Sitting of 15 March 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two oclock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) AMENDMENT ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Devolution (Referendum)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the date of the referendum on Scottish devolution; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): No representations have been made to me. The referendum will be held as soon as reasonably practicable after the Bill has received Royal Assent.
    Mr. Knox: I assume that the Secretary of State agrees that the referendum should take place as soon as possible. If it is at all possible, will he give serious consideration to holding it in early September of this year?
    Mr. Millan: I do not think that I can go beyond what I have said in my original answer. I certainly do not want to see unnecessary delay, and we shall hold the referendum as soon as practical after we get the Bill on to the statute book.
    Mr. Buchan: Is the Secretary of State aware that the crucial point of the referendum was never put in our discussions? That was the second question, whether Scotland should go independent. Has
    414
    he noticed that Lord Home of the Hirsel called for precisely such a question yesterday in the other place.
    Mr. Millan: It is a very unusual alliance. I have heard the argument from my hon. Friend on numerous occasions. He also knows the Government's view on this matter, which has not changed.
    Mr. Reid: If there is an overwhelming "Yes" by 39 per cent. of the electorate at the poll, will that not lead to a serious political confrontation? Will the Minister make it clear that there is no such thing as a mandatory referendum in the United Kingdom? There can only be a consultative referendum. No matter how the Scots people decide, the final decision remains with the House.
    Mr. Millan: The 40 per cent. rule places an obligation on the Secretary of State to lay a certain order before the House, but, of course, the ultimate decision is for the House to take.
    Mr. Sillars: Given that the Bill receives Royal Assent in July, what practical problems will there be which will prevent a referendum being held in September?
    Mr. Millan: It obviously depends on a number of considerations, which I do not think I have to spell out to the House. The important thing to do at the moment is to get the Bill on the statute book. We are very confident of doing that, and I hope that we shall do so before the Summer Recess.

    Argyll Islands
    Mr. MacCormickasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an official visit to the Argyll islands.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): My right hon. Friend has no plans for a visit at present.
    Mr. MacCormick: Bearing in mind the Minister's reply, is he aware that in the islands of my constituency there is much feeling about the closure of Scofisco, upon which not only the people who work in them depend but also, to some extent, the fishermen? Is there any chance of action being taken to alleviate the situation?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I am aware of the general concern about the jobs of the people who work for the processing

    415
    plants and of the fishermen both in Argyll and Tarbert. I am given to understand now that the Scottish Development Agency is having discussions with the receiver and with the Highlands and Islands Board on the possibility of maintaining these operations.

    Springburn
    Mr. Buchananasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will pay a visit to Springburn.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Buchanan: I am sorry to hear that that is the case. Will my right hon. Friend change his mind? As he will be aware, his Department approved the Springburn plan in 1963. Is is not about time we were having a report on how that plan was developing, particularly with regard to the health service, as many surgeries of medical practitioners are disappearing from the area and the health centre has become of urgent necessity?
    Mr. Ewing: I do not want to comment on the details of the Springburn plan, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the Greater Glasgow Health Board is likely to make a final cost submission to my Department in the next few weeks in relation to the health centre. All being well, it is expected that it will be able to make a start on building in January 1979, with the building being completed early in 1981.

    School Meals
    Mr Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate of the number of children in Scotland receiving school meals; and how this compares with the corresponding figure for last year.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): The provisional January census figure is 427,359, This was 47·4 per cent. of the pupils present, which compares with 51·2 per cent. in January 1977.
    Mr. Canavan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the main reason for this decrease has been the 67 per cent. increase in the price of school meals and the fact that many parents do not realise that their children are now eligible for
    416
    free school meals under the new regulations? Will he see to it, therefore, that parents are made aware of their eligibility for free school meals for their children? Will he also tell my good friend the Chancellor that he had better make an announcement in next month's Budget speech of a reversal of the Government's previous decision to withdraw the school meals subsidy, otherwise it will have disastrous consequences for the living standards of people, especially the children of working-class parents?
    Mr. McElhone: I am aware that the Chancellor always listens to my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that that message will be getting across. I know that my hon. Friend has a deep interest in the problem. Recovery is taking place, as is shown by the fact that the January percentage of 47·4 is an increase from the 45·6 level reached in October 1977.
    Mrs. Bain: Will the Minister also bear in mind that average family income in Scotland is substantially lower than it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom? [Hon. Members: "Not true."] Will he also take steps to ensure that, when people apply for their youngsters to have free school meals, there is no discriminatory process which means that the children are subjected to pressures within the schools?
    Mr. McElhone: The hon. Lady has developed a remarkable consistency for providing inaccurate figures. She has continued with that theme today. What she said is untrue. The uptake of free meals rose to 17·3 per cent. in January 1978, and this is the highest level that it has ever reached. This is due mainly to the recommendation from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to schoolmasters to publicise the facts of the matter, and every child will get a note about the potential availability of free meals. That is to the credit not only of COSLA but of the headmasters and staff of our schools.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend accept, however, from an Englishman, I think—one can never be sure about these matters—that discrimination takes place and that there is no device or plan yet implemented in any school which is foolproof and which prevents the separation of the sheep from the goats? There is only one answer to this problem. Means

    417
    tests have to be tolerated by many adults in this country and in Scotland, but, in my view, for children they are horrifying and should be abolished. Let us get rid of school meals charges completely and have a transfer of resources, as we said in the manifesto in 1974.
    Mr. McElhone: As my hon. Friend says, he thinks that he is an Englishman. I do not think that anyone has any doubts about that. There was a genuine concern in the past about the fact that for free school meals some local authorities issued tickets that were different from tickets for paid meals. As far as I know, local authorities in Scotland have ensured that children who receive free school meals get tickets of the same colour as those given to children whose parents pay. If that is not so and my hon. Friend knows something about Scotland that I do not know, I shall certainly check the matter and report to him.

    Westray (Mink Farm)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland who will pay the costs of the inquiry into setting up a mink farm on the island of Westray.
    Mr. Millan: I shall meet the direct costs of setting up the inquiry. Other parties will in general be responsible for their own expenses.
    Mr. Grimond: How much expense will fall upon the Orkney Islands Council? As the Minister well knows, this is a somewhat peculiar inquiry, in that it may not be held at all, and most of the objectors come from furth of the islands. How much expenditure will fall locally?
    Mr. Millan: I think that the answer is "Very little", because, as I understand it, it was from that point of view a comparatively simple inquiry. I do not think that much expense will be involved for anyone.
    Mr. Watt: Will the Minister pay special attention to the outcome of this inquiry and be aware that mink have now reached epidemic proportions throughout the rest of Scotland, and that it would be most unwise to allow this dangerous animal on to an island?
    Mr. Millan: It was really for that reason that I made a revocation order. The inquiry is into that order. Beyond
    418
    that, given that we shall have an inquiry, I do not think that it would be right for me to comment further.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: If Scotland is so poor, who will buy the mink?

    Scottish Development Agency
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work of the Scottish Development Agency.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: For the activities of the Agency until 31st March 1977, I refer the hon. Member to its report for 1976–77, a copy of which is in the Library. Since that date, the Agency has continued its valuable work of furthering Scottish economic development.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that it is quite wrong that an organisation that spends as much public money as the SDA does should be subject to virtually no scrutiny by Parliament? Will he agree, therefore, to reappoint, or to recommend the reappointment of, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, so that we may look at the affairs of the SDA and at how it spends its money, particularly as most of the money that it spends comes from taxes on profitable industry?
    Mr. MacKenzie: It is not right to say, as the hon. Gentleman does, that the SDA is not accountable to the House of Commons. Indeed, the Chief Executive of the SDA is an officer who accounts to the Public Accounts Committee. In the House we have had many opportunities of questioning the work of the Agency. It will be within the hon. Member's recollection that we debated the SDA's work in the Scottish Grand Committee during an Estimates debate. I am bound to say that whilst this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord President, when last we had a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—which, incidentally, we started, in 1969—the hon. Member and his colleagues decided to scrap it, in 1972, for the very good and simple reason that they could not get their own Back Benchers to attend.
    Mr. Crawford: Will the Minister remind the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that the Tories voted against the establishment of the SDA? The SNP does not oppose it. Will

    419
    the Minister also remind the hon. Member for Cathcart that by cavilling at the SDA he is saying that he is against the creation of jobs in Scotland? Will the Minister further remind the hon. Member of his monstrous, scandalous and disgraceful about-turn when in 1974 the hon. Member said that he was in favour of a Scottish Assembly with economic powers?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I am sometimes not quite sure what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is in favour of concerning the SDA. He comes here, he makes public comments in the Press in which he batters the living daylights out of the SDA, and the next minute he thinks that it is a good thing. I am not sure where the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) stands on the question of the SDA, either.
    Mr. Alexander Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the effect of the SDA is non-existent in the Hamilton constituency? We have had two factories empty for the last seven years and still have not fulfilled the promise that we made following the cessation of the new town at Stonehouse for an industrial estate at Candersyde.
    Mr. MacKenzie: I am not prepared to accept what my hon. Friend says. In addition to the normal industrial investments by the SDA, which account for about £30 million, there has been a factory programme of £44 million and another scheme of about £43 million for environmental improvements. I am sure that Hamilton benefits as much as anywhere else.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: I have two short questions for the Minister. Is there any reason why the SDA cannot do the job that it was set up to do without taking a 51 per cent. equity stake in firms? Secondly, will the SDA be prepared to sell back into the private sector firms that it owns?
    Mr. MacKenzie: The SDA does exactly the job that it was set up to do. It was set up to be not just a Government Department. It was set up with the necessary guidelines, which we have all discussed, to have an entrepreneurial role in the regeneration of Scottish industry.
    420
    Therefore, it has the role of industrial investment and environmental improvement, and advance factory building.
    On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, concerning properties taken over by the SDA and investments, some properties have already been sold back to private companies.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Minister really happy about the fact that the SDA should have put over £800,000 into an entirely unsuccessful attempt to prop up the Scofisco project, with the result that fish processing firms in my constituency continue to work at well below capacity?
    Mr. MacKenzie: This is something that we must put into perspective. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the prospects of other companies in his constituency and elsewhere. Of course, objections were received from a number of these not disinterested people. But the SDA has a role, as have the Welsh Development Agency and the National Enterprise Board, to promote companies that it thinks will be successful and will give a good return.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that it is open to any firm to apply for SDA support and that most hon. Members on this side of the House want to see the SDA pursuing a much more vigorous policy in the development of new jobs? Will he ask it to approach all Scottish-based enterprises and ask them what obstacles there are to expansion, and how these can be removed by SDA action?
    Mr. MacKenzie: The people to whom my hon. Friend refers, who want to expand, can go to the Secretary of State's Scottish Economic Planning Department, which offers benefits in the form of regional development grants and selective financial assistance. We encourage this by seminars and publications. The SDA has taken on a number of investments where it thinks that there is a good chance of viability and profitability and an opportunity to encourage more jobs. The Chairman of the SDA said recently that, taking all these functions together, there is a prospect of saving and promoting about 30,000 jobs in Scotland—and 30,000 jobs is nothing to be sneezed at.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the financial control

    421
    exercised by the Scottish Development Agency.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the SDA is not at all sure what its financial responsibilities are and what sort of control it should be exercising, and that it has taken more than five weeks to reply to a letter of mine on that rather important if simple point? Further, is he aware that in evidence to the Expenditure Committee last year it was said that the NEB and the SDA would operate as first-class companies? In these circumstances, is the SDA taking responsibility for the creditors of its subsidiaries that go into liquidation? If so, how much has been paid out so far?
    Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that some time after we set up the Agency industrial guidelines were agreed and published. Those are the guidelines that the Agency now operates. The hon. Gentleman has said that it takes many weeks for the Agency to reply to a letter, but clearly that is not a matter for me.
    Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend accept that financial control by the House is important but that more important is the success of the SDA, which depends on the extent to which it can involve itself with firms either by part-share public ownership or by full public ownership? Is it not gross hypocrisy on the part of the Scottish National Party to claim that it supports the Agency when it attacked it and tried to extract any teeth it had by attempting to remove the parts of the Bill providing for public ownership and public investment?
    Mr. MacKenzie: The SDA has been much maligned by both the Opposition and the SNP. In fact, I believe that the Agency does a worthwhile job in Scotland. I have already indicated in answer to an earlier Question that it has an important factory role, an important environmental role, and an important role in industrial investment. Although we have heard a great deal about two or three disappointments, it is worth bearing in mind that there are 26 or 27 companies where the Agency has had success, notably with Cummins, and has
    422
    safeguarded and provided a considerable number of new jobs for the people of Scotland.
    Mr. Crawford: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Conservative Party should stop the monstrous and scandalous vilification of senior personnel of the Agency? Were not the Conservatives being totally hypocritical when they voted against the establishment of the Agency?
    Mr. MacKenzie: In the Estimates debate last year I said that leading members of the Conservative Party were much more concerned about the size of the lavatory of the chairman of the Agency than about the valuable work that the Agency was doing. I continue to maintain that stance.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Bearing in mind that it has ben reported that Scofisco will suffer a loss of about £750,000, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that many people in the fishing industry stand to lose something as a result? Will he say what consultations took place with those with experience in the fishing industry and in fish processing before the Agency became concerned with that firm? Is he aware that many of those concerned in the industry were worried that insufficient homework had been done in relation to that enterprise?
    Mr. MacKenzie: Before the SDA makes this or any other kind of investment, it listens carefully to outside advice. It employs independent consultants, who do a first-class job on matters of this kind.
    The hon. Gentleman will recall that there was very strong pressure from many fishermen in Scotland for the SDA to take the action that it took. If it had not taken that action, many of the fish processors and the fishermen would have been out of jobs a long time ago.
    Mr. Sillars: Does the Minister of State agree that we should deprecate this constant sniping at the SDA by Conservative Members who do not have the guts to say that they would repeal the legislation and declare it null and void?
    Will he confirm that if the Scottish Development Agency is to achieve a high success rate, it must take risks, and that we in the House of Commons must accept the odd failure? Will he convey to the

    423
    board, the Chief Executive and the Chairman of the SDA that the Scottish Socialist movement has a great deal of confidence in the Agency and that we hope that it will not be inhibited by the one or two errors that have recently been made?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend say just that. It is discouraging to the Chairman, the Chief Executive and the board of the SDA if they are constantly being sniped at for the few disappointments they have had and if they are given no credit by any Opposition Members for their remarkable achievements in this sphere.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that he and the Labour Party have a record of which to be ashamed in the provision of jobs in Scotland? The job of the House of Commons is to make sure that public money is well spent. Does he accept that, whether we have one view or another about various activities, it is important to make sure that public money, taken in taxes from profitable, successful firms, is wisely used?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I agree that it is important that taxpayers' money should be well spent and that it should be spent on providing jobs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that message very much to heart. If the Opposition had had their way we would not have had the jobs in British Leyland in Bathgate, in shipbuilding, or in Chrysler, and we would not have had many of the jobs provided by the Scottish Development Agency.

    Hampden Park
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the results of discussions he has had with the appropriate authorities regarding the provision of a national sports stadium in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. McElhone: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to proposals for the improvement of Hampden Park. I have been keeping in close touch with the local authorities and the other interested bodies and have undertaken to consider any agreed scheme put to me. When I have received such a scheme, I shall be glad to discuss it with the interested bodies and make a decision as soon as possible.
    Mr. Dempsey: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is probable that Scotland will be playing host to World Cup football in 1986 and that he will still be Minister for sport on that date? Therefore, will he give the most sympathetic consideration to representations made to his Department and do his utmost to ensure that at least 100,000 spectators can be accommodated at that stadium in view of the unbelievable scramble for tickets for these attractive football matches?
    Mr. McElhone: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I am not sure whether I shall be in the Assembly, but certainly it will be a Labour Minister for sport when the Assembly is established. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be there to support me when we open the new Hampden Park.
    I have read in the newspapers about a proposed scheme for improving Hampden Park and I have written to the bodies concerned and invited them to discuss this matter with me. Until they put proposals on the table I cannot say any more, but I shall want to know what we will get for the £8 million and who will have ownership of Hampden Park. There are various other points that will have to be discussed, and we shall have to consider the approach roads and the inconvenience to people who live around Hampden Park.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to hon. Members for a return to Celtic brevity?
    Mr. Welsh: Does not the Minister consider it a disgrace that in World Cup year our national football stadium does not measure up to the achievements of our national football team? Will he ensure that cash is made available to transform Hampden Park into a national multi-sports complex that is worthy of the name?
    Mr. McElhone: The only thing that I can say about the football scene is to comment on the disgraceful attitude of Scottish nationalists last year at Wembley who were singing and chanting "Hate the English".
    Mr. Heffer: Can my hon. Friend tell the House what is the national sport in

    425
    Scotland—apart from the SNP bashing the English?
    Mr. McElhone: It certainly depends on the part of Scotland from which one comes. I would not like to give a decision on that.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Would it not be more helpful for the Minister to take the initiative instead of giving a list of questions and waiting for someone else to answer them? Is he referring to a national sports stadium or simply to a football stadium? A national sports stadium would be a much more viable project and would ensure the future of Hampden Park far better than as merely a football venue.
    Mr. McElhone: This is a purely private enterprise project. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) cannot claim more and more cuts in public expenditure and at the same time ask for a £20 million project for Hampden Park. If £20 million is available, I have priorities other than Hampden Park. However, my hon. Friends and I are prepared to consider the proposals for an £8 million scheme proffered in the national Press. As I said earlier, I hope to have an early meeting with the bodies concerned.

    Woodside
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to visit Woodside.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Crawford: Is the Minister aware of local feeling about the shocking, monstrous and scandalous state of the A94 oil route through Woodside? When will he channel some of the revenues from Scottish oil into making the A94 a proper road?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I am bound to say that when the hon. Member asks this sort of shot-in-the-dark Question I shall give the answer that I always give. If he puts down a specific Question on the Order Paper, I shall answer it.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister visit Woodside, which is part of my constituency of North Aberdeen, where he will see great changes taking place? He will see the building of many houses to benefit the people of Aberdeen and great
    426
    interest in the National Health Service, which also benefits the people of Aberdeen. In fact, Woodside encapsulates the future of the Labour role in Scotland and, therefore, it should be commended to all other Woodsides in the country.
    Mr. MacKenzie: As my hon. Friend points out, there are a great many Wood-sides in Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) will bear this in mind when he next puts down a Question. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) were very sensible, and I am sure that he will still be sitting for that constituency after the next General Election. Perhaps he may even be joined by a colleague from Perth and East Perthshire on this side of the House.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister visit Perth and East Perthshire rather than Aberdeen, North—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions will get completely out of order if hon. Members switch around like that.

    Scottish Assembly (Expenditure)
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total expenditure incurred so far in the acquisition and conversion of the formal building for the Scottish Assembly in Edinburgh, and what is his latest estimate of the expenditure still to be incurred?
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Expenditure to mid-February was £1·6 million, including the cost of purchasing the Royal High School. There remains to be spent the balance of the £3·25 million indicated in the explanatory and financial memorandum.
    Mr. Gow: What plans do the Government have for the use of this building if the Scotland Bill does not reach the statute book or the referendum does not achieve a minimum of 40 per cent. in favour?
    Mr. Ewing: We do not anticipate any of those eventualities arising. It is very dangerous for Ministers to answer hypothetical questions.
    Mr. David Steel: Does the figure that the Minister mentioned include the cost of removing the aerosal-can SNP slogans from the front of the building?
    Mr. Ewing: I think that the right hon. Member has raised a very serious point. I take this opportunity, particularly with a by-election in Glasgow, of saying that one of the greatest acts of vandalism in Scotland at election times is the way in which road signs are defaced by the SNP. I wish that SNP Members would stop laughing and take this point seriously.
    Mr. Heffer: In all seriousness, will the Minister take note of the Question tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow)? What will happen if the Scottish people decide not to go ahead with this idea? What will the Government do with the building, and how will they use it? Will they sell it off, or what will happen? Is it not a scandal that we should have got this far, spending this amount of money, before the Scottish people have made up their minds?
    Mr. Ewing: The money is being spent with the full approval of Parliament. We are certainly not spending the money without that approval having been secured. Not only do I take account of what is said by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) but, even more important, I take more account of what is said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
    Mr. Reid: What discussions has the Minister had with representatives of the newspapers and broadcasting authorities about facilities in the Assembly? Does he appreciate that the present plans will mean that the Press, without a Lobby system, will sit on the Floor of the Assembly and that its telephones will be only a few feet away from the Chamber?
    Mr. Ewing: I have constant discussions with the media on the facilities that are to be provided when the Assembly is set up. The media accept that the Assembly is not being established for media purposes. The first priority is to establish the Assembly for Members and for the people of Scotland. Within that context, we shall fit in the requirements of the media.
    Mr. Sillars: Does not the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) add greater urgency to holding the referendum as soon as possible? Is not September the best date for the referendum so that my
    428
    hon. Friend will not be bothered with Questions of this kind after we secure a "Yes" vote in the referendum?
    Mr. Ewing: I have noticed lately that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) appears to be desperately anxious to fix a September date for the referendum. I wonder whether he has already fixed his holidays for October, November and December. There are all sorts of possibilities open to him.

    Dundee Harbour
    Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an official visit to Dundee harbour.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so.
    Mr. Wilson: I am disappointed at the fact that the Minister has no intention of visiting Dundee harbour to consult the port authority on plans for a roll-on-roll-off facility, as that project is being held back by lack of grant-aid facilities. Will he ask the Scottish Economic Planning Department to examine the situation as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I should like first to see a further extension of oil-related employment in the Dundee area. I know that local authorities and harbour authorities are considering this matter seriously at present. I also know that the port authority is actively considering the possibility mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We shall examine any suggestion that is made to us.

    Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill
    Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to introduce a Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: I cannot give a specific date at present.
    Mr. Cook: Will the Minister take note of the widespread anxiety mentioned in questions on the Business Statement recently about the prospects for such a Bill in a future Queen's Speech. Will he also bear in mind the fact that there is widespread interest in Scotland about the urgency for such a measure relating to the appropriateness of sentencing policy, and will he ensure that a Bill is laid this Session?
    Mr. Ewing: It is not in my power to give the House that assurance that a Bill will be laid in this or any other Session. That is not within my remit of responsibility. I rest on what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in business questions last Thursday, namely, that there is some legislation that we should like to introduce in all sorts of areas which it might not be possible to introduce this Session. We shall have to wait and see the outcome of any discussions that are taking place.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister aware that in dealing with younger offenders there is considerable scope for making much better use of the facility for much more appropriate sentences? Will he ensure that when a Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill is introduced this aspect involving younger offenders will be given high priority?
    Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman mentions an important matter. We are at a stage when we must consider the kind of sentences given to youngsters under 21. We are considering whether we should group all three classes of sentence and leave it to the Prison Service to allocate offenders to various institutions, or whether we should continue as in the past. That is one of the matters that we are considering.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister accept that if this Bill is to be delayed it will create great concern in Scotland, since it is felt that there should be substantial changes in methods of dealing with offenders, and it would be regretted if such delay were to affect both law and order and penal reform in Scotland?
    Mr. Ewing: It will be regretted if there is any delay in terms of law and order. That is why the Government are desperately anxious to increase respect for law and order and why, in a few weeks' time we shall be launching a major publicity and advertising campaign to attract more men to the police force.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Did not the Government give notice that this legislation would be introduced? If the Scottish Office is unable to persuade the Government to find time for it, is the Minister aware that this will be regretted in Scotland?
    Mr. Ewing: I am not sure about the degree of regret in regard to this legislation, but the Government are desperately anxious to ensure that law and order have a proper place in the society. I must emphasise that a major amount of time on the Floor of the House has been concerned with Scottish legislation. I would not want the impression to go back to Scotland from this Question Time that Scotland has been starved of parliamentary time. That is simply not true.

    Economic Prospects
    Mr. Fairgrieveasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on prospects for the Scottish economy over the forthcoming six months.
    Mr. Millan: As I told the hon. Member on 15th February, our economic prospects will be influenced by developments in world trade as well as the extent to which we can reduce our rate of domestic inflation. Since then the annual rate of increase has come down to single figures.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: But, as I said to the Minister on the same date, if the Government are genuine about reducing unemployment, there is only one sector in which that can be achieved in Scotland, namely, in the small business sector. That sector is now hampered by Government regulations. Will the Minister consider examining those regulations, and particularly the provisions of the Employment Protection Act, which is destroying employment?
    Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman knows that many matters affecting small businesses are now being examined. I agree that the small business sector has an important part to play in the Scottish economy, but, of course, it does not by any means comprise the whole of the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the effect on the Scottish economy of the weakness of the dollar? Has it affected Scottish exports, and what is the effect on the subsidiaries of American companies in Scotland?
    Mr. Millan: Following uncertainty in currency values, I do not think that I can distinguish between effects on the United Kingdom economy as a whole compared

    431
    with the effects on Scotland as part of that economy. The right hon. Gentleman will know the efforts made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the last few days on the subject of the expansion of world trade.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister say something about the contribution to the Scottish economy of Yarrow Shipbuilders, Glasgow? Is it not a fact that Yarrow would have no future at all if Parliament as a whole had voted in the same way as Conservatives and SNP Members of Parliament, who voted against aircraft and shipbuilding being taken into public ownership, since taking them into public ownership saved thousands of jobs for workers on Clydeside and elsewhere in Scotland?
    Mr. Millan: I agree with my hon. Friend that Scottish ownership of the shipbuilding industry and the considerable sums of public money put into that industry in Scotland have saved a considerable number of jobs. Anything that would damage the Scottish shipbuilding industry—either Tory opposition to shipbuilding nationalisation or the bizarre statements of the SNP candidate at Garscadden about Yarrow—should be treated with considerable anger by the people of Scotland.
    Mrs. Bain: Does the Minister accept that the SNP Members are proud at having a high-principled candidate at Garscadden who is not afraid to lay his views on the line, and are surprised at the views of the Labour Party, which are not in line with those of its founding father, Keir Hardie? What representations has he made to the Department of Industry and the Common Market to allow the continuation and expansion of the Intervention Fund in view of the importance of the shipbuilding industry in the West of Scotland?
    Mr. Millan: We are anxious to see the Intervention Fund continuing. I am delighted that any SNP candidate is frank about his party's policies. I only wish Conservative Members would be equally frank.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that the high and apparently rising level of redundancy payments sometimes received by redundant workers does much to ease and humanise immediate redundancy difficulties but blunts public protest and the
    432
    underlying opposition to the high level of unemployment? Therefore, will he accept that the reduction of unemployment remains the overwhelming priority of Members on the Labour Benches?
    Mr. Millan: I agree with my hon. Friend that we must get the unemployment figure down. Although we wish to see adequate redundancy payments made, that is very much a second-best policy. The primary consideration must remain the saving of jobs.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman not rather ashamed of having been elected on a manifesto which said that the 1974 rates of unemployment were intolerable, when unemployment has doubled since then and we now have a further sign with reports of 150 redundancies at Drumchapel, in the Garscadden constituency? Will he encourage his party and the SNP to continue being frank, since the latest evidence of political opinion in Scotland is a dramatic win for the Conservatives from the nationalists on a 60 per cent. poll in the Perth constituency?
    Mr. Millan: I have already made clear on numerous occasions that the present level of unemployment is far too high. I am glad that there was some reduction in the seasonally adjusted numbers of unemployed in January and February, but it was quite small, and I want to see it coming down much more rapidly.

    Rating Revaluation
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Cunninghame and Kyle and Carrick districts following the recent revaluation of properties for rating purposes; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Millan: I have had 19 letters from Kyle and Carrick and six from Cunninghame. If ratepayers in these districts are dissatisfied with their new valuations, they have rights of complaint to the assessor and of appeal to the local valuation committee.
    Mr. Lambie: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great anger in the Cunninghame and Kyle and Carrick districts over what appears to be discrimination against local ratepayers in the recent revaluation,

    433
    especially against business and commercial interests? Will he act on the proposal that I put to him that, as a transitional arrangement, he should ensure that no ratepayer pays more than a 10 per cent. increase, because of revaluation, this year and in subsequent years?
    Mr. Millan: I have answered questions before about transitional arrangements. I discussed the matter specifically with COSLA, and its unanimous view, which I share, was that transitional arrangements would not be desirable. If there is any feeling in the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend that standards applied to the revaluation are unfair compared with standards applied elsewhere, there is an appeal machinery open to ratepayers.
    This is not a matter on which I have specific locus. One expects that on revaluation the rates of some properties will go up more than those of some others. If that were not the general expectation there would be no point in having a revaluation, because it is intended to adjust valuations to current circumstances. Otherwise they become increasingly out of date.
    Mr. David Steel: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has no locus in this matter, but will he accept that there is a good deal of irritation and, in some cases, anxiety about the revaluation? Could he not discuss with the assessors and the local authorities the possibility of having explanations of the revaluation—in non-officialese—put in the mail so that householders understand what is going on?
    Mr. Millan: We have already done that. The Scottish Office played a part in drawing up a leaflet, in agreement with COSLA, and copies were sent to every ratepayer in Scotland. We have made considerable effort to explain to people what the revaluation is about. Naturally, those who have gained—they are a substantial number and include, in general, domestic ratepayers—do not make a great deal of fuss. They are happy. Those who have suffered relatively do make a good deal of fuss; I do not criticise them for that. But it would be misleading to give the impression that there is a seething mass of discontent about revaluation in Scotland. That is
    434
    certainly not my impression, though I realise what is happening in areas about which I have had representations.
    Mr. Younger: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, from the material that I and many others have sent to him, there is overwhelming evidence that the general level of valuations in Ayrshire is being deliberately raised, as a matter of policy, over that in other areas? Bearing in mind the rating and valuation Acts, is this not illegal?
    Mr. Millan: If the hon. Gentleman is making allegations of illegality, he should make them in more specific terms. Is he saying that assessors have behaved illegally? That is a serious charge. I have said that there is an appeal procedure available and I seriously suggest to ratepayers in these areas that if they are dissatisfied they must use the appeal procedure. It would be foolish of them simply to make points to their hon. Members, and to make political points, without also protecting their interests by taking the necessary steps to appeal. I strongly recommend them to do that.
    Mr. MacCormick: We all appreciate the role played by the assessors in these matters, but does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the people of Argyll have been hit second only to the people of the Cunninghame district in relation to the new revaluation? Does he think that it is satisfactory for us as politicians to wash our hands of the affair? Would it not be better to institute an inquiry to ensure that people are not asked to pay too much?
    Mr. Millan: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is asking me to inquire into. Any revaluation affects one ratepayer and one area differently from others. I should be surprised—though do not have the exact figures—if the rates paid by the average domestic ratepayer in Argyll, even after revaluation, are out of line with rates in the rest of Scotland. I suspect—I shall be happy to check this—that they are still a good deal lower than the average paid by domestic ratepayers in the rest of Scotland. That fact, as well as the increases, must be taken into account.

    Assembly (Standing Orders)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what

    435
    preparations are being made to provide the proposed Scottish Assembly with discussion papers on alternative forms of Standing Orders for the Assembly.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: My right hon. Friend aims to ensure that the preparations made for the Assembly will include briefing on procedures for elected Assemblies.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly important that matters such as the declaration and registration of Members' interests and the open access to information for Members should be discussed before the Assembly is elected and not imposed by the Assembly afterwards?
    Mr. Ewing: We cannot set up discussion groups and committees to have discussions with a body that is not yet in being. On my hon. Friend's general proposition, the Assembly will want to pay regard to what happens in this House when framing its Standing Orders and procedures, because the Standing Orders and procedures that my right hon. Friend is to prepare will take effect only in the run-in period of the Assembly. Thereafter, it will be for the Assembly to establish its own procedures.
    Mr. Watt: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that much of the desire for devolution arises from annoyance over the ineffectiveness of Westminster government and the continuation of outdated methods that are perpetuated in this House? Would it not be much better for the Assembly to start with a clean sheet and to introduce its own Standing Orders?
    Mr. Ewing: We are aware of the ineffectiveness of Opposition parties. That is one of the main reasons why, after February 1974, the Government introduced aid to Opposition parties. I am beginning to have doubts about the value that we are getting for the money.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the recent events in Garscadden, would it not be a good idea for the Scottish Assembly to have a special rest room for SNP nannies and Tory Party nanny goats?
    Mr. Ewing: In relation to the Tories, I suspect that the rest room would need to have a chimney in it, and in relation to the SNP, I suspect that the rest room would need to have space for changing nappies and feeding babies.
    Mr. Speaker: I got into trouble the other day over a reference to animals.

    House Building
    Mr. Youngerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with current progress in house building in Scotland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I am satisfied that authorities are assessing their housing needs as a whole, including the need for the building of new houses, and that these will be reflected in the housing plans which they have been asked to submit to my right hon. Friend annually.
    Mr. Younger: How can the Minister be satisfied with anything when the number of houses completed in 1977 was only 26,772—the lowest total for more than 20 years, and lower than in any year of the last Conservative Government? How does that square with the Labour Party's pledge at the last election:
    "The next Labour Government will … reverse the disastrous fall in house building"?
    Mr. Brown: It is true that it is almost as bad as in the years of the Conservative Government before 1964. [Interruption.] It is almost as bad. Do not let us argue about a few houses. The figures are almost as bad as the average for the three years preceding the election of the Labour Government in 1964, when the need, presumably, was much greater. I thought that we had agreed to get away from the numbers game. There was no limitation on the building of new houses until last year, and the figures reflect the greater need for modernisation and rehabilitation. That is the view of the local authorities concerned.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: When my hon. Friend considers the housing plans submitted by local authorities, will he pay particular regard to the authorities that submit realistic housing plans and not regard them as bids for the money that is available? Will he take into account the capability of local authorities to meet their plans when allocating the money?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, that is only one of the factors that we shall take into account. The borrowing allocation for 1978–79 is increasing. I never know what the SNP policy is on anything, but I should like to know whether the official Opposition are

    437
    asking me to increase public expenditure on housing.

    Roads (Western Isles)
    Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase the amount of grant for township roads in the Western Isles.
    Mr. McElhone: I regret that the resources for the township road programme as a whole do not permit any increase at present.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will be received with regret in my constituency, especially in areas such as the Island of Harris, which has many communities still without roads and is an area that has had the least access to job opportunities and development? Will he give reconsideration to disbursing some of the funds for the congested districts, which I understand are still at the discretion of the Secretary of State?
    Mr. McElhone: I am prepared to consider that point. I should tell the right hon. Gentleman that the grant allocation for 1978–79 is the biggest of all the five authorities concerned.

    SOUTH AFRICAN IMMIGRATION ORGANISATION (PTY) LIMITED
    Mr. Canavanasked the Lord Advocate, further to his reply of 20th February, whether he will now prosecute the South African Immigration Organisation (Pty) Limited of 104 West George Street, Glasgow, in the light of evidence now supplied to him.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): The information supplied to me in connection with this matter was insufficient to enable a decision to be taken. I have instructed that further inquiries be made.
    Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to pursue this matter in view of the fact that on the evidence submitted to him, including a letter from the Department of Employment, it is quite clear that the company was not registered as an employment agency under the Employment Agencies Act 1973? Does he agree that it is clear
    438
    that the firm is collaborating to support apartheid and is misleading many people into emigrating to South Africa by painting that land as a place flowing with milk and honey, whereas in reality it is ruled by one of the most immoral and unscrupulous Governments in the world?
    The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend has painted a black picture of South Africa. I hope that you will forgive me for that, Mr. Speaker. We are concerned, as my hon. Friend has recognised, with a statutory provision that can attract a penalty for non-compliance. That is the primary issue. The only issue before me is whether the provision has application to the firm in question.

    GLASGOW SHERIFF COURT
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Lord Advocate when he next intends to visit Glasgow Sheriff Court.
    The Lord Advocate: I have no immediate plans to visit Glasgow Sheriff Court.
    Mr. Taylor: Is not the Lord Advocate very concerned at the unpaid fines in sheriff courts, as reported yesterday, which now amount to almost £1 million? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel that this problem might bring the whole court system into disrepute?
    The Lord Advocate: Although I am concerned, that matter does not come within my ministerial province. The hon. Gentleman would be wise to table a specific question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has mentioned the problems of Glasgow Sheriff Court. As he is interested in the matter, I point out to him that two additional sheriff and jury courts came into operation last week.
    Mr. Reid: Is the Lord Advocate aware of the considerable anger among Scottish prison officers at their low pay and the proposal to go slow on escort duty, with a view to clagging up, in particular, Glasgow Sheriff Court? What consideration has he given to the judicial implications of that action?
    The Lord Advocate: That matter is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

RENTAL PURCHASE AGREEMENTS
Mr. Buchanan35. Mr. Buchanan asked the Lord Advocate if he will refer to the Scottish Law Commission the law relating to the protection of the consumer against oppressive rental purchase agreements, in the light of the evidence sent to him by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn.
The Lord Advocate: On receipt of the information supplied to me by my hon. Friend I instructed inquiries to be made into these allegations. I have now received a full report from the procurator fiscal. After careful consideration of the report I have reached the view that criminal proceedings are not justified, as no offence appears to have been committed. I am considering what other action may appropriately be taken to deal with the situation to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
Mr. Buchanan: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for the care that he has taken in this inquiry, but will he recognise that the operation of rental purchase agreements in substandard property by Norman Properties is exploiting the more unfortunate and vulnerable sections of our community? Will he take steps to tighten the law so that this type of property owner will be prosecuted as ruthlessly as he persecutes the unfortunate people who get into his clutches?
The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend has made some abrasive comments about this practice. He is condemning a feature of private enterprise. It is an important matter, on which I should make some pronouncement that may be of assistance to members of the public. Before they complete a contract for the purchase of property, members of the public will always be wise to take legal advice. If they do not take that advice, they should be on their guard against dealing with firms that sell houses on what amount to short-term hire-purchase contracts that are intrinsically unfavourable to the purchaser and carry severe penalty clauses in the event of instalments falling into arrears.

HONOURABLE MEMBERS' SPEECHES (MR. SPEAKER'S STATEMENT)
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State for Employment to make his statement, I have a brief statement to make to the House.
I am deeply grateful to those hon. Members who last night co-operated by making brief speeches, thus enabling others to speak in the debate. I am also grateful to the spokesman for the official Opposition for the brief time that he took on the Front Bench.
The House knows that I keep a record of the number of times that hon. Members speak and of the length of their speeches. I have decided not to keep a record of speeches that take less than eight minutes.

EMPLOYMENT (SPECIAL MEASURES)
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
I told the House on 30th January of our intention to extend the temporary employment subsidy, the small firms employment subsidy and the job release scheme in broadly similar form for a further year from 1st April next.
We have decided to extend the scope of the small firms employment subsidy by making it available from 1st July to manufacturing firms with fewer than 200 employees in all the assisted areas and in the inner city partnership areas outside them, including London docklands and inner Birmingham. On this new basis the scheme is expected to cover some 70,000 new jobs in the period up to the end of March 1979. We have notified the EEC Commission of this extension.
From 1st April the job release scheme will be extended to cover the whole country. And from 1st July the allowance for a married person with a dependent husband or wife will he increased to £35, with the present rate of £26·50 continuing for a single person and for a married person whose spouse has an income of more than £8·50 a week

441
after tax. On this basis, the scheme should provide an extra 21,000 jobs for the registered unemployed in the period to the end of March 1979.
I turn now to TES. After intensive discussions we have reached agreement with the EEC Commission on limited modifications to this subsidy to make it compatible with the treaty. In future any applicants seeking the subsidy beyond six months will be required to submit a plan before the end of the first six months of subsidy showing how they aim to make the supported jobs viable when the subsidy ends. And we shall be introducing a short-time working scheme for the textiles, clothing and footwear industries which will extend to all firms which are limited in the TES support they can in future receive and to those firms which have exhausted TES support. These alternative arrangements will afford equivalent support to employment in those industries, and TES will not be modified until we can introduce the arrangements.
The short-time arrangements can be introduced before the end of May provided that the Employment Subsidies Bill is enacted in good time. So, from a date in May to be announced, new applicants for TES in the textiles, clothing and foot wear sectors will be limited to not more than 70 per cent. of the total labour force in any establishment for the first six months of subsidy and to not more than 50 per cent. for the second six months. In the case of applications received between 1st April and the May date, the limitation to 70 per cent. will be applied after the first three months of subsidy and to 50 per cent. after six months from first receiving the subsidy. Similar limitations will be applied to the supplement scheme in these sectors and from 1st October to applications for the supplement from any sector. There will be no commitment to provide the supplement to anyone entering the main scheme from 1st April.
We shall introduce new arrangements to support short-time working in the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. Where there would be redundancies which are not covered by the subsidy as modified, workers who in consequence are put on short time will receive 75 per cent. of their gross pay for each day's work lost and employers will be fully compensated
442
from the Exchequer for the costs involved. These arrangements will ensure that there need be no increase in unemployment in the industries concerned through the loss of TES support.
In addition, we have decided that firms in the textiles, clothing and footwear industries which have exhausted TES in the past or will do so in the period to 31st March 1979, should be eligible for a further six months' support for short-time working where redundancies would otherwise occur. We estimate that a further 40,000 workers will benefit for a period of six months each under this further proposal.
The Commission has asked that expenditure commitments on applications received in 1978–79 from the textiles, clothing and footwear sectors for the main TES scheme should not exceed £55 million and that expenditure commitments on such applications from other sectors and on the supplement scheme should not exceed £80 million. We expect that the modifications to the subsidy together with an expected decline in expenditure on the scheme this year in any event, will have this result.
The TES will continue unchanged in Northern Ireland, save where an applicant from the textiles, clothing or footwear industries is directly in competition with an establishment in the Irish Republic. In any such case the limits on the proportion of the labour force to be supported and the requirements of a plan to make the supported jobs viable will apply, unless the competitor is in receipt of an equivalent employment subsidy.
These measures are additional to the new youth opportunities programme and the special temporary employment programme, which come into operation on 1st April, and to the special training measures for 1978–79 for which we have now decided to provide £41 million to support some 40,000 trainees. The current special employment measures are now providing in total some 320,000 jobs or training places and this figure should be raised by these new measures to over 400,000 by March 1979. These measures are likely to add about £300 million to United Kingdom expenditure programmes on employment over the next two years. Rather more than half will fall in 1978–79. The net cost will be much less than this because of savings in unemployment

443
benefit and the flowback of tax and national insurance contributions.
Only higher and sustained economic activity here and in the world economy will solve general unemployment, and this is the aim of the Government's policies. But we cannot leave people unemployed as long as there are sensible ways to offer them employment or training opportunities, often at little additional cost to maintaining them in unemployment. This is the justification of the steps that I have announced this afternoon.
Mr. Prior: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement brings out with clarity the seriousness of the unemployment situation? Were it not for the measures that he has announced today and on other occasions, the total of unemployment would now be approaching the 2 million mark. Is he aware that his announcement today shows that the Government are now supporting up to 400,000 people? How much is the gross and net cost of all the schemes that are either in operation or planned to come into operation for those 400,000 people?
How similar to the German system are the plans that he has announced today for the temporary employment subsidy mark II? What plans have the Government to deal with the structural problems that exist in the textiles, footwear and clothing industries, bearing in mind that we must seek a long-term solution and not rely on temporary solutions which do not solve the problems in the long run?
Is the Secretary of State aware that we support the extension of the job release scheme but that we should like confirmation from him that this is for people at work and not for those coming off the unemployment register?
Is he aware that we have to look to the small firms for future employment prospects? Why, therefore, did he not consider extending the small firms employment subsidy to all areas instead of restricting it to those areas which he mentioned? Is he aware that changes to the Employment Protection Act would help small firms more than anything else? Is he aware that the help that he is giving is rather like putting one foot on the accelerator and keeping the other on the brake?
Will the Secretary of State comment on the fact that if one is to help small
444
firms, as the Prime Minister appeared to suggest last night, it must be by changes to the Employment Protection Act and by a reduction in Government interference and the amount of form filling? Does he agree that we must look in that direction over the next few years?
Mr. Booth: I welcome the support of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) for the job release scheme. I confirm that it will apply only in cases where the person taking the release—who must be in employment—is replaced by someone who is on the unemployment register. I should have welcomed support for some of the other measures. We are making an extension to the temporary employment subsidy in the development and inner city partnership areas only, because unemployment is higher there. We believe that there is a role for a measure which recognises the regional differences in unemployment.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Employment Protection Act. I have never thought that the solution was to create second-class workers in small firms. The gross and net costs of the schemes that are now running vary. In some cases the temporary employment subsidy may cost nothing at all. In other cases the net cost may be as high as 40 per cent. of the overall cost. The average figure is about 25 per cent.
There are essential differences between the scheme for short-time support coupled with TES that we are operating in West Germany. Our scheme gives a wider scale of support. I believe that the TES scheme, particularly in the textiles, footwear and clothing industries, combines effectively with the industrial strategy support which is given by the Department of Industry. It will enable firms to reorganise in order to sustain working capacity and production in a way that would be impossible without the scheme.
Mr. Noble: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the mealy-mouthed attitude of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and accept the congratulations of his hon. Friends on his successful negotiations with the EEC? Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who are involved in the textiles, footwear and clothing industries are particularly pleased to note that firms which have exhausted TES can have a second bite at the cherry in order to maintain employment? May

445
we have some idea of the help which firms can expect if they have to produce a reorganisation plan after six months when applying for TES?
Mr. Booth: I acknowledge the representations that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) has made about the need for short-time assistance to be coupled with TES. It is largely as a result of these representations that we have done the work in the Department to develop this arrangement.
I shall certainly examine how effectively my Department and the Manpower Services Committee might be able to assist firms in developing the restructure plans which they will have to submit. Much of the useful experience that we have from firms which have restructured can be passed on to other firms.
Mr. Peter Walker: May I press the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) about limiting the area in which small firms will benefit? Is the Secretary of State aware that unemployment in the West Midlands area has risen faster than anywhere else in the country and that the partnership area represents a minute proportion of that region? Is he aware that even after these measures and four years of Labour Government, when school leavers leave this year we are still likely to have more than 1½ million unemployed?
Mr. Booth: This year's school leavers will have the benefit of the youth opportunities programme, which is the most ambitious programme of its kind in any democratic country. It will give them a chance in a recession which they would not otherwise have. Every school leaver will have the chance of a job, further education or of training and obtaining work experience.
The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) criticised the limitation of the extension of TES. Many of our measures, including the job release scheme, are now running nation-wide. If we were not to limit certain schemes to selected areas there would be no degree of regional policy, and that would ignore the different problems in the regions.
Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the statement by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior)
446
that but for the Government's measures the unemployment level would have been 400,000 higher? Is that not in itself a justification of the measures that my right hon. Friend and the Government have taken? I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends, particularly those from Merseyside, welcome the further measures that have been outlined this afternoon. But is it not clear that to deal with the most serious overall problem of unemployment there will have to be a boost in the economy? Does he agree that there will have to be further public expenditure to assist construction, education and health? Will he impress that fact upon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and explain to him that, while my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is doing a good job, we expect further help from the Chancellor in the Budget?
Mr. Booth: I certainly accept the contention by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that actions by the Chancellor to boost the economy are essential if we are to reduce unemployment to the level we want to reach. I accept that an important public expenditure element is directly related to the employment of people in this country.
I was very pleased to note when I visited Merseyside that great use had been made in that area of the small firms employment subsidy. A quarter of the places which have been taken up in the special development areas have been taken up in Merseyside, and it is appreciated in that area, if nowhere else, that the North-West has benefited from the main scheme of TES to the extent of 108,000 jobs, and from the supplementary scheme to the extent of 18,000 jobs. I believe, therefore, that hon. Members who represent that area are well fitted to judge on the desirability of the measures I have announced.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Since I obviously want to call as many hon. Members as possible it would be a great help if they could put short sharp questions.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while we await implementation of the election promises of "Back to Work with Labour", we welcome his efforts and believe that temporary solutions are a great deal better

447
than no solutions? The right hon. Gentleman said in his statement that people could not be left unemployed as long as there are sensible ways of offering them employment. Will he answer the question I put to him in a recent debate concerning my constituency where unemployment is consistently the highest in the country? Will he continue the job creation scheme after 1st April?
Mr. Booth: The special temporary employment programme, which will run from 1st April, will continue the job creation scheme for those outwith the youth opportunities programme. It is for those over 18, and I have arranged with the Manpower Services Commission that priority will be given to those in the 19-to-25 age band who have been six months unemployed, and those over 25 who have been unemployed for more than a year. Therefore, job creation will be continued for that age group, and the youth opportunities programme will run, too.
Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he deserves great credit for the fact that with these employment schemes we are now hardly any worse off than we would have been if there had been no interference from Brussels?
Mr. Booth: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comment. I can confirm only that that was the object of the exercise.
Mr. Penhaligon: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that my colleagues spent some considerable time encouraging the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—to extend the small firms employment subsidy, and that we are delighted that this has now been announced? Will he explain why he continues to ignore the claims of agriculture? What is the difference from a value-added point of view or in terms of balance of payments or employment between manufacturing components for a motor car and growing cabbages?
Mr. Booth: The main difference between agriculture and small firms engaged in manufacturing is that agriculture is organised in units which generally employ a smaller number of people. The object of the small firms subsidy is to encourage firms to grow from below 200 employees to above that figure.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these measures will be especially welcomed in areas which rely upon the textiles, clothing and footwear industries, particularly in those areas to which the job release scheme did not previously apply? Is he, however, aware that where the job release scheme did apply, not enough people took advantage of it? Will he make sure that the new arrangements, which are so important to areas such as Leicester, will be publicised so that people who can take advantage of them are encouraged to do so?
Mr. Booth: I readily accept that not enough people have taken advantage of the existing scheme. The increase in the payment to £35 a week tax free will encourage many more people to do so, and anything that I and my colleagues can do through publicity to increase the numbers taking advantage of the scheme we shall gladly do.
Mr. McCusker: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the gratitude of industries in Northern Ireland which will benefit by his announcement, particularly as the scheme is to continue in its existing form there? Will he assure those companies which will be adjudged to be in competition with factories in the Republic of Ireland that when he is assessing whether subsidy in the Republic is equivalent to that in the North he will take account of all the subsidies available to some firms in the Republic?
Mr. Booth: The assessment will be a tripartite process involving the United Kingdom Government, the Government of the Irish Republic and the EEC Commission. We shall seek to ensure that all subsidies paid in Southern Ireland are taken into account for this purpose.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these proposals will be welcomed in Wales, where unemployment is considered to be a major problem? However, since structural unemployment is likely to remain with us for many years, what consideration has been given to a longer-term employment subsidy? Further, what consideration has been given on the job release scheme to changing the age of retirement to 64 rather than to 65?
Mr. Booth: We did carefully consider whether it would be more effective to

449
reduce the entry age into JRS rather than to increase the payment. We took the view that there were so many additional people in the 64-to-65 age range male and the 59-to-60 age range female yet to come forward that it would be more effective to increase the payment. On my hon. Friend's other point about continuing the employment subsidy, we shall have to work out over the next 12 months to what extent we can co-ordinate existing subsidy schemes, and we shall have to decide whether there is a continuing role for employment subsidy in areas of longer-term structural problems.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the South-West many areas are dependent for much of their employment on the textiles and footwear industries, which are declining, and have a higher rate of unemployment than the assisted areas? Is it not illogical to produce measures such as those announced today to sustain employment in those declining industries while denying assisted area status to those areas, which would attract growth industries to replace those in decline?
Mr. Booth: I am not concerned today with the determination of assisted area boundaries. I am, however, very much concerned with the support to be given to the clothing, textiles and footwear industries in the South-West, which I think will very much welcome the extended support they will get as a result of these measures.
Mr. Madden: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that none of the changes he has announced today concerning TES would have been necessary had it not been for the intervention and interference of the Common Market in the Government's policies? What is the total number of jobs that my right hon. Friend expects to be created or safeguarded as a result of all the measures he has announced this afternoon? Does he accept that he has opened the door wide to limited retirement, which will offer prospects to many older workers of welcome leisure time and to younger workers of badly needed jobs?
Mr. Booth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's latter point. As to the additional jobs, I have indicated that this will bring the total support up to 400,000.
450
I take that as a measure of the requirement rather than as a condemnation of the measures, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft. The small firms employment subsidy and the job release scheme will, we estimate, add at least 90,000 to the numbers in employment over the next year.
Mr. Scott: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the 400,000 figure that he has just repeated includes young people who will receive nothing more than the fortnight's induction scheme? If that is so, what percentage of the total will they represent?
Mr. Booth: The numbers covered by the youth opportunities programme is equivalent to about 220,000 people being employed for a year, taking into account the fact that different people will be within the scheme for different lengths of time. The average time spent in the scheme will be about six months.
Mr. Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend please note that at least his announcement will bring joy to the many textile workers in my constituency and that they will be very interested in the weasel words from the Opposition Benches when Conservative Members heard the announcement? Will the Commission be vetting any of the applications for the new scheme?
Mr. Booth: I shall be informing the Commission quarterly of the number of applications we receive. It will look in particular at some of the larger applications, but it will not have the right to determine those applications.
Mr. Higgins: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that the real danger to employment is the growth of protectionism and the distortion of world trade? Is he convinced that none of the measures is contrary to GATT? Has he considered whether countervailing duties might be imposed by some of those to whom we export textile products?
Mr. Booth: I am satisfied that none of these measures is contrary to GATT. I do not regard them as protection measures in the narrow sense. They are protection measures in the sense that they protect people's jobs. That is what we are in the business of doing.
Mr. John Evans: Does my right hon. Friend accept that all of us on the Labour Benches welcome the fact that a modicum of common sense has broken out in the competition department of the EEC? We are told that two countries had objected to TES. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether this scheme is subject to veto by the Council of Employment Ministers? As there are 6½ million unemployed in the Community and another 9 million young people will be coming on to the employment register by 1985, is it not time that the Employment Ministers, together with the Commissioner responsible for social affairs, got together to start boosting the economy of the EEC countries?
Mr. Booth: The scheme is not subject to the veto of the Council of Employment Ministers. I agree that it is time that Labour Ministers of the EEC got together to decide how far it is appropriate to use the EEC as a means of supporting employment measures throughout the Community rather than pursuing a competition policy in a way that threatens jobs.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is not correct to say, as his hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) did, that no alteration in the temporary employment subsidy would have been necessary but for the EEC? I welcome his ironing out of the anomalies of the TES, in conjunction with the EEC, which has proved very sympathetic. I refer particularly to the anomaly of the unfairness to firms whose entitlement had run out before the supplementary scheme came in. I hope that when I bring some trade unionists to meet the Under-Secretary later in the afternoon the Secretary of State's hon. Friend will find a way under the scheme to save jobs that are otherwise in jeopardy.
Mr. Booth: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) is absolutely right in suggesting that certain of the limitations would not have been put on TES but for the Community. I think particularly of the limitation of 70 per cent. of the workers in an individual establishment. But the parameters within which I negotiated were determined by those in the House who voted for the EEC Act and the people in the country
452
who voted for retaining membership. To that extent I must accept that it is a proper function of a Minister to carry out such negotiations. I very much agree with the hon. Lady that one aspect of the scheme that I have been able to announce will be particularly welcome to firms that have run out of TES entitlement.
Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there would be no need for the extension of corporatism announced this afternoon had we not been dragged into the Common Market by the Conservatives when they were in Government, aided and abetted by some who occupy our Front Bench, and if the present Government had not slashed public expenditure as they have, aided and abetted by the Opposition? But will my right hon. Friend accept also that I admire his timing on the matter, because the announcement comes a few days after the Leader of the Opposition made that weird speech at Bradford to the Conservative trade unionists? It is no wonder the right hon. Lady has not turned up today to listen to what my right hon. Friend said. Nobody is more embarrassed than the scarlet-faced right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior).
Mr. Booth: I regret that I cannot claim credit for the timing of the statement or the embarrassment of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft. The right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition must answer for their own policies. I only thank the Lord that I do not have to answer for them.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall call the hon. Members who have been rising.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What are the Government prepared to do for new investment and new jobs, which are the only real basis upon which future prosperity and long-term security of jobs can be achieved?
Mr. Booth: The investment grant scheme and particularly the special accelerated investment project measures are clearly backing some new investment. Couple that with the extension of the small firms employment subsidy, and it will be seen that the Government are also backing the expansion of jobs.
Mr. Raison: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point that instead of the large-scale subsidisation of nonviable jobs, which can lead only to worse productivity, it would be much better to spend the same money either on genuine public sector programmes—perhaps particularly capital programmes—or the reduction of taxation and the carrying out of other incentives to genuine growth?
Mr. Booth Mr. Booth I see the TES scheme as a way of maintaining viable jobs. That is why I welcomed the opportunity to include within the scheme now the structuring requirements and plans to be submitted wherever TES must be paid beyond six months. It is not a practical option to say that we shall withdraw support from manufacturing industry in order to extend public services. We need to ensure that manufacturing industry survives and grows in order that we can continue to expand our public services.
Mr. Stephen Ross: The Secretary of State's announcement on the small firms employment subsidy will be heard with profound disappointment in my constituency, a county with the highest unemployment of any outside the assisted areas. It is also an area that must put up with the extra cost of transferring all its products across the sea. If the subsidy cannot be extended to the whole country—a measure that I would support—is there not some way in which areas with consistently high unemployment, say, over 8½ per cent. or 9 per cent., or specially assisted by the Development Commission, can qualify for it?
Mr. Booth: I accept that there may be disappointment in the Isle of Wight that it is not covered by the small firms employment subsidy, but I hope that people there will welcome the extension to the island of the job release scheme and the extension of TES entitlement. We shall continue to study ways of helping over certain problems of unemployment in the Isle of Wight.
Mr. Haselhurst: How far does the right hon. Gentleman estimate that the number of jobs he has created or protected through the measures he announced this afternoon will keep pace with the number of jobs he estimates will be lost in the course of the next year through demanning and redundancies?
Mr. Booth: We believe that it is possible to offset demanning and redundancies by industry support measures. Over the last full year for which we have figures there has been a net increase in numbers of people employed in this country. But I do not hide from the House that we have a major concern for the vastly increasing number of people coming on to the labour market, particularly young people and particularly women seeking work for the first time. We shall need to produce about 170,000 more jobs each year to keep pace with that.
Mr. Welsh: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how, in practice, these measures will help workers facing redundancy in the Garscadden area of Glasgow? Is he aware of the threat of redundancy at the Goodyear factory in an area which already has an unemployment rate of 30 per cent.? Is he further aware that the Goodyear factory is flanked by two others which have recently closed down? How can these measures help repair the damage done by past Government policy?
Mr. Booth: Measures introduced now are not intended to deal with past policies. They are intended to deal with any possibility of forthcoming redundancies. They can help by extending the scope of the temporary employment subsidy in industries which are operating short-time working. The workers organised in those areas will be involved in these TES measures and in the restructuring because we shall require joint signatures of employers and union representatives in connection with the TES applications and the restructuring proposals.
Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these are spoof jobs provided by spoof Ministers in a spoof Government? Does he realise that they have to be paid for by real money earned by real people who would do very much better if the Government provided real jobs?
Mr. Booth: I am very much aware that taxpayers' money and the money of those who contribute to national insurance funds would be spent on supporting those who are unemployed, or about to become unemployed, and who, as a result of these measures, will be brought into

455
jobs or maintained in them. There is nothing spoof about that. The problem and the concern is real.

RHODESIA
Mr. Cormack: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the internal settlement in Rhodesia in the light of the decision of the Security Council to reject it."
I asked last week that the House be given an opportunity to discuss this matter. I would submit that the decision taken in the Security Council is a new factor which makes this subject all the more urgent. I believe that this is something which the House should discuss, because the Government have not yet had an opportunity fully to explain their position to the House and the House has not had an opportunity to debate the matter.
The Government, in the person of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, have said time and again that this issue remains a British responsibility. Last night's decision in New York makes it vital that we should discuss the matter here. Peace in Africa hangs on a thread. I submit that in debating this subject we would not be displacing any other urgent business. There is no business before the House in which lives are put at stake in the way in which they will be put at stake if the internal settlement in Rhodesia is rejected and civil war breaks out. The peace of a great continent depends on this—perhaps the peace of the world. I would urgently ask you, Mr. Speaker, to grant this request.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) gave me notice this morning that he would seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the internal settlement in Rhodesia in the light of the decision of the Security Council to reject it."
456
I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman. I am unable to accede to his request. May I say that I understand his desire for a debate. However, the emergency Standing Order debate is the one with which I am concerned, and I cannot agree to his request.

BILL PRESENTED
  THEATRES TRUST (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. David Crouch, supported by Mrs. Margaret Bain, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Norman Buchan, Mr. Robin F. Cook. Mr. Jim Craigen, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Alexander Fletcher, Mr. Hugh McCartney, Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, and Mr. James White, presented a Bill to extend the Theatres Trust Act 1976 to Scotland; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21st April and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (DEPOSITS AND NOMINATIONS)
  4.14 p.m.
  Mr. Granville Janner: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to change the Parliamentary Elections Rules in respect of the validity of nominations.
  This is a Bill to change the parliamentary rules in respect of the validity of nominations, in particular by raising the deposit of £150 payable by candidates, which sum was fixed in 1918, to the sum of £500, with the alternative—to provide for those cases where candidates have true and considerable public support but little money—of their finding a percentage, which I would suggest should be 5 per cent., of the people on the electoral role who are prepared to sign the nomination papers.
  At present, anyone who is prepared to put up the sum of £150 does not merely acquire the right to stand for Parliament; he acquires subsidiary rights provided at the expense of the public which lend themselves to abuses of the democratic prosesses of the worst kind. As a start, anyone who wishes to stand and who can find £150 will acquire the right to

  457
  one free mailing to every elector in his constituency at an average cost to the public of approximately £4,500. Secondly, if enough people put up for the same cause or the same party in sufficient constituencies, at a cost of £150 each, they acquire not only free radio time but the least expensive television time in the history of broadcasting.
  The troubles to which this situation can lead have become plain. In the recent by-election at which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) was elected there were 10 candidates, of whom eight lost their deposits. My hon. Friend has told me, as I understand he would tell the House were the opportunity to arise, that there was enormous confusion, with tremendously long ballot papers, people putting up posters all over the constituency for parties which scarcely existed, candidates indulging in self-publicity of the worst kind and, of course, the usual highly extremist representation of those who can put up candidates at no cost to themselves but who are able, in the process, to use the mail free to propagate ideas odious to the vast majority of the electorate. In the event these people lost their deposits.
  In the by-election at Ilford, North there were eight candidates, of whom six lost their deposits. One was a Gentleman called Commander Boaks, who has stood in 13 parliamentary elections and whose views are well represented by some Tory Members who managed somehow, to get their party to adopt them as candidates, thereby saving their deposits. Commander Boaks achieved the zenith of his popularity in the Ilford, North by-election when he polled 38 votes, having for £150, on that as on other occasions, achieved the right to free franking facilities.
  Commander Boaks is perfectly entitled to put forward his views. Any person in this democracy is free to stand for Parliament and ought not to be prevented on the ground that he has not the money. On the other hand, there must be a reasonable limit if elections are not to be turned into a three-ring circus. Following investigations made by him, the distinguished researcher, Mr. Fred Craig of Parliamentary Research Services, estimates that while there were just over 2,000 candidates in the 1974 election, if the deposit remains where it is there will
  458
  be over 3,000 at the next election and the number is likely to go on increasing.
  The situation would be ludicrous in any event. The seriousness of it becomes obvious when, for example, the National Front announces that it intends to put up 300 candidates in constituencies where it has not the slightest chance of saving its deposit. The National Front has not, as yet, saved a deposit anywhere in the country.
  As a result of putting up these candidates, it will acquire the right to free television time, and I am told that to buy 10 minutes of television time on one channel costs £98,000. Instead of time on one channel the National Front would acquire three-channel publicity. It would acquire the right to free radio time, to put up candidates without other people in the campaign being able to point out, as they can in this House, that many of the leaders of that party are people with criminal records involving violence—people who would destroy our domestic process. Yet the National Front can have the opportunity, for £150 per constituency, of making use of the democratic process for that purpose.
  I am happy to say that the Bill has received the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. There are individual exceptions, whom I respect. The broad area of agreement is a wide one—a spectacularly wide one now that the Liberals have joined the ranks of the supporters. Although some hon. Members have preferred not to support the Bill because they thought the Speaker's Conference would be the appropriate place for this sort of reform to be carried through. I ask the House not to accept that view, because it would be putting off the inevitable until almost parliamentary Doomsday.
  Since 1918, there has been a series of parliamentary Speaker's Conferences, not one of which has succeeded in reaching agreement or movement on this subject. That is why for 60 years the deposit has remained the same. When the Front Bench and the Speaker's Conference remain unable to reach agreement of result, perhaps then is the opportunity for the Back Benchers to emerge and to try to get a little progress in an area in which, for the sake of parliamentary democracy, it is essential.

  459
  I ask that the Bill be allowed to go forward now and before another General Election comes, because the matter has an urgency. It is in those circumstances that I seek leave to present the Bill.
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James Mr. Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge) rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I take it that the hon. Gentleman wishes to oppose the Bill.
  4.21 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I rise to oppose the motion. I do so first and foremost on an issue of principle—that principle being that any citizen of this nation, save for certain known categories, has the right to stand for membership of this House. As everyone knows, the chances of an independent candidate being elected to this House are very small indeed.
  The Bill basically proposes to make the candidatures of independent candidates more expensive and even more difficult than they are at present. It is another step in the direction of making membership of this House open only to the candidates of established parties or to those who can afford the heavy increased cost of candidature which the hon. Gentleman proposes.
  I cannot believe that such a step is in the interests of this House and in the interests of this democracy. I remind Labour Members that at the beginning of their party was the candidature—which was described as futile and feckless—of Mr. Keir Hardie in West Ham in 1892. In case my hon. Friends are not exactly swept aside by that argument, I remind them of the early career of Mr. Benjamin Disraeli.
  The hon. Gentleman starts from the proposition that the £150 deposit, which was imposed by the Lloyd George Government, was in itself a desirable novelty in the constitution. He also makes the argument or starts from the assumption that £150 today remains a derisory sum. I do not agree with either of those propositions.
  The argument concerning the £4,500 expenditure on postage is a bogus one because, as hon. Members all know, it is only through the dedicated work of volunteers that it is possible to distribute the election literature which hon. Members
  460
  of established parties have. If an independent candidate has sufficient volunteers and supporters who are prepared to do that work for him, why should he not then stand?
  The hon. Gentleman spoke rather derisively about Speakers' Conferences. I would accept that the matter has not progressed very much over the last 40 or 50 years, but to seek a change of this magnitude by means of a Ten-Minute Bill seems to me to avoid the fundamental problems of the constitution in this country, the method of election to this House and the future of our constitution. It seems to me to be a highly imperfect manner of endeavouring to achieve reform.
  This proposal, or any other proposal designed to increase the deposit considerably in order to make the position of independent candidates more difficult and more expensive, will not hurt the National Front. It will hurt primarily individuals and small groups. The hon. Gentleman may consider them to be not nearly as important as the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, or the independent parties, but I should like to give an example of the indirect importance of such candidates.
  At the election which resulted in my coming to this House there was an independent candidate who stood for the self-employed. It so happened that his argument did not persuade a considerable number of the electors of Cambridge to elect him, but through his argument and his campaign he brought to the attention of all the candidates and to the electorate of Cambridge the deep importance of the self-employed and of small businesses. He did not win but he contributed to the debate in a very useful way, and his candidature was far from nugatory. He lost his deposit—he lost his own money—but his contribution, as a democrat and as an individual, to the debate during that election campaign, was very considerable. I deeply respected it and I was grateful for it.
  I oppose the motion on two grounds. The first is a fundamental one of principle. I do not believe that the established, organised, rich parties have any right at all at this stage, in a dying Parliament, to try to put forward legislation which militates against small parties and individuals. Secondly, if such a

  461
  measure is to be proposed, it should not be contained in a Ten-Minute Bill of this nature.
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring
  in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—
  The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 60.

  Division No. 149]

  AYES

  [4.26 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Graham, Ted

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Anderson, Donald

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Gray, Hamish

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Bates, Alf

  Grocott, Bruce

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Hannam, John

  Palmer, Arthur

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Harper, Joseph

  Pardoe, John

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Park, George

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Parry, Robert

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Brooke, Peter

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hordern, Peter

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Campbell, Ian

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Cartwright, John

  Hurd, Douglas

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Janner, Greville

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Cockcroft, John

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

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Cocks. Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jessel, Toby

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Coleman, Donald

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Sims, Roger

  Cowans, Harry

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jopling, Michael

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Crouch, David

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Snape, Peter

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Kerr, Russell

  Speed, Keith

  Cryer, Bob

  Kimball, Marcus

  Stallard, A. W.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kinnock. Neil

  Stanley, John

  Dempsey, James

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lamborn, Harry

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Stoddart, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Strang, Gavin

  Edge, Geoff

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Wakeham, John

  English, Michael

  McCusker, H.

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Macfarlane, Nell

  Ward, Michael

  Evans, John (Newton)

  MacGregor, John

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Faulds, Andrew

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Whitlock, William

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Mates, Michael

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Forrester, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Freud, Clement

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Woodall, Alec

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Molyneaux, James

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Goodhart, Philip

  Moonman, Eric

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Mr. Ronald Atkins and

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

  Mr. John Sever.

  NOES

  Atkinson, Norman

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Litterick, Tom

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Golding, John

  MacCormick, Iain

  Beith, A. J.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Madden, Max

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hawkins, Paul

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Cant, R. B.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Neubert, Michael

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Cope, John

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Penhaligon, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Reid, George

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Crawford, Douglas

  Kilfedder, James

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Silvester, Fred

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Knox, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Lambie, David

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Flannery, Martin

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Watt, Hamish

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Thompson, George

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mr. Nicholas Scott and

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mr. Robert Rhodes James

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Tomney, Frank

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Ronald Atkins, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, Mr. John Davies, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. Edwin Wainwright, Mr. Peter Walker and Sir Harold Wilson.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (DEPOSITS AND NOMINATIONS)
    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (DEPOSITS AND NOMINATIONS)
    Mr. Greville Janner accordingly presented a Bill to change the Parliamentary Elections Rules in respect of the validity of nominations; 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 87.]
  ORDERS OF THE DAY

    TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    4.35 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    This is a short, technical Bill, which clarifies and amends the law on the investment and borrowing powers of trustee savings banks. The law governing the activities of trustee savings banks is contained mainly in two statutes—the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1969 and the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1976. The 1969 Act was a consolidation measure. The 1976 Act extended the powers of trustee savings banks so that, in line with the recommendations of the Page Report on National Savings, they would extend their range of services and develop as a third force in banking.
    I should like to make it clear that this Bill marks no change in the Government's policy towards trustee savings banks. The need for this Bill arises, unfortunately, because doubts have arisen about the effects of the 1976 Act. The purpose of this Bill is to make the law clear beyond doubt.
    I think that it would be most helpful to the House if I explained the effect of the three substantive clauses, and the need for them.
    Clause 1 declares for the avoidance of doubt that trustee savings banks may invest their funds freely, except as restricted by statute. In practice, the statutory restrictions are tight. Moneys deposited in trustee savings banks' ordinary department have to be invested with the National Debt Commissioners in accordance with Section 12(1) of the 1969 Act and, under Section 13 and Schedule 3 of the 1976 Act, the Treasury controls the investment of other sums owed to depositors, that is money deposited in cheque accounts and the various investment account facilities. Depositors' balances with trustee savings banks currently total about £4·6 billion, about £1·7 billion being in ordinary department savings accounts, and about £2·9 billion being in the new departments.
    466
    But the main purpose of the clause is to put beyond doubt trustee savings banks' powers to lend long term on the security of a mortgage. It was thought that Section 9(1) of the 1976 Act, which gave trustee savings banks the power
    "to carry on the business of banking".
    would allow trustee savings banks to do mortgage lending. But sufficient doubt has been expressed about this—because it appears that banks do not in practice lend money to customers secured on a mortgage for periods as long as, say, building societies to make it necessary to clarify the law.
    It is necessary to do this now not because trustee savings banks in general are planning to commence long-term mortgage lending—indeed, they have no immediate plans for doing so—but because one trustee savings bank, the Birmingham Municipal Trustee Savings Bank, has done some mortgage lending. The Birmingham Municipal Trustee Savings Bank is the successor body to the old Birmingham Municipal Bank, which always did mortgage lending and became a trustee savings bank only on the understanding that as a trustee savings bank it would be able to continue with its policy of doing a limited amount of mortgage lending. At the time of its change to a trustee savings bank on 1st April 1976 advances secured by a mortgage totalled about £9 million. These mortgages have not yet been transferred from the Birmingham District Council to the Birmingham Municipal Trustee Savings Bank, although it is intended that they should be transferred as soon as trustee savings banks' powers to do mortgage lending are clarified by the Bill. Since 1st April 1976 the Birmingham Municipal Trustee Savings Bank has advanced some £2½ million in loans secured by mortgages. Because of the doubts about trustee savings banks' powers to do mortgage lending, the granting of these mortgage loans must be validated retrospectively.
    I should like to make it clear that it is not the mortgages themselves that have to be validated. It is the actual granting of the loans. The trustees of the Birmingham Municipal Trustee Savings Bank might otherwise be held to have acted in breach of trust in advancing loans secured by mortgages when they may not have had the power to do so. But

    467
    the loans themselves are valid, and in the event of a default the security would be enforceable so that the loans would be recoverable. So we are merely concerned with a breach of trust on the part of the trustees and not with the validity of the actual mortgages granted.
    Mr. William Wilson: Before my hon. Friend moves to Clause 2 will he explain Clause 1(3)? Does it mean that any loan on real security is validated'? It seems to me that there could be other grounds upon which a loan might be invalidated, such as improper valuations and wrong acts by the trustees. Does it necessarily have to be as full as the subsection makes it out to be?
    Mr. Davies: My understanding is that this covers the actual validity of the granting of a loan. We are concerned here with the question of breach of trust. The valuation might not be correct. There may be other problems. But that does not go to the trust point, which is basic, in that if the valuation were not correct it would not necessarily follow that the loan was invalid and had to be validated. We are concerned simply with the question of breach of trust, which is validated. No doubt this point can be discussed again in Committee.
    Clause 2 is required to correct an error made in the bringing into force of the 1976 Act. The 1976 Act is being brought into force gradually in a series of commencement orders. There have been four so far, and we are just about to make a fifth. The most significant of these commencement orders was the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1976 (Commencement No. 3) Order 1976 (Statutory Instrument 1976, No. 1829). This was made on 1st November 1976 and brought into force on 21st November the major part of the 1976 Act.
    Critically to this Bill, this commencement order brought into force the repeal of Section 12(2) of the 1969 Act, which empowered trustee savings banks to operate special investment departments, and also the repeal of Section 13(1) of the 1969 Act, which provided, in conjunction with Section 13(4) of that Act, a definition of a "current account deposit". It was thought that these sections could be repealed because they were
    468
    made redundant by the bringing into force of Section 9 of the 1976 Act, under which it was thought that a trustee savings bank would be able to continue to provide time deposit facilities, and of Section 12(1) of the 1976 Act, under which moneys placed in current accounts no longer had to be invested with the National Debt Commissioners.
    Unfortunately, these two repeals had side effects which were overlooked at the time that the Commencement Order (No. 3) was made. Clause 2 enables trustee savings banks to carry on their business in the way that they and the Government intended, and as far as is necessary has retrospective effect. Perhaps I should explain this in more detail.
    The repeal of Section 12(2) of the 1969 Act made it arguable that all deposits with trustee savings banks were ordinary deposits as defined in that same Section 12. Under the 1969 Act, as amended by the 1976 Act, all ordinary deposits—apart from the deposits, not exceeding 10 per cent. of the whole, which can be retained as "till" money—have to be invested with the National Debt Commissioners, and the trustee savings banks should pay no more than 4 per cent. per annum interest upon them. Strictly speaking, therefore, trustee savings banks have been acting ultra vires since 21st November 1976 in offering investment accounts, term deposits and so on. Their operation of investment accounts has to be validated retrospectively.
    This element of retrospection does not detract in any way from anybody's rights. Indeed, it works for the benefit of trustee savings banks' customers. Investment account holders, who have been receiving up to 10 per cent. per annum interest on their deposits, will not complain because they have been paid more than the 4 per cent. laid down as the maximum rate of interest payable on ordinary deposits. Nor are depositors likely to complain that TSBs have built up their own investment portfolios rather than investing all their money with the National Debt Commissioners, and have offered certain new facilities—for example, personal loans—to their customers.
    It is possible to put trustee savings banks' current accounts on a sound legal footing without recourse to retrospection. This can be done by a simple declaration for the avoidance of doubt

    469
    in Clause 2(2). Section 12(1) of the 1976 Act provided for moneys deposited as ordinary deposits to be placed to the credit of a current account not to be required to be invested with the National Debt Commissioners. But some doubt has arisen about the effectiveness of this provision because the repeal of Section 13(1) of the 1969 Act has effectively removed the definition of current accounts, and also because Section 12(1) of the 1969 Act is drafted in terms of
    "Save as otherwise provided by this Act …"
    As I have said, the doubts are very slight, but it seems sensible to clarify the matter in the Bill.
    I have tried to explain the two main subsections, subsections (1) and (2). Subsections (3) to (5) are consequential to the amendments of definitions in the 1969 and 1976 Acts. The intention is to remove all reference to savings account deposits and current account deposits so that only one class of deposit is defined in the legislation—that is, ordinary deposits. It is these deposits that are subject to the requirement that they shall be invested with the National Debt Commissioners.
    Clause 3 provides that trustee savings banks have the power to borrow, subject to obtaining the approval of the Trustee Savings Banks Central Board.
    The 1976 Act left it unclear whether trustee savings banks have the powers to borrow. Sections 50 and 51 of the 1969 Act gave the trustee savings banks a limited power to borrow, but when these sections were repealed by the 1976 Act no alternative provisions were substituted. Since it is obviously desirable that trustee savings banks should be able to borrow, it seemed sensible to put the matter again beyond doubt in the Bill and at the same time to introduce adequate safeguards for the exercise of the power.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The Minister has referred to the power of borrowing. Is he saying that Section 9(1) of the 1976 Act would not give the sort of approval that one needs without the doubt being raised?
    Mr. Davies: There was a doubt. Rather than rely upon that section, it seemed sensible to clarify the matter in the Bill and to make it absolutely clear.
    470
    I draw the attention of the House to just three points on the borrowing clause. For the purposes of the clause, borrowing does not include taking deposits from customers in the ordinary course of a trustee savings bank's business. There is, therefore, no question of a trustee savings bank having to seek the Central Board's approval for its normal business. The clause provides that no borrowing by a trustee savings bank may be secured. This is consistent with normal banking practice. Depositors' interests, therefore, will not be subordinated to those of other creditors.
    Finally, and perhaps most importantly, trustee savings banks will not use their powers under this clause to change radically their mode of operations and become, perhaps, more like wholesale banks. The Treasury has agreed with the Trustee Savings Banks Central Board on how its powers of control over trustee savings banks' borrowing should be exercised. It will be made clear to the trustee savings banks that they will be allowed to do only a very limited amount of money market borrowing and that they would normally be expected to borrow on the money markets only to cover temporary liquidity crises brought on by sharp withdrawals of deposits.
    I apologise to the House for the fact that my opening speech has been so detailed, but although very short, this is quite a complex Bill. I hope that a full explanation now of the purpose and effect of the three substantive clauses may help us to make better progress when it comes to considering the Bill in Committee. As I explained earlier, the Bill in no way represents a change in the Government's policy towards the trustee savings banks. It is a technical Bill, which I understand the TSB Central Board wants and is content with.
    I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
    4.52 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Tapsell: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Minister of State for the clear way in which he has explained what is a rather complicated and technical little Bill. On both sides of the House, I think, we are admirers of the trustee savings banks. I do not think that that is in dispute. We wish them well. However, this Bill is the third legislative measure

    471
    concerning the TSBs to come before the House in the past decade, the other two, as the Minister pointed out, being the Trustee Savings Banks Acts of 1969 and 1976.
    In one sense, of course, this Bill is no more than a correction, in a variety of rather complicated respects, of poor draftsmanship by the Government in the wording of their 1976 Act. Although the Minister rather glossed over the point, it is clear from what he said that there were very serious drafting defects in the 1976 Act. We should note that and regret the fact.
    Also, despite the technicality of the Bill and the narrowness, in one sense, with which it deals with these matters, it deals with a subject of great importance to the people of this country, and more particularly, perhaps, to those living in the North of England and Scotland, where TSBs play an even bigger role in life than they do in London and the South.
    Overall, about one adult in every five or six in this country has an account with a TSB—about 8 million depositors in all. Their deposits amount to more than £4,500 million. Indeed, the TSBs—this is one of the reasons why we admire them so much—have been the only sector of the national savings movement to have achieved growth in savings in real terms in the post-war inflationary years. That is a considerable achievement. Therefore, any changes, however apparently small, in the law governing them demand our close attention.
    The 1976 Act, as the Minister made clear, really revolutionised the whole structure and law under which the TSBs had in large measure operated since the Consolidation Act in 1863, and even before then. This revolution is rapidly becoming reflected in the practices of the TSBs, most notably in their introduction last August—after some delay caused by phase 2 of the Government's incomes policy—of their personal loans service, so that cheque books, overdrafts, foreign exchange, travellers' cheques, credit cards and, as the Minister made clear, perhaps mortgages in due course—although not immediately—are all now features of the new TSB service that is to be offered to the public.
    472
    Therefore, one can fairly say that the 1976 Act, which, of course, the Opposition supported, implemented many of the proposals of the Page Report on National Savings, published in 1973. It also had the effect of moving the operating procedures of the TSBs from the nineteenth century rather abruptly into the twentieth century, and they are in rapid process of turning themselves, under their Central Board, into what closely approximates to a joint stock bank, and one in terms of size of deposits not far behind Lloyds Bank and already larger than the smaller clearing banks.
    The new legislation, of which this Bill is the latest example, has really turned the TSBs, now 19 in number, into the third force of banking. There is the private enterprise sector of banking—the joint stock banks—there is the public sector, consisting of the Giro and the National Savings Bank, which is still better known by the general public, I think, as the Post Office Savings Bank, and there is between them this mutual banking sector, consisting of the TSBs, which have their Central Board situated in Copthall Avenue, in the City of London, conveniently close both to the Bank of England and the Stock Exchange. This is, indeed, a far cry from the Dumfriesshire of 1810, where it all started.
    Throughout the movement's cautious, honourable and almost wholly beneficial history, it has been what I think the authors of "1066 and All That" would undoubtedly have described as "a good thing." But we must take nothing for granted, and the Bill deserves close examination both in this Chamber and later in Committee.
    If I understand Clause 1 aright—as the Minister went on with his explanations, it began to seem to me that the Bill was even more complicated than I had originally understood it to be—it clarifies the investment and mortgage lending powers of the TSBs. The Minister said that this clarification is necessary because the Birmingham Municipal Trustee Savings Bank, which, I mention in passing, is one of the many municipal monuments in Birmingham to the Chamberlain family, has always had power to lend on mortgage. But, as the Minister said, the remainder of the TSBs do not at present undertake mortgage lending. He went on

    473
    to say that they have no immediate plans to do so.
    Of course, implicit in what the Minister said is a very important statement indeed, because although the TSBs may have no immediate plans to enter the house mortgage business, they have been given legal power to do so, and the Bill clarifies that still further. Therefore, presumably, when the Minister said that the TSBs had no immediate plans to do this he was implying that sooner or later they are likely to do so, and that, presumably, is why they have been given these legal powers. This of course will bring them into direct competition with the building societies. Before we allow that to start happening in practice we would want an assurance that the trustee savings banks really do possess the necessary skills to operate in this entirely new field.
    Building society operations are highly technical and professional and many men have spent their entire working lives in that field. The trustee savings banks may think that they can move into that market, but it is one of considerable political controversy at all times. One has only to read the article written by Mr. Kenneth Fleet, in the business issue of The Sunday Times last Sunday, or the leading article in the Financial Times on Monday this week to see that the whole position of the building societies is at present under most careful scrutiny. We should like a little more clarification from the Minister on the point about trustee savings banks moving into this mortgage field.
    Clause 2 is required to clarify a serious matter. The Minister made it clear that a very serious drafting error had been made, and retrospective legal action had to be taken to put it right. The deposits held in investment accounts by way of term deposits by a savings bank have been ultra vires since 21st September 1976. This is a very serious drafting error which the Government have had to admit to the House.
    On Clause 3, I want to pursue the interesting point raised by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson). He raised it about an earlier clause but it crops up at various stages throughout the Bill. Clause 3(1) says,
    "A trustee savings bank may borrow money from any source whatsoever with the approval of the Central Board."
    474
    We should like to know what the Government have in mind. Clause 2(1) and 2(1A) raise similar issues. On the face of it it looks as if the TSBs are being given unlimited borrowing powers and that they might be able to borrow, in certain economic circumstances, vast sums of money and use them to move into the mortgage field on a big scale.
    The Minister of State told us that although the TSBs will have this great borrowing power—apparently uncircumscribed—they will be subjected to a Treasury directive on these matters, rather than legislation. Is that entirely satisfactory? Perhaps we could pursue that point in Committee. Would it be better for the proposed Treasury directive to be embodied in general terms in the Bill?
    This Bill which we are being invited to use as a mechanism for putting right serious errors in and omissions from the 1976 Act inevitably raises the whole range of assurances that were given to the House when the 1976 Bill was before us. Arising from those assurances I shall now put certain additional questions to the Minister of State.
    First of all, he will recall that the Finance Act last year—the first Finance Act of that year resulting from the eleventh Budget of this Government—raised the amount of interest that could be received free of tax by a depositor with a savings bank, whatever his marginal rate of tax, from £40 to £70. The Government have announced that they are withdrawing that tax allowance from 20th November 1979. Is that still the Government's intention? If so, will the necessary legislation be included in this year's Finance Bill—the thirteenth Budget—or will it be left to a Conservative Chancellor?
    Secondly, the present Secretary of State for Trade when introducing the 1976 Bill in this House said on Second Reading:
    "The underlying securities at present show a deficiency of some £200 million because of a decline in market values over the long period during which the fund has operated. To give the authorities time to reduce and eliminate that deficiency the banks have agreed that this repayment should be phased over the expected seven years of the transition following the phasing out of the ordinary department".—[Official Report, 17th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 1210.]

    475
    February 1976 was a few months before the IMF took charge of this Government's financial policies. British Government bonds were standing at depressed price levels, though they were not as depressed as they became as the year went on. Since then there has been a substantial recovery in the gilt-edged market. Has that recovery, as I would suppose, almost wiped out the £200-million deficit, and what are the Government's intentions on this matter? Is there now any need for this phased repayment over seven years? Has it been completed? If not, what is the time schedule involved for completion?
    My third question involves the much larger sum of £1,500 million, excluding current account and other moneys, outstanding to the credit of the TSBs, which the Government have undertaken to repay to them. This amount is at present held in a portfolio by a body described by the Minister of State and other Government Ministers in a characteristically Freudian presentation as "the National Debt Commissioners". This body's correct title is the "Office of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt". It is not altogether surprising that Ministers who have borrowed more than £13,000 million overseas should have chosen to overlook that fact.
    I understand that the Commissioners are planning to repay this £1,500 million to the TSBs in 15 half-yearly tranches over a seven-year period from 1979 to 1986, the first tranche is to be repaid on 21st November 1979. The reason for the long-drawn-out repayment procedure under the new arrangements set up in the 1976 Act has been delicately described as being "to avoid unsettling the market". In view of the recovery in the gilt-edged market since 1976 and the fairly rapid recent rise in the TSBs' reserves, is it intended to make the repayment of the £1,500 million more rapidly than originally envisaged? If not, why not?
    My fourth question concerns the speech of the Secretary of State for Trade when he said in the House on 17th February 1976,
    "I have emphasised the importance of the banks building up their reserves at the same time as they develop their banking services for depositors."—[Official Report, 17th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 1209.]
    476
    Am I right in saying that when the Secretary of State made that comment the reserves of the TSBs were only 2 per cent. of their deposits, and that a target was then set for them to reach a ratio of 7 per cent. of reserves to deposits by 1986? Is it also a fact that the reserves position of the TSBs has improved very markedly since 1976, and now stands at about 4.8 per cent.? If that is so, and if the 7 per cent. target figure is reached, as seems probable, well before 1986, will a higher target figure be set by the Government of the day, or is a 7 per cent. ratio deemed to be the ideal?
    My fifth and final question to the Minister is: are the Government aware of the concern over the extent to which the TSBs, having been forced by trade union pressure to withdraw their service to the public on Saturdays, now find deposits being placed with the building societies, which open on Saturdays, rather than with them?
    Was the last governmental word on this matter uttered by the Prime Minister yesterday at Question Time, when he advised everybody to bank with the Co-op? In that remark the right hon. Gentleman seemed to encapsulate the anxiety in the minds of many millions of depositors throughout the country ever since the Labour Party's national executive and its party conference committed a future Labour Government to nationalise all the banks.
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: That is not correct.
    Mr. Tapsell: I happen to have the document with me. It is Labour's "Programme for Britain 1976" and it is an official publication of the national executive of the Labour Party. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) is always telling us that what is handed down by the national executive must be regarded as the tablets of stone to be observed by the Labour Government.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we had all this over a period of about five hours on Friday.
    Mr. Heffer: May I, for the record, correct what the hon. Gentleman said? He said that Labour wanted to nationalise all the banks. That is not the

    477
    proposition, and never has been. I suggest that he should do what I often advise many of his Conservative colleagues to do, and that is to read the original documents rather than the handouts from Tory Central Office.
    Mr. Tapsell: I have read the Labour Party document from cover to cover, extremely carefully. If the hon. Gentleman will turn to page 20, he will see that it is clearly stated that
    "We"—
    that is, the national executive—
    "called for action to ensure that institutional funds are steered towards investment in manufacturing. In 1971, however, Conference went much further than this and called for the nationalisation of the banks and insurance companies."
    If that does not mean all the banks, I do not know what it does mean.
    Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman must be honest about the matter. I must tell him that since then we have issued a report.
    Mr. Tapsell: I am clearly saying—
    Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) must accept the situation.
    Mr. Tapsell: I am reading what is said on page 20 of that document, which is there for all to read.
    Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member said that it was carried by conference, and that is not true.
    Mr. Tapsell: I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 20 of "Labour's Programme for Britain 1976". If I can have the hon. Gentleman's absolute assurance that his party does not intend to nationalise the banks, I shall be grateful to hear it.
    Mr. Heffer: Not all the banks, was the term used.
    Mr. Tapsell: Broadly speaking, the Conservative Party very much welcomes the fact that the recent legislation on the trustee savings banks is moving in exactly the opposite direction to that advocated by the hon. Member for Walton and his hon. Friends. The Bill's proposals are entirely acceptable to us in that sense because they reflect the recommendations
    478
    of the committee under the chairmanship of Sir Harry Page, set up by the last Conservative Government. Those proposals have had the effect of increasing competition and of extending to millions of small savers a greatly extended and valuable range of banking services, particularly bearing in mind the fact that half the British people still do not carry a cheque book issued by any clearing bank. We favour the freeing of the trustee savings banks from the chains of Government by moving them gradually away from the skirts of the Commissioners.
    We shall support the Bill, as we supported its predecessors. But many parents know that when they give their daughter a latchkey, they have to watch over her even more carefully than before. It is no secret, despite the eccentric views expressed today by the hon. Member for Walton, that many other Labour Members below the Gangway would like to put together the Giro, the National Savings Bank and the trustee savings banks to enlarge the public banking sector and to use their huge joint deposits—the savings of the people—as a form of creeping back-door nationalisation. The "Labour Programme for Britain 1976" makes no secret of that whatever. It makes no secret of the fact that there is a wolf at large. We in the Conservative Party believe that neither the trustee savings banks nor the joint stock banks should be cast in the role of Little Red Riding Hood. We give support to the general principles in the Bill, although there are many aspects of detail that we shall wish to scrutinise carefully in Committee.
    5.17 p.m.
    Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: As the House knows, I have supported the action taken by this Government, in quite the opposite direction from that described by the hon. Member for Horn-castle (Mr. Tapsell), as outlined in Labour's programme to free the trustee savings bank from the shackles of Government. The benefits to the consumer are already being seen, and this is a welcome development.
    I hope that we shall give the Bill a speedy passage through the House—certainly those parts of it that are found to be necessary—because this will enable the banks to get on with the job and enable them to be masters in their own house,

    479
    providing a wider range of service and greater competition in banking than now exists.
    Having said that, my first reaction on seeing the Bill was one of intense irritation that it was even necessary. I and other Labour colleagues, particularly those in the Co-operative Group, have been pressing the Government to get other legislation which we believe to be vitally important through the House before the end of this Session. Therefore, it is profoundly irritating to us to find the time of the House being taken up with legislation which should not have been necessary. Some of us are very annoyed that we are now having to spend time on a Bill which would not have been necessary if a little more forethought had been given to the matter.
    Having listened to the Minister and having examined the Bill, I still wonder whether some of its provisions are necessary. However, unfortunately, at the end of the day we shall, as always, have to take the advice of the lawyers. When the Minister says that it is not possible under Section 9(1) of the previous legislation for trustee savings banks to lend on mortgages, because that is not the normal run-of-the-mill banking business, I find that rather surprising. I have worked in two banking organisations. In the Midland Bank, for which I worked first, securities on mortgages were taken on a whole series of loans. Indeed, it is widely known that apart from mortgages given to customers by banks, all banks offer mortgages to their staff as the normal course of events. If there were any fear that Section 9(1) was not adequate to cover mortgages given by the trustee savings banks, the precedents which exist in all the clearing banks could have been used to justify the practice. I should be interested to hear the Minister's reaction on this point.
    The Minister then said that the banks may not have power to give loans. He went into great detail, and perhaps when we study his comments and examine the relevant clauses we may find that he is correct. However it is staggering if the Minister is saying that we put through a Bill to give the trustee savings banks power to carry on banking business only to find that they have not the power to give loans. What a peculiar state of affairs.
    480
    That is why some of us are profoundly irritated to find that the Bill is necessary. If the banks do not have powers to make loans under the previous legislation, what the dickens were we playing at when we put the legislation through? They should have this power, and if it is not clear—and I should have thought that it was perfectly clear—the Government have been remiss.
    The power to borrow which is being given was discussed at length in Committee and during the other stages of the previous Bill. During the discussions on how the banks were to be supervised, and what their powers were to be, there was no suggestion that the power to borrow or to make loans would raise any problems. I have to ask who has challenged the previous legislation. I have not found any evidence of the power being challenged. Who has questioned the power? Has it come entirely from within the Treasury or from within the banks themselves or has legal action been threatened against a trustee savings bank or the Central Board? Can the Minister give a little more evidence to justify the need for some of the clauses in the Bill?
    The Minister said that the Bill is a small measure, but it has 20 subsections and is not as small as some Bills we have seen. It is by no means insignificant.
    My right hon. Friend did not say anything about the general progress of the trustee savings banks in their transition and it would be useful to have a few general comments on how they are progressing and what developments are taking place. Are they recruiting the staff they need without difficulty? Are their new freedoms being exercised in the way that was expected? Is there a growth of business?
    There was discussion on the earlier Bill about representation on the boards of trustees. Anxiety was expressed at the narrow range of people represented on the boards. It was pointed out that more than one-quarter of the trustees were aged over 70 and that 10 per cent. of them were aged over 75. An undertaking was given that the matter would be discussed with the trustee savings banks' representatives in order to broaden the representation to include trade unionists and others with a broader background so

    481
    that the narrower representation could be changed and a much broader representation provided. I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on how this has developed.
    My sympathy remains with trustee savings banks developing as rapidly as possible to provide a full range of competitive services, and I shall do all I can to speed the Bill on its way.
    5.24 p.m.
    Mr. J. Grimond: The very clarity of the Minister's introduction of the Bill made clear that it was necessary because two previous Bills were defective. Hon. Members have commented on this fact and it is becoming a feature of our proceedings that we have to legislate because of the defects of previous Bills.
    The only solution is to legislate less. We attempt to do far too much. Gone are the days when Neville Chamberlain made his reputation by passing 24 Bills from his Department in one Session. The best epitaph that any Minister could have on his tombstone today is, "He was a very good Minister. He never introduced a Bill".
    However, as the Bill has been introduced, I should like to discuss local savings and their disposal. Despite efforts to free them, the trustee savings banks are still under tight control of the National Debt Commissioners and the Treasury. I should like to see that control loosened to enable the banks to invest more locally. At present, trustee savings banks collect local savings, but then take them out of the places where they are generated. It is essential to channel local savings into local industry, trade, fishing, agriculture and so on and, possibly, mortgages.
    Many regions with high unemployment have to look to smaller industries if they want more employment, and regional development is still important for this country. Unfortunately, savings banks are becoming less local.
    I have some sympathy with the plea for the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) that the composition of the banks' boards should be looked at, partly to broaden the pool from which they are recruited but also to keep their local contacts. We are talking not only of considerable sums nationally—about £4,700 million—but a surprising amount
    482
    of savings that are collected in local savings banks. Such banks are regarded by many local people as the main means of saving, but the savings are taken out of the district.
    In many places that have been short of capital, oil and, perhaps, redundancy payments, will bring in extra money and it is important that these funds should be reinvested in productive work in the areas where the savings have been generated.
    Not long ago, I visited the 66 co-operatives at Mondragon in northern Spain, which are entirely run by the workers. Up to now they have been extremely successful, and central to their operation is the co-operative bank, the Casa Laboral Popular. It supplies a great deal of the capital and expertise. It collects the savings in Biscaya and channels them into local industry. That is exactly what I should like to see, but there is no equivalent in this country, and that is a serious defect in our regional and banking arrangements.
    We take money out of areas such as the Highlands of Scotland, the North-East of England and South Wales and then set up elaborate machinery—such as the Highland and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency—to put it back. In the process, a lot of money is lost through administrative and other costs. It is illogical to strip savings from places that do not have enough capital and then set up large agencies to put the money back.
    The same criticism applies to building societies. This is relevant because mortgages are included in the Bill. For years, no building society would give loans in remote parts of the country, particularly in my constituency, but when oil was discovered, they set up offices in prominent sites not to assist local inhabitants but to collect their savings and take them down to South-East England. It is still difficult to get building society loans in remote parts of the country and if the savings banks go into the business—and, if they have the expertise to do so, I would welcome that—they should lend in the places where they raise the money.
    The question of skill available to the banks is a central question to my argument, but I believe that they should if necessary now be turning their attention to collecting the skills if they are to go

    483
    into mortgages or local lending to industry. Certainly they should seek to gather the skills required for local investment. The local savings banks act in this way in Norway. They invest in local industry and have built up the skills which the ordinary bank manager in this country often has, to enable them to do this type of investment.
    Up to now, under the tight regulations of the trustee savings banks' other savings, they have largely invested in Government stock. If it is said that my suggestion would be risky, I would point out that nothing has been more downright unfortunate than heavy investment in Government stock over the last 20 years or so. It cannot be said that the investors in the savings banks have got a good deal. I doubt whether they have anything like kept up with inflation. It is partly for that reason that the banks have now been organised to found a unit trust.
    I wonder whether the banks are not going into the unit trust business at just the wrong moment. I fear that, like most unit trusts, they will put most of their funds into the big companies—apart from specialist examples, all unit trusts invest in ICI, Shell and so on—at the very moment when those big basic industries in this country will be more and more threatened by imports from Korea, America and other places, and Britain's economy may have to turn over far more into a new generation of industries. I doubt whether unit trusts will be in the van of that movement.
    So if it is argued that the risk of my suggestion would be too heavy, I point to Norway and to the possibility of control. I would favour a separate form of deposit for local investment. I doubt also whether the present system has done much for the investor.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I would hate the right hon. Gentleman to develop an inaccurate argument. The trustee savings banks movement has had a unit trust since 1968 and already has over £75 million invested. That trust has done somewhat better than most of the Stock Exchange indicators.
    Mr. Grimond: I was not denying that. I know that the movement has had a unit trust for some years and that, as
    484
    trusts go, it has done reasonably well. But I still doubt whether, taking account of inflation and so on, the investors would not have done better to buy whisky. Many pension funds are now turning to art. Those who clamour most for productive investment are often secretly buying up Impressionist pictures.
    I have not examined the matter in detail but I should be surprised if the unit trust has done much more than keep up with inflation—if that. If it has done as much, it has done better than the investment of the House of Commons Pension Fund, of which I am a trustee, so I give it all praise. But those who invested in Government stocks over the last 20 or 30 years have not matched inflation.
    So I am not against the TSB unit trust, but I wonder whether that should be the only form of equity investment open to the banks. One of the purposes of the banks, according to the 1969 Act, is to encourage thrift. I go along with that. It is very important to the Chancellor that as much money as possible should be mopped up by saving, but it might become part of the banks' duty to encourage local development as well. I hope that, if not in this Bill, as the banks gradually advance into new fields, the points that I have made will be kept in mind.
    5.35 p.m.
    Mr. Jim Craigen: The Minister assured us that the Bill is a technical one to clarify the services which the trustee savings banks already thought that they could provide. To that extent, it will help the TSB movement. But it is an example of "If at first you don't succeed, try and try again". I hope that this time the parliamentary draftsmen have got it right and that the position of the trustee savings banks will be secure.
    I agreed with much that my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said about the services which the banks might provide. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was right to stress the importance of the TSB movement to individual localities. They have grown up on that basis.
    As the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) said, the movement originated in Dumfriesshire. I was a little bemused by what he said about 1066

    485
    because that date does not have the same connotations in Scotland as it does in England.
    As a result of the Page Report and rationalisation in the last few years the number of individual banks is now down to 19 and there has perhaps been a growth in anonymity. I hope that some consideration will be given to the representativeness of boards of trustees. The movement will come up against a real problem here in the years ahead in involving lay people.
    Although it is not at the moment envisaged that many of the trustee savings banks will want to undertake mortgage lending, I am sure that some of them will, in the near future. From discussions with trustees and management in the West of Scotland Trustee Savings Bank, I am sure that this is something that they would like to do.
    I would certainly welcome such an intervention in the housing market. I hope that the trustee savings bank, with its local identity, will do what some of the building societies are diffident about doing—providing mortgages in difficult areas such as the central conurbation of Clydeside. In that area the building societies are often loath to provide funds for certain property, mainly tenemented, to either young or older people.
    If the trustee savings bank is to become truly a third force, it will be important for it to remember that it is a bank, with a social purpose. Its origins are essentially local and that is one of the movement's strongest cards in its future operation.
    Many people, like myself, became involved with the TSB movement simply because their grandparents or their parents took out a deposit account for them. I have subsequently become associated with the work of the Parliamentary Committee. In future, it may not be such a common practice for parents to open deposit accounts. If the movement wants to attract young people it will have to become more closely associated with services which many young people, particularly married couples, are now seeking, like mortgage lending.
    Many valid points have already been made. I hope that we have things right this time and that we are doing what
    486
    we thought we had done in the 1976 Act.
    5.40 p.m.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I begin by declaring my interest as a depositor in the trustee savings bank, a member of my local committee for 25 years, and a trustee of the largest savings bank in the country. Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), I am a member of the Parliamentary Committee.
    It is unfortunate that the parliamentary draftsmen got it wrong. However, they are human beings. We sometimes make a little too much of saying "Is it not a pity that mistakes have been made?" In some respects we would live in an undesirable world if occasionally human beings did not make mistakes. Ministers should not make mistakes because many people believe that they are not human. Civil servants cannot defend themselves and they should not be attacked by us. I acquit the parliamentary draftsmen of some of the things that have been said about them this afternoon.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) that the Chair never makes mistakes.
    Mr. Finsberg: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that you referred to the "right hon. Gentleman", but I am not sure. Hansard will doubtless tell me whether that was so.
    Why is the Bill needed by the trustee savings bank movement? It is a tidying up Bill. I do not know what went on between the usual channels, but it seems that the Bill would have been an ideal candidate for a Second Reading Committee. I cannot understand why it has had to be dealt with on the Floor of the House. It is not necessary for it to take up much time. On this occasion there is no need for anyone to raise the wider arguments that most of us who are concerned with and who understand the trustee savings bank movement went through in great detail when putting the 1976 Act on the statute book. There is not very much in the Bill.
    The hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) referred to elderly trustees. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was no discretion for the Minister because the Act stated that

    487
    those trustees would have to retire at 70 years of age. A substantial number have already gone.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need to make the boards more representative. Proposals are being formulated by the Central Board to allow for the election of depositors. There was never any question of trade unions being represented. The depositors are those who matter. It is their money that is at stake. I am quite sure that some of them, like myself, are trade unionists. Considering the outstanding success of the trustee savings bank movement, we would be unwise to make too many changes in the composition of the boards that have ultimate responsibility for running the banks.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: I take the hon. Gentleman's point when he says that it was never intended that trade unions should be represented. I hope that he will not misinterpret what I way saying and what has been said on other occasions. Reference has been made to trade unionists to illustrate the breadth of people who could sit on the boards and who are not doing so at present. It should be clear to the hon. Gentleman, if he does not already know, that the National Union of Bank Employees feels strongly that in these times of discussion about industrial democracy the trade unions should be represented at that level.
    Mr. Finsberg: That is an issue to be considered. I wish that the National Union of Bank Employees would consider the interests of customers and depositors, and would not, for example, block the opening of banks on Saturdays. I am sure that many members of NUBE would qualify, because they are depositors. I should have no objection to that. My objection to that sort of industrial democracy is when trade unionists sit on boards to represent the unions and not the depositors, who are the key to the whole operation.
    Important progress has been made since the Page Report. Last year, which was pre-Page, the trustee savings bank movement had £94 million in the current account with reserves of £90 million. In 1977 the current account increased to £224 million and reserves grew to £199 million. That is very satisfactory progress.
    488
    All the banks have done exceptionally well, although it is reasonable to note that there is still one bank that has not come within the ambit of the Central Board and does not seem to have done quite as well as the others. No doubt its depositors will have something to say about that at the right moment.
    There are three or four other points of importance that need to be made. As has already been said, the banking system of the TSB movement is moving with the times. The number of cheque accounts in operation, which were introduced in 1965 against opposition from the joint stock banks, reached half a million in 1974, three quarters of a million in 1975, and doubled to 11 million by 1977. Much of that growth was as a result of the 1976 Act and the interest generated by the Page Report.
    The other main change was the ability to operate credit services. The ability so to operate was delayed because it was disputed whether the wage agreement, the bonus and the productivity arrangements that were agreed between the bank and its staff fell within the Government's then criteria. I still think that they did. I believe that the TSBs should have fought a bit harder to get its views accepted and known. However, it did not and there was a delay.
    Already the amount of loans outstanding are £26 million. That is a great credit to the bank as it indicates its willingness to operate such a scheme. As from November a TSB trust card will operate that will be part of the Visa card system. It will give customers of the bank the opportunity to participate more widely in general banking services.
    It is fair to say, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) pointed out, that there are restrictions on the loans that the banks may make. Those restrictions are covered mainly by Schedule 3 of the 1976 Act. However, the banks make fairly substantial loans to local authorities in their areas. It is not right to say that all the money is taken away to go to the centre because the individual banks have the power—they exercise it quite frequently—to make such loans in their own areas. I hope that in the run-up to what is technically known as Day Y, much more freedom will be given to allow the banks to lend in wider areas.

    489
    The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Thornaby wondered whether professionalism and skill are present in the TSB movement. I can only say as a layman that it is my opinion that we do have professionalism in the movement. It is not very encouraging to depositors to hear it being questioned whether it exists within the movement. The general managers and others who run its most successful unit trust movement are highly skilled. The bank depositors and those who put their money into the unit trusts are being exceptionally well served. I have no doubt that as Day Y reaches us and the freedom is available that the right hon. Gentleman rightly seeks along with the TSB movement, the banks will use it to the advantage of customers and depositors.
    Who raised the queries that led to the introduction of the Bill? The query lying with mortgages in Clause I was raised by the Land Registry, which has so far refused to register many of the deeds which were the subject of a grant, as the Minister of State said, from Birmingham. It was not, as it were, an in-house legal quibble. It was the Land Registry.
    Clauses 2 and 3 were raised by the trustee savings bank movement. Its lawyers seemed to suggest that there was a doubt. Clearly, the Treasury agreed. That is why those clauses appear in the Bill.
    I turn to the repayment from the National Debt Commissioners; had the Central Board insisted on the immediate repayment of £1,500 million in cash, there would have been a catastrophic effect on the gilts market. Equally, the savings banks did not want to take over the grim portfolio that had been amassed over the years by Governments of both major parties.
    The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland did not seem happy about the investment policy of the House of Commons Pension Fund trustees. I do not think that over the years the National Debt Commissioners have behaved brilliantly in the way that they have handled savings bank deposits—whether trustee savings banks or Post Office savings accounts. I am with the right hon. Gentleman 100 per cent. on that matter. It was agreed that there had to be this phased repayment in tranches.
    490
    As it proceeds, I think that the banks will be satisfied that they will be able to provide the service that they want to give.
    The one worry of those who have years of experience of the trustee savings banks has been that, to get the efficiency demanded by the 1976 Act, it has been necessary to reduce dramatically the number of banks. The banks are now viable, but they have the disadvantage that they know their particular localities less well. For example, when it comes to making loans to industry—the bank of which I am a trustee in the South-East covers an enormous area—the bank will put more responsibility on its professional management. That will in turn require more skilled trustees sitting on the appropriate board to evaluate the advice that is put before them. It is similar to the advice that Ministers have to take. They will always get advice which they are told by their advisers is good advice, but in the end they have to decide whether it is good advice. I f they are poor quality, some poor quality advice will slip through.
    This tidying-up measure gives another opportunity for deciding how we are to get marching in step the obviously increased professionalism of the management of the trustee savings banks with the need for getting more highly skilled trustees. That will not necessarily be the result of having a proportion of trustees elected from the depositors. The figures show that the depositors have had no complaint about what has been done for them so far. I am concerned that that progress should continue. The Bill does nothing to hinder that progress, but it does a lot to help it. Bluntly, I hope that the Bill will get a fair wind and that it might be out of Committee in less than one full sitting.
    5.53 p.m.
    Mr. William Wilson: It does not appear from the progress record to which we have just listened as though the drafting errors have had any adverse effects upon the trustee savings banks movement. Despite the mistakes, matters have gone on as we all hoped that they would.
    I do not join in the criticism of parliamentary draftsmen. They have a difficult task to perform. Having sat on the Joint Consolidation Committee for the

    491
    last 13 years and observed parliamentary draftsmen perhaps more closely than have many other hon. Members, I can speak only of my unbounded admiration for them. This has indeed been an exception.
    I do not wish to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) into the wilds of Norway or into the heat of Spain. I ask one simple question to which I should like a reply from my hon. Friend in winding up the debate. I suggest that depositors, when they read that they have received 10 per cent. interest instead of 4 per cent. interest and are assured that they will not have to repay it, will wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will demand that income tax be paid upon the extra 6 per cent. If it has been paid by mistake, as it has, and they have no lawful entitlement to it, will the Treasury seek to take some of it back under the heading of income tax? It is a mundane question. However, I suspect that many depositors are more likely to ponder that question than any of the others that have been raised today.
    5.55 p.m.
    Mr. Paul Hawkins: It is difficult to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) because, despite calling himself a layman, he is obviously an expert on trustee savings banks.
    This is a necessary Bill from what we have been told. But, as several hon. Members have said, it is extremely irritating that we should have to go over the same ground twice because the 1976 Act was so faulty.
    We cannot blame the parliamentary draftsmen. The numbers recruited are in the hands of the Government. I think that Governments of both major parties have over the last few years over-pressed parliamentary draftsmen by far too much legislation. As has been said, there is always a great desire by every Department to put its imprint on several Bills. There are always Bills in the top or bottom drawers gathering dust which civil servants want to bring out for fear that they might be unemployed. There are always do-gooders who want to bring up the particular bees in their bonnets. Therefore, we pass far too much ill-digested legislation. Errors are not spotted
    492
    because parliamentary draftsmen are overworked.
    I declare my interest as a depositor in a trustee savings bank. But if I heard correctly that the Government are to withdraw their tax concession, I am not sure that I shall be a depositor after 1979.
    I am a great admirer of the trustee savings banks. They are local, friendly banks used by large numbers of people. I find them more flexible than the main street banks. It is a pity that they have been forced to close on Saturdays. However, they have more flexible hours than other banks.
    I was interested to learn that trustee savings banks can in certain circumstances lend on mortgage. I am not so against that idea as I thought I should be. My hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) said that the trustee savings banks did not have the expertise. But expertise can be bought.
    Mr. Tapsell: Perhaps I may clarify that point. I was not necessarily against the idea in principle. I merely wanted to be assured that the trustee savings banks would have the necessary expertise before embarking upon mortgage lending.
    Mr. Hawkins: I am sure that the trustee savings banks are possibly even more cautious in some respects than other banks and that they would make sure that they had the expertise before embarking on such a course.
    I should like to see more opportunities for people to obtain mortgages. The trustee savings banks are in touch with many working people who require mortgage help. The building societies have become very hidebound. There are certain areas in which they will not lend, despite the fact that they have enormous sums of money to lend. It would not be a bad idea if the trustee savings banks had a little competition.
    I declare an interest as a chartered surveyor. I do not believe that the limitation on mortgages by building societies at the Government's request will have the desired effect. I believe that it will prevent people from moving from one part of the country to another. Such movement is important to employment. It will not stop prices from rising because

    493
    building costs for new houses are rising and the price of old houses will rise in line with that. People will withdraw houses from the market, which is already inadequately supplied.
    I hope that the trustee savings bank will not be tarred with the same brush as the other banks. There is talk of making opening hours less flexible and the Government intend to stop the tax-free allowances. That will take away some of the attraction of the trustee savings banks.
    The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) spoke of investments in small local industries. This is an area which the trustee savings banks should examine. I understand that through local authorities they lend money to localities. We must look to small industries in small towns and villages to improve employment. The local knowledge of the trustee savings banks will stand them in good stead in that respect.
    I am aware that several branches have been closed but the East Anglian Trustee Savings Bank, which has existed for a long time, has many people who have the requisite knowledge and expertise to advise on investment in local industry.
    I wish the Bill a fair wind. I hope that the trustee savings banks will go from strength to strength. I hope that they will widen their activities so that they are of even more use to the localities in which they have grown up.
    6.2 p.m.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall try to deal with some of the issues that have been raised. The hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) asked about mortgage lending and whether the trustee savings banks in general will move into this sphere. As I explained, this is now merely a problem which relates to the former Birmingham Municipal Bank. There are no plans at the moment for this to happen generally. The Treasury has power to designate trustee savings banks with the power to lend on mortgage. However, there is no present intention of doing that. The situation will develop over the years and the matter will be examined again.
    The hon. Member for Horncastle said that this Treasury direction and the powers of borrowing should be in the legislation. On reflection, I am sure that he will appreciate that the powers necessary to supervise any bank should not
    494
    be laid down in detail in legislation because circumstances can change rapidly. The supervisory authority—be it the Treasury, or the Bank of England in relation to other banks—has to have a certain flexibility. It is not practicable to enshrine that detailed supervision in legislation.
    The hon. Member asked when the tax concession would be withdrawn. I understand that it must be withdrawn by the Finance Act 1979 at the latest and that it will be withdrawn in that legislation.
    The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) seemed to mourn the fact that the tax concession is to be taken away from ordinary accounts. If it were not taken away the joint stock bank fraternity would complain, because if trustee savings banks are to become the third force in banking, as the Page Report recommended, they should compete on a more or less equal basis with the other banking forces.
    Mr. Hawkins: Could the Minister not grant the same allowances to accounts at ordinary banks? That would widen the matter and be even more advantageous.
    Mr. Davies: That is a difficult question, which I shall not deal with now. I was explaining why the concession was being taken away.
    The hon. Member for Horncastle mentioned the deficiency on the securities that are invested with the National Debt Commissioners. I believe that the deficit is about £50 million and that it has come down from the original £200 million. The hon. Member also asked about early repayment. That would be a call on public expenditure. I am sure that with the need to restrain public expenditure the hon. Member will not wish to aggravate the problem. He also asked about deposits and reserves. He mentioned a figure of 4·8 per cent. I do not know whether that is correct, but I have no reason to doubt it. The hon. Member asked if the target figure would be raised by 1986. I cannot answer for future Governments, but the agreement is as the hon. Member suggested.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) asked why it was necessary to grant specific powers to the trustee savings banks to

    495
    lend on mortgage when they could be covered by the phrase "carrying on the ordinary business of banking". It would not be covered by that phrase. I am not aware that joint stock banks lend money for longer than eight years for house purchase. They do not make the building society-type loans, although they may lend money to their staff for house purchase. For that reason it is better to clarify the power and make it clear in the Bill.
    My hon. Friend then asked who raised the question of the ultra vires nature of the power to lend on mortgage. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Fins-berg) answered this, as he did many other points. I am grateful to him. We thought that it was right to clarify the matter for the House.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby also referred to the narrow range of people represented on the boards. The hon. Member for Hampstead again came to my rescue and answered this question. He said that the 1976 legislation put a limit of 70 years of age on membership and that this would continue to have its effect upon the nature and age of members of the boards.
    The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) made an interesting intervention, which he has made before, but it was none the worse for that. He raised a valid point. He said that there was a danger that when we had central supervision of these institutions, savings would be attracted out of the locality and invested centrally, to the detriment of local industry and business. There is much in what the right hon. Gentleman said. The dilemma here is that banks must have a certain amount of central supervision and control for the protection of depositors, but in the process of securing that the local connection tends to get lost.
    This does not happen in other countries where there is not so much concern for the protection of depositors. In the United States, for example, there is a thriving local banking community which can plough resources back into the locality. That presents a very real problem for us, but it is a problem of which the TSB Central Board is aware. It appreci-
    496
    ates that the TSB roots are local and regional. Whether those roots can be retained with the kind of central efficiency that is needed for an expansion of the business is not something that I can say. I hope, however, that this dilemma can be resolved.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson) raised an interesting point. He said that the 10 per cent. that was paid on investment accounts in place of the 4 per cent. that should have been paid should not be taxable. The answer to that is the same as the answer to the point that he raised in his intervention; the quality of the payment is not illegal, and neither is the quality of the mortgage invalid. The issue in question is the power of the TSBs to make this payment. They may be accountable somewhere along the line for any damage that may arise as a result of it. In many cases, however, it is not clear to just whom they are accountable. The payment is in the pockets of depositors, and no doubt the Inland Revenue will recover the tax.
    Mr. William Wilson: Of course the money is in the pockets of depositors. If what the Minister has told us is correct, however, that money should not have been paid. The depositor had no right to it. That being so, why should he pay tax on money to which he has no right?
    Mr. Davies: I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished lawyer, but of course the depositor has a right to the payment. The question of the validity of the payment is a matter between the trustees and those to whom they might be accountable.
    As the hon. Member for Hampstead said, this is a small Bill, which is meant to put matters right. There were errors in the 1976 legislation. We should not be too hard on Ministers or parliamentary draftsmen for that, because the trustee savings banks are of a strange nature. They began a long time ago. For a bank to be run by trustees is a very unusual situation. Having grown up over the years, the system is bound to have anomalies and difficulties, and it is not surprising that when these banks are now being freed from the constraints of Government these problems should arise.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it was in no sense of vindictiveness or antagonism that I expressed irritation. The irritation arose predominantly because there are other pieces of legislation that we want to see become law and we would prefer that they should have precedence over measures of this sort.
    Mr. Davies: I appreciate that. I have no great desire to stand at this Dispatch Box to put this Bill through, except that it is necessary and it will enable the TSBs to carry on and increase and improve their services. It is part of the process by which they are to be freed from Government control. For these reasons, I hope that the House will see fit to give the Bill a Second Reading.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

    EMPLOYMENT SUBSIDIES BILL
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  New Clause 1

    PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OF EXPENDITURE
    '(1) The Secretary of State shall not, after 30th June 1978—

    (a) set up any new scheme whose expected cost exceeds £10 million a year; or

    (b) alter or extend any existing scheme, set up after that date and not so far costing more than £10 million a year, in such a way that the expected cost of the scheme as altered or extended exceeds that amount,

    unless he has previously been authorised to do so by a resolution of the House of Commons.
    (2) If the expected cost of a new scheme proposed to be set up, or of an existing scheme as proposed to be altered or extended, exceeds those limits, the Secretary of State shall, with a view to obtaining such a resolution, lay before the House of Commons a statement explaining the proposal.
    (3) Subsections (1) and (2) above do not apply where the Secretary of State is satisfied that compliance would involve unacceptable delay in the taking of urgent essential measures against unemployment; but if he proceeds
    498
    without a resolution of the House he shall lay before the House a statement of the action he has taken and his reasons for so proceeding.'—[Mr. Golding.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    6.13 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    This is an important new clause. My hon. Friends and the Opposition pressed on the Government very strongly in Committee that a Bill which gives the Government such great powers should be subject to control by the House of Commons. We were unable to accept the Opposition amendment in Committee because it would have introduced elements of delay and an inability to change the details of the schemes in the light of parliamentary pressure. I am glad to say that, thanks to the co-operation of my hon. Friends and the Opposition, we have produced a clause that satisfies the needs of the House.
    Mr. Barney Hayhoe: I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the clause. It arises from a clear assurance that he gave in Committee. He will recall that on Second Reading I expressed very strongly from the Opposition Benches the view that it was wrong for the immense enabling powers conferred on the Secretary of State by the Bill to be exercised without parliamentary control.
    It is something of a paradox that we should be discussing now a matter of considerable importance to Parliament. We are discussing the clause in a Chamber which is as empty as circumstances would normally permit, given that there is other business to follow. The emptiness of the Chamber, however, should not be taken as in any way detracting from the important principle that the Government are acknowledging with the clause, which is that there should be an element of parliamentary control over the expenditure of large sums of public money.
    Perhaps the Minister will consider one small detail and reflect on whether something should be done to correct the matter in another place. The formulation of the clause follows very closely that adopted in

    499
    the Industry Act 1972. That Act provides that where urgency prevails the Secretary of State can act and then lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement of what he has done. This clause provides only that he should lay that statement before the House of Commons. Is there some significance in that?
    On Second Reading I promised that the Bill would get a fair wind and I think the Minister will acknowledge that that has happened. In no small part that has been due to the positive and constructive response of the Minister in Committee to the various amendments. That seemed to be a model way of proceeding. Points were made and accepted, and pledges were given. Now we are seeing them brought to fruition.
    That whole performance is in stark contrast to the attempts by some Labour Members earlier today in discussion of the statement by the Secretary of State for Employment on jobs measures to try to make petty party propaganda points about obstruction by the Opposition of the various job subsidy programmes. It was clear from this afternoon's statement that this Bill is crucial to those measures and that it must be got through Parliament quickly. This is being done because of the co-operation of the Opposition. In view of that those Labour Members, only one of whom is now here, might want to withdraw the comments that they made. They should bear in mind the experience that the Government have had with this Bill.
    Mr. Mike Noble: Like the hon. Member for Brentford and Isle-worth (Mr. Hayhoe), I welcome the clause. It is important that the House should have an opportunity to discuss the schemes, and the hon. Gentleman has shown why. He said that Labour Members were unduly critical of the Opposition's attitude this afternoon when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his statement. One reason why we should have the opportunity to discuss the schemes is that it is very difficult for hon. Members and people outside the House to understand the Opposition's attitude. For example, comments are made by the hon. Gentleman and by his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), and it would appear that never the twain shall meet.
    500
    My constituens are particularly interested not only in the Government's observations but in the Opposition's attitude on these matters. Therefore, it is important that we have the opportunity to debate such things.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): A few minutes ago the hon. Gentleman approached me and asked whether he could take part in the Third Reading debate. I told him that there would be no Third Reading debate. I hope that he will not try now to do what he proposed to do on Third Reading. I ask him to stay in order by sticking to the new clause.
    Mr. Noble: I intend to stick to the clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    My right hon. Friend made a statement today about the continuation of the temporary employment subsidy and other measures, including the job release scheme and the subsidy for small firms. Hon. Members were given a great deal of information, which had to be digested fairly quickly. In the two hours or so since my right hon. Friend made his statement I have been inundated with telephone calls from people in North-West Lancashire in general and my constituency in particular who are interested in the scheme. It is remarkable that that kind of interest has been shown already. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) last night made in my constituency what was advertised as a major policy statement on the industries in which we are interested, but could attract only 20 people to his meeting. What has happened since my right hon. Friend's statement is a comment on the importance that people in my constituency attach to the statement and to my right hon. Friend's other remarks.
    It is true that a considerable amount of money is at stake in the schemes. It is equally true that at the and of 12 months or two years we shall be in a position to study their full effects and perhaps modify them and improve them if necessary. Therefore, I am pleased to support the clause and I am glad that my right hon. Friend is including it in the Bill.
    Mr. Golding: I am very pleased that my hon. Friend will support the clause.

    501
    I say in response to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) that we would prefer the statement to be to this House because we think that that is on all fours with our undertaking that the House had the authority to debate these matters. I believe that this House is of extreme importance when discussing matters of this sort, which relate to the spending of money, and therefore I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any hope.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

  Clause 1

    SCHEMES FOR FINANCING EMPLOYMENT
    Mr. Golding: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out from 'level' to end of line 8.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may take Government Amendment No. 2.
    Mr. Golding: In Committee we inserted a provision to make certain that there was consultation with employers and workers. I think that we made a mess of it in Committee, putting the provision in the wrong place. The amendments are to strengthen the right to consultation.
    Mr. Hayhoe: When I moved the relevant amendment in Committee, I said that it was probably defective in some way, and indeed it was, because it applied only to schemes that would operate in Great Britain and not to those that would operate in Northern Ireland. The Government amendments leave the substance of the matter entirely the same but widen the consultations to cover schemes affecting both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They cover the whole Bill. I welcome the amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 2, in page 1, line 18, at end insert:
    '(3) Before setting up any such scheme, the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Department shall consult with such organisations, including those representing employers and workers, respectively, as are considered appropriate.'.—[Mr. Golding.]
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
    As amended, (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  New Clause 2

    MINOR AMENDMENTS
    'The enactments set out in the Schedule to this Act shall have effect subject to the amendments respectively specified in that Schedule, being minor amendments.'.—[Mr. McElhone.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    6.25 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may take Government Amendment No. 7.
    Mr. McElhone: The clause and the amendment will restore to the Bill the clause which gives effect to the schedule and restore the schedule itself. Both were deleted from the Bill in Committee, but it is the Government's intention that they should now be restored.
    The schedule consists of four paragraphs. Two of these, paragraphs 1 and 4, are simply corrections of drafting errors in the original legislation. A third paragraph makes an amendment to the wording of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to bring it into line with that elsewhere in the Act, since there is no difference in meaning. All three are minor technical amendments which do not introduce any changes of substance.
    The remaining paragraph, paragraph 2, changes the day for local government elections in Scotland from the first Tuesday in May to the first Thursday in May. It was this change to which the Conservatives objected. I would like to explain to the House why the change is necessary.
    In March 1976 the Government announced that from 1978 there should

    503
    be an additional public holiday, which in England is to be the first Monday in May. In Scotland, as hon. Members know, statutory Bank holidays apply only to the banks. General public holidays are decided locally by the district council. Consequently, the Government consulted the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which decided that it would like to recommend to its members that in this case the holiday should be a general one and should be on the first Monday in May. To make this possible it asked that the day at present prescribed for local elections should be altered from the first Tuesday in May. It pointed out that it would not be possible to undertake all the necessary preparatory work for the elections every second year if the previous day was a public holiday.
    The Government felt that it was right to meet the wish of the local authorities in this matter, and so proposed that local elections should be altered to the first Thursday in May as the change least likely to disturb existing arrangements. Thursday is also the day of the week when voters are most likely to be at home and, as has been found with parliamentary elections, is a generally suitable day for the purpose.
    The Scottish system of holidays varying from area to area has advantages, but in this case both the local authorities and business interests have suggested to us that a common date would be preferable. This paragraph in the schedule which I am asking the House to restore will enable this to happen.
    This was a subject of some contention in Committee, but I hope that the Opposition will, on reflection, accept the clause and the amendment in the interests of the business community, in which they have a substantial interest, and in the interests of COSLA, which made the approach to us. The changes should be made if we believe in Wheatley and the 1973 Act, which the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) put through the House in great style. I think that he would accept that part of the philosophy of that Act was to give more power to the local authorities. That was also the intention of Wheatley.
    We are simply responding to a very reasonable approach by COSLA and business interests. I hope that the Opposi-
    504
    tion will reconsider the views that they had in Committee and will accept the schedule and the new clause.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Following the discussion of this point in Committee our object in moving our amendment was to give the Minister the opportunity to think again. Unfortunately, he has not taken that opportunity. The reason he has given today for his proposals—he has stuck very much to the same brief today as he did in Committee—is to the effect that the advice from the local community is so strong on this issue that we should automatically accept it. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we in this House must consider not just the time and date of local elections but all the other relevant factors.
    There are other considerations which come into play here. For example, there is the effect which this change of date has on all the other elections which are likely to occur in Scotland, if we are sufficiently unlucky. I listed them in Committee and I am sure that I do not need to list them again for the Minister. Those who take an interest in the debate might like to be reminded that we are talking of having district, regional, Assembly, Westminster, European and community council elections. That will cover every day of the week, if we try to allocate a day for each as we argued in Committee.
    We have tried to take into account—as well as the overall effect of elections in Scotland—the effect on education and on the schoolchildren of breaking up the week. I am glad to see that we have with us a former school teacher in the person of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who takes a deep interest in this matter. If we break up the week, with a holiday on the Monday and elections on the Thursday, it will be difficult to keep things under control, especially with the degree of truancy in Scotland, which appears to be worsening.
    We have tried to take into account not just particular business interests, as the Minister suggested, but the interests of the community as a whole. That is why we gave the Minister this opportunity to think again. He says that it is inconvenient for the preparations for polling on a Tuesday to be carried out on a Monday, during a holiday. Inconvenient

    505
    for whom? Those who are interested in democracy, as I am sure the Minister is, and who want to solicit votes should be happy to go about on any day of the week for that purpose. The officials involved will be paid extra if they work on a holiday. That should appeal to them. I wonder whose interests the Minister has in mind especially when we remember that we are talking about Labour Day. If there is anything that should appeal to Labour Members—perhaps I should say this to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire and to the Minister, since they are the only hon. Members present on the Government Benches—it ought to be the thought of sacrificing this great occasion in trying to persuade people to vote for their party on the following day.
    The Minister has failed to take so many other matters into account. He has been narrow in his approach. He has considered what has been said by COSLA and one or two others. If we look at the interests of the community in Scotland as a whole it will be realised that the amendment which we moved in Committee was in the best interests of all concerned.
    Mr. George Younger: As we are being asked to add the new schedule to the Bill, I am disappointed that it does not include a minor amendment to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which I would very much like to see. When I saw the Title of the Bill, which refers to:
    "minor amendments to the … Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973"
    I was encouraged to think that the Minister might be about to put right something which I believe, through no one's fault, is going wrong in connection with the redefining of local government boundaries throughout Scotland.
    This new clause would be an ideal opportunity to put right this defect. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) on tabling an amendment relating to this point. I understand that it has not been selected for debate, but I congratulate the hon. Member because his amendment would have met the point that I seek to make. I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the workings of Schedule 6 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. I do not believe that it is being operated
    506
    in a way which is giving satisfaction to those affected by it throughout Scotland and I do not believe that it is being operated in the manner in which the House intended when the legislation was enacted.
    In Schedule 6 is laid down the criteria upon which local government boundaries are to be drawn up, and redefined from time to time, by the Local Government Boundary Commission. It is made clear that the first consideration is to try to equalise, as far as possible, the number of electors in each local government area. I entirely agree that that is an important consideration, indeed the first consideration. In passing, I would say that many of us wish that parliamentary constituencies were also rather more equal.
    It is when we come to the other criteria that I believe things are going wrong. It is clearly stated in Schedule 6(3) that
    "Subject to sub-paragraph (2) above, in considering the electoral arrangements referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above regard shall be had to—

    (a) the desirablity of fixing boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable;

    (b) any local ties which would be broken by the fixing of any particular boundary."

    Those two criteria are clear. It is clear that, having first of all considered whether the number of electors can be got as equal as possible, the Boundary Commission is obliged also to consider these other criteria, that is that the boundaries must be easily identifiable—can be seen on the ground and identified reasonably easily—and that local ties should not be broken.
    The trouble arises because in a number of cases already—and the Boundary Commission is only part of the way through its work—there have been hotly-disputed changes of boundaries suggested by the Commission which have been taken to the stage of a public inquiry. Throughout such cases it has been clear that those concerned have taken equality of numbers as the be-all and end-all of the consideration. When they have been challenged and asked to take into account the other two criteria they have listened quietly enough but have always brushed representations to one side and said "We cannot take account of these things because they put the equality of numbers consideration wrong." The balance of this has been wrongly interpreted and wrongly carried out by the Commission.

    507
    I have in my constituency a good example of this, into which I will not go in detail because the matter is still under consideration and because there has been an inquiry held by a Mr. Smith, who came to Ayr about three weeks ago. Various people made representations to him and I am sure that he will do his utmost to give the matter the fairest possible consideration. This case is a typical example of the sort of problem that is cropping up all over Scotland. It concerns the proposal to transfer the Kincaidstone housing scheme from the Alloway electoral division in Ayr to another electoral division—the Prestwick and Coyle Bank electoral division.
    Anyone who knows the area will know that there is no community of interest whatever between the Kincaidstone housing scheme and the Prestwick area, which is at the opposite end of the conurbation and has no natural links with it. The two would make a most unhomogeneous local government area. Yet I fear, as has happened in other cases, that once again we shall be told that it is accepted that there is no community of interest, that the areas do not make a single area, but nevertheless, because the numbers must be equalised, the other two criteria are to be brushed aside.
    Here is an ideal opportunity, in this schedule, to make a minor amendment on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire, although I would not want to stick to it rigidly. We ought to make clear to the Boundary Commission that of course it must still take numbers into account, but that it must also take into account the fact that where community of interest is being broken up it has the right—indeed, the duty—on some occasions to make numbers play a less dominant role, and to recognise the interests of ordinary people in their areas. I hope very much that the Minister will consider whether anything can be done at this stage along those lines.
    The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire has been concerned with another case, which I happen to know of myself because it is near my own home. There was an inquiry which again found flatly in contradiction to the wishes of the local people. Here again, the arguments were put extremely effectively. To a degree the report indicates this. The points were
    508
    well taken. Yet once again, notwithstanding all these well-put arguments, the matter of equality of numbers was held to be of overriding importance.
    I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman's proposed amendment is not in the new schedule. I certainly feel that people in many parts of Scotland want some reassurance that this legislation will be operated in the way that was intended—in other words, that all these criteria will be taken into account and that all of them will be given weight, even if some are given more weight than others. That is not happening at the moment, and it is contrary to justice and contrary to what was intended, and the Government, with great respect, ought to do something about putting it right. I very much hope that, even at this stage, they will consider that the schedule is a suitable place in which to do it.
    Mr. Dennis Canavan: I congratulate the Government on tabling these amendments. I think it is very right and proper that they should try to make accommodation for the celebration of May Day, because it is a great Labour festival, and many working people and their families quite rightly celebrate it. It is therefore right, because it is a public holiday, that people should also be given every facility to cast their vote, and I congratulate the Government on changing the local election voting day to take into account the celebration of May Day.
    The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) mentioned the Local Government Boundary Commission. It is a great pity that the Government, hi tabling the amendment—which is an attempt to tidy up the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967—did not go one step further and try to define more clearly the role of the Commission.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to a case in his own constituency. I shall refer briefly to two cases in my constiuency, one of which concerns the village of Gargunnock. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not only pleased to represent Ayr in this place but is also very proud to be a constituent of mine. I speak on behalf of him and his neighbours in Gargunnock when I say that many of them are astounded by the proposals brought forward by the Local

    509
    Government Boundary Commission concerning boundary review.
    I have had representations not only from the community council in Gargunnock but from the communities in Denny and Dunipace in my constieuency, which are likewise annoyed that the Local Government Boundary Commission seems to be putting far too much emphasis on numerical parity, rather than on trying to retain community and geographical links which have existed for many years.
    6.45 p.m.
    This matter has nothing at all to do with party politics or with gerrymandering on party political lines. Indeed, the proposal concerning Gargunnock, roughly speaking, is to lump it in along with part of the burgh of Stirling. Gargunnock, of course, is quite different in character, being a very small rural village, Stirling having been a large burgh before local government reorganisation. I do not need to go into detail on this because my hon. Friend the Minister realises the differences that exist between a large town and a small rural village in matters such as transport, communications, shopping facilities, occupations and the general way of life.
    Similarly, before local government reorganisation, Denny and Dunipace were one burgh, with their own town council, their own provost, and so on. Since local government reorganisation, they have had, up till now, one regional councillor looking after their interests. Now the proposal is to split the burgh between two regional electoral divisions. Most of the township will come within one electoral division, but the rest of Denny and Dunipace will be hived off to come into another part. This, to my mind, is splitting up naturally existing communities which are quite happy with the representation that they have, and where the people realise that there are more important things in life than parity of numbers.
    I have previously taken up this matter with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I have received several replies from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing). I am sorry that he is not here, because I am not satisfied with the replies that I have received. The people of Gargunnock asked for a ministerial visit
    510
    and for a local inquiry to be conducted within the village, or even in the neighbouring village of Kippen, which is also affected, but there was no ministerial visit and no local inquiry, in the strict sense. I was told that certainly the Boundary Commission took into account the appeal against the decision, and I was also told that there was a local inquiry. But where was it held? It was held at the regional offices in Stirling.
    It is about time that the faceless people on the Boundary Commission started to go out to meet the real people, instead of just going to council offices in fairly big towns, such as Stirling. Why should not they go out to places such as Gargunnock to meet the hon. Member for Ayr and his neighbours? Why on earth should they not go out to Kippen and meet my constituents, to see what they think, instead of just listening to the views of a few officials and others at the offices in Stirling?
    There are already many situations, certainly at the level of central government, where we do not have strict parity of numbers or anything like it. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) is not here, because his is the most obvious example of a constituency which is, I think, in numerical terms less than a third of the size of, for example, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy—the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). I do not suggest that that in itself is unjust. This House has tolerated it, and the Parliamentary Boundary Commission has tolerated it, for many years because account was taken of the special difficulties of representing remote rural areas and islands areas. But if this principle is accepted in regard to parliamentary boundaries, why should it not be extended also to local government boundaries?
    I am not talking only of Gargunnock. The regional councillor, whoever it is, who is elected in the future to represent the area, will be representing other communities, too. He or she will have to get round to all of them and try to look after the diversity of interests which exists in each.
    I speak as a Member for what is basically a rural constituency. It is far more difficult in some respects to represent a rural constituency, consisting of many

    511
    villages and townships, than it is to represent an urban area, where it is possible to get round the place in a much shorter time.
    I am disappointed that the Government have not come forward with an alternative proposal in this new schedule, and I hope that they will put forward firm guidance to the Boundary Commission, because I am convinced that although its members may be full of good intentions, they are sitting with the voters' rolls before them, counting numbers and saying to themselves "Here is a list of people. Let us shift them into another division so that we can have X voters—the same, give or take a few percentage points, as we have in the neighbouring division."
    It is about time that these people were told by the Secretary of State that there are other considerations of which account should be taken. Schedule 6 of the 1973 Act lays down that other interests such as geographical interests should be taken into account and that numerical considerations are not the only criteria. It appears from the ministerial replies that I have had so far that the Boundary Commission thinks that the be-all and end-all of its job is to get equality of numbers, whereas to my mind—and I am sure even to the Minister's mind—people are far more important than mere numbers.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Minister will try to give some serious answers to the important questions which have been put to him. He has no excuse. This is a clause on which the Government were defeated in Committee. The voting on that occasion was eight to five, partly because of the failure on the part of Labour supporters to attend, which does not surprise us, and partly because as usual the Conservatives were all present and we had the assistance of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick), who believed that our case was just. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not treat this matter flippantly.
    Secondly, the Minister has no excuse when one bears in mind the back-up that he has on this occasion. I am not referring to his ministerial colleagues, because they are not here. However, on this occasion we see no fewer than nine advisers available to the Government. I
    512
    have never known an occasion before when we have had nine experts available to assist a Minister on a matter of this kind.
    Mr. Canavan: They are probably from the Boundary Commission.
    Mr. Taylor: I do not think that they are from the Boundary Commission. But, wherever they are from, I have been doing a quick calculation and I have worked out that for the taxpayer, on fares alone, the advice available to the Minister has cost no less than £540. If one adds on accommodation allowances of at least another £140, one discovers that we are talking about a total of more than £700.
    Bearing in mind the difficulty that people have in paying taxes in these days, I hope that the Minister realises that his reply should be a good one, partly because the Government were defeated in Committee and partly because we have available this strong body of advice. I hope that the Minister will explain why it was felt necessary to have quite so many advisers, bearing in mind the pressures on the Government about spending and also the cuts on essential services which have been brought in by the Minister—cuts on home help, and so on.
    There are three matters with which the Minister must deal. First, he must respond to the genuine point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) about the way in which the Local Government Boundary Commission has been operating. We have all been shocked by some of its actions.
    The Minister will be aware that in my constituency there is a place called Sims-hill. It is divided in two under the new arrangements. If ever there was a community of interests, it occurs in this area. Some of the arrangements which have been made make nonsense from the point of view of the consumer.
    The Minister will be aware that we should be thinking in terms of the consumer and the elector. Consumers and electors nowadays are probably more confused than ever before. They have been through a local government reorganisation. Some of them find difficulty in knowing under which district council area they come. They have had changes

    513
    in local government and parliamentary boundaries, and now we are to have further changes. Unless we can have some kind of community of interest within local government areas, we may destroy people's interest in and understanding of local government.
    Secondly, the Minister must give some assessment of the matters that were raised in Committee about the effect on education of his proposals for the day of the election. We appreciate that this is not a matter that will arise every year, because the dates on which the first Monday and the first Tuesday in May fall will vary, but one of our major problems these days is truancy in our schools. In some areas it is becoming very serious. Has the Minister considered the effect of changing the day of local government elections from Tuesdays to Thursdays on schoolchildren's attendance at school, on the teachers, on the people who prepare school meals, and the rest of it?
    The Minister will be aware that we have a holiday on a Monday for May Day. If we have local government elections on a Thursday, it means children being told to stay off school on the Monday and then, if their schools are being used as polling stations, to come back for the Tuesday and Wednesday, go away on the Thursday, and come back on the Friday. This makes nonsense by comparison with a situation in which we might have just two days off and three days at school.
    Thirdly, the Minister is making a major change, which he has to justify. I wonder whether a major change of this kind makes sense when we have had so many changes and are to have as many elections as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) suggested. We hope that the Government's wretched Bill on devolution will be defeated in the referendum. I am sure that it will, because at the end of the day people in Scotland are sensible about matters of this kind. I see the Home Secretary smiling. He knows what is involved and what nonsense the proposal is. But there is no doubt that if we go ahead with the Government's plans we shall have elections on so many occasions that children will be off school a great deal and there will be a great deal of confusion.
    514
    The Minister must accept that to make a major change such as this needs some justification. The Minister has not done that to date. We defeated him in Committee and, if he does not give a more satisfactory answer today, we shall do it again. Once again he is not backed up by his colleagues. We do not know where all the Scottish Labour Members are these days. The Minister must give a more satisfactory answer. Unless he does, I give him fair warning that we shall once again throw out this silly proposal.
    The Minister has no excuse. He has more advisers than I have ever known in my 13 years in the House of Commons and they have probably been brought here at more expense than any other deputation of this kind. The Minister was defeated in Committee. Let us have some justification for this very major change.
    Mr. McElhone: I hope that I shall be forgiven for laughing at the efforts of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) to get over a simple difficulty. He has brought in home helps, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my nine advisers, and he has also attempted to calculate their subsistence. I warn the hon. Gentleman that he will not get much support from the Civil Service unions in the next election. They are big unions, and attacking civil servants who cannot reply for themselves is not advisable.
    All this may not be relevant to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, since you allowed the hon. Member for Cathcart to perambulate around all these matters, it is only fair to point out that of the nine advisers, two are trainees, and that as the Bill deals with valuations, boundaries, the Police Acts and many other subjects, it is a matter of wide-ranging interest. That is why the advisers are here. Incidentally, it is a tribute to the hon. Member for Cathcart that when my officials heard that he was to be involved in the Bill the whole of the Scottish Office was emptied.
    I repeat the arguments only briefly, because I have made them all before. I would have thought that: the nice things that I have heard about anti-separation would have received a favourable response from the Conservatives. I would

    515
    have thought that the very fact that the business interests find this a suitable change would mean that it would find favour with the Conservative Party.
    7.0 p.m.
    The hon. Member for Cathcart talked about truancy. He must have some regard to the common sense of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. He knows and I know that the Convention is not a one-party organisation but consists of Conservative convenors as well as Labour convenors. As I have explained privately and publicly, its commonsense approach was that it would like it this way. The Convention has taken into consideration, as it normally does, the very wide-ranging interests which are involved in a change such as is proposed. Obviously, education and truancy were among them.
    On Friday last I discussed with the Convention educational matters. I did not attempt to take advantage of the hon. Member for Cathcart by describing his criticisms of its views to the Conservative chairman there. But this is a request from the Convention. It meets the situation in the same way as in England, and I would have thought that it would find favour with the Conservative Party.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) made the same point, which will no doubt be reported in The Observer or Private Eye, or some other publication as an interesting piece of jargon coming across in the Committee. He talked about the different days and went so far as to suggest an election for each day of the week. I think that I am correctly reporting him. I cannot seriously accept the implication that if all the elections were held on a Thursday, for instance, the public would be confused about the kind of election in which they were voting. The hon. Member is seriously attacking the intelligence of the Scottish voter. Because apart from the fact that in normal circumstances there is usually a lengthy interval between elections, there will be a lot of Press publicity from the Conservative Central Office on elections.
    The hon. Member is saying that the ordinary Scottish voter will be confused and will not understand what he is voting for. That is an insult to the intelligence
    516
    of the Scottish voter. I hope that that is reported to the electors of Edinburgh, North.
    Not wishing to stray out of order, I should like to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) on the subject of electoral boundaries. I would have thought that the Conservative Member who was most knowledgeable about electoral boundaries was the hon. Member for Ayr, who piloted the 1973 Bill, with the assistance of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who, I think, took this clause through the House. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire has had correspondence from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing)—who covered these things at the Scottish Office. He has said—I shall not say rightly—that he does not accept the answers, but he knows of a letter written to him on 7th March this year, when he raised this question and mentioned Mr. Clark of Gargunnock Community Council, of which one paragraph reads:
    "The Commission was set up by Parliament as an independent body"
    —I think that that point was certainly made very strongly during the passage of the 1973 Act—
    "to carry out these reviews. That being so, the Secretary of State has no locus to intervene in their work and could not advise the Commission on the interpretation of Schedule 6"
    —which the hon. Member for Ayr mentioned this evening. The letter continues:
    "When the Commission make their recommendations to the Secretary of State, he considers them carefully having regard to the statutory rules."
    Mr. Jim Craigen: I wrote to the Secretary of State last year about this matter. In the light of the forthcoming devolution proposals, should we not just freeze these local government electoral boundary changes?
    Mr. McElhone: It is a very attractive possibility, depending on what one's majority is and the type of seat that one has. I could not comment on that. I do not wish to do so.
    Mr. Ian MacCormick: I think that the Minister ought to comment on

    517
    it. I had a proposal through the post today to the effect that the part of Oban in which I live should be treated as part of Argyll and Islay. The thing seems to be so mad as to be scarcely credible.
    Mr. McElhone: I cannot blame the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick), because he was not here at the time. He might not be here very much longer in the future. Nevertheless, I should recall briefly—because there are several matters to be considered in the Bill—that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns made the point when talking about an amendment moved by my right hon. Friend who is now Minister of State, Department of Energy—the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon)—during the passage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. The hon. Member said that he did not think that we should seek to limit the Commission in any way, as the amendment sought to do. He went on to say that he would prefer to have the Boundary Commission with as much discretion as possible, which is not all that great, anyway.
    Hon. Members who were at that meeting and who discussed the amendment will know that the Commission is an independent and non-party body. I know the difficulties that my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire has. He has seven different district councils with which he has to deal as a Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Everybody seems to be having trouble with this boundary thing. I should like to join in and say that we in South Edinburgh are having trouble. I have written to the Secretary of State but have not had a reply yet.
    Mr. McElhone: I shall not enter a defence, because of collective responsibility, that I am not responsible for that section of the Scottish Office. But perhaps I would meet the point, anyway. There is a lot of feeling about the question of boundaries. I assure the hon. Member for Ayr that I appreciate the concern felt by many communities that the boundaries that are drawn between different electoral areas do not coincide with natural boundaries between communities. It is extremely difficult to reconcile all conflicting interests in a task of this kind.
    518
    I would say only two things. In the first place, I remind the hon. Members concerned that when the Local Government Bill was debated in 1973 both sides of the House—it is important to stress that—laid great stress on the importance of the principle—which, after all, is fundamental to a democratic system—that within the area of any given democratically elected body every vote should as far as possible have equal weight, which means that the overriding principle in drawing up electoral boundaries is that all electoral areas should contain approximately the same number of voters. That was agreed by both sides of the House during the Committee stage of the 1973 Act.
    Even the limited flexibility that the Act at present allows was criticised during the Committee stage of the Bill, and there was strong support from all parties for the principle that electoral boundaries should be decided by an independent local government boundary commission and that the rules under which it should operate should be laid down in as objective and precise a manner as possible. That is what was done. That was the Bill put forward by the Conservative Government of the day. These are the principles that the Boundary Commission has in accordance with the Act.
    Mr. MacCormick: Would it not be the case that the Boundary Commission could do its work as well, assuming that things are quite well as they are, if he did not do anything at all to change things? It would still be overlooking what was happening.
    Mr. McElhone: I appreciate the concern of the individual member, be he local councillor or Member of Parliament. Nevertheless, it was agreed by both sides of the House—and it was a Conservative Bill—that the body should be independent and non-political. One takes the chance when one has a non-political, non-party, independent body and says "We shall leave you the discretion" and at the same time one seeks to limit its discretion.
    Mr. Younger: I desisted from interrupting the hon. Gentleman in order to give him the maximum chance to answer the points, but he has not begun to answer the point that I was making to him. It

    519
    may be that I put it badly. I have not suggested that anybody is political. I have not suggested that anybody has interfered with the Boundary Commission. I have not said that anything was wrong with the Bill put forward in 1973. What I have said is that the Government are not carrying out the Act as the House passed it in 1973. The Minister is coming back again and again to numbers. If it is true, why did the House put into the Bill the words
    "regard shall be had to … any local ties which will be broken by the fixing of any particular boundary."?
    The House must have meant something by that. The Minister must say why he is apparently approving the Boundary Commission and totally ignoring something laid down in an Act of Parliament. That is not good enough.
    Mr. McElhone: As a former Minister at the Scottish Office, the hon. Gentleman will know that he is making allegations about a wrong interpretation of the Act by the Boundary Commission and that there is a method for dealing with that. He well knows that method. It certainly does not fall within the new schedule that we are discussing.
    As there seems to be a great deal of confusion, I shall try to explain the matter more fully, I hope, by again quoting from the letter sent by my fellow Under-Secretary—the hon. Member for Stirling, Grangemouth and Falkirk—to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire. I was reluctant to do that, but in order to try to help hon. Members who have a very deep concern—it is blowing up from different parts of the House—perhaps I should quote the part of the letter that says:
    "Reports of reviews which have been considered so far, however, do not indicate that the Commission are executing their responsibilities other than in a manner fully consonant with the rules in Schedule 6."
    That is a point that the hon. Member for Ayr is disputing. The letter goes on to say:
    "The requirement in paragraph 1(3)(6) of Schedule 6 to have regard to local ties in fixing boundaries is prefaced with the words 'Subject to sub-paragraph (2) above'. Since that sub-paragraph embodies the parity rule"
    —this is what is causing all the trouble tonight—
    520
    "the Commission read the two provisions together as requiring them to have regard to local ties in fixing 'boundaries', so long as the electoral areas in question essentially comply with the primary rule relating to parity of electorate".
    The hon. Member for Ayr must remember that this was the dominant point in the debate on that particular section of the Act and that he accepted it, as did hon. Members on both sides of the Committee on that Bill. I did not serve on that Committee. The hon. Member must accept that he accepted it. He was piloting the Bill through the House.
    The letter goes on to say:
    "That approach is reinforced by the terms of paragraph 2 which allows a departure from parity where the Commission consider that there are special geographical circumstances present which make such a departure desirable. That particular provision was debated in the Scottish Standing Committee on 27th March 1973 (copy of relevant Hansard enclosed) when it was indicated that this relaxation of the parity rule was intended to be used where specially difficult geographical considerations were involved. It has been the aim of the Commission to depart from the parity rule only in a way consistent with the views expressed in Committee e.g. 'narrowly' (cols 1268 and 1269), 'very sparingly' (col 1270) and 'in only quite exceptional circumstances' (col 1273)."
    Finally, I should like to refer to the second point about the Boundary Commission being obliged to take careful account of local wishes. Where substantial objections have been raised to any of its proposals, it has normally been the practice to arrange a local hearing. This was done in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire and the hon. Member for Ayr. In the latter case, the results are not, of course, yet known.
    Therefore, the hon. Member for Ayr has a chance. On reflection, he may find that his anxieties are not as strong as they were. We have not had the final report on that matter because the Boundary Commission has still to report to the Secretary of State its proposals for the electoral divisions in the Strathclyde Region. But whatever happens, the hon. Member must bear in mind the value of sticking to objective rules in a matter of this kind so as to reduce the opportunity for criticism to be made either of the Boundary Commission or of the Secretary of State's final decision on its reports.

    521
    The possibilities of adjusting electoral boundaries to suit the interests of one political party must be obvious to everyone, and although I do not for a moment suggest that this has been part of the representation of any hon. Members, it is important to ensure that the opportunity for this kind of criticism does not arise.
    Mr. Canavan: Despite what my hon. Friend said about the independence of the Commission, under the terms of the 1973 Act surely it would be permissible for the Secretary of State to advise the Boundary Commission that it should take more into account the significance of local community interests in setting the boundaries, rather than placing over-emphasis on numerical parity. Secondly, surely my hon. Friend could advise that when it comes to a local inquiry the matter should go to the place from which the opposition is coming.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies to that question, I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are getting very wide of what we are meant to be discussing, which is a new clause and certain minor amendments. We seem to be getting dangerously close to discussing an amendment to a schedule that was not selected.
    Mr. McElhone: I am grateful to you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the matter was raised in speeches made by the hon. Member for Ayr and by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire, and to be helpful to the House I responded on those matters.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am in no way criticising the Minister, who had to defend himself. If anything, the Chair has been rather lax. The Chair had better not indulge in that any further.
    Mr. McElhone: If that is so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a most unusual position for the Chair, and it has never happened previously.
    7.15 p.m.
    I conclude by saying that to try to be helpful, I shall convey the views expressed by my hon. Friends, and certainly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), and the concern expressed by other hon. Members, to my right hon. Friend the
    522
    Secretary of State. Although the debate has strayed somewhat from the original new clause and the amendment that we are discussing, I hope that in that spirit Opposition Members will accept the good advice of COSLA—which considered the educational aspects—of business interests and all the other interests. I hope they will reflect upon their earlier vote in Committee, and will accept the new clause and the amendment.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Member at least give me the assurance that he will consult the teachers' associations about this matter?
    Mr. McElhone: I shall be delighted to do that. I shall be addressing the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association very soon. I am in regular consultation with the Education Institute for Scotland and others. I shall consult and report back to the hon. Member what has been said.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  Clause 1

    AMENDMENT OF SECTION 6 OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1975
    7.15 p.m.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 16, at end insert—
    '3(A) An order under this section which provides for the matters described in subsection (3) above shall be accompanied by a report setting out the considerations which led the Secretary of State to make such provision'.
    This amendment is somewhat in the nature of a probing amendment and has been moved in order to avoid regional bias. After all, when an order is made under this section—
    "applying to any lands and heritages or any class or description of such lands and heritages may provide for determining a ratable value or aggregate amount by the application of different methods of valuation; apportioning a ratable value or aggregate amount by the application of different manners of apportionment".
    —it could be that there might be regional bias in certain cases. Perhaps in certain circumstances this could be justified.
    However, I cannot help believing that there could be no harm in the Secretary of State producing an accompanying report setting out the considerations that

    523
    led him to make such a provision and giving his reasons for it. It seems eminently reasonable. After all, if the Secretary of State is acting unreasonably, this will come out. But if he is acting reasonably—as no doubt the Minister will claim—there would be no possible harm in his setting out his reasons.
    Mr. McElhone: Section 6(3) of the 1975 Act as substituted by Clause 1 of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to use different methods of valuation and apportionment for different parts of the property of an undertaking in order to take account of local circumstances. The purpose of this flexibility is to ensure that the valuations are fair to the ratepayers of any particular area as well as to the undertaking. The hon. Member's amendment is designed to require the Secretary of State, when he makes use of this flexibility, to make a special report to Parliament when he seeks its approval to the order giving effect to this arrangement.
    I can understand why the hon. Member has put down the amendment but I hope that I can convince him that he should not press it. It will be in the interests of all concerned and particularly of the local authorities and the ratepayers that this particular power to make flexible arrangements should be freely used.
    When the draft order implementing such arrangements is brought to the House it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to explain to the House why and in what way he has used all the powers in the section. To pick out this particular power for a special report would imply that its use should be exceptional and this might inhibit Governments, of whatever colour, from using it. This would be a great pity because I am sure that there would be circumstances in which it would be the only way of getting a fair valuation and distribution of valuation. It will be of benefit to ratepayers generally.
    As I have made clear, the Secretary of State will have to explain to the House why and in which way he has used the powers in question. He will do this on an affirmative order. This is a change from previous valuation legislation which has always been subject to a negative resolution. This is a step forward. Any
    524
    hon. Member can question the Secretary of State about the way in which he arrived at his valuation.
    That is as far as we can go to meeting the wishes of the electors in such matters. I hope that the hon. Member will take the assurances that I am giving because I do assure him that the Secretary of State will be answerable to the House.
    Mr. Iain Sproat: The Minister is being uncharacteristically reticent with the House tonight. We have heard the feeble answer which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). I hope that he will be a little more forthcoming on this matter.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) has asked that a special report be made. The Minister says that the Secretary of State will come to the House and explain everything anyway. If that is so, why is he not prepared to make a special report? That is all that my hon. Friend is asking for. The Minister of State has nine advisers in the box who are costing the taxpayers and ratepayers £700. Surely they could draft a report to show the ratepayers that they are being treated fairly.
    No doubt my hon. Friend will seek to divide the House on this matter if the Minister is not more forthcoming. I do hope that the Minister will guarantee that the Secretary of State will make such a report. It is little more of a requirement than a speech to the House, but it will make everything rather more open, public and reassuring to ratepayers.
    Mr. McElhone: I do not know why the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) has committed political harikiri with another swingeing attack on civil servants. He is bringing down more odium on his own head at the next election. There are many Civil Service voters in his constituency and he is committing political suicide by attacking people in the Box who cannot answer back. Still, there is no reason why I should worry too much about that. It will certainly increase the number of Labour Members.
    In previous legislation under Conservative Governments the House had a

    525
    chance to use only the negative resolution procedure, which gave little or no opportunity to individual Members to question the Secretary of State. We are bending over backwards by introducing the affirmative resolution, to make the procedure as democratic as possible for the individual constituency Member to question the Secretary of State. That is as far as democracy allows the House to go, and it is a very pertinent way of doing things. At the same time it means that we are concerned that we should not be too bureaucratic in Government.
    If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South wants me to reduce the number of civil servants who come to this House and at the same time create more and more reports it will cause more and more concern for the Secretary of State of the day. It may be that by some mischance the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South himself will one day be Secretary of State for Scotland. I would not want to inhibit him, when he already has a heavy burden to carry, and make his job more difficult by creating voluminous reports that must be made to the House. If the Secretary of State comes to the House and explains his position in a clear and candid way that should be sufficient for anyone. Perhaps the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South will reflect on some of the things that he said about civil servants before it is too late.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In the light of the Minister's answer I shall not press the amendment to a vote at this stage. However, if the Secretary of State abuses the power by showing an unreasonable regional bias, I shall seek to return to the matter at a later date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—
    '(4A) In making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall show that payments in lieu of rates to be made by certain public utilities and bodies and by certain undertakings shall increase or decrease in proportion to the general level of rates paid by industry in Scotland.'
    This amendment is rather similar to that which we have just discussed. Our object is to try to specify the information that might be available to the House when considering the order.
    526
    I advise the Minister that he does not have a full picture about the attitude on this Bench towards the Civil Service. I am the Member for Edinburgh, North and I have in my constituency St. Andrew's House and New St. Andrew's House. I do not presume to know how those civil servants vote any more than the Minister does, but I would not join in any criticism which he thought came from this side of the House. However I think that it was right for my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) to point out that the Minister seems to require an enormous amount of backing.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. We have been over this ground far too much. The question of the Box does not enter into the realms of the amendments that we are discussing in the House.
    Mr. Fletcher: The object of this amendment, like the previous one, is to deal with the provision of information. I do not think that it is enough for the Minister to say that we can wait and see what the Secretary of State tells the House when he moves the order. There are very important aspects of it that could be just as easily laid before the House in a schedule or some other form of advice to Members in advance, giving the main facts and figures.
    It is important to have some geographical understanding of how the weighting will affect the rates themselves. We think that it is desirable to have a comparison between the increase or decrease or the payment in lieu of rates made by public undertakings on the one hand, and the general level of rates paid by industry on the other.
    We have had many references to the effect of this Bill on industry. The biggest effect is the cost of the rates themselves. Rates are a very big charge on industry. It is very important that people who are responsible in industry in Scotland should know what they are paying and what public undertakings are paying so that the comparison may be judged.
    This formula arrangement is extremely complex. It does not follow that the results of the final sums paid in lieu of rates should be secret. They should be known well in advance so that they can be compared with the general level of rating with a view to trying to establish in

    527
    advance, and provide this information, which is in the best interests of all concerned.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Younger: It is desirable that the Minister accept this amendment and I hope that he will do so.
    There has never been a time when public confidence in the rating system has been much lower than it now is. If it could be laid down that the rating levels of public utilities had to be demonstrated by the Secretary of State to bear a proper proportion to the general level of rates paid by industry, that would go some way to overcome the extreme concern felt by many people about the rating system and its effect on industrial and commercial property.
    Hon. Members may know from earlier exchanges that one area that is particularly badly affected is the Kyle and Carrick District in my constituency. The rating revaluations in that district are having the most drastic effect on householders and on commercial and industrial premises. It appears from the most careful calculations we can make on the evidence available that the valuations placed on subjects in this area are being deliberately increased by a higher proportion than those in other areas in the regions. I am glad to see present the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) because his area is most seriously affected.
    I accept that the principles involved in assessing rateable values are objective, laid down in the rating and valuation legislation, and must be carried out by assessors in accordance with that legislation. However, I ask the Minister to give special consideration to the way in which this system works out on the ground.
    If rateable value in the Strathclyde Region as a whole rises by about 3·1 times the previous figure, the ratepayer, be he industrial or commercial, will end up by paying about the same amount of rates as he pays now, but the average of rates regionally in terms of rate valuations communicated to me in my constituency in the past few weeks appears to be very much in excess of the 3·1 times increase, which is the norm for Strathclyde as a whole.
    The effect of revaluation, assuming that Strathclyde Region as a whole
    528
    asked the ratepayers for no more than the same amount of money as last year, will result in Kyle and Carrick District contributing over £1·5 million more to the general pool of rates in the region compared with the previous year. This is no small matter. It is equivalent to no less than 6½p in the pound on the new rateable values. This will be an extremely serious matter for many commercial and industrial premises.
    I am not suggesting that the system itself is wrong. I am suggesting that the way in which the system works out for people in my area, in the area of Cuninghame district, and also, I believe, in the Argyll district, is not fair to those on the ground.
    I shall not give examples of domestic rate valuations because that would not be in order. We are now discussing industrial rating values as affecting public utilities. But, in passing, I shall mention to the Minister the fact that there is great concern among domestic ratepayers, and I shall seek another opportunity as soon as I can to make their case for them.
    If we look purely at the situation of non-domestic ratepayers, it will be seen that we have some incredible examples. I give only one because time prevents my going into too much detail. I must add that I have written to the Secretary of State about every case which I have had drawn to my attention. There is one example that should alert the Minister to the fact that things are going badly wrong in the revaluations. The example to which I refer is not a domestic but a commercial premises. These premises are in Ayr High Street and were revalued last year because there was an addition to the premises. In other words, they had to be revalued and a fresh rateable value had to be made. Therefore, the previous valuation must be relatively up to date and should have been completely up to date last year, only a year ago.
    The valuation arrived at for those premises last year was £870. This year the new valuation is £7,550. This is an alarming figure. There is no difference in the premises since last year—not a brick has been added. It was revalued last year as I have said, and must have been correct then. This raises the amount paid by those commercial premises in Ayr High Street from a figure of £1,350 last

    529
    year to £3,490 this year. Unless something odd has gone wrong with my interpretation of the rating and valuation legislation, there is no way in which that could be regarded as a lair representation of a change in value since a year ago.
    I hope that the Minister will take it from me that there is the most extreme concern among all my constituents at the way in which revaluations are affecting our area. We do not believe that it is fair as against other areas. If there is a general policy of increasing valuations in Kyle and Carrick by more than the increase in other districts, all I can say is that this is not in tune with the rating and valuation legislation, as I understand it. We do not think there is any legitimate or sensible reason why this system should not be fair on everybody.
    If the rating and valuation legislation were properly carried out on previous occasions, we must accept that at that time those valuations were reasonably fair and that the new valuations were carried out on the same criteria. I see no reason why one area should be singled out for a special policy involving the raising of valuations as a whole. That, however, is the effect of the figures I have given.
    I do not expect the Minister to answer my questions off the cuff tonight, but I certainly hope that he will seriously examine the amendment. It will at least ensure that when the rating of public utilities comes to be considered in the course of revaluation, they will be made to move up pro rata with increases in industrial valuations. In my area there would be some consolation if public utilities were to have their valuations raised by the same amount because that would slightly ease the burden of other ratepayers in the area.
    I hope that the Minister will carefully examine these points because the answer given to our representations by Lord Kirkhill was totally unsatisfactory because it fell back on existing rating and valuation law, which we accept. My case is that this area is being singled out for unfair treatment and is deliberately suffering increased valuations because somebody has decided that those valuations were not high enough. This is grossly unfair and the Minister must intervene to see that this practice is implemented
    530
    fairly. If this is not done, the rating system in my area will fall into disrepute.
    Mr. MacCormick: Until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), I did not intend to intervene in this debate. However, in the light of his remarks I wish to add one or two things.
    I had the privilege of speaking in the Second Reading debate on the Inner Urban Areas Bill and I also serve on the Standing Committee. The point I seek to make is that people in the rural areas should not be penalised. For example, those in the Strathclyde Region should not be hit in trying to make up for the lack of facilities in an inner urban area such as Glasgow. I am firmly convinced that if the current revaluation goes through, commercial and business expansion in rural areas such as Argyll will be actively inhibited.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the hon. Gentleman not be fair and admit that his rural area has had certain advantages since it came under the Labour administration in Strathclyde, including travel card schemes for pensioners and the disabled and many other social benefits that it did not get under the Tory regime in Argyll?
    Mr. MacCormick: There must be many areas in Strathclyde that have benefited equally from such advantages, or have turned down such advantages when offered, but one of the basic concepts of democracy is that there should be no taxation without representation and we in Argyll, with only five regional councillors, are not being allowed to say how the money should be raised and how it should be spent.
    I am not satisfied that we should sit back and say that this situation is developing, but not do anything about it. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) said during Question Time, wages and salaries are pegged to a 10 per cent. increase while people in my constituency and many others in the Strathclyde region are faced with rate increases vastly in excess of 10 per cent.
    Mr. McElhone: The speeches of the hon. Members for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) have nothing to do with the Bill. They were referring to asessors' valuations, but the Bill deals with public utilities.

    531
    The purpose of the amendment is to ensure an explicit link between the level of rates paid by public utilities and industry in general. The effect is difficult to gauge because of a fundamental misconception of one of the purposes of the revised Section 6: when a formula valuation is prescribed, any existing provisions for payments in lieu of rates under Part V of the Local Government Act 1948 will be repealed. In practice, the amendment would therefore be of no effect.
    The essential purpose of valuation, whether by formula or by orthodox methods, is to produce a scale of rateable values which will fairly and objectively spread the rates burden. If a property is extended or in part demolished, its value will increase or fall accordingly. The value of each property is ascertained separately and there is no reason for the improvement or extension of one property to have a direct bearing on the value of any other.
    It would therefore be objectionable to create for formula subjects a direct link of this kind. One formula-valued undertaking may be in a period of rapid expansion and the imposition of a link with industry in general would bring about under-assessment. Another undertaking may be contracting and its value could not fairly be tied to the general run of industry.
    What is needed is not the rigid and arbitrary link between formula subjects and others which the amendment is aimed at. It is far better to have the present scheme of Section 6, so that after full consultation the Secretary of State may lay a draft order before Parliament. The overall fairness of the proposed formula may then be a matter for debate in each House.
    In order to try to be helpful to the hon. Members for Ayr and Argyll and to the public who may read our proceedings, may I point out that the law requires the assessors to value property, whether domestic or industrial, in their areas according to certain principles common to all areas and affords a right of appeal and complaint so that valuations may be challenged through the valuation appeal committees or the Lands Valuation Appeal Court. The hon. Member for
    532
    Ayr knows of the independence of assessors in Scotland and the only way to get redress is to make an appeal to the Court or a committee if no alleviation is granted on a direct appeal to the assessor. This is provided for and the amendment would have no effect.
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate that that is the correct procedure for dealing with individuals who feel that their assessment is wrong, but what is one supposed to do when a whole area is subjected to a deliberate increase of rateable values? That is not provided for in legislation.
    Mr. McElhone: This has nothing to do with the Bill which deals with formula valuations for public utilities. I strayed a little earlier to point out that assessors deal independently with industrial, domestic and commercial valuations for areas and for individuals. Areas or individuals have the opportunity to appeal first to the assessor and then to the valuation appeal committee or the Lands Valuation Appeal Court. The methods have been clearly set out, but this has nothing to do with the Bill.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister has not told the whole story and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) was correct in what he said. The Minister rightly pointed out that the amendment might be defective because we are proposing payments in lieu of rates while the Bill includes a new proposal for the Secretary of State to prescribe by order total rateable values for public utilities. But we have been trying throughout the Bill's progress to get an indication from the Secretary of State about how he proposes to exercise this power in relation to electricity boards, water boards, British Rail and so on.
    How will the amounts levied under the new system be parcelled out among local authorities? The Minister is wrong to say that the points raised by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr have nothing to do with the Bill. They have a very great deal to do with it.
    If the Secretary of State prescribes a substantial amount in rateable valuation of public utilities, it would reduce the rate burden of other ratepayers such as those in Argyll and Kyle and Carrick

    533
    who have been so harshly dealt with in the new revaluation. Their burden would not be so harsh if a high total rateable valuation were prescribed for public utilities.
    We have been trying to get even the slightest indication of what the Secretary of State will have in his mind when he makes such an order. Does he intend that public utilities will carry a greater or lesser burden than they carry under the system of payments in lieu? Does he intend that the public utilities should carry an increased burden compared with industry?
    Certain parts of public utilities are covered not by the formula valuation but by specific valuation. An electricity board shop is assessed like any other shop, but power stations and railway stations are assessed under a different system. The Secretary of State will be laying an order for them. We are entitled to an indication whether the Secretary of State thinks that the total amount paid by public utilities will increase or decrease compared with valuations generally or with industrial valuations or commercial valuations. The Minister must give us some such indication.
    When we debate the orders, we shall presumably learn of the Secretary of State's intentions, but we have had so many distortions in the new revaluations that the Minister has a duty to give us some information about how the Secretary of State proposes to carry out the task that he is giving himself in the Bill.
    The revaluation has meant changes. By and large, industry will pay a great deal more, and this could have a severe effect on jobs in Scotland. Commerce will have to pay a bit more, and this will create difficulties for shops in our cities. In particular, the revaluation has meant that people in Argyll and Kyle and Carrick will carry a larger total burden.
    It is difficult to justify this, and the Minister has not tried. He rightly says that this is not a matter that we can debate here. It can be resolved only in valuation appeal committees or in the Lands Appeal Court. But it is difficult to understand how the case can be argued for a district under the existing system as opposed to individuals or streets.
    The Minister must give us some idea of his intentions. As we are going to
    534
    determine a total rateable value, the amount fixed will affect every other ratepayer in Scotland—domestic, industrial and commercial. While we accept that our amendment may be defective drafting, we have tried to get some idea of the principles under which the Minister intends to operate. Can he give us that now or do we have to wait for the order?
    Mr. McElhone: At the risk of being repetitive, I will try to help the Opposition on this complicated matter. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) asked in Committee whether the Government intended that the proportion of rates borne by the public utilities should be increased, decreased or left at the present figure of 4 per cent. of Scotland's total rateable value. He is on the same point now. The Government have none of those intentions. People are misunderstanding the Bill and the genuine concern about an assessor's valuation does not have an effect on the Bill.
    The purpose of Clauses 1 to 3 and the various valuation provisions of successive Governments is to ensure that the public utilities bear their fair and proper share of the rate burden in relation to such factors as their revenue-earning capacity and capital investment in land, buildings and plant. It has been recognised by Parliament in a series of Acts over 20 years that it is not possible to achieve this by the normal process of a valuation by the local assessor.
    The assets of these undertakings consist of a whole network of services covering all of Scotland. It is a practical impossibility to achieve a fair valuation on the normal basis. This is the reason for the formula valuation under which the Secretary of State undertakes to hold consultations. We consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other bodies that my right hon. Friend thinks appropriate. That was on the basis of an amendment accepted by the Government which was moved by Lord Campbell of Croy, a former Secretary of State for Scotland. All that Clause 1 does is make this system more flexible, so that the result is fairer to individual authorities.
    The hon. Member for Cathcart also mentioned the budget speech of the treasurer of Kilmarnock and Loudoun

    535
    district. The treasurer was making a proper technical distinction between moneys that his council receives as a contribution in lieu of rates payable by the South of Scotland Electricity Board and British Railways under the provisions of Part V of the Local Government Act 1948 and the rates proper which would be payable if formula valuations were introduced for electricity and railways as Section 6 allows.
    Working parties on the whole question of formula valuation are sitting at present and will be reporting very soon. The improved powers conferred by Clause 1 may then allow the making of an order to apply formula valuation to electricity and railway undertakings.
    Contributions in lieu of rates will then cease and those undertakings will pay rates on the basis of those formula valuations which will have to be approved by the House. The treasurer was right in his description of what will happen, but the important thing that he did not say is that it has not happened yet.
    There is one point that I must qualify, A treasurer often has to make assumptions—even guesses—about future income or expenditure, and I understand that for budgeting purposes the Kilmarnock and Loudoun treasurer might assume that the change to formula valuation will not greatly affect his council's income. One must make these assumptions when working on changing from the payment in lieu of rates system to the formula valuation, but all that I want to get across is that I understand the genuine concern—I say this as a constituency member—about assessors' valuations, but that the assessor is independent. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) will recognise that, as a former Minister.
    Therefore, if there is disagreement about an assessor's valuations one can seek redress through the valuation appeal courts but not through this Bill.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I would try finally to press the Minister on this point. He has not answered the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) about which form the order will take. If we knew that, we might have some idea of how far to press the amendment. The Minister is making heavy weather of a simple question.
    536
    We understand both the difference between assessors and the formula system and the fact that the expression in the amendment "payment in lieu of rates" is incorrect and that it should be "payment as a result of the formula calculation" or words to that effect.
    We know that at present an assessor's valuations compare domestic rates with industrial rates on a year-to-year basis. What we are asking for is similar comparisons for public undertakings. If the Minister had replied to my hon. Friend's simple and important point, we should have saved a lot of time.
    Mr. McElhone: The order will specify the way in which the valuations fall and will be available before it is debated.
    Amendment negatived.

  Clause 5

    POSTPONEMENT OF REPEAL OF BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) ACTS 1892 TO 1911 AND CERTAIN LOCAL STATUTORY PROVISIONS
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 10, leave out Clause 5.
    This is one of the most important parts of the Bill because it deals with the Burgh Police Acts of Scotland, particularly that of 1892, which is still very much in force. I do not wish to go over the ground that we debated in Committee but it is strange that a working party was set up in 1972 as a result of the contemplated local government reorganisation and completed its report in 1976. Since then, a wide range of consultation has taken place and the findings were due to be implemented in 1979.
    The Minister says that there will be further delay until no earlier than 1982. The question that we have put several times to him is, why? The reply that we get is totally unacceptable and should always be so regarded in the House. The reply is "We are waiting for the Assembly". That is no way for the Minister to act on a matter which, as he has said, is of considerable importance. When dealing with the consideration of principle in Committee, the Minister said:
    "the Burgh Police Acts and their equivalents among the local Acts still have an effect on

    537
    the life of the individual in Scotland. For example, the Act of 1892 is the source of powers to make byelaws on a wide range of matters, and the Acts give local authorities powers to issue licences covering a wide range of activities, both of which have a direct impact on the everyday life of the individual."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 21st February 1978; c. 4.]
    With those words—they are the Minister's words in the debate on principle—the Minister made it clear that we are dealing with some important matters.
    The hon. Gentleman has given no satisfactory reason for not going ahead with the original intention and carrying out implementation in 1979 rather than postponing it to 1982. Unless he can bring forward some new reason tonight for this unnecessary delay, and unless he can explain why the consultations that started in 1976 have to go on for six years, I am sure that the House will realise that we have no option but to press harder on this issue.
    Mr. McElhone: The Burgh Police Acts comprise a vast volume of complex legislation, much of it seriously out of date, some of it superseded by more modern legislation but a great deal still in force and regularly relied upon by local authorities and the police for the regulation of many every day matters of civic government. There is an urgent need for it to be completely replaced by more modern legislation designed to suit present day conditions, but the working party which examined these provisions took nearly four years to produce a comprehensive report and this has been the subject of further examination and comment by local authorities and other interested persons and bodies. In addition, the Burgh Police Acts did not apply in the four former cities which, therefore, had their own comprehensive local legislation covering the same matters, and these also require to be replaced.
    The Burgh Police Acts deal with a wide range of matters including licensing and the making of byelaws, regulation of certain building, safety and public health matters, a number of criminal offences including offences with a sexual connotation and suspicious conduct, and such miscellaneous matters as the regulation of markets, the control of activities on the seashore, the provision of clocks in
    538
    public places, the naming of streets and numbering of houses.
    The new provisions, which will be needed to replace all this legislation, will require at least one and probably two major Bills. It is likely to be most convenient to deal with some provisions of the Burgh Police Acts which deal with roads and streets in a separate roads Bill. The main civic government Bill is likely to require upwards of 200 clauses and will consequently make heavy demands on parliamentary time. Even if it had been possible from an earlier stage to take quicker steps to prepare such a Bill—
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Another excuse.
    Mr. McElhone: It is a better excuse than the one to which the hon. Gentleman keeps referring about waiting for Assembly.
    Even if it had been possible from an earlier stage to take quicker steps to prepare such a Bill, there would not now be time for it to be drafted and enacted before the date when the Burgh Police Acts will automatically expire. To allow them to expire—I hope that the Opposition will bear in mind that that is the effect of the amendment, which would cause chaos in local government—before replacement legislation had been enacted would leave a serious gap in the powers available to local authorities and the police and would seriously undermine the effective carrying on of municipal government throughout Scotland.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman has been wagging his finger from the Government Dispatch Box and suggesting that the result of the amendment would be extremely damaging. At least it has had the result of flushing out the true reason. I do not know whether the reason has been thought out in the past week or so, but it would have assisted in Committee and at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill, if the Minister had admitted from the beginning that there was no Government legislative time to cope with these matters.
    Mr. McElhone: It is a point that is well made to say that we were in Committee for only a hour. During that time not one Opposition Member raised

    539
    any question on Clause 5. It does not do at this stage to go back, as it were, and to produce substantial opposition. One or two of my colleagues were missing, I accept. One was ill and two had travel difficulties.
    Apart from this perfectly genuine need for more time to produce a highly complicated Bill which, it is to be hoped, will last for at least as long as its predecessor, the Government consider it right that since all these matters are of strictly local application and will fall within the powers of the Scottish Assembly, the task of enacting the new civic code should, if possible, be carried out by the Assembly. This would be exactly the sort of task for which the Assembly should be well fitted and able to discharge. Since the Government think it right to set up a Scottish Assembly, it would clearly be illogical for Parliament to occupy itself by passing new, complicated and detailed legislation concerned entirely with local Scottish matters, immediately before the Assembly were set up. But whether such legislation is eventually enacted by the Assembly or by Parliament, the extension of the time available for its preparation and debate until the end of 1982 is absolutely essential.
    As Opposition Members, especially the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), are keen to point out the interests of the police, I hope that they will take cognisance of what I have said and will bear in mind the difficulties that would ensue for the police and local authorities if the amendment were passed.
    Sir John Gilmour: Having heard the debate, I should probably come down on the side of the Minister and say that it would not be a good thing to take out this part of the Bill, especially as I sought to hang a new clause on the provisions of Clause 5 to deal with the problem of stray dogs that concerns my part of the country. As the Minister has said, there are provisions in the Acts that the cities have that give them full powers, but I do not think that the rest of Scotland has the necessary powers for dealing, for instance, with stray dogs.
    When the new 200-clause Bill sees the light of day and is debated, whether in the Assembly or in the House, I hope that the Minister will ensure that proper meas-
    540
    ures are taken to ensure that stray dogs are dealt with in an appropriate manner. I should make it clear that I am not against dogs. I am against those who do not look after them. I have three dogs, and I should be in great trouble if I were in any way to give the impression that I am against dogs. I am not against them but against those who allow them to stray.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has raised an important point about dogs. He has said that he has three dogs. I do not know whether he lives near me, but many dogs seem to congregate outside my house.
    The Minister has made an important contribution to the debate. Those who are wondering what the Assembly is to do and those who are considering leaving this place to go to the Scottish Assembly thinking that they will be handling important matters such as jobs and the economy, will now realise the job that the Government have in store for them—a 200-clause Bill dealing with stray dogs, the numbering of streets and various other minor matters.
    I am somewhat encouraged by what the Minister had to say. He thinks that the proposed Assembly will be well fitted to go ahead and consider these minor matters. In view of what he has said, we do not want to try to stop the consultation that is taking place. I think that he said that it will take six years and that he wants to make provision for an extra two years. To that extent we do not want to push the amendment.
    I am sure the Secretary of State for the Home Department is very much interested in the point that I am about to make as it raises an important issue affecting home affairs legislation that passes through the House. Sometimes we are concerned about important issues. We pass legislation and think that thereby action will be taken.
    The Minister is well aware that there is great concern about pornography—for example, the sale of pornographic literature. We have passed laws in the House of Commons to try to ensure that the strictest penalties are imposed on those who sell such pornography. There are provisions for enormous fines and substantial gaol sentences. But we frequently find that, when it comes to prosecuting

    541
    people for the sale of hard pornography, such prosecutions are brought under local legislation as outlined in the clause and to that extent maximum fines of perhaps £20 are imposed. Many people engaged in this filthy trade regard that as normal trading expenses.
    I hope that in asking us to continue the old Burgh Police Acts for another three years, the Minister will bear in mind that the actions of the House of Commons in bringing in what it regards as tough penalties for serious crimes are being undermined by prosecutions brought not under Acts of Parliament, but under old local Acts which provide for limited fines and have no effective deterrent result.
    This is a matter of which I am certainly well aware in the City of Glasgow. I believe that the Minister must also be aware that, although we have passed laws in the House of Commons in an attempt to stamp out the sale of hard pornography, in Glasgow and in other cities in Scotland these pornographic shops continue to operate, sales of pornography go ahead and a great deal of money is made. Parliament wanted to stamp out that trade. But, because prosecutions take place under local legislation which provides for only limited fines, the trade continues to flourish.
    The Minister has put forward a good argument against the amendment. However, I hope that he will bear in mind that the mere existence of the Burgh Police Acts and other local Acts can undermine the work that we are doing in the House
    542
    of Commons in an attempt to stamp out practices to which we are all opposed.
    Mr. McElhone: I share very few views with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), but I share his view on child pornography or any other kind of pornography. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have strong views on that matter, especially in our native city. I shall bear in mind and convey to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  New Schedule

    MINOR AMENDMENTS
    The Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 (c.86)
    1. In section 57(1) (provisions as to byelaws), for the words "201" there shall be substituted the words "202".
    The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (c.65)
    2. In section 8 (day of ordinary election), for the word "Tuesday" there shall be substituted the word "Thursday".
    3. In section 125(1) (school and college councils), for the word "control" there shall be substituted the word "management".
    4. In section 126 (disqualification for membership of education committees, etc.) for the words "127(2)" there shall be substituted the words "125(4)".—[Mr. McElhone.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time and added to the Bill.
    Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM
  8.13 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move,
  That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.
  The purpose of the order is to continue in operation for a further period of 12 months the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, which is due to lapse, unless renewed, on 24th March.
  In accordance with past practice, I shall give an account of the extent to which the Act has been used in the past year. I begin with a statistical report showing the use made of the Act up to 1st March and the cumulative statistics since 1974. Therefore, the figures will be twofold.
  First, I deal with exclusion orders made under Part II of the 1976 Act. Under these powers, I may cause a person to be removed from this country. I can do that only where I am satisfied that someone is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or is attempting or may attempt to enter the country for that purpose. That is the strict test laid down in the Act.
  My predecessor and I have made 119 exclusion orders in total, 24 of which have been made since last year's debate.
  All persons against whom exclusion orders are made have the opportunity, under Section 7 of the 1976 Act, to make representations to an independent adviser. In this connection, 22 people in total—three in the last year—against whom orders have been made have made representations against the orders, and six of the 22 orders have been revoked. Of the three people who made representations this year, I enforced one order and revoked another.
  A total of 104 people—23 in the last year—have been removed. Of those, 80 in total—22 in the last year—have been removed to Northern Ireland and 24 in total—one in the last year—have been removed to the Republic of Ireland.
  544
  It will be appropriate here, since I have been describing the use which has been made of the advisers, to place on record my gratitude to the two advisers, Lord Alport and Mr. Ronald Waterhouse, QC. The latter has stood down from this task following his appointment as a High Court judge.
  I recognise, though I do not share, the feelings of those in Northern Ireland who may not welcome back there people excluded from Great Britain because I believe them to be terrorists. But I remind the House of the change made in the 1976 Act. That is the change commonly known as "reciprocity". In Section 5 of the 1976 Act, provision is made for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to exclude from Northern Ireland to Great Britain a person with connections here who satisfies the criteria for exclusion. As the purpose of these renewal debates is to give as much information as possible, I point out that this power has not yet been used. The exclusion order power is one of the main powers which it falls to me as Secretary of State to exercise.
  The most significant of the powers that the Act gives to the police is in Section 12. That enables the police to detain a person who is reasonably suspected either of having committed an offence under the Act or of being concerned in terrorism.
  The police have power to hold on their own authority for up to 48 hours. If they think that a further period is necessary for their inquiries, they may ask me to extend the period of detention for up to another five days.
  The police have detained a total of 939 people—143 during the last year—under Section 12. In 277 cases—27 during the last year—my predecessor and I authorised extensions of detention. No police applications for extension of detention have so far been refused.
  I have explained in the past the careful arrangements which have been made for dealing with these cases. I assure the House that these arrangements remain as stringent as they have always been.
  There is an office at New Scotland Yard served jointly by Metropolitan Police officers and officers from other forces. That office has developed a great deal of expertise in these matters, thus enabling consistent standards or criteria

  545
  to be maintained. My predecessor was aware of the office at New Scotland Yard.
  When I became Secretary of State, one of the first things that I did was to make clear how I saw the use of the power in Section 12. I believe that is the major reason why cases do not come forward to me. Cases do not come to me if it is felt that, on the basis on which I look at these matters, I should disapprove of them.
  I personally see all applications for extensions of detention, unless there are unforeseen circumstances—for example, if a case arises at short notice when I am away. In that event, such a case would be dealt with by the Minister of State. But, for the record, I saw every extension of detention case this year. If for some reason I am not available, my Home Office colleague will give a decision, but it will come to me immediately on my return. It is extremely rare for me not to be available or to be got at somewhere in the country.
  The other main powers available to the police relate to port control.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My right hon. Friend has given us the figures for those who were detained under these powers during the last 12 months. Will he tell us how many during the last 12 months have subsequently been charged with an offence or offences relating to terrorism?
  Mr. Rees: I shall give the figures in a minute. The other main powers available to the police are the port control powers. All passengers travelling through ports are liable to examination.
  Mr. James Dempsey: Will the Secretary of State say why all these people are detained and whether their relatives have legal rights to see them?
  Mr. Rees: I shall come to that later.
  All passengers travelling through ports are liable to examination, but comparatively few are detained. A total of 2,191 people—554 of them in the last year—have been held under this power. An indication of the small numbers involved is that the number of passengers who passed through major Irish ports in 1977 was nearly 4 million, of whom 308 were formally detained.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What is an Irish port?
  Mr. Rees: It is a port of entry from the North or South of Ireland. I understand the right hon. Member's query. We are using jargon. Jargon and reality are simetimes exactly the same. This reminds me of a former existence as Secretary of State when I talked about Irish ports.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: Such as Liverpool.
  Mr. Rees: I do not know whether I mentioned Liverpool. I am referring to ports in this country to which people from Ireland come.
  I turn to the question of charges brought for offences. A total of 21 people—eight in the last year—have been charged with offences under the Acts, such as soliciting or giving money in connection with acts of terrorism, failing to disclose information relating to acts of terrorism, or seeking to enter part of the United Kingdom from which they had been excluded.
  A total of 118 people—20 in the past year—have been charged with offences in Great Britain after they had been detained under the Acts. These included murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to cause explosions, the unlawful possession of explosives and offences under the Firearms Act.
  The House will recall that last year I undertook to see what further information could be provided about the results of charges. This involved an extensive review by the police of their records, but I was able to give information last October and I shall continue to report any further information. The information that was given in Hansard last October broke it down to the number of people detained by police forces in different parts of the coutnry.
  The criticism has been made that only a small proportion of those detained under the Act are eventually charged. However, as I have said before, the test is not the number of charges but their nature and gravity. We are after all dealing with only a small number of terrorists. The situation in Northern Ireland is exactly the same as it is here. A small number of people are engaged in terrorism. But we should be under no

  547
  illusions about the amount of destruction that they can cause.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: Why does my right hon. Friend feel that the police need these extra powers for those people who have clearly committed these acts of terrorism? Long before the Act was introduced the police had adequate powers to deal with them.
  Mr. Rees: I shall come to that in a moment.
  Having reviewed the operation of the Act, I come to my reasons for asking the House to renew the operation of the Act for a further period of 12 months. Although the review by Lord Shackleton—I mentioned this a year ago—has some bearing on this matter, the main point is that the responsibility for asking for a renewal is mine. It is not something that I can put off to someone else or to an inquiry. It is for Parliament to decide whether to grant that request. I have to make a judgment, on the information available to me, about the extent of the threat from Irish terrorism to the mainland of Great Britain.
  The past year has been free of terrorist attacks. That is a statistical statement. There is no gloating about it. It is simply a statement of fact. But that is only part of the picture. The House will not expect me to go into detail about my information in this respect. It would be foolish to reveal such matters. The House must take my judgment on trust. It is a judgment not lightly arrived at but it is one for which I have responsibility.
  One aspect—I shall not go into great detail—is our knowledge of how the IRA operates by means of what they call active service units. These groups of four or five terrorists, hidden away in small flats and rooms in our larger cities, may often lie low for long periods before carrying out a terrorist crime. They may be quietly building up supplies of arms and explosives and surveying their targets. To the public at large the situation is peaceful and normal but under the surface the IRA may be planning its next campaign.
  I can mention three points which may be of assistance to the House. The first is my understanding, formed in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland,
  548
  of events in Northern Ireland. As I said last year, we shall need legislation in Great Britain as long as there is IRA violence. Recent events show what cold-blooded savagery the IRA remains capable of.
  The second point is the advice that I receive from senior levels in the police force. I remind the House that should the violence restart it would be the police who would have to deal with it. I must therefore weigh carefully the advice that I receive from the police.
  Thirdly, there is evidence, which is now publicly known, of the efforts that the Provisional IRA have made in the last year to bring arms and explosives into this country. As recently as last August a discovery in Dublin revealed a complete terrorist's kit which was ready for shipment to Great Britain. That it was intended for use here is incontrovertible because the people who were to collect it had arranged a meeting place in the Home Counties.
  The shipment contained 230 lb of explosives. Let me remind the House that experience has shown that a small bomb—some 2 lb or 3 lb of explosives—can kill several people and injure many scores more if it is expertly placed. There was a time when large amounts of explosives were required to create explosions because of the nature of the explosive that was being used, particularly in Northern Ireland—dehydrated nitrogen, for instance. With the more sophisticated explosives a small amount can create a bigger explosion.
  I have little doubt that had the shipment been brought here, the story that I should have to tell the House would have been a more horrific one. We could have been experiencing terrorism on a scale as bad as anything in the last five years. The line between safety and terror is very thin. Let us be thankful for the year of peace and let us give the police the credit due for that, but let us at the same time recognise how fragile the present position is.
  Let me here deal with the point raised earlier about the need for the powers to detain for two days and then for an extra five days. The police tell me that these provisions are extremely important for questioning and for checking purposes in different parts of the United Kingdom. That is something that I learned in

  549
  Northern Ireland. This is something that my right hon. Friend Lord Shackleton is looking at at the moment, and perhaps I could come to that shortly.
  I believe that Lord Shackleton has the experience to examine those matters, to look at the papers and to travel to the various parts of the country and, by asking questions, see whether the legislation we passed is still required. As I made clear in the terms of reference, it is not his job to decide whether we need legislation. That is a matter for the House of Commons. What matters, however, is whether the various parts of the Act are still required in their present form, and that is what he will consider. I have no way of instructing my right hon. Friend on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), but he is quite free to comment on that aspect.
  I took account of a number of considerations before I announced the review. I made clear that I was not seeking a Gardiner-type review which considered the whole situation in Northern Ireland which, in its way, partly led to the end of the use of detention in Northern Ireland. I explained that I was setting up a practical review into the working of an Act. I considered carefully a number of ways in which I could give reassurance and information, invoking the advice of an independent person of high standing with a view to a report being published. I had to consider any possible overlap that might exist with the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure and the introduction of the new system for the investigation of complaints against the police, which came into force in the middle of the year.
  Finally, the situation in Northern Ireland had to be taken into account in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. With Northern Ireland matters one always has to consider how an inquiry of this kind might be seen in the Province where people see things differently from people in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  For a number of reasons it was not possible for the review to start before December, but Lord Shackleton was able to start right away. How lie carries out the review is a matter for him. It is difficult to say when his report is likely to be published. I should like to remind
  550
  the House, however, of the terms of reference of the review. They are:
  "Accepting the continuing need for legislation against terrorism, to assess the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974 and 1976, with particular regard to the effectiveness of this legislation and its effect on the liberties of the subject, and to report".
  The review extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.
  I shall now say a little about what might follow publication of Lord Shackleton's report. This has some bearing on my asking for a 12-month renewal. After it has been published the House will have a full chance in due course to debate it. I stress, however, that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. If the report were to cast doubt on whether the Act should be continued in whole or in part, it would be a simple matter to bring an) or all of its provisions to a close by order, if that were to be the Government's decision.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend not think that he could have waited until after the Shackleton Report came out before seeking renewal of these provisions?
  Mr. Rees: If I had, the Act would have lapsed on 24th March, and that could not be. In my view, the best thing is to renew it for 12 months. I have just said that the Government are clear in their belief that we need legislation. We shall have to see what the report says. If any parts need a change, I shall consider the matter. This is extremely helpful to me, let alone those with other considerations—quite proper considerations.
  Mr. Fitt: Does my right hon. Friend pay any regard to the dictum that there is nothing more permanent than that which is regarded as temporary? Is it a fact that most of those who have been detained, convicted and charged have been convicted not of any offence within the island of Great Britain but of an offence in Northern Ireland? Would nor my right hon. Friend, with his experience of Northern Ireland, regard it as helpful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to ask that the same provision as he has made for

  551
  inquiry into the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Great Britain should be applied to Northern Ireland, where the legislation is even more Draconian than in the island of Great Britain?
  Mr. Rees: All that I can speak on is the question of legislation that applies to the whole United Kingdom. Lord Shackleton has been to Northern Ireland.
  The other legislation for which I was responsible is a different matter—a matter for my right hon. Friend. The statistics that I gave a moment ago were for charges in Great Britain, not the United Kingdom. I think that my hon. Friend misunderstood.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Why did the Home Secretary decide to have only one person carry out the inquiry? Does he not think that that imposes an unreasonable responsibility on Lord Shackleton? What support facilities will be provided to Lord Shackleton to carry out his inquiry?
  Mr. Rees: I am always very dubious about inquiries. I believe that wherever possible a Secretary of State should do the thing himself, because it is to the House that a Minister is responsible. However, that could not have been done with the Gardiner inquiry.
  The support given to Lord Shackleton is good. He has told me how good it is. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, with his knowledge of the work of the police, is aiding Lord Shackleton, as is the Chief Inspector of Constabulary in Scotland. I know what help Lord Shackleton has been given in Northern Ireland.
  I must make clear into what subject the inquiry goes. There was a need for somebody to stand aside from the day-to-day operation of the legislation, to go to the ports and certain parts of the country, to look at the papers, to see the procedures followed in different parts of the country.
  We are dealing with a temporary provisions Act. Here I take up what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). There is always a danger—though not on principle, because this is a matter for the House—that something carries on in the old way when that is no longer appropriate. It
  552
  was in that spirit that I said what I said to the House a year ago.
  Mr. Stan Thorne: My right hon. Friend wants to see Lord Shackleton conduct an independent inquiry. He must know that a group of us went to see Lord Shackleton to put to him certain views about the Act only a few days ago. Lord Shackleton did not give us the impression that it would take him a year to produce a report arising from his investigations. Therefore, would not it be possible to renew the temporary provisions for three months, by which time I am sure Lord Shackleton would have produced a report?
  Mr. Rees: It is a matter of judgment. This measure will be renewed for 12 months if the House agrees, but I have already said that if any changes in the workings of the Act are required we can debate them in the House. We are not talking about matters of principle. I, too, am extremely interested in what Lord Shackleton has to say. He is interested in the efficiency of the legislation and in the question whether the procedures set out under the Act are being carried out properly.
  There was an article in The Sunday Times last week which, in my view, was misconceived and which misunderstood the nature of the Act. I presume that the person who wrote it talked to Lord Shackleton and brought his information before Lord Shackleton. I have not checked this, but I am sure that anyone who writes an article in The Sunday Times is the sort of person who would do so. It is that sort of newspaper. It does not do things for effect. We shall see.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Can the Home Secretary give an assurance that the Shackleton Report, as it will become, will be debated before the Summer Recess? I think that that would relieve the anxieties of many hon. Members.
  Mr. Rees: The hon. and learned Gentleman is pressing me rather hard on this. I cannot give an assurance about the timing. I was trying to assure the House that I have set up the Shackleton inquiry. I want the report to be debated. It is important that the workings of such a vital piece of legislation is debated in

  553
  the House. I cannot be firm on the timing. I would like to see the report as soon as possible. Not even that, I think, will satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman, because I am not Leader of the House.
  Mr. Powell: Is it not correct to say that, by order made under this Act following, for example the Shackleton Report, it would be possible to modify the operation of the Act only by dropping existing provisions, but that no other alteration than cessation of some of the provisions would be possibly by order?
  Mr. Rees: That is correct. Let us take a matter in which the right hon. Gentleman has shown an interest in the past year or so—the method of questioning at the ports. A change was made in that respect. I shall be interested to know whether that has proved to be of use. If it has not, we shall have to make a judgment. If it proves to have been a misconceived idea, it can be dropped. The nature of the inquiry that I promised a year ago was of this kind, to see, how the Act was working.
  There need be no delay of any kind in implemting any administrative changes which Lord Shackleton may recommend. It is often the administrative methods used to implement legislation which are important.
  I was asked about the Judges' Rules. This issue may come up later, so I will simply say that changes were made under Section 62 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. Those changes apply to the Prevention of Terrorism Act in the same way as to other legislation.
  I believe that the Act continues to have an important role to play and that recent events in Northern Ireland have reminded us of the continuing danger. We must maintain our vigilance. The position is one to which I have given careful attention. We shall continue to monitor the ports, and I look forward, in due course, to receiving Lord Shackleton's report. I ask the House to agree that this is the right course.
  Mr. Fitt: On the question of exclusion orders, will my right hon. Friend tell the House how many people have been excluded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and from Northern Ireland to Great Britain? He will recognise that
  554
  this was a very important point raised during the course of the passage of the Bill by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who asked whether it was possible to exclude people from one part of Great Britain to other parts of Great Britain. My right hon. Friend must have these figures at his disposal. I should like to know, in addition, how many of those who were excluded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland were charged with terrorist offences on landing in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Rees: I gave figures. I accept that it is difficult to take them on board. The figure for people excluded from Northern Ireland to Great Britain is nil. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) can look after himself in matters concerning the principle of reciprocity within the United Kingdom, which was the point that he made.
  On behalf of the people of this country, I am concerned about active service units—people who have been active in Northern Ireland in the Provisional IRA and, indeed, in other organisations.
  Mr. Fitt: The Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force.
  Mr. Rees: I am concerned about those who have been very active in Northern Ireland and who are living in parts of the United Kingdom and in some cases associating with known people in the Republican movement. I have to make a judgment on that. I am advised that the threat is from small groups in a small active service unit, spread about different parts of the country and often using nearby telephone boxes in order to pass information.
  I have to make that judgment, and if at the end of the day I were to get it wrong and there were explosions in the constituencies of any of us in this country, many hon. Members would be first to chase me and ask why they had occurred. I have to make a judgment which balances civil rights on the one hand with the threat that we are up against on the other hand. I have to do all I can to support the police and to protect the community.
  The Provisional IRA—my hon. Friend knows this, because he always speaks up on it in Northern Ireland—is an army; it is not a political movement. Its aim

  555
  is to get what it wants by means of explosions and killings, and it glories in them in a way that I find quite remarkable. We are dealing with a form of terrorism which has driven us to move marginally from the sorts of freedoms to which we are accustomed in this country. It is the price that we have to pay. Those who believe that we should not do so are ignoring the facts of life which are apparent to anyone within 24 hours of arriving in Northern Ireland.
  8.39 p.m.
  Sir Michael Havers: The House will be grateful to the Home Secretary for his careful and useful report on the use of the order and for the information about the setting up of the Shackleton inquiry. As I support pretty well every word that he said, I can be very short.
  The question that I think the House has to face tonight is this: do the facts justify a substantial modification—because that is what it is—of certain civil liberties in the interests of defeating terrorism? No one can doubt that there still exists within this Kingdom a hard core of people prepared to kill and maim, with the intention of forcing any Government to change their declared principles about Northern Ireland.
  This intention to force change is supported by wicked, murderous attacks upon innocent people, without caring who may be the victims, in order to create such an atmosphere of terror that the public forces the Government to change their mind. Such actions cannot be acceptable in any democracy. Indeed, if they succeed, they destroy that democracy and encourage imitators to act accordingly to achieve their own purposes against the will of the people.
  The fact that there has been a lull in Britain must not be taken to mean that the threat has been removed. Recent events in Northern Ireland show the dangers of any such optimism, and I defy anyone to say that there are no sleepers awaiting their orders to awake and act in England. If the IRA thinks that its cause will be advanced by renewing its terrorism on the mainland with the use of the active service units to which the Home Secretary referred and which are present at the moment quiescent
  556
  inside this country, it will do so. Therefore, in my view, the continuance of this provision is essential.
  May I add one comment about the responsibility which the Home Secretary has to act in his own discretion? Of course, he gets advice, and I suspect that part of the advice which he gets is from Commander Neville of the anti-terrorist squad. I know that officer extremely well as a result of certain court cases in which I was involved. In my view, he is a very remarkable police officer upon whose judgment I should be willing to place very great weight. It comforts me, when the Home Secretary is having to rely upon advice from others, to know that included in those numbers are people of the experience and total integrity of officers such as Commander Neville.
  Because the House has given that discretion to the Home Secretary, in the end we have to rely upon a responsible exercise of that discretion. Nothing that I have heard since these provisions came into operation has shaken my confidence in the way that it is exercised, and I invite the House to support the order.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: There is one area in which the House is united, and it is in our abhorrence of terrorism of all sorts. If from these Benches some of us question the measure, it is not because we lend any support to terrorist acts but simply because we question whether the order is not counter-productive.
  I begin with a comment on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I want especially to thank him for the up-to-date figures which he provided. However, I am concerned that he seems to think that because only a small number of people were eventually charged out of the large number detained, that somehow justifies this measure if that small number of people were eventually convicted of very serious offences.
  Very little work is done to see what impact this measure has on the very large number of innocent people who are detained for a lengthy time. There should be some consideration of the psychological effect that it has on an innocent person detained under these provisions for what is to anyone in detention a long period. It may be the sort of experience

  557
  that results in people giving support or turning a blind eye to some terrorist act. The recounting of their stories may also cause support for the terrorists. So I hope that Lord Shackleton's inquiry considers the impact which this measure has had on innocent people who have been detained for long periods of time. Judging from the number of people who have been charged, there must be many innocent people being held under this measure.
  I turn, then, to the inquiry which Lord Shackleton is conducting. It seems to me to be unfortunate that, although we were promised in a debate almost 12 months ago that an inquiry would be set up, it took virtually nine months to find anyone to conduct the inquiry and to set it up and that clearly we are unlikely to get a report for at least another few months. I should have thought that a little more urgency in setting up the inquiry would have been better.
  I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend undertake that he would do all that he could to ensure that there was a debate fairly soon after publication of the report. I also understand from my right hon. Friend's remarks that he will bring forward an amending order if Lord Shackleton recommends that some parts of this measure are no longer necessary. I hope that he will go a little further and say that if Lord Shackleton felt that a different type of Act or a different approach in the Act was necessary, he would try to bring forward legislation amending the Act, rather than merely bringing forward alterations to the order now before the House.
  I also appreciate that the Home Secretary has difficulty in ever ending this temporary measure. He is always under the difficulty that if he does not renew it and some incident happens a week or two later, he will be blamed. As the Act was originally very much a cosmestic measure, I appreciate my right hon. Friend's difficulty. I hope at least that he can see the advantage, when the matter comes up for renewal, of coming to the House and saying that it will be the final renewal, so that he takes a decision that is well detached from the actual date when the provisions run out.
  I turn to some particular provisions. The exclusion orders are one of the matters that puzzle me the most. Since the Act came into operation, I think
  558
  that 119 people have been excluded. First, it seems odd that such a small number of them have appealed. It may be that most of them felt that their exclusion was perfectly just, but I suspect that many did not appeal because they saw no justice in the appeal procedure itself.
  If one does not know what one is charged with, it is very difficult to prepare an appeal against it. It is also very difficult to be certain that someone must be excluded and yet not to be able to bring forward charges that will stand up in the courts. It is also very difficult that one cannot bring forward charges and at least disclose them to the person one intends to exclude without there being a risk of damaging one's security information.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: These matters come to me. I give a lot of time to them. The judgment that I have to make is not whether someone should be charged. I should add that I still have some residual knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland., being heavily involved in the days of detention, and of a man who is an active member of the Provisional IRA, and of another instance, recently, of the UVF in Northern Ireland. The judgment that I have to make is not whether there should be a charge but why the person concerned is living in a part of the United Kingdom. These are not easy decisions to take, but they are not taken on the basis whether the person should come up in court. They are questions, for instance, about the setting up of an active service unit in some part of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Bennett: I accept that argument. However, last year 24 people were excluded. If they were excluded because it was felt that they were involved in some way in setting up active service units, I should have thought that in good policing terms it would have been better to keep those 24 people under surveillance and try to obtain, by watching them, information that might lead to the arrest or apprehension of the whole of the active service units, rather than exclude them. I realise that if one has to keep track of a large number of people, that becomes very expensive and difficult in terms of police manning. But in terms of a mere 24 people during the last year, I should have thought that it

  559
  was a practical proposition for the police to keep those people under surveillance if they were really dangerous, rather than simply turfing them out.
  I come to the question of the qualification period. If someone who is regarded as dangerous has been here for 20 years he cannot be excluded. Why is 20 years the magic period? I am very puzzled by this because I cannot see why it should not be 18 or 19 years. In all logic the time limit should be much lower—somewhere in the region of five years. A person who has been in the English community for that length of time will have built up so many links that it is reasonable that he should stay. If we broke down the figure of 24, I am sure that we would find that the number who had been here longer than five years, was even smaller. We could easily keep tabs on them by police surveillance.
  I am concerned that the order allows the Government to take people who are integrated into the English community, move them to Northern Ireland and assume that they become less of a risk to the community there. It is quite unacceptable to take people who are considered a risk in England and put them in Northern Ireland where they will become an even greater risk. This is very puzzling.
  I turn to Section 11 of the Act which I do not believe has been abused much in practice. However, it contains provisions which, if accepted into English law, are extremely dangerous. They concern the question of someone who knows or believes, and fails without reasonable excuse to tell the police that another person is about to commit an offence. Very often it is easy to know this with hindsight—it is easy to be wise after the event. It is very dangerous that people can be charged with not providing information to the police which afterwards it seems obvious that they should have provided at the time, but which was not really so obvious at all. Section 11 is causing a lot of concern and I believe that it should be dropped from the legislation.
  I turn to the question of arrest, and whether people should have the right to communicate with a solicitor or with relatives. I realise that as a result of amendments to the Criminal Law Bill
  560
  last summer—or Act as it is now—the Home Secretary will monitor this provision. Has he asked Lord Shackleton to look at the question of differences between England and Scotland? How far are the police handicapped in Scotland because a person detained there has a right to legal representation and contact with a lawyer immediately, whereas in England that person does not have an automatic right. The right can be given only through the Judges' Rules. It would be interesting to see whether the police feel that they are at a disadvantage in Scotland compared with England in carrying out this legislation. Or perhaps we should have the same provisions as of right in both England and Scotland.
  The real practice of this legislation tends to be used to harry the Irish community, particularly in movements to and from Ireland. In practice, during the past 12 months terrorism has been contained in the United Kingdom by good police work and because the provisional IRA has found its terrorist activities counter-productive. Also there has been co-operation from the vast majority of Irish residents in the United Kingdom. The continuation of this legislation tends to weaken the will of Irish people in England to help the whole community combat terrorism.
  9.4 p.m.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has stressed the risk of psychological damage to those who are detained for a comparatively short period. I know that with his usual fairness he will concede, on the other hand, that often there is a certainty that if criminals and terrorists are not apprehended there will be not merely psychological damage but serious physical injury to people. In many cases people will lose their lives. I know that hon. Members will appreciate this because many, on both sides of the House, have had constituents who have been victims of terrorism.
  I wish briefly to examine the workings of controls at ports and airports. If the controls and scrutiny are to be effective, they should at least have something in common. They should not be as patchy as they now appear to be. I say "appear" advisedly because appearance is part of the deterrent. There must be evidence that the authorities as a whole

  561
  have a grip on the situation and, above all, that they know what they are doing.
  If we examine first the situation in the ports, there would appear in my experience to be no consistent pattern in the measures taken at the two main ports of entry in Northern Ireland, Stranraer and Liverpool. One has the impression that far too much importance is attached to the spot check. If one has the misfortune to be singled out for special scrutiny—and one might almost say special treatment—the check can be rigorous indeed, but for the vast majority of people who escape the net completely the checks at least appear—again I use that word advisedly—to be almost nonexistent. I do not advocate queue-forming examinations, but I am certain that the public would have a great deal more confidence in a system based on something more convincing than the present hit-or-miss procedure.
  It is perhaps when we turn to the airports that we find the greatest inconsistencies. At Gatwick the arriving passenger is expected to complete a landing card, which is checked against some document of identity. The same procedure is employed the other way round against departing passengers. In both cases there is a certain degree of delay and inconvenience but most passengers accept these as necessary.
  However, if they are necessary at Gatwick, why are they unnecessary at Heathrow, where no such check system is employed? The screening appears to be related to age groups and possibly almost to style and appearance. I have noticed that if a young person comes into the airport wearing tattered jeans, not particularly tidy in the upper storey, with hair flying around, he is inevitably brought in for questioning, whereas somebody with short back and sides and much more respectably attired is normally allowed to go free. I hope that I am not putting ideas into anybody's head, but I am sure that this will not have escaped the attention of the potential terrorist.
  In the past we have been told that the contrast between those two airports results from the fact that they are situated in different police areas. If it be true that no man is an island entire of himself, the same could be said about these
  562
  two airports. Whatever the distance between the two airports, the vast majority of their passengers end up in a small section of London roughly between Victoria and Gloucester Road. I find it impossible to justify such a wide variation in the processing of travellers who will be rubbing shoulders within an hour of arriving in the capital city. I trust that some action will now be taken to ensure that these measures, taken with a common objective in view, bear some resemblance to one another.
  The Home Secretary said that the police were aiming at consistent standards in procedure and made that remark in relation to Scotland Yard. One assumes that Scotland Yard is the coordinating centre for the whole operation. If that be the case, why is it so difficult to ensure that it can enforce standard procedures at the subordinate centres and at the point of entry?
  If this is being done to secure the protection of the citizens of the United Kingdom, on whatever side of the Irish Sea they live, those citizens will be somewhat disturbed by the Home Secretary's confirmation of the potential destructive force and power of explosives intended for shipment from Dublin to the Home Counties. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman shares the serious view taken by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the desirability and necessity for the Government of the Irish Republic to co-operate fully in eliminating supplies of bomb-making material and—perhaps even more important—in preventing the movement of terrorists and suspected terrorists from all parts of the British Isles.
  9.11 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Parry: I should like at the beginning of my speech to make clear, as have other hon. Members, that I am totally opposed to any violence or terrorism which has resulted in the deaths of innocent people. I represent a Liverpool constituency, and I have hoped and prayed over many years that the tragic instances of terror occurring in other parts of the United Kingdom would never occur in Liverpool, because we are so close to Belfast and Dublin. However, we have had a couple of narrow squeaks in the past couple of years. My constituency includes

  563
  the Liverpool Irish centre, which is the headquarters of the Irish community of Merseyside. In the Scotland Road area we have the old Liverpool Irish Catholic communities who have lived there for many generations. In the Netherfield Road area, for many generations we have had the traditional Orange supporters. Fortunately, thank goodness, over many years we have had peace and harmony among these two communities of Merseyside. But recently in my constituency, unfortunately a senior officer of the Protestant paramilitary organisation was convicted of terrorist activities. Supporters of the IRA have attempted to explode a fire bomb in one of the public buildings in the city centre, so we are aware of the problems in Liverpool.
  I received a letter from the Liverpool Irish Centre and this afternoon spoke to Mr. Tom Walsh, who is known by many hon. Members as a leading member of the Irish community in England. He is a very moderate man who has made a great contribution towards Irish culture, sport and entertainment. Mr. Walsh asked me to raise some points in the debate. The letter from the Irish Centre says:
  "Only at the weekend I was involved in a case of two brothers who came to Liverpool from Belfast for a funeral and were detained. One was representing his trade union at the funeral."
  I understand that those two brothers, named McGurk, who have been coming and going from London over many years at least every fortnight, are seamen and have been entering London from Belfast and returning home without harassment or being picked up by the police. There is nothing in their characters to suggest that they have been involved in any terrorist organisations. Yet the first time that they came to Liverpool they were arrested at Liverpool Airport.
  I understand that the aged mother of the two men rang up the Irish Centre in tears because she was terrified. She did not know what had happened to her sons. The letter from the Irish Centre continues:
  "A few weeks ago I was involved in a very depressing case of a very young wife who had recently had a miscarriage. Her husband was taken from her on the boat and she was left with all her luggage and completely uninformed as to what was happening. I spent a couple of days working on her behalf and she was near hysterical most of the time.
  564
  The most urgent aspects are (a) seven days detention is too long and should be abolished; (b) relatives must be informed of detention within hours; (c) a solicitor must be available within at least 12 hours."
  On Merseyside I understand that we have seen a quarter of the total number of detentions under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I understand that the recent figure for the total number of detentions is 3,098. The number of detentions at ports is 2,171 and those made by the Merseyside police, 767. Just under one-quarter of all the detentions in the United Kingdom and one-third of the detentions made at ports of entry are made on Merseyside.
  Recently on Merseyside a prominent Irish trade union official, Mr. Phil Flynn, was arrested. I understand that he is acting general secretary of the Irish Local Government and Public Servants Union and was the full-time health service officer of the National Union of Public Employees in London from 1963 to 1967. I was a NUPE organiser at that time and, although I have never met Mr. Flynn, I understand that he has never been involved in terrorist organisations. He came to Liverpool on trade union business and it was only through representations made to the chief constable by the local trades council and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) that Mr. Flynn was released.
  In a submission to the Shackleton Committee which is reviewing the Act, the Federation of Irish Societies said:
  "People who have been detained under the Act, even though not charged, are terrified to say they have been detained because of the stigma attached. Men have actually lost their jobs after being held for questioning—again even though no charges were made.
  "Most of the Irish Societies in Britain, particularly in the areas with large communities, felt that all their activities, social occasions, charity collections came under suspicion after the introduction. Many of the Societies were collecting for holidays for children who live normally in Belfast and Derry. These collections virtually dried up. People were actually afraid to collect or contribute lest it be suggested (as it was in some British newspapers) that the money was being used to promote terrorism."
  I have never supported renewal of these provisions. The Home Secretary said that the provisions would be renewed for one year and not for three months as some of my hon. Friends have suggested, but I feel that interpretation of the Act

  565
  varies between police authorities in different areas. There is still a lot of concern on Merseyside, not only in the trade union movement, the National Council for Civil Liberties and the Irish community but among people in general, and I should like the Home Secretary to comment on the situation in Merseyside.
  I appreciate that there will be arrests on Merseyside because the port is used by so many Dublin and Belfast boats, but I believe that a number of those who are arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act could be arrested under other legislation. I asked the Home Secretary recently how many people had been arrested under the Act but charged under different Acts. I was told that some detainees have been charged with various trivial offences, such as motoring offences, theft or resisting arrest. I am sure that the police could deal with these people without using the Act.
  Many people believe that the Act could be used for harassment and intimidation. I am also concerned about the photographing and finger-printing of people who are detained. Is it correct that even if these people are cleared and released, their photographs and fingerprints are kept on file?
  In the light of the Home Secretary's reference to vigilance, I will conclude with a phrase from a speech which is often quoted by an old friend of mine from Liverpool—Joe Kelly. The quotation is from a speech by John Philpot Currans on the election of a Lord Mayor of Dublin on 10th July 1790:
  "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to Man is eternal vigilance."
  Those words are as true now as they were 200 years ago. For that reason, I shall be voting against the order.
  9.20 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Any measure which bears the title "Prevention of Terrorism" or which could colourably be represented as assisting in the prevention of terrorism would naturally attract the good will and support of the people of Northern Ireland whom hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Bench represent. Nevertheless, it would have been objectionable had the renewal of this order for a further 12 months not come under severe scrutiny in this debate.
  566
  The provisions of the present Act, since the inception at the end of 1974, have been highly objectionable to the people of Northern Ireland. It is indeed preposterous that, by the time this order has run its course, it will be more than four years during which it has been possible for a citizen of the United Kingdom compulsorily to be shifted from one part of the United Kingdom to another part of the United Kingdom. Such provisions can indeed be designated as temporary, but they are inherently objectionable in their very nature.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who has not been able to with us tonight for very long, thought it a ground for amusement that, in the amendment of the original Act, reciprocity in this respect was instituted between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and elicited for the second time from the Home Secretary the information that the power had not been used in the reverse direction.
  I make no apology at all for the fact that I pressed for that provision and I believe that the Government were fully justified in introducing it—and that for two reasons; first, we have actual evidence of the preparation in Great Britain of persons and materials destined for the commission of terrorist offences in Northern Ireland, so that it is impossible to deny that the circumstances can, and indeed do, exist in both directions; but, secondly, if we are to have the kind of legislation which makes it possible for citizens of the United Kingdom to be shifted from one part to the other, at any rate one part of the United Kingdom should not become the one-way recipient of this traffic. So it was entirely right that the Act should be framed in a reciprocal form.
  I was relieved to hear what the Home Secretary had to say on the report which he is to obtain from Lord Shackleton, for it is quite clear that a scrupulous investigation is now called for as to the extent to which these provisions are having any effect whatsoever.
  The Home Secretary said, I think, that 20 persons who had been detained under this Act had been charged with offences from murder downwards. But of course that in itself does not prove that the Act was essential to the detention, arrest

  567
  and conviction of those persons. I appreciate that it is difficult to do so. I appreciate that it is possible to argue that it was on the seventh day of detention, or as a result of other persons, who were later released, having been detained, that it was possible to identify and eventually convict these persons.
  However, difficult though it may be—here again, I see the advantage of the sort of inquiry that the Home Secretary has instituted—we should not rest content with just being told that 20 persons who have gone through this process have sooner or later been found guilty of what were offences anyhow under the law of this country. It was in any case the duty of the police in this country to apprehend them for those offences.
  Mr. Tom Litterick: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an additional advantage in appointing Lord Shackleton was that it took nine months to appoint him? We are now giving the Act a 12-month renewal knowing full well that Lord Shackleton's report is due quite soon.
  Mr. Powell: It is not for me to apologise for the delay in the appointment of Lord Shackleton to these duties. That is the business of the Government. I would have been glad of the earliest review and detailed examination of the working and application of these provisions.
  I come to the other case in point that the right hon. Gentleman cited. He referred to the Dublin consignment, if I may so describe it, that was mercifully prevented from reaching its intended destination in England. However, I inquire whether it was prevented from arriving because of the exclusion clauses. Were they necessary to the discovery that the consignment would be on its way? Or were the powers of detention necessary or used in the identification of the consignment? It is conceivable that they might have been. Again, I appreciate that it may be difficult for the Home Secretary in any particular case to parade before the House the perhaps complex stages by which information reached the point at which it could be used. Nevertheless, the fact is—we in the House must face it—that prima facie there is little connection between the events cited by the right hon.
  568
  Gentleman and the powers that are conveyed by the Act that we are renewing.
  Thirdly, there is the point upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) has already touched, namely, the bewildering lack of uniformity with which the provisions of the Act are enforced. As my hon. Friend was arguing, if it is necessary for the security of life and property in Great Britain that persons entering Great Britain by air from Northern Ireland should complete a form and verify that they are the persons who are signing the form, it must equally be necessary to do so whether they are entering at Liverpool, Gatwick or Heathrow.
  This lack of uniformity damages the support of the public and the comprehension of the public for the need for these irksome and in some cases—I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry)—harassing provisions. He is right to say that they could be harassing. To say that does not mean that the police are deliberately engaging in victimisation; it means that by the very nature of examination directed to the purposes of the Act there may easily be circumstances of distress.
  It is the experience of those of us who frequently make the journey, and who, because we are ourselves known, normally have a fairly easy passage—which is reasonable enough, as we are identified and are thus easy targets for apprehension should we engage in terrorist offences—that we have felt a certain sense of shame when we have seen others, no doubt in every case as innocent of any evil intent as we are, and conceivably more innocent, being held up for considerable periods.
  So the inquiry ought not only to establish whether any assessable benefit is now being derived from each of these provisions, but, where any provisions are still felt to be necessary, to secure that their enforcement is uniform, seen to be uniform, and accessible to explanation by common sense.
  I shall not return to the old debate between the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and myself about the business of the common travel area and the passport. At the time I accepted the argument of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor that examination of the passports of persons entering this country is a different

  569
  process from surveillance of persons entering this country with a view to the prevention of terrorism. Nevertheless, if, as I hope, we are very soon to drop this legislation, we shall need to give attention to some regular and acceptable form of checking entry into the United Kingdom from the Irish Republic as from all other countries. That process involves no stigma and conveys no criticism, but is necessary in many respects for the protection of the public interest in the United Kingdom.
  When the time comes—I trust that it will be soon—when we can dispense with these provisions, I hope that our law and administration in other respects will enable us to exercise neither more nor less than normal surveillance over all persons not belonging to this country who seek to enter it.
  Therefore, I join with others in hoping that we shall see the duration of this order in practice being less than the 12-month period which is upon the face of it, and that, when the Shackleton Report is available and has been debated, it will appear that we can at least narrow and rationalise, if not dispense with, a provision which, if it is irksome to the inhabitants of the rest of the United Kingdom, is offensive as well as irksome to the people of Northern Ireland.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Ellis. I am sorry. Mr. Flannery.
  9.32 p.m.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I am not mistaken for my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis).
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I feel that I owe both hon. Gentlemen an apology.
  Mr. Flannery: There was a suggestion that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) might be mistaken for Mike Yarwood, but we will pass over that.
  I share the desire of the right hon. Member for Down, South that the Act need not be on the statute book for another year. I should hope that this would be an occasion for an extension of
  570
  three months and then for a change when the Shackleton Report came out.
  What binds us together in the debate tonight is what my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) referred to as an abhorrence of terrorism. Indeed, most Labour Members have worked for civil liberties for many years. We often find it necessary to say that, especially when these debates are reported, so that people may know that we are totally opposed to terrorism and violence. Many hon. Members, including myself, have struggled and fought for human liberty in South Africa, Iran, Latin America, Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and other countries. These are our credentials for fighting now for human liberty in our own country.
  I find it necessary, without developing this theme, to reiterate what Opposition Members have heard me say on many occasions, namely, that there would not have been any need for this legislation had there been democracy in Northern Ireland. The greatest defence against terrorism is democracy. Where there is a lack of democracy and communalist politics violence breaks out. Democracy is still not present in Northern Ireland. The sooner it is the sooner this type of Draconian Act can be relegated to the dustbin of history.
  I wish to speak about the injustice of exclusion orders. They are really deportation orders. The Secretary of State mentioned reciprocity. He is more aware than I that exclusion still goes in only one direction. I do not know of any exclusions from Northern Ireland in this direction. If there are any I should like to hear about them.
  One of the most terrible things is that most people know nothing about this Act. They know nothing about the exclusion orders. They know nothing about the arrest and detention without trial that is going on in their midst. They merely know that a panic measure was taken after the Birmingham bombings. The details of what that resulted in are known only to politicians, and basically only to those at this level. Most of the people in trade unions do not know what an exclusion order is. They do not know that it is a deportation order.
  The National Council for Civil Liberties has described exclusion orders. We

  571
  should take note of its summary of them. It states:
  "To make an exclusion order, secret evidence is presented to the Home Secretary by the police. Neither suspect nor any legal officer appointed by a court of law has access to such evidence. Thus exclusion orders operate entirely outside the rule of law. This is a form of punishment without trial. It is particularly serious when applied to individuals who have left Northern Ireland in order to escape personal involvement with the troubles."
  To be accused of something and never to be made aware of what is surely the ultimate.
  Many of my hon. Friends could give details of how this operates. The NCCL has the old figures. It says that of the 110 orders made, 20 representations were made against the orders. A total of six succeeded. Those figures are almost up to date. They tell an awful story of people being arrested without knowing why. We use the semi-genteel word "exclusion" when we know that it means deportation.
  The real aim is to gather information about the Irish community in this country. People from that community are arrested but they have no right, as arrested persons, to do anything about false imprisonment or arrest, even when it is shown ultimately that they have no connection with terrorism.
  In the process of questioning, knowledge is given about the Irish community. It could be argued that this is necessary to stop the bombings. However, many of us believe that far from its being an act to prevent terrorism, it is an act by which a section of our community is terrorised. Anyone who has struggled in the cause of human liberty is bound to abhor the fact that this should occur.
  My figures may be wrong, but of the 3,017 people detained, 2,100 were at ports of entry. Sixty-five were subsequently charged, and there were 47 convictions. We do not know, however, whether there was more than one conviction per individual. In other words, the 47 convictions were not necessarily against 47 people.
  Many of us contend that this terrifying ritual to which some of our people have been subjected is unnecessary. We feel that the legislation that was in force before this Act was quite adequate to deal with the problem. This Act came
  572
  into being in order to prove to people that the Government were taking measures to combat terrorism, but it could have been proved in a less panic-stricken manner that existing legislation was quite sufficient to deal with the problems of these crimes. I reiterate that many of us believe that this legislation was born in panic, that it should not be continued, because it is unnecessary, and that if we are to extend it the extension should be for only a minimum period of three months. We are confident that the Shackleton Report will provide sufficient evidence to justify the withdrawal of this Draconian legislation.
  9.42 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The House should approve this order tonight, but reluctantly. We should suspend our final judgment on it until we receive the Shackleton Report, when we shall have something basic to go on. No hon. Member could justify this legislation except in a state of war. It is our view that the IRA has been in a state of war with this country for a considerable time.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) that at the time the Act was passed it was ineffective. In its early stages it was extremely useful in the attack against terrorism. Terrorism is a great threat to liberal values—
  Mr. Litterick: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hooson: Not at the moment. If we had not had this Act, and if, following the Birmingham pub bombing, that terrorism had escalated to London, the action that the country would have demanded would have meant a far greater abrogation of civil liberties than we have seen under this Act.
  The real problem is that this Act has an enormous potential for misuse. I have no doubt that even when it is properly used—that is, when there are genuine grounds for suspicion—many innocents are bruised by its processes. I have no doubt that what we have been told by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) and what is contained in the NCCL document of evidence should be properly investigated by Lord Shackleton's review.

  573
  However, in dealing with terrorists who are intent upon a certain course of action, the normal rules are not adequate. Although innocents have been bruised by the provisions, some people have been drawn into the net who otherwise might not have been. Let me pose a basic question. Is terrorism in the modern age a temporary state of affairs? If it is not, as I suspect, it is time that the House gave far greater consideration to the matter and had a debate in depth such as will take place on the Shackleton Report.
  There is a great danger in a country such as this that when we approve this kind of legislation as a matter of necessity and urgency we get used to it. We get used to some of the methods employed and to the terms, and even police officers get used to the powers it gives and regret the lack of them in other directions.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is right in insisting that there should be a proper review of this matter with a view to obtaining the kind of measures that will enable us to deal with terrorist activity in time of peace without this kind of emergency legislation being extended from year to year and, far from being a temporary measure, becoming permanent. That is the great danger that all who value liberal values and civil liberty have in mind. That is why I say that we should approve the order tonight, because it is a necessity, but we should do so very reluctantly.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. Litterick: I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was giving way to me.
  Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman had concluded.
  Mr. Hooson: I had indicated to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) that I would give way to him, but I had forgotten about it until I was in the process of concluding. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Litterick: I have almost forgotten what I was going to say.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman was properly careful in saying that he thought
  574
  that in its early months of application the Act was effective, but would he not concede that he, like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, is not in a position to prove through convincing evidence of any direct character that it has been effective either in the short term or in the long term?
  Mr. Hooson: That is so. There is no published evidence. But I suppose that in my profession I learn of certain things, and I adhere to the view that I expressed.
  9.46 p.m.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: When we have discussed this legislation on other occasions both my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary and the other gentleman whom we now prefer to forget, who is drawing a considerable salary in the European Economic Community, were able to point to certain acts of terrorism committed in this country, which all of us condemned and were appalled by, as a justification for continuing with the legislation.
  My right hon. Friend began this evening by saying that last year this country was free of acts of terrorism. Nevertheless, he tells us that in flats and houses in some of our major cities there are active service units making ready for acts of terrorism. That is the suggestion related to us in a James Bond style. It would seem that that is the justification for continuing the legislation for another 12 months.
  I suggest to my right hon. Friend that there is enough legislation on the statute book and that the police have more than enough powers to deal with the active service units, if there are such in Britain. Without much firmer evidence, a much firmer indication of what my right hon. Friend is getting at, I can se no justification for asking the House tonight to extend the legislation for another 12 months.
  A good deal has been said about Lord Shackleton's inquiry. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) rightly suggested a searching and in-depth inquiry. I understood him to say that the onus was on the Government to prove a correlation between this legislation—not the other police powers or any other legislation—and the dcrease in acts of terrorism and the arrests said to have been made.

  575
  I very much welcome the fact that Lord Shackleton is looking into the matter, but will he be any more successful in obtaining information than Members of Parliament have been? Unless the police, the Home Office and others involved are prepared to give him information, his report will be more or less useless. If the philosophy of the Home Office and the police in discussions with Lord Shackleton is that the arrests, the extension to seven days and the exclusion orders are purely executive orders, about which only the Home Secretary in his wisdom can make a judgment, Lord Shackleton presumably is not going to get any information on that score. There are the areas which are of crucial importance in terms of legislation.
  I want to know what information the Home Office and the police are prepared to give to Lord Shackleton. If Lord Shackleton becomes as frustrated in his attempts to get information as I have become in seeking information about a couple of Bristolians who were served with exclusion orders I am afraid that his report will not enlighten us very much. I, too, cannot see why it is necessary to extend this legislation for another 12 months rather than for three months, until we have time to look at Lord Shackleton's report.
  Like other hon. Members, I want to deal with exclusion orders. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hills-borough (Mr. Flannery) is right to say that this term is simply a euphemism for deportation. The right hon. Member for Down, South spoke of people being shifted—taken from their wives and families and jobs and shifted to another part of the country, without any indication of the charge against them.
  In the case of the two Bristolians to whom I have referred I was contacted to see whether I could find even the slightest amount of information about the nature of the charges against them. I am sure that hon. Members will realise that it is not pleasant to be telephoned by a representative of a constituent who says that the constituent is in prison faced with an exclusion order and is likely to be separated from his wife, family and job and moved from Bristol to Northern Ireland. It is not pleasant to be told that that representative cannot get any
  576
  indication of the evidence against his client.
  It is no good the lawyers in this House telling us about the right to legal representation. In both of these cases the men managed to get a solicitor to represent them. The solicitor telephoned me and said "I am trying to prepare a brief but I can get no indication of the evidence against my clients. What is the point of my attempting to prepare a brief?"
  When the assessor appointed by the Home Secretary went to see Danny Ryan in Horfield Gaol he was asked by Danny Ryan what the evidence was against him. The assessor said "I have no idea. Even I do not know what it is." They spent about half an hour talking about Bristol City and Bristol Rovers. It was a pleasant time, but it was not very pleasant for Danny Ryan when he was deported to Northern Ireland.
  What a strange situation this is. Here is someone suspected of being involved in committing acts of terrorism yet he is picked up and dumped in Northern Ireland, where he is allowed to go free. He is allowed to go free in the sense that Danny Ryan was allowed to go free, to be unemployed for most of the time because he could not get job. Eventually his wife and children found themselves in extreme difficulties.
  Since the exclusion order was served on my constituent, Brendan Phelan, the family has broken up. He is, I understand, now separated from his wife, as a result of the long time that he has been in Northern Ireland. That is one family of which I know which has been smashed by this piece of legislation. When we get rid of this temporary legislation, will those who were deported to Northern Ireland be able to come back to their wives and families? I should like a clear-cut answer to that question, and the Home Office should tell us.
  In order to show how ludicrous the legislation is, I refer to the case of a seaman who was picked up in Southampton at a minute before midnight, on an exclusion order, because he was alleged to have committed acts of terrorism. A clever lawyer, thank goodness, came along and said "We can show that he has been in this country for more than 20 years." As it was possible to prove this, the seaman was allowed to go back to

  577
  his ship, and he has carried on with his employment ever since. That shows what nonsense this legislation is.
  I can understand the feelings of the Government, faced with the appalling outrages which took place in Birmingham and elsewhere. They obviously felt that they had to do something. But let us be clear about this—I say this to every one of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench—this kind of thing happens in the Soviet Union, in Czechoslovakia, in Chile or in South Africa, my hon. Friends are the first people to stand up, along with us, and shout about the loss of freedom in those countries. Let there be no mistake. If we have a piece of legislation which gives executive powers to the Home Secretary to deport anyone, without even giving him any indication of the evidence against him, it is not much different from some of the persecution in the Soviet Union. It is not much different from saying to someone "It is for the good of the State that you go into a mental hospital", or whatever it may be.
  It is for these and many other reasons that I shall be voting against the renewal of the order tonight. I am convinced that the police had more than enough power before this legislation was brought in. If they have not that power, I am quite prepared that they should have it, providing that it is used to bring to court, and to punish with the full severity of the law, those who can be quite clearly proved, in a court of law, under British justice, to have been responsible for or to have been involved in acts of terrorism.
  9.57 p.m.
  Mr. Roger Moate: I wish to make only a very short contribution, having listened to the whole of the debate. I felt that the contribution from the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) was somewhat illogical and needs to be answered. He told us that he will vote against the order tonight, having said that he thought that it should be renewed for only three months. If he can see a case for its being renewed for three months, he can hardly argue that it should be dropped altogether. I should have thought that his proper choice was simply to support a renewal for 12 months.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: I shall be voting against the 12 months' renewal.
  Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman, then, will be voting against the renewal of the order.
  I take issue with the hon. Gentleman's comments when referring to what the Home Secretary said about the active service units. The hon. Gentleman used the phrase disparagingly, and talked about James Bond type allegations. If that is the way in which he dismisses the IRA threat in this country, I can only say that he is totally out of touch with the realities of the situation, as are many of his hon. Friends. I think that the Home Secretary represented the views of the British people and of his constituents far more accurately than they were represented in many of the speeches that we have heard this evening.
  I accept that, if I had a large number of constituents who had been subjected to irksome and harassing interference with their freedom of travel between different parts of the United Kingdom, I should perhaps have looked at the legislation in the way in which some hon. Members have looked at it. But, just as they have made it clear that they condemn terrorism, even though they might be against the order, I hope that they will accept that those of us who support the order and its extension are equally determined to defend the liberties of the individual and are reluctant to see any such impositions placed on the citizens of this country as are embodied in the order. Equally, one has to accept that in the circumstances it may be necessary to give the Government certain additional powers.
  Although we can argue strongly that the order should be applied uniformly and fairly, and although we can argue about how it is applied, there is also an argument about whether the Government need additional powers in order to defend our citizens. We know, too, that the threat to the people will come from only a small number of individuals. The bombing outrages committed in Great Britain in the past were committed by only a tiny handful of people. But that tiny handful of people brought home to the people of Great Britain the reality of the horror with which the people of Ulster have lived for so many years.
  It is easy to forget the horrified reaction of people to some of the indiscriminate bombings which we have experienced, with bombs being left in,

  579
  railway stations, in letter boxes and in restaurants. Any parent who has learned of a bomb left near the school which his child attends that luckily has not gone off knows how a bomb can threaten innocent lives. That horror could start again tomorrow, and it is complacent to believe that the threat has receded.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: If the hon. Member is such an ardent supporter of this wretched legislation, how can he say that the horror could start again tomorrow? The Government's case is that the order is preventing all this terrorism.
  Mr. Moate: I accept what the Home Secretary said about these provisions having contributed to the peace which has prevailed in this country for the past 12 months. It would be the height of folly to drop these powers unless others were put in their place. But it would be greatly offensive to our citizens to believe that we should sweep away these powers simply because there have been no terrorist incidents in this country in the past 12 months.
  At present, when it appears that the security forces in Northern Ireland are being more successful, it is likely that at some stage the terrorists will transfer their activities to Great Britain if they can do so easily. To make movement easier now by taking away these restrictions would be to offer an open invitation to terrorists to turn to the softer targets in Great Britain.
  The Government are right to ask for the renewal of these powers. Equally, they are right to review them and to ensure that they are being applied as fairly as possible. It is necessary to examine them to ensure that they make continuing sense. Certainly we want them to be temporary, and they should be subject to the constant scrutiny which Government supporters sitting below the Gangway have given them. They should be subject to the sort of examination which the Home Secretary has put in hand. But I cannot see that for the next year or two—and perhaps longer—we shall not need additional powers to ensure that the terrorists who are still active in Northern Ireland do not gain the impression that it will be easy for them to come here and attempt to terrorise the
  580
  populations of London and of other towns and villages in Great Britain.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will secure his proposed 12 months renewal of these powers, and I hope that those hon. Members who say that there should be only a three months extension will, because they have not got that option, accept the logic of their own argument and not vote against this proposal.
  10.4 p.m.
  Mr. Stan Thorne: I hope that the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) will forgive me if I do not pursue his line of argument. The essence of his contribution seemed to be speculation, and I do not want to follow him down that road.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), following his excellent analysis of the arguments involved in appraising this measure, did not come to the conclusion which seemed to follow from his arguments. That was that we should be voting against the Act rather than waiting for some report from a noble Lord in the other place about how the Act has worked.
  The earlier parts of his contribution, sensibly showed how the Act since its inception has been very questionable in a number of ways. I do not want to reiterate some of the arguments that were put during the first debate in 1974, but there was a general acceptance by many hon. Members that we were discussing an issue that affected individual liberty to a tremendous degree. I remember the words of one old philosopher:
  "Liberty is a highly precious thing and as such, it ought to be rationed."
  If we accept that approach, it seems that we are in the business as legislators here in determining how we shall ration and whom we shall ration in this context.
  The Home Secretary has made his case that we are to ration the liberty of a section of the community in the interests of destroying the ASU, but he has not given a bit of evidence that would encourage us to believe that the Prevention of Terrorism Act has prevented or can or will prevent terrorism. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ron Thomas) and others pointed out that there are already on the statute book sufficient police powers to enable the implementation of the sort of things that

  581
  the Home Secretary wants done in regard to the ASU.
  There was an admission from the previous Home Secretary that these were Draconian measures that he was introducing. He gave us all the impression—I hope that it was not a hypocritical approach on his part—that he very much regretted having to take this measure but thought that in time it would be possible to ensure that it was the temporary measure that it claims to be.
  I suggest that the main purpose of the Act is to discriminate against the Irish people who live on this side of the Irish Sea. Its purpose is to attempt to obtain information about their political views, their political activities and generally to apply constraints on those activities arising from the existence of this piece of legislation.
  The detentions that have taken place have resulted in 95 per cent. of those who have been detained not being charged with any offence. That means that 95 per cent. of those detained were deprived of their liberty for two, three or seven days, and, it seems, without any compensation.
  I question whether there is any way in which one can compensate anybody for depriving him of his liberty for a few days, particularly as—some of my colleagues have indicated this earlier—the circumstances in which this takes place are complete secrecy, no messages to the family and no messages to anyone outside the captivity imposed by the police.
  If there is a way in which anybody being detained can get a message indirectly to a Member of Parliament, what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West indicates how inept he felt in attempting to represent such a person in those circumstances. In the case of exclusion orders, again, no charges need be made known to the person concerned or anybody who might seek to help him in any way. He is merely deported and given the opportunity to make a way for himself and his family, with the stigma that must inevitably attach to the fact that he has been excluded from the United Kingdom.
  I make only one last point, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to go on your "over eight minutes" list. I make this point to the Home Secretary. Let us conceive of a situation in which
  582
  there is a General Election between now and the ending of this 12-month period. The Home Secretary may be satisfied—but I am not—that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, who might just, by some accident, occupy the position of Prime Minister of this country, would have a great deal of hesitation in using the prevention of terrorism legislation against some trade unionists in Britain.
  Let us recall the inadequacy of the definition of "terrorism" that is contained in the Act. I can imagine a very difficult industrial relations situation, because Opposition Members are the architects of industrial conflict when they are in power. Screwing the workers is their traditional position. In those circumstances there could well be a picket at which someone was speaking on something of the lines of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), and he may even look a bit like the hon. Member. What sort of position would he be likely to be in if picked up by a policeman who had considerable sympathy with the sort of powers that we are giving to policemen under the Act? I shudder to think what could be done by an unscrupulous Home Secretary in the event of our ever having the catastrophe of another Conservative Government.
  It is against that background that I urge the Home Secretary to think again. Even though I put the question to him earlier about the role of Lord Shackleton and the periodicity of the Act, I take the view, as do most of my hon. Friends who are present in the Chamber now, that we should vote against the Act. There is no case now, although there might have been one when the Act was introduced, for perpetuating the Act. The House would be doing a service in the interests of liberty of the individual if it voted against the renewal of these provisions.
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Litterick: I have no compunction about reciting for the umpteenth time the reasons why the House should see the Act as an entirely objectionable piece of legislation. I have been over this course every time it has come before us, and these reasons need to be repeated over and over again—if only because the State insists on

  583
  repeating its reasons for continuing to have this legislation.
  The State has no argument to offer, other than the original argument that there is a threat. We all know that the origin of that was a single event in one city in Britain, which the Government Front Bench lamentably and shamefully used as an occasion for a hasty piece of legislation which was designed to convince a properly shocked public that something was being done, and nothing more. As we have learnt on every attempt at renewal by Home Secretaries since then, the Government are not able to justify this Act in terms of results, in terms of positive, constructive benefit to the British people.
  That is why the worthy Lord Shackle-ton was appointed. It was because no Home Secretary is able to justify this legislation, so he needs a fall guy, a patsy—
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: A what?
  Mr. Litterick: —a symbol, and above all, he needs time.
  The Home Secretary will have to take tutorials in English colloquialism.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Anti-Irish.
  Mr. Litterick: My right hon. Friend ought to know better than that. It is an American colloquialism.
  May I get on with my speech? This is the first time that I have been banned by a Home Secretary. I think that my right hon. Friend quite enjoys the experience.
  The Government had to appoint Lord Shackleton to buy time, since the promise was made a year ago to appoint a person to investigate the operation of the Act and it took such a very long time to find someone who was properly qualified to do this strange and uniquely important job—nine months in fact—with the result that we are now asked once again to renew this damned legislation for a year. This means that it is guaranteed—we all know what the result of a Division will be—for another 12 months on the statute book, regardless of what Lord Shackle-ton says. The Home Secretary and the State are safe for another 12 months. It means that the State is safe—
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: And the people.
  Mr. Litterick: It means that the State is safe, although the Home Secretary has not been able to prove once during the last three years that this legislation has been of benefit.
  Sir M. Havers: Does the hon. Member remember the appalling disasters at Guildford and Woolwich? Does he remember how this provision was responsible for the detention of those who committed these atrocities?
  Mr. Litterick: Prove it. The right hon. and learned Member makes the mistake of believing that because someone is charged under a piece of legislation, that is the only piece of legislation under which that individual could have been charged. That is not the case. For example, the men who were subsequently charged and convicted of the horrendous Birmingham bombings were charged and convicted under the previous legislation. Incidentally, they were arrested within 24 hours of the bombing. They were arrested days before being charged, and they were held incommunicado without the benefit of this hellish legislation. The police had adequate powers then to apprehend and hold these people incommunicado without the powers conferred by this Act.
  It is wrong to say that subsequent arrests could have been made only because of this legislation being on the statute book. The right hon. and learned Member forgets that arrests and detentions were made before this legislation was on the statute book. It did not seem to worry the police that they violated the civil liberties of those they arrested before this Act was in force. Nobody seemed to worry about it.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: If the police had sufficient and adequate powers without this Act, why is there such opposition to it? If it provided no further powers than those the police already had, why is the hon. Member so worried about it?
  Mr. Litterick: I thought that I was in the business of opposing the Act. I do not wish it to be renewed, because I believe that sufficient powers exist without it to enable the authorities to cope with terrorism.
  Mr. Burden: Then what is all the fuss about?
  Mr. Litterick: I do not think that the hon. Member can be well. The fact is that the traditional liberties of the citizen have been violated in a new way by this Act and the police have been, to a significant degree, politicised in so far as the Act enables them to make political judgments about human beings before taking them into custody. That political judgment has now been made a reason for taking them into custody. That is a significant step towards a police State. I am not saying that we have arrived at the police State, but we are familiarising our people with the concepts and precepts of the police State by a process of gradualism. We are familiarising them with the idea that it is right to arrest someone without charge and to hold him incommunicado without charge, and that it is right for the police to make a political judgment about a human being. It is not all right; it is fundamentally wrong.
  I make a point about the Conservative Party. There is a peculiar set of double standards in operation within the Conservative Party vis-à-vis its atitude to the State. I hope that the few Conservative Members present will pay attention to this point. I have been in this House for a short time—a little more than three years—but never a week passes before some Conservative Member rises to his feet to shriek about the iniquities of the State wishing to take action on property rights. More often than not, Conservatives complain about taxation.
  It is noticeable that the Conservatives are quick to attack the State when it appears to impinge on property rights, but when a request or demand is made by the State to acquire new powers over physical liberties and citizenship by our wonderful Bobbies, as they are so often described, when they are given greater power over the citizen or when our Service men are given similar powers—and let us remember that both are agents of the State—whole regiments of Tories rise to their feet shouting choruses of approval. In other words, it is all right that the State should physically violate the liberty of citizens, but it is not all right, apparently, for the State to take action against property. The Tories adopt double standards. They are against the people, but they are for property.
  586
  In this debate the Tories have demonstrated this attitude again. That is not surprising, because it comes naturally to them. If one gives more power to agents of the State in uniform, that is acceptable, but if one seeks to give more power to the Department of Industry or the Treasury to take action on behalf of the community against property, that, according to the Tories, is an outrage. They apply double standards and it is utter hypocrisy. Those Conservatives do not serve the community well.
  10.23 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Irving: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the fact that I was unable to be present in the opening stages of this debate. I shall make only a brief intervention.
  I support reluctantly the need for this legislation. I am always sorry when the normal processes of justice have to be suspended, but I believe that basically this legislation seeks to protect the public and is designed to prevent such horrific happenings as those that occurred in Birmingham, Aldershot and Guildford.
  I also accept the integrity and judgment of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, whom I have known for over 30 years since we were undergraduates together. However, I welcome Lord Shackleton's inquiry because some of the procedures leave something to be desired, particularly in respect of exclusion orders.
  John McKenna, a constituent of mine, was taken to Gravesend police station early in the morning of Monday 23rd January. I do not know whether he is guilty, but he was kept incommunicado until the Thursday without being allowed to see a solicitor. It is difficult enough to contest that kind of charge without being excluded from advice for practically the whole of the period of 96 hours during which there is an opportunity to appeal. I hope that some examination of the procedures will be possible when Lord Shackleton reports.
  It also makes difficult the examination of counter-charges that are almost inevitably made in such cases. There have been allegations on the other side about the tapping by the police of solicitors' telephone lines and of brutality by the Royal

  587
  Ulster Constabulary at Gravesend police station. It is alleged that somebody represented himself as a solicitor intending presumably to obtain some kind of confession. If the procedures were tidied up, it would make it much more possible for such allegations to be properly examined in the course of the inquiry.
  One of the allegations appears to be that my constituent was involved in the Birmingham bombing. I understand from a Sunday newspaper that the RUC now says that it is satisfied that my constituent was not there. Has my right hon. Friend anything to say on that point?
  The other matter that I wish to raise is the timing of exclusion orders. My constituent was kept at Gravesend police station from early Monday morning until late Friday evening and the exclusion order was made after 6 p.m. on Friday—when the Home Office had closed. It
  588
  heightens the difficulty of solicitors and hon. Members if such orders are made at weekends, when it is difficult to contact the Home Office and get the sort of assurances that are necessary in such cases. At the same time, I place on record my grateful thanks to the civil servants I eventually contacted for their help over that weekend.
  By coincidence, confirmation of the order was made a fortnight earlier, again after 6 p.m. on Friday, and it was difficult for inquiries to be made about the fate of the man's wife and her two children, who may not have been involved in any act of which the husband may have been guilty. Indeed, the wife had never been to Northern Ireland.
  I hope that when Lord Shackleton reports, some of these procedures can be tidied up. I support the legislation, but I hope that it will not have to be continued for much longer.
  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: After listening to the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), I had not intended to intervene, but the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) draws me to my feet to reply to some of his comments.
  I was about to apologise for the fact that I have not heard part of the debate, but since the hon. Member for Selly Oak stood up, blew up and blew out, I see no need to apologise for commenting on his speech in his absence. The hon. Gentleman described the legislation as hellish and claimed that it was brought in by the Home Secretary as a result of an isolated incident in a single town. We should make clear that this is not so.
  Before the change of Government in 1974, there were various outrageous bombing incidents in London. As a Minister in the Home Office, I shared the concern of the whole House about the damage to life and property caused by the bombings and serious consideration was given to bringing in legislation of this nature.
  The advice given to the Home Office at that time was that the balance was against bringing in a Bill because of the difficulty of proscribing individual organisations, the possibility that they might avoid proscription simply by changing their names and the fact that such an Act would inevitably be to some degree an attack on what we look upon as basic liberties in this country. After a great deal of consideration, no measure was introduced. However, I have no doubt that the Government, faced with the outrage at Birmingham and other actions, were right to accept that the balance of the argument had fallen the other way and that the Act was necessary.
  Let us be clear what the Act does. It proscribes an organisation which is aimed at causing destruction in this country. It provides power for the Home Secretary to exclude anyone if he believes it is expedient to do so in order to prevent acts of terrorism in this country, and it gives him the power, on his personal decision, to extend the length of time that a person may be held in custody in this country.
  590
  Far from being a hellish piece of legislation, as the hon. Member for Selly Oak suggests, it is, regrettably, necessary in order to prevent people and property being damaged and attacked by terrorism in this country.
  Miss Jo Richardson: The hon. and learned Gentleman is expert in this subject. Would he not agree that most of the provisions in the Prevention of Terrorism Act are covered by other statutes? I should be grateful to hear what he has to say.
  Mr. Carlisle: I have no doubt that acts of terrorism, when committed, can be adequately dealt with under other parts of the law. Where this Act takes us further is in providing prevention of the act of terrorism rather than conviction of the person who has committed it. Therefore, a new power—and, I believe, a necessary new power in the circumstances as the Home Office then saw it—was the power to exclude those who, it was feared, were coming here for the purpose of committing acts of terrorism in future.
  The hon. Lady will accept from me, I think, that, as any lawyer in the House will know, the necessary evidence to prove attempts to commit offences is very difficult to obtain, because it does not cover preparation, whereas here one is taking basically a preventive power rather than a power to convict those who have committed offences. One is stopping terrorism occurring.
  Happily, as has been said, we have seen a substantial reduction in terrorist activity, but when one sees what has happened recently in Northern Ireland, one cannot believe that the threat is wholly excluded. As long as that threat to our property and to the lives of the people of this country exists, the Government are right to take what I am sure they have been advised by the powers involved are the necessary powers to fight that terrorism. I believe that the House should support the Home Secretary tonight.
  10.32 p.m.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) talks about the preparations that were made under the previous Administration. One oddity of life is that one

  591
  cannot see the papers of a previous Administration, but I can well believe that consideration was given to legislation such as was eventually introduced.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving), who reminded me that we have known each other a long time, raised a constituency case. I mentioned earlier the article in The Sunday Times and said that I hoped the information in it would lead its writer to see Lord Shackleton. In my view the statistical information is wrong, but anyone who feels strongly enough to write such an article should bring the information forward.
  However, the Kent police have authorised me to say that they are not in disagreement with the RUC about this case. It is important that I should get that on the record. Nor is it true that the RUC believes that the exclusion orders are made on inadequate grounds. Having been involved in these matters now to a much greater degree than when I was in Northern Ireland, I just felt that that article was misconceived and that the need for the legislation and its form had not been understood.
  Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne)—there seems to be a regular swish out of the Chamber at this time of night; I wonder whether the notes that I have made are really necessary. My hon. Friend has left the Chamber. It may be for the benefit of the House if I do not reply to my hon. Friend and move on.
  It is my opinion that exclusion orders are important. I understand why the idea of such orders is not well received by hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. Although they may be misnamed, there are in Northern Ireland a number of so-called battalions. There is a high command. A structure exists to provide violence. I have to take into account anybody who has been associated with that structure. I have to bear in mind that small units may be set up to repeat the sort of thing that has been done in the past. In the interests of the community here, I have to act upon that basis, but in a way that is laid down in the legislation.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) asked about port con-
  592
  trol. I shall consider what he has said. Responsibility for the controls at any port is in the hands of the chief constable. Much depends on the nature of the port traffic. In some instances police manpower requires that there is selectivity in the way in which the police act at a port of entry instead of the implementation of blanket control. That applies to landing and embarkation cards. However, I shall consider the matter.
  That is the sort of matter that Lord Shackleton is examining. I understand that a number of my hon. Friend have been to see Lord Shackleton, and it may be that the hon. Member for Antrim, South, who uses the airport in question with great frequency, will care to put his case to him. Lord Shackleton will be reporting to me on any matter that comes within the terms of reference that I put before the House.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) referred to Lord Shackleton as a "patsy" and things of that kind. There is no way in which I have asked Lord Shackleton to be a fall guy. I regret that that expression was used about a man for whom I have the highest regard. Lord Shackleton will do what he wants without considering my views. That is why I asked him to do the job. He will have access to confidential information. He has had full access to papers in the Home Office. He has been given full cooperation by the police. It is obvious that not all the information should be made public, but the information will be made available to Lord Shacklton.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) made some remarks about what is going on in Merseyside. I suggest to my hon. Friend that it would be very much better if he spoke to Lord Shackleton on the allegations that he has made. That is the purpose of Lord Shackleton's inquiry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), who has been to see me on a number of occasions on these matters, mentioned Section 11. That is the provision which was put into the 1976 Act at the initial suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). It was before my time as Secretary

  593
  of State, and I understand that the Government were a little hesitant about the advantages of the provision but on balance were convinced. It is one of the provisions on which Lord Shackleton's views will be of particular interest.
  The section makes it an offence to withhold information about terrorism. It was aimed at the man or woman who knows that a bomb is to be planted, although he or she is not actively approving of the action, and keeps quiet. That has been the position on a number of occasions that I know of in Northern Ireland. It was put in the legislation, and Lord Shackleton may consider that if he so wishes. No instructions have been given.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Scotland Exchange and other hon. Members mentioned the Judges' Rules and the length of time that people can be kept in detention without relatives or solicitors being informed. Section 62 of the Criminal Law Act and the Judges' Rules are still there. I have discussed with hon. Members a circular which should go to the police. The police have also been discussing the matter among themselves. Section 62 was deliberately drawn to refer to this legislation as well as to the ordinary legislation that applies in this country. That section is not separate from the prevention of terrorism legislation.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the legislation in England is different from that in Scotland? Therefore, would it be reasonable for Lord Shackleton to consider how far the police feel handicapped in Scotland because the legislation there is different from English legislation?
  Mr. Rees: Certainly Lord Shackleton can do that. But I say to my hon. Friend—when I say "but", that is not qualifying what I say; it is a qualification for my own statement—Section 62 applies to England and Wales. That is what the House decided in the Criminal Law Act. Historically, the way that it is done in Scotland is a separate matter. The Criminal Law Act cannot apply there. However, if Lord Shackleton wants to consider how it is done in Scotland, that is entirely a matter for him. In the longer term, the Royal Commission on criminal and prosecuting procedure, which will take some time, is, I like to
  594
  think, one of the most important investigations which will take place in my time at the Home Office.
  Comparison with Scotland is important. Other aspects arise from the Confait case, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) played a part.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) put the matter correctly in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) about other legislation. The prevention of terrorism legislation is designed to prevent terrorism. It is not another series of laws to deal with those who have weapons and commit murder or other crimes. It is not surprising that people are taken to court and charged with offences under other legislation, because that is the substantive nature of the charge. If, within the limited parts of the prevention of terrorism legislation as opposed to exclusion orders and extra detention for more than 48 hours, there is a charge to put before a court, as with Section 11, that is a separate matter.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked, as did some of my hon. Friends, whether the Act is any longer necessary. That is a perfectly proper question to ask about the legislation. Lord Shackleton is looking not at the principle of it—I keep saying that that is a matter for the House—but at the way that it works.
  I come back to the point about there being plenty of law for dealing with terrorism. The problem that we have to face is that in a normal murder, if I may put it that way, the police step in to find out who has committed it. With terrorism, there are self-confessed members of organisations who, to get their political ends, state that they will kill and murder.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: And we dump them in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Rees: Let me stick to the dumping in Northern Ireland part. On that point my hon. Friend is allied with the right hon. Member for Down, South. That is as may be. There are in Northern Ireland para-military organisations. One is the Provisional IRA. There are others on the Protestant side. With one or two exceptions, the Provisional IRA has brought its battle to this side of the

  595
  water. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is concerned about the UVF and the other organisations there. I am not so concerned about the UVF on this side of the water, because generally—one has to be very careful—it is the Provisional IRA which gets involved in violence in this country.
  It is my job to balance civil rights with the fact that there is a terrorist organisation which tries to get bombing material and weapons into this country. I have to bear in mind that the members of that organisation would not stop at killing and murdering. If ordinary people who have never had a political thought in their minds are involved in action against such people, that is part of the cost.
  Mr. Corbett: A total of 3,000 people have been detained under the Act, and 95 per cent. of them have not been charged with anything. Is my right hon. Friend really saying that the main reason for picking them up is that they are suspected of being members or supporters of the IRA and that that is sufficient to knock them off? If that is the case, is he saying that there is no other legislation to deal with them? Do we not have conspiracy charges?
  Mr. Rees: I shall have to look in the dictionary to see exactly what "knocking off" means. We have reformed the conspiracy legislation and I shall not go into that. I have to take into account that there are people who are involved in a para-military organisation. I have to decide whether individuals have changed their minds. I have to decide whether they come here to get away from the situation or to assist the terrorists. I have to protect the body politic because at some time the bombings and shootings that we have known in the past might happen again.
  Mr. Burden: No doubt the Home Secretary takes into account the views of

  Division No. 150]

  AYES

  [10.51 p.m.

  Anderson, Donald

  Brotherton, Michael

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Ashton, Joe

  Buchanan, Richard

  Cryer, Bob

  Bates, Alf

  Burden, F. A.

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Beith, A. J.

  Campbell, Ian

  Davidson, Arthur

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Carlisle, Mark

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Cartwright, John

  Deakins, Eric

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Dempsey, James

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Cohen, Stanley

  Doig, Peter

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cowans, Harry

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the intelligence that he has on the people brought to his notice who come here and are known to have associations with terrorist organisations. Is it not right that he should take precautions to ensure that they do not practise their violence and terrorism in this country?
  Mr. Rees: It is right that I should do so.
  There is a danger—it happened at the time of the Birmingham bombings—that the substantial Irish population which has lived here for some time will come under suspicion. This happens from time to time. I have good reasons for knowing that sometimes an Irish person's name or accent leads to problems. But the vast majority of the Irish here do not feel that they are being terrorised. The majority play an important part in the life of our community.
  It would be a grave mistake to believe that the Irish population all vote the same way. Perhaps they do in certain areas, but not in general. I say this because of the things that are said outside the House about the nature of the Irish community. It plays an important part in the life of our community. The Irish population is not terrorised by this legislation. It is right to renew the legislation.
  The Shackleton Report will come. I have made my promise about a discussion in the House. Lord Shackleton can look at any aspect of the prevention of terrorism legislation that he wishes. That was a suggestion that I made to the House last year. There is a continuing need for legislation of this kind. Is it the right sort of legislation? That is what Lord Shackleton should examine. In the meantime, I commend the order to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 21.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sever, John

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  McElhone, Frank

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  George, Bruce

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Gilbart, Dr John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Strang, Gavin

  Golding, John

  Madden, Max

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marks, Kenneth

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Tinn, James

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Mitchell, Austin

  Ward, Michael

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hawkins, Paul

  Molloy, William

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Molyneaux, James

  White, James (Pollok)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Noble, Mike

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  John, Brynmor

  Oakes, Gordon

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Woodall, Alec

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Woof, Robert

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Penhaligon, David

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Younger, Hon George

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Lambie, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Lamborn, Harry

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Mr. Ted Graham and

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  NOES

  Canavan, Dennis

  Litterick, Tom

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Loyden, Eddie

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Corbett, Robin

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Flannery, Martin

  Ovenden, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Kerr, Russell

  Parry, Robert

  Miss Jo Richardson and

  Lamond, James

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON SOUND BROADCASTING
  Motion made,
  That Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Robert Cooke, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Robert Mellish, Sir Anthony Royle and Mr. Nigel Spearing be Members of the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting.—[Mr. Tinn.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SWALE (HOSPITAL)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Roger Moate: My object in seeking this Adjournment debate is specifically to draw attention to the need for a new general hospital in
  598
  the Swale area. I emphasise that this is the ultimate target. If we could gain acceptance for that, by implication there would be acceptance for all the other elements in the long-term capital programme for hospital development needed in the Medway health district. That district includes much of the Swale area.
  Essentially, what I am trying to do is to see whether we can get a commitment to a sustained programme of major capital investment in the Medway health district to cover the next 15 to 20 years. I understand that such a commitment has not been unusual elsewhere nationally, and particularly in the case of teaching hospital development programmes. Just such a programme has been set out in the district plan of the Medway health district, published in September 1977. I understand that this plan has been endorsed by the Kent health authority, and I hope that it will be approved by the region and the Government.
  The background to the plan is one of serious deprivation in terms of hospital facilities in the Medway district. I do not think that there is any dispute about the facts. The case has been put strongly in Adjournment debates raised by the

  599
  hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bean) and more recently by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Oven-den). The case has been pressed frequently and tirelessly by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), who is hoping to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This emphasises very much the fact that this is in no way a party political matter. Its history spans many previous Governments, and I suspect that before it is solved many future Governments will be involved.
  The debates we have had recently have concentrated largely on the serious shortage of revenue available to Medway health district for the maintenance of our existing services. On 3rd March the Minister of State acknowledged that this year only £78 is being spent per person in Kent compared with £108 in Greenwich and Bexley and £122 in Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham. Incidentally, the Minister of State said that he intends to visit the district later this year. May I say how welcome he will be? I hope that he will find time to visit us in the Swale part of the district and see how inadequate are our hospital facilities.
  There is no doubt that Kent as a whole is relatively under-funded. It is acknowledged that, within Kent, Medway is one of the most deprived districts. It is worth emphasising that, compared with the target allocations under the formula of the Resource Allocation Working Party, Medway is under-funded by £4 million, Maidstone by £5 million and Canterbury and Thanet—which includes part of the Swale district—by £6 million, which Kent as a whole is under-funded by £22·2 million.
  Comparatively, the teaching area of Lambeth and Lewisham is, in theory at least, over-funded by £23 million. I say "in theory" because in practice I am beginning to think that the RAWP formula is in many respects unworkable and should be reviewed. It might work well in a period of increasing resources, but I question whether it really can work in a period of restriction. Can it really work when poorer districts can be helped only by the closure of hospitals in other districts? I regret to say that in the short term we seem to have very little hope of any substantial improvement in the revenue situation.
  600
  The extent of our deficiency in hospital services is quite dramatic. According to Government standards, we should have over 1,900 hospital beds. We have about 1,000. That is a shortage of 900 beds. Looking at the figures for the average daily bed provision per thousand population, we find that Medway is right at the dismal bottom of the league table, both for Kent and the South-East Region, and we are way behind the Department's own recommended guidelines. This means longer waiting lists and that many patients have to travel longer distances for treatment. It means that in our area we face acute shortages in geriatric and maternity services and in acute surgery and psychiatric services.
  Looking at the provision of capital funds, we see that the region comes out badly. Apart from massive investment such as £45 million for St. Thomas's Hospital and Guy's Hospital alone, the region has regularly had the lowest share of capital per head of population of all the regions in the country. This year the figure is £3·3 per head, compared with £9·2 per head in the best region. No new hospital has been completed in the South-East Thames Region since the start of the National Health Service in 1948, with the exception of Greenwich Hospital.
  How is this great gap in the Medway area to be filled, and what assurances can the Government give to the people of Medway that in future adequate hospitals will be available? A programme has been drawn up for Medway and for Swale. This programme includes a number of major hospital developments. It includes the long overdue expansion of the Medway Hospital to provide, among other services, for extra geriatric, psychiatric and acute surgical services. It includes the improvement of All Saints' Hospital, with a first priority for the new special care baby unit. It includes the phased provision of a second major hospital, ultimately to have 500 beds, in the Swale area. As the plan puts it, the site acquisition for this "should be pursued immediately".
  I emphasise that the intention to develop Medway Hospital to its full potential as an 800-bed district general hospital was agreed by the regional board in the 1960s. My hon. Friend the

  601
  Member for Gillingham knows all about this, because he has been involved in it for so long.
  Today we only have phase one, with 213 beds, and it is likely to be the mid-1980s before we see phase two completed, if we are lucky. Also, the idea of providing a second major hospital within the health district is not new. It was recognised and agreed by the former regional hospital board. The only change is that it is now the view that this second hospital should not be built on a site which would have been fairly close to the Medway Hospital but should be situated within the Swale area, to meet the needs of that expanding population. There is a strong case for this.
  The population of Medway itself has increased by 30 per cent in each of the last two decades, and the population of Swale has also expanded substantially. It is significant that there is an exceptionally high proportion of young people and that this is expected to increase the demand for hospital facilities certainly into the 1990s. Therefore, it makes sense to have a new hospital in Swale. We accept that this is something for the longer term, but there will be no hope of achieving it even for the next generation, let alone the present one, unless we earmark a site now for the hospital and take steps to secure it now.
  It is very difficult for the health authorities to make such a commitment when they are so desperately concerned to find enough revenue to maintain existing services, but it is our job to look ahead. This is where the Government can give the necessary backing to the region and to the district by supporting this capital programme.
  I think that the case for the Swale hospital has been made very effectively in the Medway plan for which we are seeking Government support. A plan has been agreed for the provision of a new 28-bed geriatric unit at the Keycol Hospital. There is a desperate shortage of in-patient geriatric services, and this unit is needed. There is no conflict there with the long-term idea of a proposed Swale hospital development. I do not know whether there is yet an indication that the money for the Keycol project will be made available, but I hope that it will be soon.
  602
  Although we are talking about new hospital facilities, there is no fundamental belief that the answer to health care is simply to build bigger, better and more hospitals. That point has been made clearly and emphatically in the health district report, and the health care planning team emphasises that it sees the provision of in-patient services as being combined with the equally important aim of reducing the need for hospital care and treatment by developing community and primary care. But our case is that the existing provision of hospital facilities falls far below the minimum needed to provide adequate and decent hospital services for the people of the Medway and Swale area.
  Before allowing my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham to make his contribution, I ought to say that, in emphasising the need for a new hospital and in making a plea for it by drawing attention to the inadequacy of our present services, I do not wish it to be thought that I am denigrating the staff in our present hospitals, who do a splendid job of work, and the many voluntary organisations which give so much of their time and effort to supporting the existing hospitals. Even if we get a new Swale hospital, when we get the expansion and improvement of the hospitals about which we are talking there will still probably be some sort of role in the National Health Service for many of those hospitals.
  Although the Minister may not be able to promise us the money, I hope that he will at least be able to promise a sympathetic look at the need in the Swale area for a new district general hospital.
  11.10 p.m.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for giving me a few moments, and in the short time available to me I shall not go into the figures which he has already given and of which I have no doubt that the Minister will take note. But I emphasise that two hon. Members on his own side of the House have joined me and my hon. Friend in pursuing the need for the improvement of health services in the Medway towns. It is perhaps unusual for hon. Members on both sides of the House to act together in this way. However, when we do, it indicates that we all have the same purpose

  603
  at heart and that we believe the matter to be extremely important. It also means, of course, that we can bring added pressure to bear on whatever Government may be in power at the time in order to improve the situation.
  I have been a Member of the House for a long time, and I have been pressing the case for an improvement in the health services in the Medway towns for many years. Recently, the Under-Secretary of State came to Medway to see conditions for himself after we had represented to him that the health services were in a critical state. He did not disagree with us. Then we saw the Secretary of State. He, too, agreed with the arguments that we put forward. Alas, he was not able to give us very much encouragement that anything could be done to improve our revenue position—an improvement which is necessary if we are to maintain services at their existing level.
  Now we are promised a visit from the Minister of State, and tonight we have replying to this debate no less a person than the Minister with responsibility for the disabled. He should realise that the National Health Service in the Medway towns is disabled, and I hope that he will do as much for that as he does for those people for whom he shows so much sympathy and compassion in doing his job.
  The position is really serious. We have been to the South-East Thames Regional Health Authority to express our views about the need for capital investment in the area. But, although the authority's representatives were sympathetic, they held out practically no hope.
  I happen to believe that the National Health Service is in a very sad state in the whole country, and I hope that the Minister will not disagree with that. But in Medway it is in a much more critical condition than it is in practically any part of the country. The extraordinary feature is that because it is in Kent, which is supposed to be a comparatively well-off area, there seems to be less care and less intention to provide money even to hold the present position than there is in some of the areas in the North which are under-privileged from the health point of view.
  604
  The Minister must make up his mind to do something for Medway. I hope that he will have consulted his right hon. Friend and that he will realise that, no matter how long it may take, the Members for the area in and surrounding Medway will continue to press the interests of their area and the tragic need for improving the health services there, and that we shall do so not merely on a party basis but as Members from both major parties in the House. If for no other reason, the Minister must take note that unity on such a subject as this means that the need is extremely great.
  11.15 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on having secured a debate on this important subject and on his very proper determination to ensure that problems affecting the health services in Medway are fully and publicly discussed.
  My ministerial colleagues have been involved in consideration of these problems on a number of occasions. As the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) has mentioned, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins), replied to an Adjournment debate and then visited the district last summer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services received a delegation of the four Medway Members just before Christmas. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security replied to a further Adjournment debate less than two weeks ago in which he announced that he would be visiting the district later this year. The hon. Member for Faversham referred to my hon. Friend's forthcoming visit. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will want to consider the claims of Swale when the programme for his visit is being drawn up.
  I am aware of the sustained interest that the hon. Member for Gillingham has taken in the whole question of National Health Service provision for Medway. Both he and the hon. Member for Faversham have fully appreciated in their speeches tonight the deep interest and concern of my hon. Friends the Members for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bean)

  605
  and Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden). As both hon. Members have mentioned, there is no party animus whatever in this very important matter.
  One further introductory point that I must make is that the Government have planned to allow resources for health and personal social services to increase over the next few years. Hon. Members will recall that details of the decisions taken in the public expenditure survey of 1976 were given in paragraph 1.6 of our publication "The Way Forward", which covers both capital and revenue expenditure to 1979–80.
  On this occasion we are referring specifically to capital expenditure. Previous debates have focused mainly on revenue funding, which is a quite different matter. It is necessary to establish a clear distinction between the two kinds of resource allocation, not because Medway is acknowledged to be deficient in only one of them—quite the reverse—but because the means of overcoming the deficiencies differ according to whether one refers to capital or revenue.
  As the House knows, the redistribution of revenue funds on a year-by-year basis is related to target figures determined in accordance with the criteria laid down by the Resource Allocation Working Party—RAWP. The Government are firmly committed to bringing about a fairer distribution on these lines. However, we must recognise that the pace of change will be influenced by a variety of factors, which were debated here as recently as 3rd March and which indicate that progress will be slow at first.
  So we come back to the question of meeting the immediate hospital needs of the growing populations in Medway and elsewhere by other means. An expedient we naturally cannot afford to dismiss is that they should continue to look to the Inner London hospitals for at least certain types of service. The more specialised types in particular are often located at the major teaching hospitals and are meant to cover the whole region anyway. In addition, these teaching hospitals are, of course, centres of medical education and research. Although the population of their immediate area has declined, the number of students has not. Moreover, we want to maintain the number of medical students, since their education is
  606
  vital for the future of the National Health Service. As far as can be seen, we shall be needing more doctors rather than fewer if we are to make good the shortages of specialists in most of the under-doctored areas in future.
  The location of the three teaching hospitals in South-East London makes them reasonably accessible to most other parts of the region, and they have traditionally drawn patients from those parts. However, there is the cost of travel for patients and their visitors, and it is wholly understandable that the Medway should look forward to the provision of adequate facilities nearer home. The provision of such facilities will, of course, demand a great deal of capital investment.
  While the need is acknowledged, there are a number of complicating factors, notably that the better-provided areas which are aiming to release revenue funds by rationalising their services may yet be obliged to incur a certain amount of capital expenditure in the course of such rationalisation. There is also an overriding commitment to continue the funding of major capital developments which are already in progress. So we cannot proceed towards equalisation of capital resources in the same way as for revenue, by setting notional targets and then urging health authorities to move steadily towards them over a period of years. A somewhat different approach is needed.
  The Resource Allocation Working Party made recommendations for the distribution of capital in the longer term, but they have not been positively accepted for immediate implementation. The exact method to be adopted is still undetermined, but in the meantime the Secretary of State has decided that capital resource assumptions for the years from 1978 to 1980 will be calculated broadly in line with the RAWP principles. It is possible that the method of distribution finally adopted will be influenced by the review of National Health Service capital currently being carried out by the Department.
  The 1977–78 and 1978–79, cash limits have been calculated in line broadly with the RAWP recommendations for the transitional phase to provide for contractual commitments as well as a minimum sum for other capital expenditure. In calculating the resource assumptions to be notified in the 1978 planning guidelines

  607
  for the years from 1979–80, the method recommended by RAWP has been used with some modifications.
  In the Department's planning guidelines for 1978–79, which are currently being issued, the capital programme for South-East Thames Regional Health Authority is set at around £20 million per annum in real terms for up to 10 years ahead, although there will be variations from year to year. Regions are also being urged to consider the effect on their priorities of significant variations—up to 10 per cent—on either side of the cumulative total for the seven years following 1981–2. Joint financing for local authority social services projects is shown separately from these figures, all of which are meant to be used in connection with the strategic planning now in progress.
  As the hon. Member for Faversham has pointed out, these references to hospital development at Swale occur in the Medway health district plan of September 1977. One of the stated aims of the district strategy is to seek regional health authority commitment to
  "the provision of a second major hospital in the Swale area, the site acquisition for which should be pursued immediately".
  It has been brought forward from earlier years and latched on to the new planning system. No cost estimate has been attempted, even for phase one, nor is it given a target starting date, however, provisional, in the outline major programme for the next 20 years. In such circumstances its destiny must seem rather speculative, especially as it involves looking beyond the strategic time scale of 10 to 15 years.
  I hasten to add that the plan contains many excellent features in other respects, and it comprehensively surveys health service needs for Medway. It also stresses that the district management team will continue to provide the highest standard of service within the resources available. To this end, the team gives first priority to the development of community services in support of primary care.
  The plan goes on to say that primary care will be developed in such a way that admission for hospital treatment is, where possible avoided and that where it is unavoidable it is kept to the absolute
  608
  minimum. Nevertheless, there are a number of development proposals for existing hospitals. Some have already secured a place in future capital programmes, such as the special care baby unit at All Saints' and the first phase of the Medway Hospital improvements. Others will no doubt come forward in due course on their merits, as revealed by the progress of service planning. It is encouraging to note how well they conform to the priorities which are steadily being established and to the need for better use of limited resources. Flexibility of planning will be essential in the years ahead. There will be many who see this as the way forward for health services in Medway.
  The regional health authority issued in January its own draft planning guidelines, including resource assumptions, as a consultative document. When these come to be finalised next month they will, of course, take account of the national guidelines just issued. In the RHA's document, the section on distribution of capital resources refers to a second option of making more funds available for new buildings by transferring specific sums annually from the revenue account. Greater flexibility of this kind is a welcome step forward since there is no magically correct balance of resource utilisation up and down the country. The document therefore covers the distribution of capital resources throughout the region according to either option but observing the same basic principles.
  Probably the most significant of these principles is that, with regard to major capital schemes, this region has in the past been criticised by the Department for spending too small a proportion of its capital allocation on major developments. This was largely due to the fact that available resources had to be used in renovating existing stock in order to maintain a viable service. The region has many small hospitals, the replacement of which should increase effectiveness and in some instances release valuable sites. Much of the capital stock is in need of complete replacement, and this is particularly true in the case of long-stay institutions. Major capital schemes would therefore help to remedy these problems and contribute to the redistribution of resources both between areas and between the various health care activities.

  609
  It is accordingly proposed to give greater emphasis to major schemes, the annual allocation being more than doubled from the current level to some £13·2 million in 1986–87. But even phase one of a new hospital such as Maid stone can cost nearly £10 million. The control—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock.

  CROWN AGENT (SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS)
  CROWN AGENT (SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Crowd and Traffic Control
  Crowd and Traffic Control
  Employment Agencies
  Employment Agencies
  Warwickshire (Crimes of Violence)
  Warwickshire (Crimes of Violence)
  Mr. David Duke
  Mr. David Duke
  Scientology
  Scientology
  Visitors' Permits
  Visitors' Permits
  Police (West Mercia)
  Police (West Mercia)
  Television Reception (Wales)
  Television Reception (Wales)
  Police Recruitment
  Police Recruitment
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (ACCOMMODATION)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (ACCOMMODATION)
INDUSTRY
  Liverpool Inner City Partnership
  Liverpool Inner City Partnership
  Zip Fasteners (Japan)
  Zip Fasteners (Japan)
  London
  London
  Calderdale (Mill Conversion)
  Calderdale (Mill Conversion)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Sick Leave
  Sick Leave
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Hong Kong (Vietnamese Refugees)
  Hong Kong (Vietnamese Refugees)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Animals (Export)
  Animals (Export)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
TRADE
  Zip Fasteners
  Zip Fasteners
  Shipping Safety (English Channel)
  Shipping Safety (English Channel)
  Departmental Forms
  Departmental Forms
  Airline Services
  Airline Services
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Supplementary Benefit (Disregards)
  Supplementary Benefit (Disregards)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Hospitals (Lichfield and Tamworth)
  Hospitals (Lichfield and Tamworth)
  Blind Persons
  Blind Persons
  Manchester Royal Infirmary
  Manchester Royal Infirmary
  Self-Employed Persons (Pensions Contributions)
  Self-Employed Persons (Pensions Contributions)
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Doctors and Ancillary Staff (Pensions)
  Doctors and Ancillary Staff (Pensions)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Medical Insurance Schemes
  Medical Insurance Schemes
  Wheelchair Service (Review)
  Wheelchair Service (Review)
  Obstetricians
  Obstetricians
  Maternity and Neonatal Care
  Maternity and Neonatal Care
  Maternity Units
  Maternity Units
  Disabled Persons (Equipment)
  Disabled Persons (Equipment)
  Gas and Electricity Meters
  Gas and Electricity Meters
  Personal Files
  Personal Files
  Nursing (Briggs Report)
  Nursing (Briggs Report)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Contract Clauses (Discussions)
  Government Contract Clauses (Discussions)
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Returns
  Tax Returns
  Multinational Companies (Tax Assessments)
  Multinational Companies (Tax Assessments)
  Local Government Employees
  Local Government Employees
  Public Companies (Tax Domicile)
  Public Companies (Tax Domicile)
  Domestic Capital Formation
  Domestic Capital Formation
  Stock Relief Scheme
  Stock Relief Scheme
  Oil Prices
  Oil Prices
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Tax Offices (Freefone Service)
  Tax Offices (Freefone Service)
  Personal Files
  Personal Files
  Investment Income
  Investment Income
  Estimates
  Estimates
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Customs and Excise Officers
  Customs and Excise Officers
  Pension Funds, Life Assurance and Retirement Annuities
  Pension Funds, Life Assurance and Retirement Annuities
  Productivity
  Productivity
  Development Land Tax
  Development Land Tax
TRANSPORT
  Keadby (Bridge)
  Keadby (Bridge)
  Road Traffic (Worksop)
  Road Traffic (Worksop)
  South Docks Road, Hull
  South Docks Road, Hull
  Lorry Drivers (Accommodation)
  Lorry Drivers (Accommodation)
  Roads (Crash Barriers)
  Roads (Crash Barriers)
  Road Construction
  Road Construction
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Graduates (Unemployment)
  Graduates (Unemployment)
  Pudsey Schools
  Pudsey Schools
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Adult Education (Expenditure)
  Adult Education (Expenditure)
  Liverpool (Partnership Committee)
  Liverpool (Partnership Committee)
  Obstetrics (Student Training)
  Obstetrics (Student Training)
  Ilford Ursuline Girls' School.
  Ilford Ursuline Girls' School.
  University Teachers (Pay)
  University Teachers (Pay)
EMPLOYMENT
  Temporary Employment Programme
  Temporary Employment Programme
  Noise
  Noise
  Mr. C. Gordon Tether
  Mr. C. Gordon Tether
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  Garner's Steak Houses
  Garner's Steak Houses
  Equal Pay
  Equal Pay
  London
  London
  Departmental Energy Usage
  Departmental Energy Usage
DEFENCE
  Equipment Sales
  Equipment Sales
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Armed Forces Pay Review Body
  Armed Forces Pay Review Body
SCOTLAND
  A92 and A94
  A92 and A94
  Weather Damage (Highlands)
  Weather Damage (Highlands)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Rateable Values
  Rateable Values
  Rating Revaluation (Commercial and Industrial Premises)
  Rating Revaluation (Commercial and Industrial Premises)
  Employment (St. Enoch's, Glasgow)
  Employment (St. Enoch's, Glasgow)
  General Nursing Council
  General Nursing Council
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Housing (Expenditure)
  Housing (Expenditure)
  Thornton Bypass
  Thornton Bypass
  Tayside Linoleum Works
  Tayside Linoleum Works
  Arthritis and Rheumatism
  Arthritis and Rheumatism
  Moss Morran (Petrochemical Project)
  Moss Morran (Petrochemical Project)
  Falkirk Sheriff Court
  Falkirk Sheriff Court
  Police
  Police
ENVIRONMENT
  Flats (Purchase by Residents)
  Flats (Purchase by Residents)
  Inland Waterways
  Inland Waterways
  Ministry of Defence Houses (Marchington and Fauld)
  Ministry of Defence Houses (Marchington and Fauld)
  Water Authorities (Finance)
  Water Authorities (Finance)
  Canvey Island and Benfleet (Pollution)
  Canvey Island and Benfleet (Pollution)
  Thermal Insulation
  Thermal Insulation
  Sand and Gravel
  Sand and Gravel
  Public Works Tenders
  Public Works Tenders
  Sport
  Sport
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Liverpool (Partnership Committee)
  Liverpool (Partnership Committee)
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Paper (Recycling)
  Paper (Recycling)
  Rates
  Rates
  Fires Statistics
  Fires Statistics
ENERGY
  Electricity Industry
  Electricity Industry
  Opencast Coal Sites
  Opencast Coal Sites
  Mines (Safety Regulations)
  Mines (Safety Regulations)
  Electricity Discount Scheme
  Electricity Discount Scheme
  Petrochemicals
  Petrochemicals
  European Community (Energy Policy)
  European Community (Energy Policy)
  PERSONAL FILES
  PERSONAL FILES
WALES
  Agriculture
  Agriculture
  Youth Camps
  Youth Camps

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

BARONESS LOCKWOOD
Miss Betty Lockwood, having been created Baroness Lockwood, of Dewsbury in the County of West Yorkshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Stedman and the Lord McCarthy, and made the solemn Affirmation.

ECGD: DIVISION'S MOVE TO CARDIFF
2.48 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: 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 reconsider their decision to transfer the comprehensive guarantee division of the Export Credits Guarantee Department to Cardiff.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the department's move to Cardiff was announced in 1974 as part of the policy, which successive Administrations have reaffirmed, for moving some 30,000 Civil Service posts out of London. The present Government reviewed the policy as recently as last year. The decision then reached, and announced on 29th July, was to proceed with dispersal of these posts. They included those in the comprehensive guarantee group of divisions which, within the Export Credits Guarantee Department, were originally designated for dispersal by the Hardman Report in 1973. The Government see no grounds for further reconsideration of the decision.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the very high
1358
reputation of this division and the great services it renders to British exporters owe a good deal to their close contact with the various financial areas of expertise in the City of London? Is it not a fact that representations have been made to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade by the principal export finance houses asking him, for this reason, to cancel this exiling of the division to South Wales?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I acknowledge what the noble Lord said about the excellent service of these divisions, but the divisions of the Export Credits Guarantee Department which are concerned with all guarantees to banks, finance for major projects, bonds, foreign exchange guarantees and international affairs are all remaining in London; there will be no change in the conduct of negotiations on financial matters.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Would the noble Lord be good enough to answer the second part of my question, my Lords, as to whether the Secretary of State for Trade has had representations from the leading export finance houses and what he is proposing to say to them?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords. My right honourable friend has been in touch with many bodies concerned with this matter and indeed there has not been the kind of objection to the proposals that might be implied from what the noble Lord has said. For example, the CBI has not opposed it, nor have the major banks. However, my right honourable friend is of course very willing to discuss these questions with any body which feels it has a particular problem in this matter.
Lord REIGATE: Has the Advisory Council been consulted in this matter, my Lords?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords. The Advisory Council of bankers and businessmen has been, and remains, closely in touch with the planning of this move and its implementation.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to ask the Government to accept our congratulations, despite what has been said in relation to

1359
this Question, on the fine increase in British exports that has taken place during the past year?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are always glad to receive congratulations from my noble friend, though he raises a wider question than the move of this particular division.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, did the Advisory Council agree with this proposal?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, so far as I am aware it has not been among those who have objected to it.

HEATHROW: PASSENGERS WITH LUGGAGE
2.52 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that according to a sample survey conducted in 1975 the proportion of air travellers going to or returning from abroad via Heathrow and checking in baggage was Mid and Far East and Australia (99·9 per cent.), North Atlantic routes (98·5 per cent.), European routes (76 per cent.); and whether more recent figures are available.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the Government were not aware of these statistics, but we would not dissent from their conclusions, certainly as they relate to long haul services. We do not know whether more recent figures are available.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I should like to ask whether the Minister is aware—I have to put this in the form of a question—that in a second he will know that the sample survey was conducted by the Airline Operators' Committee at Heathrow (Cargo Division)? He will have noted the high percentages in that statement. Would he not agree that so many passengers with baggage heavy enough to be checked in must be
1360
given the means of getting this to Heathrow? Secondly, does the noble Lord recall that, in the debate on tourism in this House on 25th January, the Minister, in replying, said, as stated in the Official Report, at col. 449, that there was no question of reducing the coach service? As I have had information to the contrary—that is, that the service is to be reduced, and quickly—can the noble Lord inquire into this as a matter of urgency, so that we are not subsequently told that it is too late to do anything?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, of course I agree with the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question; namely, that passengers with luggage must be given proper facilities, and the authorities who are responsible for these matters have them constantly under review. On the second part of the supplementary question—the reference that my noble friend makes to the recent debate on tourism—I indeed recall that my noble friend then raised this question. My noble friend Lady Birk said at that time that there was no question of the coach services being reduced, as has just been indicated by my noble friend.
However, figures now available show that the use of the coach service between the West London Terminal and Heathrow has fallen off by 60 per cent. since the underground link was opened, and British Airways are therefore reviewing the service. It is for British Airways to decide on the future of the service.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, has my noble friend seen the advertisements encouraging travellers to Heathrow "to fly the tube", some of which, but not all, say at the bottom that any passengers with luggage other than hand luggage are advised to go by coach? Is this not at one and the same time very inconvenient to the passengers, and a great loss of revenue to the new tube, all caused by a failure to provide a few porters at Heathrow and either porters or a lift at Gloucester Road?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I understand that the traffic on the new tube link in its early days suggests that as much as 25 per cent. of the passengers at Heathrow are using the underground, which seems

1361
to me to suggest that many people are finding that service satisfactory. The indication is that on average each passenger has one and a half cases—
Several Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord ORAM: That is an average figure, my Lords. I have heard no reports of any general difficulties as regards these passengers.
Lord GARDINER: But, my Lords, as it is admitted that this does not apply to 99 per cent. of all long distance passengers, who accordingly cannot use the new tube, will not Her Majesty's Government get the respective authorities—that is to say, the Greater London Council, London Transport, British Airways and the Heathrow authority—together to end what is really a piece of nonsense?
Lord GRAM: My Lords, I certainly recognise that when a new service like this is introduced it is necessary to review the consequences. I take note of what my noble and learned friend has suggested, and I shall pass it on to my right honourable friend.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, does the Minister realise that his statement has an ominous and familiar ring in the light of the story of the West London Terminal? I should like to ask him once more whether he will take steps to ensure that we are informed of what is likely to happen regarding this service, which is a public service, before anything in fact happens to it.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I have been accused of being familiar, but not ominous. My noble friend is anxious—and rightly anxious—that there should be every opportunity for herself and others concerned to have their views considered when the service is being reviewed. I can assure her that British Airways will consult all concerned, and that, I am sure, will include my noble friend.

ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING
2.57 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
1362
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to make the building of the Department of the Environment worthy of its name.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, work is in hand to provide climbing plants to cover the unsightly concrete walls at the rear of the building.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, that is a very satisfactory beginning, but perhaps it will not end there. Does the noble Baroness recognise that no self-respecting estate agent in London would tolerate a building to look like this. Can we not get on with some cosmetics which are a little faster than climbing plants?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we are still in days of financial stringency. I would remind the noble Earl that in 1972 we put forward a major scheme, which was to fill in the empty floor areas and to do some landscaping. The cost at that time was estimated at £1 million, but the scheme was rejected by Westminster City Council. Since then the Council has planted some trees in the vicinity to celebrate Tree Planting Year and the Department has provided tubs and laid flower beds. The main criticisms are now about the unsightly concrete walls of the rotunda and citadel buildings, and we are trying to do something about this by planting Virginia creeper at the back, which we hope will make it look very pleasant.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that seven and a half years ago, when I was sitting in the noble Baroness's seat in more ways than one, my Chief Whip then asked me how my base parts could be so ugly? Is she aware, further, that Virginia creeper was exactly what was suggested at that time by some of us? Is the Minister aware that we are congratulating her very much on what has happened now?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am delighted to receive those congratulations, and to know that we have taken up the noble Lord's suggestion. In the meantime, my colleague and I from the Department have tried to provide this House, and the other place, with a very good service, in, we hope, an attractive manner.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, would the noble Minister acknowledge the good old wartime principle that the move from a Nissen but to a marble palace marks the end of one's creative phase?

SHIP SAFETY REGULATIONS
3 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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 regulations based on the Merchant Shipping Acts providing for increased safety on British registered vessels have not been implemented.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, regulations are made or amended as considered necessary from time to time, and implemented, to provide for increased safety on vessels registered at a port in the United Kingdom. The proposed Merchant Shipping Bill will provide wider powers to make regulations on all matters relating to the safety of ships and persons on board ships.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it has not become necessary to expedite the safety regulations in view of the increasing number of casualties on board ship? Is he aware that, although the mining industry has the largest number of annual fatalities, there is aboard ship a larger number of casualties which do not result in death—it is far in excess of the number in the mining industry—because of the changes that have taken place on ordinary vessels, on container vessels and on huge tanker vessels, and because of different machinery that has been installed on them? In those circumstances, will my noble friend ensure that the regulations which have been promised to the Navigating Officers' Union and the National Union of Seamen will be implemented as rapidly as possible?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords; of course what my noble friend says about the hazards on board ship is very serious, and Her Majesty's Government are fully conscious of this. I would assure him
1364
that there is a consultative committee, including representatives of merchant shipping interests, looking into these matters, and, indeed, it is expected to report within a few weeks. Its report will include, I understand, a voluntary code of safe working practices, and is expected to recommend the making of statutory regulations. I can assure my noble friend that immediate consideration will be given to the committee's recommendations.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the Select Committee on the Foreign Boycotts Bill [H.L.]:—

Aylestone, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Byers, L.

Caccia, L.

Kinnoull, E.

McCarthy, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Redcliffe-Maud, L. (Chairman)

Wilson of High Wray, L.

That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out.
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers.
That the Committee do meet on Wednesday, 5th April, at 11.00 a.m.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be added to the following Committees in the place of the Lord Henley deceased,
Lord Beaumont of Whitley (House of Lords Offices)
Earl Amherst (Procedure of the House)

1365
Lord McNair (Standing Orders (Private Bills))
and that the Viscount Simon be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SCOTLAND BILL
3.3 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Amendment to the Motion ("That the Bill be now read a second time") to leave out all the words after ("that") and insert ("having regard to (1) the unacceptable threat its enactment would present to the unity of the United Kingdom and sovereignty of Parliament and (2) the adverse effect its enactment would have in the effectiveness and efficiency of Government in Scotland, this House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading.")
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I had the pleasure of listening to almost all the 43 speeches yesterday, the first day of this debate. There were different shades of opinion expressed in those speeches on how much, if anything, should now be done in the way of Parliamentary devolution for Scotland, following the administrative devolution which has been carried out over the past 60 years. It was clear from the quality of the speeches that this House can make a unique and significant contribution to this subject, and can also help the Government to decide what to do with this Bill. I think in every speech except the opening one by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, even in those which welcomed the appearance of the Bill, there were suggestions that changes were needed in the Bill.
My Lords, we look forward today to two maiden speeches, from my noble friends the Duke of Buccleuch and Lord Fraser of Kilmorack. Both are eminently well equipped with knowledge and experience to contribute to your Lordships' deliberations. Yesterday our proceedings were distinguished especially by an outstanding maiden speech, if I may say so respectfully, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. It is clear
1366
to us that later on he can provide us with lucid explanations of legal points on this Bill, and also on other subjects; and I hope that in due course the Government will clarify the matters he raised about decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as provided for in this Bill.
The Bill in its present form has very few friends here or in another place. Some Members of another place have made it clear that they acquiesced in its passage only because they were confident that it would fail at the referendum. Perhaps I, more than anyone outside the present Government, am aware of the dilemma in which the Government find themselves: First, because I was the last Secretary of State for Scotland from the Opposition Parties, and I worked for nearly four years with the present system. I certainly would not attempt to defend that system as perfect. Secondly, because I have seen from close quarters in my own area of Scotland the mass defection of Labour votes to the Scottish National Party—to the detriment, I may say, of Conservatives.
I realise what could happen in Labour-held seats in Central Scotland. An example in my area is the seat which I myself held for 15 years in the constituency where my home is. At the Election in which I failed to retain it, may I modestly inform your Lordships that I received the highest recorded Conservative vote before or since. It was the disintegration of the support for the Labour candidate, who lost his deposit—an eventuality previously thought impossible—that produced the result, an SNP gain. I was placed in the ironical position of wishing that my old opponent, Labour, had done better. Normally, of course, he had been a close second. But I did have the agreeable consolation that I later found myself joining your Lordships' House. So noble and learned Lords speaking for the Government in this debate will realize that I, for one, fully understand their problems.
Our criticism is that the Government are trying to overcome their dilemma in the wrong way, for the very serious defects in this Bill are likely to provoke the kind of threat to the unity of Britain which almost everyone in this House wants to avoid. I am prepared to grant

1367
that it is the SNP who are the real cause of this Bill arriving here in its present state. If they did not exist, the Government would never have set out hurriedly on this imprudent course. The SNP hierarchy Want to break up Britain. So do the Welsh Nationalists. The SNP do not want this Bill. They do not want it to work, and they do not want an Assembly to work. The SNP's declared aim for at least 30 years has not been devolution but to make Scotland a separate nation, with its own defence forces and embassies, a seat at the United Nations and its own complete control over economic and financial affairs, including taxation and currency.
My Lords, no wonder Scottish businessmen and commerce are worried, as my noble friend Lord Polwarth and others pointed out yesterday. Companies would have the monumental and burdensome task of trying to disentangle the closely interwoven links which cross the Border as a result of 270 years of economic union. The SNP's aim has been no secret; it has been appearing constantly in their Manifesto. They would retain the Monarchy and remain in the Commonwealth, like New Zealand. That policy, however presented, remains the balkanisation of Britain, and nothing less. Britain has been passing through a time of economic difficulties, although the adoption of IMF policies has helped. The expression is often used by Ministers and commentators in the media that various measures are needed if Britain is to survive. The tacit assumption there is that everyone in this country wants Britain to survive. But everyone does not! The activists in the SNP do not want Britain to survive.
It is one of the two great paradoxes of the present situation in Scotland that most of those who have supported the SNP with their votes do not approve of the principal aim of the SNP activists, indeed, the raison d'être of the SNP; namely, complete independence. They have supported the Party for other reasons, largely because it has appeared to be a Scottish pressure group frightening London into better and quicker action in Scottish affairs. Certainly, in the present case it seems to have frightened the Government who would not otherwise
1368
have rushed headlong into the dangers of the ill-prepared scheme in this Bill.
The second of the two paradoxes is that the Party which appears to be most in favour of devolution, the SNP, is the Party which is strongly opposed to devolution of any kind as a settled system: for devolution and independence are entirely different; one is the antithesis of the other. Devolution is the decentralisation of powers and functions within one country; independence means secession and division into more than one country. The danger is that frustration with a bad or unworkable scheme of devolution could be converted into pressure for breaking up Britain.
My Lords, I regard this threat to our country as potentially more dangerous to the welfare of all its inhabitants than the threat posed by our economic problems. Our recurring economic crises can ultimately be solved. The danger to the unity of Britain from nationalism is more insidious because it is less easily recognisable and because local loyalties and grievances are invoked. I can confirm what several speakers from Scotland said in yesterday's debate. Those who are agitating for independence for Scotland and so for separatism from Britain and those who support that aim in Scotland are a comparatively small group. Some of the activists are well-meaning but misguided; others are simply fanatics. I speak as one of those whose home is in Scotland and whose work and livelihood are there. I feel the threat to the unity of Britain very acutely. I know that the disintegration of the United Kingdom would damage each dismembered part. In Scotland, we would be enfeebled in ways which do not make themselves apparent to many who live in Scotland today; and these might not be seen until later in the day.
I cannot over-emphasise, however, that there is general feeling in Scotland of wishing to have a louder voice in matters directly affecting Scotland, as my noble friends Lord Home and Lord Glenkinglas said yesterday. Change and adjustment are needed. I say that, having myself had the task of operating the present system as the chief executive in Scotland. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when introducing the Bill yesterday put it in this way: that decision-making should

1369
be brought closer to the people; that there should be greater accountability of Ministers and Departments to the Scottish public; and that a further step is needed on the road to more decentralisation. I would add that that feeling is not confined to Scotland.
He also said that debates in this House and elsewhere had shown considerable support for the basic concept of devolution—"political devolution," as he called it; Parliamentary devolution, if you like. That may be so, for the reasons I have given. Many, including myself, accept the need for change and reform. But this is cry different from support for a particular scheme which has the seeds of its own destruction within it.
The noble and learned Lord spoke of the danger of a false prospectus, implying the SNP's prospectus; but I believe that this Bill could be a faulty prospectus. From what the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, said—and he claimed authorship of the first draft of this Bill—I think that the Government have worked hard and earnestly to produce a scheme. I do not criticise them for seeking reform and change. What I quarrel with is the attempt to press upon Parliament, without proper consultation beforehand or time for discussion, constitutional changes of the greatest magnitude and importance; and these in a scheme which is clearly disliked and is looked upon with apprehension and distrust by most of the Members of both Houses of Parliament.
Yesterday the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, like a skilled surgeon, exposed and dissected defective bones and sinews in the scheme. I hope that he will not press his Amendment because, among other things, it would prevent the House from examining and changing the Bill if it happened to pass. This House is a revising Chamber and there is a lot here to be revised. I sympathise with the Government's dilemma. They, surely, would not have produced this Bill as drafted without all-Party discussions beforehand, or a consensus in Parliament being reached for a particular scheme, if the SNP threat were not there!
My Lords, we are considering the greatest change in our constitution for 270 years. It is the fear of suffering electorally in the coming months that has
1370
prompted the Government to produce proposals for a Scottish Assembly—any kind of Assembly, it seems—soon. That is a short-term policy and it could cause lasting damage. These proposals contain serious defects which, if not changed, would provoke conflict, confusion and frustration. We might then be involuntarily sliding into independence for Scotland and the dismemberment of Britain.
I will mention two of the most serious defects. One which was touched upon several times yesterday, is the lack of arrangements to regularise the position of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster. They would be voting on English and Welsh subjects but not on the equivalent Scottish subjects which would be being dealt with in Edinburgh. I know that the Government's view is that the Government of the day should be able to rely on a majority within the Westminster Members of Parliament to support them on all subjects at Westminster. That is understandable, especially in the case of the present Government. But with the gross anomalies concerning the roles of Westminster Members of Parliament which now exist in the Bill, such a requirement must be reconciled by changes; new arrangements should be worked out and general agreement reached.
It is not a new problem. For example, I pointed it out in our debate over two years ago on 28th January 1976. It is to be found at column 1076 in the Hansard of 29th January 1976, I had better add, because as happened last night the debate continued beyond 11 o'clock. I said then that this problem must be solved in any devolution plan and I briefly made a suggestion towards solving it. What have the Government been doing about it in the past two years? It is not a new phenomenon only recently discovered as "West Lothian man".
Another defect is the proposed establishment of two Executives. This is a formula for friction. Under Clause 22 of the Bill, and the associated Schedules 4 and 5, conflict is bound to arise. It is not clear who has powers and what happens when the two Executives disagree. May 1 remind your Lordships that the Assembly and its Executive will be covering a smaller area than the functions now being exercised by the Secretary of State for Scotland, his

1371
Ministers and the five Departments of the Scottish Office. The Bill does not devolve more subjects; it attempts to provide some Parliamentary devolution to match the extensive administrative devolution which already exists, but not over the whole field.
The Secretary of State and his Departments are now responsible for virtually every domestic subject, except finance and the sponsorship of trade and industry. The Parliamentary control of that Scottish Executive has become submerged and invisible. So many committees have sprouted at Westminster, and Parliament has taken on so many additional functions, that there is less time for control and accountability where the Scottish Office is concerned. The arrangements for control and accountability exist; but the Scottish committees are scarcely visible now from Scotland. The check on the Scottish Executive is less effective than it was and than it should be.
In addition, both my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out yesterday that many Scottish Bills could be referred to a body in Scotland to consider with advantages both at Westminster and in Scotland. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was unsuccessful in the example he gave of encouraging home ownership by a special scheme for Scotland. That explains what I took to be his silent agreement when I was speaking on this subject the day before yesterday in this House.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me, it was not that: it is because I am chairman of a new town development corporation which may be a beneficiary, and the Addison Rules applied to me.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful because I feel that if the noble Lord had spoken he would have supported what I was saying. I can tell the noble Lord that I was luckier in my time as Secretary of State: for example, with the reform of the Scottish Health Service. He pointed out that usually the Scottish legislation followed the English legislation. In that case, the
1372
Scottish Bill came a year earlier and I was able to stand out for a single-tier system of health boards in Scotland, and we achieved that system. In England and Wales there is a two-tier system. Subsequent experience has shown that the different system adopted for Scotland was the best for Scotland.
Above all, in considering the possibility of further devolution, let us remember that Scotland is a nation, not a province or region. England is also a nation and does not want to be divided into six or seven parts which would be necessary for a straightforward federal system. Scotland voluntarily entered into the partnership 270 years ago. The Union has brought benefits to both Scotland and England, and will continue to do so. The SNP wish to destroy that Union. The chief agitators try to stir up anti-English resentment and propagate answers to bogus points. For example, in a Party political broadcast on 30th December last (which was not heard South of the Border) a leading SNP spokesman said:
"Politicians and English tell you that Scotland is too poor to be a country on its own".
That is not an issue. Of course Scotland could exist on her own, after all, Haiti and Costa Rica exist as separate nations. The point is that Scotland would be less well off, with reduced standards of living and great insecurity in industry and employment, not to mention defence. That is the point.
The Government and we on these Benches want to preserve the Union. That must be the first priority. Our fear on this side is that the Bill as it is at present would produce situations that could gravely endanger the Union. At later stages we will ask the Government to explain the intention behind parts of the Bill, particularly those parts which have not been discussed in another place. We will do our best to get basic improvements. If that proves impossible, we hope that the Government will, even at that stage, convene all-Party discussions on constitutional matters to obtain agreement on progress—for progress is needed. The Government and most of us on this side agree on that. But progress must be sure. Standing still is most inadvisable; but to dash headlong into a constitutional muddle would be disastrous.
3.36 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, as I drove across Caithness to catch the aeroplane South to join your Lordships in this debate, I looked through the clear rain-washed air to the Scarabens and Morven still slashed with snow drifts from the recent storm; I looked at the sheep and cattle scattered about the fields, now looking for the green young blades of grass which have been forced up by the spring sun. I saw the shochads and the golden plover wheeling and calling in the sky, and the fulmars white on the sun-warmed old red sandstone cliffs of Dunnett Head. I looked at the farms and crofts as I drove past with people busy on their tractors with early spring work and finishing the last of the ploughing.
I saw the villages active with community life, houses being built, housewives shopping, gossiping on the street corner, children playing in the school grounds. As I looked and thought also of the purpose of my journey, my heart tightened. This was my home; these were my kin and my lifelong friends. This was the community in which I had made my life and which I had served for so many years as a town and a county councillor. I realised the responsibility which I was setting out to share with your Lordships—and with those who deliberate in another place—in seeking to shape anew the political framework in which this community has its being. But, my Lords, this is a responsibility which I do not shirk.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, I too was brought up to be aware of what he called "this business of devolution", although in my family we called it Scottish home rule. From my early years I had believed in it, and I still do; but this belief does not make me a separatist—far from it. Rather, this belief enables me to be a good European and to be able to pray that in my children's time or, at least, in my children's children's time, there may yet be world government in the interests of all mankind. Let me therefore explain myself and how I build what I like to call my pyramid of loyalties.
At the base is my love for and loyalty to my family, and on this I build a loyalty to the immediate community in which I live. I do not expect that community to run my family life for me; but this does
1374
not diminish my loyalty to it; rather, it strengthens it. I believe that the community in which I live owes a loyalty to the other like communities among which it finds itself and which pursue life and happiness in like manner to it. I feel that nowadays this grouping is Scotland, even though I come from a part of Britain which was longer under the Norwegian flag than it was under the Scottish flag and has yet to be as long under the Union Jack as it was under either. In this respect, I understand the worries of Orkney and Shetland, although I would hope that I and others like me would be able to persuade them that their rôle was in Scotland rather than on a Scandinavian fringe of their own. There is no doubt in my mind that Caithness shares more cultural, geographic, religious and legal ties with Edinburgh than it does with London. Over purely domestic matters, it is easier to make one's problem understood in Edinburgh than it is in London.
In my experience this is a fact, but this fact need not, and indeed should not, stop Scotland continuing its association with the other members of the United Kingdom or from giving its full loyalty to a Westminster Parliament pledged to uphold the common ideals of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Especially I believe that this loyalty should be given to the Crown which is the physical expression of these ideals. I rather resent the suggestion that I felt was being made at some times yesterday that those of us who fought in the last war fought for the immutable preservation of the then existing Parliamentary and political system. We did not; we fought for those ideals which I have just mentioned, as did not only our Commonwealth comrades but also the Poles, the Free French, the Americans, the Argentinians and the Chileans. Not all of them have been equally successful in their fight for freedom and democracy, but certainly none of them gave a docken for the political integrity of the United Kingdom as such.
It is at this point in the construction of my pyramid that I wish that some of us at Westminster would put less effort into trying to hang on to their say in Scottish domestic affairs and more effort into making the United Kingdom into a loyal, active and co-operating part of Europe. In fact, it is at this point that the

1375
administrative value of devolution becomes evident. In a Parliament already and for years overloaded with work, why, I ask, should we seek to hang on to the minutiae when there are greater things to be done? Why not let the Scots get on with arranging their own domestic affairs? After all, the Scots as a nation are not known for their profligacy so they should not run us all into debt. I see Scottish political devolution as a means of harnessing the energy of the Scots in Scotland. I see it as a means of giving proper scrutiny and supervision to the administration of Scotland in a proper, democratic way. After all, we have already heard it said in this debate that most of the Scottish administration has been sent up to Edinburgh, but we are still sending the watchdogs over that administration down here to Westminster. It would be good for the legislators and civil servants to work in the same capital city at last. For all these reason, I welcome and shall do all I can to help this Bill.
Nevertheless, the Bill is not without faults. Some of these faults may, if we do not correct them, be serious. That is our task here in your Lordships' House as we consider the Bill in its later stages. I should have preferred a Bill based upon a federal conception; a Bill conceived federally would have been hampered by less anomalies. We shall just have to do our best in the Committee stages to remove as many as possible of these anomalies.
It is not right at Second Reading to deal closely with Committee points. But I should like, if I can, to demonstrate to your Lordships that these anomalies exist. For example, let us take tourism—a subject which was dealt with yesterday at some length by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. I take the points which the noble Lord made and add to them the question: what is to happen to tourism in the Highlands of Scotland? Your Lordships may not realise that in fact tourism in the Highlands is administered largely by the Highlands and Islands Development Board. According to this Bill, tourism becomes a matter for the Assembly, but as all Highland tourism is administered and promoted by the HIDB, which does not come fully under the Assembly, one might well ask what the guidelines are going to say about the Highlands Board's tourist function, and
1376
whether the Assembly will truly be able to discharge all its duties in connection with tourism throughout the length of the land.
Another anomaly in a very small area, but one in which I have a specialised interest, is the omission of estuary limits from the Assembly's powers to deal with salmon and freshwater fisheries. Estuary limits are an important factor in salmon management and cannot simply be left out of the sphere of responsibility of an Assembly with the duty of legislating for salmon and freshwater fisheries. The diseases of fish, which are also important to salmon and freshwater fisheries, have also been excluded. I am glad to see, however, that local government will come under the Assembly. Clearly, the Assembly's first really important task will be to start an orderly progress to a single tier of local administration. Councillors and voters all over Scotland are longing for it and I for one will trust a Scottish Assembly to carry it out.
Although I recognise that this Bill has defects, and that, even if it is diligently revised and amended by your Lordships, it will probably still have defects, yet I hope that it will be enacted, and I hope it will be accepted by the Scottish people at the referendum as a first glimpse of a new era of both Scottish and United Kingdom political progress. No system of legislation and administration was ever conceived whole, perfect and immutable like a kind of political Athene chopped from the head of Zeus. All the best, freest, happiest, most democratic systems were weathered by time and sculpted by the minds of men over years and over generations. This will have to happen to the new Scottish Assembly in whatever form and at whatever stage we set it up. It will have to happen to the Westminster Parliament which will then be left and which will continue to serve Scotland the better for having been relieved of minutiae and given time more fully to tackle its great tasks in Europe and the world.
Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading, not from base motives of fear of the pent-up forces of nationalism nor from a desire to hang on to power or political advantage, but so as to release the wisdom and energy of the Scottish people into the service of their own country and to start the United

1377
Kingdom once again on an outward-looking path where the qualities of the people who comprise it and the experience of the centuries in which it has been practising democratic government will be offered in the service of all the peoples of the world.
3.39 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in this debate the House of Lords has justified its existence. Speeches have been eloquent, informative, practical, some theoretical, some even philosophical. Some have been mature and some—I say this without offence—immature. Some have been personalised with abundant references to one's descent. But the debate, in spite of all the adjectives—encouraging adjectives—I would venture to use, has had one defect. Instead of, as was anticipated, its being a Second Reading debate, it has been telescoped, if that is the appropriate term, so that it has comprised Second Reading, Committee stage and Report stage—everything in fact except Third Reading—and much more reference has been made to detail than to the principle that we seek to evoke. It is, of course, the principle that really matters.
It is significant that in the course of the debate yesterday, and so far this afternoon, there have been few, if any, references opposed to the principle of devolution—hardly any. The principle appears to have been unanimously accepted. The Bill is another matter. The Bill can be revised: indeed we have been informed that that is the intention of the Opposition, and perhaps the Liberal Party will join in. I should not be at all surprised if from these Benches, and certainly from the illustrious Cross-Benches, some references are made to detail. But I repeat and emphasise, deliberately and necessarily, that what we ought to be discussing—and it is upon this issue that a decision should be taken at the close of the debate—is whether we are in favour of some form of devolution for Scotland. That is the issue. The rest we can decide during the various stages, procedural or otherwise, that will follow.
I may be asked whether I have any qualifications to participate in this debate. It so happens that quite fortuitously in the year 1918, in what was described by
1378
some as the "khaki debate", by others as the "coupon debate" and by yet others as the "Royal George debate "—have it as you like—I was a candidate. There were two special items in my election address: one was Scottish home rule and the other was prohibition. Several years afterwards Scottish home rule still remained. Prohibition, if it did not completely disappear, was somewhat emasculated, very largely because in the constituency of Dundee—I hope that my noble friend Lord Hughes will take note that it was long before his time—a man named Edwin Scrymgeour defeated the redoubtable Winston Churchill, who certainly was not a prohibitionist—by a substantial majority. Let us not enter into the reasons why prohibition was first initiated and then subsequently emasculated—
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, if my noble friend would permit me to intervene, as he has mentioned Dundee and the name of Edwin Scrymgeour, it perhaps has relevance to what has been said about those who support the Scottish National Party in their vote but not in their policies. When Edwin Scrymgeour was first elected prohibition Member for Dundee, the City had the unenviable record of having more convictions for drunkenness than any other city in Scotland.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I would describe that as a most interesting and entertaining intervention, but hardly relevant. In any case I have great difficulty in hearing interruptions, so perhaps I might be permitted to proceed, otherwise I might lose the thread of my discourse and have to have recourse to notes or encumbrances of that kind.
Why was Scottish home rule advocated at the time? It was advocated long before then in fact: in the 'seventies and' eighties of the last century, particularly in the 'eighties, when Keir Hardie became an advocate and that romantic figure, Cunninghame Graham, a descendant of Scottish Kings, joined in. I had the fortune of knowing Cunninghame Graham and of having actually spoke with him on the same platform. He believed in Scottish home rule and also with independence, separation and all that followed; but the advocacy of Scottish home rule by the Labour Party

1379
in the early part of this century had nothing to do either with independence or with separation. It was a protest against what was regarded as indifference, if not oppression, on the part of those at Westminster. It was a protest against social injustice, vast unemployment, impoverishment, low wages and, in particular, indifference to Scottish prospects of industrial development—even an inability to anticipate the possibility of producing oil in Scotland. In 1923, when the Government of the lime decided to suspend financial assistance utilised for research into the discovery of oil in Scotland, I protested strongly and said that we had not touched the fringe of oil development in Scotland. I represented a constituency where they produced oil from shale, and therefore there was a personal interest. But I was right: we did discover oil in Scotland.
It was indifference and ignorance which gave rise to the protests of the kind I have mentioned, and that resulted in the demand for Scottish home rule. That situation has changed since. As to the matter of descent, if I have any qualification at all for speaking, it is very modest in comparison with those we heard about yesterday, some of which derived from association with the Union in the year 1707. I cannot claim Wallace, Robert the Bruce, Rob Roy MacGregor, the turbulent Gregerach, or any such as my ancestor. All I can claim is Moses, which is very modest by comparison. Descent has nothing to do with it. Changes are taking place in this world of ours, whether we like it or not.
Yesterday, my noble friend Lord Glenamara, who used to be Chief Whip in the other place when I was chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, argued that the demand for change, independence and even separation was associated with what he described as identification. People were demanding what might be called personal self-determination. That is how I would interpret his words. But it is nothing of the sort. The revolt of the Basques in Spain has nothing to do with self-identification: it is a form of protest against oppression. The same has happened elsewhere. Recently, even the Isle of Man almost threatened to secede because
1380
we had revolted against the use of the birch on juvenile delinquents.
The demand for Scottish home rule is based on a simple, inescapable fact. Never mind about the details; leave them aside for the moment. I want to speak about the principle. The demand for Scottish home rule and devolution is based on the simple, inescapable fact that Scots, whether in the North, the South, the Highlands, the Isles or wherever it may be in Scotland, are dissatisfied with Westminster. So have I been. So have many here—so have many in the other place, for many years. That is why the Scottish Grand Committee was created. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, and many others who were Members in another place, have played their part.
Even in this assembly of ours, how often have I been frustrated and horrified, day after day, night after night, on Scottish Bill after Scottish Bill, dealing with matters in which we are not in the least interested. There has been Scottish divorce reform, Scottish this, Scottish that and so it goes on. If it had only been Scottish whisky all the time, it would not have been so bad. But that is what we had to deal with, and I often wondered why we were engaged in debating what, so far as we were concerned, were details and trivialities, however important they may have been in the eyes of the Scots.
"Take them up to Edinburgh, to St. Andrew's House". That is what I used to tell them in another place, when they were complaining about Westminster's indifference to Scottish affairs. I asked, "Why don't you go to Edinburgh on a Friday instead pretending that you are working hard in the interests of your constituents and that you are getting thousands of letters every week, when some of you are getting only half a dozen? Why don't you go up to Edinburgh and discuss Scottish affairs? "They would not have needed to talk about an Assembly. There was an Assembly. There is no need to discuss the details.
Let me take this matter of an Assembly. This is not the Committee stage but, when the time comes, if there is a Committee stage, I hope that I may be permitted to take part and express views. It is about the only Committee point that I want to

1381
deal with. There may be another, but this is one. What is to be the function of this Assembly? What is it to do? What are its powers? Will its powers equate with the powers of a Cabinet in London? Will the powers and responsibilities of the Civil Service, associated with the Assembly in Edinburgh, equate with the powers, responsibilities and authority of civil servants in Whitehall? We want to know.
Why this Assembly? All they had to do, when they decided to reform self-government in Scotland a few years ago in order to create regions such as Strathclyde and the rest, was to nominate a chairman, a vice-chairman and a member from each of those regions, then form an executive in Edinburgh to deal with Scottish affairs. It is as simple as that. It did not require all this fuss, this rigmarole, this hullaballoo, this confusion and all the rest of it.
I could go on talking about these matters but I defer, because there are reasons. Other speakers are coming along. I just want to deal with what is, after all, the crux of the problem. Are we to accept an Amendment which means—what? In the eyes of the Scottish people and in the eyes of every elector in the country—in England, Wales, Scotland the Isle of Man, the Isle of Wight or wherever it may be—it will mean opposition to the principle of devolution; not to the Bill itself, but to the principle of devolution. We cannot afford that. Devolution is inescapable and inevitable. It depends on the form. We have powers vested in us to deal with that.
It is all very well to indulge in logic and forensic arguments—which some of us find ourselves incapable of following, because of our lack of education—by learned gentlemen associated with the law, however illustrious they may be; and they are illustrious, and nice things could be said about them. In this matter of devolution and the demands which the Scottish people (whether they are the Scottish-Irish in Glasgow, the real Scots in the North or the mixed bunch in Edinburgh) are making, this would be a case against devolution. We must not allow this to happen because devolution is essential.
How are we to deal with the Bill? I have said that the House of Lords has justified its existence by the nature of
1382
the debate, which has been one of the most informative and best debates that I have ever heard in this House. A man can be proud of being a Member of such a forum. I will not say that it is composed of intellectuals, for I do not want to insult anybody. A man can be proud of taking part in a debate of this kind, and of offering a modest contribution. I venture a word of advice. I do not entirely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said yesterday. He condemned the Bill root and branch, hook, line and sinker, and all the rest of it, then said "Do not vote against it." Of course, we must not vote against it, but not because we are afraid of the other place.
Here, may I speak for a moment about the constitutional issue? I understand, or so we have been told, that the constitutional issue is this: we have been told that once a Bill has had its Third Reading and been passed in the other place, it would be quite improper and not be the right thing for us to oppose it. To me, that is just a lot of nonsense, and I shall tell your Lordships why. If there is something wrong with a proposition that comes from the other place, if we really believe fundamentally that it is not the kind of proposition that we should accept, if we believe it to be injurious to the well-being of the people of our country, if we believe it to be faulty and defective in many respects, then we ought to oppose it and damn the Constitution! Or are we to accept it for political reasons? Ah, now politics have entered into the question.
I am told that one of the reasons why the Labour Government which I support have decided to initiate this measure is that they are afraid of Scottish voters; it is a matter of political expediency. What a horrible thing to do, to indulge in political expediency! Well, well! One ought to ask some of the ex-Ministers and Prime Ministers who sit in this House—the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, for one, an honest man if ever there was one. I have sat beside him. I was a Cabinet Minister and I am fully acquainted with what goes on. Without political expediency not one of us would be here. The Labour Government are quite right to use all the political expediency they can. If you do not have Members to support you in the House of Commons you have got political expediency, whatever it

1383
happens to be. You must use all the political expediency that you have got. I could write a book about political expediency; it would be a best-seller.
Therefore, my advice to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside—I say this as one who speaks with all the experience that quite accidentally I happen to possess—is that the sensible thing to do is to withdraw the Amendment. If the Amendment is not withdrawn my advice to the House is to oppose it—not so much on behalf of the Labour Government as on behalf of Scotland and unity in the United Kingdom. There have been threats about the Scots rising in their wrath, drawing their dirks out of their kilts, and getting really angry with us. What a threat! We have to face other threats. Soviet aggression is a threat. Juvenile delinquency is a threat. Sometimes people say that the TUC is a threat. There are all kinds of threats. Is Scotland to be placated, because of Mrs. Ewing? She is, of course, a very charming lady. But charm is not going to help us. So my advice is that we must accept the Bill in principle because it contains the element of devolution, and that then we should deal with it as we think fit and send it back to the other place with all the improvement we can contribute. That is my advice, and I hope it will be accepted.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he concede in favour of the Amendment that, had it not been there, it is difficult to conceive that we should have heard from him such a splendid speech?
4.4 p.m.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH and QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, it is with all humility that I seek your Lordships' indulgence this afternoon for my maiden speech. Noble Lords, I know, have come here for different reasons. I believe that certain noble Lords will think that I have come here for the worst of reasons. To me, it is for the saddest of reasons, namely, to replace my father, for a finer man I can never again expect to meet. My father had many friends in this place; he had wide interests and great wisdom, but his modesty was such that he confined his contributions in this House mainly to matters of forestry, a subject upon which he was an unrivalled
1384
expert. I hope that in due course I may be able to carry on some of his good work in this field.
I feel that I owe your Lordships an explanation as to my four years' silence. First, may I say that having spent 13 years in the other place, where I spoke a good deal, I thought that for a while there would be no harm in keeping my own counsel. Then there were personal and private reasons with which I shall not bore your Lordships and, finally, a reason with which I will; namely, that when I was contemplating my maiden speech in the other place I was offered some very good advice by the then Deputy Speaker, now Lord Kilmany, to the effect that I should wait until I was bubbling. However, he did not appreciate that, unlike himself, I am not the bubbling kind.
It was only when I found that the long Summer Recess was approaching that I felt I must do something about it rather than wait until November, by which time my constituents would almost certainly have thought that I was dead. That is not a risk which any politician likes to take, however true it may nearly be. Not having any constituents now, I decided to wait until I was bubbling. The Bill with which we are dealing this afternoon does indeed provide one with just that opportunity. I listened to many of the 43 splendid speeches which were made yesterday, when noble Lords bubbled to a considerable extent, with great brilliance. I am sorry to say that, due to a delayed aircraft, I missed the beginning of the debate. However, I listened with great interest to the comments that were made.
May I preface my remarks on the subject by saying that, like the great majority of Scotsmen, I am a Scottish Nationalist in my heart but a British Nationalist in my head. I hope that, more often than not, one's head will rule one's heart. I agree with so many speakers that the idea of the break-up of the United Kingdom is quite abhorrent.
There are two major points which I should like to touch upon this afternoon. I shall try my very utmost to keep to the rule of being non-controversial, although on a subject where passions run high almost the most innocent comment is bound to cause offence and to be seen as controversial somewhere. The first of

1385
the points which I should like to touch upon is the need, as I see it, to reassess the causes of Nationalist feeling in order to be certain that we are finding the right and the best means to prevent a break-up of the United Kingdom. Secondly, may I suggest with all humility that constitutional changes or innovations should take place only as a result of a comprehensive master plan and not by piecemeal tinkering.
The first of these points is the reassessment of the causes of nationalistic enthusiasm. It worries me considerably to think that there are many who fall into the error of assuming that it is a spontaneous and unprovoked phenomenon, instead of which I believe it is the inevitable consequence of a clearly identifiable chain of events. This is not the first time that there has been an upsurge of nationalistic feeling in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred yesterday to a particular example, and there were others before it. I absolutely understand the Government's dilemma. I understand why they should feel that they could not allow the situation to go on drifting and that they had to do something, although, of course, it is regrettably easy to do the wrong thing. I can see why the Government would be reluctant to accept my own diagnosis which I hope to put forward as to the reasons for nationalistic desires. I believe that I can be non-controversial when I mention that the ideas on Assemblies from both the Conservatives and the present Government have somewhat similar parents. I believe that the mother was misappreciation and the father expediency. We have heard a certain amount about that in the last brilliant exposition of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell.
However, the great question is this: will an Assembly, as we see it emerging, make break-up more or less likely? I believe that the great majority of Scotsmen are much less concerned about where Government sits than about whether they get good or bad government. An Assembly will no doubt produce greater quantity of government, but can we be sure it will produce extra quality. I am very worried indeed that it might provide short-term consolation but long-term confrontation.
The root cause of Scottish nationalism is without any shadow of doubt (again
1386
Lord Shinwell mentioned this) dissatisfaction with Westminster—dissatisfaction, disillusionment, cynicism and the feeling that you must try to break out from it. The reasons, I believe, are not hard to find by looking back at the chain of events of the last 24 years or so. We have had 12 fat years and 12 lean years. The first 12 fat years lasted until about 1965, and during that time there was an unprecedented degree of progress towards all the things that everybody seeks to achieve in the way of higher living standards all round, full employment, growth of the national economy, only moderate inflation, a reasonable trade balance, a stable currency and reserves. Then we had 12 lean years, and I would quickly point out that in my non-controversial maiden speech I apportion no blame, because we all recognise that there has been a world recession which has not made life easy for anyone. But the fact remains that there was a reversal of this progress. We had devaluation, inflation increasing, unemployment increasing, periods of squeeze and freeze. And the important point which I believe we should note from this is that in the 12 fat years, the halcyon days of Macmillan and Home, and the good influx of Scottish blood in the Cabinet too at that time, the SNP support and enthusiasm was almost negligible.
I believe there is a contributory cause which coincided with this. In the early 1960s there started a most remarkable knocking campaign, and this knocking campaign portrayed all the usual appearances of success in life as being thoroughly bad; success was portrayed as dishonourable, affluence was immoral, profit was a dirty word, the establishment and sacred cows all came under attack. The satirists in the media had a marvellous time; television was fairly new then, and there were superb and enjoyable programmes like, "That was the Week that Was". All of these contributed to a major knocking campaign and all the many things which everybody held dear started to vanish. Our railways started to be axed; the currency was mashed up and decimalised; local government was turned upside down, and in Scotland provosts were abolished; reforms of this place were attempted. Even the clock did not escape the attack. I am sure some of your Lordships who live to the North will

1387
remember how we were inflicted with having to stay in the dark till 10 o'clock in the morning, thanks to the way in which the time was changed.
At that time in a debate in another place which I initiated on development districts I warned of the growing feeling of UDI, and this was in the early days when nationalism was just beginning to get going. But with the combination of knocking and the 12 lean years I think it is hardly surprising that so many Scots should conclude that if the Tories were bad and the Socialists were worse there must be something different they could try by way of doing it yourself. Formerly economic restraints, the knowledge that in Scotland we took more from England than we gave to England, tended to discourage people from seeking separation.
I wonder whether I may refer to a very great and distinguished Scotsman, the husband of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, whose speech I so greatly enjoyed yesterday. Many years ago he warned us that if we became independent the thistle instead of being our emblem would become our diet. I think he was quite correct there. Since then, of course, oil has been discovered, and many people in Scotland naturally have thought, "Hooray, now we do have the resources to afford to go it alone". But as the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, so rightly pointed out yesterday, not only is it likely to be used up in a couple of decades' time, but also much of it belongs to Shetland, which does not want to be independent, and quite a lot of it is within English coastal waters.
I would suggest, my Lords, that even if Scotland did become independent, Scotland would still be dominated by the English Treasury, and by being independent we would have virtually no say whatsoever as to what the Treasury did. I think probably Ireland is an example of a country which is partly dominated by the British Treasury. Much of Irish trade and support for agriculture depends upon us, and yet they have no say in what goes on at Westminster.
I believe that the remedy is that we Scots must somehow be convinced and assured that it is perfectly possible to return to the kind of progress that we
1388
were enjoying in the 12 fat years. I think my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas was quite right yesterday when he mentioned that we in Scotland seem to have lost our way; we are needing leadership to show us a sense of purpose and destiny and hope, to drive off the sense of despair that is fuelling the demand for separation. It is just possible that an Assembly might provide sufficient consolation in the short-term until we get on the move again; but I am anxious that we might find ourselves being panicked into a measure which might be deeply regretted later.
If I may now turn briefly to the other major point, the question of constitutional changes and innovations, the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, mentioned this matter yesterday in a most interesting speech, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in his opening speech this afternoon made a very inportant point on the subject. I should like to suggest with all humility that such changes and innovations should be tackled only as part of an overall masterplan, because each individual strand of Government is, or should be, closely related to the others. Piecemeal tinkering is, I believe, dangerous.
One does not know what may happen in the future, and it is so easy to find spur of the moment reasons for doing various things. We have examples in the not too distant past where reforms have been undertaken with each one in isolation from the other. There was the attempt to reform this House. There was the reform of local government. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, with his great experience in local government, pointed out the problems there. Now we have the devolution Bill, the Assembly Bill, and, of course, there has also been the question of our entry into Europe and the election of Members to serve there. All of those reforms and measures are apparently unrelated to each other in the way in which they have been carried out.
The last Constitutional Committee had a fairly narrow remit. I should like to suggest that the time has arrived for a new high-powered all-Party council comprising some of the wisest and most respected people in the land who can advise on constitutional changes. It might, perhaps, be chaired by somebody of the calibre of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and comprise some

1389
superb ex-Party leaders and ex-Prime Ministers, some of whom may shortly be running out of memories for their memoirs and are able to provide time for such an important function!
I believe that there is a case for having a committee or a council which can advise Governments of the day when they are seeking to carry out a reform, in order to ensure that all reforms are tied together as part of a single package. I am not simply trying to be wise after the event, because in about 1967 I submitted a paper to the Conservative Whips' Office on this very subject, and also at the time of the last attempt to reform the House of Lords I introduced the Parliament No. 4 or No. 5 Bill which sought to provide a two-thirds majority before constitutional changes could be made. That, I believe, is standard in many countries and constitutions throughout the world, although it does not apply here. I urge noble Lords to give consideration to those points, because I believe that they go to the very heart of the problems that we are facing today.
As regards any vote tonight, I must confess that I intend to abstain on the grounds that I, too, feel that, having got so far, we should now leave it to the referendum to decide. I am sorry that the referendum will not include the question: "Do you want to be independent or not?", because I think that that would help tremendously to clear the air. I apologise if I have been over-provocative, but I hope that my comments will be seen as an attempt to be constructive, if critical. As my contributions are infrequent, I hope that by speaking for longer than I should your Lordships will forgive me.
4.23 p.m.
Lord WILBERFORCE: My Lords, it is an extraordinary piece of good fortune and a very great privilege that it should fall to me, simply by the luck of the draw, to be the first to congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, who has just spoken, upon his maiden speech. I feel absolutely certain that all of your Lordships greatly appreciate the effort which he has made to come to this House and to give us the benefit of his experience both in politics and in Scottish life. In spite of the words with which he concluded his remarks, I hope that all noble
1390
Lords will join with me in expressing the hope that, in spite of the by no means undue length of his speech today, the noble Duke will often favour us with other speeches.
Several noble Lords: Hear, Hear!
Lord WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I shall net be very long on my feet this afternoon, because I am sandwiched between two maiden speakers and quite obviously noble Lords are anxious to hear my successor. However, if one thing can be said about this debate it is surely that it for once has not been a lawyer's bonanza. Noble Lords have been discussing during the last day and a half many great questions of history, politics and economics which arise in connection with the Bill, and quite rightly so, because the Bill raises great issues of that kind. However, I do not think that any apology is needed for spending a few moments—and it will be only a few moments—on legal and constitutional arguments which, in the medium and long term, may turn out to be of vital importance, however modest and technical they may seem to be at present.
One has only to consider the impact of a few words in various Constitutions on, for example, Canadian life from words in the British North America Act, or on Australian life from a few words in the Australian Constitution, to see what problems may arise. To take one example, there are few truck drivers in Australia who, when crossing the line between one State and another, do not mutter to themselves "Section 92", usually prefacing a reference to that section with an affectionate epithet constructed from a four letter word! That is a fact of life—a few words well designed or misplaced may enormously affect the commerce, the ordinary life and the development of a country.
As regards devolution to Scotland, I believe that the same is very true for two reasons. First, there are certain to be—and I think that "certain" is not an exaggeration—politically sensitive disputes between the Scottish Assembly and Westminster. As Scottish aspirations rise—as they certainly will—in the working of the new regime, and particularly if there is a difference in Party, as there may well be, between the governing majority in the

1391
Assembly and the Secretary of State at Westminster, there will be need for a firm, impartial and effective arbiter between the two which can only be a judicial arbiter. That arbiter must—this is elementary but essential—be kept completely out of politics. Secondly, if, as many believe, as I do, this is only a beginning and there is bound to be a move in the direction of increased powers for Scotland or possibly even towards a federation, the framework which we establish now must be capable of accommodating those changes. We must get it right now, because in the light of the way that we do things once we are committed to a course, corrective change is extremely difficult to put through in practice.
My noble and learned friend Lord Scarman gave us yesterday a brilliant sketch of what the Bill provides in the way of judicial review. I certainly shall not repeat what he said. However, I want to draw attention, if I may, to some of the points which I think may have to be discussed here at later stages if the Bill is to work. I shall discuss them now only in very general terms and not in detail.
I turn to judicial review of the Acts of the Scottish Assembly or of subordinate Acts. If we want a review of Scottish legislation to be undertaken—and I think that we all do—it ought to be done in the interest of preserving the balance between Scottish autonomy, on the one hand, and the unity of the United Kingdom on the other hand. That point was put so well yesterday by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in his opening speech that I need not expand upon it. We have, and since the Act of Union we have had, a United Kingdom court—the House of Lords which since 1877 has worked through the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords on which there sit two Scotsmen, sometimes a judge from Northern Ireland, and almost always, bless them, the Welsh.
The Judicial Committee which is the mechanism provided in the Bill for review is not a United Kingdom court. It is a body with judicial functions which advises Her Majesty as to matters arising in the Colonies, the Channel Islands and concerning independent members of the Commonwealth, in none of which categories Scotland would claim to fall. It is
1392
not a United Kingdom court. It does not, except very rarely, apply United Kingdom law. But under the Bill, when reviewing Scottish legislation for its compatibility with what Westminster has decided, it would presumably have to do this. That brings us up against the fact that the highest authority on United Kingdom law is the House of Lords.
As I think most noble Lords know, since 1933 the Judicial Committee has had a power to deal with what are called "special references". Under this power it has dealt with a large variety of matters—for example legislation in Jersey, the powers of the Executive in Guernsey, the relative powers of the Chambers in Queensland and, most recently in your Lordships' memory, the Mac Manaway case. Therefore, it can be said with some justice that it is not an unsuitable body to advise on the validity of Assembly Acts. Moreover—and I think that this has played a part in the selection of the Judicial Committee as the revising organ—there are some who think that it may form a better basis from which ultimately, and in due time, to develop a constitutional court for the United Kingdom generally, or perhaps a Federal Supreme Court, if we move towards federation. There were reflections of this in the speech made by my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman.
I am not entirely impressed by that argument. It would seem to me that the House of Lords in its judicial capacity is just as well adapted to perform that function as the Supreme Court does in Canada and in Australia, not to mention the United States. It may be better adapted to perform that function because of its fixed constitution laid down by Statute, the Judicial Committee being, as I think your Lordships know, a floating body with a large number of persons not often called upon to sit, but at any rate not a definite body the composition of which one knows in advance. This is a delicate subject which I shall not expand on now, but about which we may have to think later on.
If the House of Lords is not the better body, or the best body, to form the nucleus or the starting point of a constitutional court, could we not think here and now of setting up a true constitutional court, which in due time could do for

1393
England and Wales what this Bill contemplates for Scotland? I know that that is a bold step, and it is probably too bold at the present stage; but it may be one about which it is worth thinking, and it might not be such an alarming step if we really faced the way in which it could be taken.
In the end, like my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman, I am on the whole at present in favour of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council having pre-enactment jurisdiction; but equally I do not think that a decision in favour of the validity of a Scottish Assembly Act should be conclusive when there is litigation in the courts between one subject and another. Advice to Her Majesty that a Bill is contrary to some provision in United Kingdom law is one thing, but a decision in contested litigation between A and B is another. At present I do not believe that the one should be binding in the other case.
As to post-enactment jurisdiction I shall say very little at this stage. It is obvious that this is a matter which will have to be debated in Committee. At first sight it looks as though it ought to be left to the ordinary courts of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland to decide devolution issues as they arise between the citizen and the Executive or between citizen and citizen, in the case of England and Scotland in civil matters the ultimate authority being the House of Lords acting judicially. The case for the Judicial Committee performing this task is, I suppose, to ensure uniformity with pre-enactment decisions. But I think that the ordinary courts could do that; and, after all, to be realistic, it is a fact that the decisions in either place are likely to be taken by the same five old gentlemen Members of the House of Lords Appellate Committee simply sitting in a different place. However, perhaps that is an irreverent thought.
Therefore, unless the Scots really want the Judicial Committee—and I can see that there are reasons for which they may want the Judical Committee (and we shall hear the reasons from my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Tullybelton later on); for example, reasons to do with criminal appeals—at present I would rather favour removing the Judicial Committee from the hierarchy in decision
1394
matters in normal post-enactment litigation.
I have said enough at this stage, but I would add two brief points. First, what I have said represents entirely my personal views. I do not speak for my colleagues and I know that there are differences of opinion among us. But I certainly can speak for all the legal Members of this House in saying that our united desire, both in these debates and afterwards in the working of the Bill—if it becomes an Act—will be to make the Bill work harmoniously in the interests of both Scotland and England, remembering that it is not just concerned with the scrutiny of subordinate legislation, like legislation of a county council, but with constructing a framework for the whole constitutional development of our country.
4.37 p.m.
Lord FRASER of KILMORACK: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships' House for the first time, I hope that I may also receive the indulgence which your Lordships customarily and generously give on such occasions. Perhaps in some ways I need that indulgence more than most, because although I first came to your Lordships' House after a relatively close and 30-year long connection with politics, I also came without the great benefit of a previous stint in another place. Equally, for 25 years before coming here I was a generalist rather than a specialist. I was expected to know a certain amount about a large number of matters and not necessarily very much about any one, which is not, if I may say so, the best possible qualification for addressing this exceptionally expert and specialist assembly.
Before I say any more I should like most warmly to congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, on an outstanding maiden speech. If I may say so, he has set a very hot pace for the "maidens" this afternoon, as if we did not in any case have a good deal of competition already from that notable stayer, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. Maiden speeches are customarily brief and non-controversial. I think that I can be brief for two reasons: first, because over the last two days we have already had a long and admirable debate covering a very wide range of

1395
subjects; equally, brevity to some degree is under one's own control. Controversy is a little more difficult as the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, has said, because, although it takes two to make a quarrel, in a sense it needs only one to make a controversy. I shall do my best on controversy—I certainly intend to produce light rather than heat—but I apologise in advance if at any stage my remarks strike a harsher note than I intended.
In terms alike of heredity, environment and experience I think I am bound to have views on this Bill and the background to it. On my father's side I am a Scot, and indeed a Highland Scot—a pure Highland Scot, if that is not a contradiction in terms—going as far back as I think it is either possible or profitable to look. On my mother's side I am a continental European. I was brought up and went to school in Scotland. I went to university in England, and I have been domiciled in London for the last 30 years. I normally go to Scotland several times a year. I have business interests, relations, and friends there. Inevitably I therefore look at this issue not necessarily in a very clear-cut way, but I feel that I have an interest in it in a number of directions and look at it from a variety of angles, and on a number of issues.
In considering this Bill and the background situation which has given rise to it, I start from the basic premise that I am against separation, or any real move towards separation, and I am in favour of the maintenance of the Union. At the other end, I am not terribly satisfied with the status quo, but, as I shall mention a little later on, I do not think that any weaknesses in the status quo are particularly due to constitutional matters. I think such weaknesses as exist lie in other fields, as I shall enlarge upon in a moment. Within those two parameters, therefore, of no separation, on the one hand, and the status quo, on the other, I am, I feel, very open-minded on the question of some devolution. I was very interested in the arguments in these areas put forward in yesterday's debate by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and by my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, as Scots living in Scotland.
1396
Of course beyond that I feel that if enough Scots, or enough people living in Scotland, definitely know what they want and want some devolution, then it seems to me that they have a right to obtain it. There is, of course, room for argument as to what constitutes enough Scots, or indeed people living in Scotland, in that context. There is room for argument too, I feel, on the form, timing and details of the changes proposed and on their impact on the rest of the United Kingdom. Having said that, however, I must confess that, though a man of sanguine temperament tending, despite my origins, towards a certain optimism, I feel uneasy about a number of aspects of the background to this Bill and about the Bill itself.
Being a Conservative I naturally approach the whole thought of constitutional change with caution. I believe ideally that constitutional changes should be infrequent that they should not be used for the solution of short-term problems; that they should, so far as possible, arise from a genuine and broadly-based consensus of view, and that before they are undertaken there should be near certainty—as near as is possible in human affairs—that they will be a distinct improvement on what has gone before. Their objective should be clear and widely understood. They should be, if I may use the phrase and it means anything to others—as it does to me—long jumps rather than high jumps. They should make real and lasting progress if possible, and there should be nothing marginal about it. The situation with which we are faced seems to me at present to fall very far short of those ideals.
That is the first point about which I am uneasy. I am also uneasy because this move means the addition, certainly to start with, of a further tier of government in Scotland when we are already suffering from too much government—and that is not a Party point, I would apply it to any Government. We are seriously over-governed at the moment. We seem now to need more people to supervise the taking in of our own washing than we needed, not all that long ago, to run a third of the population of the world. While "government without tiers", if I may put it that way, is probably an unrealisable dream, I see no very good reason, and it seems a pity, to add to an already unfortunate situation.

1397
Again I am uneasy because, in a way, we seem to be going against the tide of history and to be contemplating splitting up into smaller political groups at a moment when many other people, and we ourselves in another context, are forming larger political groups. However, I am a little less worried about this than the other tendencies to which I was referring earlier because—as a number of noble Lords mentioned yesterday—in fact the spirit of the age seems to be moving in both directions at the same time. Big is often better, but small is beautiful. And there is something in this, certainly I believe in industry where I am rather in agreement with the recent trend towards both larger groups and smaller units and profit centres within those groups.
The final, and much the most profound cause of my unease, lies in the likely balance between expectation and realisation. I really am worried that my fellow countrymen are attaching expectations to constitutional change that no constitutional change, however successful, could ever satisfy. The inevitable disappointment of those expectations will, I fear, in time all too easily lead further in the wrong direction. Many of the frustrations that are felt in Scotland today are, to my mind, not very different in kind from those presently felt in other parts of the United Kingdom. They are the product not so much of any constitutional breakdown, or shortcoming, but are rather the effect of a national rearguard action continued too long, and 20 years or so of what I would call "a slow-handclap period", when there has been all too little to cheer about.
It is only economic and social change, and economic and social achievement rather than constitutional change, that can, I believe, remedy this, together with the adoption of a fundamentally different national mood. Much has already been said in this long and important debate about the Bill's deficiencies and the amount of detailed scrutiny and, hopefully, change that it requires. With much of this I agree, and I shall not weary your Lordships with further repetition or development of the argument. It will be evident from the broad points of unease that I have mentioned, and which apply equally to points of detail raised on the Bill, that it would not be possible for me to give an enthusiastic welcome to this
1398
Bill. On the other hand, having reached your Lordships' House, I believe the Bill should be examined here in detail. I therefore hope, with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that the Amendment will not be pressed.
Whatever the future may hold in store, I believe that detailed scrutiny in your Lordships' House is the best practical and immediate course. Not only will that hopefully improve the Bill, within its inherent limitations, but it will also provide an opportunity of taking the arguments to a wider audience and so achieve at least a greater understanding of the issues.
As your Lordships' House braces itself, as I hope it will, for this task, may I commend as a suitable background text for future deliberations the following relatively little known words of Sir Winston Churchill in what I believe was his last speech at a General Election; a speech to the electors of Woodford. He said:
"To build may have to be the laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day."
Thank you very much.
4.50 p.m.
Lord THOMSON of MONIFIETH: My Lords, it was only recently that I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House and I therefore understand the feelings of both maiden speakers to whom we listened with such pleasure this afternoon. It is a great privilege for me to be able to speak immediately following them and to congratulate them most warmly on their speeches.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, was a colleague of mine for many years in another place. All noble Lords will have admired his courage and I know I speak for the whole House when I say we hope that, now he has made his maiden speech, he will feel tempted to play the same distinguished role in this House as he did for many years in another place. Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Kilmorack, brings to this House a unique and, I should have thought, very necessary body of political experience from the inside of one of the great political Parties of our country. I did not wholly agree with all his conclusions, though, as I shall explain, I agreed with much of what he said in his extremely thoughtful speech and we look forward to hearing him on many future occasions.

1399
I apologise for not being able to be in the House yesterday to hear the first day of this important debate. I had an enforced absence, which I hope will be excused, in Scotland, but of course I have read carefully in Hansard the speeches that were made. I am conscious of the fact that I am speaking here for the second time in two weeks on a constitutional matter related to Parliamentary Assemblies and I must immediately confess that I cannot claim the same sense of certainty about the merits of the present Bill as I was able to feel about the merits of the Bill for European direct elections, on which I spoke last week. I was reminded that somebody once said rather enviously about a speech by the late Dick Crossman in another place: "I just wish I were as certain of one thing as Dick Crossman seems to be certain of everything". I have a fair degree of certainty about the European Assembly but I am less certain about this Bill. I am certain about the importance of sustaining the Union in this country. After all, these days I spend a certain amount of my efforts trying to create a political union in the European Community, so how could I be for the breaking up of the political union here in the United Kingdom?
I am equally certain about the need for democratic devolution of decision-making, not I hope for short-term political or electoral reasons, but because I think that need is deep in the nature of the times in which we live—and I will say a little about that later. What I am not so certain about, however—I should admit this right at the beginning—is how to combine those two things. In his opening speech the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, rightly said that this was the biggest constitutional change inside the United Kingdom that had been proposed since 1707, and that it was being proposed at a time when it was surrounded by very great risks. The conclusion I have come to is that the contents of the Bill—I do not speak of the details but of its basic concept—seem to me to be the least of the risks that face us.
We must remember that it is not only change that is a risk; no change can be a risk. Although my noble and learned friend Lord Wilson of Langside has performed a service to the House by
1400
provoking this debate and providing a focus for it, I have come to the conclusion that the status quo is a greater risk than the kind of change proposed in the Bill. I must say that, so far as I understand it, the policy advocated from the Benches opposite—a policy of delay; indeed, one could call it drift—is very nearly as great a risk as that. For those reasons I support the Bill.
My view about this is based on two fundamental facts as they seem to me. One is an historic fact. It is the fact that the political union in this country represented by the Treaty of 1707—the Union of the Parliaments—preceded the great economic union—the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, we created throughout the United Kingdom a single, integrated, interdependent economy. I think we would break that up by political means at our peril. Of course one can break up anything if one is determined enough and self-willed enough to do so. No doubt one could conduct some sort of surgical operation on the integrated United Kingdom economy. I suggest that if one intends to engage in surgery one should generally do it very reluctantly, and I certainly do not like a surgeon whose motive seems more than anything else to be greed.
After all, if one asks—and I ask myself—what is the major reason why this problem comes before us in the way it does?—the answer is of course Scottish oil. The economic union which followed 1707 was of great benefit to Scotland over a very long time. In the 19th century, Scotland led in the Industrial Revolution. Then Scotland suffered many difficult economic problems in the 20th century. But I do not think they were particularly different from some of the problems of Wales or the North of England; they were problems of the development of the British industrial economy. Speaking as a Scot, I am not happy that it is only when oil is discovered that the momentum for possible separation takes place.
The second fact, as it appears to me—it is a contemporary and not an historic fact—is that the interdependence which has grown up in the United Kingdom over a couple of centuries is now gathering momentum in the Western industrial world as a whole, and I am particularly conscious of the fact that we are now

1401
part of an increasingly interdependent European Community economy. I think the growth of that interdependence of the Western industrial world, with its peculiar intensity in the Community of which we are now a member, brings about what I would regard as a natural reaction. People react against bigness in government and bigness in business—the great multinational corporations—and there is a search for preserving a sense of identity, a search for roots.
As a Scottish politician, I have always been a devolutionist, long before I was a Member of either House of Parliament, but never a nationalist. My experience in the European Community in recent years has underlined for me, on the one hand, the suicidal nature of the policy of nationalism, but equally I have registered—perhaps I registered it particularly with my responsibilities for regional policy in the European Community—that the kind of problems we face in this country and in this Bill are not unique to this country. They are part of a ferment that is taking place in most of the developed industrial societies of the Western World and certainly in many of our neighbouring countries in the European Community.
The truth of the matter, in my view, is that what one should be seeking to do in the contemporary world—what we should be seeking to do in our situation in Western Europe—is to delegate some decision-making upwards to a Community level (what we were discussing in this House last week) and, equally, delegating other aspects of democratic decision-making downwards to some democratic Assembly different from this national Parliament. In that sense—it was one point where I dissented from something that the noble Duke said in his maiden speech; he said we should be looking at these things in a more coherent way and not in an unrelated way—I find nothing unrelated about the Bill we were discussing last week and the Bill we are discussing today.
Putting it personally, like others who have spoken and who come from the northern part of the United Kingdom, I feel a Scot by nationality; I am British by citizenship and I am proud of it and want to remain British. Equally, I think it is important that one should try to create an additional sense of citizenship at the
1402
European level, and I see no inconsistency between these three things. One of the great and difficult tasks of statesmanship, not only in this country but in other countries, is to strike the right kind of balance between these considerations. In calling for delay, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, castigated the Government for putting the Bill before the House ill-prepared. There may be many things said about the Bill, but I can hardly think that lack of preparation can be one of the criticisms of it. Indeed, it may suffer from excessive gestation.
At the moment I do not wish to speak about some of the details of the Bill, which I wish to reserve for discussion in Committee. But the conclusion I have come to carefully, though not with tremendous enthusiasm, is that the Government have got it about right, and I shall certainly support the Second Reading of the Bill.
5.1 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like to join in congratulating the two noble Lords who made their maiden speeches today. It was a cause of some sadness to me that I was not able to hear the speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, owing to my attendance at a committee meeting of your Lordships' House, but I shall read it with interest in Hansard; and I was much impressed with the speech of the noble Lord, the Lord Fraser of Kilmorack. I myself have something of the feeling of making a maiden speech at this moment. I have often made speeches in your Lordships' House which have not obtained majority approval. It is very seldom that I have had to make one for which I felt I should not have even the approval of my noble friends around me, and which leaves me looking rather wanly into the Western mists in the hope of spying the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, who I think is the only person in your Lordships' House who actually agrees with me on this subject.
What I want to speak in favour of involves that terrible word which has been condemned for so much: I want to speak in favour of separatism. Of course separatism is a decision for those who want to separate—those who wish to break away. In the first place what we

1403
are talking about is a Scottish matter. It may be said that it is not for an Englishman to suggest what Scots should, or should not, do, but I think that, as politicians—those of your Lordships who are politicians—we have a duty not just to respond, but to try to lead, and I see advantages all around for separatism, not just for Scotland, but for England, and for Europe.
For a long time, I went along, as your Lordships can well imagine, with my noble friends on these Benches in their desire to see a federal Britain. It seemed to me a very fine idea, a very fine ideal. I have gradually come to the conclusion that there are several disadvantages to it, and in order to keep my speech short I shall concentrate not so much on the argument in favour of the Bill as such, but on why I think it does not go far enough, and why I think federalism does not go far enough.
There are two negative reasons and three positive ones why we should go further than federalism. One of the negative ones is that I have now, at last, come to the conclusion that a federation cannot be built out of a union. A federation can be built up from units, but here one cannot build down. We have seen the difficulty even of producing a Scottish and a Welsh Bill. In this situation we are finding that we have to produce different Bills to meet different aspirations of different parts of the United Kingdom; and in a way that is as it should be. As has been pointed out, the federal idea means of necessity, I understand, that England ought to be divided up as well, but England is not yet ready to be divided up. Despite some rumblings from Cornwall, Yorkshire or Northumberland, there is no great overriding desire for this kind of division. Therefore, I think that that is one reason why federation will not work.
The second is, I believe that, as has been said, it leads to a multiplication of bureaucracy, with more tiers. I know that some tiers can be added and that some can be done away with. But I should have thought that, at the moment when we are building up the big tier of Europe, we do not want another federation under the European umbrella; and I will come to that in a moment.
1404
Regarding the three positive reasons—by which I mean reasons for separatism, which would not be satisfied by federalism—I choose, first the fact that I think it is probably necessary for England to have the psychological shock of realising that we are only England, and not somehow Great Britain, the United Kingdom, the sort of centre of a ghost empire. We are three or four small nations in the British Isles, as part of United Europe. I do not think we have realised that yet, and I think we need to realise it. I cannot see that the separation of Scotland would be anything but psychologically healthy for England.
Secondly, I believe that it would be good for Scotland, and I put this forward mainly on the economic level. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, referred in his speech, as reported at column 1192 of the Official Report for 14th March, to,
"the protest vote which, particularly since 1966, has gone to the Nationalists—as indeed it has tended to do over these last 25 or 30 years, whenever the British Government are below par, as periodically they have been".
"Periodically", my Lords—permanently!
I base my argument in favour of separatism for Scotland on the simple suggestion that nobody could govern Scotland in economic terms worse than we have—and certainly the Scots would not. In addition to the sheer incompetence that we have displayed in running our own affairs in this country, there is the fact that, when we inflate or deflate, it is invariably done to suit—or at least calculated to suit, whether or not it does—the South of England or indeed the South-East of England. This therefore comes at exactly the wrong phase of the cycle for the more distant parts of the Kingdom, and particularly for Scotland.
I do not think here that the oil really comes into it. I regard the North Sea oil rather as I regard a poisoned chalice. Dr. John Rae pointed out in an article the other day that our black gold might well be like the unearned gold which poured in to Spain from the new New World 300 or 400 years ago, and which kept them prosperous and stopped them facing up to their real problems. I am not happy about North Sea oil and its benefits, for us or for the Scots. I think that it is a matter which can be left out of the equation.

1405
My last positive point is Europe. I believe passionately in European federation, and I see no place for a British federation under this. What is more, I can see a European Federation working in the future only as we become l'Europe des régions, and not l'Europe des parries. The big national States are very nearly the ruin of Europe already. England and France between them may permanently have damaged the European project and the European ideal. I believe that we want a Europe made up of smaller national and cultural units.
Those are the reasons why I believe in separatism and why I would encourage other people to believe in and go for separatism as and when it is wanted—and I think it may well be wanted in Scotland, if not now, then in the very near future. I do so in the course of a really informed debate about the whole project, just as we saw the European debate informing and crystallising opinion in Britain on that particular subject.
Your Lordships can see that I do not like this Bill. I shall vote for it, though, for three reasons. The first is that even a mildewy crumb is better than no bread. The second is that I do not think that, until this subject is out of the way, we shall see the revival of Liberalism in Scotland that I want to see. The Liberal Party in Scotland has a magnificent record in the MPs that it has produced, and even, if I may say so, in the ex-MPs it has produced. It has a very great deal to offer Scotland and, as long as we are a united Kingdom, to offer Britain. I think that, one way or another, this nationalism must be settled before we shall see a Scottish Liberal revival of the kind that I should like to see. Thirdly, I am tempted to vote for this Bill because so many of your Lordships have said that it is merely one inevitable step on the road to separatism. I hope it will be so.
5.12 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, it is a long time since I had the pleasure of listening to a Second Reading debate on a major Bill such as this, and certainly very many years since I last spoke in such a debate. If I may say so, we have had some very remarkable speeches in the course of the debate so far. I thought
1406
that the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was a tremendous Parliamentary performance. Then there was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. We have also had a very remarkable speech, but remarkable in a different way, from the noble Lord who has just sat down. I never thought that one argument for this Bill was that it might lead to a revival of Liberalism in Scotland. Nor did I think that the noble Lord would be able to spend so much time in speaking about separatism, the only things he said about the Bill which is now the subject of debate being that he did not like it but would still vote for it.
I am not going to follow the noble Lord into discussing federalism, separatism or the advantages of small States against big ones. Some 10 years ago I was a member of a committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, which went into these questions of devolution and decentralisation. I think, if my memory serves me aright, I was the only Englishman upon that committee, and I have no doubt I proved a considerable thorn in the flesh to the chairman. That committee produced a majority and a minority report, and I had to retire from it before the time came for signing either of them. As the noble Lord, Lord Home, knows, I think I would have signed the minority report; but I am not wanting to speak tonight on very major issues. None the less, I want to say a word or two on issues which I think may prove to be increasingly important in the years to come. We had another very remarkable speech in the course of this debate from my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman. He was not controversial, but your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that what he said did not command universal agreement among his colleagues—certainly not with me. I agreed with a great deal of it, but not with all of it.
I think the first question which has to be considered is whether there should be an Assembly. Having served on Lord Home's committee, I was left in no doubt then as to the strength of the feeling for the Scots in Scotland having more control over their affairs—a feeling that certainly has not grown less, and a feeling with which I strongly sympathise. But I still wonder whether those Scottish aspirations may not be met without the creation of an Assembly. We are told it is going to cost

1407
£4¾ million in capital expenditure and some £13 million a year in running costs; and, of course, the major part of that expenditure will be borne by English and Welsh taxpayers. That, I fear, may prove to be a source of friction, and I hope that one of our tasks in the course of the passage of this Bill will be to reduce the chances of friction arising. I have wondered whether it might not be possible to avoid that expenditure and the friction that I see as likely to arise by giving much more power to regional councils—regional councils which have themselves, I believe, the power to raise money.
However, if we are going to have an Assembly, then I think the next question which has to be considered—and it is an important one—is what is to be the status of a Scottish Assembly Act. Is it to be regarded by the Parliament of the United Kingdom as a piece of subordinate legislation, the validity of which can be challenged at any time or in any year? Or is it to be regarded as a Scottish Act embodying the law of Scotland, the validity of which, once it was enacted, could not be challenged?
I must say that I favour the first course. I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Tullybelton does not agree with me, but there it is. I favour it for a number of reasons, and one is that I cannot face with equanimity the prospect that you may have a Scottish Act of Parliament, having been in force for many years, possibly creating criminal offences and leading to people being convicted and sent to prison, being declared ultimately, many years later, to have been invalid from the start. That seems to me to be bound to lead to a considerable amount of friction and chaotic confusion. So I myself should like this Bill to be changed to make a Scottish Act, once it has received the Royal Assent, like an English Act of Parliament. That means, of course, that you have must checks to see that it accords with the powers devolved.
Here I welcome and strongly support the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Home, that there should be a reference to the Secretary of State, not after the Bill has passed the Assembly but before it. I can think of nothing more likely to
1408
cause friction and frustration than to have a Bill debated at length in the Assembly and then, after all that has been gone through, for it to be held invalid by the Judicial Committee. There should, I think, be a duty on the Secretary of State—the Bill imposes it—to consider every Bill presented, and to refer it immediately if he has any doubt about it. Then, if a clause is added or Amendments are made which could cast doubt on competence, he should have power to refer that. But, apart from that, once it has passed and received the Royal Assent I suggest it should cease to be treated as a piece of subordinate legislation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, referred to a number of other matters: the appeal procedure, the duplication of it. I must say that that puzzles me very much. I cannot think, if there is a reference in an ordinary piece of litigation, why it should go to the Judicial Committee; but that if it comes up in the ordinary way it should come to the House of Lords. Neither can I think why, if it comes to the House of Lords, we sitting here should have to go to the Privy Council to decide the issue there—if it be the intention, of course, that the Lords of Appeal should sit in the Judicial Committee to hear these devolution issues. I think that will all want looking into very much.
My noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce referred to the Judicial Committee having a wider membership. So it has. The Lord President of the Council is entitled to sit. Whatever his great qualities may be, I doubt whether his best friend would claim that he always behaves judicially. However that may be, and I will not dilate upon it tonight, I must express my regret that a Bill of this magnitude and importance, the most important constitutional Bill since the Statute of Westminster, should have come here, although as a result, we were told, of very long preparation, in such a condition, with so many apparent defects and without any proper consideration in another place.
5.21 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords. I do not want to make too long an introduction to this speech, for most of us

1409
want to finish with this debate. This Bill comes to us here in a rather extraordinary situation. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, told us of some of the legal points and I should like to refer to those later for they are of considerable importance. Momently, all that I want to say is this. It is quite clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, that the Bill comes to us with many people saying that they will vote for the Second and Third Readings and then campaign against the referendum. We have had the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, saying it is not perfect. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has said that he will give it the benefit of the doubt on merit. I wonder honestly whether he has read it in detail. It is really a very poor Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, wanted to vote for it for entirely the wrong reasons. This is where we find ourselves.
The second thing is that we have been openly asked to improve this Bill. It is a slightly left-handed request. I am not sure that it can be greatly improved. May I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who is not here, or perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, this question. Can we count on consultation and co-operation in this from the Front Bench? Can we count on them to try to help in making this Bill something more reasonable? May I render just a suggestion a third method of doing so? Normally a Bill goes back to the other place only on two grounds. One, we have a Division with all that that means in flouting the will of the people and frustrating the House of Commons in their noble work. Alternatively, the Government must accept the Bill. It is not always easy for the Government to accept a Bill. I know that it is difficult to persuade Ministers in another place to accept Amendments. Would it be possible that, on occasion, they just do not appoint Tellers? That is to say, they do not commit themselves. I think that it is very important that the other place should discuss some of the Amendments, some of the clauses, particularly the financial clauses, which have remained completely undiscussed at all.
I would not object to a national Assembly or an Assembly as such. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that it is simply a question of
1410
oil. It goes back; it must be over 40 years since I first debated with a Scottish Nationalist of some sort or another. This issue has been on the air for a very long time. It has been on the air, frankly, I think, from a sense of protest. This is so. If the people in Newcastle or the people of Merseyside knew how to do it, they would do the same. We have a sense of community in Scotland, and we have done it. I am aware of the difficulty of a practical system which is politically possible. This system, I believe, is completely impracticable. I do not think it is politically desirable, most people do not want it. I can see the electoral advantages or the supposed electoral advantages. That is how the matter stands.
When I read the Bill I formed a clear impression that this was the work of a committee of civil servants. There is nobody else in the world so clever and hard working as to produce a Bill of this kind. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, kindly confirmed to me that that was exactly how this Bill was produced. It is a very clever Bill but one which, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, yesterday, is intelligible only to the more able members of the Judicial Bench. This is what we are putting to the people of Scotland and this is the basic reason why fundamentally I object to this Bill. It is completely incomprehensible.
Have we lost the wisdom that we had when we tried to find out, for instance, how India should be governed—the Minto-Morly, the Montagu Chelmsford, the Simon Report, the Round Table talks, the Cripps and Linlithgow examinations? Can we not form some idea of the nature of the problem which we are up against? Have we lost altogether the way of handling things? I know that India is a hundred times bigger than Scotland; but is it today more important, or is it not?
I very much regret the suggestion that was made in the discussions we had in January 1976 that we should have a Speaker's Conference to deal with this. I understand the reason for this. If it is put forward merely as a Party document, it has a certain electoral mileage. That, I am afraid, is the long and short of where we are at the present

1411
time. I resent a Bill which may affect fundamentally the people of Scotland being dealt with in this very easy-going way at the present time—with substantial indifference, certainly, in the way it is coming before Parliament and in the form of a pawn of Party politics. One of the points raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne—and it came out of the remarks of Lord Scarman which we enjoyed yesterday—is that we do distinguish in this country between what is a constitutional law and a law. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, spoke of Constitutional laws as if they could be decided by one vote. But that is a very dangerous doctrine to assume in a democracy.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, described how the Judicial Committee, or the Privy Council, would look at these Bills. We must remember that any one of these clauses can be changed the next year. Unlike the American Constitution and the Supreme Court, in a matter of months any of these clauses can be changed. I wonder whether it is worth the while of the Judicial Committee, men of great standing, with their detailed knowledge and, I am sure, perfection, to examine these transient measures.
There is another point. Here we have a Statute—and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, brought this out very carefully—which can be challenged at any time in the courts. This is something which has never happened before. It means, he said, that one may be two years in prison and then find that the Act which sent one there is in fact a reserved Act which should never have been passed. Or one might go bankrupt and find that the reasons which made one bankrupt are totally wrong. It is a matter which I am glad the noble and learned Viscount raised and it will require looking into carefully.
Are we to have second-class Acts of Parliament coming from the Scottish Assembly? This is a major issue of some consequence. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, yesterday said that he thought the Secretary of State was going to be less important. He is going to be different; I am not sure that he is going to be less important. I am certain that he is going
1412
to be very much more uncomfortable. I find it difficult to believe that his job is not going to be even less desirable than the Secretary of State's job at the present time. Today he does things; tomorrow he will be saying, "No". This will be his big function. Look what he will be saying. He calls Parliament together. He appoints the Assistant Secretaries. He has four separate grounds on which he can veto any Bill passed—Clauses 19 and 36. He can do more than that: he can order the First Secretary either to do what he is told or not to do what he is doing. That is going to be a pleasant job for the Secretary of State! It will need a man of great tact, skill and understanding to carry this through without raising a great wrath of opposition which he will find it extremely difficult to overcome.
I must ask what this Bill means. What is the difference between what is a devolved and what is a reserved subject? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in a charming phrase said that Schedule 10 was practically unintelligible. The first part is called competence the second part covers matters not included and the third part deals with enactments relating. My Lords, I do not know how those three parts are related. I am equally ignorant in what they mean. May I ask one or two questions on this. In Part III not only are Acts of Parliament divided up—some of them devolved and some of them reserved—sections are divided up and sections are divided up so that they go one way or the other.
I will give one example. There is one section dealing with clean air, and there is one subsection which says that the Assembly may not complain about the smoke given off by the Royal Navy. Apparently the local authority can but the Assembly may not. I am going to ask whether we can leave out Part III of Schedule 10 altogether. It is 150 Acts of Parliament dealing with sections, subsections and parts of subsections. It is totally unintelligible and utterly unfair to press on the Scots people.
The important thing here is not that the Assembly men themselves will not understand the Act; I do not mind that because they can be advised. What I am worried about is the ordinary citizen who will not have the faintest idea who is responsible for what, or how he will get his

1413
difficulties remedied. He will not know. Of anybody who says this is not a layer of Government, may I ask him to look at Schedule 16 (I think it is) in which there are four layers of planning: district, region, Assembly, Secretary of State. They are all laid out there. How anyone can get a house built I cannot tell you, my Lords.
There is one other matter which I think we must get clarified regarding finance. I do not know how they will draw the finance; but, so far as I can see, there will be four headings. I do not understand it, but it seems that there will be a block grant which the Assembly are free to spend as they like. There will be a rate support grant. That will be divided into two; there will be those who can spend as they like, which so far as I can see will include some reserved subjects. The third category covers the specific subjects, including the police. Apparently the Assembly have only to have regard for what the Secretary of State says. Whether or not you have to obey a "regard" of a Secretary of State or not, I am unable to say. The fourth is housing subsidy. Those will be the four, as I see it. I am sure the noble Lord will tell me I am completely wrong and it will be done in an entirely different way; but we should like to know how it should be done.
I wonder, listening to this discussion—and we have had a very wide and extremely well-informed discussion—whether this is a form of escapism. This is not going to help our balance of payments. It is not going to help inflation. It is not going to help unemployment—which, incidentally, is running higher than it has ever done since the end of the war. May I paraphrase James Barrie and say: "The fault, dear Brutus, lies in ourselves, and not in our Constitution that we are underlings."
5.35 p.m.
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: My Lords, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the two noble Lords who have made maiden speeches this afternoon, both of them very impressive. I was much encouraged by the presence of the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, who assured us that he would return to this House whenever he felt bubbling. He also indicated that he would be bubbling about a subject which is very close to
1414
my heart, the subject of forestry. I have listened to this debate for two days. I have listened on and off to the debate in the other place. I have been willing and anxious to be convinced of the desirability of this measure; but I must confess that at the end of the day I am not certain that this Bill is relevant to the situation in Scotland today. I shall not vote against the Bill this evening, but I will have the privilege of joining with other noble Lords in examining its contents over the next few weeks.
I am glad that the Government have agreed that the 40 per cent. provision in the referendum is going to be maintained, because at that stage we shall know what the Scottish people think. One of the difficulties about reaching firm conclusions on this measure is the fact that there is so much speculation and so much fear about it. On one side people say to us: "If you do not pass this Bill, there will inevitably be a growth of nationalism in Scotland". On the other hand, other noble Lords have said: "If you do pass this Bill it will be the beginning of the disintegration of the United Kingdom". Both statements are speculative. Time will prove them. But it may depend on the kind of people you elect to the Assembly and the desire to make it work which will be more important than some of the things we have discussed in these two days.
If I felt convinced that there was a great desire on the part of the Scottish people to have this, if I felt that this was to be a signal of some new Scottish regeneration in industry and social and cultural life, I would campaign for it. But I do not believe that that is so. The evidence of the speeches here in this House shows that the enthusiasm for the Bill is somewhat muted. Anyone who sat in the other place and listened to the dreary debates on this measure in the House of Commons must accept that most people in that House, because of Party loyalty, supported it but with great reluctance. I believe that what is basic to the successful working of the Assembly must be a great enthusiasm for the new institution which is to be created.
On the basis of present political trends in Scotland, there will be at least one-third of the members of that Assembly who are determined that it should not

1415
work, and this is hardly the basis on which a new institution of this kind can prosper or succeed. I was interested in the past two days to find many noble Lords saying: "This is what the Scottish people want". I wonder how some of these conclusions can be supported. I want to state my credentials, my Lords. I am deeply involved in Scottish business and commerce, including television, and am chairman of a nationalised industry in Scotland, although I am not speaking on their behalf. I am an executive member of the Scottish Council for Industry and Development; I was a member of the Glasgow City Council; I live in West Scotland, near Glasgow, where half the population of Scotland lives; I am a member of the Labour Party and I am reasonably sensitive to the views and aspirations of the people in the West of Scotland. I admire the affection of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for his tight little communities in the Highlands and his cosy little groups of people who go about their business in Caithness, but the feelings of the people in the industrial West of Scotland are rather more important in terms of numbers.
I try to find out what is the will of the Scottish people in this matter. The Scotland and Wales Bill was withdrawn or defeated on 22nd February 1977. There was no demonstration whatsoever of protest in Scotland when that devolution measure failed, and members of the other place tell me that there was no increase in their postbag of protest when that piece of legislation had not reached the Statute Book. This is surely relevant to the question of what the people of Scotland feel. The Scottish National Party tried to organise protests on that occasion, but there was little or no response. So I think we have to be careful when we start saying that this is what the Scottish people want.
Many noble Lords who have expressed this reflection of the aspirations of the Scottish people live a long way from Scotland and spend most of their time outside Scotland. There is much greater concern about what happens in the Argentine and the World Cup than there is about what happens in Westminster on this particular measure. Maybe that is undesirable but it is true.
1416
The justification for the Bill was that it would bring democracy closer to the people. The noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, was right about democracy—we should be talking about the quality and not the quantity of democracy. The simple multiplication of a number of democratic institutions does not add up to greater democracy. In fact it may add up to greater disenchantment with democracy. If there is one thing that people criticise in the democratic system it is the added bureaucracy and the added number of committees, and so on, that are an inevitable part of the democratic process. This Bill does not reduce that. This Bill adds to the bureaucratic build-up, it adds to the cost, and I am not sure that at the end of the day the Scottish people will feel closer to government by the simple existence of an Assembly.
The Assembly itself has little power. I say that there will be greater disenchantment with the democratic process at the end of the day because the Assembly is entirely dependent on the block grant which is decided at Westminster, and every decent Assembly man will want more hospitals, more schools and more this or that in his constituency; and when he is held responsible by his constituents he will blame the limited amount of cash that has been allocated to the Assembly from Westminster. That is the crucial area. No Assembly man is going to take the blame; he is going to blame Westminster. That is precisely the situation which encourages the Scottish Nationalists to support this measure. They want disenchantment with Westminster because that is the beginning of the end.
So I suggest that at that end in the relationship with Westminster there will be a considerable area of tension and conflict, and at the other end I have heard several noble Lords support this measure on the ground that one of the first things it will do will be to reorganise local government in Scotland. The noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, takes that view. I shall be surprised if this is going to encourage interest in democracy. We have just come through a very expensive reorganisation of local government in Scotland. It cost a very large sum in new appointments, new offices, paying off former town clerks and all the rest of it—a very large sum. Yet some Members of this House are saying

1417
that one of the first tasks of the new Assembly is to start reorganising local government. So you will have tensions and conflict and disenchantment at both ends, first with Westminster with the block grant proposal and secondly with the imposition on the elected members of local authorities of some major reorganisation of their function.
I say that this proposal is a recipe for chaos, and not a recipe for inreasing the democratic process. As a Scot and as someone who cares about Scotland I have to ask myself: Is this good for Scotland? I do not believe it is. A number of noble Lords have spoken about the impact of this on the business community of Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has given evidence to that effect. Tell me a single business in Scotland or a single business organisation—Chamber of Commerce, CBI or what-have-you—that supports this measure. I spend a good deal of my time going around the world trying to attract investment to Scotland, and let me tell your Lordships that the growth of nationalism and this move for Assembly government in Scotland is contributing to nervousness in relation to investment. These things could cost Scotsmen their jobs.
During this discussion the political issue of the role of Scottish Members of Parliament and the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland has been aired. I believe that if the Secretary of State for Scotland has his present responsibilities devolved to the Assembly he is inevitably diminished in authority and power. I believe it is a good thing for Scotland that the Secretary of State for Scotland should have power and authority and take his rightful place in the Cabinet. There are many evidences that the intervention of a Secretary of State for Scotland on major industrial decisions—the survival of Chrysler, the Dounreay Atomic Development, the electrification of the West Coast main line railway—have frequently resulted from the power and authority of the Secretary of State for Scotland at the centre of power. To diminish that office, as is inevitable in these proposals, will not be helpful to Scotland's cause.
For these reasons I shall speak in the campaign during the referendum against the proposal to set up an Assembly. I think it is right that this House should
1418
approve the measure and try to improve it in the many ways in which it could be improved, but I do not believe that an Assembly is a good thing. Finally, people who live in Scotland realise that what we are really worried about in Scotland, particularly in the West, is the mass unemployment in the area—12 per cent. unemployment—the large number of young people who are leaving school without the prospect of employment; the great areas of new housing estates where people are wandering about purposelessly and aimlessly and turning to all kinds of vandalism and destructiveness. These are the problems of Scotland. Glasgow is a city without a heart. I believe that the Labour Party, in dealing with these problems of Scotland, need not "run scared" of the Scottish Nationalists. They can do things of which they can be proud, and I believe that if you do these things you can destroy the power of the Scottish Nationalists and the discontent on which it is based.
5.50 p.m.
Lord GLENDEVON: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree with me that in a debate of very high standard we have just listened to one of the best speeches of the two days.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord GLENDEVON: I agree with every single word the noble Lord said. May I also, as others have done, congratulate our two maiden speakers, the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, and the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Kilmorack. Theirs were very good speeches and I am sure we shall look forward to hearing from both speakers again in the near future.
I shall confine myself to what is really a short declaration of my passionate belief in the Union. Yesterday something was said by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, which rather saddened me. I hope he knows that nothing will ever weaken the affection I feel for him—not even my tendency to disagree with him from time to time—but yesterday—I read from col. 1220 of the Official Report—he used these words:
"But 270 years have passed and we are generally told that the Union has been to Scotland's great advantage. That may or may not be so…."

1419
In words like those the question is really left unanswered but the innuendo is there, although I think I know which answer the noble Earl would give if pressed.
Of course Scotland has got much from the Union and, if I may be forgiven for giving one small personal reminiscence—one of many which would illustrate my point—I can remember so well that at one time I had the honour to hold the position of Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, when I was in charge, under the Secretary of State, of agriculture. The subsidies for marginal hill farms accounted for the whole of the profit of the farm. Those subsidies were provided mainly, and quite rightly so, by the English taxpayer. As I say, one could multiply similar examples without any difficulty.
There is another point about the Union that I should like to put to your Lordships. Not only has Scotland got much from it but those who have gone before us have given much to it: statesmanship, commerce, culture, science, human endeavour and service, right across the board. Is all future potential in this United Kingdom context now to be thrown overboard? I ask this because if the Scottish Nationalists get their way, we are to separate—and at this time, of all times, in the world's history!
Of course it is arguable and, if I may say so, it has been well argued, that this Bill is a step towards thwarting the threat of separation. I myself do not believe that. Some of my noble friends for whom I have the very greatest respect take the opposite view. One of them is the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and I owe so much to him as the chairman of my constituency for many years, during which time he gave me tremendous help. I believe that he feels too strongly and that he "doth protest too much". I also believe that whatever is done by us—and by that I mean whatever is done by Parliament—the only force that will stop the Scottish Nationalists is the force of public opinion in Scotland. They will have their chance at least to make a start with it, when the referendum comes. In my view, it is on the referendum that we all ought to keep our sights when trying to be helpful and constructive.
1420
Meanwhile, the Nationalists will intensify their campaign. They will, as my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas mentioned yesterday, produce different policies for every single different person. But above all, they will step up what has in reality always been at the base of their inferiority complex, which is hostility to England—and, my Lords, hostility is terribly close to hatred. Again, I would say: what a time to start that up! They could become something very near to a racilist Party, and we have had enough of that to get along with.
The truth is that strength lies in union. That does not mean that it lies in this Bill. I do not think it does, and I believe we shall all have to think again. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, just now spoke, alone in this House, in favour of out-and-out separation for Scotland, and he told the House that he would support the Bill because it is the best that can be done at the moment. He said he preferred mildewed bread to no bread at all. So far as I am concerned, I prefer hunger to a stomach ache!
5.58 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, to seek to participate in a debate of this kind at this hour perhaps argues that one is longer in stamina or obstinacy than in sensitivity or good sense; but this is such an extraordinary Bill, produced in such extraordinary circumstances, that as one who for many years has taken a deep interest in the working of our complex Constitution, I should like to offer some very brief comments. The circumstances are quite extraordinary. Here we have produced a major constitutional measure which is at the same time wholly irrelevant to all the major practical problems that face us—problems of inflation, of lack of economic growth, lack of investment, unemployment. It is utterly irrelevant to those. Our Parliament, in both Houses, has devoted, and will be devoting, the larger part of the Session to this Bill.
It is equally extraordinary that in neither House has it been possible to identify more than a handful of Members who have any enthusiasm for these particular proposals. We have had speeches—here I agree with my noble friend Lord Glendevon—such as the admirable

1421
speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, a loyal member of the Labour Party, condemning this Bill. We have heard from all quarters of the House doubts and apprehensions about it. This is really the most extraordinary situation in which Parliament and the nation could be placed, particularly, if I may again follow my noble friend Lord Glendevon in saying so, at such a time as this. This is a constitutional Bill, and one of the first points I want to raise is, I think, a constitutional point. In the presence of noble and learned Lords in a debate which, as I understand it, will be replied to by the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General for Scotland, I put the point with diffidence, but if I am wrong I shall be most grateful so to be told by the noble and learned Lord.
As I read the Bill, and in particular Clauses 70 and 79, the Order in Council which, if the Bill otherwise achieves a passage through Parliament and is approved at the referendum, will be required to put the Bill into operation—I think that the noble and learned Lord will find it in Clause 79—can be passed by the Commons alone and, unless this House approves it within 10 days, the other place can confirm it and carry it over our heads. If I am wrong about that I shall be only too delighted. As several noble Lords, and noble and learned Lords, have said, the Bill is not a model of clarity and some confusion may be understandable. But I would beg the noble and learned Lord to confirm, when he replies, whether or not this is so, because if it is so it constitutes by a side-wind a very substantial alteration in our Constitution, which has nothing whatever to do with Scotland, but has to do with the Parliament Acts and the relationship between the two Houses. If this is right—I believe it to be, but I am more than willing to be corrected—this is by a side-wind altering the balance between the two Houses.
Even under the legislation promoted by noble Lords opposite, except on financial orders, this House has retained co-equal powers with another place in the control of delegated legislation. But it looks as if, in respect of both the vital order to operate this Bill and, at least, some of the other orders to be made under it—one looks at Clause 80 of the Bill, particularly subsection (4)—a very unfortunate precedent is being created by a side-wind, which
1422
virtually reduces to a nullity the control of this House over delegated legislation. If this is right, and if the noble and learned Lord—who will, I know, feel it his duty to guide the House—says that it is right, then I very much hope that, at the appropriate stage, this House will insist on taking out that provision and standing by it.
On the broader issues, I think that noble Lords are kidding themselves if they think that this Assembly, which the Bill proposes to set up, will really appease Nationalist feeling and be acceptable to those who are seeking a substantial measure of devolution. It has been our experience in the British Commonwealth in the last 30 or 40 years that you set up Assemblies of this kind, you carefully delimit their powers, you provide all kinds of machinery for judicial review of any excess over their functions, but they never accept that. They always demand more. They always use pressures, lawful and unlawful, to extend their powers. And have we any reason whatever to believe that the carefully circumscribed limits which this Bill prescribes for the Scottish Assembly will not suffer the fate that every other constitutional provision of this kind, in the history of the British Commonwealth in, this century, has suffered? It would be a bold noble Lord who believed that the matter would rest here.
It seems to me that we are making this worse by the way in which we are dealing with finance. We are setting up an Assembly which will have every incentive to achieve popularity by spending money, and, at the same time, we are depriving it of the offsetting pressure of having to take the gloomy responsibility of imposing taxation to pay for that expenditure. My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, with his unrivalled experience, touched on this yesterday. I must make it plain that I myself do not believe that there should be such an Assembly at all. But if Parliament in its wisdom, or lack of it, decides to set up an Assembly, with all this elaborate apparatus of Civil Service, Ministers or quasi-Ministers, it is a recipe for irresponsibility to say to it: "You can do wonderful things to develop activities in Scotland. But with not one penny of that money will you actually have to face the problem of raising taxation from the taxpayer. That responsibility will be discharged by the Treasury in Whitehall". That cannot make sense.

1423
Therefore, I hope that the Government will address themselves to this dilemma. Set up an Assembly if you think it right—although I do not believe that this will satisfy the one-third of its members who in any event, we were told, would want to prevent it from functioning. But if you are going to set it up, then, for Heaven's sake!, give it a measure of responsibility to raise the money that it will spend. If Scotland wants all this elaborate apparatus of Ministers and another tier of bureaucracy—and it has yet to be proven that she does—then is it not right that she should, in some measure, pay for it? Why should not those put into a position of responsibility in Edinburgh, for the first time, have to do what, as every Member of this House knows, all British Governments always have to do; that is, balance the desirability of certain actions against the necessity of finding the wherewithal to pay for them? This is the great stabiliser which, even in recent years, we have seen operating on the noble and learned Lord's colleagues in another place.
I regard this Bill with the greatest of gloom. It is full of mistakes. I think, for example—and we shall come to this in detail later—that to hand over so international an activity as the operation of aerodromes to the Assembly is a nonsense. I am very glad that in another place an Amendment was put in to protect the position of the Shetlands if this Bill goes through. When I was chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority I used to visit those islands with great frequency. I had conversations with many people in responsible positions there, and I had a letter this morning from the vice-convenor of the Shetlands council. That letter, which I think has gone to many noble Lords, is in measured language. But it makes clear that the islands do not wish to be brought into a devolved Scottish authority, or to be under a devolved Scottish Assembly.
More colloquially, when I was discussing this matter not very long ago in the islands with senior people there, one or two—if your Lordships will forgive the language—said to me: "To be truthful, old boy, we are not very pleased to be run from London, but we are damned if we will be run from Edinburgh". That is,
1424
I believe, the feeling in the islands, and I hope that we shall protect the Amendment which the very able Member of Parliament, Mr. Grimond, who represents those islands, succeeded in putting into the Bill in another place.
This is a dismal day for Parliament and for this country. We are going into an enterprise for which no one can have much hope of success, in which there is a certainty of additional expenditure and yet another tier of Government, in an already over-governed system. We are setting up what, in its present shape—if it comes about at all—will certainly be a short-lived body, and there is an element of tragedy in the fact that, at a moment calling for great decisions to right the condition of this country, the Parliament of the United Kingdom should be frittering away its time on a triviality of this kind.
6.9 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, there can be no doubt that we are discussing an issue of tremendous constitutional importance. I understand that the attendance of this House yesterday was very much higher than the average. Some 355 Peers attended, and the fact that there are 62 speakers taking part in a Second Reading debate reflects the interest which this House takes in constitutional matters. I am sure that it is disappointing to the Front Bench of the Labour Party that their own ranks have been comparatively thin. I counted the Back-Bench Labour Members present, both at the start of yesterday's debate and at the start of today's. Of course, I am talking to the converted ones, because they have been loyal and present all the time. Perhaps, however, they could point out to their absent friends that only 34 Members were present yesterday and only 29 today. They were far outnumbered by the Cross-Benchers who occupied some of the empty spaces on the Labour Benches because they had no accommodation of their own. I was proud that the Liberals were here in such force and that more than 100 Tories were present, while there was such a very slim Labour attendance.
Throughout yesterday, and again today, we have heard all of the arguments—and how legion they are!—against the Bill. There are 7 main factors. First,

1425
devolution will create no more jobs in Scotland. If the Scottish National Party have their way, it will be a handicap to the industrialists who seek to set up business in Scotland. The only jobs which will be created will be jobs for the bureaucrats, and that will cost the taxpayers either here or in Scotland, money. Secondly, it will be a real threat to the unity of the United Kingdom. Thirdly, the Scottish Assembly will have the power, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and also the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, pointed out, to spend money, although at present no powers are included in the Bill to raise money. Fourthly, it will clearly create a strange anomaly, whereby Scottish Members of Parliament will vote on English, Welsh and Ulster measures but will not be allowed to vote on matters which concern the place from which they come. Fifth, it will create problems in the defence field, if the Scottish National Party have their way. Sixth, it will create anomalies and difficulties between subjects which are devolved and subjects which are not. That will cause a considerable problem.
My only reflection is that if the ping-pong ball is to be batted backwards and forwards between Edinburgh and Westminster, it will be even more serious than when it is batted between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, as happened recently over the shipbuilding and ship repairing Act. The noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, pointed out in a very able maiden speech—I hope that we shall hear many speeches from him—that it might be of some consolation to set up an Assembly, but almost certainly it would create not consolation but confrontation between Edinburgh and Westminster. Lastly, it will create just one more tier of government. Already we have the European Parliament elections for Scotland. We shall have the Westminster elections, and if the Bill goes through, we shall have the Scottish Assembly elections. There are also the regional and local elections. I should prefer more responsibility to be devolved to regional and local government rather than that there should be the creation of yet one more body.
I concede that the balance between the present regional organisations in Scotland is very odd. There are 3·6 million electors
1426
in Scotland; of those, 1·8 million live in the Strathclyde region. On the other hand, in the Border regions one finds one-twentieth of that electorate—just 75,000. It seems to be a most imbalanced organisation. I hope that in time it will be simplified and made more logical. When I looked at the figures I was glad to see that the Scots are slightly more conscientious about voting in their regional elections than are we, South of the Border. In General Elections they average an over 50 per cent. vote, while in local elections they average a vote which is just under 50 per cent. To have four tiers of government is bad enough. A fifth would be even worse. There will be more and more bureaucrats and less and less contact between the governors and the governed.
We are told that if the Assembly is set up it will have just 150 Members and only 750 civil servants. May I ask noble Lords to tell that to the horse marines? I do not believe that to be so for a single moment. A recent case was published in The Times of 20th February. It was pointed out in that article that on 1st January 1974 Edward Heath's Government hived off from the Department of Employment a staff of 40 which went to the Manpower Services Commission. In four years that staff of 40 has become a staff of 25,000. I predict that the staff of 750 for the Assembly will multiply by 10 in the first 10 years. As I have said, all of this will add to the cost of government in Scotland, and I very much hope that the Scots will bear at least some part of that cost. These 150 people are to vote their own salaries, but we are to pay their salaries. At least that sum and a proportion of the Civil Service cost should fall on Scotland by means of a local tax. Is it right to say that such a tax is impossible because we are Members of the European Economic Community? I am sure that some way around the problem could be found. Local taxes are imposed in Germany and other countries. Could there not be a local tax in Scotland in order to bear some of the cost of further devolution?
Despite all the disadvantages which have been underlined by speaker after speaker in the debate, the House of Lords has a duty to try hard, despite the very difficult and shaky foundations, to build some common sense into the Bill. The

1427
risks of building on this poor foundation are less than the dangers of rejecting the Bill and doing nothing at all. The Westminster Parliament needs to show understanding. We shall never propitiate the militant Scottish Nationalists. That will never come about. There must, however, be 90 per cent. of moderate, emotionally-minded supporters who will come to realise that if there is an Assembly that possesses certain powers as a result of the changes made to the Bill we shall be trying to devolve to Scotland some of the power hitherto held at Westminster.
If we do not do anything, I cannot help feeling that their frustration will lead to a solid SNP vote at the forthcoming General Election. We may well find a hung Parliament, where much of the power—if not the balance certainly the power to frustrate—will come from the Scottish National Party. We have only to remember how just a few people in the House of Commons frustrated an all-Party measure for the reform of this House. Just two or three people were able to stop it. To go back six or seven decades, the Irish Members were able to frustrate the will of Parliament and bring it to a standstill. Therefore a small number of dedicated people can, under our procedures, bring Parliament and the measures put before it to a standstill. I believe that we must try to separate the moderates—the sensible people who might otherwise vote for the Scottish National Party—from the more militant leaders.
As so many noble Lords have said, our task is to examine and revise, in particular the 60 clauses which have never been discussed. If we are to have a Scottish Assembly, I hope that it will be of the inquisitorial type, elected by Scots, where-ever they may live, which will take over the tasks of the Scottish Grand Committee and the Scottish Select Committee. I hope that it will have the power to initiate debates and that there will also be Question sessions. I hope that it will have the power to set up special committees to investigate and propose new policies and to consider legislation before it is put before the Westminster Parliament. With those powers, I believe that no Westminster Government could afford totally to ignore the views of such an elected body. I endorse the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel,
1428
and others, that it should be elected on PR, with a topping-up list along the lines used in West Germany.
Finally, I earnestly wish that this Bill had come about after an all-Party discussion of wise men in both Houses. I am sure that this could have been arranged. We did not have to rush ahead with this measure before obtaining all-Party agreement. Let us try in this House to work out on an all-Party basis means of making this a better measure. It will never be a perfect measure, but it can be amended again later. I hope we may be able to amend the referendum so that we make it clear to the Scots that we are asking a second question; namely, "Do you want to be separate from the United Kingdom?". At the moment it cannot be clear. We want a clear answer, yes or no, on that issue.
Having listened to the quality of speeches we have heard, so many good ones from all quarters of the House, I only wish broadcasting of excerpts from our speeches had started before Easter 1978 instead of after Easter 1978. We have little time to explain to the Scottish electorate what lies behind the plans of the Scottish National Party. I think we must make it clear in the time left to us, by every means that is left to us—broad-casting, television, writing, news reporting and the like—that the Scottish National Party will not be satisfied with anything less than the balkanising of Britain.
6.21 p.m.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON: My Lords, I hope and intend that anything I say tonight shall be politically non-controversial. Unfortunately, I know that it cannot be entirely non-controversial among the lawyers. I intend to refer only to the question of the judicial review of Bills and Acts of the Scottish Assembly. There are provisions, as your Lordships know, for judicial review at two stages, first pre-enactment, and secondly, post-enactment. I warmly welcome the provision for pre-enactment judicial review. Like my noble and learned friend, Lord Scarman, it seems to me to be a very deisrable feature of this Bill. It is a great improvement on the proposals in the original White Paper, which I think did not provide for judicial review at this stage.

1429
The review proposed at pre-enactment is to be by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and, like all my noble and learned friends who have referred to this matter, it seems to me that that is the appropriate body to perform a review at this stage. It is accustomed to giving advisory opinions under the Privy Council Act 1833. There are precedents for dealing with pre-enactment remits of this sort in the Government of Ireland Act 1920, and again I think in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. So it is in line with both principle and precedent that the remit, if there is to be one, should be to the Judicial Committee.
The remit will take place, as I understand it, after the Bill has passed the Scottish Assembly but before it is presented for the Royal Assent; that is to say, when the debates upon it in the Assembly are complete. I do not myself see any necessary inconsistency between judicial review at that stage and some other perhaps less formal kind of review at an earlier stage, such as I think was in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, yesterday; he thought this would avoid some disappointment and bitterness if a Bill once passed through the Assembly was rejected as being ultra vires at the end of the proceedings. I do not see why the two could not stand together, although it might involve reversal by the Judicial Committee at a later stage of a view which had been tentatively taken at an earlier stage.
I pass to the post-enactment review, and I personally very strongly welcome this also. Indeed, it seems to me to be an absolutely essential feature of a Bill of this sort. I think that, on this matter, I am at one with my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman, who spoke yesterday, and my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, who spoke today, and I know that it is the view taken in Scotland by one of the main legal bodies, the Faculty of Advocates. But I know also that it is not the view taken by the Law Society of Scotland, or, of course, by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, who spoke earlier today.
I think one must begin by recognising that Acts passed by the Scottish Assembly are, whatever one may say about them, undoubtedly devolved legislation or subordinate legislation, because they could all
1430
be repealed or set aside by Act of Parliament. There really can be no doubt that they are subordinate legislation, although, no doubt, of a specially dignified kind. That being so, it seems to me that judicial review would necessarily and inevitably be available to a citizen who thought he was being wronged by an ultra vires Act of the Assembly unless his rights were removed from him by an express provision in the present Bill. There is, of course, no express provision in the Bill; on the contrary, there are express provisions explaining how review is to take place. I think it is right to have in mind that it would have required an express provision to take away the right which a citizen would otherwise have to challenge the vires of an Assembly Act.
It seems to me right in principle that there should be judicial review at this stage because any devolved legislation must surely be subject to some control. Indeed, the same is true of any federal constitution. It requires some control to prevent one Parliament encroaching on the sphere of another. Various methods of control are possible, but, on an essentially legal matter such as the construction of Acts of Parliament and Acts of Assembly, the obvious method of control is, surely, a court of some sort. As between the Judicial Committee and the House of Lords opinions may vary, and there is perhaps not very much in that. But that there should be some sort of control seems to me to be necessary in principle.
Let me remind your Lordships what we should be doing if there were no judicial control at this stage. We should be setting up a subordinate Assembly with powers to pass Assembly Acts. Its powers will be limited on paper, but, unless there is some provision for judicial or other review, there is no means by which the citizen who feels his rights infringed by ultra vires Acts of the Assembly can do anything about it; he is powerless. The only remedy he can possibly have is to take the matter to court. If there is no judicial review he will be entirely reliant upon the pre-enactment scrutiny by the Secretary of State and his assistants. I wish to say nothing in any way offensive to Secretaries of State, but I cannot believe that many private individuals would wish their rights to be in the uncontrolled hands of the Secretary of State rather than

1431
have the right themselves to take the case to court and argue it for themselves. It does seem to me that, if you take away judicial review at this stage, that is what you are going to do.
The Law Society of Scotland, as I understand it, fears that, if review is possible after an Act of the Assembly has been passed, it will conduce to uncertainty, and I believe that that was in the mind also of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne today. I would say two things about that. One is that all devolved legislation or subordinate legislation, including local authority by-laws and statutory instruments, rules and orders, has always been subject to judicial review of some sort if it goes ultra vires, and that has not led to any disastrous consequences; indeed, some might think that some of the consequences were rather successful. At any rate, it has not been an obvious disaster.
The other point is this, my Lords. If you are going to say that there should be no judicial review because it produces uncertainty and people who have been cast into prison under the ultra vires Act before its ultra vires nature was proclaimed will be offended, what will you be saying? Surely it comes to this: it is better to let people go on being cast into prison under an ultra vires Act rather than annoy those who should have been cast into prison earlier on. That seems to me an extraordinary argument. So, from every possible point of view of principle and commonsense, I would think it essential that there should be some review after the Act is passed.
There is a separate point. It may be said that, while there should be post-enactment review for Acts of the Assembly which had not been considered by the Judicial Committee at the Bill stage, nevertheless, if there was judicial review of a Bill by the Judicial Committee before the Royal Assent was given, that at least ought to be final and conclusive and ought to prevent any later challenge in the courts.
I can, of course, see that there is a case there, but it seems to me for many reasons not to be a sound argument. One of those reasons was referred to earlier today by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. It is that the Bill might be amended after it had become an Act, and we must allow challenge of it if that was done.
1432
However, there is also the more general and, I think, perhaps profound objection that a review by the Judicial Committee of a Bill in the abstract, before its application has been seen in practice, is very different and, I should say, much less satisfactory than considering the validity of an Act when it comes to be applied to particular circumstances. We all know that a Bill or, indeed, an Act, when it is passed, may be intended to do one thing but turns out to do something remarkably different from what its authors intended. There are innumerable examples. I need only refer to the recent legislation about breathalysers to show the unexpected results that can follow from legislation.
I have also the authority of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Haldane, in 1914, who referred to a question of this very kind in relation to the constitution of Canada under which there was—and I think that there probably still is—power to refer a Canadian Bill from one of the Provinces to the Surpeme Court of Canada and then there was an appeal to the Judicial Committee for it to consider whether it was ultra vires. Lord Haldane said:
"Not only may the question of future litigants be prejudiced by the court laying down principles in an abstract form without reference or relation to actual facts, but it may turn out to be practically impossible to define principles adequately and safely without previous ascertainment of the exact facts to which they are to be applied."
That seems to me to be peculiarly applicable to the Bill which we are now considering, when we consider the very complicated provisions about when a Scottish Assembly Act is to be ultra vires if it applies outside Scotland. The general rule is, of course, that it is ultra vires if it applies outside Scotland; but there is an exception in the case where such external application is only incidental or consequential to the provisions. I am referring to Schedule 2. I shall not go into the details but it seems to me to be quite difficult to foresee in advance whether an Act will be ultra vires or not when we have provisions of that sort. There are certain other provisions which I shall not go into at present which seem to me also to raise considerable difficulty in foreseeing whether an Act will be within the legislative competence of the Assembly. Therefore, I think that it is necessary to leave it to be decided by the courts when a case actually arises.

1433
The last point that I should like to mention concerns what machinery should be used if there is to be post-enactment review. The question is really whether it should be the Judicial Committee or the House of Lords in its judicial capacity which has the final word as the ultimate court of appeal on this matter. Like my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, I think that that is a matter which is very much open for discussion. My own preference would be to leave it as it is in the Bill, with the Judicial Committee having, as a general rule, the last word. If an appeal on a devolution issue comes to the House of Lords, it should normally remit it to the Judicial Committee to decide, although it is not invariable that it must do so under the Bill.
I think that the Judicial Committee is the proper body to deal with such a matter in the first place because it marks off devolution appeals as something special, which I think they are and which I think they ought to be marked as being. Secondly—and this is perhaps technical but it is, I believe, of some importance to Scottish opinion—at present there is no right of appeal on a criminal matter from the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland to the House of Lords. That is in contrast to England where there is a limited right of appeal to the House of Lords on a criminal matter.
There is no right of appeal in Scotland. There never has been because there was no right of appeal from the High Court of Justiciary to the Scottish Parliament before the Union, and when someone tried to appeal to your Lordships' House just after the Union he was told that he had no right because of the history of the matter. There have been at least two attempts since—one in 1781 and the last time, I think in 1876—when people have tried to appeal on a criminal matter to this House and have been told that they had no right because of the pre-Union lack of a right to appeal to a Scottish Parliament.
For that reason there is some feeling among Scottish lawyers, and perhaps the Scottish public for all I know, that even the thin end of the wedge—allowing a right of appeal from the High Court of Justiciary to the House of Lords—would be undesirable and it would be better, if there is to be a right of appeal at all on devolution issues, that it should be from
1434
the High Court only to the Judicial Committee. It may be said that that is a sentimental argument. Perhaps it is a little sentimental, but then sentiment is not entirely to be excluded from these matters and I rank myself with those who prefer the Judicial Committee for this purpose.
Finally, there is the practical argument which might appeal to some people and not to others, that the members who could be called upon to make up the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are from a rather wider area than those who can be called upon to make up the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. In particular, judges in some dominions—Australia and New Zealand—and other people who hold or have held high judicial office, if they are Privy Councillors would also be eligible to sit on the Judicial Committee, although they might not be eligible to sit on the House of Lords Appellate Committee. That might be an advantage, rather than as has been suggested by one noble Lord, a disadvantage. I regard it as an advantage. It is not a matter upon which I think much passion can be engendered, but I would rank myself, on the whole, in favour of the present proposals in the Bill, and with that I leave the matter.
6.36 p.m.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, took me back some 10 years, because I seem to recall—although I know nothing about the law at all—that before a Northern Ireland Minister could introduce a Bill to the Northern Ireland Cabinet, his department had to get a certificate from the Attorney-General's office showing that that measure was not ultra vires, otherwise it could not even be considered by—to use a modern phrase—the Executive. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, is interested to hear that, but that was the situation in Northern Ireland and my memories were stirred when I heard his remarks.
I came to my conclusion about Scottish devolution over 30 years ago. I travelled from Northern Ireland to Scotland on a Parliamentary deputation—I went to St. Andrew's House as well—and I returned

1435
thinking what a pity it was that there was not a Parliament in Edinburgh, and I made a speech on this subject in my constituency.
That was over 30 years ago, but I do not propose to go back on something that I said at that time. In any case I am sure that noble Lords would agree that it would be rather an act of hypocrisy for a former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland to say that he was against devolution. As I understand it—I know that we must not go by these things too carefully—the opinion polls in Scotland, at present, are running at two to one in favour of devolution. I am also aware of the fact, from some of my Scottish friends, that some of what I would describe as the "professional classes", who perhaps a year ago were very keen on devolution, are not now quite so keen on it as they were; and I think that I know why, but I shall not go into that matter now.
Nevertheless, I think that we could assume that there probably is a majority in favour and that leads me to my second point. I think that my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel touched on this matter in his absolutely first-class speech, with every word of which I agreed, and it was also referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who spoke shortly after my noble friend. Why cannot we have the referendum first? Some noble Lords have said that they know for a fact that the majority of the people in Scotland do not want devolution. Other noble Lords, like myself, say that they believe that the majority of people in Scotland do want devolution. Obviously, I could not have made this suggestion five or six years ago because referenda were not respectable in those days. However, if we could alter the whole of the Constitution of the United Kingdom as a result of a referendum, why cannot we find out what the Scottish people really want? It is probably too late to say it now, but in my view that would have been the proper course to pursue.
I thought that one or two remarks made by my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel were most significant, in particular his remark that if the Bill is thrown out, the call for devolution will not go away. That comes from someone
1436
who chaired a committee on some kind devolution way back in 1968. I was delighted when he said that St. Andrew's House had been a success. I have been there two or three times, and from my small knowledge of these affairs I fully agree. I also agree—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made a point of this—that if we are to have an Assembly in Edinburgh, it should definitely be given some control over its finance. My noble friend Lord Home said that as well.
Finally, as someone who sat on the Blake Committee which went into the possibility of introducing proportional representation into this country, I regard it as a tragedy that the first elections for the Assembly should be held on a non-PR basis, because it could well be that under that system the Scottish Nationalists will do much better than they should. That, of course, also applies to the next United Kingdom General Elections as well. But opinion on proportional representation is very slowly beginning to change. I forecast that before the end of this century we shall, in fact, have proportional representation in the United Kingdom as a whole.
Sometimes people say to me, "We don't want devolution for Scotland. Look what happened in Northern Ireland." Mercifully, I believe that to be a false analogy. Mercifully, there are not the same underlying problems in Scotland as I know only too well exist—and how deeply they exist—in Northern Ireland. I hope that that is not a problem with which the Scottish Assembly will have to be involved anyway nearly as deeply as we were in Belfast.
Despite everything that has happened in Northern Ireland, I can sing the praises of the Ulster Administration. In my time, everyone who came to Northern Ireland was highly impressed by the Ministry of Agriculture. Incidentally, we had complete control over our forestry of all kinds, which is something that has been raised in this debate. Perhaps I could give just one small example. We eradicated brucellosis in Northern Ireland several years ago now, when it was thought to be quite impossible to do so in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Our Ministry of Commerce was absolutely first-class. Duponts introduced

1437
their first European investment into Northern Ireland and the great factory is there outside Derry today. By the time I left the scene we had brought 35 American factories to Northern Ireland, and every industrialist I ever met always praised our Ministry of Commerce. I cannot remember which noble Lord said that a Department of Commerce in Edinburgh would not be appreciated by industrialists. Certainly that was not at all our experience in Northern Ireland. It was very much appreciated. Once or twice before I have said in your Lordships' House that the tragedy of Ireland might have been avoided if London had been more far-seeing. Although the problem is not the same—and I have already stated that—I hope that noble Lords will bear this in mind when considering the problems that we have before us today.
Just like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I too received a letter in most moderate terms from the Shetlands Islands Council this morning. I expect that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has read it himself. Could I have an assurance that the position of the Shetlands and Orkneys will be safe-guarded?—that is, that the Government will not attempt to alter the Bill as amended by Mr. Grimond's Amendment in another place? If they are overridden, these Northern Isles could well turn into the Ulster of the Scottish devolutionary problem. All civil servants have tidy minds. They wanted to give devolution to the whole of Ireland, including the North, which did not want it at that time; therefore, they could not give devolution to the South of Ireland—that would have been an untidy thing to do. In the same way, on the map the Orkneys and Shetlands are part of Scotland and therefore must be treated as part of Scotland. But if they have a good case for wanting something different, I hope that the Government will appreciate that and not try to alter the Bill.
I should like to ask another question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, who will reply. Again it is based on my knowledge of Northern Ireland. If it wanted to, could the Assembly introduce proportional representation after the first election? When the Parliament was set up in Northern Ireland, it was with proportional representation. Seven years later it was
1438
changed by the local Parliament to the first-past-the-post system. Then, in 1972, Mr. Whitelaw put it back again to proportional representation. I simply wonder whether this proposed Assembly would, in fact, have powers to alter the electoral system if it so desired, because it rather looks as though we shall not get PR for the first election. But I would hope that if Scotland itself wishes to introduce PR, it would have sufficient power to do so.
Finally, I should like to mention a small point, but these things are extremely important in a small country. I was not very attracted by the suggested name of the head man in this Assembly—namely, the First Secretary. Could we not have what we had in Northern Ireland—it was, of course, a tragedy that it did not last—namely, Chief Executive or even Chief Secretary? I prefer Chief Executive. The Bill talks about the Executive. I think that Scottish people understand what chiefs are, and I should imagine that we have several Scottish chiefs sitting here in your Lordships' House tonight. Somehow, Chief Executive is more impressive. It is a very small matter and I raise it as a kind of finale.
Personally, I am utterly committed to Scottish devolution. Although your Lordships' House must, of course, amend the Bill which has been rushed through the other place, I hope that it will not be unnecessarily delayed even if it is imperfect, because I believe that this is something and its time has come.
6.49 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, we have had a lengthy and interesting debate, a debate which has been marked in particular by the distinguished maiden speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, and the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Kilmorack. I am sure that the House will be anxious to hear all three again in the very near future. Right at the outset of the debate my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie said that we on these Benches felt that the Bill was not perfect but that nevertheless we would support it on Second Reading as a step in the direction in which we want it to go. After all, there is a long Liberal history of support for Scottish home rule.

1439
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in his speech yesterday recalled that in 1914 his uncle had introduced a Private Member's Bill into the House of Commons to provide Scottish home rule, and that it had had the support of the Liberal Government of the day. I am glad to say that my great uncle, Harry Watt, who was the Liberal Member for the College Division of Glasgow at that time, was present on that day to support him, as a reference to Hansard will show. Twenty years later we find in the Liberal Official Policy Statement these words:
"Subordinate Parliaments should be established for Scotland and Wales, also for large areas in England, with powers similar to those enjoyed by the Parliament of Northern Ireland."
That has remained our position since.
That statement spoke about a large measure of devolution. We have moved on from the principle of devolution to the principle of federalism, to the federal concept; to a clear division of powers, each tier of Government sovereign in its own sphere. I was particularly interested to hear what was said about federalism during the course of this debate. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, seemed to say that he felt that we might well come to federalism in the long run. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, spoke of the introduction into the British constitutional pattern of a judicial review of legislation in certain defined circumstances; those circumstances being most carefully defined and specified by Parliament itself. He said that this was a useful jumping off, or starting, point for federalism.
The noble and learned Lord was careful not to express an opinion himself one way or another on federalism, but I did not detect, when he said those words, any great note of alarm at the prospect. With this long history of support for devolution and federalism, it is not surprising that we on these Benches cannot regard this Bill as the radical and disruptive instrument which it has been made out to be by so many of those who have spoken during this debate. We believe that this Bill has certain improvements in it over its predecessor, the Bill for Scotland and Wales jointly.
For example, there is the intention to explore a fixed formula for a block grant over a number of years, giving a degree
1440
of continuity and stability. There is the reduction in the powers of override as they were first set out in the original Bill. There is the agreement in principle to provide the Assembly with revenue raising powers, and there is the fact that there are two Bills instead of one, enabling us to deal with Scotland and Wales separately, which I think most noble Lords would agree is the more satisfactory way of approaching the matter.
However, in our view there are still faults in the Bill, because in spite of the fact that there is agreement in principle about revenue raising, nothing is to happen about it in practice. I share the view of many noble Lords who have spoken during the debate who have felt that an Assembly without some degree of revenue raising powers of its own is a limited Assembly and one which is not going to be given as full an opportunity for success as it ought to have. Then again we do not believe in fact that the economic powers which have been given to the Assembly are sufficient. The guidelines, for example, in relation to the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board remain with the Secretary of State.
Thirdly, there is the question of the electoral system. I have been greatly encouraged by what has been said about that yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and today by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and a few minutes ago by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine. I very much hope that during the course of the Committee stage an Amendment will be passed which will introduce a system of proportional representation for election to the Assembly.
The matter which seems to have occupied a great deal of your Lordships' attention, as it did the attention of the other place when the Second Reading debate took place there, is the question of Scottish Members voting on English matters and English Members not being able to do the same on Scottish matters. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, yesterday thought that the flames of English nationalism would be fanned by this. He may be right. He may of course be wrong. If he is wrong and if, for example, the people of England are content to be governed in the way in which they have

1441
been governed even though that anomaly exists, and if that anomaly does not mean so much to them as they think, then in that case we have no worries under the Bill. On the other hand, if he is right and this situation will inflame English nationalism, then I have no doubt that what this would lead to would be a demand for devolution for England; a demand for some form of federal arrangement. I would welcome that development.
Speaking for myself, the scheme which I would prefer would be the scheme under which the English regions would have rather less powers devolved than Scotland and Wales, and the remaining purely English matters would be decided by the English Members of the United Kingdom Parliament meeting separately. However, the point which I am making is that English nationalism would create pressure for a federal solution. I wish we had an overall solution put before us in this Bill. One which covered the whole of the United Kingdom. I agreed with the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, when he said that piecemeal tinkering is so dangerous. In my opinion, it is essential that all the varied constitutional issues with which we are faced at the present time, and with which we are coping in a piecemeal manner, should be brought together and related.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, in the course of his speech said that he saw nothing inconsistent between arrangements for voting in the European elections and the arrangements for a Scottish Assembly. I agree with him about that. There is nothing inconsistent between them in principle. But it is vitally important nevertheless to relate the two, and to relate the two to the workings of our Parliament here, because they relate to matters of reform of the composition of your Lordships' House as well as to other constitutional issues. Therefore, the important thing is to consider them together.
I return to the point which I made a moment or two ago. If there is an upsurge of English nationalism, as has been suggested, that is much more likely to lead to a demand for a federal system, or at least to a measure of devolution within England, than to a break-up of the United Kingdom.
Then there is the argument that the Bill will lead to a break-up of the United
1442
Kingdom because it will be the thin end of a wedge; the Scots will want more and more until eventually they demand independence. But I think it is absolutely clear that the Scottish people do not want separation at the present time. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, when he said that failure to do anything at all was much more likely to promote a break-up of the United Kingdom than the action which is proposed under this Bill. That is the important point.
There must be a readiness and willingness to learn from the experience of the operation of the Assembly, and to make such reforms for its smoother working and more satisfactory working as experience may prove to be necessary, and it may well be necessary to devolve more powers. But the road set out in the Bill offers a chance to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom which, if no action were taken, I do not believe we should have. On that point, I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who made a similar point when he was introducing the Bill to us yesterday.
Some noble Lords have referred to the powers of the Secretary of State and to the degree of administrative decentralisation to St. Andrew's House, and they have asked, "How much more can we devolve?" However, the point is that there has been no parallel devolution of democratic control, and that is what the Bill provides and I believe it is what the people of Scotland want. In so far as we are able to ascertain what that is from opinion polls, that would seem to be what the people of Scotland want. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said, they may be more interested in the World Cup than they are in devolution, but that is a common experience so far as political, constitutional and economic issues are concerned and does not apply only to this one. I believe we know what the people of Scotland really want. The Bill has limitations in our eyes but we believe it is an important step forward. If the Amendment is pressed to a Division—we hope it will not be——we will vote against it.
7.1 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, during the prolonged but none the less guillotined proceedings in another place my right

1443
honourable friend Mr. Francis Pym said one very wise thing which I believe to be true. He said that if there were no Party discipline in that place there was no majority for this Bill, but he added—and this rather underlines what we have been talking about—that neither was there a majority for any other position whatever, including the status quo. I believe that to have been true in this House and I believe it to be true in the country at large in so far as people are interested in the problem at all. When I hear my noble friends and noble Lords opposite talking about dynamite, I believe that is the explosive element in the situation; that after the Royal Commission, the Home Committee, three White Papers and two inconclusive Bills (one of which aborted), public opinion has not for some reason jelled about this all-important issue.
I venture to think—and I shall not elaborate the point at this hour—that the reason is that what we are discussing is basically a symptom of a much larger problem. That problem was well exposed in the most distinguished maiden speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, and it is that the Constitution—by which I do not simply mean the Constitution as regards Scotland, but the Constitution which has served us so well and for so long—is in real danger of breaking down, and the factors which are leading it to break down are much more widespread than the factors which have led the Government to introduce the Scotland Bill before Parliament. However, I said I would not elaborate that point, and r will not.
We are of course technically speaking to the Amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and I congratulate him on tabling it. He has persuaded me at least that there are defects in the present proposals which cannot be removed by means of amendment in Committee because I think there are inherent deficiencies in the thinking behind the Bill. This has been emphasised by so many speakers that, although I shall elaborate it a little later, I do not need to do so now because I am going on to say to Lord Wilson, with my noble friend Lord Ferrier, who I congratulate on an admirable speech, that I hope he will not press the Amendment to a Division.
1444
I shall explain to the House why, despite my dissatisfaction with the Bill, which I do not think can be turned into a silk purse, I believe that we should give it a Second Reading and that it should go forward in an amended form. My first reason is this: I do not blame the Government for this at all, but I think the country and Parliament have got themselves into a position in which a referendum has become the only way of resolving this problem, and a referendum can take place only under this Bill. I may share the view of my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel that it would have been better first to have had a referendum about whether the Scottish people wanted separation—a view that was echoed by my noble friend Lord O'Neill of the Maine. But that is not practical politics now. I think we have to go forward to a referendum, and we can do that only by passing the Bill.
I know that my noble friend Lord Ellenborough said yesterday that it is a very difficult problem to ask the inhabitants of Scotland to decide, and anybody who has listened to this debate will be disposed to agree with him. But who are we to decide it more authoritatively after three White Papers, two Bills, one of which was aborted and the other guillotined, one Royal Commission and a Conservative Committee? The fact is that opinion has not jelled and I do not believe there is any rational course before us other than to see that the referendum is carried out, and the requisite majority obtained if it is to pass. I would say in passing to the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, that I do not regard this as undemocratic because I think that to make allowances for the opinion of an inarticulate majority of 61 per cent. is not necessarily an undemocratic procedure when fundamental constitutional proceedings are at stake, and in one form or another it is common to most democratic countries other than ourselves and one or two others.
Having said that, there is a second reason why we should give the Bill a Second Reading: it is that I very much want a Committee stage for this Bill, and we shall not have a Committee stage without a Second Reading. Take, for instance, the question of judicial review, a matter of great constitutional importance. It has led to differences among my

1445
noble and learned friends on the Cross-Benches, and here I congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman on his maiden speech. There are very important constitutional issues involved here and the House would greatly benefit from a debate on the subject. Then there is the question of proportional representation, which interests the Liberal Party a little more than it interests me, but why should they be deprived of their day in court on this subject? And certainly a number of my noble friends have taken a view identical to theirs.
Thirdly, there is the rather important constitutional question raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter about Clause 72 of the Bill. I agree with him that it is unconstitutional; it is entirely separate from the main issues of the Bill. The House of Lords has done nothing whatever to deserve this implied insult. There is no prospect of it doing so and were the clause to be passed unaltered it would pass as a precedent for future action. If the Labour Party wants to deal with the principle of the House of Lords, do not let them deal with it in the Scotland Bill. For all these reasons, it is important to have a Committee stage.
However, there is another reason, if I have not already over-egged my omelette. More than one noble Lord has referred to the explosive character of the Bill, for one reason or another. It will, according to some, be explosive if it is passed and, according to others, explosive if it is not passed. Either way, let us not add another spark to the dynamite, to use my noble friend's phrase, by adding a constitutional issue between Lords and country, or between Lords and Commons. It is bad enough already as it is.
For all those reasons I conclude that, despite the fact that I think he was very well advised to raise the fundamental question, which could not be raised on Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, would not damage his reputation at all if he saw fit to seek leave from your Lordships to withdraw the Amendment.
I come on to my own position about the Bill. It is very difficult to express one's fundamental feelings about this without showing some sign of emotion. My Lords, I am British, and I am nothing
1446
else. Many noble Lords in this House are British and Welsh, British and Ulster, British and Scottish; but I am British and nothing else. I have one English great-grandmother, but I think that is the only English blood I possess. All the rest came from Scotland, but mostly via Ulster and via America. What am I but British? The purpose of the Scottish Nationalists is to deprive me of my nationality. If I were alone I suppose people would think that that does not matter very much; indeed, some might even be inclined to applaud. But I resent it because I am British and believe that it is a good thing to be. I also think that those who are Welsh and British, like the noble and learned Lord, or Scottish and British, like my noble friend the noble Duke, or Irish and British, like my noble friend Lord O'Neill of the Maine, are not less British for being Irish, or not less Irish for being British. I think that it is being British plus, and Irish plus, and Scottish plus, and Welsh plus; and I do not want to see this broken up.
When I go back a little into history I think in the terms of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. This Union has been one of the most resounding successes in human history, and I am proud of it. Neither England nor Scotland, nor even Wales, before Union really amounted to very much in its impact upon the human race. But since then we have carried our values, our religion, the English language, our laws, our political system, across the world. We have saved Europe from tyranny not less than three or four times. We are going down in history, as a result of the Union of the Parliaments, as one of the great nations of mankind. Nothing can take that away. Has the need for it disappeared? Is the world so safe that we can afford to abandon our tradition? I should think not. I should think, without going into questions of international politics, that the prospects are stormy. I hope that they are not desperate, but they are stormy on a half dozen different rounds, and even if we take the most optimistic view of the future of peace, and even within the hard bargaining which had become the domestic life of the European Community, the people of this country would be worse off if they could be played off one against another as three or four separate entities. We would be worse off.

1447
I believe that separatism is treason to the United Kingdom, treason to Scotland, treason to England, treason to Wales, and treason to Ulster, too. I am, therefore, an unreconstructed unionist upon this object, and without in any way trying to beg the question raised in the debate, as to whether the Bill will further the continuance of the Union, or endanger it—I realise that that is a matter to be discussed—my first priority is to retain it, and to retain it by the best means possible.
I come now to the criticism I have of the Bill. I believe that there are only a few identifiable options before this country, and I believe that the Bill fudges them all and chooses none of them. I do not criticise either the Government or my fellow countrymen, particularly not my English fellow countrymen, for fudging things. They call it a typically British compromise. After all, they fudged the Reformation by remaining Catholic and pretending to be Protestant. They fudged the whole problem of republicanism by becoming a republic and retaining a king, in contrast to our American cousins who pretended to be a republic and have an elective monarch. So I do not blame them for fudging it, but I beg them to believe that there are points at which clarity of thought about constitutional questions has, at least, a certain merit.
One option is undoubtedly the status quo, and by the status quo I mean a unitary State with whatever decorations, modifications, or improvements one chooses to make. There is much to be said for the status quo. It has served us extremely well. But if the status quo is to remain, we must at least be prepared to answer this question: Will Scottish nationalism go away if we go on saying, "No" indefinitely? Anybody's guess is as good as mine, but my guess is that it will not. If it does not, my guess is that sooner or later we shall be faced with the problem of coercion or no coercion. There is nothing morally wrong about coercion. Abraham Lincoln—to whom one of my noble friends referred in the course of his speech—tried it against my ancestors and won. So there is nothing morally wrong about it. But if it is something which is not going away, and we can avoid that kind of situation, surely we would be wise to do so.
Secondly, another option is separatism. I have already rejected that by what I
1448
have said. Constitutionally it offers no problems; politically, economically and practically I believe it offers a number of insoluble problems. But at any rate that is an option which can be discussed, and I suppose that if we went in for it we would go in for something like the Benelux system. I do not like to think what would happen to the Western Alliance or to Western Christendom if we did. But at any rate, there it is.
Thirdly, federalism is an option, but federalism involves, I believe, judicial review not only of the devolved Parliaments but of the Westminster Parliament, too. That is what it involves in order for it to be federalism in every country where it has been adopted—and it has been adopted and worked relatively well from countries as separate, and as different in kind, as Switzerland, Australia, Canada and the United States of America. There is nothing wrong about federalism, but it would involve radical reappraisal of our constitutional arrangements, because not only would it involve, in my judgment, judicial review of this Parliament, which personally I should welcome, but also it would involve, I believe, regionalism in England; because I happen to share the view of the Kilbrandon Commission that England as a single unit of a federation would make the whole proceeding too top-heavy to survive. Very well, that is an option. But it is an option which is not proposed in the Bill.
What is proposed in the Bill is none of these things. Whether one is talking about the so-called West Lothian anomaly, or about the number of English Members of Parliament as compared with the number of Scottish Members of Parliament, or about any of the other anomalies against the Bill, which have been enumerated in the course of the debate—and there are very many—ultimately what one is saying is this: although one can have a unitary State, and that will work, or a federation, and that also works in other parts of the world, what one cannot do, and what has never been done, is to graft on to a unitary State some of the characteristics of a federation as to some of its parts.
If I may quote again from one of my right honourable friends in another place, at a very early stage of this debate my right honourable friend Mr. Edward Heath said what I also thought was true

1449
and a very wise thing. He said that if we are to stay together in the United Kingdom as a single nationality or State, although it may not be necessary that we should have identical terms of membership, they must at least be comparable. What this Bill does is to make the terms of membership not comparable as between the inhabitants of Scotland; the inhabitants of England; the inhabitants of Wales, which will have a dispensation of its own; and the inhabitants of Ulster, whose dispensation is in doubt but who certainly will not have the same dispensation, and do not have it now, as the rest of them.
What we have really got to make up our minds about is whether you can graft the characteristics, or some of them, of a federal State on to a unitary State; and, for the various reasons we have given, I do not believe you can. That, to my mind, is what renders this Bill in fact unacceptable. It is also, I believe, the thing which makes the Liberal Party and some others in error when they say to the House, as they do with great sincerity, "We believe that this is a step in the right direction". I do not believe that something which is going to break down completely is going to be a step in the right direction; and if it is inherently wrong, it is not something which is capable of amendment in Committee.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give way?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Certainly.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, it is curious that in this unitary State we have had an extraordinary situation such as we are proposing which, technically, has worked quite well in Northern Ireland; and in Scotland we have had a separate system of law and a separate system of education. If this compromise has worked in the past, that is why I say that this might be a step forward.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, there is nothing whatever in a system of law or a system of education—or, for that matter, a system of agriculture—which prevents it
1450
working very well in different Provinces of a unitary State or of a federation. It has worked extremely well in the federation of Canada, where they have pre-revolution French law.
When the noble Lord quite fairly interrupted me, I was about to raise the very question which he has in fact raised, because my noble friend Lord O'Neill of the Maine pointed out the case of Ulster. He is well entitled to say that under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 the situation of Ulster did not greatly differ from the situation which is now proposed for Scotland under the Scotland Bill. The noble Lord above the gangway is perfectly fair in asking me, "What do you say about Ulster?" because I have been saying for a very long time, being an unreconstructed unionist of the old type, that Ulster worked very well apart from its communal problems. I well remember going there before the communal problems really got out of hand and looking at the excellent agriculture they were producing under the régime of Stormont; but I think the position of Ulster is precisely the exception to what I am saying which really proves the rule. In Ulster you had a permanent majority of Unionists, two to one, and a permanent minority of nationalists, one to two, with a Border on the other side of the fence. What was constant during the 50 years of Stormont rule was that the Unionists, at almost any cost, would make what would otherwise be unworkable workable because they would continue to co-operate with whatever Government there was at Westminster.
Now contrast what is proposed to be done here. What is going to happen in Scotland is that, sooner or later, you are going to get a Government in the Assembly or an Executive in the Assembly, which is of a different political colour from the Government in Westminster. What is more, you are going to get a political Executive in the Assembly which does not want the devolution system to work. In that situation you have got all the makings of breakdown, because, in fact, as I think more than one of my noble friends has already said, what you will get is demands for things which Westminster cannot give. It may be legislation which is vetoed; it may be expenditure which is asked for and which is not raised. I am not now talking about the question of whether local taxes can be raised.

1451
Although this is of quite legitimate importance, I must point out that when I am paying 98p in the pound on my investment income, the scope for an increase in taxation is relatively limited. Until we can get down to a system where there are less taxes to be paid all round, the problem of raising revenue is hardly likely to be more than an academic one.
My Lords, what I am saying is that the Scottish Assembly will make demands for expenditure which will not be met. It will then be said, "England is stopping us from getting what we are entitled to"; every kind of agitation and hostility will be shown, and each time the moral will be drawn, the system cannot work.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Thus, the dynamite.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: It is a rather long-term fuse, I think, because I do not think these results will appear overnight; I think they will appear over a period of years.
But having said that, I want to end with two rather less gloomy points. I myself believe that there is a way out, and it is a way which was summed up in what my noble friend the Duke was saying. I believe the problem of the House of Lords, I believe the problem of the English regions, I believe the problem of Wales, of Ulster and of human rights, are all inter-related, and I do not believe they can be seen except in relation to one another, which is the breakdown, for a variety of reasons for which we need not necessarily be ashamed, of our old Constitution. I want to see constitutional reform on the agenda of every Party, and I want to see the Parties try to talk to one another, whether formally or informally, about the need for constitutional reform. Personally, I think this Bill has got to go forward with the criticisms I have made inherent in it. I think it has got to go to a referendum. I hope the Scots will turn it down. I think they will be wise to do so, but I think that this House would be somewhat imprudent if it were to try.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask him to clarify one point? He has made a very persuasive and welcome
1452
speech for giving this Bill a Second Reading and taking it to Committee stage. May I ask him whether he is advising his noble friends that, in the unfortunate event of a Division, they should in fact support the Second Reading of the Bill?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I will see, if I can, that the Bill will succeed in getting through this evening's business, but I think I had better play this thing a bit by ear, if I may be allowed to do so. I think we shall succeed if we do not crack the Party Whip quite so loudly as the noble Lord is seeking to persuade me to do.
7.28 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I have been waiting a long time to make this speech, and I am not referring to the 26 or 27 minutes that I have spent listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, whose eloquence, learning, humour and powerful advocacy always make his speeches seem far too short. I do not refer, either, to the time spent over the last two days listening to over 60 speeches, for most, if not all, have enriched this debate and will, I believe, improve the public's understanding of the possibilities of devolution within the United Kingdom.
I refer in fact to the years during which we have worked, in our different ways, to find some way to meet the aspirations of so many people in Scotland for a greater and closer participation in the control of their own domestic affairs. I do not refer to the romantic and dangerous illusion of independence and separation—a separation from a voluntary Union from which all have benefited; I refer to the practical, hardheaded wish to come closer to those who take the decisions which shape their everyday lives. That wish, that aspiration, can be attained by establishing the system of devolution contained within this Bill.
I cannot hope to refer to every point raised by every speaker. May I first say that we listened to three maiden speeches by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, and the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Kilmorack; and each

1453
with elegance and lucidity, presented his arguments. We look forward to their guidance in Committee.
I should like also to acknowledge the constructive attitudes and positive support particularly of the noble Lords who spoke from the Liberal Benches. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. They reaffirmed their longstanding position with what one might call "value added". Of course, they have criticisms to make and a desire for some improvement; but, essentially, their speeches recognise, I submit, that we are living in a real world and their attitude is not, "Half a loaf is better than no bread." They welcome the Bill as a considerable step towards the cherished goal of devolution within a United Kingdom. I want to thank them for their positive support.
I want to acknowledge, too, the wholly positive approach of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, evidenced by his statement yesterday:
"I do not think we ought to conclude that decentralisation and devolution are beyond the art of politics."
That is an echo from something which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said on a previous occasion when referring to what is known as the West. Lothian question; and I shall quote him later.
We are in Parliament to face up to problems, social, industrial, economic and constitutional. We cannot wash our hands of them and say they are insoluble. We have to call upon the genius we have developed in these matters and try to develop and fashion enduring, workable and politically possible solutions.
I want to acknowledge and welcome, too, the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I quote from his speech of yesterday. He said:
"I believe that one can exaggerate the dangers very greatly indeed. I do not want to pass over the difficulties."
Again, he said:
"With a Bill such as this, I think it is time to say that it will work, it can work, if there is the will and determination to make it work and if there is goodwill."
That is the approach that I commend to this House and I also commend the telling contribution of my noble friend Lord Glenamara which was positive, real and
1454
deeply felt. May I also welcome the contributions from those noble Lords with special experience as former holders of office as Scottish Ministers, special experience in dealing with Scottish affairs. Their approach was positive and encouraging. My noble friend Lord Hughes was one, Lord Glenkinglas another, and the noble Lords, Lord Home and Lord Drumalbyn, whom I have already mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, added his voice to this effect, anyway, that he acknowledged the defects of the present system.
I had hoped to welcome a similar contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, because on 27th January 1976, in a debate on the White Paper, he made a very telling contribution and I think he made some reference to it yesterday. He said:
"I believe something of the kind outlined in the White Paper is politically inevitable. The Assembly, its broad functions and the general organisation as set out are, I believe, as good a start as any we shall get. Let the Assembly get started without further waste of time. Let us get rid of the shackles to its operation. Do not let us go on discussing it ad infinitum for it will be too late."
The noble Lord was then speaking when he was fairly close to holding office in Scotland. Alas! in the last 26 months he has changed his mind; and I admire his courage to do so.
Lord POLWARTH: My Lords, I explained when I spoke that I have undergone a conversion. Perhaps distance lent greater enchantment to the view. The further I go away from Government, I am convinced from my experience in the last two years in the world outside that my previous view was wrong. I explained that my conversion perhaps had been more gradual than that of the noble and learned Lord's Party when they decided to go for an Assembly.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I think the House understands the noble Lord's position.
May I, before I come on to the main part of my speech, say that to me, as a very junior Member of this House, it is a daunting task to reply to this marvellous debate. I have envied, as I sat here, the well-turned speeches, prepared lovingly in some cases in libraries and studies, but unfortunately I have not had the same

1455
opportunity for studious perfection because my speech, to be relevant, must be something of an instant reply to the immediate debate. I hope that the House will forgive me if it lacks the coherence and polish of many of the speeches we have heard; but it certainly will not lack conviction.
On a different note, may I say that I regret the almost total absence, from the speeches of those who are opposed to this Bill and who are critical of devolution, of any recognition of the fact that what this Bill does, perhaps above all, is to allow people in Scotland to elect in the ordinary way Assembly Members who will exercise a close democratic scrutiny over the actions of an Executive formed from within their own number. This is an extension of democracy and democratic control to a part of the United Kingdom which already has decentralised systems and distinct traditions in law, education, health, housing and local government.
There were many points of detail raised in the course of the debate. The noble and learned Lords who spoke—and several did so—raised questions about judicial review and vires. Several noble Lords have spoken about forestry, industrial guidelines, local government, tourism, nomenclature and a number of matters of that kind. I am indebted to these noble Lords for the notice they have given of the points that they hoped to make and I think they will understand that I will hope to deal with them, along with my noble friend Lord Kirkhill, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in the course of the Committee stage. I can and should perhaps deal with one or two points at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, asked whether the Assembly would be able to introduce proportional representation after the first election. The answer is, No. The electoral system is not devolved. He also asked for an assurance that the Bill would not be amended to remove the Grimond Amendment regarding the Shetlands. The position of the Shetlands under the Bill as it stands will be highly anomalous should the rest of Scotland vote for devolution and be granted it and should Shetland not vote for it and then not come within the scheme of devolution. That is
1456
recognised by the Shetlanders and the people of Orkney themselves. At the present time, discussions are going on between the Secretary of State and the local bodies. Correspondence is taking place and there will be meetings. It is hoped that from these discussions some agreement will be reached. If necessary, some Amendment will require to be made to the Bill.
I was asked certain questions in relation to Schedule 10 by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. In particular, he asked about finance and also about the form of Schedule 10. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not deal with the form of Schedule 10 tonight. It will take a very long time to do so and I hope that we can examine it together in Committee. In relation to finance, I commend the White Paper on financing the devolved services (Command 6890). I think the noble Lords on the Liberal Benches and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, made a considerable contribution to the production of the principles in that paper and led us towards the view to which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred. In principle, we would be content to see revenue-raising powers devolved to the Assembly, provided agreement can be reached on a scheme. I commend that White Paper to those who have not already studied it.
Let me remind the House of the general arguments for devolution. Most people in Scotland do not want separatism and do not want independence. These are seen to be, and surely are, irrelevant to Scotland's needs and damaging to the interests of all of us who are proud to be British. For reasons which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has just mentioned, federation is not seen to be an option. For that matter, the English do not want it and that in itself would be enough to stop it at the present time.
I believe that the Scots want some change, and, if I may adopt the technique exploited yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, in relation to the speech made by a certain Lord Dunglass, I shall quote a small passage. Some noble Lords will no doubt recognise where it comes from:
"The feeling that Parliament and Government are out of touch with the people has probably been most acute in Scotland. This is partly the result of economic difficulties but it goes deeper.

1457
Scotland, like Wales, is a nation with a proud history of cultural, social, economic and military achievement. It wants a greater say in its own specifically Scottish affairs; it wants some of the powers at present exercised in London to be devolved to Edinburgh and greater political control of the administrative powers already devolved."
That quotation comes from the Right Approach published by the Conservative Party in October 1976. If it is not their last word, it is their last printed word on the matter. So we seem to be agreed about that.
Scotland was always special since the Union of England and Scotland in 1707. There has been reference to the Act of Union. There was a Treaty of Union and there were two Acts of Union, an Act of the Scottish Parliament and an Act of the English Parliament. Others have described in better terms than I can aspire to the history of the growing decentralisation of government in Scotland, the re-creation of the office of Secretary of State in 1885, the growth of that office, the Secretary of State's entry into the Cabinet and the movement of the Scottish Office to Edinburgh.
The whole history has been spoken to by various noble Lords. It is the history of a discrete, historical nation with its own religious, legal and cultural traditions. Everyone recognises—none more so than the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and others who, like him, have served with distinction in the Scottish Office—that one cannot go on decentralising. There is some limit. The Secretary of State is already heavily overburdened and so are his Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, would agree with that. He would also agree that Parliament cannot give the time at Westminster to allow sufficient Parliamentary and democratic scrutiny of the numerous functions which the Secretary of State and his Ministers have to perform. There is a need, if we can possibly meet it, to improve democratic accountability.
There is another need: we must find some way—and perhaps this is only the first step—to reduce the burden upon Westminster itself. That burden increases daily and is certainly not diminished by the entry of this country into the European Economic Community. This House, which performs so well the work of scrutinising the legislation, the Directives and
1458
regulations, produced in floods from Brussels, will recognise how important it is that they should be equally well scrutinised in another place. If that is to be done, we must find some way of parcelling out the domestic matters to other parts of the United Kingdom.
We recognise that there are difficulties. We have never pretended that we have produced a perfect scheme which commands an instant consensus. There is only one country I know where you can get everyone to agree with everything the Government does. That is Albania. I do not propose that we should adopt methods that have led to that kind of unanimity. There are possibilities of friction. We concede that at once. The running of Parliament itself requires goodwill. It requires moderation, restraint and good sense. May I mention the House of Lords as a clear and good example of that? It may be said in pure constitutional theory that the House of Lords is a wholly anomalous body in a democracy. There is an effective permanent working majority inside it for one political Party; yet, most of the time, it works well. It works well because it refrains from using its political power, and most of the time it exhibits moderation and good sense. The conflicts arise when it does not. Our system has evolved wholly acceptable ways of encouraging the right restraints and resolving the conflicts.
Clause 72 has been mentioned. That was first mentioned specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It contains a new—to the noble Lord and others, a surprisingly new—way of resolving conflicts between the other place and this House. It deserves, must receive and, I am sure, will receive, most careful scrutiny—and perhaps even worse than that—at your Lordships' hands. But it is an evolution of the kind of developments which have taken place in the past.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord, having come to that point, tell the House whether the interpretation that I put on it—that it effectively removes control of this House over the statutory instruments made under the an accurate one, or whether he disagrees with it?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, the noble Lord's statement of the position is

1459
entirely correct. That is to be found most clearly under Clause 72. Clause 72 is applied by Clause 79(4) and other clauses to orders made under the appropriate provisions.
I was speaking on the general matter of the need in any Parliamentary system for goodwill, moderation, restraint and good sense. We should be wrong, in my submission, to assume that the Scots will elect an Assembly without the necessary political maturity, moderation and skill. May I pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, when he reopened the debate this afternoon. He spoke of us rushing hastily and dashing in headlong. I am astonished to hear such an accusation from the noble Lord. It was answered very fully by my noble friend Lord Glenamara last night—and your Lordships will see it at column 1251 of Hansard.
I mention it only in passing, but think of what we have had. We had the Kilbrandon Commission sitting for years, reporting in December 1973. We had these matters explored in the Manifestoes and campaigns, as we were reminded yesterday, in 1974. We had the White Paper in 1975 which was published everywhere. In Scotland there was what was known as a popular version. I do not know how popular it was. But the popular version was made available in every Post Office in Scotland. It was available to all the public. Then we had the Scotland and Wales Bill, and now we have the present Bill. It is nearly four years since the Party Manifestoes—not just those of the Labour Party but of the other Parties as well—carried the promise of devolved Assemblies for Scotland. That is not, in my submission, rushing headlong.
A considerable number of speakers have mentioned the guillotine. The simple fact is: no guillotine, no Bill. I do not know whether I understood correctly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, when he said that Mr. Francis Pym had said one wise thing. I am sure he said many more than one. One of the other wise things that he said was this—and he said it as recently as January this year in a Press release issued on 23rd January by the Conservative Office:
1460
"But the Government is right in one matter: under the present procedure no constitutional Bill could get through Parliament without a guillotine."
He ought to know, because he was the Chief Whip in the Conservative Government which introduced the European Communities Bill.
May I remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, who asked for a precedent in this matter, that that Bill was guillotined after 10 days of Committee stage in the other place. During those 10 days, one clause—Clause 1—and the first subsection of Clause 2 had been discussed. Two of the 10 days were taken up by points of order, and the guillotine procedure allotted a further 12 days to the Committee. I can go on because it was not just a question of the guillotine. The Government did not accept or propose one single Amendment of that Bill either in the other place or in this House. So when Mr. Francis Pym talks about the need for a guillotine, he knows what he is talking about. When I hear noble Lords in this House one after another—the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, was the last to do it—talking about the extra tier of government, I wonder how many of them advanced that argument against the European Communities Bill in 1972.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in his speech this afternoon, and Mr. Francis Pym about a year ago, called for all-Party discussions, for some kind of conference. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that it is still not too late for the Government to seek the advice of men of goodwill of all Parties or of none in the determination to try and find an acceptable solution. The Party for which he speaks is the only policital Party represented in this Parliament which did not offer evidence to the Kilbrandon Commission. In 1974, when the Government published their consultative document which formed the basis of these proposals, they received no comments from the Conservative Party. In 1975—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, perhaps I could qualify that. I personally gave evidence to the Kilbrandon Commission when it was the Crowther Commission.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I could clearly say that when the noble and learned Lord speaks he does not always speak for the Conservative Party.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, that is perfectly true. We all speak for ourselves in this House and elsewhere, but to give the impression that Conservatives were silent is perhaps a little less than the truth.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, with respect, the Conservative Party, first through their chief spokesman in another place, Mr. Francis Pym, in February 1977, and through their two official spokesmen in this House, Lord Ferrers and Lord Campbell of Croy, opening the respective days on behalf of the Party, called in the course of this debate for conferences between the Parties. The Conservative Party has resolutely declined to join in any discussion, and indeed in February 1977, when the Government offered consultation, the Liberal Party took up the offer and joined in and assisted us with consultations, as also did the other Parties; but the Conservative Party declined to do so. When we asked the Conservative Party to comment on devolution in its English dimension the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, authorised a letter to be sent to the Government saying that it was not the practice of the Conservative Party to engage in this type of discussion. The noble Lord ought to know that. When these calls have been made noble Lords ought to know what is the history of these matters.
I was asked by a number of noble Lords—and I will mention again the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk—what the Government's response would be to Amendments and suggestions which are proposed in this House. We have already responded to suggestions; a number of the changes which have been made have been listed by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and I need not go through them all. In response to criticism, and in response to the situation as well, we introduced separate Bills for Scotland and Wales; we introduced machinery for judicial review of vires; we gave greater Parliamentary control over the override provisions. In response to criticism from, among others, the noble and learned Lord,
1462
Lord Hailsham, we gave a much clearer definition of the devolved powers; we gave to the devolved Assembly responsibility for the implementation of international obligations; we introduced the possibility of premature dissolution and we accepted in the other place an official Opposition Amendment to alter the form of the ballot paper in the referendum. These are merely examples.
In response to the general question: What would be our attitude here? I can only say that we must wait to see what Amendments are put forward, what support they seem to command and how reasonable they commend themselves to us as being. Our attitude will be positive, but I hope to say—and I hope that my colleagues who participate in the Committee stage will be able to say the same—that when a proposal is put forward, if we are able to say "Yes", we will say "Yes"; and if we are able to say "No", we shall say "No" clearly at the earliest possible stage, so that your Lordships know where we stand.
I had thought of dealing with the West Lothian question but at this time of night that would take much too long. I would say only this about it: I regret that it is called the West Lothian question. It is a question which is much older than the honourable Member's conversion to anti-devolutionism. In fact it was a question posed in very explicit terms in Paragraph 56(e) of the June 1974 White Paper published by the Government. Noble Lords may recall that it was raised in this House and indeed was approached by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, with his customary experience and expertise. This is the passage that I mentioned earlier. In relation to that question, he said:
"It may be intolerable that a temporary majority composed of Scottish and Northern Irish Members should say what the educational framework should be in England but it is no good looking at these things piecemeal and saying they are insoluble."
I say the same. As Members of Parliament, it is our duty to look at real problems and to devise real solutions.
In the course of the last two days, many Peers in this House have spoken with passion and with conviction about the history and the benefits of the Union to us all and to our ancestors and about the

1463
need to preserve the integrity of the United Kingdom. I do not quarrel with one word of that. I and my colleagues are as passionate and convinced as those noble Lords are about the benefits of the Union and the overriding need to preserve our national integrity. As many noble Lords have said, however, the question is whether the Bill helps to preserve or to undermine the Union.
The underlying question is this: if we do nothing, shall we protect or weaken the Union? The forces threatening the Union do not owe their existence to this Bill. This Bill is an attempt to meet, accommodate and vanquish those forces. Criticise it if you will, but please recognise it for what it is. Many noble Lords have said, "I am in favour of devolution in principle." That is one thing you cannot have—there is no such animal as devolution in principle; it is just a gleam in someone's eye. You can only have devolution in practice. You have to choose a form of devolution, with all its complexities, its possibilities, its difficulties and its opportunities. It has got to be devolution in practice or no devolution at all.
Other noble Lords have mentioned the fear dimension. They have spoken frequently, particularly yesterday, about the pronouncements by leading members of the Scottish National Party, about the Bill, about the Assembly and where it will all lead. I am astonished at the credence which some noble Lords have given to such pronouncements by leading figures in the SNP. Why are these noble Lords so ready to accept the judgment of the SNP leaders on this matter? We do not accept their judgment on any other matters, and surely we must make our own judgment. The Government have made their own judgment subject to such assistance as Parliament can give. This House, with real regard to its constitutional position in relation to the elected House, must, of course, make its judgment.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, surely we must attach credence to the words of these people. This Bill is one of the battles they have won, and there is no suggestion that this is the last battle they will win. We certainly have to give credence in the light of their successful past.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, on that I have said all that I wish to say. On the referendum I want to acknowledge particularly—perhaps "welcome" is the wrong word—the real agreement that we obtained from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that the referendum ought to go ahead. In this House many noble Lords have claimed that people in Scotland do not want this Bill; many other noble Lords have claimed that they do want this Bill. This is an argument which we cannot possibly resolve. The referendum is precisely the method of enabling that question to be resolved.
Some are also suggesting that the people of Scotland do not, or even cannot, understand the Bill. I fear that some of these comments were somewhat patronising. The Scots are intelligent, politically aware and well informed, and furthermore have been reading about these debates in Scotland day after day for many years. In so far as people do not know and do not understand at the present time what this Bill contains, surely it is our duty in the course of these debates to inform them and, indeed, in the course of the referendum campaign to inform them.
My Lords, may I conclude. In the coming weeks no doubt public attention will focus on the treatment by this House of this Bill. The public, certainly in Scotland, realise that most of the fundamental issues have been debated at length in the country and in another place. I would remind your Lordships briefly of the figures—the other place and this House have already spent more than 40 days discussing this scheme of devolution. Six days were spent on the November White Paper, which is essentially the scheme in the Bill. Sixteen days were spent on the Scotland and Wales Bill; over 20 so far in the two Houses on this Bill, and we will no doubt spend many more. We will emerge at the end with a Bill fully considered, with its main structure and essential details approved by substantial majorities in the elected Chamber and it will be seen to implement a clear Manifesto commitment of the Government. Finally, through the referendum, it gives to the people in Scotland who will be most intimately affected the chance to pass a judgment—a final judgment—on the proposals.
So, my Lords, let us be seen in the coming weeks—
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords—
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I am just finishing. Let us be seen in the coming weeks to approach it with the mature spirit of co-operation that this debate has already provided. Let us examine it, let us explain it and, if the House believes that it can be improved, let us be as constructive as we possibly can. Above all, let us abide by our resolve neither to wreck it nor to impede it by unconscionable delay. In that spirit and with the expectation that this House will emerge from these coming proceedings with its reputation enhanced and with a Bill which we can return with confidence to another place, I ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
8 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, I have listened to and reflected upon the considerable wisdom of your Lordships' House in the course of the debate over the last two days. During the past several months I have been increasingly conscious of the profound concern in Scotland about certain of the provisions of this Bill—the kind of thoughtful concern which has been expressed by speeches such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, on the one side and of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, on the other. Having regard to what has been said
1466
by noble Lords such as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his notable contribution to the debate, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham—and not least, if I may say so, by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—I would ask the leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) AMENDMENT ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
CUSTOMS ANNUITY AND BENEVOLENT FUND BILL
Reported from the Committee on Unopposed Bills, without Amendment.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Second report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
  MADAGASCAR: UNITED KINGDOM AND WEST GERMAN EXPORTS
  MADAGASCAR: UNITED KINGDOM AND WEST GERMAN EXPORTS
  AVIATION SECURITY COSTS
  AVIATION SECURITY COSTS