficulties the Labour movement in Wales had formed a view, and it is upon that view that our present proposals are based.
  Mr. Fred Evans: My right hon. and learned Friend should surely add that on the occasion when the Labour Party in Wales met to discuss this subject there was not always sweet harmony. But a note of bitter recrimination in many of the discussions. I myself was present and listened to a great deal of the crosscurrents between Merthyr, Glamorgan County Council and others, when that distinguished solicitor, Mr. Rees-Davies, was the consulting speaker to the conference held in Cardiff; and subsequently many similar occasions were as bitter.
  Mr. Morris: Of course, there was discussion and argument. But even my hon. Friend, in his election address, supported devolution. We shall not go into that now. What I am saying is that those of us who have attended our conferences year in, year out for decades will know clearly that what we are proposing is a
  1486
  natural development of the position which has emerged from within the Labour movement. I say that to correct the interpretation which my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty sought to give to the Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has claimed, rightly, that he would not pretend that his amendment was perfect. My impression was that he would not seek to include translators in the suggestion he was putting forward. Leaving aside the subject of translators—a problem in itself—I found two parts in the logic of my hon. Friend difficult to follow. First, he said that a Welsh Civil Service was inevitable. I presume from that that if there were no Welsh Civil Service his fears would be non-existent. If we were to change what is now proposed and say that the civil servants of the Assembly should be Welsh civil servants rather than home civil servants, we should have to enact legislation. Thus, my hon. Friend has adequate protection on that score.
  I see enormous merit in having a strong body of civil servants in Wales. This is part of my philosophy of decentralisation of Government offices to Wales—Cardiff in particular—to ensure that there is wide opportunity for our people, especially young people, to take part in the administration of Government Departments, be they in the Welsh Office or elsewhere.
  Mr. Abse: Has not my right hon. and learned Friend made abundantly clear in his White Papers that, while he wishes that there should not be a separate Welsh Civil Service, that would be a matter for the Welsh Assembly to decide? Is he suggesting that if the Assembly came to the conclusion—and I believe it would be inevitable—that there should be a Welsh Civil Service, it would be possible for the House of Commons to frustrate something which has been offered as a matter of choice in his White Papers?
  Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend must follow my remarks. Any such change would require primary legislation, and that would be a matter for the House of Commons. That is an additional safeguard for my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend went on to say that the use of the Welsh language by

  1487
  Assemblymen would require a top tier of Welsh-speaking civil servants. The language used in the Assembly would be a matter for the Assembly. If Welsh were to be used, obviously translators would be needed. It does not follow from that that there would need to be a Welsh-speaking top tier of civil servants. If a communication is made in Welsh and a translation is made, it follows that anyone at the receiving end does not have to be Welsh-speaking. That would negate the whole idea of translation. This is the practice used now in communications with all hon. Members and individual citizens. There would be no difference.
  It is true that Clause 25 gives the Assembly a formal power to appoint staff. But that power is severely constrained by Clause 67, which provides that all Assembly staff shall be members of the Home Civil Service. That in turn means that the system for making permanent appointments to the staff of the Assembly is governed by the Civil Service Order in Council 1969. In other words, the Assembly will have the same powers of appointment as United Kingdom Ministers, and recruitment and selection of Assembly staff will be carried out by or under the general control of the Civil Service Commissioners. The Assembly will not be able to appoint anyone to a permanent post who has not received the Commissioners' certificate of qualification.
  As for promotion, there are well-understood procedures in the Civil Service, agreed with staff side representatives, which ensure that promotion is fair and non-discriminatory. Clause 67 says that the staff of the Welsh Assembly shall be part of the Home Civil Service. Moreover, both the Assembly's departmental staff side and the staff side of the National Whitley Council will be extremely vigilant in watching for discrimination or unfairness. That is the procedure that will be followed, as will be seen from reading these two clauses together. I hope that, upon reflection, hon. Members who have been concerned about this subject—and I do not quarrel with their concern—will feel that there are adequate safeguards.
  I was specifically asked about the number of Welsh-speaking staff in the Welsh Office. There is no language qualification for Welsh staff other than
  1488
  for translators. I am not formally aware, except when I converse with individuals—and I see no reason why I should be made aware—that an official is Welsh-speaking. The same situation will flow from having the same recruitment and promotion procedures for Assembly staff as those currently used for the Welsh Office. In any event, the Assembly will be a democratic body elected by and representative of the people of Wales. There is no reason to imagine that it would act in any way which would antagonise the English-speaking majority in the Principality. There can be no doubt in the mind of anyone who is prepared to trust the Welsh people but that the Assembly will be fair both to Welsh and non-Welsh people alike.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: The debate has fully justified my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in tabling the amendment and beginning a discussion on the question of the Welsh language. I hope that, in view of the debate, he will not press the amendment to a Division.
  It is possible that the wording of the amendment could be improved. There are fears in Wales of which we should be aware. The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) said that we should take this subject out of politics. We cannot do that. What we should do is take it out of party politics. There is no party which believes more than the Labour Party in the Welsh language. The Conservative Party can make a similar claim. Although Plaid Cymru talks about being a Welsh party and being the champion of the language, its policies are detrimental to it.
  I wish that Plaid Cymru would clearly and continually condemn the young people who are being misled. For instance, when bilingual signs are put up, certain people destroy them because the English appears before the Welsh. They want the Welsh before the English. If we have the argument about the fourth television channel, they should condemn—
  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.
  Amendment negatived.
  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 the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 196, Noes 169.

  Division No. 140]

  AYES

  [7.0 p.m.

  Anderson, Donald

  Graham, Ted

  Park, George

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Parry, Robert

  Ashley, Jack

  Hardy, Peter

  Panhallgon, David

  Atkinson, Norman

  Harper, Joseph

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Reid, George

  Bates, Alf

  Heifer, Eric S.

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Bean, R. E.

  Henderson, Douglas

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Beith, A. J.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Roper, John

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Boardman, H.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Hunter, Adam

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Bradley, Tom

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Sever, John

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Campbell, Ian

  Kerr, Russell

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Cant, R. B.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  Carson, John

  Lamborn, Harry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Lamond, James

  Stallard, A. W.

  Cartwright, John

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Lee, John

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Coleman, Donald

  Litterick, Tom

  Stoddart, David

  Concannon, J. D.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Stott, Roger

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Luard, Evan

  Strang, Gavin

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Crawford, Douglas

  MacCormick, Iain

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Cryer, Bob

  McElhone, Frank

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Davidson, Arthur

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Thompson, George

  Davies, Ifor (Gowor)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Deakins, Eric

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Tierney, Sydney

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tinn, James

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Dempsey, James

  McNamara, Kevin

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Doig, Peter

  Madden, Max

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Mahon, Simon

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Eadie, Alex

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Ward, Michael

  Edge, Geoff

  Mikardo, Ian

  Watkinson, John

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Watt, Hamish

  English, Michael

  Mitchell, Austin

  Weetch, Ken

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Molyneaux, James

  Welsh, Andrew

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Moonman, Eric

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Fiannery, Martin

  Newens, Stanley

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Noble, Mike

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Oakes, Gordon

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Ford, Ben

  Ogden, Eric

  Woodall, Alec

  Forrester, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Woof, Robert

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

  Orbach, Maurice

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Freud, Clement

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  George, Bruce

  Ovenden, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Padley, Walter

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Ginsburg, David

  Palmer, Arthur

  Mr. Thomas Cox.

  Golding, John

  Pardoe, John

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Banks, Robert

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Adley, Robert

  Bell, Ronald

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)

  Brittan, Leon

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Brooke, Peter

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Blaker, Peter

  Brotherton, Michael

  Awdry, Daniel

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Budgen, Nick

  Jessel, Toby

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Burden, F. A.

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Percival, Ian

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Churchill, W. S.

  Kilfedder, James

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Raison, Timothy

  Clegg, Walter

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Cockrott, John

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rees, Peter (Dover a Deal)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Cope, John

  Knox, David

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rhodes James, R.

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lawson, Nigel

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lester, I'm (Beeston)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Durant, Tony

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Loveridge, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Luce, Richard

  Shepherd, Colin

  Elliott, Sir William

  McCusker, H.

  Silvester, Fred

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Eyre, Reginald

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Farr, John

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Fell, Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Speed, Keith

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Spence, John

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Marten, Neil

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fry, Peter

  Mather, Carol

  Stokes, John

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Mawby, Ray

  Tapsell, Peter

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gorst, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)

  Grieve, Percy

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Moate, Roger

  Trotter, Neville

  Grist, Ian

  Monro, Hector

  Vaughan, Dr Gerald

  Grylls, Michael

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Viggers, Peter

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Wall, Patrick

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Warren, Kenneth

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hastings, Stephen

  Neave, Alrey

  Wells, John

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Hawkins, Paul

  Neubert, Michael

  Younger, Hon George

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Nott, John

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Onslow, Cranley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hicks, Robert

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Sir George Young and

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Mr. John MacGregor.

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 26 to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

  REMUNERATION
  Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 194, Noes 165.

  Division No. 141]

  AYES

  [7.14 p.m.

  Anderson, Donald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Cryer, Bob

  Ashley, Jack

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Buchanan, Richard

  Davidson, Arthur

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzll

  Atkinson, Norman

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Ian

  Deakins, Eric

  Bates, Alf

  Cant, R. B.

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Bean, R. E.

  Carter-Jones Lewis

  Dempsey, James

  Beith, A. J.

  Cartwright, John

  Dolg, Peter

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Coleman, Donald

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Concannon, Rt Hon John

  Dunnett, Jack

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Eadie, Alex

  Boardman, H.

  Cowans, Harry

  Edge, Geoff

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

  English, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Bradley, Tom

  Crawford, Douglas

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Sever, John

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  McElhone, Frank

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Flannery, Martin

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Skinner, Dennis

  Foot Rt Hon Michael

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Ford, Ben

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Forrester, John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Snape, Peter

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Freud, Clement

  Madden, Max

  Stallard, A. W.

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mahon, Simon

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Ginsburg, David

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Stoddart, David

  Golding, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stott, Roger

  Graham, Ted

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Strang, Gavin

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hardy, Peter

  Moonman, Eric

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Thompson, George

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Newens, Stanley

  Tierney, Sydney

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Noble, Mike

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Ogden, Eric

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Hunter, Adam

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Ovenden, John

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Ward, Michael

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pardoe, John

  Watkinson, John

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Park, George

  Weetch, Ken

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Parker, John

  Welsh, Andrew

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Parry, Robert

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Panhaligon, David

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Reid, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Kerr, Russell

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Lamond, James

  Rooker, J. W.

  Woodall, Alec

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roper, John

  Woof, Robert

  Lee, John

  Rose, Paul B.

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Litterick, Tom

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Luard, Evan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Sandelson, Neville

  Mr. James Tinn.

  MacCormick, Iain

  Sedgemore, Brian

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthome)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Awdry, Daniel

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kilfedder, James

  Banks, Robert

  Farr, John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Bell, Ronald

  Fell, Anthony

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Knox, David

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Blaker, Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Loveridge, John

  Brittan, Leon

  Goodhew, Victor

  Luce, Richard

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Gorst, John

  McCusker, H.

  Brooke, Peter

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Brotherton, Michael

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  MacGregor, John

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Grieve, Percy

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Griffiths, Eldon

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Budgen, Nick

  Grist, Ian

  McNair-Wilson, p. (New Forest)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Grylls, Michael

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Marten, Neil

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mather, Carol

  Carson, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mawby, Ray

  Churchill, W. S.

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Clegg, Walter

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Cockroft, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Hordern, Peter

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Cope, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Moate, Roger

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Molyneaux, James

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Jessel, Toby

  Monro, Hector

  Durant, Tony

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  1494

  1495

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Morgan, Geraint

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Cheater)

  Rhodes James, R.

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Neave, Alrey

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Neubert, Michael

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Trotter, Neville

  Nott, John

  Roberts. Wyn (Conway)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerald

  Onslow, Cranley

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Viggers, Peter

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Wall, Patrick

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Silvester, Fred

  Warren, Kenneth

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wells, John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfleld)

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Percival, Ian

  Speed, Keith

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Spence, John

  Younger, Hon George

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stokes, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and

  Raison, Timothy

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mr. Jim Lester.

  Rathbone, Tim

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

  POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO PREVENT OR REQUIRE ACTION
  Mr. Francis Pym: I beg to move Amendment No. 225, in page 12, line 6, leave out from 'would' to second 'or' in line 7 and insert
  'affect, directly or indirectly, any matter with respect to which the Assembly has no power to act'.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 226, in page 12, line 8, leave out 'reserved' and insert 'such'.
  No. 227, in page 12, line 8, leave out or might'.
  No. 228, in page 12, leave out lines 27 to 31.
  No. 231, in Clause 36, page 13, line 7, leave out 'a reserved matter, whether directly or indirectly' and insert
  ', directly or indirectly, any matter with respect to which the Assembly has no power to act'.
  No. 232, in page 13, leave out lines 19 and 20.
  Mr. Pym: I think that the Committee will have grasped the point by now that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I do not care for the Assembly as proposed in the Bill. There are those in Wales who want it. I understand their
  1496
  reasons for wanting it and their hopes of it. It is when we begin to investigate the details of what is proposed in the Bill and consider the practicalities and the complications and difficulties that begin to appear that doubts begin to arise. The mere fact that Part III is entitled "Relations with United Kingdom Authorities" suggests problems and potential conflict.
  Clauses 35 and 36 represent a weakness in the system of devolution that is proposed. They are likely to lead, to some extent, to disharmony and disenchantment. I believe that more is expected and that more is likely to become expected of the Assembly in Wales, than can be delivered. I visualise that in due course pressure will mount upon it, if it ever is set up, and hopes will be raised to an excessive extent.
  I am fearful of the tensions that are likely to grow between the Assembly, if it is ever set up, and Westminster. I think that some sort of industry might develop, which would not help the people of Wales. Where there has been a feeling of sympathy and unity between Wales and England for centuries, I am fearful that there will emerge tensions and jealousies and a tendency towards discord and disunity.
  One of the causes of friction will be found in the override powers contained in Clauses 35 and 36. To some extent the powers are directed to safeguard against the underlying dangers, and our amendments are designed to seek to remedy that so far as is possible.
  7.30 p.m.
  These override powers amount to a veto on any Executive action and any subordinate legislation that the Assembly would be entitled to enact, but they are

  1497
  also confined to any matter, according to line 29 of the clause "which concerns Wales". In one aspect of what it seeks to achieve this clause is too widely drawn and in another too narrowly drawn. The amendments seek to deal with both shortcomings.
  The circumstances in which this veto can be used are very wide indeed. They refer to action which
  "would or might affect a reserved matter, whether directly or indirectly".
  Amendment No. 225 would leave out the words "or might". That is a genuine improvement, of itself, because it must cut out the conjecture and speculation that is bound to arise about whether any action might or might not affect the reserved matters.
  The question really is, would it? As the clause is drawn, it is not hard to imagine a range of circumstances in which highly political and contentious decisions could be made by the Secretary of State, especially if the political colour of the Assembly in Wales were different from that of Westminster. Anyway, it seems almost a licence, or at any rate an invitation, to interfere when any matter concerning Wales is affected.
  The Government are establishing a Welsh Assembly, accompanied by high expectations of the devolution envisaged, yet in Clauses 35 and 36 they are retaining unto themselves these far-reaching powers. Whenever those powers are used, the action will be controversial, whether it be seldom or frequently. By devolving subordinate legislation to Wales, the Government are creating in Wales a policy-making body, but they seem to have had second thoughts and decided to widen control through these clauses.
  I question whether it is wise to try to have it both ways—to create a kind of mini-Parliament with certain powers and then seek to control the way in which it exercises its powers, because that must lead to disagreement and conflict. These clauses will not make the overriding of the Assembly any more politically acceptable. It will, I fear, always be contentious.
  I want to now turn to the way in which these reserved powers are defined, because we propose widening that definition to include matters that go beyond
  1498
  those that concern Wales. Assuming for the moment that the method in the clause is right, surely the safeguard should extend to matters affecting England alone, as was done in the Scotland and Wales Bill. Clause 46 of that Bill was different. The procedure envisaged could have been used where action taken by the Welsh Assembly affected a matter in England, such as, for example, education or health, but I do not think that that applies in this Bill, which is confined to Wales.
  Is there not a case for saying that there is more justification for a clause extending to matters affecting England alone than one which extends to matters affecting only Wales? That does not seem to be provided in the Bill.
  If a Welsh Assembly action might indirectly affect, say, English education, there would be no requirement for the Welsh Assembly to take that into account; there would be no need for it to worry about any effect beyond Wales. In those circumstances, where an action of the Welsh Assembly indirectly affected a matter in England, it might well be that Parliament would say that the repercussions were of such character that they were unacceptable, that we could not let that action by the Assembly proceed.
  As I understand it, that is the central point of the clause, but that possibility is specifically excluded by the words that I have previously quoted. That is unfortunate. In those circumstances, Parliament would have to legislate for England and perhaps for Wales to overcome those difficulties. There would be no other way of taking that action, as the Bill is drawn.
  Once again in a matter of legislation, therefore, we come to the English dimension and the effect that the Bill would have upon England. English Members would have no voice in opposing or overriding a Welsh action affecting England, but Welsh Members would have a direct vote in any such question affecting England alone.
  A long time ago, the Minister of State said that Government and Parliament
  "must have powers available, with reasonable flexibility, to protect interests which have not been devolved of people living in other parts of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 16th December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 1747.]

  1499
  That is precisely the point. The Minister could say that under the Scotland and Wales Bill, but I am not at all sure that he can say it, as I read Clause 35, under this Bill. That is what we are seeking to achieve in these amendments.
  The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I think I can say that, with respect, since the important qualification was involved in that statement about matters "which have not been devolved".
  Mr. Pym: The Minister will no doubt come to that point, but it is drawn in a different way. Whereas the powers to require action are a fine point, this clause confines the action concerned to Wales. Amendment No. 228 would omit subsection (3), nothing like which appeared in the Scotland and Wales Bill.
  Those are the two basic changes that we want to bring about—to cut out looseness and the wording "would or might affect…directly or indirectly," and to widen the scope of the use of the clause beyond matters that concern only Wales.
  The question of the public interest appears in subsection (1). There will often be argument whether a particular matter does or does not affect a reserved matter, and whether it is or is not in the public interest to veto it. It seems to me that the Welsh Assembly may well claim that it is the best judge whether an action affects a reserved matter in Wales and whether it affects it in such a way that the action is not in the public interest.
  How does the Minister intend to interpret the phrase "public interest"? Does he not think that the Assembly in Wales will have a strong view on the question whether or not a matter affects the public interest in the context of this clause?
  Then there is the problem of the frequency of the use of which these powers are to be put. If they are to be used frequently they may be justified as one way of overriding the Assembly on a day-to-day basis—perhaps a simpler way than by passing an Act of Parliament each time. But that would be only another way of saying, "You may act only in ways of which we approve." That does not seem to be the intention, although it might be. If, on the other hand, it is intended to use the clause infrequently,
  1500
  its use will always be a source of major conflict each time that it is used. If it is invoked only occasionally, it would hardly seem enough just to claim that the provision might indirectly affect a reserved matter. That is weak ground on which to put a proposition before Parliament.
  The first time that Parliament stepped back from the use of this clause for fear of the consequences, the override powers would lose any deterrent effect which they are supposed to have. If its use is to be infrequent, would it not be better to use a different procedure altogether?
  If the Assembly were to act in a way that Parliament could not accept, for any reason, Parliament could enact legislation to put right what it found unacceptable. The legislative process itself would be a safeguard against abuse and would ensure that the issue would be thoroughly considered and not just vetoed by a single vote. That might be a better way of going about the matter.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: I am following my right hon. Friend's argument with interest, but let us, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Assembly were not to implement the existing law of the land. Would we in this House then pass a law saying that the Assembly would have to implement a law that was in being? I do not understand my right hon. Friend's argument.
  Mr. Pym: My hon. Friend draws attention to an interesting point. There is no specific requirement to compel the Assembly to take such action, but presumably the Government could pass legislation in this House which would apply to Wales, or conceivably one could take the Assembly to court. That point arises in respect of the earlier provisions.
  My reading of the situation is that the clause would not be an appropriate way to adjust the provision in a situation, as described by my hon. Friend, in which the Assembly had not fulfilled an obligation imposed upon it by this House.
  Mr. John Watkinson: I am following the argument with interest. The right hon. Gentleman should note that subsection (6) contains means by which this House is to consider the matter and that an order has to be laid. I believe that a resolution has to be approved by each House of Parliament.

  1501
  Therefore, it appears that the right hon. Gentleman is substituting a more cumbersome process for what would appear to be a simple one.
  Mr. Pym: Later amendments deal with subsection (6) on the parliamentary aspects. The important point is that Parliament has no right or opportunity to raise this matter. It must be done by the Secretary of State, and by him alone. It is the Secretary of State who must take the decision, make a recommendation, and decide whether the action would or might affect the reserved matter if it were in the public interest. He could then lay an order. There is no other parliamentary procedure by which Parliament can take any initiative or by which the Opposition can say that it is a matter that should be considered. That is one of my criticisms of the clause.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) was reasonable in suggesting that what is proposed in the Bill is a relatively simple and convenient method of exercising restraint on the Assembly rather than to going to the extent of introducing full-blown legislation in an Act of Parliament to deal with the position. That appears to be more cumbersome than the method set out in the Bill.
  Mr. Pym: Does the Minister of State agree that if a matter affecting something in England or some other part of the United Kingdom, the powers in this clause would not apply? In other words, does he agree that the only way in which the Government could adjust something carried out by the Welsh Assembly would be by passing a Bill? That situation did not obtain when devolution proposals were before the House on an earlier occasion. This is an important point. I was arguing that if, in those circumstances, the Government could adjust something that went wrong in England only by passing legislation, that would be a full and proper parliamentary procedure. I was saying that if it were right to take that step in the case of something that happened in England, it would be arguable that one could do so in respect of something that happened in Wales, despite the powers taken in this clause. It would lead to difficulties.
  1502
  The Government believe that they can oversee these administrative acts without having to employ a substantial number of additional civil servants and without checking what the Assembly does. How, otherwise, will the Government know whether action taken would or might affect a reserve matter, whether directly or indirectly? How will they know, if they do not go through a complicated monitoring process?
  In the White Paper "Our Changing Democracy" the Government said that it was not their intention to conduct close monitoring or to look constantly over the shoulder of the Assembly, but it appears to us that if the Secretary of State has to make his decision in the light of what is laid down in the clause there must be certain degree of surveillance before he can take a proper decision.
  That is the point of this group of amendments. It appears to us that the override power as drawn here, wide as it is, will lead to contention and disagreement. I hope the Government will accept these amendments. They are genuinely designed to try to make the clause more effective, to apply outside Wales, and to be applied in circumstances that are less vague than the words that I have repeated. I hope that in that spirit the Government will feel able to support us.
  Mr. John Smith: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one point of which he will be aware. What he proposes in these amendments is the formulation in respect of override set out in the Scotland and Wales Bill. Can he recall any occasion when he recommended that formulation in debates on that Bill?
  Mr. Pym: I did not address myself to Clause 46 of the Scotland and Wales Bill. Indeed, on that subject I do not think we got beyond Clause 2. Nevertheless, the Minister of State has acknowledged that there is a substantial difference between what was in the Government's mind on that occasion and the provisions in this Bill. I have been addressing my mind to what we see as weaknesses in these provisions, and I have been seeking to suggest alternative ways in which effective government could be achieved more satisfactorily.
  Mr. Watkinson: In discussing reserve powers we are dealing with some of the

  1503
  most complex and difficult provisions in the devolution proposals.
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) is right to point out that the conflict which may emerge between a devolved Assembly and the Executive—the Government—can and will be a source of considerable difficulty for the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, if one accepts devolution, it is inevitable to draw certain demarcation lines and to take decisions in judging the matters that fall over those lines.
  One method lies in leaving this matter to the judges. I believe that at an early stage in the devolution proposals it was suggested that this matter should be put before the Judicial Committee. I think that the Government were right to move away from a proposition that would have left to the judges the determination of whether the reserved powers had been taken over in any way by a devolved Assembly. I think that would have been wrong.
  If this position is accepted, clearly powers have to be given to the Secretary of State to pass judgment. It is unnecessary at this stage to go into the reasons why in the context of Great Britain it would be inappropriate for judges to make decisions of that kind.
  Mr. Leon Brittan: Is not the hon. Member on a false point? In the Scotland Bill the Government, far from moving away from judicial determination in these matters, moved towards it and laid down a procedure whereby the Judicial Committee should express a view on whether legislation was within the powers of the Assembly; and, afterwards, the courts, including the Judicial Committee, would be able to pronounce whether Acts were ultra vires. Does the hon. Member agree that in this legislation there is no specific pre-Assent consideration? Under this Bill, if something that the Welsh Assembly does is ultra vires, the courts may intervene. Is not the hon. Member wrong to praise the Government for moving away from judicial determination on matters of vires?
  Mr. Watkinson: I am dealing with the propositions as they relate to the Wales Bill. In my opening remarks I reflected upon whether matters as they relate to the Wales Bill should be determined by
  1504
  Judicial Committee. I think that they should not.
  Mr. John Smith: I agree that it is a different proposition to refer pre-Assent scrutiny to the Judicial Committee in the case of the Scotland Bill on the question of vires but a different matter to give to the courts the delicate matter of deciding whether the Government should exercise reserved powers. My hon. Friend is drawing parallels with matters which are not parallel.
  Mr. Watkinson: I should like to address my remarks to the Wales Bill. I shall deal briefly with the question of "public interest". I accept that there must be a certain amount of opaqueness. It is right that the Secretary of State should be able to make decisions on the public interest. There is a parallel with the role of the Attorney-General when he decides whether it is appropriate, in the public interest, to bring certain matters before the courts. If one wishes to move away from a strict legalistic approach—and I think that we should—there must be an area reserved to the Secretary of State in which he can make decisions about whether an infringement goes against the public interest. One has to accept that it will cause difficulties, but with the constitution that we have that is not inappropriate.
  Let us examine the position in the House of Commons. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire seemed to be proposing a somewhat cumbersome procedure for dealing with the devolved Assembly when it goes beyond its powers. He suggested that we should have powers to introduce legislation. Presumably that would involve Second Reading, Committee and Report. That would be a cumbersome procedure. Clause 6 deals adequately with this problem.
  It must be apparent to the right hon. Gentleman, as it is to me, that our powers are such that it is possible for us to bring before ourselves matters which we consider to be important. I have no doubt that if the Opposition considered that the Secretary of State had acted improperly they could raise the matter on a Supply Day or, if they felt strongly enough, on a motion of censure.
  Mr. Pym: It would be possible to do that, but it would not be possible to put

  1505
  a Question to the House. There would be no possibility of voting on a particular measure, because that would be in the control of the Government.
  Mr. Watkinson: Remedies are available to the House to deal with the situation to which the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire refers.
  The question of whether the Secretary of State has taken a decision in the public interest can be criticised and referred to in the Chamber. Remedies are available. The important thing is that the remedies that are available are such that speedy action can be taken. We should not seek to impose upon ourselves the cumbersome procedures suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. For those reasons, I believe that the provisions in Clause 35 are satisfactory.
  Mr. Raison: Normally I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), but I am not wholly persuaded by his argument tonight. Nor am I persuaded that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) has seen the full implications of what will happen.
  I shall make a few remarks about the constitutional mechanism. I have no doubt that the Minister of State will accuse me of being Anglo- or Southern Man or that he will attach some other epithet that will show that I am a barbaric Englishman who does not understand. However, one should plan for the worst. One hopes that the worst will never happen. I hope that the Bills will never happen, but if they do I hope that they will work sympathetically.
  When talking about reserved powers one must assume that something might go wrong.
  Sir David Renton: Does my hon. Friend accept that nearly all legislation plans for the worst? If this were a perfect world there would be no need for legislation.
  Mr. Raison: This legislation does plan for the worst, and much of it achieves the worst. My proposition is that, far from these reserved powers being too wide, they are too narrow. I do not believe that we are arming ourselves with sufficient reserved powers.
  1506
  Although the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West talked about only one aspect, he gave the impression that the Secretary of State will have no say in large areas of dispute but will have a say on points covered by the clause. The hon. Member does not appreciate that during the course of devolution the Government have surrendered to the courts a great deal of the Secretary of State's power.
  I can describe the way that this came about by quoting from "Devolution for Scotland and Wales, Supplementary Statement". This simply described a change of heart. It stated that:
  "Paragraph 208 of Cmnd 6348 envisaged a range of general reserve powers which the Government could exercise, with Parliament's approval, in relation to actions of the Welsh Assembly. The Government have decided on two major changes in these powers. Firstly, there will not be a power, as paragraph 208c had envisaged, for the Government to take back devolved functions. Secondly, the remaining powers to give directions or to annul subordinate instruments (paragraph 208a and b) will be available only if their exercise is considered by the Government necessary to prevent unacceptable repercussions on matters for which they remain responsible."
  That marked a substantial change of policy by the Government. It switched from saying that if something went wrong in generalised terms the Government would have a reserved power to put it right, and it moved to the clauses's much more specific provision that if the Welsh Assembly starts to trespass on reserved matters the Government will intervene. The same would apply it the Assembly got caught up in Community matters.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member has it right to a certain extent. It concerns the situation where the operation of the Assembly in its devolved area would have unacceptable repercussions upon a reserve matter. That goes slightly wider than just reserve matters.
  Mr. Raison: I take that point. But the Government have no override or reserved power if they believe that in some way the Assembly is failing to do its duty in respect of matters that are clearly within a devolved area and which do not impinge upon reserved powers. I think that is an accurate statement, which I see the Minister accepts.

  1507
  I am not happy with the reserved or override powers. I believe that they should be greater than they are. Let me illustrate my argument by moving to an important area—perhaps the most important—that is devolved to Wales, namely education. Section 1 of the Education Act 1944 says that it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State for Education and Science—I think that it has now been amended—to include the Secretary of State for Wales—
  "to promote the education of the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose, and to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area."
  That covers the whole of our educational system.
  Under Schedule 2, the Education Acts between 1944 and 1976 are devolved. There are one or two respects in which they are not devolved, but in essence education is devolved to the Assembly. As I understand it, that means that the control and direction of any policy referred to in Section 1 of the 1944 Act now goes quite clearly to the Assembly. The Secretary of State is no longer responsible for the control and direction of educational policy in Wales. It goes to the Assembly, but under an earlier clause the Assembly has the power to offer to one of its members—the leader or chairman of one of its committees, or whoever it may be, the functions of the Secretary of State.
  I suppose that the Assembly or its Education Minister, whatever he may be called, will therefore have the function of determining national policy. The Act does not say simply that he must supervise that policy; it gives him some role in determining what education policy should be. National policy, however, is not just a matter of what the Secretary of State says it is; it is also a matter of what the Education Acts say policy is. There is a string of Education Acts between 1944 and 1976. All of them, and particularly the last one, make clear policy decisions. The point is that education policy in Wales will be determined by two different sources. One may say that these will be the fons et origo—the fons will be the 1944 and subsequent
  1508
  Education Acts. The origo will be the Assembly and its representatives.
  On the other hand, where there will be two sources of policy in Wales there will be only one guardian or custodian, with a few limited exceptions, and that custodian, the body or person with the job of implementing the policy, will be the Assembly or a Member of it. The Secretary of State can interfere with the Assembly only if it tramples on reserved territory or on the EEC. As I understand it, the Secretary of State will cease to have any say in the normal implementation of policy on education in Wales.
  As I indicated in an earlier intervention, it is perfectly possible—here I come back to the point that we do not know what will happen, but we are prepared for things to go wrong—that the Assembly will decide that it does not like Section 76 of the 1944 Act. That section contains some recognition of parental choice. In other words, when parents are choosing a school for their children their wishes are meant to be taken into account.
  The Assembly may say that it does not believe in such a doctrine and that therefore it will do nothing to implement that section. Alternatively, there may be a spirited Tameside-like Tory Welsh Assembly—I am not sure that is what we shall have, assuming that we are to have the Assembly—which takes the view that the highly odious provisions of the 1976 Act should not be operated.
  Throughout the 1976 Act there is an interplay between the Secretary of State and the local authorities. In future in Wales that interplay will be between the local authorities and the Assembly. If the Assembly does not want to do anything about implementing the 1976 Act, it is hard to envisage that anything will actually happen.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many parts of Wales the system of selection is creeping back into education? This selection operates through the Welsh language. I do not say that that is a good or a bad thing, but it is a factor that my hon. Friend may care to take into account. Because of the right of Welsh children to be educated in their own language, the process of selection, which provides a qualitative difference between English and Welsh language schools, is creeping back in Wales.
  Mr. Raison: That is an interesting point, but it is not germane to my arguments, which are of a wholly academic nature. It is true, however, that throughout the world wherever a policy of selection has been abolished and comprehensive education introduced, selection manages to creep back.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Any selection that may operate does so by parental choice, in that parents are given the opportunity in two counties in Wales of selecting for their children a mainly Welsh medium secondary education or an English medium education. That does not reflect a selection on any other basis. It means that it has been possible to provide a broad range of comprehensive education through the medium of established languages in Wales. The basis of the system is still comprehensive, but because of the flexibility operated by the education authority there has been a linguistic choice within it.
  Mr. Raison: I am tempted only to say that one of the things I particularly like about the Welsh and about taking part in Welsh debates is the magical way in which they manage to get the best of all worlds. Here they have persuaded themselves that they have a truly comprehensive system, but they have allowed selection to come back. We see the same sort of thing in the extraordinary relationship of the Welsh National Party with Westminster, in that the nationalists look to that glorious day when they can recover their identity but still want to retain a mystical umbilical cord. They want to achieve full independence, but they also want a large subsidy from London to keep things going.
  I am trying to avoid going into the rights and wrongs of education in Wales. I want, instead, to consider what the clause is all about. Therefore I ask hon. Members not to draw me any further on the specifics of education policy but to allow me to continue to discuss constitutional problems.
  Mr. Brittan: Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he answer a question that I had in mind about the reserved powers and their lack of impact on this sort of situation? Granted that the reserved powers would not enable the Secretary of State to cause the Welsh Assembly to impose comprehensive education under
  1510
  the 1976 Act, does not my hon. Friend think that that fact would have meant that if the 1976 Act had been passed at a time when the Welsh Assembly was in existence it would have been necessary for it to be cast in a very different form altogether, much more directorial in impact than the way in which it has in fact been drawn, to have any impact on Wales at all?
  Mr. Raison: That is an interesting point, which had not occurred to me. It has a great deal of validity.
  1 am arguing that I am not persuaded that these reserved powers are adequate. I am not persuaded that the Government's decision in the White Paper from which I have quoted was a wise and sensible one. As I have said, the reserved powers embodied in the clause certainly do not give the Secretary of State the task of seeing that the Assembly operates the law of the land.
  That brings me back to the problem on which I touched last night and which seems to me to be the fundamental weakness of the Government's scheme for Wales. I do not believe that it is possible to separate legislation for national policy—we are talking now about the law of the land in respect of Wales—from the execution of national policy. The whole notion in the Bill that legislation and execution can be carried out at quite different levels of government is very hard to justify. I am glad to see the Minister of State perking up. I look forward to hearing his justification.
  I shall try to explain the matter. It is perfectly true that a Government can come to power and find themselves saddled with Acts that they do not like. When we Conservatives return to power we shall find on the statute book the Education Act 1976. But we have a very simple remedy—to chuck out that Act. I look forward to doing that. However, the position in regard to Welsh Assembly is that when the Welsh Government—perhaps I may use that term—come to power, they will find themselves having to operate Acts which they may intensely dislike but which they have no chance of getting rid of. They have no power to legislate, as we know, and that is a great difficulty.
  Of course, it will be said that local government has always had to operate

  1511
  under this kind of constraint. I can imagine the argument being put forward that a Socialist local authority has to operate under Tory laws. Of course, that is true, but I do not really think that that is a valid analogy.
  For one thing, there is normally an enforcement mechanism for local government. My recollection is that in the Education Act 1944 there is a passage very near the end of the Act which gives the Government some sort of power, in an extreme, to put in a commissioner, or something of that sort. It is something of a model of the power to put in a commissioner that led to some brouhaha concerning the Housing Finance Act 1972.
  It would not be wrong to say—I do not think that the Minister would quarrel with me on this—that in many other pieces of legislation there is clearly power for central Government to intervene if local government does not follow the law of the land. Even where that is not spelt out, it is fairly evident that central Government have certain very powerful arm-twisting mechanisms.
  Secondly, however—this is the real point; perhaps it is even more important than my previous point—local government has no claim to lay down overall national policy, while the Welsh Assembly is quite specifically to be given the power by, as it were, the acquisition of Section 1 of the 1944 Education Act, to lay down Welsh national educational policy—subject only to what is stated in the law of the land.
  In other words, it is what might be called the non-statute making part of national educational policy that represents a collection of very powerful instruments. It enables powerful subordinate legislation to be brought in, and in the case of education and other matters it allows the printing of circulars that are not the law of the land but have, nevertheless, great powers. We know that it includes the operation of the rate support grant, which has pretty powerful implications. I think that I am right in saying that it includes control over capital programmes, and so on and so forth. It can be seen that this adds up to a set of very big powers.
  Let me take an extreme example of something that I do not think is likely to happen. Let us suppose that the Welsh
  1512
  Assembly decided to adopt a rather Quebec-like policy about language. Let us suppose that it said "We shall now operate exactly the same conditions as the Quebec Government have recently introduced, saying that a person can learn English only if his parents learnt English", or something of that kind. I do not think that Plaid Cymru would be so brutal as to wish to introduce something like that. I know that there would not be enough Welsh speakers in Wales for that to be a tenable proposition. There is a different balance from that which exists in Quebec.
  8.15 p.m.
  Nevertheless, something of that kind might come about. Let us suppose that the Assembly decided to operate a policy of that sort. I believe that it would have a lot of very powerful instruments at its disposal. It would not have the right to pass a law saying that a child could learn English only if his parents were English, or something of that kind, but it would have the right to use all the other devices—rate support grants, circulars, control of the capital programme, and control of all the other bits and pieces of the apparatus that a modern Government, perhaps unfortunately, have at their disposal.
  Therefore, as I have said, things could go wrong. In my view, the clause does nothing to resolve this difficulty. It does not provide adequate means for central Government to make sure that both the spirit and the letter of the law of the land in general are being effectively operated under a Welsh Assembly. I believe, therefore, that we need stronger reserved powers to uphold the law and to align policy with the law.
  I should like to ask the Minister whether he accepts what I have said as being an accurate factual statement—obviously, he will not agree with the argument—and whether it is the case that the duty of seeing that the law is implemented will now not, in effect, in any way fall on the Secretary of State except in relation to the specific questions of reserved powers and the Community.
  I say to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West that what emerges from this is that, as a consequence of the Government's change of heart in the White Paper, if there is a dispute about

  1513
  the law of the land, the body that will decide it is the courts. If the Assembly were failing to implement the Education Act 1944, or something else, the only remedy that anyone would have would be to take the matter to the courts. Therefore, having changed their minds, the Government have enlarged the power of the courts as opposed to that of the Secretary of State.
  That must be true. The Minister of State can tell me whether I am wrong but I do not see how it could be otherwise. If, for example, the Welsh Assembly refused to implement Section 76, the section concerning parental choice, which I have quoted, I should have thought that the only remedy that would exist would be for an aggrieved parent to hire my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) as his counsel and to take the matter to the courts. That is not always a very easy thing to do.
  Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the hon. Member can clarify my thinking, at least on this matter. I see a difference between something that is ultra vires and something that is reserved. Whether or not matters are ultra vires has always been a question for the courts, but whether a matter is reserved is a new concept, initiated under the devolution Bills.
  Mr. Raison: I am arguing that the Secretary of State should have a power to intervene if the Welsh Assembly wilfully decides not to implement the law of the land. That is the essence of what I am arguing.
  Mr. Brittan: Surely the position is that what the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) has said is not correct, because a definition of what a reserved matter is appears in subsection (3). A reserved matter is one
  "which concerns Wales…but with respect to which the Assembly has no power to act."
  It is wrong to say that this is a pure policy matter, because we are talking about something having an effect on a reserved matter, and a reserved matter is therefore defined as something that the Assembly cannot deal with.
  Perhaps I may also draw my hon. Friend's attention to Clause 72, which says that
  1514
  "Without prejudice to any power exercisable apart from this section, the Attorney General may institute, and the Assembly may defend, proceedings for the determination of any question whether anything done or proposed to be done by the Assembly is within its powers."
  Therefore, the idea that the courts have no role in this matter is farcical.
  Mr. Raison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It would be helpful if the Minister would say something at an appropriate stage, now or later, about the Attorney-General's role, to which my hon. Friend has just referred, and whether that would apply when the Assembly was failing to implement an Act as well as in the circumstances that were read out.
  I believe that the courts have a fairly wide power—indeed, in some ways the sole power—in respect of matters that are not reserved. I do not get hysterical at the notion of the courts having a role to fulfil. I think that it is entirely right that they should operate as they always have. What worries me is the rather arbitrary nature of the arrangement. There are some matters which are to be decided by the Secretary of State, and those are covered in the clause. There are others which would have to be left to the courts, whether or not prompted by the intervention of the Attorney-General. My view is that we need stronger and more clear-cut powers than are given to us in the clause, and I regret that the Government should have taken part in the retreat that was outlined in their White Paper.
  Mr. Ian Gow: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) moved the amendment, with which we are taking a series of amendments affecting Clauses 35 and 36, he asked the Committee what would be the procedure for monitoring whether the Secretary of State ought to take action under those clauses. I think that my right hon. Friend was right to pose that question.
  It would be my prediction that the increase by 1,150 in the number of civil servants—the figure which appears in the last paragraph of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum—will turn out to be a massive understatement, not least because there really will have to be very careful monitoring powers indeed if the

  1515
  Secretary of State is to carry out the duties laid upon him by Clauses 35 and 36.
  At first sight, of course, Clause 35 (1) and Clause 36 (1) appear to be similar, but there is an astonishing difference in the wording. We are told in Clause 35 (1) that the Secretary of State may take action
  "if it appears to him desirable in the public interest",
  whereas in Clause 36 the wording is
  "that the public interest makes it desirable".
  We appear to have a much more objective test in Clause 36 and a much more subjective test in Clause 35.
  In a sense, it is difficult to see how the powers contained in Clause 36 could ever be exercised if the Secretary of State had exercised properly the powers granted to him in Clause 35, because Clause 35 refers to his powers to intervene where there is a proposed action, whereas Clause 36 gives him power to intervene where action has already been taken.
  I find it extremely difficult to understand why a Secretary of State should take action under his reserve powers in Clause 36 when an instrument has been made by the Assembly, because surely, if that were ultra vires, he should have taken action already under Clause 35 when the Assembly was proposing to take action. In a sense, Clause 36 is a long-stop to give further powers to the Secretary of State when he has spotted something only when it is de facto and he should have spotted when it was merely a proposal.
  I believe that Clauses 35 and 36 will prove to be a recipe for total and continuing conflict. Although my right hon. Friend's amendment diminishes the mischief, the answer is that these clauses, however amended, will put the Secretary of State into a position where he will not exercise a judicial or a quasi-judicial function. It will be essentially a political function, and a political function to a much greater degree in Clause 35 than in Clause 36.
  Who decides, under Clause 35, whether the public interest requires the Secretary of State to take action to prevent something which will be ultra vires? It is a breathtaking constitutional position that, where the Secretary of State believes something is to be done which is ultra
  1516
  vires, nevertheless he is not obliged to take action to prevent something which is unlawful unless it appears to him to be desirable in the public interest to stop the Assembly doing something which is ultra vires and therefore unlawful.
  That is an astonishing degree of permissiveness, even for this Government, and there ought to be the most clear-cut formula—I do not see how else it could be done save through the courts—to the effect that when the Assembly is proposing to do something which is ultra vires, as envisaged in Clause 35, or when it is actually doing something which is ultra vires, as envisaged in Clause 36, there must be mechanism to stop the Assembly either proposing or implementing something which is ultra vires.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) referred the Committee to Clause 72, but there is no duty laid upon the Attorney-General in Clause 72. He does not have to decide whether something is in the public interest. It is purely permissive. We could have the position that, although the Secretary of State believes that what the Assembly is proposing to do is ultra vires or that an instrument made by the Assembly is ultra vires, in neither of those two cases was he under an obligation to take action. Under Clause 35 it is only if it appears to him to be in the public interest, and under Clause 36 it is only if the public interest makes it desirable.
  Although I agree that the test is more subjective in Clause 35 than it is in Clause 36, and although it could be argued—notably by my hon. Friend—that certainly under Clause 36 the Secretary of State has to exercise his discretion honestly and objectively, I think that even my hon. Friend would be hard put to it to persuade the Court of Appeal that there was not very wide discretionary power given to the Secretary of State under Clause 35.
  Mr. Brittan: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the matter is made worse by the fact that, as a result of such decisions as that of the House of Lords in the Gouriet case, there is no way of compelling the Attorney-General to exercise his powers under Clause 72 if he does not choose to do so? What is more, there is no right for anyone else to take

  1517
  action in the courts, because almost certainly there would be no standing for anyone else to do so.
  Mr. Gow: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said. Of course, the position is made even more absurd because, if the Attorney-General has to be brought in under Clause 72, that must mean, almost by definition, that the Secretary of State has failed to carry out the duties laid upon him under Clauses 35 and 36.
  What I find so incredible is the fact that we shall have duties laid upon two members of an Administration—the Secretary of State, who presumably, even if the Bill becomes law, will be in the Cabinet, and the Attorney-General as the chief legal adviser to the Cabinet. Surely the Attorney-General should have given advice to the Secretary of State to take action under Clauses 35 and 36 without allowing a situation to develop where he himself would have to come in under Clause 72.
  8.30 p.m.
  The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Although the hon. Gentleman is about to conclude, throughout the whole of his contribution he has referred to Clauses 35 and 36 but has made no reference at all to the amendment under discussion. I may be wrong, but at this stage we are not discussing whether Clauses 35 and 36 should stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Gow: I feel that the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire would improve these clauses and remove the possibility of conflict. That is my belief, and that is why I support the amendment.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: This has been an interesting and not too lengthy debate, even though there has been tortuous discussion in the various contributions that we have had, not least the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and Alyesbury (Mr. Raison). With due respect, although I very much support what he said, it seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury was crying out against the whole principle of the Bill and this form of devolution. I was waiting for him to suggest some sort of out-
  1518
  come whereby the Assembly could be controlled in the considerable use of its powers as well as in manipulating them to further use than might be intended by this piece of legislation.
  Mr. Raison: What I did was to pray in aid the Government themselves, who originally intended that they would have to carry out general reserve powers. But the Government then decided to relinquish that intention. I was arguing that I was sorry that these general reserve powers should have been relinquished.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: That clarifies the matter somewhat more. Doubtless the Minister of State will deal with it.
  With respect to my hon. Friend, however, while Amendment No. 225 does not go quite as far as those general reserve powers it goes a considerable way towards them. In many respects my hon. Friend was not relating his argument to the reserve powers as defined in Schedule 2 but rather was relating it to Amendment No. 225, which states:
  "If it appears to the Secretary of State—

  (a) that any action proposed to be taken by the Assembly would affect, directly or indirectly, any matter with respect to which the Assembly has no power to act".

  That goes quite a long way towards what my hon. Friend was saying. He could afford to be more charitable to the amendment. I am glad that my Front Bench agrees with that somewhat loyalist observation.
  I interpreted what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said as a general cry concerning matters upon which the Assembly would be given powers to act. I shall come in a moment to the powers given in this clause. But things like rate support grant, capital programmes and—with all due respect to the Welsh nationalists—the use of the Welsh language are matters of pure power to be exercised in one way or another by the Welsh Assembly, no more and no less.
  I am afraid that the powers given by Clause 35 and covered by these amendments will make very little difference to the use of those powers. I shall deal briefly with Clause 35 as it stands. It seems to me that it is in order to argue—in deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury—that they are quite Draconian in their effect. If one goes through Schedule 2 and looks at the

  1519
  various matters reserved and then turns to the phraseology of Clause 35(1)(a) and (b), it can be argued that the Secretary of State can give directions on a very wide range of matters. I have only to quote Clause 35(1)(a):
  "any action proposed to be taken by the Assembly which would or might affect a reserved matter, whether directly or indirectly".
  Many matters can be brought within that consideration. I am arguing the Opposite way from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury in taking the clause as it reads; "directly or indirectly" can cover a multitude of matters.
  Clause 35(3) concerns Wales. I accept that limitation, but it also includes these words:
  "whether or not it also concerns any other part of the United Kingdom".
  In arguing that these powers could affect a wide range of matters, I am reinforcing the argument that this is a recipe for clash, and that is the dilemma in which the Minister of State finds himself. At the end of the day he has to say "Here they are. They are such as we have been able to devise; they are not very effective. Take them and vote upon them." He must know that any Secretary of State who gives a direction to an Assembly on education, the rate support grant and so on has to fall back on the House of Commons, because the House of Commons has to approve an order for that direction. That is a recipe for clash and division, which means that Clause 35 and its related and associated provisions will result in impotence. I cannot see those powers ever being used effectively.
  I hope that the Minister of State will give examples of how he will attempt to control the more extreme element of Welsh politics if, under the present electoral system, such an element were able in mid-term elections to take control. This can be argued inside or outside, but at the end of the day one comes down to the fact that the Bill is unrealistic. It is not a good piece of legislation. When one gets to the semantics of the argument, one realises how ridiculous the Bill is.
  Mr. Ian Grist: My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) is right in saying that the Government do not know whether they are coming or going. At one time
  1520
  they talked in terms of legislative powers, and that would have been relatively clear-cut. The Government backed away from that and wanted to give executive powers, but they found that that also was difficult, so we are in a half-way house with Clause 35. We have this marvellous language which if one were still doing philosophy one could tear to pieces:
  "if it appears to the Secretary of State…indirectly … might be affected".
  What do those words mean? What is meant by:
  "desirable in the public interest"?
  Every politician knows what that means. It is something that is in his political interest, in his electoral interest, in his party's interest. That is what it will always mean. When the party in control of the Assembly is not the party in control at Westminster, it is a recipe for conflict.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), in moving the amendment, tried to tighten up this state of affairs, although my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) thought that the clause was possibly too restrictive. One can argue this case both ways. One can either increase the powers of Westminster or make the Assembly more workable. It is one way or the other. As it is, we have a complete mish-mash. I refer here to the guidelines issued by the Secretary of State for Wales some time ago when he urged us to judge the devolution proposals on the basis that any change proposed should be quite clear. The Secretary of State said that. But clear is the very last thing that the clause can claim to be.
  I am not too clear about what is meant by
  "Any action capable of being so taken".
  Perhaps it refers to some inaction of the Secretary of State, or perhaps it is ultra vires. I simply do not know.
  Although the clause and the amendment may be important, there is an air of unreality about this whole debate. We have only one hon. Member from a Welsh constituency present in the Chamber, and he is opposed to the Bill. The Minister is here, and he is only half in support of it—
  The First Deputy Chairman: I am glad that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) has mentioned that fact, because the hon. Member for Bedwellty

  1521
  (Mr. Kinnock) seems to have joined the Government Front Bench in support of the Bill.
  Mr. Kinnock: The problem I have, Sir Myer, is whether I should consider this an elevation or a relegation. Perhaps you could inform me sometime in the future.
  The First Deputy Chairman: That depends on the hon. Member's behaviour in the future.
  Mr. Grist: I do not know whether to congratulate or commiserate with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock).
  When we come to the referendum, the Bill and every proposal in it will be thrown out and it will be shown that we have been wasting our time utterly.
  Mr. John Smith: We have had a short but interesting debate on the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). As he conceded, the amendment uses the phraseology of the old Scotland and Wales Bill to define reserve powers. It is interesting that whenever the Opposition criticise something in this Bill they refer to something in the Scotland Bill as if that provided a better solution. I was not aware that Opposition Members had such enthusiasm for the Scotland Bill.
  Speeches from hon. Members opposite, particularly the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, criticised this form of devolution because it is not legislative. But the right hon. Member had plenty to say about the sins of omission of legislative devolution when we were discussing it under the Scotland Bill.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that he hoped that I would not criticise him for being niggling. I shall never criticise him on that score if he will promise me that he will stop referring to Scotland and Wales as "the Celtic fringe". That kind of phrase indicates that he is a Southern man. I do not suppose that he understands that there is anything offensive about it.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister of State promise me that in future he will use the word "Celtic" with a hard "C" instead of a soft one?
  Mr. Smith: Certainly I shall seek to do that, provided that I am allowed to
  1522
  use a different phraseology when I am talking about a certain football team.
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said that what we put forward in the Scotland and Wales Bill was more meritorious than anything in the Scotland Bill. It is true that we did not discuss the override clauses in either the Scotland Bill or the Scotland and Wales Bill. What attitude he would have taken to the Scotland and Wales Bill had we discussed that formulation when we reached it I do not know.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Brittan: On that point, I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have expressed such ignorance, because in doing so he has shown himself to be less than his usual meticulous self. Although the Government guillotine did not permit discussion on the Scotland Bill, the most cursory glance at all the amendments laid down in the name of the official Opposition will be seen to have raised exactly the same points in relation to the Scotland Bill as are now being raised, but by a more happy coincidence those are actually being reached on the Wales Bill.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is unfair to me, uncharacteristically, because I was referring not to the Scotland Bill but to the formulation in the Scotland and Wales Bill. He well knows that the formuation in the Scotland Bill is the same as in the Wales Bill. I was pointing out that it would have been interesting to know what the right hon. Gentleman would have said about the override clauses in the Scotland and Wales Bill had we reached them. I suspect that there would have been the gentlest of criticisms of their formulation, had we discussed them. It is a great pity that we did not do so on the Scotland and Wales Bill, but no guillotine can be blamed for that; it was because of the length of time that was taken in discussion and the attitude of the House that we did not reach that. I hope that the hon. Member will not think me over-critical if I am slightly suspicious that the right hon. Gentleman would not have approached it in the same spirit of adoption as he now shows.
  Mr. Pym: In putting forward these amendments we have taken a constructive approach in trying to make less bad a Bill to which we thoroughly object. We

  1523
  have not debated Clauses 35 and 46, as in the Scotland and Wales Bill. I addressed my remarks to this group of amendments, as I was entitled to do. It is not right for the Minister to make sweeping generalisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury widened the debate to some extent and raised many of the points that would have come up had we debated Clause 46 of the Scotland and Wales Bill, but the hon. Gentleman should not take it that because the form of words used in the Bill was taken from that Bill we would have accepted Clause 46 had we debated it in its full width and breadth, which I did not seek to do this afternoon in moving the amendment.
  Mr. Smith: I am not seeking to be unfair to the right hon. Gentleman or to make too much of this, but it confirms my view that he would no doubt have been a little critical had we reached that provision in the Scotland and Wales Bill. I am glad that the process of education is going on and that what appeared in the Scotland and Wales Bill is now respectable. I shall explain that to the hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury has pointed out, there was a change. It was made clear in the Lord President's statement to the House. In this Bill the matter was formulated differently from the form that was used in the Scotland and Wales Bill.
  I do not believe it would be wise for the House to accept the amendment, because the conditions precedent for policy override must of necessity be based on the judgment of the Government, a judgment exercised in the shape of the Secretary of State, and that judgment must inevitably be to a degree subjective. The test
  "that any action proposed to be taken by the Assembly would affect, directly or indirectly, any matter with respect to which the Assembly has no power to act"
  is too narrow to be effective. There might be too great a burden of proof if the sole test were a requirement to demonstrate in advance that an action of the Assembly would have unacceptable repercussions on a reserved matter and could make policy override difficult to use or perhaps be unnecessarily controversial if used. There is a certain element of judgment in the matter. We would prefer slightly wider powers and would wish to keep the words "or might" in the definition. That
  1524
  was a point covered by one of the amendments.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a point on which he has spoken before. One way of dealing with this is to have legislation and just to use the sovereign power of this Parliament to pass a piece of legislation effectively annulling or overriding something which the Assembly has done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) pointed out in his speech and in an intervention, we think that this would be an unnecessarily cumbersome procedure. In many cases it might be taking a steam hammer to crack a nut if the matter to which objection were taken was not of very great consequence.
  There is also the difficulty that it is not always easy to fit Westminster legislation into the often overcrowded programmes of Governments, irrespective of party. It is easier to use an override mechanism for the procedure, subject to parliamentary approval. Such a mechanism can be initiated only by the Secretary of State, by the Executive here. That is a matter to which we shall come later, since there is an Opposition amendment proposing that this power should rest on a parliamentary initiative. It is better to use the method in the Bill, involving parliamentary procedure, without having to go to the fuss and bother of passing special legislation every time we want to override an action of the Assembly.
  Mr. Raison: Will the hon. Gentleman say a little about the point that I raised? What would happen if the Assembly failed to carry out its duties? I am not now talking about the reserved powers: I am talking about the general point. What would happen if the Assembly failed to carry out the law of the land? What powers do the Government envisage as existing to remedy that?
  Mr. Smith: It is inconceivable that the Assembly would not carry out the duties laid upon it by Act of Parliament.
  Mr. Raison: This argument can be taken in two ways. It so happens that one of the provisions of the 1944 Education Act was that there should be a central advisory council for England and Wales. There has not been such a council since 1967. For 10 or 11 years this Government and their Tory predecessors

  1525
  have failed to carry out the provisions of that Act. The Minister cannot possibly argue that it is automatically the case that the requirements of Acts of Parliament are carried out by Governments, whether national or, in this case, regional.
  Mr. Smith: We are concerned with a serious breach of the law and not with possibly minor matters which are sufficiently small not to agitate anyone. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we ought to write in powers to enable the appointment of commissioners, I have to say that we do not think that it is necessary to do that. Many constitutions work adequately without formal mechanisms. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one of the fascinating things about the constitution of the United States is that the United States Supreme Court does not seem to have a mechanism for enforcing its judgments, yet they are universally accepted by the states concerned, although a highly developed concept of the rights of states is a permanent feature of the American political structure. I dare say that it will be possible for the Government to have recourse to the courts in certain circumstances. It would depend upon the situation that arose. I do not think that it is a likely possibility that the Assembly will deliberately defy the law—
  Mr. Raison Mr. Raison rose—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Before we proceed on this subject in any depth, I would like the Chair to be shown where the question being discussed at the moment arises in the amendment, or even in Clause 35. I do not see it anywhere. This is something that could be dealt with on Report or Third Reading.
  Mr. Smith: This is not a point related to the amendment. You are absolutely right, Sir Myer, if I may respectfully say so. The hon. Member for Aylesbury asked me an intriguing question and I was seeking to give him an answer. I must accept your stricture and move on to the meat of the amendment.
  What we are talking about is not to do with what happens if the Assembly deliberately does not implement the law but whether we should adopt the formula
  1526
  to override that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire is proposing or whether the method already in the Bill is better. To a certain extent this is a matter of judgment. The Government changed the formulation, and that was spelled out in the policy statement to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury referred. The hon. Member does not really want devolution at all; he wants powers considerably greater than those sought even by his own Front Bench. I understand that.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury does not believe in the concept at all. He wants to devolve as little as possible and, having devolved, to keep as much overriding control as can possibly be achieved. But we have to have a balance; we do not want to have powers that would mean that the Assembly could be circumscribed from any effective initiatives and policies of its own.
  Devolution involves the granting to the Assembly of effective powers. We have to keep a balance, as we are still very much a United Kingdom and the Assemblies are subordinate institutions. There must be adequate reserved powers for the United Kingdom Government and Parliament to protect United Kingdom interests. On the other hand, there must be sufficient powers for the Assembly to work out its own distinctive policies and a genuine freedom of action and initiative. It is to get that balance right that we are seeking to have these reserved powers.
  At one end of the spectrum there is the total unionist, such as the hon. Member for Aylesbury. I am not indicating that there is anything discreditable in that position. There is, at the other end of the scale, the total separatist. That is quite a consistent position to hold. We are neither; we are very much attached to the unity of the United Kingdom, but we do not think that the best way to preserve it is by keeping all the nations of the United Kingdom in the same straitjacket. Therefore, we seek to have some reserved powers consistent with genuine initiative for the Assembly.
  In the statement of July 1977 we explained the reasons why we wished to make the change. We do not think that it is necessary to have a power of policy override in respect of the possible repercussions of what might be termed the

  1527
  English dimension of the devolved matter. One of the merits of devolution, as I have often argued, is that it will allow reasonable diversity within the continuing unity of the United Kingdom.
  The Government do not consider that there should be a power of policy override merely because an action of the Welsh Assembly in a devolved area might be inconvenient for the United Kingdom Government of the day. We believe that policy override should be kept in reserve in case it is needed to protect matters which lie at the heart of the continuing unity of the United Kingdom, such as defence, trade, economy, energy, industrial policy, and the like. We do not consider that it is necessary to have a power of policy override, for example, to interfere with something that is done by the Welsh Assembly on education matters simply because it affects English education.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury disagrees with that. He would like power to circumscribe the Assembly in almost every sphere. We differ in judgment on this point. We see it as important to reserve such power on, for example, energy, but not on English education.
  Mr. Raison: The Minister has misinterpreted my argument. I was saying that we have a law, which the Minister does not deny will continue to apply to Wales just as much as it always applied in the past—namely, the Education Act 1944. I was merely asking how the Government expect to make sure that the Education Act 1944 continues to be implemented in Wales.
  The Minister made a comparison with the United States which I do not think was valid. The essence of the United States is that they wish to remain united. The fact about Wales is that there is a group of people who wish to be disunited. There was an occasion when the United States wished to be disunited. That was at the time of the American Civil War, and that showed that the federation was able to take firm action.
  Mr. Smith: I did not intend that my analogy should go into that area. I was concerned with a very simple point about the enforcement of judgments.
  The hon. Gentleman may reflect—I hope that I am not straying too far out
  1528
  of order—that he is under a misapprehension if he thinks that anything other than a tiny minority of the people of Wales do not wish to maintain fully the unity of the United Kingdom and that the vast majority of the people who would be elected to the Welsh Assembly would not be dedicated to the unity of the United Kingdom. In that respect, it will be the same as the United States, where I accept that the majority of people want to maintain the integrity of the union of the United States of America.
  9.0 p.m.
  On Second Reading of the Scotland and Wales Bill and in other devolution proceedings there was an argument that the override clause powers in the Scotland and Wales Bill went too wide. It was suggested that we should not have powers as wide as we had in the Scotland and Wales Bill. We listened to that criticism at the time and came to the conclusion that it was wiser to have a more restricted power of intervention on override.
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire referred to a slightly wider power in some respects, so that it could include the English dimension, as it were, as well as other matters. But we take a different view. Our judgment was reached some time ago, and the result is in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that we had changed our policy. We have made no secret about that change of policy. We announced it some time ago.
  I turn now to the way in which we see the override operating. I hope that it will not be a frequent occurrence. The fact that these powers are present will in many cases resolve any possible conflicts. I am sure that, with these powers in the background, it will be possible to reach a satisfactory conclusion on any disputes between the United Kingdom Government and the Welsh Assembly. I do not imagine for a moment that with split or shared powers there will not be difficulties at the edges. Of course there will be difficulties at the edges, but the benefits to be gained from decentralisation outweigh the difficulties. I believe that it is possible for us to deal with these matters in a constructive spirit of good will and good relationships, which are a feature of our institutions. That applies to Scotland as well as to Wales. However, it is necessary

  1529
  to have these powers, and I believe that we have the balance just about right.
  Mr. Grist: The Minister of State referred to some rough edges. It is all very well to talk of the Assembly being set up with the good will of the people of Wales. If such an Assembly came into being, its representatives would come largely from the Labour Party, which is deeply divided on the question whether there should be an Assembly, the Tory Party, which is opposed, the Liberal Party, which wants a federal structure, and Plaid Cymru, which does not want the structure but wants independence. Therefore, there will not be any good will. The rough edges will snarl up the whole system.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman seems to have a curious view of the people of Wales. The Assembly will come into operation only if they approve of it in a referendum. That is the answer to his question. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that if the Bill is passed by Parliament and approved by the people of Wales in a referendum, the setting up of the Assembly will be obstructed by Conservative Members or others, because of their views, that will be an unfortunate outlook for Wales. I am sure that people will seek to make the Assembly work—even those who are opposed to its being set up—because they will accept it as a fact of life. The normal spirit of public service will prevail and people will seek to make it work to the best of their ability. Indeed, they may in the process discover that it is not half as bad as they thought when they opposed it.
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said that he hoped that the override power would not be used very often or that it might be thought a licence or an invitation to interfere. The wider or the stronger the reserved powers, the more they look like a licence or an invitation to interfere. We must try to get the balance right. We believe that we have got it right by giving sufficient initiative and power to the Assembly.
  I do not know why the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) should find that an odd concept. It is a sensible concept to get the right balance. We believe that we have achieved the
  1530
  right balance. That is why I recommend this formulation to the Committee.
  Mr. Brittan: I was going to answer some of these points if I managed to catch your eye at a later stage, Sir Myer. The reason why I demur is that it seems that the Minister is trying to have it all possible ways. On the one hand, it is a question of getting the balance right. On the other hand, he suggests that putting in the stronger power of override is an indication that it will be used often, and therefore it is better not to have such power. That seems an insupportable proposition. It is complete guesswork, when founding a legislative creature such as the Assembly on the basis of speculation, whether a weaker or stronger override power will act as a more or a less effective deterrent. It seems that we are building a constitutional structure on shifting sand.
  Mr. Smith: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Like most politicians, I am anxious to have it as many ways as I can, but that is not an uncommon feature of the way in which we conduct ourselves in this place. The hon. Gentleman must remember that his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire said that the existence of these powers might be construed as a licence or an invitation to interfere. I do not follow that argument. I think that it is necessary to have reserved powers.
  Mr. Pym: I was making the point that the powers are drawn so widely that they amount to a licence or invitation.
  Mr. Smith: The giving of wider powers of control to include the English dimension as well as the United Kingdom dimension might equally be construed in that way. The formula in the Scotland and Wales Bill was a wider power of override than in this Bill. I suppose that some argument could be made about that.
  We have had an opportunity to consider these powers. An opposite formula has come from the Opposition. I believe that the Government are wise to have retained a formula that includes the concept of balance.
  Mr. Pym: Do the words "public interest" have any significance or meaning? If so, what interpretation does the

  1531
  hon. Gentleman expect to be put upon those words?
  Secondly, does the hon. Gentleman agree that he has not answered my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who asked how the law will be insisted upon and carried out in Wales after the Bill is enacted, if it ever is? My hon. Friend raised various examples, especially in relation to education. I do not think that the Minister has indicated how the law would be imposed and carried out in Wales. He has simply said that in his opinion the Assembly would be of a character that would lead those involved to want to carry out its functions. He has said that they will be responsible people and that the majority of them will want Wales to remain part of the United Kingdom. However, that is no answer to the situation postulated by my hon. Friend. I think that he made his point with great force and accuracy. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the whole Committee would like to know the answer to the question.
  Mr. Smith: I think that the hon. Member for Aylesbury knows that the Assembly will be responsible in Wales for the carrying out of education policy so far as it affects Wales. If that can be described as a national policy, the Assembly will be responsible for it. It will be a policy for Wales. I said "can be described as" because I believe that the hon. Gentleman was thinking of national policy as being United Kingdom policy. That is probably right. We all know that that is part and parcel of the devolution scheme.
  Primary legislation will be carried out by the House of Commons. The Assembly will have to operate within that framework. It will be responsible for education policy within that framework. As I have said, primary legislation will be dealt with by the House of Commons.
  The other question raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury was much more fundamental. He asked what would happen if the Welsh Assembly flatly refused to accept or operate a directive. He wanted to know the mechanism that would be used for enforcing it. That is a deep constitutional stream down which to paddle. I should be out of order if I were to stray into that territory.
  The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire asked how we would interpret the
  1532
  "public interest". That is extremely difficult to forsee. The term "public interest" is often used in Acts of Parliament. In this instance the Secretary of State has to satisfy himself that a reserved matter would or might be affected and, in addition, whether it would be desirable in the public interest to use the powers that the Bill provides.
  It is quite impossible to give a precise definition in advance of how the Secretary of State would interpret "public interest". It is useful for that term to be included, as it means that the Secretary of State need not take action if he thinks that it will not be in the public interest to do so. The important thing is that he will have to come before Parliament and justify the use of these powers. That course will have to be passed by Parliament. Before the Secretary of State decides to intervene and to use the powers he will have to satisfy himself that he has a convincing case for so doing, and a case that will be approved by Parliament.
  The Government have put forward a sensible and intelligent way of going about these matters. I hope that the Committee will accept the way in which the Bill stands and that it will not accept the amendment.
  Sir A. Meyer: The incursions of Scotsmen into Welsh affairs have not always been too happy, to judge by recent events at Cardiff Arms Park, but the Minister of State has handsomely restored the balance. One shudders to think what shape the Bill would be in without his presence.
  The Minister has not had much support, however, from his Welsh colleagues. I speak as a representative of the only Welsh party which has half its Members present in the Chamber, and has had throughout these proceedings. Especially noticeable is the total absence at this moment of any Welsh Labour Back Bencher at all and the absence throughout the debate of any Welsh Members favourable to the Bill.
  I am a little sorry, Sir Myer, that you did not call me later in the debate, because I have been listening—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The debate has to finish at 11 o'clock, so I do not know how late I can call the hon. Gentleman. I understood that

  1533
  the Opposition Front Bench spokesman was prepared to give time for the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) to make his speech.
  Sir A. Meyer: Naturally, I am very grateful to you, Sir Myer, for calling me at all, especially when you have so many to choose from.
  I have been listening to the debate, trying to find a solution to this problem which I could find intellectually convincing. Although, when the Committee divides, I shall be supporting my right hon. Friend's amendment, despite its awful syntax—almost as awful as that of the Bill itself—I do not find his set of solutions anything but slightly less bad than the solutions in the Bill.
  If I keep asking myself why I can find no satisfactory way of providing for override powers, I am driven back to the point at which I started, perhaps not surprisingly—that the reason why the whole business of override powers is insoluble is that the set-up is absolutely unworkable.
  Even before we started on this devolution road, there were already problems of demarcation between English and Welsh administration. Every Welsh Member is only too familiar with them. We are constantly writing letters to Government Departments only to get the reply that the matter is the province of the Welsh Office, which will be replying in due course. That means a further fortnight's delay, and when we get the Welsh Office reply we know that it has been written in an English Department and has merely been given a Welsh Office imprint.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones)The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones) indicated dissent.
  Sir A. Meyer: On points of detail, obviously the replies emanate from the Welsh Office, but not when we ask what the Government's policy is, for example, in agriculture, transport or education.
  Mr. Alec Jones: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that agriculture has not been a devolved subject until now and that, therefore, it would be completely unreasonable to expect an answer from the Welsh Office. However, with the devolving of agricultural powers, he will receive his substantive answers on agricultural questions from the Welsh Office.
  Sir A. Meyer: As I understood it, until now agriculture has been a joint responsibility in Wales of the Welsh Office and the Ministry of Agriculture. I am not trying to say that if I have a detailed question of the Welsh Office, I do not get a proper answer. I get very proper and courteous answers. My point, with which every Welsh Member will sympathise, is that we write to a Government Department to ask what is its policy on a particular range of subjects—like education and transport, particularly social services and the whole vast field covered by the Department of the Environment—and are told that they are matters for the Welsh Office. It is only because the question is asked by a Welsh Member that the reply has to come from the Welsh Office.
  That shows that there are already demarcation problems between Welsh and English administration. They are not serious and can be sorted out by administrative action. The solution is built into the system, and if there are difficulties they are administrative difficulties. They cause delays and irritation but nothing worse.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Surely the hon. Gentleman has had the same experience as I on this matter—namely, that a question of general principle not related to a geographical area can be raised with the Minister for Housing and Construction. I have raised matters personally and I have always had courteous replies from that Minister. If it is a housing matter related to Wales it is transferred to the Welsh Office, as it should have been in the first place. However, the demarcation is clear.
  9.15 p.m.
  Sir A. Meyer: My experience does not coincide with the hon. Gentleman's. We ask Questions in the House and we receive ministerial answers, but there are occasions when difficulty is experienced. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts), who unfortunately has left the Committee, told me that on a number of occasions recently he tried to obtain an answer on policy from an English Department but has been referred to the Welsh Office purely because he is a Welsh Member. I do not wish to labour the point. I am trying to suggest that the solutions to the problem are built into the existing system,

  1535
  whereas under the system outlined in the Bill there will be an aggravation of existing demarcation disputes.
  In a speech on an earlier amendment, I used the adjective "corrosive" to describe the structure laid down in the Bill. It will corrode the fabric of the United Kingdom. Nowhere is this corrosive effect more apparent than in the area of reserved and override powers. These provisions will build in areas of conflict. There is nothing in the Bill as drafted—or, I regret to say, in the amendment—that will diminish that damaging effect. It is true that an attempt is made in the schedules closely to define the permitted power of the Assembly, but the point has been made in speech after speech on both sides of the Committee, and on both sides of the argument, that whenever a directly elected Assembly is set up it automatically tries to increase its powers.
  We have been unable to debate Clause 13, but clearly the Assembly will not content itself with the powers which, alas, we have given to it in the Bill or with making recommendations on the reform of local government but will go on and attempt to put those recommendations into effect, or will demand that right.
  I have received a telegram from the Clwyd County Council, which has been somewhat torn in its attitude on this measure. The council finally voted against devolution by a majority. It was not a large majority, but it was unanimous in its view that the Assembly should not be given power to reorganise local government. I do not want to go over this ground again, but I wish to quote one phrase from the telegram:
  "The Council though opposed to the Wales Bill by a majority is totally opposed to Clause 13 which it considers an alien clause leading only to centralisation rather than devolution and the negation of local democracy in favour of a regional power base."
  The council has put its finger on the vital consideration. I believe that the Assembly will become a regional power base. It will make great play of the fact that it has particular virtue by the very reason of its being directly elected. It will be in a constant state of conflict with the Secretary of State over the override powers. This is what I mean by its being a corrosive process.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: One of the difficulties felt by the county council is that
  1536
  the subject committees to be set up by the Assembly will deal with the same subjects as those with which the county council deals—namely, education and other matters. The great fear is that there will be a duplication and that the Welsh Assembly, if formed, will be dealing with the same issues as are now handled at county level. This is why the county councils are making strong representations on Clause 13.
  Sir A. Meyer: I have not examined that point. I do not know how far these reserved or override powers can be used to avoid conflict between the Assembly and the local authorities, but if I were to embark on that I should stray outside the terms of the amendment.
  Sir Raymond Gower: My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) said that these were corrosive powers. The Minister of State said that he felt certain that this machinery would seldom be used. I hope that that is not a too optimistic view, because it seems to me that this is the most sensitive part of the legislation. It involves the relationship between Parliament at Westminster and the proposed Assembly. This is an even more delicate matter than the Minister has implied during the passage of the Bill and during our earlier tentious and almost objectionable.
  One can imagine what could happen. The least miscalculation by the Secretary of State would arouse major controversy and strong dissident forces within the Assembly. The clause as drafted will enable the Government to override actions or decisions taken by the Assembly. Surely that means that we should frame this so that that would be even more rare than the Minister suggests.
  I do not like the element of uncertainty. The Secretary of State will have to make decisions based on opinion and how the matter appears to him. I should have preferred a different machinery. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West that our amendments would have carried us a long way.
  The Minister referred to the American Supreme Court. I should have liked us to rely on alternative measures such as the ultra vires doctrine. If the Bill was clearly worded and the reserved powers were clearly defined, as with the major

  1537
  local authorities, it would be practicable, when the Assembly went beyond its prescribed powers, to decide by a reliance on the doctrine of ultra vires. That could be sustained in some cases by the alternative of resorting to a special court. Unfortunately, that has not been included in the Bill. The Government have decided on this peculiar form which I find contentious and almost objectionable.
  The Minister said that reliance on the Secretary of State's decision was all right because he would have to defend that here. That is not the issue. The point is, will it be acceptable to the Assembly? Because a decision has been made by the Secretary of State, the Assembly will argue that is wrong. Assemblymen will argue that it is his decision on what is in the public interest and that it is wrong. There are many grounds for conflict.
  Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Member follow the logic of his own argument all the way? If there is to be a constitutional court, which is what he implies, that leads to the question of whether there should be a written constitution. In that context, the issue applies not only to Wales but to the whole of the United Kingdom.
  Sir R. Gower: Naturally, this is not difficult for me. I have always preferred a federal constitution which almost certainly would involve setting up some machinery in the courts. The Minister will know that. I cannot think of a federal system of any importance in the whole world where there is not some system of resort to a constitutional court to decide a conflict between the supreme Parliament and a regional one. If we had a constitutional system, I would certainly prefer also a system of resort to a constitutional court. That would have been far less objectionable than what we have here.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: It will come in time.
  Sir R. Gower: Its coming might be postponed through our setting up a greatly inferior system which could produce a conflict which none of us wants and which the Minister deems undesirable.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) is confident
  1538
  that the new form of wording would improve the situation. It might do so marginally, but it is making the most of a basically imperfect solution.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: It is difficult to guess what Clause 35(1)(a) might mean if it is not amended. It reads
  "If it appears to the Secretary of State—
  (d) that any action proposed to be taken by the Assembly would or might affect a reserved matter, whether directly or indirectly, or".
  One then has to look at subsection (3) to see what it is intended to mean. That arrangement is something we should, if possible, avoid in the drafting of legislation. It is a principle of sound legislative drafting that we should be able to look at a subsection and tell, without reference to another subsection, what it means.
  Sir A. Meyer: Is it not a fact that in this magnificently drafted Bill nowhere does it say how many Members it is proposed should be elected to the Assembly?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am shocked by this astounding revelation from my hon. Friend, but, shocking as that is, it is in no way surprising. The two words are not synonymous. That method of drafting which I recommend has a great constructional advantage in that one can tell what the subsection means, if it means anything at all, simply by looking at it rather than by referring to the explanatory lines 27 to 31 to which, as the Bill is drafted, reference would have to be made.
  Let us assume we leave the clause unamended. What is a matter which might affect a reserved matter? Let us consider Clause 29, which appears to be quite clear. It reads:
  "International affairs. The Assembly shall not in the exercise of its functions conduct relations with any country outside the United Kingdom."
  So far so good, one might think. But is the Isle of Man a country outside the United Kingdom? Outside the United Kingdom it certainly is. It comes under the Home Office only because the Sovereign happens to be Lord of Man by her ancestor's purchase. But is the Isle of Man a country for the purposes of the Bill? I cannot find a definition of

  1539
  "country" in any definition clause in the Bill. That being so, does Clause 29 interdict the Welsh Assembly and its Executive from negotiating with the authorities of the Isle of Man on matters which undoubtedly fall within the province of the Welsh Assembly? I honestly do not know. I suspect that the Minister does not know either. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
  If the Minister wants to intervene, I shall gladly listen to his intervention before I continue. But if he cannot tell us here and now the answer to questions such as that, it means that his action is bound to be arbitrary rather than reasonable and predictable.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Wigley: Surely it is perfectly clear. The Isle of Man is outside the United Kingdom for all sorts of purposes, to which the hon. Member has referred, including the purposes of the EEC, and it can be defined as a country, as any other territory, whatever nominal title it might have, would be defined as a country. It is outside the United Kingdom. Although it has more powers over its own affairs than Wales will have under the Bill, it is still outside the scope of the Welsh Assembly being able to do anything about it. I should not have thought that there was any difficulty here.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is not in dispute between the hon. Member and myself that the Isle of Man is outside the United Kingdom, but I think that some lawyers would hold that the word "country" means "sovereign independent State".
  Mr. Wigley: Wales is a country.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I thought that Wales was a Principality. Incidentally, even after the passage of the Bill it is not intended that it should be a sovereign independent Principality.
  The Isle of Man has fulfilled one of the functions of a country, I would guess, in that the Isle of Man declared war on the Imperial German Empire in 1914. That is a historic fact. However, it was not a signatory to the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.
  Mr. Walter Clegg: Was that not Berwick-upon-Tweed?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, it was not Berwick-upon-Tweed. Does that indicate that the Isle of Man was a country in 1914 and not a country in 1919? It was outside the United Kingdom then and it is undoubtedly outside the United Kingdom now. Whatever has happened to Continental Shelves, its location has not changed.
  This is an excellent example of how the exercises of these override powers will necessarily be arbitrary—that is, if they are to be exercised at all. If they do not need to be exercised at all, they could be excised rather than exercised. In other words, we could delete Clause 35 altogether, which would possibly save the Committee a certain amount of time.
  This is not just a theoretical consideration, because there are functions which the Welsh Assembly might want to operate which could require negotiation with the authorities in the Isle of Man—concerning, for instance, sea fisheries. That is one obvious example. Another example appears on page 62 of the Bill, in Schedule 2, Part XX, General. That is the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971, Sections 5(1) and 12. It could well be that matters into which the Welsh Assembly might wish to institute an inquiry under the powers given in the Act might involve some citizens of the Isle of Man who had possibly been wrecked in a fishing vessel or had interfered with harbour navigation in Wales. The Isle of Man is located not so very far from the coast of Wales. That is another example of a matter in which the Welsh Assembly might wish to intervene.
  Bearing in mind that some airports are operated by local authorities rather than by the British Airports Authority, it might well be that the Welsh Assembly or the Executive might wish to enter into arrangements, for instance, with the provincial Government in Northern Ireland. That is quite a possible situation. Clearly, that would not be interdicted. It is presumptuous to say "clearly", but that would not be interdicted, I would think, by Clause 29. However, if those negotiations involved the overflight of the sovereign air space of the Republic of Eire, I take it that the Minister's finger might twitch in favour of making a direction under Clause 35(5) which would be binding on the Assembly. Therefore,

  1541
  although I think we can anticipate certain spheres in which he could use these powers if he wished to do so, the borderline cases would depend entirely on appearances.
  I think that the use of the words
  "If it appears to the Secretary of State"
  must be regarded as intolerable legislative practice. There are some legislative provisions which can be challenged on the basis that the Secretary of State or the Minister concerned is acting unreasonably, but in such circumstances it would be a reply to any court action to say "I certify that it appeared to me to be desirable to do what I did. However ridiculous it may appear to anybody else, to my deluded mind it had this appearance." He would then have, fulfilled the requirements.
  I should have thought that if we are to bring Clause 35 within the reasonable purview of the courts—this is a point of substance—so that a court could, potentially at least, determine whether the Minister was acting ultra vires or intra vires, there should be a very much more positive criterion than the words
  "If it appears to the Secretary of State".
  Even if it could be proved in court that the action was in no way outside the powers granted by the Bill to the Welsh Assembly or its Executive, as long as the Minister could aver "It appeared to me that that was so, even though I agree with you that it is not so", his override powers would be unimpeachable in any court.
  Mr. Raison: I was hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) would intervene on that point. I should have thought that, after the Tameside decision, the assumption which is held in some quarters that what a Minister said was necessarily so—in other words, that the judgment was in the Minister's hands—is no longer as cast iron as it used to be.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, but I believe this is an attempt, by the use of the words
  "If it appears to the Secretary of State".
  to make it cast iron. There are no qualifying words such as "If it appears to the Secretary of State upon reasonable grounds". The decision is absolute. It is
  1542
  at the Secretary of State's unfettered and, if necessary, unreasonable discretion.
  I conclude this section of my observations by recommending the amendment on the basis that, although it makes the powers no more reasonable, and although it in no way restricts them, it at least makes the Bill very slightly easier to read. It is a marginal matter, but undeniably it makes the Bill five lines shorter. I would have thought that that must recommend itself to every hon. Member of the Committee. I am happy to say that the other amendments we are discussing have the same effect. As a result of those amendments, page 13 would become two lines shorter.
  Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Surely we are now suffering an extended filibuster. We have heard from Conservative Members how iniquitous the guillotine is and that there are important matters to be discussed later. Surely this is a classic example of the time of the Committee being wasted on matters of no substance.
  The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) must be allowed to make his speech in his own way and to advance his arguments.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Murton, for your stalwart protection, because that was the very first allusion that I made to page 13.
  The courts have often criticised verbosity in drafting. If they were to criticise verbosity in other respects, I believe that Ministers would most likely be on the receiving end. Indeed, were the courts to comment on irrelevance I think that Ministers at Question Time would come fairly high up in the list of those criticised. However, if in going though the Bill at each stage we can insert amendments which make the Bill marginally more clear and marginally less long, those amendments stand on their own feet as ones to be recommended.
  Mr. Brittan: I am not in the least surprised at the lack of enthusiasm shown by some of my hon. Friends for the amendment that we are putting forward. It is put forward as no more than a palliative. We have made it quite clear that we oppose the whole structure of the Bill, and it is quite impossible by amending

  1543
  one clause to do anything substantial to improve it.
  All that I am seeking to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends is that within the extremely narrow limits provided for us by the structure of the Bill the amendment is a limited improvement. I do not think that any apology is necessary from any hon. Gentleman for the fact that we have had a somewhat protracted debate on these provisions, because they are at the very heart of the Bill.
  One of the major criticisms which has been made both of the Scotland Bill and of the Wales Bill is that they provide a real risk of conflict between the devolved Assemblies, Westminster and the United Kingdom Government. At the heart of this crucial question of conflict lies the question of the division of powers between the Assembly on the one hand and the House of Commons and the United Kingdom Government on the other hand.
  The mechanism of the override powers is one of the most delicate and crucial ones in determining where the balance lies between the powers of the Assembly and the powers of the House of Commons. Indeed, as the Minister of State in effect recognised, there is a dilemma. Do we make the powers to intervene in the actions of the Assembly very wide, or do we make them narrow? I would tend to disagree with the hon. Gentleman in this respect only. I do not believe that the extent of the conflict will be determined by whether we make the opportunities for intervention wide or narrow. It will be determined by whether we intervene often or infrequently. That is much more likely to be the determining factor of the degree of conflict than is the width of the powers that entitle intervention.
  In so far as it is the nature of the powers of intervention that causes conflict or detracts from the extent of conflict, what is important above all is not that the power of intervention should be particularly wide or particularly narrow but that it should be particularly clear. That is one of the major points of criticism of the formulation of powers in Clauses 35 and 36.
  9.45 p.m.
  It is important that the basis for intervention should be clear and apparent,
  1544
  that the criteria for judging these powers of intervention should be rational and defensible and that the people of Wales should be able to understand why the House of Commons is seeking to intervene in a particular case. It should not seem to be an arbitrary and capricious intervention on the part of the United Kingdom Government simply because the Government of Wales are doing something of which the House of Commons disapproves.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: When my hon. Friend is making such extremely important points, will he reflect on the fact that, apart from the three Members on the payroll sitting on the Treasury Bench, the only so-called supporter of the Government who is in the Committee happens to be sitting on the Opposition side, thus indicating the totally uninterested contempt with which the Committee looks at the Bill?
  Mr. Brittan: That is an important and significant observation, but it is one that could equally have been made at almost any time in the course of our debates. It is a scandal that the Bill should have got so far with that limited degree of support.
  In considering the nature of the override powers and their extent, one has to say a word about the relationship between the override power and the question of vires. Although they are technically juridically and constitutionally separate, they are interrelated in the sense that, if there is an effective mechanism for ensuring that the Welsh Assembly does not exceed its legal powers, it may not be necessary to have quite so wide an opportunity for the use of the override powers. If, on the other hand, the powers that exist to prevent the Assembly operating in a way that is ultra vires are inadequate or unclear, it becomes that much more important to have an override provision.
  I remind the Minister of State—I hope that I shall carry him with me on this—that the greater the extent to which one can rely on the ultra vires provisions, and the lesser the extent to which one can rely on the override provisions, the healthier will be the constitutional arrangements. The reason is that, although the Government have a schizophrenic attitude towards the courts, they

  1545
  have been driven to recognise in the evolution of the devolution proposals that it is unavoidable that questions of strict vires should be considered by the courts. The Government having recognised that fact, I suggest to the Minister of State that he would have done better to take more seriously the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) on this matter and the vivid and apt illustration he gave of the Education Act 1976.
  The provisions with regard to vires are inadequate, and that must reflect itself in our consideration of the override powers. My hon. Friend asked the simple question of what the Government would do if the Welsh Assembly failed to carry out the provisions of the Education Act 1976. The Minister did not give a satisfactory intellectual analysis of that problem.
  The real position is that there are two possibilities arising here. The first is that in which the Welsh Assembly acts absolutely in conflict with the powers given to it and is in breach of the law. In that case the Minister has his answer in Clause 72, which enables the Attorney-General to institute proceedings against the Assembly to determine whether it is in breach of the law.
  The more difficult question arises in the second case when there is an omission rather than a positive act of contravention of the law. In that situation the provisions of Clause 72 are inadequate, and the Minister might have to resort to the override powers. However, that should not be necessary. It should be possible to provide ultra vires determination powers as a much more acceptable alternative.
  Even then, a further analysis is required. What may be granted by an Act of Parliament can be either a power or a duty to do something. If the Secretary of State for Education were granted merely a power that it transferred by the Bill to the Welsh Assembly, the answer is simple. The Welsh Assembly is in no sense obliged, except in exceptional circumstances, to exercise a power which is only a power and not a duty.
  The 1976 Act is couched in terms of power for the Ministry but duty for local authorities. As far as that Act is concerned, if the Welsh Assembly does
  1546
  not like it and does not wish to enforce it, the Act will become a dead letter simply because it is couched in terms of power and not duty. That raises echoes of the matter of legislative devolution that we were debating last Thursday. That means that, if the United Kingdom Government in future wish to legislate for comprehensive education for the United Kingdom as a whole, they cannot safely use the form of the 1976 Act because it would put at risk the implementation of the policy in Wales, where implementation is entirely dependent on the discretionary exercise of powers by the Assembly.
  There is a profound implication for United Kingdom legislation generally in this, because it means that instead of allowing himself to use a form of legislation of that kind the Secretary of State of the day, if he wished to have his policy effected in Wales, would have to draw it up in a tighter way, imposing duties instead of powers or going into greater detail.
  As far as sheer duties are concerned, there is a gap in the Bill. Even if a duty is imposed by the 1976 Act, the Bill is not apt to provide a means of resolving the conflict without resort to the politically charged override provisions.
  Clause 72 is the key clause in this. It enables the Attorney-General to
  "institute, and the Assembly may defend, proceedings for the determination of any question whether anything done or proposed to be done by the Assembly is within its powers."
  But I do not find there—and the Committee will look in vain to see it—anything entitling the Attorney-General to institute proceedings to determine whether or not the Assembly is in breach of its duty in failing to act in a particular direction. That seems to me to be an area of conflict which could have been resolved by a simple addition to Clause 72, which would have been wholly consistent with the Government's general conception. I criticise the Government for failing to take on board this point, or to provide for it.
  Sir David Renton: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that there is a still further conflict to which reference has not so far been made, arising from the fact that any Attorney-General worth his salt places himself above political considerations in exercising the kind of discretion

  1547
  which he is sometimes given by statute and presumably is to be given here under Clause 72? There is at least the possibility that an Attorney-General, for good legal reasons, will find himself having to take a different view, on the question of ultra vires, which my hon. Friend has so rightly described as a politically charged decision of the Secretary of State under Clause 35.
  Mr. Brittan: I absolutely agree, and for my part, in drawing the line I would wish that there were a greater role for the Attorney-General rather than a lesser one, if we are to avoid politically charged intervention.
  At this point turn to the question of the extent to which override should operate—whether it should operate in accordance with the amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend or follow the scheme put forward by the Government. The Minister of State engaged in a certain amount of badinage, suggesting that we in this House had nostalgia for the Scotland and Wales Bill. There is certainly a tendency for the passage of time to cast a patina of nostalgia on even the most execrable object, but I can assure the Minister of State that the passage of time in this case has been insufficient to cast any kind of nostalgia on that particular legislative abortion, so he is deluding himself in that respect.
  We have been entirely consistent, even if the Minister of State does not give us the credit for that, because although the guillotine did not allow us to raise it then, the very same point has now been raised as was raised on the Scotland Bill. The question is simply this: if one is saying that the Secretary of State can come before Parliament and seek to set aside the action of the Welsh Assembly if it affects a reserved matter, if it affects something with which the Welsh Assembly itself has not the power to deal, why should that right exist if what is affected is something concerning Wales—whether or not it concerns the United Kingdom as a whole—but not if what is affected concerns only England?
  The argument in favour of altering the Scotland and Wales Bill formulation is simply insupportable. The Minister of State in seeking to defend it, put it in terms of saying that really only if the United Kingdom's fundamental interests
  1548
  are affected by Welsh Assembly action should we seek to set aside that action; only it such action affects the United Kingdom as a whole, if matters such as defence are affected, should we have the right to intervene. That was the example he gave in seeking to illustrate circumstances in which the United Kingdom would operate its powers in this regard.
  lf, however, one is talking about conflict and about action which is taken by the Welsh Assembly which is likely to have unacceptable implications for this House, I would have thought there could be no clearer example of an action which would be unacceptable to this House than an action of the Welsh Assembly, taken within its own powers but having an effect on England in relation to matters such as housing, education or all other matters in which Wales and the Welsh Assembly do not have a power to act.
  I cannot imagine a situation in which the hostility and oppositon to what is being done by the Welsh Assembly would be greater than one in which the Welsh Assembly does something which has an indirect or direct effect upon matters which are exclusively within the power of this Parliament because they affect England alone.
  By narrowing the terms of possible override intervention from those obtaining in the Scotland and Wales Bill, the Minister of State has put himself in a position in which all of his strictures about how much better it is to operate the override powers than to intervene by legislation make no sense at all. What he is saying is that in the most delicate political area where the exercise of its powers by the Welsh Assembly has led to unacceptable implications for English education, English housing, the override powers are not available and the Minister has to intervene with the full-blooded Act of Parliament, the full-blooded legislative intervention which he wishes to decry. That seems to be an illogical position.
  The Government may understandably have been anxious to alter the Scotland and Wales Bill because of the criticisms made of it. In this case they have altered it for the worse. They seem to have been panicked into making any change rather than a well-thought-out change. What the Minister of State said towards the end of his remarks was that the important thing

  1549
  to remember was that the fact that the powers were there would lead to their not being used all that much, because the Assembly would know of the powers and would not act in a way which would bring them into play. That argument would carry some weight if the powers were clear-cut, but they are not. They are expressed in vague terms. They talk about reserved matters being affected "directly or indirectly". They talk about a situation not only in which a reserved matter would be affected but one in which a reserve power might be affected.
  In that situation the Welsh Assembly could not possibly know whether what it was doing would be regarded by a United Kingdom Secretary of State as
  acting in a way which brought the override powers into effect. The suggestion that the existence of the powers would lead to the Assembly minding its "ps" and "qs" is entirely dependent on the powers being clear, not vague. However, vague is precisely what they are. For these reasons, although I do not pretend that the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire is more than a tiny improvement to an insupportable part of an indefensible Bill, for what it is worth, I commend it to the Committee.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:
  The Committee divided: Ayes 132, Noes 169.

  Division No. 142]

  AYES

  [10.04 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Banks, Robert

  Hastings, Stephen

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Hawkins, Paul

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Blaker, Peter

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hordern, Peter

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Brittan, Leon

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Jessel, Toby

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Brooke, Peter

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Brotherton, Michael

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rathbone, Tim

  Budgen, Nick

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Burden, F. A.

  Kilfedder, James

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)

  Knox, David

  Rhodes James, R.

  Carson, John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Churchill, W. S.

  Lawson, Nigel

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Clegg, Waiter

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Cockroft, John

  Loveridge, John

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Luce, Richard

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Cope, John

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Speed, Keith

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Drayson, Burnaby

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Durant, Tony

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Marten, Neil

  Tebbit, Norman

  Elliott, Sir William

  Mather, Carol

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Eyre, Reginald

  Mawby, Ray

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Forman, Nigel

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Trotter, Neville

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerald

  Fox, Marcus

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Viggers, Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Moate, Roger

  Warren, Kenneth

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Monro, Hector

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Goodhew, Victor

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wells, John

  Gorst, John

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Younger, Hon George

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Grieve, Percy

  Neave, Airey

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sir George Young and

  Grist, Ian

  Nott, John

  Mr. Peter Morrison.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald

  Bean, R. E.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Beith, A. J.

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Ashton, Joe

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Bradley, Tom

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Atkinson, Norman

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Bates, Alf

  Boardman, H.

  Buchanan, Richard

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Hunter, Adam

  Rose, Paul B.

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Campbell, Ian

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Cant, R. B.

  John, Brynmor

  Rowlands, Ted

  Cartwright, John

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Coleman, Donald

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Sever, John

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Cowans, Harry

  Kerr, Russell

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Lamond, James

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Crawford, Douglas

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Cryer, Bob

  Luard, Evan

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Stoddart, David

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Stott, Roger

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  McElhone, Frank

  Strang, Gavin

  Deakins, Eric

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Dempsey, James

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Doig, Peter

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Dunnett, Jack

  McNamara, Kevin

  Thompson, George

  Eadie, Alex

  Madden, Max

  Tierney, Sydney

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Mahon, Simon

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Mendelson, John

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Ward, Michael

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Watkinson, John

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Watt, Hamish

  Forrester, John

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Weetch, Ken

  Freud, Clement

  Newens, Stanley

  Welsh, Andrew

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Noble, Mike

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Ginsburg, David

  Ogden, Eric

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Golding, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Graham, Ted

  Ovenden, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Park, George

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Hardy, Peter

  Parker, John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Harrison, Rt Hon Waiter

  Parry, Robert

  Woodall, Alec

  Henderson, Douglas

  Panhaligon, David

  Woof, Robert

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Reid, George

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Mr. James Tinn.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Roper, John

  Question accordingly negatived.

  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Brittan: I beg to move Amendment No. 229, in page 12, line 42, leave out from 'Parliament' to 'and' in line 1 on page 13.
  The Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 230, in page 13, line 4, at end add—
  '() A direction ender subsection (1) of this section shall be given if the House of Commons by resolution so requires, and any direc-

  (a) shall, as regards its terms and the time at which it takes effect and otherwise, be in conformity with the resolution requiring it, and

  (b) shall, for the purposes of subsection (6) of this section, be deemed to have been approved by resolution of the House of Commons.

  () In the case of any direction under subsection (2) of this section that action shall not be taken, the Assembly or the Attorney General or any other person may, within the period of 28 days beginning on the date on which the direction is given, institute proceedings for the determination of the question whether the action proposed to be taken would be incompatible with any of the obligations referred to in paragraph (a) of the said subsection (2); and, if any such proceedings are instituted, the direction shall cease or (as the case may be) have effect only in accordance with the decision of the court in those proceedings.
  () A direction under subsection (2) of this section that action shall be taken shall not have effect until the end of the period of 28 (or, if the Secretary of State in the direction certifies that the public interest so requires, 14) days beginning on the date on which the direction is given; but the Assembly or the Attorney General or any other person may, within that period, institute proceedings for the determination of the question whether the action so directed to be taken is required for any purpose referred to in paragraph (b) of the said subsection (2); and, if any such proceedings are instituted, the direction shall take effect (if at all) only in accordance with the decision of the court in those proceedings.'.
  No. 233, in Clause 36, page 13, line 29, leave out from 'Parliament' to 'or' in line 32.
  No. 234, in page 13, line 40, leave out from 'Parliament' to 'and' in line 41.
  No. 235, in page 14, line 10, at end add—
  '() An order under subsection (1) of this section shall be made if the House of Commons by resolution so requires, and any older so required shall, for the purposes of subsection (5) of this section, be deemed to have been approved by resolution of the House of Commons.
  1554
  () An order under subsection (2) of this section shall not take effect until the end of the period of 28 (or, if the Secretary of State in the order certifies that the public interest so requires, 14) days beginning on the date on which the order is made; but the Assembly or the Attorney General or any other person may, within that period, institute proceedings for the determination whether the instrument which the order revokes is incompatible with any obligation referred to in the said subsection (2) or provides for any such matter as is referred to in that subsection; and, if any such proceedings are instituted, the instrument and the order revoking it shall take effect (if at all) only in accordance with the decision of the court in those proceedings.'.
  Mr. Brittan: This group of amendments raises two issues of some importance, both of which relate to the exercise of the override powers whereby the House of Commons may intervene and prevent action by the Assembly within its powers if, none the less, those powers as exercised affect, or might affect, a reserved matter. Whereas in the previous debate we were considering the circumstances in which the powers should operate, we are now considering the equally important matter of the manner in which the powers should be operated.
  Tucked away within the verbiage of Clause 35 there is a provision that we regard as being extremely objectionable from the general constitutional point of view. I refer to subsection (6).
  I remind the Committee that the mechanism of the override power is that if the Secretary of State regards action that has been taken, or is proposed to be taken, as being where the override power is operable, and he regards it as being in the public interest to use his power, he may direct that the proposed action of the Assembly should not be taken. Equally, he may do the reverse and require the Assembly to take action of a specific sort in the exercise of his override powers. However, that directive, whichever form it takes, has only a limited period of life. Under subsection (6) the directive made by the Secretary of State under his override powers ceases to have effect at the expiration of 28 days, beginning with the day on which it is given, unless before the end of that period a resolution approving the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers is passed by each House of Parliament. So far so good—or at least so good if we are to have an Assembly at all and if we are to have this form of override power.

  1555
  The objectionable part is the sting in the tail. The subsection goes on:
  "A direction … shall cease to have effect … unless … a resolution approving it is passed by each House of Parliament or is passed by the House of Commons and confirmed by it under section 73 below."
  To see the mischief, one has to turn to Clause 73, which says:
  "Where a resolution passed by the House of Commons … is in pursuance of any provision of this Act capable of being confirmed under this section, it may be confirmed by a further resolution of the House of Commons, but only if—

  (a) a motion for a resolution in the same terms as the original resolution is moved in the House of Lords but the House of Lords rejects it or fails to pass it within the period of ten days beginning with the day on which it is moved; and

  (b) the original resolution was passed before the end of that period of ten days; and

  (c) the further resolution is passed before the end of the period of ten days immediately following …"

  In other words, if the Government seek to use their override powers—this is only one power where this provision applies—and cannot get their resolution through the House of Lords, they can simply come back to the House of Commons and get the same resolution through, using their majority, and that is that.
  That is wholly objectionable. I do not think that, if it is thought right that a resolution of each House should be required in the first place, it should be possible for the House of Lords to be bypassed in this objectionable manner simply by getting the House of Commons to pass another resolution. Some Labour hon. Members are strongly in favour of the abolition of the House of Lords. They can put down a motion to that effect and we should debate it in the confidence that the unwisdom of such a course would be demonstrable. But the right way to go about the process is to put forward formal proposals which can be debated on a proper basis by means of legislation and not to try to begin the process of abolition by a back door in this truncated form of resolution.
  Some provisions of the Bill, particularly the financial provisions which require parliamentary resolutions—for example, Clauses 42 to 59—require only a resolution of the House of Commons. Although it is perhaps undesirable for anything
  1556
  but financial provisions, at least it would have been more honest for the House of Commons to be given power to pass the resolution required rather than going through the charade of sending it to the House of Lords and then allowing the Commons to overrule the Lords instantly by a single resolution of this kind.
  If it is right that the House of Lords resolution cannot be got through, and if there should be a full parliamentary procedure, the Government should accept the consequences and know that they cannot get their override. An override is a serious matter and it is not unreansonable that if both Houses are required, prima facie, to pass the resolution, that procedure should be observed.
  Mr. John Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman make one thing clear about his policy and that of his party? If a resolution is passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords disagrees, does he believe that the House of Lords should frustrate it?
  Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman talks in grandiose terms of putting forward the policy of my party. I am flattered that he should think it appropriate that the policy of the Conservative Party should be put forward on this amendment at this hour of night in such a form. I do not think that questions of general policy arise. We have made clear what we think of this Bill and of the override provisions. But, for what it is worth, I can go so far as to say—I do not think it is necessary to go further—that, if there is to be a provision providing that each House of Parliament must pass a resolution, we believe that there should not be a provision to say that, if the House of Lords will not do what is wanted, the House of Commons can forget about it.
  Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to my question? If the House of Commons by resolution approves a directive given by the Secretary of State, does he think it desirable that the House of Lords should be able to frustrate that decision?
  Mr. Brittan: I do not put the matter that way. If the Minister does not get the answer he would like, that does not mean that I have not addressed myself to the question. He must distinguish between the answer he would like and the answer I propose to give.

  1557
  The answer I give is that if there is a provision that requires a resolution of each House of Parliament it should not be possible to bypass it, or for the Government to take action unless that is done by a resolution of each House of Parliament. That is what the legislation, prima facie, says. If the Minister does not think it necessary to get a resolution through each House of Parliament, he should not make a provision which, on the face of it, says that there should be a resolution of each House of Parliament. There need be no more complication than that.
  However, there is a second important constitutional matter that arises on the override provisions. As the Bill stands, it is the Secretary of State alone who can set in action the override provisions. It is purely a matter for him. The remaining amendments we are debating suggest that if the House of Lords passes a resolution requiring the override provision to be exercised, it shall have the effect of exercising that provision. It should not be necessary for the Secretary of State to introduce it.
  I suggest that that is a modest and reasonable addition to the Bill. One must take account of the realistic fact that the Government will normally have a majority in the House of Commons and that a resolution of this kind will not be passed if the Government are totally opposed to it. Therefore, it is not simply a matter of allowing a maverick band of Back Benchers to take control of these delicate constitutional mechanisms, or to interfere in the relationship between the Welsh Assembly and the House. The Secretary of State of the day would be able to persuade the House that if it is firm Government policy, and if he can command a majority of supporters, such a resolution should not be passed.
  We are asking for only a small chink in the armour whereby, if the House of Commons addresses its mind to something which the Secretary of State may not regard as appropriate to bring before the House, and if the House does not wish to follow the views of the Secretary of State, the wishes of the House should prevail.
  We must also bear in mind that the Government control not only legislation but the overwhelming majority of the time of the Hounse. The prospect of such resolution being debated and passed against the wishes of the Secretary of
  1558
  State is not likely to occur with any frequency.
  10.30 p.m.
  We are saying that if the House of Commons feels that the override provision should be exercised and then finds time to debate a resolution to that effect, and if, in spite of the majority of the Government, of whatever party, the House passes a resolution, it is reasonable, if one has any belief in parliamentary government, that the House should be entitled to secure its will.
  In proposing this group of amendments we are in the unique position of defending in one debate both Houses of Parliament. We are defending the House of Lords against the exercise of the Draconian and unnecessary power that the Government might have. At the same time we are asserting the right of the House of Commons to secure its will over that of the Secretary of State if he wishes to exercise the override power.
  For these reasons, I commend the amendments to the Committee.
  Sir David Renton: My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) has pointed out once again the extraordinary confusion in which the Government are placing the Committee. This confusion will persist if by some mischance the Assembly comes into being. The confusion arises from the combination of Clauses 35 and 21. The amendment would do something to reduce the confusion and clarify the position.
  I understand that if the Assembly refuses to use the powers in Clause 21, under which it can pass subordinate legislation, it could come into conflict with the United Kingdom Government and their policy by refusing to pass legislation which has been approved by Parliament and laid down in statute. Under Clause 35 the Secretary of State has power to require the Assembly to pass subordinate legislation under Clause 21 which it has refused to pass. He would be required to do so—and I put this in the most favourable light—in order to overcome the conflict. The will of Parliament could prevail.
  It is remarkable and without precedent that the Secretary of State should be able to give a direction to another Assembly

  1559
  to pass subordinate legislation. If there were a precedent, it would help us better to understand the position.
  The situation becomes more confusing when we consider the confusion which arises under subsection (6). The House of Commons may by resolution take a decision and the House of Lords may have doubts about it. Under Clause 35 (6) and the combination of that with Clause 73 the House of Lords can decide that the House of Commons should be asked to think again. That is what the other place is for. It is not inhibited as we are by party political considerations—
  Mr. Douglas Henderson: That is not so.
  Sir D. Renton: The House of Lords is a place of free thinkers. The mere fact that one party happens to have most Members does not of itself mean to those who understand the place that those Members dominate the scene the whole time. There have been many occasions in recent years when the Cross-Bench members and the non-Conservatives have won the day, irrespective of which party was in power, and have made the House of Commons think again.
  The Government are trying to overcome the constitutional power and disregard the duty of the House of Lords. It has a duty to ask the House of Commons to think again if it conscientiously thinks it right to do so. The Government are doing it by what I consider to be a mean and underhand way. They are intentionally raising the conflict between the two Houses that has so far been most wonderfully avoided, whichever party has been in power.
  We should bear in mind that when the House of Commons passes an affirmative resolution the House of Lords nearly always agrees. When it does not there has generally been a good reason for the non-agreement and the Government of the day have dropped the matter. But is it intended by the combination of Clause 35(6) and Clause 73 that the Government can create a precedent whereby whenever there is an affirmative resolution in the future the will of this House shall prevail and the House of Lords shall have no say in the matter? If that is what is
  1560
  intended, that is an important constitutional change. It should not be slipped in in this indirect manner.
  I fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby said. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I express a small doubt about the drafting. A committee of which I was chairman, which considered the legislative processes of the House, heard most interesting evidence from the principal legislative draftsman of the United States Congress, Professor Reid Dickerson, a famous character in the English-speaking world for his expertise on drafting.
  When he gave evidence to us, he said "I am an anti-deemer". That was his way of expressing it, in the way in which Americans do. What he meant was that he was against provisions in Acts of Parliament whereby we deem things to happen.
  I observe that there is a case of deeming in Amendment No. 230. If the Government or my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby can think of a way around that, it would be an improvement to the drafting.
  Mr. Brittan: I accept the reproof that has been given by my right hon. and learned Friend. I think that the answer is very simple. That particular subsection of the amendment could readily be dropped. All that would then happen would be that it would be necessary for another resolution to be passed. The purpose of it was simply that it seemed silly that where the direction was imposed by a resolution there should then have to be a second resolution confirming the resolution of the House itself, whereas if the direction was a ministerial direction it was obviously reasonable that it should be confirmed by resolution. But if the deeming is offensive, all that one would need to do would be to drop that, and then the principle of the House of Commons having the right to institute this remains and one merely goes through the formality of the second resolution.
  Sir D. Renton: I think that I prefer the formality of the second resolution to yet another example of deeming being added to the Bill.
  However, the case made by my hon. Friend was one to which the Government should pay heed. Clauses 35 and 36 are among the most unsatisfactory clauses in

  1561
  the Bill and they are quite unnecessarily complex. They raise constitutional issues which should not be slipped in in the way in which they have been. They underline the whole weakness of the relationship between the Assembly and the Secretary of State. This failure to decide whether the Assembly really has a devolved power is an example of blowing hot and cold. The question of this concurrent jurisdiction must have a means, and necessarily a rather complicated means, of resolution.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends have made a valiant attempt to overcome the inherent disadvantages of these clauses by their amendments, and I suggest to the Government that between now and Report they should reconsider them.
  Sir Raymond Gower: I wonder whether the Minister of State recognises that the way in which the clause has been drawn has placed the Committee in a very difficult position. As has been pointed out, this is at variance with our past procedure. I wonder why the Government have departed from precedent in this case.
  Does the Minister know whether there is any precedent for this? I do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) or my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittany knows of a precedent. I am not aware of any precedent for the use of this procedure in this manner. There is, of course, the procedure under the Parliament Acts and succeeding legislation.
  Sir David Renton: That is for legislation.
  Sir R. Gower: Yes, and that is not applicable in a case such as this. But that established that under certain circumstances there was a complete limitation of the power of the House of Lords in relation to financial matters and that there was a substantial limitation of the power of the House of Lords to delay other legislation.
  10.45 p.m.
  The Minister of State, in an interjection, explained the reason for this unusual procedure by saying—he spoke rather quietly and rather quickly at the time and I hope I am not using the wrong words—that the wish of the House
  1562
  of Commons should not be thwarted by the House of Lords. If that be the case, was not the term "slipping in" correct? The Minister of State objected to that phrase.
  Mr. John Smith: I did raise my eyebrows slightly at the phrase "slipping in", because the purpose is very plain and clear on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I cannot see how anything can be said to be slipped in.
  Sir R. Gower: Yes, but it was fairly obvious that this is an unusual procedure to put in a Bill. It is not altering the general procedure, the general law, but is there merely for the purposes of the Bill.
  Sir David Renton: It is quite clear that my hon. Friend has understood the position and that the Minister of State has not. I used the expression "slipping in" deliberately, because this is a Bill to establish a Welsh Assembly and it is not the right vehicle for altering the powers of the House of Lords. If the Minister of State, at this time of night, is so dim in his mind that he cannot see that as an example of slipping in, I suggest that he should now take a very well deserved rest and let someone else—perhaps even a Law Officer, at long last—help him out. He has done valiantly, but he really should understand the position that arises on the Bill.
  Sir R. Gower: That was what I understood my right hon. and learned Friend to mean.
  Sir A. Meyer: Is it not the case that the Short Title ought to be amended to say "A Bill to provide for changes in the government of Wales and to reduce the power of the House of Lords"?
  Sir R. Gower: I suspect that when I asked the Minister of State whether he knew of any precedent for this he would, had there been a precedent, have hastened to tell me. I suspect that there is no such precedent.
  I should like to hear the answer from the Minister of State before we conclude the debate, because I think it is a very important matter. I challenge him to produce a precedent for the use of the power in this manner. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that it is most improper, in a Bill of this nature,

  1563
  to introduce it in this way. The Government are not merely introducing a Bill to alter the constitutional arrangements for Wales. They are also taking a step which, for the purposes of the measure, will alter the relationship between the two Houses which are part of our constitution.
  It would be quite proper for the Government to introduce legislation to alter the relationship between the two Houses, but I respectfully submit that it is improper to do it in the context of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will explain why it has been done and why this machinery has been devised.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I should like to say a few words on the question of the House of Lords. With respect to the Minister of State, he has not been very convincing so far in leaping up to the Dispatch Box and saying "What if the Lords frustrate?" As I understand the whole wretched measure, the way in which it is to be set up and the electoral system upon which it is to be based are designed to provide a Labour majority for ever. If the Assembly is to get that Labour majority for ever, what is the House of Lords to do? Is it to interfere with a Labour decision in the Assembly?
  It seems to me that a little of the Labour dogma as used nationally has crept into the measure with the object of ensuring that there will be a Labour majority in the Welsh Assembly. If there were to be a Labour Government centrally and a Labour majority in the Welsh Assembly, does the Minister of State seriously consider that the House of Lords would interfere? If there is a Conservative majority nationally, it is unnecessary for the House of Lords to interfere anyway.
  I stand here as a Conservative who is publicly committed to the reform of the House of Lords. It should be reformed, and it will be for the next Conservative Administration effectively to reform it so that it can perform its dual role with the House of Commons. To treat the House of Lords as an anachronism, to say that within 10 days if it does not come to a decision it shall be completely ignored, is utterly wrong. Whichever party might be in power nationally or locally, if the House of Lords decided with the Welsh
  1564
  Assembly and was then frustrated, imagine what would happen in Wales. It is a free House, whatever Labour Members may think. If an Upper House, with its inbuilt Conservative majority, were to decide with Wales, Wales being controlled by a Labour or coalition Assembly, what would happen?
  Sir Raymond Gower: In the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) if the Members of the Welsh Assembly had any suspicion about the Secretary of State's action and that action was challenged by the House of Lords, would not their suspicions and their opposition be strengthened?
  Mr. Temple-Morris: The whole Bill is nonsense. Under these provisions I do not believe that central Government—the House of Commons in particular—will take much action to contravene the wishes of Wales, because this legislation gives enormous power to Wales. The House of Lords is embroiled in such a way that that will merely strengthen the Welsh position.
  It is constitutionally wrong to treat the House of Lords in this way. The Government have an obligation to deal with this problem and to produce the necessary legislation to do so. That will be a difficult task. I shall be interested to hear what ingenuity the Minister of State employs with this matter.
  What will he say if the House of Lords sides with Wales against a Labour Government in Westminster? What will he say to his Welsh friends if they are supported by a Conservative House of Lords? That is the nonsense of this measure.
  Mr. Peter Rees: The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) in support of the amendment was so lucid, reasonable and compelling that I felt there would be no need for me to intervene, but the Minister of State has proved by his interventions to be so unreceptive to those arguments and so intransigent that I hope I may be forgiven for intervening briefly.
  As I understand the provisions of Clause 35 (6), read with Clause 73, they involve a considerable erosion of the position of the House of Lords. I am

  1565
  almost tempted to invite the Chair to rule whether those provisions are consistent with the Title of the Bill, which is to:
  "Provide for changes in the government of Wales and in the constitution and functions of certain public bodies."
  I may be that in these contemptuous terms the Minister of State chooses to describe the House of Lords, in which case he is guilty of a grave affront to a body of co-ordinate jurisdiction and function with the House of Commons. I do not think we can dismiss the House of Lords as a "certain public body". If that is so, I venture to suggest—although it must, of course, be a matter for the Chair—that these matters should have been spelt out more properly in the Title.
  Sir A. Meyer: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend's flow of Welsh oratory, but I feel that I must point out that we have at least one Labour Back Bencher, who is a real political heavyweight, joining the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out.
  The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) is now a regular member of the Government Front Bench. He has been there before this evening.
  Mr. Rees: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Front Bench are happy to see his elevation. Perhaps I may be the first hon. Member to congratulate him. Whether his elevation is due to his unfailing loyalty to the Government, or his transcendent oratory, I am not in a position to judge. Perhaps he will enlighten us in due course.
  I shall now leave this tempting byway, although I am always happy to follow the career of the lion. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnoch). I prophesy great things for him in the Welsh Office, or maybe even in the Welsh Assembly—who knows?
  On this occasion I am very concerned about the position of the House, and maybe the hon. Member for Bedwellty has ambitions in that direction. I am strongly in favour of the bicameral legislature, and I would be happy to debate its composition and powers some time. Whether I am entirely in harmony with
  1566
  my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) only time will show. My consistent complaint against the Government is that we are compelled to debate against the clock issues of great political and constitutional moment.
  As long as we have a second Chamber and it is an integral part of the legislative process, it must be quite wrong to exclude it from such an important matter as this. Why have this dual process in Clause 73 at all? Why not exclude the House of Lords entirely? Why not simply say that a resolution of this House of Commons would be sufficient to disqualify any motion from the Assembly? Why offer the possibility of the House of Lords, only to snatch it away by another provision?
  There is only one representative of the Welsh nationalists here to listen to this debate. That demonstrates the profundity of their commitment to constitutional reform. I know the devotion of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) to Welsh culture, but the way in which he associates it with a Welsh Assembly eludes me. Welsh culture will not be preserved, strengthened or amplified by the existence of even a bilingual Assembly in Cardiff, That is irrelevant.
  As we are to have a Welsh Assembly, I would suggest that if there is to be a conflict between the Assembly and the Government of the day, which under constitutional functions means between the Assembly and the House of Commons, the Welsh nationalists should feel better if, in that situation a matter of conflict were to be submitted to the cooler, less partisan judgment of the Upper House. Perhaps the hon. Member for Carmarthen should consider that.
  If this amendment is forced to a Division, I hope that the Committee will disregard the paranoic obsession of the Government Front Bench with the House of Lords. If that House were reformed—and, who knows, we might have an Upper House elected on some basis or another—it might contain a Labour majority.
  Is the Minister therefore concerned to sweep aside that possibility? The hon. Gentleman demonstrates by his rather contemptuous dismissal of that possibility that he is concerned only with the role

  1567
  of the Upper House to the extent of ensuring the unfettered and unhindered passage of Labour legislation under whatever circumstances, I find that a singularly shortsighted, not to say dishonourable, point of view. I hope that the Committee will not be swayed on these matters but will return again to the cool, limpid oratory—
  It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to order [16th November]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  TAXI TRADE (LONDON)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]
  11.1 p.m.
  Sir George Young: Most hon. Members are now on their way home—most of them, I suspect, in their own cars, one or two enlightened Members by bicycles. Many hon. Members will be outside at the Members' Entrance, waiting for taxis to arrive to take them home. If they find that they have to wait a little longer than usual, and if their cab driver is a little less alert and cheerful than they might expect, the reason is that the 16,500 taxi drivers in London have been singled out by the Government for harsher treatment than any other section of the community. They bitterly resent the way in which the Home Office has handled their application for a tariff increase.
  I spent a few nights in Ilford, North a few weeks ago, for obvious reasons. I met many taxi drivers there. The animosity they expressed about this matter was something I shall always remember. I am delighted to see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), who will represent not only taxi drivers but everyone else in Ilford, North for a long time. I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), who has a large number of taxi drivers in his constituency.
  Although the economics of the taxi industry are complicated, the basic case
  1568
  which I wish to put to the House tonight is reasonably simple. It is that the cost increases that the taxi drivers have had to bear over the past two and a half years have been far higher than the tariff increases that the Home Office has allowed. As a result, the fleet proprietors have had to go out of business. The owner-driver is having to work far longer hours even than Members of Parliament and insufficient funds are being set aside for future investment.
  The responsibility for this state of affairs rests entirely on the Home Office. To substantiate my argument I go back to July 1975 when the last major tariff increase took place, based on a claim made in December 1974. Since then the drivers have had a lop interim surcharge, introduced in December 1976.
  It was against that background that a claim was made last July for an increase of 28 per cent. That sounds a lot, but we have to bear in mind that the increase in Britilsh Rail fares from January 1975 to January 1977, a roughly comparable period, was 93 per cent., that London Transport but fares went up 126 per cent., in that period and that Underground fares rose 147 per cent. Those organisations have access to capital funds to help them invest and also have access to revenue subsidies. Both of these advantages are denied to taxi drivers.
  Put in the context of the costs of other transport organisations the drivers' claim was a modest one, reflecting the fact that, for example, a taxi cab that cost £2,900 in 1975 cost £4,500 in 1977. The cost of fuel has risen by over 50 per cent. and the cost of all the other related goods and services have gone up likewise. The figure of 28 per cent. was not plucked out of the air. It was substantiated in a detailed memorandum sent to the Home Office on 11th May last year based on a formula for calculating costs and revenues of the average cab used by the 1970 Maxwell Stamp report. Since that claim was put in nearly a year ago, costs have continued to rise.
  The approach of trying to justify a tariff increase on the basis of costs was in line with the Price Code operating at that time. I quote from a letter which the Home Secretary—whom we are delighted

  1569
  to see in the House—wrote to another London Member on 10th May last year:
  "In fixing the appropriate scale of charges for London cabs I, as Home Secretary have to have due regard to the provisions of the Price Code. Under the Code fares may be increased to an extent sufficient to offset the increase in prices which has occurred since the base date for the Code which, in the case of taxis, is taken to be 30th September 1972."
  London's taxi drivers accepted that those were the rules, and they were quite happy to play the game by those rules. The country had a high rate of inflation and the Government introduced a policy to try to tackle it. Because taxi drivers suffer from inflation like everyone else, they supported the initiative and wished to stay within the limits allowed by the Price Code.
  Now we come to the skulduggery, which is what has deeply upset the trade. Halfway through the game, when the taxi drivers felt that they were winning the argument, the Government changed the rules. This is set out in a letter dated 14th February from the Under-Secretary herself:
  "However, at the end of our deliberations, the Government had had to conclude that under current counter-inflation policy it would no longer be appropriate to allow a straight passing-through of cost increases into price rises. As you will recall, earlier stages of the counter-inflation policy placed emphasis on allowable cost increases. Under the current stage less emphasis is placed upon cost increases and more on profit margins, return on capital, and the factors affecting these, such as the efficiency of the enterprise and the use of resources."
  That is a totally different game with a totally different timescale and totally different rules set up not by the Maxwell Stamp Committee but by the Price Commission.
  The matter was referred to the Price Commission on 12th December last year, according to a parliamentary reply on that date:
  "Following consultation with the Price Commission and the Director General of Fair Trading I have today directed the Price Commission to examine and report to me on prices, costs and margins in the provision of cab services. The examination will cover all of Great Britain, and will include both hackney carriages, such as London taxis, and certain other private hire vehicle services, as laid down in the terms of direction."—[Official Report, 12th December 1977; Vol. 941, c. 15.]
  We learn from the Minister's letter of 14th February that the Commission had been directed to report by 30th June.
  1570
  By that time events had infuriated the taxi drivers and the matter had
  been made worse by the Secretary of State and the Price Commission. If the inquiry had been confined to London's taxi drivers, and if it had started work on 13th December and used the figures of the audited accounts of the taxi fleets and the owner-drivers, which were available, it might have been completed by now. But none of that happened. The questionnaires on which the report is to be based have not even gone out yet. The offers of audited accounts were refused and, three months after the inquiry was announced, very little progress seems to have been made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) was provoked to wonder in Taxi of 2nd March.
  "whether there was a conspiracy between the Home Office and the Price Commission to drive London taxi drivers so close to bankruptcy that the Labour Party proposals for the municipalisation of London taxis actually looks attractive."
  The red herring of hire cars outside London has been dragged across the stage, and it is quite irrelevant to the problems facing London's taxi drivers.
  In the meantime, an increase of 10 per cent. came into being on 22nd December last year based apparently on the 10 per cent. maximum wage guidelines. This is an entirely inappropriate basis on which to treat the taxi drivers' claim. By all means give the police and the firemen 10 per cent., but they do not have to buy the police cars or the fire engines and run them. To treat this as a wage claim instead of a tariff increase is totally inappropriate.
  I should like to try to set out in simple terms the problems now facing the average cab driver. The average cab driver driving, say, 24,000 miles a year, which is approximately 54 hours a week, and allowing him a 10 per cent. return on his capital and letting him put enough money aside to replace his cab after five years, would in July 1975 have earned £2,730. His total costs in that year would have been £3,171. That left him a deficit of £441 per year. That has two consequences: either inadequate funds are set aside to replace his vehicle, or he has to work excessive hours.
  If the situation was bad in 1975, by January 1978 it was disastrous. The figures for that month were: income

  1571
  £3,430; total expenditure £4,587. It is not surprising that in the meantime firms have gone bankrupt. Since July 1975, five fleet proprietors, operating some 650 vehicles, have stopped trading. I calculate that to break even now a taxi driver would have to work an extra eight hours per week than he worked in 1975. This is before the impact on his take-home pay of higher taxation and inflation.
  The taxi drivers are confident that the current inquiry will vindicate their claim, but they need the increase this summer. If the report is delayed, if the Government do not accept it or refuse to implement it on time and winter comes without another tariff increase, the situation will be desperate. I have had discussions with the Leader of the GLC, Horace Cutler, who obviously has an interest in an efficient taxi service, as it is part of the transport strategy for the capital. In a letter dated 7th March, I was pleased to hear from him:
  "We hold regular meetings with representatives of the trade to ascertain their views and we support them in their efforts to operate economically."
  Basically, they want equal support from the Government.
  It is against this background of growing financial problems and total exasperation with the Government that I put five specific questions to the Minister, of all of which I have given her notice. The answers may define the area of agreement, clarify the situation and perhaps demonstrate that the Government have some residual sympathy for the taxi trade.
  First, will the Minister confirm that she and her Government believe that the capital city needs a flourishing and efficient taxi industry? Secondly, will she admit that the current level of tariffs means that a taxi driver working as hard now as he worked in July 1975 is substantially worse off on his vehicle operation, setting aside the ravages which taxes and inflation may have made on any take-home pay?
  Thirdly, will the hon. Lady confirm that there is now no incentive to become a taxi driver, as a man who buys a new vehicle today, who makes the accepted provisions for depreciation, running costs and so on, will lose over £1,000 a year on his vehicle operation? Fourthly, will she give an assurance that the Price Commission will report on this matter, as
  1572
  requested, by the end of June? Finally, in view of the intolerable delay to date and the impossibility of back-dating any increase, will she accept and implement as speedily as possible the recommendations it contains?
  I forgot to say earlier that there is present my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill), who shares the concern of other London Members about this matter.
  Licensed taxi drivers are entitled, if they are entitled to nothing else, to some straight answers to the straight questions that I have put to the Minister.
  11.13 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I welcome the opportunity provided by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) to discuss this matter and to put the record straight about London taxi fares. I thank him for giving me notice of the questions that he raised.
  On the first one, about the general state of the industry, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State always has in mind the requirements of the general public in London for an efficient taxi service with ready availability of vehicles for hire at reasonable rates. Over the last few years, the rates of increase and the number of taxis in use and of drivers to drive them suggest that the trade is growing and flourishing. The number of taxis in use increases by about 500 to 600 each year—last year by 614. I have the figures for the last seven years. The number of drivers increased by 300 to 400—last year by 322. The number of owner-drivers would also appear to be increasing. All this suggests a faith in the future of the industry.
  London taxis and drivers are licensed by the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Day-to-day licensing control is carried out by the Public Carriage Office of the Metropolitan Police. There are about 12,000 licensed taxis in London and about 16,000 licensed drivers. I should like to pay tribute to the work of the Public Carriage Office, which, with the support of the Metropolitan Police, has the very difficult task of maintaining standards in what is otherwise an unregulated business activity.

  1573
  London taxi fares are determined not by the Commissioner of Police but by the Home Secretary. These fares apply to all taxi journeys in London, whatever their length, provided that they begin and end within the Metropolitan Police District. This responsibility has rested with my right hon. Friend for many years. I believe that the original purpose in regulating London taxi fares was to achieve uniformity, but over the years it has been necessary for various factors to be borne in mind in determining the appropriate fare scale.
  We should appreciate that the arrangements under which London taxi drivers operate vary considerably. There are some drivers who own their own taxi. About a third of the drivers are in that position. About two-thirds of the drivers rent their taxis by the day, by the week or by a longer period. Those drivers pay either a fixed daily or weekly rental, or share the daily takings with the owner of the taxi in pre-determined proportions. It is, therefore, a rather complicated and varied situation. Any discussions on the scale of London taxi fares need to take into account the separate interests of the owners of taxis, the interests of drivers and the interests of the travelling public.
  If fares are too low, there is insufficient incentive for the vehicle owners to invest in new taxis. Over a period that could lead to a decline in the number of taxis operating and a worsening of the service to the public. If fares are too high, that may lead to a reduction in the use of taxis by the travelling public, with a consequent falling off in takings by taxi owners and drivers.
  Those were the considerations in mind when increases in London taxi fares were approved in July 1975, and again in December 1976. The application for a further substantial increase in London taxi fares was made in July 1977. The application was for an increase of 10p in the initial hiring charge of 30p and for the time and distance rate of 5p for each 450 yards to be doubled after two miles. Because of the combination of a fixed and a variable increase, the total effect of this claim, if granted, would have varied for different journey lengths. The increase for a short journey of half-a-mile would have teen 33 per cent. while the increase for a journey of four miles would have been 60 per cent. The fare
  1574
  increase on the typical two-and-a-half mile journey would have been 25 per cent.
  In the vast majority of cases taxi drivers' earnings are directly related to the fares charged, and fare increases of the sort proposed would have led to very large increases in drivers' earnings. In our view, increases of the magnitude that I have mentioned were quite unjustified, bearing in mind that unless steps were taken to prevent them very large increases would have been obtained by London taxi drivers at a time when other members of the working population were being expected to keep their pay increases in line with the Government's 10 per cent. guidelines.
  As for the hon. Gentleman's second question, fares have been substantially increased since the middle of 1975. There was an increase averaging 30 per cent. in July of that year. A further increase of 10p per hiring—that is, 13 per cent.—took place in December 1976. There was a third increase of 10 per cent. in December 1977. These increases represent a total increase of 61·6 per cent. over the early months of 1975. If the effect of inflation and higher taxation is set aside, the taxi driver must be much better off than he was in early 1975.
  I turn to the hon. Gentleman's third question concerning the man who buys a new taxi and works it for 54 hours a week. I cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's statement, but the London taxi trade is an entirely private enterprise operation and every driver has complete freedom to choose when and where to offer his cab for hire and how many hours he shall work each week. Each driver maximises his earnings by using his knowledge and experience of the pattern of business offered and earnings will vary accordingly. The number of vehicles and drivers increases every year, as does the number of drivers who buy their own taxi. This does not appear to indicate that there is a loss on the operation.
  Nevertheless, the case put forward on behalf of the taxi trade was carefully considered at several meetings with my right hon. Friend and me and the point of view of drivers was carefully considered. The Home Secretary had an important meeting on the subject last November and it became clear that it was necessary to look more deeply into the

  1575
  basic cost structure of the industry. It was therefore decided that the Price Commission should undertake such a study.
  It was also decided that this study should be extended to cover the costs and margins of both taxis and private hire cars not only in London but throughout Great Britain. This would provide a broad picture of the cost structure of the taxi and private car industry as a whole.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection announced in December last, the Price Commission is now hard at work on this study and is collecting the required information. I am sure that the representatives of the London taxi trade will put before it all the relevant statistical information.
  I hope that the Commission will be able to indicate what proportion of the metered fare and of extras—for example, for additional passengers and baggage—goes towards the maintenance of the vehicle, and how much is available for the driver personally. It will be important in future discussions on London taxi fares to be able to distinguish between these elements and to ensure that drivers' earnings are not artificially inflated as a result of increases intended to compensate for rises in vehicle operating costs.
  The hon. Gentleman asked two specific questions about the Price Commission. He asked for an assurance about when the Price Commission would report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has directed the Price Commission to examine the prices, costs and margins of the taxi and private hire trades and to report to him not later than 30th June. I have no reason to expect other than that it will report by that date. Obviously any assurance on this score lies with my right hon. Friend.
  On the subject of the recommendation of the Price Commission, I can inform the House that the Secretary of State has already told the taxi trade representatives whom he met in November last that he will carefully examine the results of the examination and will take them fully into account when reaching decisions, but that he cannot enter into any commitments about implementation.
  Sir George Young: The Home Secretary has given commitments in regard to other inquiries into wage matters which are the responsibility of the Home Office. Why cannot he do the same for taxi drivers?
  Dr. Summerskill: That is a question for my right hon. Friend. Clearly, he does not wish to commit himself at this stage. I cannot say more than that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to question my right hon. Friend further on that point.
  On 6th December 1977 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made an order increasing London taxi fares with effect from 22nd December last year. This represented an increase of 10 per cent. on metered fares. In the Government's view, such an increase was the most that could be justified in the circumstances and would enable owners to obtain a reasonable increase to meet rises in operating costs and to provide an increase in drivers' earnings in line with increases obtained by other members of the working population.
  The Government believe that the continuing fall in the rate of inflation will be of significant benefit to the owners of taxis in London, as well as to the population at large.
  We recognise that sacrifices have had to be made by all sections of the community, including taxi drivers, in the fight against inflation, but it now seems to be generally accepted that this fight has to be won. Individual sections of the community may claim that there are special circumstances affecting their situation. Most sections of the community seem to make that claim at one time or another, but I am sure that in the longer term the London taxi trade will recognise that its claim for increases of up to 60 per cent. in London taxi fares could not properly have been granted.
  Sir George Young: Would the hon. Lady accept that, halfway through the negotations, the basic rules were changed? If they had been adhered to as originally set by the Price Code, the tariff increase would have gone through. Can she also confirm that her Department has had, for 10 months, the detailed figures on which I rested my case and which showed the deterioration in the financial position and

  1577
  that she does not accept them? My figures showed that a new cab runs at an annual loss of over £1,000, and she claims that that is a fictitious figure. Will she also answer my second question, which related to the position as from July 1975? She carefully did not answer it as from July 1975 but chose a month earlier in the year, which was not what I argued.
  Dr. Summerskill: On the hon. Gentleman's first question, I can only reiterate that the basic reason why a greater price rise was not permitted was the principle of adhering to the Government's 10 per cent. guidelines. That is the principle to which the Government have adhered all through the talks, and it was not possible to go beyond it.
  The hon. Gentleman's question about new taxis was hypothetical. It was based on hypothetical figures. I have shown that each taxi driver operates in his own particular way, driving his own number of hours a week, and choosing when and where to offer his cab for hire. Will the hon. Gentleman repeat his third question?
  Sir George Young: I asked whether the position from July 1975 to now had not deteriorated. The hon. Lady did not answer it because she chose a totally different base month from which to work, namely, January or February 1975. Will the hon. Lady now admit that the current level of tariffs means that a taxi driver working as hard now as in July 1975 is substantially worse off in money terms on vehicle operation, setting aside the ravages which taxes and inflation have made on any take-home pay?
  Dr. Summerskill: I would still say that it would seem improbable. As I have shown in the figures I have quoted, successive fare rises at intervals over the last few years have brought about substantial increases since the middle of 1975. Over the whole period, even if the effect of inflation and higher taxes is set aside, the taxi driver must surely be better off than in early 1975.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Housing Finance (Metropolitan Districts)
  Housing Finance (Metropolitan Districts)
  Local Authorities (Direct Labour Departments)
  Local Authorities (Direct Labour Departments)
  Substandard Housing
  Substandard Housing
  Dogs (Working Party)
  Dogs (Working Party)
  Development Commission
  Development Commission
  Community Land Act
  Community Land Act
  Windscale (Inquiry)
  Windscale (Inquiry)
  Improvement Grants and Mortgages
  Improvement Grants and Mortgages
  Public Contracts (Pay Guidelines)
  Public Contracts (Pay Guidelines)
  Fuel Costs (Departmental Expenditure)
  Fuel Costs (Departmental Expenditure)
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Council Housing (Heating Systems)
  Council Housing (Heating Systems)
  Fluoridation (West Midlands)
  Fluoridation (West Midlands)
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
  Housing Statistics
  Housing Statistics
  Building Societies Association
  Building Societies Association
  Strategic Plan for the South-East
  Strategic Plan for the South-East
  City of Bristol and Avon County Council
  City of Bristol and Avon County Council
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  "What Choice Wind scale" (Pamphlet)
  "What Choice Wind scale" (Pamphlet)
  Litter and Waste
  Litter and Waste
  Building Land
  Building Land
  Aldermen
  Aldermen
  Fish Farming
  Fish Farming
  Local Authority Borrowing
  Local Authority Borrowing
  Nationalised Industries (Select Committee's Report)
  Nationalised Industries (Select Committee's Report)
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Government Cars
  Government Cars
  Council Housing (Thermal Insulation)
  Council Housing (Thermal Insulation)
  Cesspools
  Cesspools
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Local Services (Charges)
  Local Services (Charges)
  Infrastructure Grants (South-West England)
  Infrastructure Grants (South-West England)
  Ordnance Survey (Archaeology Division)
  Ordnance Survey (Archaeology Division)
  Building Firms
  Building Firms
  Caravan Sites
  Caravan Sites
  CONVEYANCING
  CONVEYANCING
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Council of Ministers Meeting
  Council of Ministers Meeting
  Sheep and Wool
  Sheep and Wool
  Farms and Smallholdings (County of Holland)
  Farms and Smallholdings (County of Holland)
  Cornwall (Grants)
  Cornwall (Grants)
  Weather Damage (Compensation)
  Weather Damage (Compensation)
  Hill Fanning Grants (Wales)
  Hill Fanning Grants (Wales)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schoolchildren (South-West Region)
  Schoolchildren (South-West Region)
  European Studies
  European Studies
  Post-School Education
  Post-School Education
  Accountancy Courses (Wales)
  Accountancy Courses (Wales)
  Gosport (Sixth Form College)
  Gosport (Sixth Form College)
  Remedial Teachers
  Remedial Teachers
  Sutton Centre School, Sutton-in-Ashfield
  Sutton Centre School, Sutton-in-Ashfield
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Adoption (Immigration Rules)
  Adoption (Immigration Rules)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  General Elections (Postal Votes)
  General Elections (Postal Votes)
  Children (Prison Remands)
  Children (Prison Remands)
  Scientology
  Scientology
  Police Interviews (Tape Recording)
  Police Interviews (Tape Recording)
  Immigration (Statistics)
  Immigration (Statistics)
DEFENCE
  Exercises (Reports)
  Exercises (Reports)
  Equipment
  Equipment
CIVIL SERVICE
  Dispersal
  Dispersal
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
EMPLOYMENT
  Skillcentres (Cheshire)
  Skillcentres (Cheshire)
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  Nuclear Power Industry (Radiation Accidents)
  Nuclear Power Industry (Radiation Accidents)
  Social Fund (Grants)
  Social Fund (Grants)
  Dismissals (Procedure Agreements)
  Dismissals (Procedure Agreements)
ENERGY
  Fuel Prices
  Fuel Prices
  Gas Pipelines
  Gas Pipelines
  Coal (Research Grants)
  Coal (Research Grants)
  Nuclear Power Costs
  Nuclear Power Costs
INDUSTRY
  Industrial Development Grant (Newton-le-Willows)
  Industrial Development Grant (Newton-le-Willows)
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  British Steel Corporation (Research)
  British Steel Corporation (Research)
  Cad bury Schweppes Ltd.
  Cad bury Schweppes Ltd.
  Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Foundry Scheme
  Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Foundry Scheme
  Regional Development Grants (South-West England)
  Regional Development Grants (South-West England)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Africa (Food Aid)
  Africa (Food Aid)
  Eritrea (Refugees)
  Eritrea (Refugees)
  Development Education (Advisory Committee)
  Development Education (Advisory Committee)
  Science and Technology (United Nation Conference)
  Science and Technology (United Nation Conference)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Rating Assessments
  Rating Assessments
  Inland Revenue (Staff)
  Inland Revenue (Staff)
  Nobel Prize Winners
  Nobel Prize Winners
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Relative Price Effect
  Relative Price Effect
  Nationalised Industries (Government Lending)
  Nationalised Industries (Government Lending)
  Public Corporations
  Public Corporations
  Tax Threshold
  Tax Threshold
  Luncheon Vouchers
  Luncheon Vouchers
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Productivity
  Productivity
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Building Allowances (Hotels)
  Building Allowances (Hotels)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Gilbert Islands
  Gilbert Islands
  Eritrea (Relief)
  Eritrea (Relief)
  Council of Ministers Meeting
  Council of Ministers Meeting
  LAMBETH
  LAMBETH
TRADE
  Greece and Turkey
  Greece and Turkey
  Heart of England Tourist Board
  Heart of England Tourist Board
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  House Purchase (Professional Fees)
  House Purchase (Professional Fees)
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
  Fireworks (Injury Statistics)
  Fireworks (Injury Statistics)
TRANSPORT
  Road Construction Units and Regional Controllers
  Road Construction Units and Regional Controllers
  Tachographs
  Tachographs
  Road Tax
  Road Tax
  Lorry Weights
  Lorry Weights
  A57, Worksop (Bypass)
  A57, Worksop (Bypass)
  British Rail (Children's Fares)
  British Rail (Children's Fares)
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  National Travel Survey
  National Travel Survey
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Self-Employed Persons (Pension Contributions)
  Self-Employed Persons (Pension Contributions)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Hospices (Terminal Patients)
  Hospices (Terminal Patients)
  Blind Persons
  Blind Persons
  Hospital Beds (Elderly Persons)
  Hospital Beds (Elderly Persons)
  X-Rays (Waiting Times)
  X-Rays (Waiting Times)
  Recipients (Mortgage Interest)
  Recipients (Mortgage Interest)
  Insurance Contributions
  Insurance Contributions
  Microbiological Research Establishment
  Microbiological Research Establishment
  Poliomyelitis
  Poliomyelitis
SCOTLAND
  Shipping Services (Scottish Islands)
  Shipping Services (Scottish Islands)
  Area Health Boards (Finance)
  Area Health Boards (Finance)
  Parliamentary Elections (Voting)
  Parliamentary Elections (Voting)
  Schools (Staffing Standards)
  Schools (Staffing Standards)
  Disabled Children
  Disabled Children
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Company Liquidations
  Company Liquidations
  Transport Services (Fares)
  Transport Services (Fares)
  Migration
  Migration
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Dyslexia
  Dyslexia
  Radiation Accidents
  Radiation Accidents
  School Leavers (Dundee)
  School Leavers (Dundee)

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

QUARANTINE COSTS AND VAT
Lord DE CLIFFORD: 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 why quarantine costs previously zero-rated are now subject to VAT as from 1st January 1978 and whether all Ministries involved with quarantine were consulted before it was imposed.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the change in the value added tax position of quarantine services reflects changes in United Kingdom law which came into effect on 1st January 1978 following the EEC Sixth Council VAT Directive which is designed to harmonise the bases on which VAT is levied in Member States.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is it not a fact, however, that any big firms—for example, firms which import animals for experimental purposes, zoos and circuses—can absorb these costs in their expenses and that only private people are hit? And is there not a large number of Servicemen included among those private people for whom this becomes a very nasty, niggly addition to their costs?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, VAT is a broadly based tax on goods and services in the domestic economy and is not confined to luxuries or less essential articles alone. To attempt to give relief to all essential goods and services would greatly complicate the structure of the tax and be contrary to our obligations to the Community. With regard to Servicemen, the charge became standard rated under the previous arrangements as soon as the Servicemen arrived in the United
782
Kingdom. Unless the Servicemen remained overseas for the whole of the six months' quarantine period, the quarantine charges would be apportioned between the standard and zero rates.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that any extra charge on the export of animals is serious for the people concerned, and does he not realise that, whatever the harmonisation system within the EEC may be, every other EEC country supports its animal export effort to an extent far greater than we do?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, this is a charge on the import of animals while they are in quarantine.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can my noble friend say how much value is added to an animal while it is kept in quarantine?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, not without notice.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there are many other instances when everyone has to pay VAT on an expense which they would not normally incur? Quarantine is compulsory and VAT is charged. Are there many other examples of this?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, a fundamental factor is that quarantine services were taxable prior to 1st January, except in the special circumstances in which the person who placed the animal in quarantine—who was usually the owner, but not always—remained overseas during the whole of the quarantine period. That is the only difference now which the Directive brings about. With regard to other services which were formerly zero-rated for overseas residents and are no longer, two that come to mind are the storage of furniture in the United Kingdom and the training of bloodstock.

PUBLIC SECTOR INVESTMENT
2.40 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

783
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the statement made by the Baroness Birk in this House on 8th February (Hansard, col. 1108) that "there is no question of public sector investment replacing investment in private industry" means that no further proposals for nationalisation will be coming forward.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, this extract from my wind-up speech quoted by the noble Viscount was intended simply to reassure the House that the Government's plans for public sector investment—for example, through the National Enterprise Board—would not make it difficult for private industry to secure external funds for its own investment programmes.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for that reply. However, it still leaves me a little in the dark. I wonder whether she could explain to the House what type of action the Government are now saying they would not take which could result in public investment taking the place of private investment?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I do not think I can say what action the Government would not take which could result in something happening which was quite different from what the noble Viscount and I have been speaking about. I have said what action the Government would take. I cannot answer a question as to what action the Government would not take. This is tantamount to asking how long is a piece of string.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could not the noble Baroness give us an assurance that there will be no further nationalisation?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that the Government have no plans to introduce further nationalisation legislation in the current Session of Parliament and that any future plans will have to depend upon the Government's legislative programme.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, could the noble Baroness give the House any information about the Government's intentions concerning services? Can the noble Baroness give an assurance that the Government have no designs upon banks and insurance companies, the nationalisation of which has been described by a very high authority in the Labour Party as an albatross for that Party?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as the noble Lord has referred to banks, I do not think that I can do better than to repeat what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said: that the Government do not intend to introduce legislation on these matters during the lifetime of this Parliament, and that he would not recommend its inclusion in the next Election Manifesto. This is still the position.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to banks. I believe that the Prime Minister referred to banks and insurance companies. Is that correct?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does my noble friend's declaration mean that the Liberal pact is now in jeopardy?
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords, I do not think so. I am not quite sure what was the purpose of the noble Viscount's Question, but I am sure we are still quite good friends.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, when she said that there is no question of public sector investment, am I right in interpreting the noble Baroness's Answer as being that there is at present no question; that is, that no question had yet been raised? The impression left in some people's minds, as in my noble friend's, was that it would not be raised.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount answered the question himself, and if he did not it is another Question.

OSMOND REPORT
2.43 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give the date of the first irregularities listed in the Osmond Report on the conduct of the late chief constable of Lancashire, and the date of the first effective action by the Lancashire police authority in regard thereto.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, so long as there was the possibility of an appeal by Mr. Parr, the former chief constable of Lancashire, against the decision of the police authority to dismiss him, it would not have been proper for my right honourable friend to seek detailed information on the allegations which were covered in Sir Douglas Osmond's report to the authority. Now that Mr. Parr has withdrawn his appeal, the authority has, at our request, supplied us with a copy of the report and has promised to supply a full account of the action taken by it in relation to the allegations covered in the report. When we have had a chance to consider these documents, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that by this Question I am in no way criticising the police or former chief constable, who has left the service? I am inquiring about the way that the police authority carried out their responsibilities. Can the noble Lord give me any idea when he may be able to give the House more information if I put down a Question?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, my Lords, I cannot at the moment give any indication of a date when we shall have concluded our consideration of this matter. The situation is that, now that the former chief constable has withdrawn his appeal, it is proper for us to consider the report submitted by Sir Douglas Osmond to the authority. Previously it would not have been right for us to examine that report because Mr. Parr
786
might have exercised his right of appeal. This is a substantial document. It has now been received in the Home Office, and officials are now preparing an analysis of the document which will be considered by my right honourable friend and myself.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether his Department noticed that the whole document was published in the Lancashire Evening Post on 25th February?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think it right to say that what purported to be extracts from the report were in fact published in a Lancashire evening newspaper.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a certain disquiet in Lancashire about this issue, and would he agree that perhaps a little further investigation would not be amiss?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am aware of the anxieties that have been expressed in Lancashire and echoed by my noble friend Lord Lee of Newton. This has been a very sombre episode, in which a fine police force has seen its chief constable dismissed. There are, undoubtedly, a number of other allegations which have been made—allegations in no way connected with Sir Douglas Osmond's report—which are at the moment subject to investigation. This is a serious matter. It is regarded as such by my right honourable friend and myself. We will report to the House as soon as there is something to report.

DRIVERS AND THE DONATION OF VITAL ORGANS
2.47 p.m.
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU: 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 some method could be devised to mark driving licences in some suitable way to denote the willingness of persons to give vital organs, suitable for

787
transplant, to hospitals in the event of death.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, much as I sympathise with the noble Lord's underlying intention, I fear that this proposal involves problems of great complexity. We have, of course, considered with some care whether these could be overcome—in the context, in particular, of kidney donation, which is an area where we have been able to do a good deal already. At the same time we have reached the reluctant conclusion that at present there are overriding objections, both of principle and of practice, to taking a step of the kind now proposed.
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware that this will lead to considerable disappointment to thousands of people in this country who wish to register their intentions more effectively in a more practical way? The noble Baroness mentioned overriding objections. Does this not show perhaps in this electronic age how very inefficient the computer at Swansea is if it cannot cope with such a simple problem, which can be coped with by other countries? Finally, may I suggest, since this computer cannot cope with it, that perhaps a way out might be some simple sticker which a driver could put on his own licence?
Lord STONE: My Lords, may I ask what shape it would take—heart, liver?
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, there are practical problems in marking a driving licence. There is not all that much space left on a driving licence for putting in extra marks at the moment. We have up to this time sent out kidney donor cards with applications for provisional licences, and we have run into some trouble with that: we have had complaints from people who assume that sending them a kidney donor card means: "Driving is dangerous; all drivers will get killed; please give away your kidneys. We have had quite considerable objections, particularly from parents and from young people themselves who are asking for their first driving licence. There are also problems because, now we
788
are on the computer, by the end of this year" till-70 driving licences will have been issued. This means that there is not going to be further application for a driving licence until people reach the age of 70. Therefore, a separate dispatch of any other donor cards would have to be made, with the necessary additional cost. There are certain practical objections, but it is something that I know my Department and the DHSS are looking into. I should have thought that perhaps more widespread information about where people could obtain cards to register organs they wanted to donate might be pursued more effectively than by marking driving licences.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I am sure that the Government are aware that this is an extremely important problem, that people are dying for want of renal transplantations and that the main difficulty is the finding of donors. Does not the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, provide us with a way out? Are we really to accept that there might not be room on the licence form for this information? Is that a reason for not saving people's lives? Finally, will Her Majesty's Government look into this particular question a little further and give us more cogent and convincing reasons why it cannot be done?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I accept most of what the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has said. However, as I have said, we have run into difficulties. We have received objections to sending out the kidney donor cards to people applying for provisional licences. What does not seem to be understood is that perhaps something like 50 per cent. of the people who drive, if they have an accident, would not have their driving licence with them and therefore any mark on their driving licence would not be of any use. There are more passengers killed in cars than there are drivers and, indeed, there are more pedestrians killed than the drivers or the passengers of cars. I sympathise with the intention behind the suggestion and I think that there is a need for the Departments concerned to get together and to see whether we can make more widely known the ways and means by which people can donate their organs. If other Departments were to approach my

789
Department, it is certainly something that we would look at sympathetically and would try to do something about.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, is likely to prove far more effective than the distribution of 15 million kidney donor cards which, I am told, has so far yeilded totally inadequate results? Would my noble friend also consider the suggestion that the number plates of cars be marked with some small symbol, such as a red cross or a similar sign, in the same way as the number plates of American cars proclaim the tourist advantages of each of the Federal States? In this instance, could not that system be used far more effectively in the saving of human lives?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I accept that we should look at all means whereby we might know whether organs may be used in the event of a fatal accident. However, as I have tried to explain, there are certain practical problems and certain problems associated with intrusion into the privacy of the person and so on. Therefore, I think that I must take the suggestions that have been made here today back to my Secretary of State so that we can perhaps look at the matter with the DHSS to see whether there are any other ways in which we can help. At present, we are not convinced that to deal with this matter by the use of driving licences is the best or most satisfactory way.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, would the noble Baroness—
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think that we have had a good run on this Question.

SECONDARY EDUCATION: PARENTAL CHOICE
2.54 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER Lord BOYD-CARPENTER rose to call attention to the importance of preserving and fostering variety and opportunities for parental choice and for meeting the wishes of local residents in the organisation of secondary education,
790
with particular reference to direct grant and grammar schools; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper and so to initiate this short debate, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to say how delighted I am at the number of noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have indicated their wish to take part in this debate. For that reason I shall curtail my own remarks as much as I can, as I am very conscious of the fact that we have only two and a half hours to debate this matter and that it is, of course, a matter of major importance to the debate that the noble Lord the Minister of State should have the fullest possible opportunity to reply.
My Lords, this debate like, indeed, most of us perhaps, has two parents. One is the recent indication given by the Secretary of State for Education and Science that her earlier and more generous intentions to come forward with provisions for strengthening parental choice in education now appear unlikely to be implemented. The second parent, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will already have apprehended, is the Answer he gave to a starred Question of mine on 15th November. I refer noble Lords to the Official Report for 15th November, cols. 503 to 509. In that Question I asked the Government, through the noble Lord, to include the question of selection in the consultations with local authorities which, in a Statement in July, the Government had announced that they were proposing to undertake on the basis of a Green Paper with education authorities, teachers, parents and others on the future of education. I hope that the noble Lord will not think me discourteous if I say that he gave me what I would describe as a somewhat doctrinaire reply. He took the line that the Government's policy was settled and he was not prepared even to consult local authorities on this issue.
I appreciate, as I think do all noble Lords, the Government's policy on selection. I personally regard it as a grave mistake, but I equally appreciate, and I think that the House will, that there is neither time nor opportunity in the course of a short debate to debate that great issue as fully as it should be debated. Therefore, for the purposes of this debate

791
I do not propose—I do not know whether my noble friends will—to challenge the generality of the Government's policy.
Indeed, the Government can pride themselves that their policy has now been carried a very long way. The official figures given by the Department of Education and Science indicated that, whereas 10 years ago only 14 per cent. of secondary school children were in comprehensive schools, at the beginning of last year that figure had risen to 80 per cent. The Government, therefore, for better or for worse have achieved a large measure of the implementation of their policy and they must, in due course, be answerable for that.
My plea, which I hope that the House will feel is more appropriate to a short debate, is for flexibility, understanding and moderation in the application of this policy in particular circumstances. I am particularly asking the Government to recognise two matters. First, that local circumstances and local needs vary from area to area in this country and it is wrong to assume that a system universally imposed throughout the country will meet the needs of all areas as well as it could. Secondly, I ask them to recognise that, whereas on the one hand I accept at once there are many areas of the country where the Government's policy is popular and accepted, there are, on the other hand, areas where it is thought to be profoundly wrong and its application is deeply resented.
The plea that I am making to the Government this afternoon is that they be a little understanding of this situation and not seek to impose island uniformity in a matter of this sort throughout the country and against a hurried timetable. Indeed, on the contrary, I ask them to be prepared to be helpful and moderate in the application of this policy in particular cases where there are circumstances and local wishes which, I suggest, they ought to take into account. That is what I want to urge on the Government as forcefully as I can this afternoon.
None the less, I should like to make one general comment which follows my acknowledgement that the Government's policy has gone a long way towards implementation. It has had one rather curious
792
effect. As a result of the application of this policy to the direct grant schools, which are mentioned in my Motion, and its application now to the controlled or maintained selective grammar schools, the present Secretary of State for Education and Science will go down in history as one of the great educational innovators of all time. On any calculation she will be responsible for the founding of more independent fee-paying schools than any educational administrator since His late Majesty, King Edward VI.
Whether that was the intention of her policy I do not know. It is a fact that to comfortably-off parents with children of average capacity the result is probably agreeable. They are given a wider choice of fee-paying schools, perhaps nearer to their homes. But the House will appreciate that the feelings of parents of modest means with gifted children may be very different indeed. When the Minister replies perhaps he would tell us, first, whether this was the intention of the policy.
There is a principle of law that a sane man expects the natural consequences of his acts. Under the Construction of Statutes provisions, which rather charmingly say that for the purposes of construing a Statute man embraces woman, presumably the same principle applies to a sane woman. Was this, to many of us, inevitable consequence of the policy foreseen and intended? If not, what do the Government intend to do about it?
By way of illustration of my argument, I shall take a certain amount of material from the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames. I do so not because I am in any position of authorisation to speak for that borough; that is done in another place by the very able Member of the House of Commons who now sits for that Royal Borough. Although I still have the honour of having a connection therewith as High Steward, I speak simply on my own account. However, as I think are the hopes and practice of this House, I find it convenient to rely on matters about which I have some knowledge—some actual practical experience.
As some noble Lords know, I was a Member of Parliament for that ancient Royal Borough for 27 years, so naturally

793
I have acquired a certain knowledge of the educational system therein. Let us take, first, the example of the application of the direct grant policy. There is a school called Kingston Grammar School, although it is somewhat misleadingly named because it was a direct grant school. It is rather curiously organised because its governing body was subject to the local authority—to the local council—as trustees of the charity. That school has now gone independent and as a result it is full and prospering; it is maintaining high standards and selection.
However, there is the difference that selection is now not only—though it is partly—on the intellectual ability of those who apply for entry but it is also limited by the length of the parents' purses. This does and must mean that a number of bright boys of humble homes—who for centuries would have been able to go to this school—are now, as the direct result of the implementation of the Government's policy, debarred from so doing.
However, the story does not stop there. In the same Royal Borough there is an absolutely first-class maintained and controlled selective grammar school—Tiffin Boys School. I hope that I shall not be charged with the terrible offence in these days of élitism if I draw attention to the fact that its pupils normally figure in the top half-dozen successful scholarship winners at Oxford and Cambridge. It is a school of that quality, and that fact illustrates it. It has been indicated that if the Government persist in applying the 1976 Act in this area this school, too, will go independent. Its high standing and high reputation will undoubtedly secure that it does so successfully, and the identical consequences will follow to those which have followed in connection with Kingston Grammar School; that is, it will flourish and maintain high educational standards, but, once again, the children of poorer homes will be debarred from an opportunity to go there.
Those are important questions relating to this area. I can at least claim to know the area. As I am no longer dependent on its votes, I can say, without appearing to be in any degree servile, that it is an area of very high intellectual quality, where a large number of the population are journalists, civil servants and aircraft engineers at the great factory that has
794
built the best military aircraft in this country from the Hurricane to the Harrier. There is a high intellectual level and an intense concern with education. When I represented this borough in another place a very large proportion of the queries with which I had to deal related to education. This reflected the intense interest.
As a consequence, ever since the comprehensive issue was raised it has been an issue of great local interest. Indeed, a very active pressure group was instituted in favour of proceeding to comprehensive education. None the less, at every Election—both Parliamentary and local—during the 15 years or so that this has been an issue, the Party which stood for maintaining the selective system has been successful. That seems to me to be very strong evidence of local wishes, whether expressed by parents, electors or ratepayers.
This afternoon I base a good deal of my argument on the fact that these are the wishes of those who live in that borough. If the noble Lord doubts that, I throw a challenge to him: why does he not hold a referendum? We hold referenda now on all sorts of issues. We hold referenda on whether we should disrupt the constitutional working of the United Kingdom and such matters. Why not hold a referendum on a local issue of this kind, for which, indeed, there is a precedent in the much more trivial matter of Sunday cinemas some years ago, when, as the House may recall, a referendum had to be held? Let us at least acknowledge that local wishes have a right to have attention paid to them.
Indeed, this goes a little further. Education is a locally administered service. What is the justification for involving local authorities in the administration of education, for still placing a substantial proportion of the cost of education on the rates, if the wishes of locally elected people and of their electors are simply to be ignored by central Government? I say to the Minister that he is putting the system under great strain; just as to use the force of law—to use the 1976 Act—to impose upon an elected body a duty to do what it and its electors regard to be wrong and retrograde, is to strain the machinery of law.

795
Noble Lords opposite have frequently warned my noble friends—with respect, rightly—of the dangers of using legislation in industrial matters if the legislation is carried to the point where people feel outraged by the application of the law. This does the law no good. It is a warning that I have heard from the Dispatch Box and it contains an element of justification. I should like to repeat it to the Minister. Is it right to use legislation of this kind to impose a system on an elected local body which it thinks wrong, which its electors think wrong and have consistently resisted for 15 years? It even goes a little further. I trust that the noble Lord will not feel that I am being in any sense polemical or partisan if I take this one stage further. If this were a newly-elected Government, supported by a large majority in another place and in the country, there would then be a strong case for saying that, however misguided their views, they must prevail.
No noble Lord would argue the position today. The present Administration have no majority in another place. After Ilford they patently have no majority in the country. They are not so much a lame duck Administration; given the many troubles they are in, they may well be described as a lame centipede. How long they will be there depends, I suppose, really on noble Lords on that Bench, but ultimately on the operation of the Quinquennial Act.
Is it not wrong for such an Administration to seek to override local wishes in this way? I am not arguing this as a matter of law, although the Statute, I believe, like so much modern legislation, is highly ambiguous. I am putting it to the House as part of the argument so often put in this House that we should endeavour, in matters of this kind, to operate by consensus; that one Party should not press its advantage to such extremes that another Party, on coming to power, is bound almost automatically to reverse it. If there ever were a subject to which that doctrine is relevant, it is surely the subject of education.
The ordinary child in this country, if he goes through the full schools course from five to, I am glad to say in many cases now, 18, will be at school through probably two or three Administrations,
796
if not more. If each Administration are to be driven radically to alter the system to comply with their no doubt perfectly genuine political views, the education of children will be disrupted and inconvenienced and the whole system will be less good than it should be.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge): My Lords, would the noble Lord let me ask this question: Is he seriously suggesting that, in the event, which is possible but in no way certain, of a change of Government, the incoming Government would change the system of education for something over 3 million out of something under 4 million children? It would be quite impossible.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, the noble Lord says that it would be quite impossible. I would say in words once heard from the Liberal Benches in another place, "Wait and see." What I am saying to the noble Lord, and his intervention suggests that I ought to say it again because he does not appear to have apprehended it, is that it is wrong, in strongly felt matters of this sort, for the Government to press to a 100 per cent. conclusion in the closing months of this Parliament an advantage which has already given them 80 per cent. implementation of their policies. That is wrong, and it would produce just the sort of reaction which his intervention relates to, and which I would regret as much as he. That is indeed the point.
I therefore ask the noble Lord to consider moderation. Is there not a considerable advantage in retaining some variety of system so as to be able to compare the results; so that you can see in practice, whatever anyone's theory, whether one system works better than the other? This is an advantage which you forfeit if you impose a universal system without exceptions. Of course it is not sought completely to impose it without exceptions. There is an exception made, to which my Motion refers, for ability in music and dancing. These are agreeable occupations and, indeed, as the Minister for the Arts will agree, the English ballet is probably the best in the world. But are these really the most

797
important subjects in the world? Is proficiency in music and dancing self-evidently more important for our national future than proficiency in mathematics and science, so that in order to maintain a high standard in one you maintain selection but you must discard it in the other? I think that the noble Lord will see that the logic of his argument is very much weakened by the making of that exception.
Moreover, he is going against the experience of much of the rest of the world. In Russia, new selective schools for young people of high academic attainment are being opened. Within the last 48 hours, the Land Government in North Rhine/Westphalia, which was proposing a measure very similar to the Government's 1976 Education Act for turning the three types of school into comprehensives, has been forced to withdraw it. It is not merely that a system of selection is cherished in certain areas. It is also that it is not self-evident that it is wrong. It is not self-evident that the only acceptable system is one based on comprehensives. This is confirmed by foreign practice and indeed by the exceptions, to which I have referred, which the Government have made.
I hope that the noble Lord is in a more tolerant and flexible mood today than he was on 15th November. I hope that the Government will be prepared to go just a little bit slow on this. There is something rather suspicious in their emphasis that changes must be made by 1979. What is the significance of 1979? Is it perhaps that five years from October 1974 expire in October 1979? Why is there a need for this haste? It must leave a suspicion at least that there is some political motive.
I suggest to the noble Lord that the Government should play it a little more gently and with more understanding of individual needs, and that they should play it slower. You will therefore have much more chance of creating a policy which will last, which will not be reversed by a successor Government, and which will carry with it the goodwill of all concerned. I hope that the noble Lord will listen to this plea, and I hope, in the splendid words which Bernard Shaw puts into King Magnus's mouth in his wonderful play The Apple Cart, that the noble
798
Lord will accept the need for the evolutionary appetite rather than the day's gluttony. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.17 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, at this stage I do not know whether to offer the customary thanks to the noble Lord for putting this subject before us this afternoon. I fear that I shall not know until the end of this debate, because it seems to me that if we spend our time going back over the same old arguments on both sides, that we have exhaustively discussed and which are no longer really relevent, we shall have wasted our time. If, on the other hand, we can talk more about what positive ways forward we can find out of the problems which bedevil all secondary schools, and all secondary schools all over the developed world as it is, then this debate will have been worthwhile.
I do not intend to follow the noble Lord in his examination of the situation in Kingston-upon-Thames, partly because I am not so great an expert as he is on that subject, although I know a little about it, and partly because this is a short debate and I want time not only to hear the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, who it is always a pleasure to hear on this subject, but I also wish to hear the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I wish to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, how far Conservative policy agrees with what his noble friend has just said. I hope we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, a reply to the devastating exposé of Conservative educational policy by Dr. John Rae, of Westminster School, in The Times yesterday. In fact, I think we shall have a most interesting speech from the noble Lord.
At the moment we are bedevilled by two stereotyped points of view. The one looks back to the time when there were schools all of which knew what they were doing: good grammar schools, good secondary modern schools, and good technical schools; which turned out people for industry. Admittedly, a few people got in the wrong place but on the whole they worked very well; they produced very good education. Now, at a single stroke of the political hammer, or whip, the

799
schools have all been taken over by long-haired Communists who have completely destroyed the standards and the education that exists there. This, as we all know, is a caricature. It is a caricature because any of us who remember the education slums that a great many of those secondary modern schools were, many more of them and much worse than any except a handful of comprehensive schools in the inner city areas, will know that, whatever happens, we must not go back there again and that we have made enormous progress in education.
But equally I think that we are bedevilled by another stereotype, and that is the stereotype who says, "Comprehensive schools are the answer, not only to the educational but to the social problems of our time. All we need now is to go on to make them more and ever more comprehensive with more and more mixed ability teaching, in fact totally mixed ability teaching, and if we can possibly bring ourselves to do it, abolish the independent schools so that we have a completely comprehensive system, and then everything will be extremely good". That, too, of course, is absolute nonsense.
I am entirely in favour of seeing much more mixed ability teaching in the right places, in the right ways and with the right resources. After all, the ideal of the grammar school and of the comprehensive is the same in this area; in the sixth forms of both what is needed is pupils working independently with sufficient resources, at their own speed and at their own level. That is what is done in the best sixth forms of public schools and what is done in the best sixth forms of grammar and comprehensive schools, and to a certain extent that is what mixed ability teaching is. Of course there is bad mixed ability teaching; there is wrong mixed ability teaching in the wrong way and with the wrong resources, but nevertheless this would be an improvement.
But the main point is not that we now need a great deal more comprehensivisation, so to speak. What we must now do, having got a comprehensive system, is to find our way through to more improved schools which will give more satisfaction to parents. In so far as parental choice is concerned, there never has been much and there is not space for
800
very much. There has only ever been parental choice for those able to pay for it. Even in the old days of the 11-plus and selection it was not parental choice but whether one passed an exam, and not many who passed the 11-plus chose to go to secondary modern schools. There were a few exceptions, but not many. If that had not been the case one might have said there was a certain amount of parental choice.
Parental choice is always limited because there are only a given number of schools—there is more choice with smaller schools, and I am entirely in favour of that—and therefore, with only a certain number of schools, there is limited choice, and one kind of choice destroys another. For example, one of the reasons why there is a limited choice of schools for people in big cities today is that there is already one kind of choice because of the quite large number of sectarian schools—Roman Catholic or Jewish schools. To a certain extent that limits choice. If we go on in a multiracial State to have even more sectarian schools of one kind or another that will give one kind of choice, but it will mean a limitation on another kind of choice.
This question of parental choice is, I believe, nearly impossible to overcome. But there is something we can do—I believe it is the way forward—and that is to make schools, neighbourhood schools, more responsive to the neighbourhood. By all means let us make do with the schools we have and give more control—there are various way so doing that—but I know there is one major problem, and that is the problem of the deprived neighbourhood school in the deprived neighbourhood, with a shortage of middle-class parents and resources. But that problem will not be solved by pretending it is not there; it is there in any circumstances. With proper neighbourhood schools we can identify the problem and put in the resources where they are needed, and so work on the problem in the right place, which is not by jigging about with the education system for social ends—which I do not think works even if it were desirable—but by tackling the problem of the deprivation of the area itself, which is the only way of tackling it.
Finally, in putting forward the proposition that we must concentrate on more

801
responsibility on the part of schools to the parents and the neighbourhood, I have two or three suggestions to make about the way I see this moving forward. They are not in themselves—although parts of them are—Liberal Party policy, and I admit straightaway that not all of them have even been fully worked out, but I believe this is the way we must go forward. To begin with, we must go forward by cutting out much of the bureaucracy in the education system. We lose a lot of immediate control and responsiveness by the present system and increase the costs. I should like to see neighbourhood schools in the community serving the community and being responsive to the community. I believe we should give much less power to local education authorities and much more power to headmasters. Certainly, those headmasters should be governed, first of all by five-year contracts—as has been suggested by members of various political Parties—and they should be governed very much by local control, which can be started by the adoption as soon as possible of the recommendations of the Taylor Committee.
With that kind of situation, it is my belief that we might find a way of improving the standards of our education and schools—making them more acceptable and more responsive to the wishes of parents and probably helping (though this is an adjunct, and I repeat I do not believe in re-jigging education in order to affect society as such) and at the same time possibly building up our small communities in a way that is badly needed in this increasingly impersonal age. Those are merely a few suggestions which I put before your Lordships. I very much hope that in the course of this debate we shall hear many more and better positive suggestions and fewer returns to the old wrangles.
3.28 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, we have my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter to thank today for enabling us to ask a simple question: what do parents want for their children's education? I suppose parents who really care want above everything else that the schools should bring out the different abilities of their children to the full. I admit I do not think that people, when they talk about it, would put it like that—they would probably put it in rather more homely
802
phrases—but when they talk about these things I am sure their overriding concern will always be for what is best for the individual child, and surely that is right, and not only for family reasons.
It is fair to say that, since the war, slowly but with increasing clarity in recent years, people have come to realise that for this country the world has indeed changed. No longer are we the centre of a great Empire with immense trading advantages. We are alone and we have to face the bitter winds of economic reality. In their hearts, parents understand this. After all, the parents of today have been growing up or living through the period of change. But there is sufficient evidence—I do not think noble Lords will disagree with me when I say this—to show that parents still believe that a good education will enable their children to make their way in the world and, some will add, to do their bit for their country.
How has the education service responded to the faith which is placed in it? There is no question but that there are increased opportunities for pupils. At last more children are going to school before the age of five. Whatever problems it may have brought with it, the raising of the school-leaving age undoubtedly has improved examination opportunities. Let us also recognise the job which the teaching profession, over the last 15 to 20 years, has been doing at a time of sharply increasing numbers and very full classes in order to widen the curriculum for children of all abilities.
What is it, then, which prompted the Prime Minister 18 months ago in a speech which he gave at Oxford to question the direction in which education is going and to admit that industry complains of the grounding which some of its recruits receive? The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, will be delighted to hear that the answer was given by Dr. John Rae, headmaster of Westminster School, in his chairman's address to the Headmasters' Conference some six months ago. In that speech in essence Dr. Rae said that the world has changed but our education has not changed with it, that education pure rather than applied, remote from economic realities, a justification in itself, may have been appropriate for a great imperial Power but it was near to being

803
an anachronism for a trading State fighting alone for its economic existence. However, Dr. Rae went on to admit that one fundamental change in education had occurred in recent years, that turning from our role as a world Power the British had sought consolation in the pursuit of social justice, especially in education, and this had taken the form of egalitarianism. He said:
"Remove selection and you would produce an educational system for the new Britain where an élite was not needed but rather a sense of community and equality. How tempting that argument must have sounded, yet how irrelevant it has all turned out to be to our real problems".
In my view, how right those comments were! For in the real world of the 1960s and 1970s the truth of the matter is that the educational reformers shot the wrong fox. Instead of concentrating mainly on higher standards or different standards they pursued the quarry of selection over a period of some 20 years until at last, in the Education Act 1976, Her Majesty's Government claimed to have made the kill. No local education authority should ever select anybody for anything ever again, except for music and dancing. What an incredible solution to the economic and industrial problems which we face today! What a tragic error—incredible because if the Government genuinely want to raise standards and to put a new emphasis to standards they are less likely to succeed by insisting on the destruction of many good schools; tragic because authorities really should not and need not be coerced in this way because for many years authorities have been reorganising along comprehensive lines. They have been doing it flexibly with regard to local wishes, considerations which are very much in tune, if I may say so, with my noble friend's Motion which is before the House today.
Of course, authorities have had to proceed with considerable care because it has become increasingly apparent that if reorganisation is imposed without enough preparation there can be some fairly disastrous results: huge schools in a single block, schools which are too small to have viable teaching groups, split-site schools—just to mention three problems each of which has revealed its own particular difficulties. But because authorities have been able to avoid these ad hoc
804
arrangements only when finance is available they have had to proceed carefully, anxious when reorganising to try to create something better and not to lose very many of their best schools.
This is where my noble friend's Motion is so particularly relevant. But, speaking rather early in the list, all I can say is that I apprehend that there may be a different view put from the other side of the House. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, from the Government Front Bench will say that you cannot in any circumstances mix other schools with comprehensives. In the light of the most persuasive speech which my noble friend has given, I really must remind the Government Front Bench opposite that, as many local authorities can testify, experience does not bear out that assertion which I believe will come from the Government.
As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has argued so forcefully, it runs directly counter to local authority responsibility. It might be a good thing if I reminded the House that when we last debated this topic on 10th July 1974 a Cross-Bench Peer, the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, referred to the opposing views on this subject. His speech was made just after local government reorganisation. The noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, then said this:
"That is why I plead for the local education authority, as reconstituted, to be given the chance of sorting out the incredibly difficult problem of harmonising the inheritance of its predecessor authority, which in most cases local authorities have to do".—[Official Report, Vol. 353, col. 628.]
He went on:
"Let them have respect for those who did not vote for them, those parents who want to have something different from what the majority Party view in the authority may be. Most of all let there be no dictation from the Centre—either from the Government and the Department on the one hand, or from the Party political headquarters on the other".
I think that that was very wise advice, but the noble Lord might just as well have saved his breath. Just over a year later the Government abolished the direct grant schools and shortly after that introduced a Bill to force all local authorities into nothing but a comprehensive system.
What has been the result? The result has been that from Bolton to Kent, from

805
Yorkshire to my noble friend's own Kingston, in the West Country, in the Home Counties as well as in the capital, parents have gone on making it clear that they want to have some choice as to where their children are to go to school. If I may say so, I think those deeply held feelings are absolutely right. If, as the Prime Minister also said at Oxford,
"In today's world higher standards are demanded than were required yesterday and there are simply fewer jobs for those without skill,"
surely we would be well advised to put all our educational heads together, representatives of the maintained, the voluntary and the independent schools, their governors and those who are interested in them, and, in co-operation, try to plan our course for the future. The strength of our educational system lies in its diversity. Educational theory, if it is imposed from only one point of view, can often be poles apart from sensible practice.
For instance, I think it is very doubtful whether the effects of early specialisation are of advantage to young people in today's world, yet specialisation, often reaching right down the school to 14-year-olds, has been accepted theory and practice for many years. I have heard noble Lords with much more experience than I can possibly have speaking persuasively on this subject. This is something which comprehensive schools could do, and in some cases already have done, quite a lot to rectify. The emphasis on going into the social services for school-leavers and veering away from engineering or maths or applied sciences, which has certainly been a feature from time to time for school-leavers since the war, is hardly likely to meet our needs today. I venture to suggest that that is something which independent schools have been quicker off the mark to recognise.
Last year members of Her Majesty's Inspectorate expressed forthright criticism of the more disastrous attempts to impose mixed ability teaching which had been widely accepted and I rather think still is accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, as being good practice. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on the Inspectorate as a source of all advice any longer, not because of its lack of expertise, which expertise is of course second to none, but because it is very heavily
806
understaffed—I believe about one-third so—and is under very great pressure. So I would say that, provided that we retain our experience of different kinds of schools and have people with different points of view, so are we more likely to keep our educational balance. Instinctively parents realise this; instinctively they distrust those who would put all our educational eggs in one basket. It is regrettable but true that distrust extends now to the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
Let me give one practical example of what the Government have actually been doing. My own local authority, Suffolk, began to reorganise schools a long time ago, before Circular 1065 was issued by the late Anthony Crosland which steered authorities towards reorganisation. Since then my authority has pursued its course, not always an easy task in its more sparsely populated rural areas, until, in 1973, the education committee asked a direct grant school of very old foundation, called Woodbridge School (which happens to be only a couple of miles from my home) to establish an entirely open sixth form for all girls and boys—I repeat, all girls and boys—from the surrounding comprehensive area. Thus, a school which has served its locality for centuries was able to continue to make its contribution, financial as well as educational, to the county system. The authority was enabled to make very good use of its resources, and excellent opportunities were available to all pupils.
About six weeks ago, using her powers under the 1976 Act, the Secretary of State issued a direction forbidding this arrangement to continue. I am really at a loss to understand the motives which persuade Ministers to drive schools beyond the reach of children. As my noble friend so graphically has said, the Secretary of State has done more to found independent schools than anyone has done for over 400 years. I must declare an interest. I am chairman of the Governing Bodies Association, and of course I am not sorry to see more independent schools. But I am terribly sorry to see this done with ill will. The fact of the matter is that the Government do not want to see an independent sector, and it does not seem to me that they recognise any advantage in encouraging the maintained and independent systems to run side by

807
side, the one benefiting from the experience of the other.
The voluntary aided schools would have done almost anything they possibly could to remain within the independent system. Many, including the denominational schools, have in fact been able successfully to do so. But when many excellent small voluntary schools found that they were to be consigned to the fate of the mini comprehensive, they felt that they would be selling their souls, and they, too, had to choose independence.
As for the direct grant schools—which the Motion of my noble friend specifically mentions, and which formed such a valuable bridge between the two sectors, and offered their teaching to children, wherever their parents lived and whoever they were—the grant aid system which made that work possible has, too, been destroyed by the Government. However, these schools have put forward a new system called assisted places, which will be a new scheme of national fee remissions simpler in form than the old direct grant system. I should like to make it crystal clear that the Conservative Party has accepted this proposal. Although priority will be given to the former direct grant schools, one of the advantages of this system, when it is introduced, should be the possibility of achieving a fairer geographical spread of these very popular schools.
My Lords, I started by asking a question. Now I should like to put another question to the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite. Do the Government believe, as a matter of principle, that parents should have a major voice in deciding how their children are to be educated? Does the right to decide how a child is to be brought up belong to the parent, or does it belong to the State? When the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, was drafting the 1944 Education Act, clearly there was going to be a tremendous post-war explosion in the school population. That is why Section 76 of that Act lays it down only as a general principle that pupils should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. But population trends have suddenly changed. It is now forecast that by the end of the 1980s there will be a million fewer children in our schools, and although
808
this in itself will present some fairly formidable logistical problems, particularly for local authorities, it must give more opportunity for choice.
Last October it seemed that the Secretary of State intended to seize this opportunity. In a consultative document on school admissions Mrs. Williams stated her belief in a statutory requirement—that was the wording—that a child be admitted to the school of his parents' choice. But six weeks ago, speaking to the Society of Education Officers, the Secretary of State was reported as having suggested that "parental choice" was a misleading expression and should be replaced with" the expression of parental wishes." Perhaps the noble Lord will explain to me what the Secretary of State means, and why there is no legislation. I had understood from reading my newspapers last autumn that the Secretary of State's enthusiasm for parental rights was to be translated into a Bill for this Session. But the gracious Speech has come and gone with no hint of legislation.
The point is that the impending fall in secondary school rolls really presents a unique opportunity to give priority to parental choice, which so often stems from widely differing reasons. Invariably it has nothing to do with what is so very often suggested—whether a school is highly academic. Much more often it is found that parents go for a school because it is small or because it is large, or because it is strong in languages, or perhaps because they particularly feel that their son or daughter wants a good science department, or because a school is traditional, or experimental, or because a school is good with the backward, or with the gifted, or with the difficult—
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way in what I regard as a quiet, constructive speech. But I am worried that the word "academic" is bandied about all the time. Of course wonderful schools like Winchester, which taught the philosophy of Latin and Greek in the days when we could afford that wonderful philosophical discussion, forget that nowadays there are more youngsters than ever before in history at universities and technical colleges, studying pharmaceutical subjects and electronics. Consequently, we are

809
moving into a system where the artifacts of modern mankind need this specific kind of training, and I would hope that the same emphasis is given to the skill of the individual as is given to the academic ability of the individual.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, for interrupting to make that point which otherwise I would have missed. How right he is that the skill in vocational training should not be missed! But how right is it also that bringing on people who perhaps do not have many brains should not be missed. I remember that the first time I passed a public examination my headmaster reported that it was a triumph for teachers and taught alike. So I have every sympathy with those who manage to make their way.
What I have been saying to your Lordships is that very often parents are looking at a school to see not only if it is a good school for the very clever, but whether it will bring on their particular child who may be a little backward. In putting these points, I want to ask the Government whether we can have an answer today as to whether people are to be allowed to assess the merits of different comprehensive schools, and to choose which will suit their son or daughter best; or is that natural impulse to be suppressed under the terms of the 1976 Act, because it would, in the Secretary of State's rather forbidding words in her consultative paper:
"be in conflict with the comprehensive principle"?
I make no secret that we on this side of the House believe in more responsibility for parents. We have made this clear for over three years in what we have called the Parents Charter, in which we recommend amendment of Section 76, in which we express belief in parental governors, and in the desirability of schools giving information about themselves, in-chiding their examination records. I was interested to see three months ago that Mrs. Williams has in fact taken the advice offered by my noble friend Lord Elton, during the interminable debates on the Education Bill, that schools should have prospectuses; and that is certainly a step in the right direction.
I quoted the Prime Minister earlier, and in ending I do so once again. The Prime Minister said:
810
"To the teachers I would say that you must satisfy the parents and industry that what you are doing meets their requirements and the needs of our children."
I should say, to be fair, that the Secretary of State has responded to this. The steady improvement in staffing standards, the allocation of funds for better induction and in-service training (which is an extension, incidentally, of the work which was started by my right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher), and the setting up of the assessment performance unit all go to the improvement of standards. But I am afraid that Government policy is marred, and fatally marred, by the Government's disregard of what parents may actually want. The Government can protest, as I think the noble Lord will, that this charge is unfounded. All I would observe is that when Ministers insist on a blanket system of comprehensive schools imposed from the centre, people know perfectly well that this cannot coincide with parental choice.
The trouble is, I believe, that this contradiction will become increasingly irrelevant to the needs of our country. In future people will look at what schools have to offer and they will expect to choose; at the way their schools are run, and they will demand to be involved; at the diverse pattern which is still the strength of our education system, and they will claim the right for their children to benefit from it. That is the way forward, and that is the effect of my noble friend's Motion today.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, warmly for introducing this debate on education, but I wish it had been a full-dress, long debate, because that is what is needed on this subject. I want to thank him, too, for his most comprehensive Motion—one which encapsulates Tory philosophy about education. I say this because the noble Lord has mainly focused his Motion on direct grant schools, thus dwelling on a tiny minority of parents and children, most of whom are relatively privileged educationally and financially. I must say that I felt more sympathy with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who stole two of my points, one about community involvement in education and the other about parents keeping in touch with teachers throughout the school curriculum.

811
As for this emotive phrase "parental choice", I wonder: for whom is this parental choice to be available? For how many? Can noble Lords opposite deny that for 80 per cent. of the population there is no parental choice at this time and that there was not a lot of parental choice before? I have no wish to detract from the good work done in some direct grant schools. I spent some of the happiest days of my life in an excellent one a very long time ago. Good work is done by some of these schools, where the pupils have been selected for their academic ability and, sometimes, for social and economic reasons, too. In our country at this time, are these the children who need fostering? Are they the schools as to which there is need to preserve variety and opportunity for parental choice? Are these—this tiny minority—the schools in question? What about, as I asked, the 80 per cent. of our children who have very little choice, or no choice at all?
I should like to see more credit given where it is richly deserved: to those good comprehensive schools where the children are not selected because they are already doing well; where their results are achieved in hard circumstances; and where the conditions are such that the pupils reflect, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, the local community as a whole and not just the wishes of certain local residents. Because, in any debate on education when we are considering the results which have so far been achieved in comprehensive schools, we have to bear in mind that these schools, and particularly the teachers working in them, are involved in tackling some of our most intractable educational and social problems and in helping a great many disadvantaged children. At present, many of them are beginning to achieve respectable academic results. I am not going to say that our comprehensive schools are perfect, or that they do not need improvement. In a time of very great social and economic change, there are many problems where we have tried to change education; but, as I say, it is to these comprehensive schools that credit is due, and we should concentrate our support on them and not at all on the more privileged schools.
One would have thought that the arguments about the merits of comprehensive and direct grant schools, both at
812
the educational and at the political level, would by now have been thrashed out, for I believe they have reached a point of no return. For all that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, and for all that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, I do not believe that the Conservative Party could begin to unscramble the changes in education that there have been at this point. It would be a disaster. I sometimes cut things out from the newspapers, but I am afraid I do not date them. However, today I came across a letter from Sir Michael Clapham, who said quite clearly in The Times that the definition of an educated person had changed over these last 30 years, and that we have to have a different approach to the idea of education, particularly with regard to industry. In fact, "learning for earning" was the phrase in the letter. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would find Sir Michael Clapham on his side; and I do not think that Sir Michael Clapham is a raging Socialist, either!
As I say, one would have thought that the arguments about direct grant schools and comprehensives would by now have been thrashed out; but, even today, as we know from the speeches that have been made, the lament of the middle classes for a resuscitation of past privilege is still heard loud and clear. I have never listened to a debate on education without hearing the word "sacrifice" being used by people who are mostly in a position to afford to make such sacrifices. There is also, today, a lot of talk, much of it uninformed, about a fall in academic standards when comparing achievements in comprehensive schools with those in grammar schools and direct grant schools. Comprehensive schools start with two handicaps, first, in areas where there are many disadvantaged groups and, secondly, in areas where there is a creaming-off of the more able children by the grammer schools which still exist. This makes comparisons in such places unfair to start with; and, when the social conditions are taken into account, such comparisons are absolutely unjust. For there is more to the comprehensive principle in education than a comparison of examination results, especially in areas where there is great poverty. However, recent educational reports continue to show better and more equal results as between grammar and comprehensive

813
schools. I do not know, but it does not look as if either the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, or the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has read these reports or has noted them, because neither of them mentioned them.
I am not going to go in for a great many statistics, but, of the children in England and Wales who left school in 1976, 83 per cent. had gained at least one graded result in the GCE and CSE exams in comprehensive schools. In 1975, the comparable figure was only 80 per cent. It was only a small increase in 1976, but, nevertheless, it was an increase. In 1971, before the raising of the school-leaving age, only 56 per cent. of the pupils gained one grade. But, as I said, I do not like dealing in statistics because it is easy to put our own personal gloss on these figures or even to give them a personal interpretation. I must repeat that there is more to comprehensive education than examination results. Nevertheless, I must mention one other survey, an important one, by the East Sussex local education authority, comparing the 1977 results in the GCE and CSE examinations. They were comparing five grammar schools and four fully developed—and I repeat "fully developed"—comprehensive schools in the area. The results obtained were more favourable (that is, higher) in the comprehensive schools.
As has been mentioned, the recent fall in the birthrate and the effect that this will have on the school population does offer us a very great opportunity to improve our schools—all our schools, and not just the direct grant schools or the grammar schools. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, mentioned improvement for comprehensive schools; although that is where most of our children are. We may then have a chance to achieve vastly improved teaching conditions in our comprehensive schools and the only way—I have always thought this and I must repeat it finally today—in which we can bring the education of most of our children—I will not say all of them, but most of them—to the highest possible standard is in comprehensive education. It will need improving; it may need great changes; but that is the only way. Otherwise, we shall continue to have the kind of divisive society that we have at present. We shall
814
not get an improvement in our industry and we shall not get a real feeling that we are one nation.
4.2 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I think we are indebted to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for raising this debate today. There are so many views on the subject of education that one could go on talking about it for hours and still not necessarily repeat what other people have said. But I think the debate today has been earmarked, as it were, for the very important matter of parental choice and, I would say, the influence that parents can have in schools and on schools when, as many parents do today, they take a tremendous interest in the schools to which their children go. We will not argue, because we disagree, on the subject of the destroying of the grant-aided and grammar schools. I passionately disagreed with that and I know that members of the Government are passionately on the other side; so we must agree to differ about that. But I am encouraged by the fact that I think there are opportunities in which we can still save some of the good and important opportunities which the direct grant schools have given—and, I think, could still give—if we do not have a total disappearance of these schools due to a total acceptance of comprehensive schools.
I do not dispute with the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, that there are a number of excellent comprehensive schools. Of course, there are. I do not think that the Conservative Party would dream of making very extensive alterations where those schools are successful. What we object to is the fact that every school must be comprehensive. When people talk about the fact that the direct grant schools and the grammar schools cater only for selected people who can pay to go there, they ignore the fact that thousands of children, whose parents could not afford to send them to grammar and independent schools, were able to go because of the grant aid available.
I remember a fine speech by the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme—during one of the debates on the Bill that the Government put through about comprehensive schools—in which he said that in all the years that he was headmaster

815
of Manchester Grammar School, where there were some of the very finest pupils in the country, nobody but himself knew whether particular pupils were being paid for by the parents or by the State. The whole picture was one of complete equality for all the pupils and all the teaching. The question never arose of whether little John was being provided for by the State or little Andrew by his parents. What mattered was what they did, how they worked and the opportunities they took. That is why I think it is sad that that opportunity has gone and in its place, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has said, there is an increase in the independent schools where children who are going to them are going to them because their parents can pay, and children who cannot go because their parents cannot pay are going to miss this opportunity.
I must not argue this case. It is one that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will condemn. I am going to say that I think it is a great pity. But it was the Minister of Education who made the suggestion that there would be some alteration in the scheme and that there was to be an Act of Parliament which I think my noble friend Lord Belstead referred to. At the moment, that seems to have been done away with; at least, there does not appear to be anything in the Government's policy which will make any alteration in the present system. I think that is a great mistake.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, is right when she says that you cannot completely alter the comprehensive system. If, as I hope, we shall win the next Election we will not be able to wipe out every comprehensive school. That would be crazy. But what we can do and what I hope we do is to recreate a number of grammar schools and grant-aided schools and give special places, special opportunities and some finance to a wide range of boys and girls who, in another age, would have been able to go to such grammar schools as Manchester Grammar School. I hope that that is one of the things that we shall do. Certainly, it is in the Conservative Party's programme for education.
I should like to say a word or two about the qusetion of parental choice and opportunities which could still be available,
816
even under the present system, if there was more flexibility in the organisation of education to day. When I was the chairman, as I was for six or eight years, of a rural area education committee—and we had, of course, a very small population—the amount of choice between secondary schools and rural primary schools was not very great. But there were some schools which were geared more towards rural life which in that particular rural area was what the children were used to. We tried to send those children who had a rural background and who wanted to continue rural life to the secondary schools that were more geared towards rural life—and it worked well. Those who wanted to go into industry or into technical education of a different kind—for, of course, agriculture is a very technical subject—we did our best to send to the schools which were able to teach more on the industrial side; and it worked.
Again, we did our best to try to meet parents' choice. I think that one of the things that could be done is to do away—and we had to do this in this area—with this rigid zoning and to say that every child must go to the zone in which it is living. It may be that in some large industrial areas it is not possible to do very much else; but there is always some opportunity on the periphery of cities, if you have not got this rigid zoning policy, to arrange for children to go to a particular school if the more rural aspect of education is wanted for them. It could apply to comprehensive schools, too.
There are comprehensive schools which are slightly different, one from another. I do not think it would be difficult to make arrangements. Certainly in cities transport is not so difficult; it is more difficult in rural areas. But transport is not impossible to organise. I have seen arrangements made to transport children to schools which suit them better than the one next door to them. It may cost more money; possibly it does. The fact remains that one is repaid in the interest and amount of response from the children and their parents.
I should like to see parents playing a much more important part in the school set-up and in the education set-up than they do today. I do not mean by that that they are not playing a part, but it

817
could improve, it could get better. The increase in the parent-teacher associations is much to be encouraged. The increase in the school committees is another development. I do not know whether all schools have committees, but, in the area in which I worked, each school had a committee composed of some of the parents of the children as well as the teachers. It was small but it worked. It created great interest in the school. I should like to see that increased as much as possible.
I have not had experience of big comprehensive schools because where I worked, and also in Scotland, unless one goes to the big cities, one does not find the large comprehensive schools. But I still think that more parents could be members of governing bodies and have an influence in the every day working of the school.
I agree with Lord Beaumont of Whitley's remarks regarding neighbourhood schools. A much wider area is covered than by zoning, which is very restrictive. There have been many disadvantges in local government reorganisation, but one of the advantages is that the areas governed by one local educational authority are so big that there is not the problem of saying that little Johnny cannot be sent to a certain school because it is in another education authority, and therefore not being paid for by the education rate where the parents are living. In fact, the education areas are so much bigger that advantage can be taken by sending the children to schools where they would not have been able to go before because of the restricted area in which the ratepayers of any given area were actually financing education. But that is not an advantage unless parents are given a chance to say that they want their child to go to a school which is not in the zone in which they live. Possibly this is putting a strain on education authorities, but it can be done. When I think of the distances that children are taken by buses to schools in a rural area, surely it is not outside the bounds of possibility to arrange for children to go to other comprehensive schools besides the one near their homes. The local school might not be the one which gives the kind of teaching and education best suited to that particular child.
I ask the Government to take a more generous view of these arrangements and
818
see whether we can get people to care about the child and its parents as much as they care about just having an organisation down on paper, marked off in squares on a map, which is where one has to go. I am only talking about experiences that I myself have had. I know they are limited and I do not put this forward as anything for world wide acceptance, but it has worked. Nobody could say that Newcastle Education Committee was in a rural area. For some of the small towns in Northumberland they established a country school geared to operate for about a fortnight or three weeks at a time. Children came into the rural area and learned about forestry; they went on great walks and treks over the hills and through the valleys. This was in the borders of Scotland where I live. This proved a tremendous success. It was not the Roxburgh Education Committee which did this but the Northumberland Education Committee. There are now three of those rural schools where children attend for a fortnight or three weeks away from their own environment.
I believe that something of that kind could be developed elsewhere. It may have been developed elsewhere, for I am speaking about something that I personally know about; I do not know what has happened in Devonshire, Cornwall, or, say, Berkshire. These experiments with small populations are worth trying. They make for variety and give the children more interest. What is so devastating to me in the modern education system is that, while one lays on a whole mass of different subjects, unless one attracts the children's interest they become bored. Then they smash things up; they do not take an interest; they just have to be at school because that is where they should be by law. But it is not education in the sense that we all like to think of it: something that is with us for life and that interests us at all times so that when it is finished and over we are still learning.
I should like to see the education system in this country develop in the way I have outlined. I do not think that it can be done by simply laying down the law and saying that all schools and all arrangements have to be the same. I would cater for the specially gifted and interested child, not only because they may be musical or may be ballet dancers—which I love and am all for—but because

819
they could also be mathematicians or scientists and might have all the different interests which are vital today. One cannot do that unless the children are attracted; and I do not believe that one can do that unless there is a variety of schools and teachers. If one could achieve that, then one could do something for this country.
Having luncheon at home alone just before I came here, I turned on the radio at one o'clock, I heard a gloomy mathematical gentleman saying that he was horribly depressed by the children who are leaving school today and who do not understand the decimal system. They cannot add up ordinary figures. He asked what good they would be—especially the girls—if they went into stores or shops, or whatever. One always hears the bad news. That is something that always comes through in the newspapers and on the wireless. It may well be that this is not true; but I have heard lots of criticisms of the schools today and of children who are not proficient in the three Rs. That is not just the fault of the children, it is the fault of the system; we ought to have as much variety as we can. That is why I disagree with the noble Lord opposite and with his Party. They are not prepared to face the responsibility, the difficulties and the need for variety in education.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH: My Lords, I must first declare an interest in this debate in that I am chairman of the governors of a comprehensive school. I listened with very much interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and I agree with him that local residents' views should certainly be given very serious consideration in the education field. In my experience, this happens. Most of the schools with which I have been associated have had active parent/teacher associations, the members of which not only meet together but hold public meetings and keep in close touch with other parents and the staff, and they are also represented on the school governors' committee. I think that one should bear them in mind, and noble Lords may perhaps agree with me that they should be consulted if and when changes take place—
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Here, here!
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH: I think the main problem in the comprehensive school is to provide for a very wide ability range and to ensure that the intelligence of all young people will be extended to its maximum, whether it is merely average intelligence or intelligence of a very high degree. As a former WEA tutor, I know that a great many adults of high intelligence, certainly in the past, have left school without any qualifications whatever.
It was reassuring to hear from my noble friend Lady Gaitskell that in 1972 the percentage of school-leavers with a CSE or GCE certificate was 56 per cent. and in 1976 it was 82 per cent. In view of the many problems schools have had to cope with during the last few years, particularly with regard to immigrants, language difficulties and so on, that result is really a remarkable one. It suggests that in the near future the figure may well be not 83 per cent. but 90 per cent.
However, there is the question: Should children of high intelligence be educated with those of less intelligence? I am quite sure that they should, for the very good reason that there is no really accurate way of guaging the intelligence of human beings. I recall many years ago giving a test in an official capacity to a young man who hoped to become a pilot. I was asked to give him Cyril Burt tests and I put one question to him—I forget what it was—and he gave two incorrect answers. I said to him: "What would you do next?" He said:" I'd lie down and go to sleep." I think that summed up the meaning of those tests from his point of view, and if that is your feeling about them you were unlikely to do very well. I think that happens only too often. However, if you could provide young people, or even older people, with a really convincing reason for doing well in tests and persuade them that it will really help them in some way in which they want to be helped, the results would be very much better. So I would not myself want to rely on intelligence tests to decide whether pupils should go to this school or to that one.
One of the biggest problems that we have to cope with today in the comprehensive school field is the size of the school.

821
However small it may be—and by the standards of a comprehensive school 400 pupils would be regarded as "small" —you do need to cover the whole educational range. You need to have science laboratories, art rooms, assembly halls, and so on; and it is vastly expensive to provide all that young people require in a small school. For that reason, I am afraid that some schools are too large. I hope there will be a very considerable reduction in the size of schools in the years to come and I also hope most sincerely that if there is a change of Government—and may I say that I do not anticipate one—our comprehensive school policy will continue.
4.25 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I would agree very much that it is a pity we cannot have a full day's debate on this very important topic. It would be counter-productive to try to unscramble legislation which has gone democratically through Parliament, and yet at the same time we have to face facts as they are and try to see in proper perspective what has been happening and what is likely to happen in the education system.
It so happens that, like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to whose opening speech we all listened with interest, I have some experience of schools in Surrey. My two daughters went to one of the City of London schools in Surrey and later to a famous grammar school in Epsom. That particular school is now in the process of going comprehensive. I did not have time before this debate to consult the school, but in fact there are in Epsom two outstanding secondary modern schools, one for girls and one for boys, which inter-link quite considerably. I have been in very close contact with those schools and their activities since the late 1950s.
My elder daughter is now at a teacher training college in Nottingham—I believe it is now called the Trent Polytechnic. Be that as it may, she is now doing her final year for her diploma, which we naturally hope she will get, and she has had fairly considerable experience of teaching during her practice in a comprehensive school of 1,800 pupils in the city. She has made no secret of the fact
822
that she has enjoyed it and has found it stimulating; but she takes the view, as many do, that there is room for the comprehensive school and the secondary modern school to work side by side, at least in a number of areas. What she will eventually do when she qualifies completely remains to be seen. Obviously she will face the same difficulties as do many contemporaries in teacher training colleges because of the present shortage of vacancies.
The people most involved here are the parents, the teachers and the pupils, but it is of course very much dependent on the relationship between parents and teachers as to how pupils will work out in the last analysis, whether they are at a private school, a secondary modern, a comprehensive or whatever you like. I certainly think that the most important thing is for the parents and teachers to be able to consult properly, and particularly in the case of a child who has difficulty in a certain subject which is vitally important. Given reasonable notice, obviously, and an appointment, it is important that the parents and teachers concerned should be able to meet and discuss in a practical, calm and collected manner what is best for the child. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Stewart, put her finger very firmly on the problem of the size of school. I do not think that that necessarily goes only for comprehensive schools either, although I believe that, with some of the split siting and so on, this problem may well apply more to comprehensive schools.
It so happens that some years ago one of the headmistresses at the girls' school in Epsom which I mentioned a moment ago, went to America at Government expense with six other headmistresses, to study the American system of education. She went out full of the joys of comprehensive education, but she came back very disillusioned with that method. There is not time in the course of this short debate to go into the reasons for this, nor would I necessarily wish it to be a drum with which to bang the comprehensive school system. But the real worry is that, with the vast size of some of the schools and the lack of planning which, due to hurried legislation, has gone into this subject, there could well be a long period of time before we see the easy communication between teacher and

823
pupil, and teacher and parent, which is necessary.
It is always difficult to try to decide on the optimum size of a school, because this must obviously depend on the area in which people live and on the needs of local people. At present, we have a number of expanding new towns, and I wonder whether, if he has time in the course of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, can say something about places such as Dawley, Milton Keynes and other areas which will clearly expand. Clearly, there will be a large number of children in these places, so what provisions are being made for both children and teachers in towns of that kind, to which people will move out from places such as Peterborough? I name just one example, but in the context of this debate it is an important one.
This being a short debate, I conclude by saying this. Clearly, the Government have made up their minds on this legislation, and what a future Government do is not the subject of this debate. But what must never be forgotten is that the high standards of education which this country enjoys must be preserved, and anything which causes them to deteriorate will fall on the heads of any Government involved.
4.35 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for moving this Motion today. I am eighth on the list and everything that I intended to say has already been said. Nevertheless, I say to the Minister that I propose to repeat it, on the basis that if you speak long enough, hard enough and strong enough it may percolate one day.
A state of transition is always difficult. It will take a long time for the comprehensive schools to build up the tradition and stability achieved over a long period by a number of modern secondary schools—perhaps, not all—by grammar schools, by direct grant schools and by schools with a long history in the private sector. Already, some comprehensive schools which have been in existence for some time are well on the way to establishing an acceptable identity within their community, although even now, as has been said by other noble Lords, the
824
schools are still too big and create difficulties for both teachers and pupils.
I should like to touch briefly on a very real dilemma. Education departments, on the one hand, are seeking to establish the comprehensive school system in the area of their authority, which involves a managerial exercise carried out by administrators working under the education officer. To achieve this means a certain amount of imposed organisation. On the other hand, there are the parents wanting to meet the needs of their children, and also wanting responsibility for deciding which school their child should attend. The rub comes when what the parents want for their children does not accord with the local authority's plan of schools in the area of their authority, and the parents cannot afford to send their children to an independent school. In these circumstances, I wholeheartedly support the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in his suggestion that there must be a period of very real flexibility.
May I mention the matter of the gifted child with a particular aptitude? I know of one case of a boy who is brilliant at maths, whose mother went to her local school to which she had been told to go by her local authority. She asked for a list of the teachers and their qualifications, but there was no one on the staff qualified to teach maths. When she asked whether she could send her child to another comprehensive school in a not very big town, she was told that she could not. This mother is a person of ability and resource, so she applied for a grant from a voluntary organisation. They would give her only 50 per cent. of the fees, so she then applied for a post herself which means working overtime on two evenings a week and one week-end in four. But this means that she cannot provide all the care she would like for this boy and her other children.
I know that the Minister of Education in another place has called on local authorities to allow parents an element of choice, but, as has been said by other noble Lords, this has to some extent been contradicted by experience. In fairness to the comprehensive schools, I should say that I have been in touch with the National Association for Gifted Children and that, although they tell me many parents are still asking for advice about

825
a school for their gifted children, they consider that the standards in the comprehensive schools are rising and that there is an appreciation of the needs of the gifted child.
I would also touch on the children who, under the Education Act 1944, cannot, and should not, be deemed maladjusted, but who need a particular type of what I might call social education, where the home circumstances are such that the children need special care. I refer to the child whose parents are separated, the child who is of a nervous disposition and the child who has, living at home, one parent who is mentally handicapped or ill. These children often need a small school providing an environment of a size which they can tolerate. When faced with a large comprehensive school, they retreat into themselves and do not mature or develop emotionally, nor do they always benefit educationally. For such children, surely there must be an element of choice.
Then there is the area of family responsibility. It is often said these days that families expect everybody and everything to be at their disposal and to have things done for them. Are we to blame? Do we take from parents their parental rights and responsibilities? If we do, can we blame them if, later on in life, they expect the State to care for them? We have sown these seeds in the early life of the child.
There is also the question of loyalty. This is a quality—dare I say it?—which is at a low premium these days; or perhaps I should say that there are difficulties because there are divided loyalties. A child needs to feel that his parents and his school are working together. If parents are forced to send their children to schools which, reasonably or unreasonably, they are not in tune with, it is certain that those parents will find it hard to inculcate in their children a sense of co-operation and loyalty to the school to which their children have been forced to go.
Turning to the second part of the Motion, I support the principle of meeting the wishes of local residents in the reorganisation of secondary education in their areas. I agree with the principle, but I cannot see how it can be done in practice. As the law now stands, the comprehensive principle must be applied. I feel that I
826
must say this, because I am quite sure that before the Minister finishes his speech he will use the words "comprehensive principle".
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, if parents do not agree with the comprehensive principle, all they can do is to raise money to allow their local grammar schools or direct grant schools to continue as grammar schools and direct grant schools. This is exactly what those schools have done. Many of the old, established grammar schools—Bradford Grammar School for one—continue to function outside the State system and, therefore, outside the comprehensive principle. May I suggest that the continuation of these schools outside the State system will result in far greater division in education. My only wish is that some of the recommendations which were made years ago in the Fleming Report could have been implemented, whereby direct grant schools could have been brought into the State system and grammar schools would not have been lost to the State. It seems that the present law is making for greater division in education rather than a comprehensive State system which allows for choice and meets the varying and diverse educational and emotional needs of children.
4.43 p.m.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I am very glad of this opportunity to support my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter on this very important and difficult subject. I was vice-chairman of the West Sussex County Council Education Committee for six years and I know how difficult it is to put parental choice into effect. However, the fact that it is difficult is no reason for not trying. May I take up two points which have been made by previous speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said that we should go not back but forward. I agree with the noble Lord. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, said that we need variety, and I could not agree with her more.
To illustrate what I want to say, may I reminisce for a few minutes about my

827
own educational background. My parents had free choice, and the result was indeed variety. From the age of six to the age of nine I attended classes in Sweden and had an Italian governess. From the age of nine to the age of 12 I went to the German High School for Girls in Hamburg, I was given the worst mark in the school called the Haaken, of which I am still very proud because I refused to sing "Deutschland fiber Alles" at the morning assembly. Then I went to the Lycée Molière in Paris and subsequently to an educational pension in Switzerland.
At that stage my father, who wished me to go to university, decided that I must come to school in England in order to pass my university entrance. I had learned a little arithmetic according to the metric system, so when I reached my English school I had to start all over again. It speaks highly for the teachers in that school that within a year I had got through my arithmetic and algebra for the Oxford entrance. I am sorry that such teachers are not to be found everywhere; if they were, we should not be having the trouble that we are having now. The importance of the education that I had was that it taught me languages. By the time I was 12, I spoke Italian, French and German as I spoke English. I believe that languages should be an important part of the education given in our schools.
That brings me to another point. Now that we belong to the EEC, I believe that we ought to take the question of languages very seriously indeed, and that parents should have not only the choice of schools in this country but the choice of schools abroad by means of exchanges, with European children coming to attend schools in England. Only by educating the younger generation shall we really become Europeans. Such exchanges will add to the variety that children need in their education. I am very sympathetic towards the 15 and the 16 year-olds who have been in the same school for the last five or six years and who are fed up. They need change. This would be one way in which to ensure variety for them. I do not believe that we can attach too high a value to it.
We do not want mass production. We do want variety, and with imagination that variety can be provided. However,
828
if we are absolutely hide-bound by the comprehensive principle we shall fail to do what is so important in education. Again I owe a great deal to my parents, because they taught me to use my eyes. I was sent to a studio to learn to draw and to paint. They taught me to use my ears. I was brought up to hear a great deal of music. I was taught to use my legs, and for two winters I trained with the Russian ballet. Finally, one must be taught to use one's hands. They represent the most wonderful instrument ever given to man. Every child should be able to use his or her hands in a particular way. In my case, I concentrated on painting. Those are various ideas which have occurred to me and which I believe are relevant to this debate. I hope that in his reply the Minister will pay particular attention to the question of languages and school exchanges.
4.48 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, as I am the last Back-Bencher to speak in this short debate I must confine myself to a few remarks, with my eyes on the clock. The debate is on parental choice and I shall try to confine my remarks to that subject. If there has ever been one fallacy which is greater than others it is that all children or, for that matter, all human beings are exactly alike, or should be exactly alike. Every human being and every child is an individual, and who should know that better than the child's parents? It seems to me that the element of parental choice as to the type of education a child child should have is essential.
I am not against comprehensive schools; I am not even against the comprehensive principle. As the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has said, certain comprehensive schools are excellent. The great mistake which has been made in the case of many of these schools relates to the implementation of that principle. Some of the comprehensive schools are much too large, with overfull classes. Having been a schoolmaster myself, I know what that means. But comprehensive schools do not supply everything. There is no doubt that other types of school would give to parents a much greater chance to send their child to a school that would develop the child's character to the utmost.

829
For instance, a child may have some particular talent. He may be very musical; he naturally wants to go to a school where music is very strong, where there is an extremely good musical standard. Or he may have a great sense of public life. He ought to go to a school where public service and that kind of thing is accentuated. He will not, on the whole, find those specialisations in schools as general and as large as comprehensive schools. After all, why is selection such a bad thing? It seems to have become a dirty word with the Government at the moment; but, after all, we exercise it in all sorts of other ways in public life. I cannot imagine that the Prime Minister in appointing his Cabinet avoids any form of selection whatever.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, it looks rather like it.
Lord SOMERS: Well, my Lords, I will leave that to the noble Lord who is to reply. Naturally, in all sorts of specialist activities one is selected for one's ability. I cannot see that there is any inherent wrong in selection.
Another point, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, was the fact that the educational system as we have known it has been riddled with the class principle, class privilege. Nothing is more untrue. Even 20 years ago class privilege had completely disappeared. I taught at a public school, but there was certainly no distinction about class there.
I think that the comprehensive-principle school—in other words, the type of school that achieves what comprehensives were meant to achieve most satisfactorily—is the direct grant school. I know a certain amount about direct grant schools as my wife has taught in them for most of her life. There you have a school which gives a very high standard of education. It is small enough to allow for good specialisation in certain branches, and it gives to children of very humble origin the chance to have the same. I think that the Government in abolishing the direct grant schools were really fighting against their own interests. It is the greatest tragedy in the world for our educational system that they have done away with these schools, which had an excellent educational standard. My Lords, I shall not speak for too long
830
since others have said practically everything I wanted to say. But I do re-emphasise that it is no use trying to pretend that all children are precisely the same, because they are not, and nothing that any Government devise will ever make them so.
4.45 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate. It has been distinguished by five speeches from noble Baronesses which is a very high proportion of the total, and three of them, I am glad to say, were the only support I got during the afternoon, except from the Liberal Benches. The noble Lord who opened this debate is a very experienced and skilled Parliamentarian. He was in fact made a Privy Councillor 13 years before I became a politician, so I do not expect to refute him as well as I would if we were speaking from equal experience. He exercised the skill of a Parliamentarian in making his speech sound extremely moderate, and also in saying that he was going to deal only with one small aspect of the whole subject. But, as I suspected, in the end we find ourselves—and I think every speaker has, in a way it is inevitable—re-running the 1976 Act which we spent nine days debating in this House, I am amazed to discover that I myself made nearly fifty speeches in the course of our discussions. The House will be glad that this afternoon I am going to make only one, and that, by the constraints of our experience, cannot be very long, so that is all right as far as it goes.
My Lords, the basic point here is that nobody on the Labour side wanted to damage any schools. The Labour position was that the comprehensive principle, which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said I should refer to, could only be established if certain changes were made. Anybody who has been round comprehensive schools—and I have been round quite a lot and talked to the people in the area—will know very well that not one of those teachers, not one of those headmasters, think they can run the best sort of comprehensive school, dealing with all the abilities of the children presented to them, if the best are creamed off. That is the issue. That is why it is impossible to discuss just parental choice or just this or just that. There

831
would be no difference between us if we thought others could do what we are trying to do without inflicting changes on the old tripartite system.
I should like to make a quotation here:
"Our educational system is now principally a comprehensive one and is likely to remain so in the future … Our aim must be to reform and mould the system of comprehensive schools in a way that will reproduce the best of the grammar school tradition in this new setting … Comprehensive schools are here to stay. We must take the new organisation, improve it where necessary, but above all we must make it work".
These are not my words. They are taken from a booklet Better Schools for all written by the honourable gentleman Mr. St. John-Stevas and published just before Christmas. Their realism and moderation are something which I find very helpful and in modest contrast with some, though not all, of the things we have heard today. Mr. St. John-Stevas went further. He also wrote:
"There is no question of our seeking a return to the tripartite system … The problem … is not how to unscramble comprehensive reorganisation already carried out. It is how to ensure that comprehensive schools really do work for the bright, average and below average child".
And he summed up his approach, with a touch of characteristic effrontery, by claiming that:
"the Tory Party, with its practical and reforming approach to education, is the comprehensive school's best friend".
My Lords, I appreciate that. I speak quite seriously in appreciation of what he said, and I think it is in opposition to one of the things the noble Lord said when we had an exchange. I will not follow that up. I do not believe myself that the Tory Party, in the unexpected event of its winning the next Election, would really start pulling things down. I give them credit for better than that.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? In order to be comprehensive in his summary of Mr. St. John-Stevas's views, would he also add that the same honourable gentleman has indicated the intention of a Conservative Government, when it comes, to restore the direct grant schools?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the noble Lord,
832
Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has already added it, so I do not think I need say it. If he tells me that that is the case, then I entirely believe him.
We believe, as Mr. St. John-Stevas does, in the potentialities of the comprehensive system. We believe it is capable of giving the best possible education to the whole range of children, and is in many cases already doing so. But we do not believe that it can do this if the brightest children are creamed off and educated elsewhere; and that is why we are well on the way to abolishing selection at 11-plus, which action I think nearly everyone today believes to have been right, even though the noble Lord, Lord Somers, does not. I think that few people on either side of the House want to go back to selection at 11-plus.
We must look ahead and to the future. There has been a tendency to concentrate on the privileged minority of pupils and to neglect the equally important interests of the 80 per cent. who used to attend secondary schools. The loss of parental choice which we have been discussing today applies only to the 20 per cent. who were attending direct grant or grammar schools. We have long believed that for the talents of all pupils to be developed to the full a non-selective pattern of secondary provision was required.
It is now 13 years since my old and much missed friend, Tony Crosland, set out in Circular 10/65 the policy, and it is nearly 18 months since the comprehensive principle was embodied in legislation. If we look realistically at the question of opportunities for parental choice we can make no mistake about it—the tripartite system offered 80 per cent. of the parents virtually no choice at all. Selection, at the age of 11, attempted to determine each child's educational needs at too early an age and involved a restriction of opportunity and reduced expectations of the large majority of children who were not allocated to grammar or other selective schools. There was very little option as to the school attended and the possibility of transfer at later ages was minimal.
It really is absurd to suggest that the introduction of comprehensive education has reduced choice in terms of educational opportunities. There is no question of academic education not being available within the comprehensive system. Indeed,

833
in many areas, choice has been enhanced because children are now eligible to enter a range of schools, regardless of their ability or aptitude.
The claim of freedom of choice offered by direct grant grammar schools in any case is frankly spurious. Such schools were by no means spread evenly over the country so that accessibility to places was more a matter of geographical fortune than universal fairness. That, to some extent, is always true of all groups of schools. Indeed, there is a sense in which it is true of the comprehensive schools too. The direct grant and grammar schools offered no freedom of choice to children who failed the 11-plus; nor did the schools significantly improve the opportunities for working class children to obtain a good education, as is sometimes claimed. In fact it was usual to find a very heavy weighting of children of professional and managerial parents and very few children of unskilled workers, even among the places taken up and paid for by local authorities.
There was a very full debate in the other place on the direct grant grammar schools shortly after the regulations to phase out direct grant were introduced by the Government, and I do not propose to go over the ground in detail today. We made perfectly clear in our Manifesto for the last Election our commitment to ending the system of direct grant and grammar schools. The divisiveness and unequal educational opportunity which the system envisaged was actually subsidised from public funds and was particularly objectionable. In return for opting out of the maintained system, parents—even those with high incomes—were rewarded with a reduction of fees, which were in any case subsidised by a capitation grant averaging £100 per annum per student. Of the 170 direct grant schools concerned, over 50 have now come or are coming into the maintained system as comprehensive schools—many of them are Catholic schools—and the remaining two-thirds have mostly opted for independence.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, had some legitimate fun over my Secretary of State creating more private schools than anyone else.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, since Edward VI.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I did not catch what the noble Lord said.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, to be fair, my historical recollection is that that is the situation only since Edward VI. He, proportionately to the size of the national economy at the time, was probably on an equality with the noble Lord's right honourable friend.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the point is that it is a perfectly legitimate Parliamentary point to make. However, it has no meaning. Essentially the question was: Were we going to behave in a dictatorial way or were we going to leave as much freedom as we could, having made the changes we thought were necessary? The Secretary of State agreed that if people did not want to accept what we thought was right they would not be bludgeoned into it. The only point was that the State would not pay for them to do something different. They were left absolutely free to become independent. We were criticised for that by the other side, but I think it was absolutely right to do so. I am not the least ashamed of the creative abilities of my Secretary of State.
I believe that with the changes we have made we have widened the range for the vast majority of our children. May I remind the House yet again that in many areas the transition has been effected in an orderly way regardless of whether a Labour or Conservative Council has been in power. Comprehensive education is the normal pattern of secondary provision for over four-fifths of pupils in England and comprehensive schools represent three-quarters of the educational establishments in this country and are to be found in all but one local education authority—and the noble Lord knows very well which one that is! At present, over 3 million children out of a total of under 4 million are in comprehensive schools.
May I also remind the House that the Government's policy is not, and never has been, outright opposition to the grammar schools as such, but to the selective system. Like the honourable gentleman, Mr. St. John-Stevas, we believe that the traditions and experience of the grammar schools need not be lost but can be preserved in the comprehensive

835
system, and in a certain number of cases certainly are being preserved. I would stress that because some good schools have changed their character, it does not mean that their fine traditions and academic standards have been lost in the comprehensive schools that have succeeded them. Reorganisation presents a greater challenge to all concerned to provide adequately for the full range of ability.
Having made clear, I hope, that far from apologising for the Government's achievements in this major development of national education, I am extremely proud of them, let me go on to describe some of the difficulties which are, of course, real enough. I have listed a number, but I shall not be able to list them all. I think the whole question of education bristles with problems, and will continue to do so whatever system we adopt. After all, we are dealing with nearly 4 million children and their parents, and though they are all made in God's image they present it in varying ways. There will always be complaints, and some at least of them will be justified. We are satisfied that we are on the right road, but the difficulties are obvious and must not be brushed under the carpet. I should like to look at one or two of them. However, before doing so I should like to make one or two comments on what has been said during the debate.
I have already said that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, about selection, and I certainly do not agree that there has ever been the faintest suggestion in Labour Party policy that all children were, should be or could be, equal. So I differ from the noble Lord on both those points.
I was fascinated by the achievements of the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, particularly in shouting down her German colleagues. I hope that it will not be necessary for her to do the same to us. However, over the question of languages and the exchange of children, I think that both suggestions are interesting. The Secretary of State has already spoken about the importance of languages in comprehensive schools where they are more fully dealt with than they normally have been in the other schools, and the exchange of children is a most interesting idea which I shall discuss with her.
836
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, quoted a case of a mathematician which I found it extremely difficult not to feel bad about and I shall look at it. It seems to me to be just the sort of thing that should not be happening and I think that there were probably local problems. I am glad that she admitted that the standards for gifted children are rising, because this is an important matter.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Stewart of Alvechurch, and Lady Elliot of Harwood, both spoke about parent-teacher associations. My noble friend said that we already have these and in a very large number of schools they are working very well. From listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, I had the impression that very little was being done anywhere about this, although I do not think she meant it. I think that a great deal is being done. A large number of comprehensive schools are run in the most friendly way in conjunction with the parents and with every attempt being made to meet the parents' wishes.
My noble friend Lady Gaitskell refuted, I thought effectively, the suggestion that, as opposed to the old system, standards were falling in comprehensive schools. I do not think that one should make too much of statistics, but it is perfectly clear that we cannot go round saying that standards are falling. I do not think it is true. Whether the opposite is true—which it may be—remains to be seen.
I have a long note on the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, raised about Woodbridge, but I shall not read it because time is running out; I shall write to the noble Lord about it. He also spoke for a major voice for parents and he asked about a Bill. A Bill for the next Session may, hopefully, be in the list. We shall perhaps have the opportunity to discuss it when it arises. I do not know what is funny about it. I am astonished that noble Lords should laugh at the possibility of an Education Bill in this House. It seems to me to be desirable in every way and I am unable to react in the way noble Lords apparently expect me to.
I found the positive thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, very helpful. I wish that we had had

837
altogether more of them. If only we could stop fighting over the few remaining anomalies and get together to make this system work better, we could do a very great deal of good.
I think that I have time to deal quickly with the most important problem that has been discussed—it is the only one for which I shall have time; namely, the question of parental choice. It is perfectly obvious that from the point of view of any parent some say in where one's children go to school is absolutely fundamental. On the other hand, it is perfectly obvious that in any State-run education system—and this is a State-run education system—whether comprehensive or not, the local authorities who are responsible for giving and ultimately for paying for this education, must have some say in who goes where. There is absolutely no way of avoiding it.
The Secretary of State has made it clear that it is her intention to introduce legislation, which we have mentioned, on school admissions as soon as the Parliamentary timetable permits, and I have said this may be in the next Session. I think it would be helpful if I say something about the way we envisage parental preferences between schools being reflected within the comprehensive system, not least because this topic has attracted a good deal of attention recently. Every local education authority is faced every year with the need to allocate places in its schools to the new generation of pupils. Different authorities have developed different approaches to this problem. Some, for example, work on the basis of a group of primary schools feeding each secondary school; some work on the basis of nearness to the parents' home; some invite parents to express preferences among all the schools within the authority and then distinguish between these preferences on criteria, such as the proximity of home to school.
For the great majority of children their nearest school is the school which they will naturally attend and which their parents will wish them to attend, and most parents accept the places offered to them. However, a small minority are not satisfied, and of these something of the order of 1,000 a year complain to the Secretary of State. This must be seen in relation to some 700,000 children moving every
838
year into secondary education. I think that 1,000 is a lot and is too many, but it is not a big proportion of the total. Some of these parents are so determined that they keep their children at home, sometimes for a school term or even considerably longer, rather than accept a place at any school other than their favoured one. Parents who do this are in breach of their statutory duty, but because of an anomaly in the law, which the new Bill will put right, they may in the end stand a better chance of achieving their wishes than other parents who are unwilling to act unlawfully or to disrupt their child's education in this way.
Another difficulty is that the effects of the fall in the birthrate, which began in the mid-1960s, are just beginning to be felt at the ages when pupils transfer to secondary schools. I agree with my noble friend Lady Gaitskell that in a sense this is an opportunity which I hope we shall be able to grasp; but it is an opportunity which depends, like so many other things, on money. Six months ago, when things were rather worse than they are now, my Secretary of State said that she would not lower the levels but she was unable at the moment to improve the ratios until the financial situation eased. I hope that we may see some changes of that kind before very long, though I cannot speak of that with any certainty.
Authorities will need to be able to run schools at less than their physical capacity so that they can plan rationally to make the most sensible and efficient use of their resources during this period of falling school rolls. This in itself may give rise to objections from parents and some parental complaints may indeed be inevitable. But we hope that authorities will consult the parents fully in reaching such decisions. I believe that most authorities do this. I do not say that the system never goes wrong; I do not say that some may not be a little dictatorial; but my impression is that most authorities take the very greatest trouble to do this. However, it is extremely difficult.
The Secretary of State also intends to include in her legislative proposals a more general provision on the expression of parental preference in school admissions procedures, to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred. Wherever possible parents should have the right

839
and the opportunity to express any preference they may have for one school rather than another, and local authorities should be obliged to take those parental preferences into account as far as is reasonably possible. This does not mean, however, that all local education authorities should adopt identical procedures. Clearly, there must be local variations to meet local circumstances, subject always to the comprehensive principle. Where an existing mechanism already gives parents the sort of opportunity I have described, and allows parents who are dissatisfied to have the decision reconsidered locally, there would be no need to change the existing procedures. What the Secretary of State's proposals would do is to extend to all parents the opportunities already available to many, and I am sure that this will be generally welcome.
I have time to deal with one more point; namely, the question of resources, the ever-present question of money. During our long debates on the Bill what worried me more than anything else was the suggestion that the change to a comprehensive system would be impossible in some cases because there simply was not enough money to do it properly. This has been referred to today. As I said at the time, there was already a total school building programme of over £100 million a year, and a further £25 million was being injected into it during that year for comprehensive development.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the House of Commons on 26th October last year a programme of construction work in 1978–79 to relieve unemployment in the construction industry. Authorities were informed that about £17 million will be available as a second special programme to assist comprehensive reorganisation. As well as helping authorities who are anxious to complete reorganisation, it is hoped that the allocation will assist others who are claiming that lack of building resources is making progress towards reorganisation more difficult to adopt a more constructive approach. An announcement of the allocation will be made shortly.
I have answered one of the noble Lord's questions. I think he also asked me in his Motion whether the Government were intending any changes in the procedure.
840
The answer is, No, they are not; but it is not the case that 1979 is a year based on electoral prospects. That year is a year to be seen in contrast with 1982, which was the year proposed by the council in question. I want to refute that suggestion. This is not a game. May I end by saying that in the course of my going about the country I have seen a fair number of comprehensive schools and I have been deeply impressed by the dedication of the staff, by their enthusiastic belief that they are working on the right lines, and by their absolute acceptance of the impossibility of running a really good comprehensive system without the changes we have had to make. I know we are under the shadow of an Election and there are deep differences between us, but I ask that we should accept, as Mr. St. John-Stevas has, that the system is potentially good and has come to stay, and that it is our duty to work together for its improvement.
5.21 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, in the two minutes that remain before I ask the inevitable leave to withdraw the Motion, I want to do only two things: first to say that the noble Lord's agreeable manner concealed somewhat the fact that apparently the Government still under, as he put it, the shadow of an Election, are proposing to insist on a very early change to a full comprehensive system in areas where such a change is against the wishes of parents, electors, and the local authorities concerned. He gave no justification for that arbitrary action. He said in another context that he did not want to be dictatorial. I would ask him to reflect whether anything could be more dictatorial than that.
Secondly, he said that he was not ashamed that two-thirds of the direct grant schools had gone independent. With respect, I think he ought to be ashamed, if he reflects on the number of children from humble homes who had every chance and expectation of going to these splendid schools until this Government intervened to deprive them of that chance. The Motion is formally for Papers. If it were in another form I would not seek to withdraw it. However, I recall when the late Lord Woolton was Leader of the House, and not being very interested in the procedure, he once

841
accepted a Motion for Papers for the Government and the consequent dislocation in Whitehall of the attempt to discover Papers that could be provided for the noble Lord who raised the Question imprinted itself deeply in my memory. The Government are in sufficient mess already for me not to want to add even this modest addition to their troubles. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the Government are very grateful.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CRIME PREVENTION
5.23 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS Baroness PHILLIPS rose to call attention to the work of crime prevention, with particular reference to the work of crime prevention panels; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when I realised that a law and order debate had been tabled for the week before my own, despite the fact that mine had been on the agenda for a very long time, I felt that any discussion this afternoon might be in the nature of an anticlimax. Sadly, the interview which was given to the Press last weekend by the Assistant Commissioner of New Scotland Yard brought our debate today again sharply into focus. One is forced to the conclusion that crime is always topical.
What is crime? When I looked up the dictionary definition, as always one can do, I selected my own definition for this afternoon's debate. Crime, we learn is, a violation of the law. I would not suggest for one moment that your Lordships need reminding that there is crime, but I will simply repeat the figures given last weekend for the metropolitan police only. In 1977 there were 568,952 indictable crimes in the metropolitan area. For theft and auto-crime (which is now the rather delightful name given to those who steal cars) there was a greater percentage increase. There were 13,378 assaults as against 12,000 the year before, and there were 12,415 violent thefts—again an increase—and 174,000 auto-crimes. The police strength rose a matter of one. I am not certain whether that
842
was a male or a female, but it seemed to go up one in a year.
I would ask your Lordships to consider why we should prevent crime. It is at least reassuring to realise that the majority of people never commit a crime. The very size of our police force suggests that. If everyone in their lifetime committed a crime of even a minor character, we should certainly need a much larger police force. But the well-behaved are constantly and increasingly having to suffer on account of those who break the law.
I will cite a very simple example. For example, if I were a supporter of Leeds United football team, which I am not, as I support Fulham—I shall probably be the only supporter eventually—I would find it distinctly unpleasant and irritating to have to look at my game of football throught an iron cage simply because of the behaviour of a certain number of violent hooligans. When I recently went to a large supermarket I saw, sadly, the turnstiles had returned. In the women's organisations we sought for may years to get the turnstiles removed from the lavatories. Turnstiles are inconvenient, often dangerous, and distinctly, I would say, a retrograde step, but who is to blame the shopkeepers? When one goes on an air trip these days one has to be searched and questioned. If you go into certain new estates no telephone kiosks are provided, and there are not even seats in railways stations any more. These are small examples of where the well-behaved and the law-abiding are constantly being put at risk and inconvenienced because of the actions of those who break the law.
Prevention is always better, and usually cheaper, than cure. The prisons are already bursting at the seams, and they cost £200 million a year. But prevention is equally very difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate. Who knows what one has prevented? How do we prevent crime? I would say, first, that it must be seen never to pay. I am afraid our newspapers are constantly filled with the life stories, or at any rate the highly imaginative accounts of what were the life stories, of various criminals, for which they receive very large sums of money. That is one way in which crime can certainly be seen to pay. I would say it must never be glorified. One sometimes feels that the

843
Great Train Robbers were heroes when one reads accounts of their exploits, forgetting the unfortunate man who suffered paralysis and death as a result of their activities.
I think we must never sympathise with the perpetrator of a crime. For every crime there is a victim. I will again take a simple example. As magistrates we are constantly hearing the sad story of the boy who steals cars. "He only steals cars", they say. What about the boy, who is a working-class boy, who has saved up all his money and bought the car for his convenience? Is he not to be considered? Is he not to be thought about when we are talking about this kind of offence? Serious crime must always carry the certainty of detection. This is the section of police work to which more and more highly-sophisticated apparatus is being applied.
Prevention is everybody's business and society gets precisely the law and order it deserves. Even in our Prayers in your Lordships' House we say, "Prevent us, Oh Lord, in all our deeds", which is the "going before", the preventing of crime. While we seek to discover motivation, we must cease always explaining away the reasons for committing crimes.
Society is the cause of the crime, we are told. The mother particularly comes in for it—she either loved the boy too much or she did not love him enough, or was she frightened by a horse? I think Shakespeare put it succinctly when he said:
"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves …".
The sooner we recognise—as most human beings recognise now—that we have free will, that we all experience temptations and difficulties, and that we should not always yield to them, the better.
Who tries to prevent crime? I suppose that, strictly speaking, one could include in this section anybody who cares about people: anybody who promotes leisure activities or who works for and with young people, anyone with youth facilities, all the societies—the wonderful ones like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children—and the Churches, and of course the Ten Cornmandmants are the best preventors of crime I have
844
heard in a long time; if only we kept them we should have no problem at all.
The vast and increasing armies of privately employed security personnel—those dealing with espionage and all those preventing crime in industry whether it be on the retail front, with which I am concerned, or generally—are all part of prevention, although perhaps we should look carefully at this aspect. There are more people—I think double the number—employed in the private security industry than there are uniformed policemen. While I am not suggesting that we should not have private security, private armies bear some measure of responsibility and should be accountable to the community. There are groups like the one with which hare the privilege of working in the retail set-up to prevent thefts from shops, a vast crime, though a particular one. About £500 million-worth of goods were stolen from the shops in 1976, for which you and I, the honest people, have to pay.
Then we come to the most important section in the prevention of crime, the police force. I notice that my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, in his very interesting contribution to last week's debate, quoted the eminent criminologist Sir Leon Radzinowicz. I quote him describing this section of the police force at work:
"How are the various functions of the police evaluated nowadays? The elite, in the eyes of both police and public, are the detective branches, the wide-ranging regional crime squads. The most advanced modern technology must be engaged to centralise, sift and transmit information to overtake the modern criminal … The crime detection rate of the police gains further weight from the fact that it appears, at least superficially, the easiest way to evaluate in objective terms … the work of our police force. Detection rates become the touchstone in judging police achievements, whether for forces or individuals. The role of the police "—
and this is the important point—
"as public servants and peacekeepers has been the least researched, the least measured and the least regarded of their functions. Yet it accounts for many more calls for help, many more encounters between police and public and much more of the time of the ordinary policeman".
In this connection I would refer specifically to the crime prevention panels. I found it very interesting that, when I added this to my Motion, various noble Lords withdrew from the debate because they said they had not heard of them,

845
but that seethes to me to strengthen the reason for this debate. These panels were set up ten years ago by the Home Office through a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Crime Prevention, on which I now have the honour to serve. There are now 140 panels in England and Wales and there are only six police forces without them.
What is their task? It is to persuade the public to help the police and to try to change people's attitudes and behaviour in relation to the prevention of crime. It sounds simple enough, but it could not be a more difficult or wide-ranging problem. Who are the members of the panels? Naturally they are headed by the policeman who is the crime prevention officer, and they always include—they may include some of your Lordships; I hope they do—those who are concerned with community problems; local councillors, voluntary social service representatives, head teachers, employers of labour, leaders of industry and commerce, representatives of organised labour and so on. Their finances come through the Police Fund and although most forces do not want central Government to control this, there is a feeling that more cash could be allocated through the authority.
What do the panels do? It would take a long time, longer than I want to spend this afternoon, to tell noble Lords all the things they do. To begin with, they have many imaginative projects for the young, with schools and youth groups, because juvenile crime is surely the most serious matter with which we must be concerned. They have campaigns which involve thousands of children, competitions, badges; in one area they organise a holiday camp and they have sponsored walks and sports. They warn smaller children of some of the hazards that may beset them. They establish street agencies to help the elderly, to warn and support them, and they watch over crime patterns at local level. They tackle various individual sections of the community; for example, they make motorists security conscious and back up retailers in their fight against the curse of thieves, who are of all ages, of both sexes and from all classes. These are the people who take "self-selection" rather literally and then plead temptation, marital frustration, physical indisposition, misunderstanding and numerous other reasons which I
846
could elaborate—and that includes the lady who stole a salami sausage and pleaded that she took it for sentimental reasons because it made her think of Italy. There seem to be no end to the reasons advanced for theft.
The panels prevent vandalism and they have run some extraordinarily imaginative projects which have paid off handsomely. The panels mount massive publicity campaigns to try to bring home the fact that crime is an anti-social offence against the whole of the community. The Crime Prevention News is issued quarterly by the Home Office and it contains some very inspiring, examples of community crime prevention; in other words, these are the activities of the goodies as opposed to the rather horrifying activities of the baddies which we always seem to see in our newspapers and on our television screens. Working with crime prevention officers—I now have the privilege of doing this—are the police who make up the community relations sections where, again, they work particularly with young people as their prime concern.
I promised before this debate that I would not harass or blame the Home Office because, in my view, this is a subject which is the responsibility of us all. It is certainly not a matter of Party politics. However, I would plead—I am making only a small plea, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will be pleased to hear—for some more public service advertising about crime prevention. At present, the Health Council, which is funded by the Government, is enjoining us all to be healthy—not to eat too much, not to drink too much, to walk, even to jog, and certainly we all know what we should do about smoking. Of course it is a little ironic that these public service advertisements come in between rather colourful advertisements advising that if' you drink more you will have a great life, and if you eat more you will undoubtedly be the best kind of mum. Nevertheless, there is an attempt to make us healthy. We are told by public service advertising to save energy. I am never quite sure why the Government think we do not have to pay for it, and why we would not save it anyway. We are told to take fire precautions; we are told, when it suits the affairs of State, to save water.
But what about crime prevention? The Metropolitan Police are in the middle of a

847
Beat Crime '78 campaign, but I would suggest that a call from the Government to the nation would be very impressive and would carry a great deal of weight. NACRO—the organisation for the resettlement of offenders—speaking about crime prevention said—
"It is essential to make crime less easy and less attractive but it is also essential to examine why people do certain things and try to think of ways to stop them doing it".
No one would dispute that, but I would say that it must be possible for ordinary citizens to go about their business without hindrance, both by day and by night. It must be possible for property to be protected and for little children and the elderly to feel safe and secure. Matthew Arnold said:
"Nations are not truly great solely because the individuals are numerous, free and active but they are great because these numbers, this freedom and this activity are employed in the service of an ideal higher than that of an ordinary man taken by himself".
It must be possible to balance the liberty of the subject against the rights of the community and this is our goal. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.42 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on giving us a very fine rundown of the problems affecting our society and for placing this Motion before us this afternoon. I think she is extremely brave to take on her own Government and she skated extremely well so that there will be no problems with her noble friends going for her in any way at all. Of course after the debate of last week regarding law and order, instigated by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan, I would say that all of us must get down to the "nitty-gritty" of upholding law and order.
As it appears to us all, the criminal has really never had it so good. He is now on the increase, up to 15 per cent. The police are undermanned and fully stretched in all their activities. I believe that some 9,000 officers are short not only in the country; 4,000 are short in London. With all the different fraud cases and drug smuggling cases, surely they must be very stretched in their activities when they have to go to a big demonstration somewhere in London. Whichever way we look at it
848
the subject of crime is moving at an ever-increasing rate and I believe that we are falling behind in our duty in not recognising the seriousness of affairs.
Perhaps for a moment your Lordships could cast your minds back to what I believe to be the grass roots of the problem. I believe that once a child leaves its parents and goes to school, with the problems which parents find with inflation and money, the over-excitement that the Welfare State is to take over, responsibility is allowed to pass from the parents of the child to the schools, to the education authorities. This is where it begins, because when the child comes home very often the parents are not at home but at work. Children no longer have the feeling of that love which they had just before they left the home. They hang around waiting for Mum and Dad to come home from work just for their tea or supper, and in that time mischief is afoot. I believe that crime today can only start at this end, at school. I do not believe it is fair to point a finger at the schoolteachers who have to administer the education and the discipline and when they ask for parents to come and have the character of their boy or girl explained to them the parents invariably are too busy because they are at work. There is also the lack of open space for children. At certain ages they are restless; hence if they have not got something to do, such as a football to kick, the first thing they will do is to pick up a stone and a few glass windows will go by the wayside. From there we lead on to mugging, and so it goes on.
I believe that somewhere within this bracket crime begins. Let us make it clear that today we have a very well-trained and sophisticated criminal. He comes from the Welfare State, trained at school if his parents are not about. He knows his machinery, he knows his whereabouts and he also knows that there are no police about on the beat. Crime has become very easy, and it is becoming easier. So how do we go about it? The problem is urgent. All of us are talking about it; the public talk about it and do not want to know about it. Where do we go from here? Crime prevention cannot be dealt with at the touch of a switch; that is an impossibility. What can happen is that by this debate and by encouraging others in the long term we can prevent a certain amount of crime, though not all

849
of it. If we can do that over a period of years, we can achieve but a fraction.
I believe that education can play the major part in the start of a child's life. I believe that the meeting of parents and teachers and police in the schoolroom for lectures, even once a month, can do good. I believe that the schoolteacher can get at the child if politics leave the schoolteacher alone so that the schoolteacher can discipline that child. If the child has no discipline, he is on the way to crime. We all know that in one way or another. I am not against the cane. We heard last week of certain of our noble friends who had quite a number of doses of it, and they seemed to be quite well and quite disciplined in your Lordships' House. It never hurt them, but it brought them to their seats. I believe that education is your number one, with parents and police being called in, and the lectures that are already given must be kept up in every way.
We pass legislation in this House, in Parliament, and we hand it over very gently and cunningly to the police, whereupon the next moment we snipe at the police. We tell them that we do not like them because they put a parking ticket on our car. We are at them all the time. Therefore, I feel that it is time that Parliament boosted the morale of the police in every way. We should stop this sniping, and we should for once consider the job of the police. You and I, my Lords, pass legislation, and then the police have to carry it out. They have to deal with the criminal, whoever he or she is, and as I have already said, the criminal is now very sophisticated.
As I said in a recent debate, I believe very firmly that the police should be paid properly for the job they do. Their job is to uphold law and order, and to protect every man, woman and child, enabling them to go about their duties throughout this country at any time of day. I believe that the police should be paid properly. I want to ask the Government whether they know how many police officers have been injured this year or within the past year. It has been brought to my attention that certain police officers are injured at night without this being recorded, and it is time that we knew about these men, who are in a very
850
dangerous front line, and who are generally beaten up by the younger generation.
I believe that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who said that the system of the policemen on the beat was the best way to counteract crime. I firmly believe this; I always have done. Today, young policemen will not go on the beat, or for them to do so is regarded as being unproductive in one way or another. In the old days the policemen on the beat knew where crime was going to start, and sometimes he knew roughly what time it would start—
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will allow me to interrupt, I should like to point out that surely the average young policeman in this country likes nothing better than being out on foot. The only difficulty is that there are not enough of them to allow them to be employed in that way. I should not like the impression to be given that policemen will not go out on foot.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I apologise if I have given the wrong impression. I quite agree that the police are undermanned. I have probably used the wrong term regarding this. But I must say that when a young policeman, or any other young man, is asked to do a job he does not like night work as much as day work. That goes for society as a whole.
I turn now to the role of the public in this matter, and this is where I believe there has been another breakdown. The public do not want to know, unless it affects them. The tragedy is that where there has been an incident the public may read about it or hear about it, but very often they will not come forward to help the police. I believe that the public must be shown, through public relations, through the media, that their attitude to crime must be improved, and that they are needed as, perhaps, witnesses, and indeed to help keep down crime as a whole.
I now wish to refer to the panels mentioned by the noble Baroness. She said, I gather, that they were set up by the Home Office 10 or 11 years ago. Not many of us realise the work going on behind the scenes involving these panels. I note the great assembly of people involved here—trade unions, industry, and so on. I should like to feel that we will all hear

851
a great deal more about these panels, because I do not think that any of us know as much as we ought to know about them.
I come now to the question of the punishment fitting the crime. Here we have the real "nitty gritty." Today the criminal has got it far too easy, and it is time that he was adequately punished for what he has done. Many criminals come out of prison extremely fit only to go back into crime and to do a better job than the last time. We should now support the argument which was put up last week for the "glasshouse". I believe that every prisoner upon entering prison should go into a special "severe" wing for a few months during which he would have no television, no luxuries and would have to use only cold water. After experiencing that, a prisoner would say that he did not want to be in that special wing again. At present I believe the deterrent is not there.
I have probably said enough. I could say that the cane is ideal for the children, and that it must not be abolished. I think that politics must be kept out of the schools, so as to allow the school-teacher to deal with the youngsters, many of whom are playing truant far too often. If we take action in this regard, we could stop crime advancing in the 16 to 17 age group. If parents, church leaders, and school-teachers could get together with the police, I believe that much more could be done, and we could stop the rot which is taking place at the moment'
5.56 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I must apologise for appearing to speak out of turn. Somehow, my name failed to negotiate the usual channels. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Viscount when he says that the feeble members of the public are far too ready to pass by on the other side. We must be careful net to overlap too greatly the excellent debate we had last week, but like the noble Baroness, I could not help being reminded of a point made forcefully in that debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, when he said that the one thing which does not lead to crime prevention is swingeing sentences. This point was illustrated most graphically by Hugh Phillips in his very scholarly work entitled The Thames About 1740. in which
852
he points out that when the thieves were being publicly executed at Tyburn, for stealing perhaps no more than a bunch of ribbons from a draper's store, pickpockets would for certain be at work in the crowd which had gathered to watch the executions.
The noble Baroness said that crime prevention is everybody's business. It certainly is, and I suppose that it begins where the swag is, whether it is in a house, a factory, an office, or a shop. Lord Chief Justice Goddard used to speak with great authority upon crime prevention, as would be expected from one who used to spend his weekends reading the papers for a long list of criminal appeals which came up every Monday morning in what was then called the Court of Criminal Appeal. Lord Goddard used to ask why people, when they went to bed or went away, did not lock the inside doors of their homes as well as the outside doors. If that were done, then with a bit of luck the intruder would be confined to the one room he had broken into. Furthermore, he would be compelled to leave by the window, which he does not enjoy; he much prefers to walk out nonchalantly through the front door.
There is one further refinement which is necessary. It is not sufficient merely to lock the door. Resourceful thieves have a little gadget which they can insert into a keyhole from the other side, grab hold of the end of the key, and turn the key in the lock. Therefore, the key should be either removed from the lock, or, at least, left loose in the lock, so that any attempts to grab hold of it with an instrument from the other side will merely push the key out of the keyhole on to the floor.
Our ancestors, who were not fools, used to provide their windows with stout wooden shutters on the inside, which had a twofold effect: they kept the warmth in and they kept the burglar out. I am bound to say that, in these days of grant-aided improvements, I should like to see an arrangement whereby anybody who sought to fit shutters to his windows was given a grant to do so of up to half the cost if he was prepared to meet the other half. I do not think there is much hope of that at the moment, because I understand that you cannot get an improvement grant for any kind of insulation except in very

853
exceptional circumstances; but I have a suspicion that Government Departments tend to work in watertight compartments, and that if only the DOE and the Home Office could come together and consider the dual advantages of shutters inside windows then perhaps, between them, they would manage to persuade themselves that grants for this purpose really are worth while.
When it comes to mugging, what about the state of our street lights? I drive nightly through a new development area on the outskirts of one of our East Midland towns, and I would bet you anything you like that this evening I could take you to a point on one of those roads where there is splendid modern sodium street lighting but where a section of that lighting will not be working and there will be a pocket of total darkness. Of course, this is a heaven-sent state of affairs for the potential mugger. I have no doubt that, if an old lady is mugged there this evening, the lights will be working tomorrow; but one does not want to see tragedy happen in order to achieve that result.
The reason for this happening was all too evident this morning. When I drove through the same area at eleven o'clock this morning, there were two sets of sodium street lights shining brightly in broad daylight. The motorist who does not light up his car does not get very far before the police are down on him like a ton of bricks—and quite rightly so, too. But one wonders whether it is not time that the police were enabled to come down like a ton of bricks upon the local authority official whose job it is to see that the time-switches on the sodium street lighting are effective and working properly, because that contribution to road safety and to crime prevention is just as important as the motorist's contribution, which he is made to perform in no uncertain fashion.
Finally, shoplifting. I think there are two kinds of shoplifters. First, there is the lady who shoplifts a reel of cotton. She is a visitor to Britain; she turns out to be an African princess with £425 in her handbag; and one does not have much sympathy with her. But, secondly, there is the hard-pressed housewife, trying very hard to make both ends meet financially. She, I think, is entitled to say to the supermarket manager, "Lead us not
854
into temptation". In this connection, I should like to mention the practice, which seems to be quite common in supermarkets, of erecting inside the entrance a great barrier of attractive goods on shelves from the floor to the ceiling, thus compelling customers to walk right to the back of the store and right round the store, past all the attractive goods, before being able to get to the checkout and out of the supermarket.
I should think there must be a good many cases of people who, having a shopping list, could, if they were free to move about in the store (as they are, of course, free to do in many supermarkets), just go to the shelves where they know they will find the things they need. In this way they would not be compelled to go past all these attractive goods. There must surely have been cases where shoplifting could have been avoided had that policy been adopted: perhaps somebody more authoritative than I could approach the supermarkets about this particular practice, which seems extremely undesirable. I must apologise for a very miscellaneous ragbag of suggestions, my Lords.
6.5 p.m.
Lord HAYTER: My Lords, I suppose that if, for 45 years, you have served a family company making locks and safes, and that company has been working for about 160 years, you have to declare an interest in a debate on crime prevention; and I am the first to admit that if everybody was honest I should be a very poor man. I have also been, recently, the chairman of the British Security Industry Association, and it is about that, in particular, that I wanted to speak this evening. It was indeed confusing to have the debate last week on law and order. There was a commentary on it in one of our industry magazines, which said, I thought rather wittily:
"Have we not a situation where society, having failed to protect the individual, recommends him to look after himself, so that honest men now live behind bars whilst many criminals go free?"
On this analysis of crime prevention, my thoughts might differ slightly from those of previous speakers but not very much. I think crime prevention can spring from the criminal legislation and its enforcement (and we have talked about

855
that); it can spring from education and the country's traditions (and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has in particular mentioned the very valuable crime prevention panels); and it springs (nobody mentioned this in the debate last week, and it has been mentioned only peripherally tonight) from the various physical and electronic devices that exist in the security industry. There, we are talking about a huge range of products, from the simple lock on your gardener's shed to the sophisticated cash dispensers and cash-carrying trucks in the banks of this country.
I wonder whether your Lordships would accept from me three axioms. The first is that all security costs money, because in a perfect world there is no need for it. The second is that all security is proportionately better if built in at the time the building, the shop or the prison is put up, rather than added to it at a later date—and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, referred to that point. The third is that all security means inconvenience, without any exception at all. You cannot have a secure front-door lock without the inconvenience of having to get out your key, put it in and use it. So why do the public buy any form of security? Usually, of course, it is a matter of bolting after the horse has gone. We reckon that three out of every four safes in this country are 30 years old; and if it is your safe, or possibly your neighbour's, that is successfully attacked, then you think about buying another one.
Secondly, you might be influenced by the insurance company. This is so today much more than it was when I was a young man, when in a very rich house I once found a woman's pearl necklace kept in a bathroom cupboard—but it was insured. That was all that was necessary: it was insured. The insurance companies have become very aware of some of these problems, and I have no doubt have perhaps inconvenienced some noble Lords if they have had a multiplicity of valuables in their homes. But I think the insurance companies must move further downstream and apply to the house of the average man in the street some of the recommendations in the way of security. Thirdly, of course, the public buys security on the recommendations of the police, and particularly the crime
856
prevention panels of which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has been talking.
Supposing, then, you have decided that you are going to buy something, how do you know what to buy? How do you know what is a good safe or a bad safe, a good alarm system or a bad one? The answer to that, curiously enough, is also 10 years old. The British Security Industry Association was set up just then. We have 63 members, covering 90 per cent., by volume, of the turnover of the industry. We have 32,000 employees in the marketing and servicing side. I am not counting anything on the manufacturing side.
In this industry there are four sections; and the one which I think may be of interest to your Lordships more than any other concerns alarms. This industry has grown dramatically. So much so, that in the last three years 20,000 new alarms have been put in in each of those years. In fact, there are about 350 alarm companies but—and this is the but—of those, only 100 are what are called approved installers. Some six years ago there was set up an association called the National Supervisory Council for Intruder Alarms. No influence is applied to this by the security industry. It was set up by the insurance companies with the consent of the Home Office and other interested bodies. That council is the body which approves installations. They have the power to go in at any time, with the owner's consent, to inspect these alarms.
My Lords, you end up with 100 approved installers and 53 of these happen to be in the security industry association that I was telling you about. There is no need for me to tell your Lordships that there are two different kinds of alarm. There is the audible alarm, the one that goes off to the neighbours' annoyance if it is not properly set up; and there is the secret alarm which goes back either to the police force or to the central station. Again, this causes great annoyance if it is not efficient. There are two points there. The first is the question of key-holding. It is absolutely essential in the interests of crime prevention and in the interests of the public that there should be a proper key-holding system for that alarm or that building. In the case of a company, that means that you probably do it using a warden system

857
and, in the case of a private individual, you trust a co-operative neighbour. The second point is that anyone can invent an alarm system; it is the easiest thing in the world. The difficulty is to make it go off when you want it to go off and not to allow it to go off when you do not want it to go off. And that costs money. Unless there is some quid pro quo from the insurance company in relation to that extra expense involved in getting a good alarm system, you will have the problems of the false alarms which have been referred to.
An analysis of this was made by Loughborough College some four or five years ago in the Birmingham area. There were four causes of false alarms and they were equal in number, 25 per cent., roughly speaking, equal. First, the wrong type of system had been put into a place; second, there had been bad servicing. My industry would have to accept responsibility for both. Third, the user had made a mistake which set the alarm off—and that is common. Fourth—and perhaps it is not as prevalent today as it was then—was a Post Office line fault running from the alarm system to the central station.
We have mentioned the question of wardens in connection with alarms. These are two other sections of the same industry. One is the guard and patrol angle, hiring a warden to guard and patrol and prevent crime; the other is the transport of cash. In these days, very few companies would put at risk their own employees to get cash from the bank if the figures involved were of great consequence. The other advantage of wardens is that not only can they prevent crime but they can also detect fire because—and I do not know whether your Lordships know this—the best fire detector is the human nose. If you have a warden on the premises, he can spot that quicker than any form of fire detection. I should add on the transport side—and you read about it so often in the papers—the great work that is done by the cash carrying companies. Is it not extraordinary that only about 20 years ago if £20,000 was lost in a cash-carrying episode, that would have made headlines? Nowadays, a small paragraph covers a quarter of a million pounds taken from a badly-run cash transport organisation.
The fourth section—and I do not want to devote any great time to this today—
858
is that of safes and locks. The difficulty is that you never know what you have bought until the safe or lock has been attacked. It is a curiosity of this industry throughout the world that most of the safe-making companies are over 100 years old. I do not know quite what the explanation is. Maybe it is because they are honest and trusted. What you are doing if you are selling locks and safes—and I should love to have the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on my staff; for he is an excellent lock salesman—is just to push the burglar next door. It is an anti-social device. So long as you get the right lock or right safe in your place, what happens next door, many people say, is not your responsibility.
Running through this whole industry is the question of employees and the probity of employees, the private armies that the noble Baroness referred to. That is a big issue. I make two points there. First, it is very rare for these employees to run foul of the police because, obviously, they are the first to be suspected. Of course, each company in the association that I have been talking about takes great care in choosing the people who work for them. The other point—and it has not been mentioned recently in this country—is whether there should be a form of licensing either for the industry or for the individuals. It so happens that the Home Office is not very keen about it and, certainly, the industry is not keen about it. It would be clumsy and there would be a number of loopholes. It has been done and is now in force in New Zealand but the issues are so much smaller there than here. I should like the Home Office and other bodies to think about a charter for the British Security Industry Association and to make sure that it becomes a professional body, with its acknowledged standards and ethics improved, to look after this aspect of the business.
I just note, on the matter of the police, that our industry's relationship with them is excellent. Like other speakers, I have the greatest admiration for the work they do, not only in their ordinary work of detection and in a preventative role; but — and this is the point which has been touched on but without quite the emphasis I am putting on it—more and more police are now finding that they have got to concentrate their limited resources on public order duties and the investigation of

859
serious crime. This is due to the diminution of numbers which has been already referred to; but you can get an instance of what I mean from a recent article in the Financial Times saying that the police are no longer in a position to give insurance companies particulars of a burglary loss. They have not enough police to get around; and so from them it falls on to other bodies to prevent crime in the context in which I am talking. I think that that comes from a much closer alliance between the industry and the insurance companies.
The director general of this association says that no one wants to pay for crime prevention until they are forced to do so; but a financial advantage or an inducement can work wonders. I feel that the real backing of insurance companies for companies and individuals who buy the right kind of security, whether alarms, safes, locks or cash carrying—and not just an alarm but approved alarm, and not just the physical product but the right one for the job—is that if the insurance company sees that the company or the householder has done that, then they should give to the company or individual an adequate rebate on the premium for the insurance for playing their proper part in crime prevention. If there is anything in the three points I have made: a charter for the association, closer links with the insurance company in really making them insist on good physical and electronic devices; and, thirdly, giving adequate rebates on the premium, then I think three things would happen: we will be raising the standards throughout the whole industry—and, if you are worried about that phrase "private armies" then so be it, we must raise those standards—we also will bring a realism into the insurance world, with happier results for them; and, above all, we would be lightening the load on the police and bringing peace of mind to the public who take these matters so much more to heart.
6.20 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give you as many tips on the anti-burglar front as the noble Lord who has just sat down. But I can say that I had reason to buy a small safe over the past year; it happens to have his family firm's name on it and it has not
860
been broken yet! I should, however, like to add one thing to the various protective devices that the noble Lord mentioned, and it is the cheapest of them all. That is putting a floodlight on the front of your house, my Lords, and maybe one on the rear, especially if there are easy approaches for any malefactors.
I am very glad that the noble Baroness raised this question again. Of the different branches of policing, preventive policing is the Cinderella, but I believe that it is coming into its own now—and not before time. For most of us, preventive policing implies public co-operation—that is, co-operation in the task of helping in the "probability of detection". I think that those were the words which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, used in our last debate. And is a very appropriate day for us to be debating this subject because last Friday in Cardiff the Prime Minister referred to this when he opened a police station, and I am glad to quote some of the things he said and to support them. There were some other sour things he said over the week-end about which I am not so enthusiastic, but when he was opening this police station he said:
"But I want to emphasise that the police cannot do the job of protecting us on their own. They need active help from parents, teachers, community leaders, social workers—every member of the community has a part to play if the tide of crime is to be rolled back. I know that the police rely on this kind of support in their work and I am sure that it will be forthcoming".
Those are very good words at this time and I am particularly pleased to have read them to you because I tried to say the same thing in our debate last Wednesday.
If anything is obvious about policing today it is this need for right minded people to help the professionals so far as they are able. Much police work is so skilled and so exacting that it is beyond any but the professionals; but much is not so exacting. It needs some training but that is not beyond most of us; even people of our age who are reasonably fit, and those who are younger, too. It needs common sense and experience of handling people. If such people volunteer to help the police, they must be given a welcome.
I hope that the police will feel that our recent debates here have been of help in enlightening the public about some of their problems because the public know

861
all too little about the difficulties the police are facing today. The police are amusingly and curiously suspicious about all and everything they lump together and call "politicians", and that covers nearly everyone in the public service who does not wear a blue uniform. As I say, their job is not well understood by the majority of our people and the two pages which appeared in the Daily Mail last Monday, must have been an eye opener for most of the readers of that paper. How bare the cupboard is when it comes to finding PCs and WPCs available for patrol duties at night! That story is not peculiar to that area, which I think was Vine Street. It could be repeated almost anywhere in any large town on many nights.
In conversation the other day, a friend living in the Clapham neighbourhood was speaking to me about the number of petty thefts in the neighbourhood, which are unfortunately going up, and not only during the school holidays but even on half holidays, and there are worse crimes such as breaking and entering. He was saying, too, how unhappy and unpleasant it was to notice the growing reluctance of people to come forward and tell the police what they had seen because in many cases they were frightened. The area in which this is happening is spreading across London. My friend said, "Why cannot we be given a lead as to how we can help the police?" He said that there would be many people who would respond if only the appeal were skilfully made. That was the situation reported to me in Clapham. I doubt if it was exaggerated and I am sure that something similar could be found in many other areas and not just in London.
Following up, I should like to say how glad I am that the Home Office appears to be giving such a good lead in this field. I wonder whether they have yet produced a good booklet, not just telling you how to lock a bicycle or secure the boot of a car, but saying what men and women of some capacity can do to help. In the counties, I hope that the police authorities will be given a rôle and given some encouragement by the Home Office because they can be a useful bridge between the police forces and the general public.
France is taking this very seriously at the present time. They have had a high level committee of inquiry set up by
862
the Minister of Justice which has covered this whole field. I will only quote two points from the summary. First, they stress the importance of small police stations and not just concentrating their police in large stations spaced widely apart. They want not only crime prevention panels locally but—and this may be the way that the French mind works—they recommend a central organisation which is prepared to give a lead and impetus to the movement, both at the force, or area, level and at the county level, and smaller. They are particularly anxious too that there representatives of the Bar and the local Press should be associated with these panels.
The alternative may be the continuing growth of private firms specialising in security work. When I say that, I do not mean electronic devices, safes and so on, but men employed by different firms who carry out semi-police work. Some may be very good, but I suspect that they do not all attain the same standard. I would deplore the growth of this movement if it were to continue. I would much prefer to see all of it come under the police, with those people who are taking part in it given something that they feel is really worth doing. Otherwise, they will drop away and we shall have made no progress. But we must make progress, and that means calling for the aid of men and women of goodwill, as was said more than once in our debate last week. Then, having achieved that response, we must give them something to do which they feel is really worth doing.
6.27 p.m.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to take part in a debate in which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, speaks; it is a special pleasure when she leads the debate. There is always some kind of gaiety in her treatment of any subject, however solemn. I noticed among her gaieties her use of the expression:
"Prevent us, oh Lord, in all our deeds."
That expression at prayer was one which my father found a great obstacle to any prayer of petition when he was at school. He said: "It clearly means, Oh Lord, please throw a spanner into our works and prevent us achieving our aim'". Yet again the word "prevent" has not

863
meant exactly what the noble Baroness tried to make us believe it does, any more than it did for my father.
I sympathise also with the noble Baroness that she had her subject down for debate in a clear field with debates on crime a long way behind. Then along comes a major debate labelled "Authority and the Law". Nobody speaks about authority, but everybody speaks about crime. Yet again, there is a slight deception in this debate because it started off as a debate on crime prevention and then the words were added a little later,
"with particular reference the work of crime prevention panels",
too late to stop me going a little wider, and the noble Baroness is agreeable that I should do so.
I should like to focus the major part of what I say on a part of the speech in last week's debate of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. I should also like to ask the Government whether they can answer questions on it, even if not today and if not by producing papers, at any rate in some form. The noble and learned Lord said that after almost a lifelong consideration of the problem of crime he had reached the conclusion that our best bet was to ensure that somebody thinks when he has done a job that he will be caught and punished—because that is the best deterrent of the lot. The noble and learned Lord quoted Sir Leon Radzinowicz as his authority, but he did not get that particular thought from Sir Leon's book, although he quoted the book, because he himself was saying the same thing rather more than a dozen years ago.
The noble and learned Lord gave certain particulars and, in this connection, my first question would be: do the Government agree that this is the best bet in a field where nobody has any certainty of any kind? To move on from that, I should also like to ask whether the Government agree with the figures given for expectation of being caught in col. 494 of the report of the debate that we had in this House on 1st March, 1978. The expectation in former times which was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, as "satisfactory" was of a more than 50 per cent. chance of
864
being caught. The chances now, according to the examples which he gave us, varied between 8 per cent. and 33 per cent. Do the Government agree that these are the present percentages and that unless those figures are drastically changed we cannot expect crime to diminish?
The noble and learned Lord went on directly to relate the detection of crime to the size of the police force. He made a direct link between the two, and so I would ask: do the Government agree with the figures that he gave in col. 494 where he said, I think, that, over about 14 years:
"crime has increased 400 per cent.; the police have increased 15 per cent.".
Is that true? Does it represent what I would imagine would be the full productivity of a smaller force, using this, that or the other device and not so many policemen? It is a tremendous reduction in the relationship between police numbers and crime, if the figures given are true and valid ones.
The noble and learned Lord welcomed the pledges made by Mr. Whitelaw, and possibly others, to increase the police force. Of course, we are all hesitant about what people promise to do when they are in Opposition, and he made quite fair in pointing out that, in many years of Government, the Party now in Opposition have not done what they say they are going to do next time. Therefore, I wait with the same apprehension as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, hoping that something more important will be found than paying more for the police. I have a fear that no Government will do it.
I think they will try to explain how other methods should work. One of the constantly recurring factors is that crime is somehow connected with poverty. During the 14 years of this rise in crime, I suggest that not only has crime risen by 400 per cent.—if that is a true figure—but that wealth has also risen by 400 per cent. and that crime today is a product of a wealthy society and not of a poor society. If we go on harping on poverty, we shall make very little progress. I have been in some of the poorest communities in the world, as I have said before, and there is practically no crime at all in them. Crime is a product of the wealthy society:

865
that is what we have to cope with. We have to deal with wealth and not with poverty.
Then we are told that unemployment is a factor. I deplore unemployment as much as anybody else, but I look back on the property that I have administered during my little span in Somerset, and I think about the monuments that are to be seen to the greater unemployment and poverty of the recent past. People put up enormous walls because in winter they were unemployed on the farms. For food, they would gather stones from the fields and make these great monuments on Exmoor—the tremendous fences which everybody now admires. They are like the Pyramids in their representation of dire poverty and unemployment. If people did not build those things, they could do nothing.
Surely, now, things are very different. The right to work is recognised and if men or women do not get work they can be given compensation in lieu. Not long ago I was interested to see that The Times had picked out of somebody's portfolio a number of families in dire need. Those families were visited and it was found that things were by no means calamitous: there may have been four or five children, but they were well dressed and all at school. Of course, that is not an ideal situation, but let us look at the past and at the progress which has been made. The right to work has been recognised and compensation is given in lieu if work is not available. There were some dreadful times in the past and I have spoken to people who lived through them—for example, there was a contractor who planted trees for one of my forbears, and when there was a frost lasting ten weeks he did not have anything and he did not get anything from anywhere else: he could not work. That is the type of poverty and unemployment from which we have sprung, and it is not all so dreadfully bad today. Even unemployment is not so bad.
I turn now to another matter which is constantly brought to our notice: that is, the question of housing. I spent some time—and it was one of the most enjoyable periods of my life—helping to run a boys' club in Bermondsey; and at that time people talked of the dreadful slums. Everybody spoke of slum clearance and the housing director talked of new plans
866
to provide more air and more space. More air and more space have arrived, with the assistance of Hitler, the doodle-bugs and other forms of destruction. Thanks to those things, the slums disappeared and beautiful buildings have taken their place. We have wonderful schools and there is a great deal more air and space; but people do not like the high-rise flats. The people who live in them are afraid, and they are afraid of their neighbours: they do not know them. There was a community feeling among those terraced slums. People knew everybody else and, from the point of view of protection, the terrace is a great obstacle to crime. The higgledy-piggledy council house estate is an absolute pleasure-ground for the thief and, as Bacon said about 400 years ago,
"Opportunity makes the thief".
There are some things on which I should have liked to dwell, which were said by others in this debate. I liked what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, about leading us not into temptation. It is true that unguarded property is a provocation to theft, and it is not always that one can get co-operation. If I have mentioned this before, I apologise. But there was a certain friar, who had charge of schoolboys, and he asked, I think, Marks and Spencer or Woolworth—I should hate to label anybody in particular—whether they would kindly leave watches, which were just inside the porch, further in and out of the way, because his scholars were stealing them. But they said "No". They did not like that. They held to the argument that what somebody can hold is already half sold. Some little jingle of that kind was their maxim, but it is not right.
On the other hand, there are other forms of argument in this line, and here I know that the noble Baroness agrees with me. When a judge says that a pretty girl who has been raped is largely responsible for being pretty and wearing a pretty dress, that is an absolutely intolerable argument and is totally unacceptable. So that one has to be careful. I never prepare a speech. I just go on talking for a certain time and then I see that it is time to turn off the tap, so I am turning it off.
6.42 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I apologise to the House for

867
rising without giving notice of my desire to speak, but there are occasions when a little spontaniety in our debates is justified. It is what one hears that may prompt some remarks which can be a more or less useful contribution to a debate. I regret that I was not in the House when my noble friend Lady Phillips opened the debate, but I have listened to the whole of the debate since. In the circumstances, I must be very brief.
I sometimes wish that we would not lump all crime together, and discuss it as if it were one kind of thing. It is many kinds of things, and I sometimes think that we ought to distinguish between one form of crime and another. I take, first, the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Long, who referred to discipline, education and so on. Like many noble Lords, I have lived long enough to see three generations of young people swept up in war. This is only the second generation of young people in my lifetime not swept up in war. I was in the Army at 17, and I came out at 22. That took care of my dispositions to delinquency.
I was subject, as were many noble Lords of my generation, to the disciplines, hardships and dangers of war. I was subject, as many noble Lords have been, to the discipline of a rigorous non-conformist home, with chapel twice on Sundays, Sunday school twice on Sundays, strict discipline in the home and no newspapers allowed in the house on Sundays. It was a God-fearing household. When you had been through that, you were then sent to the war to be slain, and people wondered what kind of life, what kind of country and what kind of beliefs they were inheriting, if that was how the world treated its young people.
I should also like to refer to what I often describe as the crime of protest. There are many crimes committed in forms of protest. Are hunt saboteurs criminals? Are animal liberation movements criminal? They are deeply moved by what they feel to be a corrupt society, and they will protest against it. What about Grunwick and the disorders, the violence, the attacks on the police and the breaches of the law? But that was organised by responsible trade union leaders and the Trades Union Congress. What are young people to think, when that
868
kind of demonstration can be organised day after day by responsible grown-up people, although if young people did it they would be accused of disorder and crime.
Let me now come to drugs. This afternoon we have read of very severe sentences being imposed on people who have been convicted of manufacturing cannabis. This is not the law of God. This is the law of society. Society has decided that cannabis is a dangerous thing, and that it is a discreditable occupation to manufacture or possess it. The tobacco trade is killing more people than drugs, but that is a socially acceptable trade. It is associated with sparkling streams, seductive women and strong-armed men of the Marlboro country. Smoking is the symbol of manhood, but 55,000 people clutter up our hospitals every year, dying in anguish from lung cancer. Nobody says that that is a crime.
In my boyhood, the brewing industry committed the biggest crime against a poverty-striken community of any element in society in our history. Yet the brewers are respectable people. They are allowed to offer their seductive opportunities to indulge in alcohol, and the media are used to indicate what a pleasurable occupation it is to drink your beer, encouraging more young people to be addicts to one form of drug or another. But if it is cannabis, then you must be sent down for 22 years.
Are these things rational? Have we got them rationalised, or are we just prattling along in the same old middle-class conventional attitudes to crime? What is crime, except misbehaviour; a refusal to comply with ordered society? Was my father a criminal, when he refused to pay the Conservative education rate in the early part of this century, because he was nonconformist and would not subsidise Anglican education? Was he a criminal when, in my boyhood, he went to prison for a fortnight every year, rather than pay? I regarded him as a hero. I have inherited some of my non-conformist tendencies from him. If I ever go to prison, it will be for the crime of protest. I am not in favour of law and order in the conventional sense that you must behave, even though society fails to respond to what you want it to do.

869
How many young people think that Parliament is irrelevant? It cannot keep pace with the changes that are being imposed on young people, and the violent adjustments that are necessary in a changing society. Many people do not know where they are. They are bewildered and looking around for signs of good behaviour, of good citizenship. But many young people believe that they are living in a corrupt society, and a corrupt society corrupts other people, and so it goes on. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, will not interrupt, because I am in full spate and will sit down in two minutes. I feel so strongly about this, and when I listened to this debate I felt that your Lordships were missing the point of what it is about. Therefore, I would urge your Lordships not to go on with this kind of conventional debate on law and order and crime, but try to sort it out and examine those elements in our society which are giving rise to so much discontent, and to a disposition to protest, to refuse and to reject the society in which people find themselves. My Lords, I have said enough.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I should have hated to interrupt the noble Lord's magnificent peroration, but I think I can say before the noble Lord sits down—
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I have sat down.
Viscount AMORY: —that he seemed to me to be saying that crime is misbehaviour. Surely that is not so. Crime is breaches of the law.
6.50 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think that I should hurriedly intervene. This debate began as an interesting discussion of crime panels and in its dying moments it has engaged the attention of a former Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party and a former Chancellor of the Exchequer who asked some rather deep philosophical questions which go beyond the narrow confines of my noble friend's Motion. I am quite sure that the two noble Lords who have just spoken will agree with me that we are very much indebted to my noble friend for having given us the opportunity to have this debate today. My noble
870
friend's Motion has enabled us to concentrate on what can be done outside the criminal justice system to deal with the problem of crime. Much has certainly been done to strengthen the police and to make sure that the law gives suitable powers to the courts to deal with offenders, but here we are concerned with the problem of preventing the occurrence of offences which is an altogether different question.
Rising crime inevitably is a serious problem. There is no panacea for it and it is a cruel deception to pretend that there is. This brings me to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Long, who, as always, spoke with moderation. However, the noble Viscount raised a number of questions which went outside the narrow terms of my noble friend's Motion. Some of those questions were raised during the debate we had last week on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and I should like to deal with one or two of them now.
The noble Viscount raised the question of the shortage of police. There is a shortage of police although, incidentally, not quite so serious a shortage as when the noble Viscount's friends were in Office in 1974. Both Governments have confronted this major difficulty. There are now about 7,500 more policemen than there were in March 1974, and in the Metropolitan Police district there are about 1,200 more. I say this not in any way to understate the problem. I agree with the noble Viscount that this is a real difficulty. By no means is it a nationwide difficulty. Quite substantial numbers of police forces are pretty well up to their establishments. This is a problem which affects big cities, and one or two county forces also suffer difficulties.
The noble Viscount made one other point with which I very much agree: that it is necessary for all of us to give support to the police. I agree with my noble friend, who mentioned the Grunwick picket lines and the large amount of comment in the newspapers about the need to support the police who are doing a difficult and dangerous job on behalf of the entire community. But there are other occasions when noble Lords can make a fairly direct contribution. May I give an illustration of what I mean by this. Last year we spent a great deal of time on the Criminal Law Act 1977.

871
During the course of the proceedings, a new clause was inserted at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. We spent a great deal of time on what is now Section 48 of the Act, a clause which gives power to make rules as to the furnishing of information by the prosecutor in criminal proceedings. One might perfectly naturally say, "What has that got to do with the police? I will tell the House exactly what I mean by it. When we had our discussion on this new clause, I pointed out that very substantial police resources would be involved if the House insisted upon writing this clause into the Bill. I resisted it on behalf of the Government because of the public expenditure implications. I am bound to say that I was a very lonely figure when I made these comments because all of the pressure in the House—quite reasonable pressure for reasons which I wholly understand—was in favour of writing into the Bill a provision which was going to have the most profound implications on police force resources.
A few days later I went to a large county police force outside London. They had been reading in the newspapers about this new clause and, quite bluntly, they were astonished to find that in a responsible House of Parliament their difficulties had, apparently, in no way been taken account of by anyone who had participated in that debate. May I emphasise once again that I say this not because I wish to underestimate in any way the value of a provision of this kind. However, I think it is right to emphasise to the House that there is at times—the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, touched on this point in his speech—a degree of incomprehension in the police force about the demands which are made in both Houses of Parliament for additional statutory responsibilities to be laid on the police at a time when, as the noble Viscount rightly said, there is heavy pressure on their resources because of the increased level of crime. When I was told this, I assured the police that I would report their views, and I must tell the House that it is a widespread view in the Police Service that this is so.
May I turn very briefly to another point which the noble Viscount made, and I am bound to say that here I part company
872
very substantially from him. It relates to the new view that the way out of our problem of increased crime in our society is to reintroduce the glasshouse in one form or another. I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has now joined us. I must say quite bluntly to the noble Viscount that this policy was rejected by two successive Conservative Home Secretaries: namely, by Mr. Maudling and the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley. A conscious decision was taken by them when they were at the Home Office that in the 1970s there was no advantage in persisting with a régime of this kind. It simply did not work. That is why they rejected it. May I say very seriously to the noble Viscount and his friends that they should pause long before they believe that this is a way to deal with the problem of some of these young delinquents.
I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has left us. I know that—given the fact that he, like me, has had responsibility for prison administration as a Home Office Minister—he would agree with me that the idea that there is some form of luxury régime in prisons, whereby prisoners spend all their time watching television and having a rather nice time, is very far from the truth. I have referred on a number of occasions in the past to the fact that there can be three men in a small cell in a rotting Victorian prison that is situated in one of our city centres. It is a sad sight and it is a very long way from the description applied by the noble Viscount, Lord Long, in his speech. I must repeat that we have one of the largest prison populations in Western Europe. Indeed, so far as I can recall, there is no country in Western Europe that has a larger prison population than our own. I do not believe that to return to some form of "glasshouse" régime, a régime which has been rejected by the Armed Forces, would be a way out of this problem.
A number of other points have been made in our debate today. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked me whether I took the view that certainty of detection was likely to be a far more substantial deterrent than anything else. I agree with the noble Earl. I, like him, heard my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner say this in the debate which we had last week. The noble Earl asked me about

873
the size of the Metropolitan Police Force. I should like to write to him, if I may. One point which is sometimes left out of account when discussing the situation in London is the very substantial number of civilians who now work for the police service and who were not so employed in the 1930s and earlier. I believe that a question on this subject was put down about a year or so ago by a noble Lord.
I am now in a position to give the figures. They represent a quite striking indication of the situation. In 1947, the number of civilian employees in the police force was 2,977. This number had risen to nearly 10,000 in 1957 and to nearly 20,000 in 1967. The number was over 34,000 in 1977. May I repeat that this does not in any way minimise the serious and significant manpower problem in the Metropolitan Police. It is just to give, I hope, a rather more balanced account than is sometimes given when there is discussion of these problems.
In addition to the speech of the noble Earl, we have had a number of other interesting speeches in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made a number of suggestions that I should very much like to consider. As he would realise, they go rather outside the confines of my own Departmental responsibility, but I should certainly like to study what he said and will indeed do so. The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, spoke with his great expertise of the security industry in this country and I think his was a very valuable speech indeed.
My Lords, I would now come, if I may, to the introductory speech made by my noble friend Lady Phillips. Certainly I should like to join with her in the tribute she paid to the work of the crime prevention panels. I think they do important and valuable work on behalf of the entire community and it is right that on an occasion such as this we should pay tribute to that work. As my noble friend said, there are about 150 of these panels in England and Wales. They undoubtedly have an important continuing role to play as a means by which local communities can help the police to deal with local crime problems.
The emphasis of their work is on helping people, at home and at work to take sensible precautions to avoid becoming
874
the victims of crime. The ways in which they have gone about this, I believe, demonstrate the imagination which one so often finds among volunteers with enthusiasm and commitment. They include publicity of different kinds, much of it as leaflets to householders, stickers on cars, competitions of one sort and another, with an emphasis on making school children aware of the need for crime prevention.
The targets of their activity have also been varied. To prevent burglary, advice has been given not only about the security of dwellings and the risks of leaving premises unoccupied, but also the precautions which can be taken against bogus callers, which is a substantial problem in many of our cities. The prevention of theft of and from cars has been another target of the crime prevention panels. This is especially important since stolen cars are often, inevitably, used for criminal purposes. There have been a number of schemes to prevent shoplifting, and "early warning systems" to safeguard against repeated cheque frauds, which again is a rapidly expanding area of criminal activity.
Panels have discussed with architects and local authorities the crime prevention aspects of design. Much quite interesting pioneering work in this respect has been carried out by the Westinghouse Corporation in the United States. Some of this I saw when I was in America. I think probably we still have something to learn in the area of constructing buildings in such a way that they are, to some degree at least, proof against some forms of vandalism. At least 90 panels have reviewed the problem of vandalism in their areas to see what preventive measures can be taken. Crime prevention panels have extensive contacts in the communities in which they work, but they also depend considerably and inevitably on the support which they receive from the police. The police can help to identify the problems in which the services of a panel may be used. And they can contribute expertise and resources to help carry out the action which may be necessary.
There are also, obviously, ways in which central Government can and do help. It was the Home Office Standing Committee on Crime Prevention, of which my noble friend is a member, which,

875
some 10 years ago, recommended the setting up of crime prevention panels. In the relatively short period of its existence the Standing Committee has made an important contribution to crime prevention. The fitting of anti-theft devices in cars, for example, owes a great deal to the efforts of this committee. Another useful suggestion was that of a security liaison office in particular industries. These enable an industry to co-ordinate its security efforts, and it has been shown that losses can be very substantially reduced in this way. The committee has produced a number of useful reports, one of which, called Protection against Vandalism, has made an important contribution to current thinking. More recently over 100,000 copies of a booklet giving examples of how security can reduce losses in commerce and industry were distributed to senior managers, who were encouraged to review the precautions which they were taking.
The Home Office also has a contribution to make in other ways. Over the last five years about £300,000 a year has been spent on crime prevention publicity. The most recent campaign encouraged people to protect their cars by locking them up; anti-theft devices are manifestly not a great deal of use if they do not. Two films on vandalism are being shown in the Granada television area in a pilot scheme which we are monitoring. The Home Office also gives support to publicity mounted by the crime prevention panels and by the police. An increasing proportion of the Home Office research effort is being allocated to projects designed to give lessons on crime prevention. The effect of car security devices has been reported on, and the effect of a publicity campaign is being evaluated.
I think there is a further way in which the Home Office can help; that is, by co-ordinating and disseminating information. This is done in a variety of ways. The activities of crime prevention panels, and other related developments, are circulated to panel members in a quarterly newsletter. For example, the Department of Education and Science has recently issued a leaflet suggesting possible ways of reducing damage caused by vandalism in schools and colleges. Ministers have held meetings with those who have the
876
task of controlling the ugly phenomenon of football hooliganism. In April last year my right honourable friend the Home Secretary called a conference of a large number of organisations concerned with vandalism, so that views and information could be exchanged.
I think this illustrates the support which the Government give to those in the community who are taking initiatives aimed at reducing crime. There are signs of increasing interest in crime prevention in the community as a whole, which cannot simply look to outside forces to control the level of crime in society. There are widespread voluntary efforts; for example, the work done by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, and I know that there are a substantial number of other schemes where involvement of the community appears to some extent to have reduced the crime problem. Indeed, the Government's inner cities programme has a hearing on this problem.
There is obviously more to crime than is to be judged from statistics. Paradoxically, crime prevention efforts can sometimes lead to increases in recorded crime, by encouraging individuals to take the problem seriously and to report crime to the police. This is why, to some extent at least, one has to be a little cautious about crime statistics in themselves—also, if I may say so, clear-up rates by the police; they are a valuable guide but no more than that. Too much significance should not be attached to them, because inevitably there is a great deal of scepticism among not all, but many police officers about the assumption by many people outside the Police Service that one has to have absolute acceptance of these figures. They are not so regarded by everybody in the Police Service. They give a general indication of the dimensions of the problem but no more than that.
Prevention was, of course, one of the first objectives of the early police forces. There is now considerable debate both within and outside the Police Service about that role. The work of the police in schools, with young people and on the development of good community relations—in addition to the free advisory service offered by police crime prevention officers—is all related to crime prevention in this broader sense. The police are

877
clearly in a unique position, with their experience of local crime problems, and the contact which they can establish with the community, to make a valuable contribution. I know from my visits to police forces and police training institutions that these aspects of policing are increasingly being emphasised and discussed in police training. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, alluded to that matter in his speech.
The Government will continue to give priority to maintaining the strength of the system for dealing with offenders. The police, the courts and other law and order services must be strong enough to meet the demands which we place upon them. We also have to recognise that the preventive effect of these services is, at best, uncertain, and that we all have to do what we can in other ways to reduce the demands upon them. Law enforcement is there when all else has failed. The burden on the system, and perhaps particularly on the police, is a consequence of society's own failures. When we next debate—as we are bound to do—the subject of crime, I hope that we shall remember how much effort is now being devoted to crime prevention and how this makes a real contribution to the welfare of society. If this debate has had that effect, it will have been well worth while.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should like to say that he made tremendous play of the astonishment of the police at not having been consulted about the Amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Wigoder, which was a very acceptable Amendment designed to secure that accused people should be given full information about the case that they would have to meet. Surely, when an Amendment is put down, a copy goes straight to the Home Office which has the opportunity to consult the police about the effect of the Amendment upon them and to state the view of the police, if necessary, when the Amendment is debated. Is not that the way in which the system is supposed to work?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if the Home Office were to try to consult the police about every Amendment put down to every Bill when it passes through Parliament I must tell the noble Lord quite bluntly that the system would
878
be a little overloaded. I thought it right to point out to the House—and I would be sorry if the noble Lord did not like this—that it is perhaps desirable, when there are loud cheers from all round the House when a noble Lord rightly, in my view, says that we must all support the police, to indicate that on some occasions they believe that many people in both Houses of Parliament, at a tune when there is increased pressure on their resources, do not pay as much attention to the views of the Police Service as some police officers believe they should. That was the point that I was trying to make which does not, in my view, appear to be unreasonable.
7.14 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I set out to draw attention to the work of crime prevention as opposed to the constant reiteration we have about punishment. I want to prevent people actually becoming criminals and I want potential victims not to become actual victims. I believe that I have achieved the object. I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for his very splendid contribution in which he underlined the work of crime prevention. I repeat that I hope that the Home Office will spend more money on public advertising, because I believe that a national lead would be very useful. I should like to thank all the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Lytton who always comes in so splendidly on this subject with his usual very pungent and forceful comments.
I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, who I understand specially delayed an engagement in order to take part in this debate. I hope that he did not think I was in any way criticising the security industries when I referred to them as "private armies". I have great respect for them especially now that I am working with the noble Lord. I was recently attending a conference at Aston University. I wanted to go into a room to sleep but the door had slipped and it took two men an hour to saw a panel out of the door in order for me to obtain entry. It seems to me that there must be some way to keep out thieves, even if it is simply by fixing modern doors which are obviously rather defective.

879
Today we have had something unique. We do not stress enough in society that people are actually working on the "positive". For every negative there is a positive. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who again, as always, has been indefatigable in his support for our marvellous police force. I am extremely grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I see a picture of the house of the future, with the floodlights playing on the shutters and the people inside busy checking the double locks and wondering whether anybody is actually going to approach them. How their friends would ever get in is a matter of interest.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, did not actually hear what I said, because I really did not say anything that I felt he would have contradicted. Of course, I know precisely what a criminal is—I have not been a magistrate for the length of time I have without being able to establish that the type of person he refers to is hardly ever referred to as a criminal. It always seems to me that perhaps I oversimplify this matter, but I would say to those who talk about our penal system—and I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is not present—that there is a very easy way to keep out of prison; that is, in fact, not to commit a crime.
It seems that in our society we have a very reasonable code of behaviour, but I should like to stress that it is about time that we spoke up with the ordinary people—"the goodies"—who luckily represent a much greater group of the community than the "badies". I gather that I had better withdraw the Motion or a large man will come tomorrow not to take me away but to deliver Papers! My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CYPRUS
7.17 p.m.
Lord SPENS Lord SPENS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are ready to take a lead in helping to restore normal conditions to Cyprus. The noble Lord
880
said: My Lords, six months ago I knew nothing special about Cyprus. I knew that we had British bases there; that it is an island which many people like to visit; that there had been serious troubles between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots, culminating with a landing of Turkish troops who are still there; and that there had been an archbishop who was both priest and political leader, but who had recently died. I believe that that is about all the "man in the street" knows about Cyprus.
Then, last November, I was asked to take an interest in what was happening to the Turkish Cypriots. I was invited to visit the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus. I spent four very full days there in December and I subsequently wrote a report which I have circulated to many of your Lordships here. The last debate on this subject took place on 14th June, 1976, when the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, asked a somewhat similar question to the one that I ask tonight, although his question was directed primarily at action through the United Nations. Nearly two years have passed. There has been economic stagnation on the island and the problem is still with us, although there are signs that further talks may get under way soon. I must, therefore, be careful what I say tonight, but I want to make it clear that the views I shall express are my own opinions as to how things may develop and may be helped to develop.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, I believe that we must look into the past in order to understand what is likely to be acceptable for any final settlement. I do not intend to delay your Lordships very long with this matter, but I want to mention very briefly five points. First, as stated by the noble Lord, there is the feeling of total insecurity by Turkish Cypriots as the result of the attacks on them in 1963, 1967 and 1974. Secondly, there is the failure of the Government of Cyprus to deal with the refugee problems of the Turkish Cypriots. There have been 25,000 refugees since 1963, and the fact is that that Government refused to supply the building materials required to rehouse those refugees but instead declared the materials to be of strategic importance and therefore prohibited. Thirdly, there is the ruling by the Government of Cyprus in 1964 which stopped the registration of any transfers of land to Turkish Cypriots.

881
Fourthly, there is the breakdown of the Constitution from 1964 onwards and the failure of the Guarantor Powers to prevent that happening. Fifthly, there is the fact that in July 1974 there were five days of brutal massacres of both Turkish and Greek Cypriots by Greek extremists under Sampson before the Turkish Army arrived to stop the fighting.
Let me examine those five matters very briefly because they are most important. The first is the insecurity of the Turkish Cypriots. That was adequately covered in the debate two years ago, but it must now be realised that that insecurity has vanished and, therefore, any final solution must not be such as to bring it back for Turkish Cypriots. They are now sitting behind a wall of 30,000 troops and are secure.
Secondly, there is the refugee problem of the Turkish Cypriots since 1963, which nearly trebled in 1974 with some 65,000 refugees to be resettled, many of them having been made refugees three times over during those 10 years. The failure of the Government of Cyprus to help them since 1963 does not now incline Turkish Cypriots to make more sacrifices to help Greek Cypriot refugees. Thirdly, there is the refusal since 1964 of the Government of Cyprus to allow registrations of property transfers to Turkish Cypriots. How can we now expect them to get very excited about Greek Cypriot property rights?
Fourthly—and I think that this is the most important of the five points that I have mentioned—there is the failure of the three Guarantor Powers to carry out their guarantee to preserve the 1960 Constitution. This rankles very deeply with Turkish Cypriots who regard the present Government of Cyprus as an unconstitutional Government and therefore illegal, especially when it holds itself out and is apparently accepted internationally as the lawful Government of the whole Island.
We accept our role as a Guarantor Power and that guarantee, set out in Article II of the 1960 Treaty, reads as follows:
"Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, taking note of the undertakings of the Republic of Cyprus set out in Article I of the present Treaty, recognise and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic
882
of Cyprus and also the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution".
That all comes in the same paragraph. The undertaking of the Government of Cyprus referred to in that paragraph, as set out in Article I of the Treaty, reads:
"The Republic of Cyprus undertakes to ensure the maintenance of its independence, territorial integrity and security, as well as respect for its Constitution".
How can Her Majesty's Government continue to regard the present Government of Cyprus as the legal Government when almost every Basic Article in the 1960 Constitution has been broken and in particular Basic Article No. 182, which reads
"The Articles or parts of Articles of this Constitution set out in Annexe III hereto which have been incorporated from the Zurich Agreement dated 11th February, 1959, are the Basic Articles of this Constitution and cannot, in any way, be amended, whether by way of variation, addition or repeal"?
That is the situation of the Constitution of 1960. It has been broken almost completely by successive Governments of Cyprus. There are no Turkish Ministers in the Government as suggested in one of the Basic Articles; there are no Turkish Members in the Legislative Assembly which is another of the Basic Articles; there are no Turkish public servants, which is another of the Basic Articles; and there is now no constitutional court to decide whether the Constitution is right or not.
My fifth point was about the five days of slaughter before the Turkish Army came in. During that time Greek extremists, led by Sampson, were slaughtering the supporters of Archbishop Makarios as well as the Turkish Cypriots, and burying many of them in mass graves. Turkish Cypriots now believe that the great majority of the 2,000 missing Greek Cypriots went missing during those five days and that the Turkish Army has no responsibility for them.
So much for the past. Although the overall situation has not changed very much, a number of developments have occurred which must affect any final solution. I think that the most important was the final meeting between Archbishop Makarios and Mr. Denktash on 12th February 1977 in the presence of the Secretary-General of the United Nations Organisation, at which four guidelines

883
were agreed between the two leaders for the negotiation of a final settlement. These guidelines read as follows:

"1. We are seeking an independent, nonaligned, bi-communal Federal Republic.

2. The territory under the administration of each community should be discussed in the light of economic viability or productivity and land ownership.

3. Questions of principles like freedom of movement, freedom of settlement, the right of property and other specific matters, are open for discussion taking into consideration the fundamental basis of a bi-communal federal system and certain practical difficulties which may arise with the Turkish Cypriot community.

4. The powers and functions of the Central Federal Government will be such as to safeguard the unity of the country, having regard to the bi-communal character of the State".

Noble Lords will note the use of the words "Federal Republic", throughout those guidelines.
Since 1976 some 65,000 Turkish refugees have now been re-settled, many of them in properties formerly owned by Greek Cypriots. I do not believe that the Turkish Cypriot authorities will ever agree that these people should be turned out from their homes once again. Other happenings include the death of the Archbishop and the recent changes of government in Turkey. With regard to the former, perhaps we may hope for a less intransigent attitude to a final negotiation; that is certainly likely to be the case in regard to the change of government in Turkey.
These are points of progress. However, during this period, the so-called Government of Cyprus has taken some extreme actions to the detriment of the Turkish Cypriots by declaring the ports of Famagusta, Kyrenia, and Karavostassi and the new airport at Ercan to be illegal ports of entry to the Island. Because that so-called Government continues to be recognised internationally these declarations are taken seriously by other governments.
I have here a copy of the translation of a letter circulated by what I think is the Dutch equivalent of our Shippers' Council to all its members and dated 31st October 1977. It reads in translation:
"I herewith inform you that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus has drawn the attention of the Dutch Government to the fact that, in spite of the Resolution of the United Nations regarding the termination of foreign intervention
884
in Cyprus and the withdrawal of all foreign troops, still about 40 per cent. of the Cypriot territory is being held occupied by Turkish troops.
"In connection herewith, the Cypriot ports situated in the relevant area Famagusta, Kyrenia, Karawastassi, will remain closed to all ships, cargo and persons and the use of these ports will be considered illegal and be punished accordingly".
How can a government which has no authority over 40 per cent. of the island make such a declaration?
The Turkish Cypriots are working very hard to revive the economy of their area and are determined to do so, despite all attempts by the Greek Cypriots to prevent them. They are enthusiastic and capable, but they need help. They are very short of foreign currency because the Central Bank is on the Greek Cypriot side, and, even when they get a share of any foreign aid, they do not benefit from the use of the foreign currency. There are British banks in the north, but they will not perform a proper banking function because of their fear of reprisals by Greek Cypriots against their branches in the south.
I am still awaiting a reply from the Minister for Overseas Development—and I do not expect the noble Lord the Leader of the House to know anything about this—to a letter which I sent direct to the Minister on 16th January, suggesting that there was a precedent for giving aid directly to the Turkish Cypriots and not through the so-called Government of Cyprus. This is written into the 1960 Constitution in regard to certain Turkish municipalities, of which Famagusta is one. I shall not go into details about it. Sufficient to say that the interim reply from the Minister says that I raised a number of legal points which are under consideration. Need it really take so long as from 16th January to 8th March? I do not know. Meanwhile, Famagusta itself is in urgent need of assistance on matters of refuse disposal and water supply; needs which, if they are not met very quickly, may well lead to serious epidemics this summer.
I give one final fact before I come to the possible solutions to this problem. It is a fact that I believe should be very strongly stressed and it is this: apparently there has never, throughout the period of Cypriot independence, been a commercial partnership between any Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot principals. My Lords, just think about that. There they have been, living side by side for years,

885
and yet they have never got into such a relationship as to become partners in any economic venture, not even in the professional field of medicine.
A final solution could be achieved quite quickly, provided both parties—and I emphasise "both"—were ready to compromise from their present positions, the Turkish Cypriots by giving up some of the territory they occupy and the Greek Cypriots by giving up their claims to return to their properties in the north. I believe that the sticking points on the side of the Turkish Cypriots are these: first, they will not ask any of their resettled refugees to move again; secondly, they will not allow many Greek Cypriots to establish themselves in the north of the Island. On the other hand, they may well be persuaded to hand back Varosha to the Greek Cypriots—and that is an area with some 40 hotels and, I believe, 4,000 dwelling houses which are empty at the moment and going to rack and ruin for lack of maintenance—provided satisfactory arrangements are made for the security of the Turkish Cypriots in the Famagusta area.
But, primarily, they will only agree to a settlement on the basis of a semiautonomous Turkish Cypriot administration for the north of the Island, which, inside a loose federal structure, will hand over very limited powers to a future federal government, and those powers will chiefly be involved with foreign affairs. It is no use the Minister of State, Mr. Frank Judd, advising Mr. Denktash—as he was reported as doing in Monday's Daily Telegraph, although it may be an erroneous report— "not to stake his claims too high on the administrative aspect".
That is what this negotiation is all about. Turkish Cypriots will not go back to the 1960 Constitution. Even Makarios agreed that the future organisation should be a "Bi-communal Federal Republic", and nothing short of that will satisfy the Turkish Cypriots. Nor, I believe, will they compensate Greek Cypriots for any losses of property—they have lost enough of their own over the years in the south: 103 villages in 1963. But they will compensate foreign owners of properties in the north. On the other hand, I believe that they want to remain independent of Turkey and to be
886
relieved of the pressures arising from the presence of a large Turkish Army on their part of the Island.
I come now to the basis of my Question, and I do so with the knowledge that there is still, despite our failures as a Guarantor, a very large fund of goodwill towards us among Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus. I believe that our responsibilities towards Cyprus are nearly, if not quite, as great as they are towards Rhodesia. After all, we took over Cyprus from Turkey 10 years before Cecil Rhodes was granted his charter to start the settlement of Rhodesia; and although there has been no UDI in Cyprus, there has been a monstrous erosion of the 1960 Constitution which we had guaranteed to maintain.
Moreover, we are still enjoying, as one Cypriot told me—I cannot remember whether he was a Turkish Cypriot or a Greek Cypriot—the fruits of our sovereign bases. I should like to see our young and energetic Foreign Secretary go on his travels again, as soon as the expected offer from the Turkish Cypriots has been studied. I believe that pressure from us—the third party to this affair—might well tip the balance towards reaching agreement on a solution. And who knows, there might even be the opportunity for the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, to take on a role similar to that of his appointment in Rhodesia; namely, to preside over a transitional period while a new federal Government is being established and Turkish troops withdrawn.
Meanwhile, there are actions which I should like to see Her Majesty's Government take, irrespective of any negotiations, which may, and probably will, drag on for a long time. I should like to see Her Majesty's Government declare that the airport at Ercan is free and should be recognised internationally, provided that it meets international standards, which I believe it does. Similarly, I should like to see Her Majesty's Government declare that the sea ports in the north are open to shipping of all countries; in other words, to declare that the present Government of Cyprus have no jurisdiction in the north.
I should like to see some immediate sent to Famagusta, using if necessary course I suggested in my letter to the

887
Minister for Overseas Development; treating it as a Turkish municipality under the 1960 Constitution. I should like to see the British Council and relief organisations told that they can deal directly with the Turkish Cypriot Administration. Finally, I should like to see Her Majesty's Government warn the present Government of Cyprus that, unless they drop their hostile actions against the north, and if they procrastinate too long in the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government will withdraw recognition of that Government.
I believe that, if Her Majesty's Government were to take these actions, it could safely be left to the enterprise of the Turkish and Greek Cypriots to bring about an economic recovery in Cyprus. I therefore beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are ready to take a lead in helping to restore normal conditions to Cyprus.
7.43 p.m.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, this is an opportune time for the noble Lord, Lord Spens, to ask this Question because I believe a great many people are wondering whether the Government are indeed going to take a lead in helping to restore normal conditions to Cyprus. The noble Lord clearly told us of many of the problems of Turkish Cypriots in his view, but I will not follow the exact detail of his argument.
The land called Cyprus is an island which has been placed by geography at the crossroads of the civilisations of Europe, Asia and Ancient Egypt where races have always met yet have never really mingled. Those are the words of Sir Harry Luke, an ex-Governor of the island, who went on to say that it has the longest political and cultural history of the British Commonwealth, longer than Malta, Ceylon or India, and of course it has had over 30 different rulers and régimes since 1184.
Historically, I think it is true to say that the Turks and Greeks have had a natural hatred for one another, so it is naturally difficult to get them talking together. In more recent times, murders, burnings, rapes and lootings, especially by extremist groups, have taken place and have affected not only Greek and Turkish Cypriots but also the British soldiers, whose rôle was purely to keep the peace between the rival factions within Cyprus. I think it is true
888
to say that faults can be laid at the door of both sides and of course locally some of the crimes have been given importance out of all proportion to their seriousness due to the often rural community nature of many of the local inhabitants and the personal implications for individual families. There are very few families who have been spared all problems.
The Greek Cypriots have always been in the majority and Enosis, or union with Greece, has been an undercurrent of feeling which has occasionally erupted with rival Greek factions being strongly in evidence. I think everybody knows that, in 1959, in Zurich, a major decision was made by the three Powers guaranteeing the island's future, but who knows now what that piece of paper is worth? The Guarantors knew then of the difficulties when they signed and the British certainly realised that their rôle was as a buffer between two antagonistic nations. Since that time many things have happened. There has been the long period of minor aggression between the two sides with possibly the Greek Cypriots as the more energetic ones, continually doing things to discourage and annoy the Turkish Cypriots who were in a permanent minority, and this policy was to prove unacceptable in the long run. Then, when Mr. Sampson organised his coup, it became apparent to the Turkish Cypriots that their somewhat limited aspirations were at stake, and so the Turkish troops were called in.
The Turkish invasion has naturally been scorned by the whole world, and although the Turkish Cypriots, backed by vast forces of Turkish troops, now hold about 40 per cent. of the island, their prospects for international currency, aid, tourism, air travel and even trade by sea are, to say the least, very limited. This inconvenience could, one would hope, be a stimulus and incentive towards the bargaining table, but so far it appears that, although the Greek Cypriots have offered several concessions, the Turkish ones are still awaited. However, after all this time, it is gratifying to find that the Turkish plan is being looked at by the Turkish Prime Minister now with a view to its being made public at the United Nations very soon.
But it is almost a year since the last Greek Cypriot proposals, and the permanent displacement of 200,000 Greek

889
Cypriots from their property leaves some balance to be redressed. No doubt a solution will be very hard to find, for both sides will find it hard to swallow due to the years of conflict and the bitter feelings between them. Both sides are being very obstinate about recognising the other's veiwpoint. The Turkish Cypriots are more worried about their own security than almost anything else, and perhaps this is because they are more by nature the tillers of the land and have not the regular know-how to set up a business quickly in a new area. Their distrust of the Greeks is of very long standing.
There are many people who say that the Greek Cypriots have brought the situation on themselves due to their consistent harrying of the Turkish community over a period of years. Even though I believe there is some substance in this accusation, I feel that the matter goes a great deal deeper, and it is no good raking continuously over the past. A situation exists now and, so long as one bears in mind the main historical innuendoes, that present situation is the one that we must deal with. Otherwise, the historical factors can sometimes blur the problems which we are facing today.
Apart from the domestic problems which may or may not affect other countries, there are various external factors which must be considered. There is NATO, our ultimate bulwark against communist aggression. The Eastern flank has been put in jeopardy by the conflict between Greece and Turkey and, of course, between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots. This is no trifling matter; it has a distinct bearing on the ultimate growth of our potential enemies and a bearing on our own defence structure and it must not be underrated. Secondly—and here I am looking at the problems and rights of many people, not least the British nationals who have lived or have property in Cyrpus—there is the weighty problem of compensation, which is essentially one of property. It is a problem which must necessarily take second place to the problems of settlement and the main problem of basic agreement between the two sides in Cyprus.
When it is agreed what the compensation is, there is the problem of the currency in which the payment will be made. Some people think that the Turkish currency
890
is a little bit spongy, and yet this is one of the most likely currencies that will be used. Her Majesty's Government have a clear duty to establish the facts so that the many individuals involved will get proper financial compensation which they deserve. Then there is the EEC agreement on trade with Cyprus and the duties and levies involved. It can be said that the Council of the EEC has been dilatory in its recommendations, but it has been very difficult to make decisions in the current situation.
So perhaps I can come to the good news. I am sure that all Members of this House have welcomed the forthcoming talks this Friday and Saturday between the Turkish and Cypriot Prime Ministers in Montreux. We are all aware of the great void left by the death of President Makarios last August, and of course there have been varying interpretations put on the talks between President Makarios and Mr. Denktash. But at least they were talking and we hope that there will be more frequent discussions in the future between the opposing factions.
We must also welcome the discussions only last month initiated by my noble friend Lord Bethell between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders in this country and hope that some really positive results will be forthcoming from that in the near future. But surely as one of the Guarantor Powers we have an obligation to do something positive while the other two guarantors are so far apart. We are in a position of sorting out, as a kind of uncle, the problems of two rather spoilt children, and as such we have a duty to give a very strong lead. During the past 12 months there have been many informal discussions and visits by both private individuals and the odd Minister, but they have all taken place very quietly. What are the possibilities of making more of a public display of interest, shown throughout the Western World, in the repercussions of any long-term lack of agreement between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots? If we were to propose our recommendations more forcefully, would we not make the two sides realise that we have their interests at heart and want a solution as soon as possible. It is certainly not a Party matter, because all people want a solution even if there are different ways of finding one.
I must ask Her Majesty's Government three questions, of which I have given

891
prior notice: first, what have they done to pursue positive discussions between Greek and Turkish Cypriots? Secondly, what are they doing to promote active relations between Cyprus and the EEC? Thirdly, what steps are they taking to encourage the Greek Cypriot Government to initiate a system of channelling aid for the benefit of both communities? We all know that it is useless to dictate to either side, but in the final analysis any solution relies on the good will and responsible bargaining and concessions of both sides before anything can move at all. This climate is certainly one which must be developed carefully and with great tact.
Perhaps the many official visitors to this island have been too polite and too concerned with fact finding rather than spelling out strongly the possible outcome and consequent problems if the situation is not sorted out very soon. We eagerly await the comments and answers of the Lord Privy Seal who will hopefully tell us of the lead which we are taking and will take when it is clear, after this weekend, that there is some form of agreement between the Turks and the Greeks. If this happens, we look to the Government to spell out loudly and clearly that any discussions are very welcome and offer to play a major role in settling the muddled affairs of Cyprus.
7.54 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for raising this important matter this evening. I have also had the privilege of reading the very interesting report which he prepared after his visit to the Island. I am sure that the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that in the course of his remarks he appeared to lean rather heavily on the Turkish side of the argument. I do not myself wish to support one side or the other. I believe it is true that the Turkish Cypriots have many grounds for complaint in the period before 1974, but there are certain facts which we cannot ignore; for example, the noble Lord complained that there were no representatives of the Turkish Cypriot minority in the institutions of government, but in December 1963 the Turkish members of the House of Representatives withdrew; in January 1964 the Turkish Vice-President resigned. They may have
892
felt that they had very good reasons for taking these actions, but one can scarcely complain of lack of Turkish representation in the institutions of Government if, of their own choice, they have withdrawn from them.
We cannot ignore the fact that there was a Turkish invasion in 1974 which resulted in the occupation of 40 per cent. of the territory of the Island, and that, although the Turkish Cypriots represent only 18 per cent. of the population, this invasion meant the introduction of troops numbering 40,000, of whom some 30,000 still remain. Then there has been an economic stagnation in the zone occupied by the Turkish forces, and this has been recently underlined in articles in the Financial Times and the Guardian. Also, and I do not think there is any doubt about this, there has also been some introduction into the Turkish-held area of people from Turkey who were never before residents of Cyprus. There has been a rigid partition of the Island and virtually a separate State established. Then there is the question of refugees. There have been refugees on both sides, but it is estimated that there were 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees.
It seems to me that the problems remain largely the same as they were when we discussed the matter on 14th June 1976— nearly two years ago—at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon. These are the issues as I see them—as I saw them then and as I think the House saw them then. What amount of land should the Turks give up? What amount of land will they give up? How many of the refugees can be re-established in their homes? How distinct will the two communities be? Will there be any intermingling between the communities which seems desirable in a State if it is to remain a unified State? How rigid will the Turks be about that? Will there be a unified economy? Will it really be one country? We know that the concept of a bi-zonal communal federation is accepted, but how much power will there be at the centre? What about the balance at the centre? Will there be parity, as I believe the Turks would like, although they have only 18 per cent. of the population, or will there be some other distribution?
Two years ago we spoke of the European Economic Community and the Commonwealth

893
playing a significant part, and the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, agreed that this was a desirable outcome. Perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be able to tell us, as indeed he has already been asked, how far the United Kingdom, the Nine and the Commonwealth have been able to work together to seek a solution since we last debated this matter.
Dr. Kurt Waldheim, Secretary-General of the United Nations, has continued his efforts. In January/February 1977 the new guidelines which the noble Lord, Lord Spens, read out were established and there were talks between Archbishop Makarios and Mr. Denktash. In the sixth round of communal talks which followed between 31st March and 17th April 1977, a Greek plan was put forward on behalf of the Greek Cypriots which suggested that 20 per cent. of the territory of the Island should be in the administration of the Turkish community, and a map was produced showing the views of the Greek Cypriots as to exactly where the boundaries should be and where the 20 per cent. of the territory should be. They reckoned that 120,000 of the refugees could go back under Greek Community control as a result of their plan, and that the others could either go back under Turkish rule, or remain where they were, with compensation.
On the other side, the Turks spoke of a federation by evolution, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Spens—a very loose kind of association, the exact nature of which has not yet been specified. According to Archbishop Makarios—and I do not think that this has been denied—the Turkish Cypriots wanted to retain 32·8 per cent. of the territory, as against the 20 per cent. which the Greek Cypriots suggested they should have. But there was no Turkish map showing exactly where the Turkish Cypriots thought the boundary should be. There was no clear indication of the powers that they thought the federal government should have when the new bi-zonal federation was established.
However, since that time—and I think it fair to say that discussions petered out because of the lack of a concrete Turkish plan—there has been a general election in Turkey, and a change of Government, and in recent weeks we have had the promise from Mr. Denktash to let the
894
United Nations and Dr. Waldheim have their new proposals. I understand that these proposals will be available any time now. There has been some talk about the possibility of a breakthrough here, and indeed I hope that that will be so. But I notice that both the Greeks and the Greek Cypriots are, inevitably, doubtful at this stage that these proposals will show any advance on the position which has been taken up previously by the Turks. But at any rate, we are promised that the proposals will be concrete.
There is a fear on the part of the Greeks, both in Cyprus and in Greece, that the United States Government may be prepared to persuade Congress to ratify the US-Turkish Defence Agreement before the terms are known, and I feel that that would be unfortunate. But Mr. Denktash has been in Ankara, and shortly before that President Kyprianou was in Athens, and as the noble Lord, Lord Newall, has reminded us, the Greek and Turkish Prime Ministers are to meet this coming weekend. One cannot stress too strongly the importance of a rapprochement between Greece and Turkey as a background to the possibility of a settlement in Cyprus.
Rapprochement is also desirable in the context of NATO, and I think that it would be necessary before enlargement of the EEC takes place and the Government of Greece is participating in political co-operation with the other members of the Community. So we must hope that this meeting this weekend will show the beginnings of an agreement between the Greek and Turkish Governments.
Now there is a new Prime Minister in Turkey. He suffers in one sense from the disadvantage that he was the Prime Minister who launched the invasion, but he is freer now to take a more conciliatory line. His political position makes him freer to do that, and perhaps for the very reason that he was the Prime Minister who launched the invasion he has the authority now to take a conciliatory line, and I very much hope that he will. I hope that there will be the same conciliatory line on the other side, too. To reach agreement will not be easy, but I hope that the United Kingdom, in conjunction with our partners in the EEC, in NATO and in the Commonwealth, will make every effort by quiet, persistent

895
diplomacy to effect reconciliation and understanding between Greece and Turkey, and between the two communities who must live together in this small, but strategically situated island.
8.5 p.m.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, as has been said already, the House is very much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for raising this question of Cyprus, and I should like to offer him congratulations at raising it and at a very appropriate moment. I really do admire his timing. The noble Lord has done another service: he has stated very clearly, and very succinctly, the Turkish case, or the case of the Turkish Cypriots. To my knowledge this has not previously been done in your Lordships' House, and the noble Lord has fulfilled a real need. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has done quite enough by way of answering him on certain points.
I should like to take a rather different line, and examine what should be our own approach to these very difficult questions, and similar very difficult questions, which affect not only Cyprus, but other nations and other situations of conflict as well. I want to look at what our approach should be as members of a House of Parliament, equally as members of Government, or indeed as diplomats, or simply as members of the public who are committed to the cause of peace.
I should like to start with a quotation from the trial of Dr. Beyers Navde, a South African who was put on trial under one of the numerous repressive statutes in existence in that country. In answer to a question, he replied:
"No reconciliation is possible without justice, and whoever works for reconciliation must first determine the causes of injustice in the hearts and lives of those who feel themselves aggrieved. In order to determine the causes of injustice a person must not only have the outward individual facts of the matter, but as a Christian you are called to identify yourself in heart and soul, to live in, to think in, and to feel in the heart, in the consciousness, the feelings of the person or persons who themselves are aggrieved".
That gives us a good starting point because we have to do a work which affects both the mind and the heart. Objectively, we have to study what the situation is; why are there grievances? We have to understand the facts. We
896
have to understand, also, how each party to the conflict sees and understands those facts. So our approach has to be both objective and subjective. I feel that, we are in addition, called upon to love both sides as persons. We should certainly hate and detest the crimes and atrocities—one might say the sins—that have been committed in the course of a long drawn-out conflict. But unless we can love both sides, we have no chance of acting as reconcilers.
So, if that is our approach, what else is needed? I suggest that in the country in question, Cyprus, there is a great need of a change of heart. When we last debated this matter the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, spoke of "implacable nationalistic animosities". Those are the things that need to be left behind. I suggest that there has to be a turning away from fear, and hatred, and all the things that produce those emotions, in the direction of hope and of friendship. I fully accept that such a change of heart may take quite a long time yet to come about, and so that in the interim other things are necessary as well.
I suggest that we need a political approach and a determined effort to make a long-term plan for the future of the Island. There have been a number of suggestions made as to how a long-term plan might be devised. The noble Lord, Lord Caradon, has suggested a United Nations conciliation mission which would meet all sides, study the question and finally report back to the Security Council. That might be one method. Another method might be to set up a working party among the three Guarantor Powers, with perhaps the possibility of outside, co-opted members. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has already touched on a number of the points which would have to be incorporated in a long-term plan. These include the Constitution, the question of territory and the question of economics. If one were thinking of the matter in an Irish context, one would be talking about cross-Border co-operation.
In the making of a plan, I hope it will be accepted that the Treaty of 1960 imposed no legal obligations on the three Powers: it simply gave them a legal right, after consultations, to act in such a way as to restore the status quo ante-1963. It is indeed uncertain whether the status

897
quo can now be restored as it was 15 years ago. I think we have also to accept that intercommunal talks have been going on, coming off and going on again for some 14 years. One may ask oneself: Did the parties really desire a solution in those intercommunal talks? We do not know. I think we can take it for granted that the negotiators themselves desired to reach a solution, but what constraints were placed upon them? So, if we accept those two factors about the nature of the talks we have had so far, the lack of a definite agenda and timetable, and the weaknesses of the Treaty of 1960, we still need a long-term plan that is capable of being modified and adapted to suit the particular requirements of the local interests.
There is another point which needs urgent attention in the interim—it has already been referred to tonight—and that is the question of compensation. I suggest that the very fact of assessing compensation will do a lot to defuse the situation, and will provide an incentive towards agreement. Who needs, or who may need, compensation? The Turks, who have had to move out from the south; the Greeks who have had to abandon their homes and properties in the north; and in addition, of course, the British residents. It occurs to me that the experience of the 1920s may be relevant in this context, because those years saw rather massive exchanges of population between Greece and Turkey which, in the end, were accepted by both sides. It may well be that an international assessment panel and some method of collecting compensation monies into a central, perhaps internationally-administered, fund and then paying them out, may be desirable.
Those, then, are my two suggestions for the interim. What of the longer term? I suggest that we need to have a vision of the future—a vision of an island of great beauty whose inhabitants have a most wonderful spirit of hospitality, but where one finds at the present time two very deeply wounded communities. Out of those wounds we must look to seeing in the future an independent, free, re-united Cyprus. We must look forward to the day when Greeks and Turks will live together again in what one might call symbiosis, as they have done in many places from the late 16th century to the present day. One may hope again to see mixed villages and mixed towns. It is our
898
earnest wish, I think, that Christians and Moslems should discover their common allegiance to the One True God; and, if one may press St. Paul into service in this debate, I think we must say with him, as he did in his letter to the Ephesians:
"For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition …; having abolished in His flesh the enmity; that He might create in Himself of the twain one new man, so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the Cross; for through Him we both have our access in one spirit unto the Father.".
8.16 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I think those of us who have listened to this debate may be inclined to take the fatalistic view that there is an irreconcilable division between the Cypriot and Turkish populations. I am reminded of a visit to Cyprus—my first—very many years ago. I then heard of the harmony which there had been among the Cypriot, the Greek and the Turkish populations on the Island; of how, in the villages, in the heat of the day, Turkish and Greek families would rest together in the shade of trees; and how their children, Greek and Turkish, would play around them. My Lords, historically that is not so far away. It was very near to the time when the conflict for their independence began between the Cypriot people and the British Armed Forces.
How did the conflict between the two peoples begin? I would say that, first, it was a result of the armed hostilities before the independence of Cyprus was gained. That conflict began to divide the people of Cyprus. You had, on the one hand, the Greek population declaring for Enosis and for unity with Greece; and, inevitably, as a reaction, you had the Turkish population antagonistic to that very idea. Independence came—the Zurich Constitution; a Constitution which permitted a great deal of Turkish participation in the government of the Island.
President Makarios governed Cyprus. All who met him must have appreciated his stature; his character, his strength; but he represented the Greek element in that Island. And I think that this must be acknowledged as we look back to that period: that, under his administration, the spirit if not the letter of the Zurich Agreement for the participation of the Turkish population was denied. I think one has to recognise that that was

899
one of the contributions to the present situation. Then came violence, violence not instigated by the Government but by extreme forces which, even here, in opposition to the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Spens, has referred to a massacre; but the killing was not all on one side. I do not think that anyone can say that what happened justified the Turkish invasion. I think that that has been condemned by all who deny the right of an external Power to intervene by armed force in an internal situation.
Lord SPENS: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree, even when that external Power was one of the three Guarantors of the 1960 Constitution?
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should have thought that the very fact that Turkey was one of the three Guarantors should have meant that before Turkey took that action there should have been discussions and agreement with the Greek and the British Governments, who were also Guarantors of the integrity of Cyprus.
My Lords, I am not trying to put the point of view of one community against the other; and I have to recognise that although it is deplorable that that comparatively small Island, with all the history of its past to which the noble Lord, Lord Newall, referred, should be divided, I think we have now to accept, if we are to be practical, that some division will have to take place. I would say that the present lines between the Turkish community and the Greek community are absolutely impossible. That 18 per cent. of the population should have 40 per cent. of the territory of that small Island is inconceivable as any permanent solution.
The noble Lord, Lord Spens, referred to a large part of the port of Famagusta. At this moment, it is as though the neutron bomb had fallen upon Famagusta. I have been there. Almost its entire population was Greek. Now there is no population at all. Streets are empty, houses are empty, shops are empty, hotels are empty; it is a city without people. And the people who lived there were Greek. It is quite impossible to think of lines of demarcation in Cyprus
900
which will exclude Famagusta from the Greek population.
My Lords, there will have to be a redrawing of the lines between the Turkish and the Cypriot populations if there is to be any final solution of that problem. I deeply hope that the talks which are now proceeding may bring about a solution. I should not be honest if I did not say at once that I am doubtful about it. I think that that solution must be one where, for a time at least, one must accept the division of the Island, a federal relationship between the Turkish and the Greek parts of that Island, with a good deal of autonomy on both sides.
I hope that these talks will bring about that result; but I conclude by making the proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, made in his speech in this House when we last debated this issue. He suggested that the United Nations should send a mission to Cyprus, a very authoritative mission, representing the leading Powers of the West, representing the leading Powers of the East, representing the neutral nations of the world—at the highest possible level, a level which could not possibly be ignored—to go to Cyprus and, in Cyprus, to meet the representatives of the Greek population, to meet the representatives of the Turkish population; and to seek to bring about an agreement and to go back to the United Nations Security Council with recommendations for a solution of that problem.
My Lords, we are supposed to have in Cyprus a United Nations peace-keeping force. If one had a mission of that character with a report which was endorsed by the Security Council, surely that peacekeeping force might be utilised in order to bring about the solution which was proposed ! I believe that that is the constructive answer to the present problem, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will seriously consider it.
8.28 p.m.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, I do not often have the pleasure of following the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. It is usually the other way round. But, in view of the fact that it is very nearly two years since Cyprus was debated in this House, I think that we all ought to be very grateful that my noble friend Lord Spens introduced the subject.

901
He made the position absolutely clear. He said that the basis of the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee was, 1, 2, 3: Enosis, out! Taksim, out!—that is, the division of the island—and that Cyprus should be united and independent. The noble Lord, Lord Caradon, said also that he thought that people who had served in Cyprus—I served there for a year, and he had done so twice—owed some sense of obligation to the people of Cyprus and that we ought to speak in these debates. At that time we all accepted Lord Caradon's principles; but unfortunately the Treaty of Guarantee lasted only 14 years. It had a pretty rocky time because Makarios worked secretly for Enosis. It is now a dead letter and so are Lord Caradon's principles.
Going back to the question of living together, Greek and Turkish Cypriots have lived together for hundreds of years, but they never, as the noble Lord, Lord Spens, quoted, set up a single commercial partnership together. That was a remark written by a barrister of Grays Inn. In his report he mentioned that and I take it that we all agree. It was a most significant statement. Makarios, when taking the Oath on becoming Archbishop of Cyprus in 1970, said he
"would never waiver from our policy of annexing Cyprus to Mother Greece."
He did not achieve it, unfortunately, before he died. No wonder that the recent history of Cyprus is littered with massacres on both sides—horrible massacres. Any plan, to my mind, which involves going back to living alongside each other is out. Nikos Sampson tried to turn out Makarios in a coup, and if it had not been for the Turkish invasion he would have declared Enosis; but, unfortunately, he did not.
I believe that any agreed plan must ensure two things: one, the Greek Cypriots have to give up Enosis as a basis of their ideas; and two, the Island must be divided. The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, in his winding-up speech in the debate two or three years ago, said that federation was coming our way. Most people agreed.
There are four ways of achieving this aim. One is the EEC. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, favoured them. They have had a bad time recently and I personally do not think—although they do other things quite well—that they
902
would suit here. Secondly, NATO, with 25 years' experience, will never give up Akrotiri and they will never give up the British sovereign bases. Thirdly, there is the United Nations. My Lords, we have had plenty of resolutions from them and nobody takes the slightest notice. Fourthly, there are the inter-communal talks. Of these four, I would suggest the inter-communal talks are the best hope. But there is one proviso: they seem to have been going along at what I would call a leisurely rate. I am delighted to hear of the meeting of the Prime Ministers which is to take place in Switzerland shortly.
I would apply the American system to them: lock them up until they have reached a solution. That is the way that the jeep was invented and it did not do so badly. We are still driving around in jeeps. The Turkish Government may shortly be submitting a memorandum, if Mr. Judd is to be believed. My advice to the Greek Cypriots is this; agree it and, if necessary, give way to the Turks. After all, the Turks have 30,000 troops and at least a squadron of tanks and they may decide to invade again. Then where would we be? I personally think the Greek-Cypriot case on a three-year basis is very much to be encouraged. I also recommend an independent president. The Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots never seem to agree about anything. They would have to agree if they had an independent Cyprus for a three-year period; then the United Nations Security Council could review the situation. This may be looking backwards towards the 1960 Treaty, but I think anything in that 1960 Treaty that is repeated is absolutely fatal. I think it is better to walk before you run.
8.38 p.m.
Viscount SLIM: My Lords, I apologise for not putting my name down on the list of speakers in time for this debate. I will not delay your Lordships long. Cyprus is my second home—or it was—and I naturally have some views and feelings which may be helpful to your Lordships. When we speak, as many noble Lords have, about the Greek Cypriot and the Turkish Cypriot not being able to get on together, that is true in some respects. But, as has been said already, we mixed Greek and Turkish Cypriots together.

903
In our colonial days there, when we ran the country, we encouraged this separate development, not with the malice that goes on in other countries, but because it was more convenient. Moslem and Greek Orthodox could go their separate ways. The sad thing was, as the noble Lord, Lord Spens, said, that there was not even a single university, joint school or anything like that, to bring the two communities together.
If we have to look back—and the tragedy of Cyprus is that everybody looks back and not forwards—we must realise that that was part of our administration and the policy that went with it. Hindsight shows that perhaps it was not very clever. But the tragedy and the ravages that have taken place since bring me on to my second point, and here I speak for the British national who was left and suffered in the invasion. The harsh, brutal treatment—and I live, or used to, in the Turkish-conquered are a—by those invading armies was quite unnecessary. It was given to the Turkish Cypriot, to the British national and to anybody else who happened to be living there. It was quite without need. They did not actually have to conquer the bit of territory they wanted with 30,000 troops: it could have been done with a quarter of that number, even to make a show of force and to win.
I believe that, however much one likes to blame Athens or however much one likes to blame the Greek Cypriots—and there are wrongs on both sides—the Turkish Government today should be the first to make some gesture towards this compensation which several noble Lords have talked about. I would say this to the Turkish Government: "Your economy is not in a very good state. You are not alone in this, but yours in some ways is not even as good as others. If you want help and aid from around the world, you should make a commitment to see that this compensation, wherever it may be due, to whatever person of whatever nationality" —because a lot of Turkish Cypriots suffered too and so far the Turkish Government have not paid them any compensation— "should be assessed fairly and you should stand up and say that you will pay". I am not trying to blackmail them, but I am merely saying that in Ankara today they are
904
standing slightly with their hands out, wanting assistance; and that assistance should be given, in my view, with a few strings attached to it.
My Lords, I would say one further thing. I believe that the solution to the Cyprus problem—and I agree, as I think we all do, that there will be boundaries, partitions, and perhaps some loose form of federalism to come out of this—lies in the areas where these talks are to take place this coming weekend: it lies between the Turkish and Greek Governments. That is where the decision can be made. It is true that the Greek Cypriot, with all the schisms on him, can usually speak with one voice; but the Turkish Cypriot, I am afraid—and the Turkish Cypriot is my friend—today can speak only with the voice of Ankara.
We ask: What can the British Government do? In my view, the British Government should be seen to be in the arena and should be seen to support these talks, aimed at getting the Greek and Turkish Governments together. At the same time, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has said, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots should be allowed to speak together unfettered. My Lords, thank you for allowing me to intervene.
8.44 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am in a sense a substitute. The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, would have replied to this debate but he is representing this country at a very important conference in Yugoslavia. However, I am a member of the Government and therefore must weigh my words carefully this evening. In this debate we have had a variety of views excellently put and we have had some very fine and moving speeches. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, in his short contribution, made a very fine plea for a better understanding of the situation and, following his long experience in Cyprus, naturally we take great note of it. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, made a characteristically humane speech and put forward suggestions about the United Nations and the need to send a commission. Other noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Hylton, and the noble Lord, Lord Newall, who spoke for the Opposition—made valuable contributions.

905
The debate was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, who is sitting next to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, who made a characteristically succinct and clear speech. I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, that I thought he weighed heavily on one side, and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Banks, was right, not actually to chide him but to remind the House that he was really putting a Turkish case. It may be that he was there for I do not know how many days; I was there for a little longer, but I would not claim to be an expert. However, I have always carefully followed matters affecting that part of the world.
Over the years, in the Council of Europe and other places, I have taken a great interest in Cyprus. It is a lovely Island and I feel it is such a tragedy that it should not be an island of peace but just an island of beauty. I believe that we must achieve peace there and so I will first put broadly what I think is the right approach and give the Government's point of view. Naturally, noble Lords have expressed concern—indeed the noble Lord, Lord Newall, stressed this—at the continued lack of progress towards a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus. May I say that the British Government fully share this concern. The two communities in Cyprus have had to live for too long in the shadow of inter-communal strife. The suffering caused by the tragic events of recent years must be brought to an end as soon as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, was quite right to stress that. We must not tread the past.
The Government have acknowledged that Britain, for historic and other reasons, has a special position in Cyprus. We have therefore been closely involved for many years in the efforts to bring about a just system in Cyprus in which the two communities can live together in peace and can respect each other's legitimate interests. We had hoped that after the intensive negotiations which brought the Island to independence in 1960 we had arrived at such a system. Unfortunately this was not to be, and the Cypriots have been the victims of continuous inter-communal tension and recurrent violence ever since. In the various crises the British Government have exerted every effort to forestall violence and, in particular, in 1974 the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, now the Prime
906
Minister, did all that was humanly possible to resolve the crisis by seeking the agreement of the parties to revise constitutional arrangements. Most regrettably, despite two conferences at Geneva, these efforts have not been successful; so I say to noble Lords that the present situation in Cyprus should satisfy nobody. The friends of Cyprus, and the Cypriots themselves, cannot allow Cyprus to drift towards an embittered division. The Government have, therefore, been engaged in intensive diplomatic activity in order to persuade the parties to get down to real negotiations. We shall continue to offer advice and encouragement whenever appropriate.
In addition, Britain is making, and has made for many years, a valuable positive contribution to the present uneasy peace on the Island, without which negotiations would be impossible. Britain supplies, at its own expense, a third of the strength of the United Nations peace-keeping force in the Island. Although we would naturally wish to see this burden, which is heavy in terms of both manpower and of finance, come to an end, we are fully aware of the value of this contribution to peace-keeping in Cyprus and that is why we have maintained this commitment for so many years.
We have made clear to the parties to the dispute that we are willing, together with our partners, to take any initiative which the parties consider would help towards a solution. But, if Britain is to exert a positive influence, it is vital that our policy is seen to be even-handed. We do not, therefore, believe that it would be helpful to put pressure on one side or the other, irrespective of circumstances. But, where appropriate, we shall certainly make clear to the parties our view of the direction in which progress lies.
However, it is important to remember that the two communities themselves must negotiate a settlement. It is they who will have to live with a settlement, and they must therefore agree to its terms. This will require a considerable measure of statesmanship and patience on the part of both sides. Both Greek and Turkish Cypriots must be prepared to make concessions in order to achieve peace and justice for their respective communities. Both must commit themselves to negotiations which will inevitably be pains-

907
taking, long and difficult. Only in this manner can lasting peace be achieved. No settlement could be lasting if it were imposed from outside, and lacked the commitment of both communities in Cyprus.
The Government therefore believe that the intercommunal talks, under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General, offer the best means of progress, since the talks bring together the two parties directly concerned. The Government therefore greatly welcome the efforts made by Dr. Waldheim to bring about the resumption of the talks. Britain in particular, and the international community in general, owes a great debt of gratitude to Dr. Waldheim for his perseverence at what must at times be a thankless task. But we believe that his painstaking efforts to persuade the people of Cyprus to agree on the terms of a just and peaceful settlement deserve our continued whole-hearted support and must end in success.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Newall, asked me about this weekend's meeting between the Greek and Turkish Prime Minister, and I will deal with that.
Apart from the involvement of the Cypriots themselves, and of Dr. Waldheim I would add that, obviously, the mother countries of the two communities can also help towards a settlement. I am therefore pleased to note that the new Turkish Government has made clear its desire for early progress towards a settlement, and Britain looks forward with keen interest to the proposals which the Turkish side have undertaken to put forward. In our view, it is very important that these proposals should be constructive and detailed, so that they may lead to an early resumption of the intercommunal talks. It is equally important that, if such proposals are put forward by the Turkish side, the Greek side should react positively. Otherwise, another good opportunity for real progress will have been lost.
On the talks which are to take place, the Government welcome the meeting between the Greek and Turkish Prime Ministers, and hope that this meeting will pave the way for a resolution of the differences between Greece and Turkey. I think that all noble Lords, whatever their views and whatever their prejudices, will
908
hope that the talks which are now going on, and which will go on this weekend, will lead to success and rapprochement between the two sides.
I should like to say something at this point about the British Government's policy on recognition in Cyprus, which is an important aspect of our overall policy. We have been criticised in some quarters for having any dealings with the self-styled "Government"—and I am using quotation marks here—of the "Turkish Federated State of Cyprus" and its agents, since we do not recognise them. On the other hand, it has been said that the Government's policy is not realistic, given the present de facto situation in Cyprus.
I do not believe that either criticism is valid. The Government's policy on recognition is that, pending a settlement, we recognise only one Government in Cyprus, that of President Kyprianou, which is of course composed only of Greek Cypriots at present. But, at the same time, we consider that the Turkish Cypriot minority are entitled to have their legitimate interests respected; and British Ministers and officials have regular contacts with the leaders of the Turkish Cypriot community. This has enabled us, among other things, to urge the Turkish Cypriots to meet claims for compensation by British citizens in respect of losses during the Turkish invasion of 1974.
There are, of course, wider factors to take into account when considering the Cyprus problem. Apart from the distress which the lack of a settlement will cause to the people of Cyprus, there is a direct Western interest in preventing the Cyprus problem from continuing to fester. Otherwise, relations between Greece and Turkey, two of Britain's valuable allies in NATO, will continue to suffer great strain. It is important that Greece and Turkey should be able to resolve this difference, as well as the other differences between them, so that they can once again play a full part in the NATO alliance. For all these reasons, the Government believe that early progress towards a settlement is vital. We shall do all we can to help, but I repeat that it is for the parties involved to make a real effort to bring about a just and lasting solution, in the interests of all concerned.

909
I was asked one or two questions. The noble Lord, Lord Spens, asked about the Greek Cypriot embargo on Turkish occupied airports and seaports. May I say that under international agreements the use of Ercan Airport is not allowed, because it has not been designated by the Government of Cyprus. It is British policy to uphold these agreements to which we are a party. As regards the use of ports in northern Cyprus, the British Government's policy on trade with Cyprus is that that is a matter for the commercial concerns involved. Again, I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, about aid and about this being shared fairly between the two communities. As he knows, there is a modest programme of technical co-operation which includes support in education and natural resources. We also provide funds which enable some Cypriot students, both Greek and Turkish, to study in the United Kingdom. We believe that both communities should benefit in fair proportion from foreign aid.
The noble Lord, Lord Newall, pressed me on the question of compensation. May I just say that the Turkish Cypriot Compensation Commission was formally established on 12th January 1978, and its chairman has been named. The Commission is currently settling its detailed terms of reference. When these are announced, a circular letter will be sent to all those on our property register, advising them of the procedure to be followed in submitting their claims. My honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Judd, has recently returned from Cyprus where he has discussed the matter again with the Turkish Cypriots: and, also, we are continuing to impress upon them the need to deal quickly with these claims.
I could go on answering many detailed points. I will certainly write, as I always do, to Members who have raised specific points which I may have overlooked. But I think that this debate has been a good one. Here and there, there have been differences of emphasis, but all of us will wish the talks in Montreux well, and let us hope that we shall have peace again in Cyprus.

  RATE SUPPORT GRANT IN SCOTLAND
  RATE SUPPORT GRANT IN SCOTLAND
  WASTELAND IN URBAN AREAS
  WASTELAND IN URBAN AREAS