Sitting of 23 May 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    HMS "Ark Royal"
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects HMS "Ark Royal" to be withdrawn from service.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy): Our intention is that HMS "Ark Royal" should pay off at the end of this year.
    Mr. Brotherton: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what representations have been received from our NATO allies, particularly the United States, about the decision to phase out HMS "Ark Royal"? Secondly, will he tell us how long it will be after the "Ark Royal" has been phased out that the new through-deck cruiser will come into service, thereby telling us the period when there is no fixed-wing air support for the fleet?
    Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman will understand that such a departure should be a matter of profound interest to our NATO allies. I was glad to be in a position at Easter to discuss the matter with the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic,
    1308
    when I visited him in North Virginia. Like our other allies, he understands why we need to act in fulfilment of longstanding plans, especially in support areas. The first through-deck cruiser is expected to become operational in the early 1980s, and I understand that my right hon. Friend will be making an early announcement about a further through-deck cruiser.
    Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with future arrangements for air protection for the Fleet in the 1980s?
    Mr. Duffy: Yes, Sir, because the responsibility for fleet air defence will be transferred to the RAF. When the Sea Harriers are deployed afloat, they will be used to complement land-based air defence forces and provide quick reaction capability. In addition, of course, we shall benefit from the mutual support that we receive from our NATO allies.
    Mr. Trotter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the United States Navy proposes to keep in service for a further 20 years aircraft carriers commissioned at the same time as HMS "Ark Royal"? Can he advise the House of a single reason for the removal from the fleet of the one remaining conventional carrier, the most powerful ship in the Navy, without any direct replacement, other than the reason of the Government's defence cuts?
    Mr. Duffy: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but he will be the first to recognise that there is nothing I can say now in furtherance of the reply that he was given on this very question on 9th May.
    Mr. Churchill: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we already have far too few air defence aircraft to protect even the United Kingdom, let alone to provide cover for the fleet until 1985 or beyond, when the ADV starts coming into service? Will there not be a severe gap in protection for the Royal Navy during that period, or will it not be at the expense of the United Kingdom itself?
    Mr. Duffy: No, Sir. There will be no such gap, on the basis of the reply that I have already given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams).

    Royal Air Force (Low Flying)
    Mr. Woodallasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has plans to introduce a new low flying system for the Royal Air Force in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): As I told the House on 3rd April, the air force department of the Ministry of Defence is carrying out a review of the present low flying system in the United Kingdom. Some changes have been agreed in principle by the Air Force Board, but a great deal of detailed work has still to be done to verify the feasibility of these changes and to ensure that the low flying is dispersed as evenly as possibly and causes as little inconvenience to the public as possible. I will consider making a statement to the House in due course.
    Mr. Woodall: I am grateful for that somewhat limited reply, but can my hon. Friend tell us whether there is likely to be any increase in areas that will be affected by the low flying systems, and whether he will give maximum publicity to any new areas so affected and sympathetic consideration to any objections from some people who have particular interests against low flying?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: The intention of the review is to seek to ensure that the RAF has adequate facilities in the United Kingdom to carry out its essential low flying training. The changes will increase the total area of the United Kingdom which falls within the low flying system.
    As to the possibilities of publicity, one of the studies which are now in hand is to consider the best way in which this matter can be brought to the attention of the general public. My own view is that the time is fast approaching when we should publish in its entirety the low-flying system in this country.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware that my constituents in Northumberland will welcome anything that he can do to spread the disruption caused by this necessary training as widely as possible among the whole of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom, all of whom benefit from the defence capability which it enhances?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I agree entirely that all of the people who reside in the United Kingdom and, indeed, in Western Europe, benefit from the ability of the Royal Air Force and other NATO air forces to be able to fly low and penetrate into a potential enemy's air space.
    The Royal Air Force takes very seriously the complaints which are registered by the general public. As the hon. Gentleman is personally aware, we do everything within our power to try to mitigate the consequences upon the general public.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the Minister say whether, in his review, he will look at the question of compensation for loss of amenity caused by the noise of low flying aircraft, particularly over an area which may still be subject to having an operational air base in its midst? Will he also give some thought to the possibility of noise insulation being provided by his Department for houses which may be extremely badly affected?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Those matters are deserving of full consideration. As for compensation, people who suffer damage or loss resulting from proven activities of the RAF in low flying are entitled to make, and are asked by us to make, a claim to the Claims Commission. Such a claim will be properly evaluated and, if justifiable, compensation will be paid.
    The greatest compensation that people who suffer from the disturbance caused by low flying can have is that the Royal Air Force is training itself to protect their freedom, their security and the peace of the world.

    African Countries
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has had discussions with the American Secretary of Defense and other Western Defence Ministers about the possible need for joint military operations to assist friendly countries in Africa.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Fred Mulley): I have discussed with the American Secretary of Defense and with the Defence Ministers of other Western Governments many matters of common and general interest, including, on occasion, current developments in Africa;

    1311
    but I do not believe that any consideration of joint military operations in Africa is presently either desirable or necessary.
    Mr. Blaker: Is not one of the lessons of Zaire that there should be joint contingency planning between various European Governments and the Americans, if they would join in, so that if a similar situation, unhappily, were to occur in future, a joint European rescue force could be sent at the request of an African Government?
    Mr. Mulley: That is a point of view, but I think that it would be extremely difficult to foresee all the various different scenarios, and difficult to get one group of European countries to agree to a common plan. Last week we were asked to consult the other countries involved, and we did so. That, I think, is probably the best way in which to approach that kind of situation. We were asked on humanitarian grounds to provide airlift and medical facilities, and we did so.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Is there not an absolutely critical difference between intervention in order to protect our own nationals and their security, and intervention in order to assist foreign Governments, which is what the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) is suggesting? Is that not precisely the kind of thing that led the Americans into the morass of Vietnam?
    Mr. Mulley: I certainly see a very clear distinction, as my hon. Friend indicates. Of course, it is open to sovereign Governments to ask other countries for military advice and assistance, but I think it would be right to judge each request on its merits as it arises.
    Mr. Pattie: Does the Secretary of State think that if the Government had to engage in a rescue operation involving British subjects, we would have the capability to carry it out?
    Mr. Mulley: It is very difficult to answer a question of that world-wide character, but I would think in most cases, certainly, yes.
    Mr. Dalyell: May we take it that, on the very narrow issue of consultation with the British Government, the Secretary of State is wholly satisfied with what happened over Zaire?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not know that it is for me to express views which are more properly within the field of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, but certainly I can say that from the time the Royal Air Force and the Army units concerned were requested, they were dispatched rapidly and did all that they were called upon to do.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Is there not an obligation upon the right hon. Gentleman, as Secretary of State, to make contingency plans to protect British nationals and British interests, wherever they may be threatened, rather than giving the parliamentary reply that such operations are neither desirable nor necessary?
    Mr. Mulley: I think that it is certainly my job to defend British interests, but the proposition that any British national in any part of the world can demand military assistance became outdated at the time when Palmerston was Foreign Secretary.

    Dockyard and Shore Establishment Workers (Pay)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the low basic wage rates paid to employees at Rosyth Dockyard and establishments such as HMS "Caledonia", HMS "Cochrane", and HMS "Lathalmond"; and what reply he has given.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. John Gilbert): I have received no formal representations but I am aware of the current campaign sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union and of public statements made by the national officers of some trade unions about the need for improvement in the basic wage rates of the Industrial Civil Service as a whole. A claim for an increase for the whole Industrial Civil Service under stage 3 of the pay policy has now been tabled.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend realise that when the mass lobby took place a fortnight or so ago, a large number of those people from Scotland were from Rosyth and the establishments mentioned in the Question? They claimed that their basic wage was about £32 a week. If that is the case, does he not think that that is quite scandalous? Can

    1313
    he say how that basic rate compares with average earnings?
    Dr. Gilbert: The figures that I have in front of me show that craftsmen's average earnings are about £69 a week and that non-craftsmen's earnings range between £51 and £60 a week. The craftsmen's basic rates are about £51·50, including supplement paid under stage 1 and stage 2 of the pay policy. As my hon. Friend will be aware, under the pay policy, industrial civil servants have had the maximum amount by way of supplements ever since 1975, and there will be a new settlement date on 1st July next.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Will the Minister tell us what is the take-home pay of a semi-skilled worker at a dockyard in Portland? Is it a fact that it is about half what a worker of similar skills would earn in the motor industry in Birmingham? Will he tell us why this is so?
    Dr. Gilbert: The hon. Gentleman puts his question in very general terms. One needs to know about the family circumstances of people before talking about their take-home pay. But the wider question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Civil Service.

    Arms Sales (Aldershot Exhibition)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has now drawn up a full list of companies participating in the private arms trading fair at Aldershot in June and of countries to be invited to send representatives; and if he will publish these lists.
    Dr. Gilbert: A provisional list of companies participating in the British Army Equipment Exhibition was published in the Official Report on 18th May. It is not the practice to release information about sales or potential sales of defence equipment.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this arms fair coincides with the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament? Has he noticed Early-Day Motion No. 438, which calls upon Her Majesty's Government to demonstrate their devotion to disarmament, rather than to rearmament, by cancelling the fair and concentrating on the Special Session?
    Dr. Gilbert: I have indeed noticed the Early-Day Motion to which my hon. Friend refers. I am quite confident that the initiatives that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are contemplating taking in New York will bear fruit. We need to keep these things in some sort of perspective. The United Kingdom is responsible for only about 5 per cent. of global sales of defence equipment.
    Mr. Critchley: Is the Minister aware that the Aldershot arms fair is of very great assistance in the export of British arms, without which, rightly or wrongly, the whole of our arms expenditure would be very much higher?
    Dr. Gilbert: There is no question but that arms exports help to keep down the cost of equipment to the United Kingdom Forces, in so far as they relate to equipment that is being used by the Services. The Government want to see a reduction in multilateral transfers of armaments, but that has to come through agreement between both suppliers and customers.
    Mr. Litterick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Secretary of State has always maintained that the British Government's arms sales policy has always been a discriminating one? Will he therefore tell us to whom, apart from Chile and E1 Salvador, his Department will not sell arms?
    Dr. Gilbert: Normally we do not give details of countries that are not eligible for sales of defence equipment, but the answer to my hon. Friend is "South Africa".
    Mr. Ron Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in regard to the proposed arms exhibition at Aldershot; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Gilbert: Letters have been received from Members of Parliament and members of the public, and Questions have been tabled in the House. The Government are aware that some people are concerned at the coincidence of the British Army Equipment Exhibition with the penultimate week of the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament, but are confident that this will not detract from the effort of my right hon. Friends

    1315
    the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in New York.
    Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us feel that there is a real sense of hypocrisy here, in that we are having this arms exhibition at the same time as the world leaders are trying to get agreement on disarmament? Will he get together with the Secretaries of State for Industry and Trade to see how we can use the innovating skills of the workers involved in order to reduce the imports of finished and semi-finished manufactured goods and to produce socially necessary products along the lines of the Lucas Aerospace proposals?
    Dr. Gilbert: No one is keener than Defence Ministers to see a reduction in the world's trade in armaments. Unfortunately, the world in which we live is such that it does not permit us to do so. The way to get a reduction in arms sales is through multilateral agreement with the major suppliers and customers. That is what my right hon. Friends will be attempting to do in their initiatives in New York.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the true author of this Special Session of the United Nations is my former colleague, Mr. Arkadiy Shevchenko, who, having realised the error of his ways, has now changed sides?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am obliged for the information.
    Mr. Stoddart: Is it not the proliferation of arms throughout the world which causes tragedies such as those we have seen in Zaire? Would it not have been far better if the Government had sought to limit the sale of arms rather than to promote it? If the Government cancelled the exhibition at Aldershot would not that strengthen their moral authority when they go to the United Nations?
    Dr. Gilbert: I take the force of the first point made by my hon. Friend. Of course, the accumulation of arms carries risks in itself. But I cannot see that a self-denying ordinance by the United Kingdom—when other suppliers and customers have no intention of reducing either their supplies or demands for arms—would do anything other than contribute
    1316
    to further unemployment in this country.

    Employment (Alternative Opportunities)
    Mr. George Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consultations have taken place with a view to providing alternative employment opportunities for those people who have lost jobs following adjustments to the defence programme.
    Dr. Gilbert: Some overall loss of employment opportunities has inevitably resulted from reductions in the defence budget. It is not possible for the Ministry of Defence to provide alternative job opportunities in the defence industries within the present agreed level of defence spending.
    Mr. Rodgers: Is my right hon. Friend acquainted with the procedures that took place in the United States in the wake of the Vietnam war, when the Government concentrated attention, funds and resources upon those areas that were deprived of defence employment? As a consequence, in many cases those areas are now extremely prosperous, due to alternative work. Is he further aware of the corporate plan produced by the Lucas shop stewards, which again shows great enterprise and points the way in which we could devote our resources and energies to civilian production, thereby creating employment as well as prosperity?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am aware of both the matters to which my hon. Friend alluded. With regard to the Royal Ordnance factories and the dockyards—the defence procurement activities for which the Minister of Defence is directly concerned—there is no shortage of employment in either. In fact, they are fully loaded for some years ahead. The conversion of activity on the part of private firms is very much a matter for them.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does not the Minister of State agree that if the Government would stabilise the defence programme and not keep cutting it there would not be so many jobs lost and the structure of advancement for people employed in the industry would be all the better?
    Dr. Gilbert: It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that the Government have announced a 3 per cent. increase in the defence programme.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Will the right hon. Gentleman now give up-to-date figures showing how many jobs and job opportunities in the Services and in civilian life—in industries and elsewhere—have been lost by the defence policy of the Government?
    Dr. Gilbert: The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware of the up-to-date figures of the job loss in both cases. As I have told his hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) on many occasions, it is not the function of defence expenditure to provide employment as such. Defence expenditure is related to the necessary requirements of the defence of this country.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: The right hon. Gentleman should answer the question. I quite agree that it is not the function of defence expenditure to provide jobs, but I asked how many jobs have been lost. What is the answer?
    Dr. Gilbert: I have absolutely nothing to add to the answers which I have already given the right hon. Gentleman on that subject.

    Arms Sales (China)
    Mr. Clemitsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the British Defence Sales Organisation has for promoting arms sales to China.
    Mr. Mulley: The British Defence Sales Organisation is ready to respond to Chinese interest in British defence equipment, taking into account the usual political, strategic and economic criteria and our international obligations.
    Mr. Clemitson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Conservative Opposition have no monopoly of opposition to the totalitarian ways of the Soviet authorities? Does he agree that it would be very foolish to cultivate the friendship of China merely as part of a crude anti-Soviet policy? Will he therefore think very carefully before the sale of arms to China is either promoted or authorised?
    Mr. Mulley: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that no authority
    1318
    will be given without the most careful consideration. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already made clear that while we desire and seek to improve our relations with China we do not wish to do so at the expense of worsening our relations with the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Churchill: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government do not see the People's Republic of China as either a hostile or potentially hostile country? Will he confirm that there is no bar to the sales of British defence equipment.
    Mr. Mulley: As I have said, no decisions on this matter have been taken. In fact, there have been no firm indications of which equipment is wanted. Everyone assumes that it is the Harrier that is likely to be wanted by China, but I have no reason to think that that is necessarily the case. China has given no firm indications of what it might be interested in. As no decisions have been taken, I cannot announce them.
    Mr. Litterick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has no way of knowing how a customer State is likely to use any military equipment supplied by us to it? For instance, no one knows that it would not be used for an oppressive purpose. Is my right hon. Friend aware, for example, that British armoured vehicles were used to suppress the recent demonstrations in Tabriz, in Iran?
    Mr. Mulley: Whatever view may be taken about the sale of arms to China, somehow I do not feel that that would have a bearing on my hon. Friend's present concern.

    Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction Talks
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he remains satisfied with the progress so far as it affects British defence policy, of the Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction talks in Vienna.
    Mr. Mulley: Far from being satisfied, as I told the House in the recent defence debate on 13th March,
    "I cannot conceal my disappointment at the lack of progress".—[Official Report, 13th March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 46.]

    1319
    However, events in the fourteenth round, which ended on 19th April, including the new proposals tabled by the West, give grounds for hope that we can overcome the impasse in the talks.
    Mr. Watkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a large measure of the blame for the lack of progress in these talks must attach to the Soviet Union? However, did he notice that in the recent Schmidt-Brezhnev talks, Mr. Brezhnev did indicate a slight movement in favour of force reduction in the central front area? Will he seek to build upon that initiative and do all he can to inject some urgency into these vital talks?
    Mr. Mulley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance and the desire for urgency. I noted also the communique from the Schmidt and Brezhnev talks and I hope that that can be followed up on the Soviet side. A great deal of the delay has arisen through the difficulty of getting from the Warsaw Pact countries the necessary data on which any agreement must be based. As is widely understood, there is a disparity because the Warsaw Pact forces are substantially greater in numbers than our own.
    Mr. Wall: Does the Secretary of State agree that there has been no progress in Vienna? Will he do everything he can to checkmate the Russian design to prevent the cruise missile being deployed in Europe, as this weapon is essential to the future of NATO?
    Mr. Mulley: Discussions about the cruise misile do not arise in the Vienna talks. On that matter I cannot assist the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's policy to achieve balanced force reductions and parity between NATO and Warsaw Pact countries? Will he explain how it is possible to move towards parity if there is no understanding about the respective forces mobilised in either NATO or the Warsaw Pact countries? Does he still think it feasible that we can negotiate on the basis of demanding from the Soviet Union a reduction of 250,000 troops, as against a reduction of 100,000 from NATO?
    Mr. Mulley: It is the Government's desire and policy to achieve balanced
    1320
    force reductions. However, before we can do that agreement is needed by both sides. Agreement is also needed on the numbers involved. On the NATO side, not only are the figures freely published; people can go and count them for themselves. The Warsaw Pact does not give the information the same publicity. In the negotiations it has not been possible so far to reach agreement on common figures on which further steps could be taken before we reach a balance.
    Mr. Hooson: Does not the attitude of the Soviet Union to date suggest that it is not keen on achieving arms reduction in Europe? Does not the Soviet Union's attitude towards the particularly strong tank forces on the eastern border of Western Europe indicate that the Soviet Union has no intention to negotiate on that matter?
    Mr. Mulley: It could be fairly inferred that if the Soviet Union wants progress it is hastening rather slowly. My hon. Friend's point in raising the question was whether we can infer—I think that it is too soon—from Mr. Brezhnev's remarks in Western Germany that a new political initiative will be forthcoming. We shall have to wait and see.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is not conducive to detente and disarmament for the Chief of the Defence Staff to go careering round the world describing the Soviet Union as the enemy, apparently with the full backing of the Conservative Party in this country, which means that it is a very important statement? Will he, therefore, state to the world that we do not regard the Soviet Union as the enemy and that we want peace with all nations?
    Mr. Mulley: I should correct my hon. Friend. To the best of my knowledge, the Chief of the Defence Staff has not careered round the world making these observations. He made one indiscreet and inaccurate remark on one occasion. The fact that the Conservative Party behaves as it does, is, I am happy to say, not my responsibility. I only hope that the British people will note the Conservative Party's antics in the House and will record their verdict when the time comes, so that the Conservative Party stays on the Opposition side of the House.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Talking about party antics, does the Secretary of State not

    1321
    agree that it is well known throughout the West how many Soviet troops are facing us on the Western Front? Does he agree that it is odd that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), who is the treasurer of the Labour Party, should support the Soviet position?
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: On a point of order. Will you, Mr. Speaker, call upon the right hon. Gentleman to substantiate the comment that he just made?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I could not hear the last remark of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). I know that the hon. Gentleman was protesting, but I could not hear him for the noise. I trust that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) was not making a personal charge.
    Sir I. Gilmour: I asked a straightforward question. I asked whether the Secretary of State could explain why the treasurer of the Labour Party—the Secretary of State had been talking about party antics—was supporting the Soviet position in the MBFR talks.
    Mr. Atkinson: I wonder whether you could help the House, Mr. Speaker, in demanding that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) should substantiate a statement such as that. In the questions that I have put to my right hon. Friend, I have said nothing, implicit or otherwise, from which the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham could deduce my support for the Soviet Union against the interests of this country.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Tottenham has made his position perfectly clear. I deprecate personal attacks.
    Mr. Mulley: The fact that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) made the attack on my hon. Friend in the guise of a question to me in no way excuses the attack. My hon. Friend is in no way supporting the interests of the Soviet Union against this country. The dragging in of the fact that my hon. Friend is treasurer of the Labour Party will be deprecated by everyone in the House.
    Sir I. Gilmour: The Minister talked about party antics. I was explaining to the Secretary of State that the West knows perfectly well how many Soviet troops there are in Eastern Europe. The treasurer of the Labour Party pretended that that was not known and that it was a matter of doubt. That is the Soviet position. It is not the West's position.
    Mr. Speaker: Before we move to the next Question, may I say that I am assuming that there is no reflection at all on the hon. Member for Tottenham.

    RAF Married Quarters (Redecoration)
    Mr. Arnold Shawasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the regulations governing the redecoration of RAF married quarters to enable airmen to exercise an option of carrying out redecorations themselves.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Airmen are already permitted to carry out limited internal redecoration on a self-help basis, for which they can borrow, free of charge, materials, brushes and other equipment from the Property Services Agency.
    Internal redecoration is carried out approximately every four years by the PSA, in addition to selective redecoration on change of occupancy. At present, choice of wall colouring is limited to eight pastel shades for walls, while paintwork is a standard brilliant white.
    I appreciate that some occupants might prefer a wider range of decorating options and I am arranging for the current regulations to be reviewed to see whether it is possible to introduce a more liberal policy. This review will, of course, take into account the views of both the PSA and PSA employees' representatives.
    Mr. Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, as far as it goes, but can he assure the House that when he reviews the situation there will be full freedom of choice of materials, colour schemes, and so on? Will he make certain that there are safeguards for the existing workforce?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I am deeply interested in trying to improve the quality of life in the Royal Air Force. Therefore, I take seriously the question of providing wider options for airmen to decorate their quarters. In the review that is taking place we shall take into account not only

    1323
    the views of the Property Services Agency but the views of the trade unionists employed by that organisation.

    Armed Forces (Trade Union Representation)
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from trade unions requesting recruitment facilities, in order to persuade members of the Armed Forces to join trade unions.
    Mr. Mulley: I have received one such request, from the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend look favourably upon the one request which he has received and upon other requests which he may receive, to allow trade unions to pursue a policy of recruiting members of the Armed Forces?
    Mr. Mulley: I listened to the full and fair statement by my hon. Friend yesterday on behalf of his union. As I have told him on previous occasions, until it is clear what trade unions could do for the Armed Forces I would not think it right to encourage a widespread recruiting campaign on the lines that my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Mr. Goodhart: While I agree with the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, may I ask whether he is aware that if he had to meet trade union negotiators he could not possibly get away with the negative replies that he has been giving to questions about the future of the local overseas allowance? Can he give us a pledge that this year's meagre pay increase for the Services will not be eroded by a cut in local overseas allowance, which makes up 40 per cent. of the pay of our Service men in BAOR?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a quite separate question from that which appears on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Mulley: I would like to answer it, Mr. Speaker because it was last year that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and some of his hon. Friends were going around saying that the local overseas allowance was to be reduced by 40 per cent. This turned out to be totally wrong. I see that they are starting in May this year instead of August. As the hon. Member knows, the
    1324
    whole matter is under review and I cannot anticipate anything. I express the hope that the hon. Gentleman will not begin his campaign to undermine the morale of the British Army of the Rhine earlier this year than he did last year.

    Harrier Aircraft (Sales)
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the sale of Harriers to the People's Republic of China.
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there are any procedural obstacles still to be overcome before the United Kingdom could respond favourably to a request from the Chinese People's Republic to purchase Harriers.
    Mr. Mulley: If the Chinese interest in Harrier is confirmed, the usual political, strategic and economic criteria and our international obligations in relation to the sale of Harrier would have to be examined in detail before Her Majesty's Government could take a considered view.
    Mr. Arnold: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the United States Government have now withdrawn any objections which they may have had to an arrangement of this nature? Given that the Press in the United Kingdom has been talking about the sale of 30 Harriers to China, with the possibility of building another 300 under licence, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the way in which this would affect the balance of air power in the Far East?
    Mr. Mulley: I am glad to say that it is no part of my responsibility to answer for or accept Press statements. We have had no indications about a sale, let alone a sale with the detail which the hon. Gentleman seems to have read in the Press. The procedures for discussing sales of this sort with our allies can be put into operation only when there is a firm proposition to be considered. We have not, therefore, gone through the COMCO procedure.
    Mr. Miller: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that we shall not be left in a chicken-and-egg situation? Is he aware that the Chinese are not likely to ask if they are to be refused? Cannot he be a little more forthcoming and tell us

    1325
    what degree of interest the Chinese have to show before the procedures are put into motion?
    Mr. Mulley: As I explained, it is a bad practice to announce decisions before they have been taken, and no decisions affecting this matter have been taken.
    Mr. John Evans: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that the British Conservative Party, which for generations has had nightmares about "Reds under the bed", is now hand in glove with the Communist People's Republic of China? Will he tell the House whether that makes the Conservatives into Marxists? Will he make sure that we do not sell planes of this nature to any Communist country?
    Mr. Mulley: The enthusiasm shown for the Chinese People's Republic by the Conservative Party will have been noted in many quarters. While I welcome the widening of the Conservatives' international horizons, I am not sure that I would go as far as some Tory Members in that direction.

    Armed Forces (Service Records)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Defence what access his Department gives to the Service records of members and ex-members of the Armed Forces.
    Dr. Gilbert: The Service record of a member or ex-member of the Armed Forces is normally disclosed only with his consent.
    Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend take all the necessary steps to ensure that there is no leak of any information which could be used by unscrupulous recruiting agencies, especially in view of recent reports that British ex-Service men are operating as mercenaries in Rhodesia?
    Dr. Gilbert: I certainly undertake to act as my hon. Friend requests. If he has knowledge of any cases in which information has leaked out without the consent of a Service man I shall be happy if he will bring them to my attention.

    Armed Forces (Strength)
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers and
    1326
    men left the Armed Forces of the Crown during the first four months of 1978; what were the equivalent figures for the first four months of 1977 and 1976; and whether he is satisfied with the present strength of the Armed Forces.
    Mr. Mulley: Figures for all three Services up to the end of April are not yet available. The number of officers and men who left the Armed Forces during the three months January-March in each of the last three years was: 1976, 11,105; 1977, 10,967; 1978, 11,166.
    The trained strength of all three Services is generally in line with present requirements and I am confident that the Services are able to meet their commitments.
    Mr. Gow: Is it not a matter of great convenience for the Secretary of State that the first figure for which he was asked is not available? Is it not the case that when that figure is available it will reveal a most disquieting trend? Does he understand that unless he substantially increases the pay of the Armed Forces the erosion in their numbers will continue?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not think that it is unreasonable that the first figure for which I was asked is not to hand, since it could have been available only three weeks ago. I will see that the figures are published as soon as possible. I do not think that the overall position is anywhere near as bad as some Tory Members suggest, but there is no room for complacency. There is concern about shortages and the failure to recruit some key personnel, particularly pilots—where the standard is very high—enginers, and so on. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are extremely concerned about the trend and will do all that we can to abate the outflow.

  TARPORLEY
  Mr. Goodladasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Tarporley.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I have at present no plans to visit Tarporley.
  Mr. Goodlad: Will the Prime Minister accept that were he to make such a visit he would encounter serious concern about recent events in Kolwezi, where so many

  1327
  Europeans have been senselessly slaughtered? In view of the limited and unsatisfactory assurances just given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have some regard to the Order Paper. Will the hon. Gentleman link his supplementary question, somehow, to a visit to Tarporley?
  Mr. Goodlad: Is the Prime Minister aware that if he were to visit Tarporley he would encounter serious concern about recent events in Kolwezi? Is he satisfied that following the defence cuts which the Government have made we have sufficient capability to protect British lives throughout the world as the French have done in Zaire?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member's supplementary question is totally unrelated to the problems of Tarporley. If, as I had hoped, the hon. Gentleman intended to ask a question about the trunk road A49, or the proposal to close the Tarporley War Memorial Hospital, or the proposed closure of the Oakmere Rehabilitation Centre, I would have been able to tell him—on the last point—that I am glad to say that the proposals of the area health authority to close the centre down will not be approved by the Minister and that this rehabilitation centre will be kept open and its future will be decided again in five years' time.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Hoyleasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 23rd May.
  The Prime Minister: In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
  Mr. Hoyle: Arising from the admirable speech he made to the CBI last week, may I ask my right hon. Friend to take some time between his engagements to consider the possibility that since £1 out of every £4 is spent on manufactured goods from abroad, we might introduce selective import controls to protect key industries, such as the motor car and electronics industries,
  1328
  which are threatened by Japan and, perhaps, introduce further measures to protect the footwear and textile industries?
  The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend said in the last part of his supplementary question, selective import controls are already in existence in the textile and footwear industries. As for the motor car industry, undertakings have been given by the Japanese Government which we expect them to carry out in view of the serious rise in imports of Japanese vehicles. I take note of the other point that my hon. Friend made about the electronics industry. The Secretary of State for Industry will, of course, be ready to look at it.
  Mr. MacKay: During his busy day will the Prime Minister find time to commend the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who said yesterday that this Government's unemployment protection legislation had caused much of the unemployment in this country? Will the Prime Minister also acknowledge that Members on the Opposition Benches have been telling him for a long time that unemployment has been caused by his Government's policy? Will he now change it?
  The Prime Minister: I do not accept the hypothesis, therefore I certainly do not rush to the conclusions that the hon. Member has drawn. It is quite untrue that this legislation has added to unemployment. It is protecting employment in a way that the Opposition would destroy if their policy of removing all subsidies and grants were ever carried into effect. As it seems unlikely that it ever will be, I am very glad to say that that fear will be removed from the British people.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: Will the Prime Minister accept that while there has been a welcome drop in unemployment figures, in the Northern Region they still stand at 8·2 per cent.—the highest in Britain? Has he any further proposals to deal with that situation?
  The Prime Minister: Yes. The further proposals are that we should keep steadily and firmly attacking the problem of inflation. The reason why unemployment is coming down is that our measures

  1329
  are succeeding and that we are overcoming inflation. There is still a long way to go, and if we can reduce inflation even further we shall avoid throwing more people out of jobs through our failure to be competitive. That is the message that I ask my hon. Friend and all hon. Members to convey to their constituents.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: In spite of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. MacKay), no doubt the Prime Minister has had time today to consider the very serious events in Zaire. In view of the utterly inadequate replies that we have had today from the Secretary of State for Defence, will he say whether he has any plans to launch talks with our European allies in order to get some sort of co-ordinated action in any future African rescue operations?
  The Prime Minister: It is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence to conduct those discussions; it is for the Foreign Secretary. He has already intimated that he is in the course of talks with his colleagues in Europe so that whenever a situation of this nature arises in Africa we can be certain of protecting our own citizens.
  I am very glad that the French and Belgian troops were able to protect their citizens in Zaire. I hope that they will not pursue this any further, but that there will be a withdrawal at the appropriate time when they have evacuated all their citizens.
  Mr. Gould: Has the Prime Minister seen today's reports of the meeting of EEC Finance Ministers? Will he look very carefully and cautiously at the snake, the emu and, indeed, any other creature whose object it is to preserve the current pattern of distribution of trade surpluses and deficits? Does he agree that our interests in these matters may be very different from those of countries which have been and still are in massive surplus?
  The Prime Minister: I always look very carefully and cautiously at any snake that may cross my path—of whatever character. As far as this reptile is concerned, I would certainly look a gift horse in the mouth and examine what its teeth are made of. But I do not think
  1330
  that we should rule out all these matters on grounds of ideology. There are clearly advantages in getting a greater stabilisation of currencies—if this is possible—to avoid the great swings that are taking place. Therefore, we shall look at all these schemes on their merits.
  Mrs. Thatcher: May I return to the events in Zaire and ask the Prime Minister whether, after the defence cuts, particularly in RAF Transport Command and in the training of paratroopers—where the cuts have been severe—he is satisfied that this Government would still have the military capacity to rescue British citizens in similar circumstances to those in Zaire?
  The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to ask the question, but I hope that she will not cast any doubts on our capacity to handle this matter. That is a perfectly proper remark for me to make in view of the attitude of the Opposition about defence matters over the past 12 months. This country is quite capable of entering into agreements with the countries where this sort of incident might take place—
  Mr. Wiggin: Incident?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman need not pick up every word—as I was saying, we are quite capable of entering into agreements with countries where an incident takes place which might affect the lives of British citizens, in order to ensure that they are safeguarded. I regard that as a basic responsibility, and I have satisfied myself that we can do it.
  Mrs. Thatcher: With due respect, I ask the Prime Minister whether, after the cuts which have particularly affected paratroopers, this country—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is entitled to ask her question.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Does this country alone have the capacity to mount such an operation after defence cuts, particularly those that have affected RAF Transport Command and paratroopers?
  The Prime Minister: It is clearly not possible to give a general answer of this kind in a hypothetical situation which no one knows will arise. But, generally speaking, the capacity to look after the lives of our citizens is there and it would

  1331
  be used, either alone or in conjunction with our allies.
  It seems to me that the right hon. Lady is not drawing the right conclusion when she says that we should be able to act alone. Surely the lessons of Zaire are that it is far better to act in co-operation. That is why the Royal Air Force made British transport available to the authorities who went into Zaire—transport which, fortunately, was not needed. I hope that if a similar position arises in which a number of British citizens are involved, we shall be able to get support of that sort from our allies. That is the best way of approaching the matter.
  Mr. Pardoe: Could the Prime Minister look at the front page of today's Daily Mirror and consider the ethics and the merits of the publication of opinion polls? Does he understand that we are now in the run-up to an election and we have a situation in which opinion polls showing a Labour lead are published by the NOP in the Daily Mirror, while those published in the Daily Mail always show a Conservative lead?
  Mr. Tebbit: Which ones show a Liberal lead?
  Mr. Pardoe: Will the Prime Minister also comment on the curious paradox that this kind of news selection when practised by the editor of the Daily Mail is essential freedom of the editor but when practised by the printers is a disastrous interference with free communication?
  The Prime Minister: My experience is that the editor of the Daily Mail is too tender a plant for me to make any comments about. I am sure that he would be far too upset if I did. I did
  read the very interesting report on page 1 of the Daily Mirror, but I found page 2 more significant on this occasion—
  Mr. Skinner: What about page 3?
  The Prime Minister: No, not page 3. It was page 2 that I was interested in. Page 2 of the Daily Mirror showed the attitude taken by the conference of the Union of Post Office Workers about inflation and next year's wage round. I found that extremely heartening.
  Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent news is very
  1332
  welcome in the fight against inflation and unemployment, and that much of this is due to the policies of this Government and the co-operation of other Governments with whom my right hon. Friend has been in contact? Will he consider approaching the TUC and asking it to consider a conference of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, which, I believe, would be prepared to contribute to overcoming inflation and reducing world-wide unemployment?
  The Prime Minister: I have discussed this matter with the TUC. It is in touch with its colleagues in European trade unions in other member States of the Community with a view to examining the measures that could be pressed upon Governments in order to ensure that there is a further welcome drop in unemployment.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Prime Minister keep in mind, to weigh up against the Establishment's support of Mr. Tom Jackson, the speech made by Mr. Joe Gormley, in which he said that British trade unions were in the same trap as trade unions in Communist countries, as they did not have the right of free collective bargaining? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there will not be a phase 4 of wage restraint?
  The Prime Minister: There are differences of view in the trade union movement about these matters, but it is quite clear that the unions that are more closely associated with the public sector recognise clearly that the sort of situation that we had in the early 1970s is not productive of a permanent improvement in the standard of life of their members. Therefore, it behoves us all to search for better methods of securing a real improvement in the standard of life.
  Mr. Noble: May I return to the original Question? During my right hon. Friend's engagements today will he talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade about the EEC Commission's decision to blow a hole in the Multi-Fibre Arrangement by allowing in additional Portuguese textile goods? Will he give the House an assurance that the Government will stand firm on the issue and maintain the protection for the industry that was announced before Christmas?
  The Prime Minister: The Government have taken a firm stand on the Multi-Fibre Arrangement. I am not aware of the point to which my hon. Friend refers but I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. However, Portugal is in a difficult situation and we should consider seriously any proposals that may come from that country on a number of matters. It has recently emerged from dictatorship, and I should not like to see it thrust back into that position again.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order later.

EARLY-DAY MOTIONS
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Prime Minister to make his statement I shall make a brief statement myself. Hon. Members will have noticed the error in today's Notice Paper, as a result of which the names of 23 hon. Members have been added to Early-Day Motion No. 446 in the name of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) relating to the survival of the monarchy. The names should have been added to Early-Day Motion No. 445 relating to the export trade of live animals for slaughter or for further fattening. I apologise to all hon. Members concerned for the embarrassment that they may have suffered. A corrigendum will be published tomorrow.
Later—
Mr. Burden: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having put the matter right about the motions on the Order Paper. I was greatly surprised when I saw that the names of many of my hon. Friends who had signed Early-Day Motion No. 445 appeared on the Order Paper as having sponsored the motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins), not least because I handed in all the names myself and by no stretch of the imagination, by any faulty identikit or anything else, could I be mistaken for the hon. Gentleman. I was surprised. I have no doubt that although the hon. Gentleman was surprised he was gratified when he thought that he had so many adherents from the Opposition Benches. However, my right hon. and hon. Friends were horrified when they saw their names
1334
associated with his on Early-Day Motion No. 446.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I accept the hon. Gentleman's apology and say that I still live in hope that enlightenment may yet dawn?
Mr. Speaker: It seems as if humour is satisfied.

QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Channon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may have noticed that I had Question No. Q3 to the Prime Minister. I merely ask you, Mr. Speaker, when you are considering Questions to the Prime Minister, whether it is fair to those who had later questions on the Order Paper that discussion on Question No. Q2, asking the Prime Minister to list his official engagements, which appears time and time again on the Order Paper, should last for no fewer than 18 minutes with the result that even Question No. Q3 was not reached?
Mr. Speaker: First, I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration because he had Question No. Q3. Secondly, he is not correct in saying that Question No. Q2 took 18 minutes. The Question occupied the House for longer than is usual, but the House itself has shown strongly that it goes for that sort of open Question. Even when we came to the end of supplementary questions on that Question, there were still a number of right hon. and hon. Members standing and waiting to be called.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have other points of order that will follow the Prime Minister's statement.
Mr. Tebbit: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, concerns Prime Minister's Questions. I did not raise the point during Prime Minister's Questions, Mr. Speaker, knowing your preference for such points to be left until afterwards. You are rightly severe, Mr. Speaker, on hon. Members who ask supplementary questions that are not related to the Question on the Order Paper. I think that it would be in the interests of the House if you were as severe on Ministers, even Prime Ministers, who choose to read

1335
from their brief previously prepared answers to questions that have not been asked by any hon. Member. If that habit is allowed to continue, we may as well dispense with the questions and merely allow Ministers to read out whatever answers they want for 15 minutes.
Mr. Speaker: At the beginning of Prime Minister's Questions today the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Goodlad), who asked the original Question, asked a supplementary question that in no way was linked with Tarporley. It was linked with many other things but not with Tarporley. That was why I felt that I could allow the Prime Minister to link an answer to Tarporley. Of course, Ministers are required—Prime Ministers and upwards—to answer questions, and usually they make an effort.

INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY (WHITE PAPER)
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the White Paper on Industrial Democracy to be presented to Parliament this afternoon. Copies of the White Paper are in the Vote Office.
The Government have now completed wide-ranging consultations on the report of Lord Bullock's Committee of Inquiry. It has not been possible to reach agreement between those principally concerned and the Government accordingly submit their own proposals.
The basis of the White Paper is that employees at every level in companies and nationalised industries like their counterparts in some other advanced industrial countries, should have a real share in the decisions within their enterprise which affect their working lives. The objective is positive partnership rather than defensive coexistence. This shared responsibility should bring improved industrial relations and increase the efficiency of British industry.
The Government's intention is that this objective should be secured, wherever possible, by voluntary agreement between employers and representatives of employees. It is not the purpose to impose a standard pattern of participation on industry by law. Employers and employees will be encouraged to devise
1336
arrangements best suited to their own circumstances.
However, where agreement proves impossible, employees will be able to claim certain statutory rights and the Government will introduce legislation to that end.
The White Paper proposes that employees in companies employing 500 or more people in the United Kingdom should have a statutory right to have all major proposals of the company affecting them discussed with their representatives before decisions are taken. These discussions would include such matters as investment plans, mergers, takeovers, expansion or contraction of establishments and major organisational changes. This right should be vested in a joint representation committee. The committee would be composed of representatives of trade unions who are employees of the company and discussions will take place with this committee.
The Government's consultations show that in some cases arrangements on these lines will be as far as employees will wish to go in taking part in the affairs of the enterprise.
But in many cases there will be a wish to go further and for representatives of employees to be appointed to company boards. If this cannot be achieved by voluntary agreement, the Government propose that employees in companies employing 2,000 or more people in the United Kingdom should be able, if they wish, to claim a statutory right to appoint, as a reasonable first step, up to one-third of the directors on the policy board of a new two-tier board structure. This right would be initiated by a request to the company from the joint representation committee and would be invoked after a ballot of all the company's employees to decide whether they wanted to be represented on the policy board.
Company law would be amended to provide for the option of a two-tier board system where the company prefers. Where there is agreement, the right to board representation can be on the existing unitary boards. The White Paper proposes that there should be a period of three or four years experience from the date of establishment of the joint representation committee before this statutory right comes into operation. The introduction of industrial democracy will be

1337
a developing process and the Government do not exclude parity of representation as an ultimate outcome.
The Government are convinced that trade unionists have an essential role to play in industrial democracy. But the White Paper recognises that the responsibilities to be given to trade unions for the appointment of employee representatives on the boards will need further discussion. The Government will reach a decision on this matter after further consultations.
The Government will continue to encourage the development of industrial democracy at all levels in the nationalised industries. Chairmen of nationalised industries have been asked to consult unions and to put forward proposals by August 1978. When legislation is introduced, it will give employees in nationalised industries the right to representation on boards, where it is desired.
In the public service, accountability of Ministers to Parliament and Parliament to the electorate must not be eroded. Similar considerations apply in local government. But, subject to this principle and the need to safeguard the interests of the community as a whole, the Government want employees and their representatives in the public services to be given all possible opportunities to contribute their views on matters affecting their legitimate interests.
The Bullock Committee proposed the establishment of an industrial democracy commission to provide advice on the implementation of industrial democracy. The Government are disposed to accept this recommendation, but are ready to consult further about it.
The direct involvement in overall company policies will require employee representatives to have a knowledge of business, finance, management and other subjects. Training for board members in these matters will be essential. No doubt much will be undertaken within the organisation itself, but it is also proposed that training should take place in residential or non-residential colleges and other institutions. Public finance will be needed to assist this.
The Government believe that these proposals will enable employees and managements to achieve real co-operation by
1338
sharing responsibility for the future prosperity of the companies in which they work. Both our economy and our democracy can benefit greatly. The Government will continue to consult widely so as to achieve the greatest possible agreement on the legislation that will be laid before the House.
Mrs. Thatcher: First, I thank the Prime Minister for his courtesy in letting me have an advance copy of the White Paper this morning.
Is he aware that the Opposition welcome proposals which will lead to greater involvement by the whole work force and note that these proposals seem to be very different from the Bullock version, and rightly so?
I should like to put four questions to the Prime Minister. First, will all employees, whether trade union members or not, have an equal chance to participate in the processes of consultation? Secondly, will independent unions not affiliated to the TUC be equally treated with those which are? Thirdly, will it be right to assume that any statutory rights to be created will apply equally to the whole work force, or will there be discrimination against those who are not members of unions?
Finally, what provision will be made to cover the special and vital role of those employees in junior and middle management? The Prime Minister will be aware that a number of them have felt demoralised because they are not involved as much as they might be. He will note that in the German scheme they are not bypassed. There is a special place for them. What special provision will be made for junior and middle management in participation?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is basically concerned with employees who are not members of trade unions. I shall seek to deal with those questions, because this has been a difficult matter. It is our intention and desire that all employees should take part in any ballot to decide whether the scheme for electing directors should take place—in other words, whether the scheme should be initiated. That seems important. It is also important that worker directors and, indeed, the joint representation committees should be drawn from employees of the company.

1339
I come now to the particular points made by the right hon. Lady. First, all employees can be involved in consultation. Whether the joint representation committee will include them will be a matter for discussion, because clearly the statute will not be able to cover that aspect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I shall explain that in detail when the legislation comes along. But there will be nothing to prevent the company from setting up parallel discussions with employees who are not members of trade unions if they are unable to get agreement through the joint representation committees. That seems to be the best way of achieving that result.
It is certainly not intended that unions not affiliated to the Trades Union Congress should be excluded from the joint representation committees.
As regards statutory rights, the system of parallel representation can apply. I think that it will have to be parallel representation. Otherwise, we may never get it going.
Finally, there must be further discussion about junior and middle management. There are a number of issues on which we need to have further discussion, because clearly they have as much concern about the future welfare of the companies in which they work as anyone else. To that extent, we should like to see provision made for them.
In conclusion—it is not in conclusion; I hope that it is the start of a long and important debate that could have a profound effect on the efficiency of British industry—one thing which we must have, of which I have been very conscious, is our own system of industrial organisation through trade unions. It is not like that of the Germans or of other countries. Therefore, although we want to make the trade unions in the companies the prior means of consultation and discussion, we do not want to exclude, and certainly no legislation would exclude, employees outside the trade unions. The legislation would have to be framed accordingly.
Mr. David Steel: I also give a general welcome to the White Paper, which at least advances the discussion on industrial democracy beyond the narrow confines of the Bullock recommendations and involves much greater flexibility.
1340
Is the Prime Minister aware that the Liberal Party's main criticism will centre on the fact that the interests of nonunion members are not sufficiently safeguarded in the proposed composition of the joint representation committees?
I should like to ask a specific question about the nationalised industries. The Post Office is cited in the White Paper. But the phrasing does not make it clear that employee representation in the nationalised industries would be by election and that consumer interests would have a statutory right to representation, as we advocated for the Post Office.
The Prime Minister: Some of the nationalised industries will want to exercise any rights which are secured under the legislation. Others up to the present moment will not. For example, that is true of the electrical industry and of the National Union of Mineworkers. Therefore, these proposals will not require people to take part, but it will give them the statutory right to do so.
This legislation is concerned with the rights of employees, not consumers. That matter will have to be taken into account separately.
Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that these proposals will not necessarily be carried out by a future Labour Government, because they are a pale shadow of the proposals made by the Labour Party and even by the Bullock Committee? Will he clearly indicate that, while the proposals may be a basis for discussion, some Labour Members want a system of genuine industrial democracy in which workers have a real say in their industries on the basis of elected representatives to the highest boards of those industries?
The Prime Minister: I know that is my hon. Friend's view. I hope that a future Labour Government will legislate along these lines, because I want to make progress and not see everybody retreating into his trenches. We can have a long fight over this issue for the next decade, a fight in which the directors will go mad and the trade unionists will say "We are having nothing to do with it." Nothing will happen and we shall remain behind other industrial countries. I understand that I shall not please everybody, and I expect a whole volume of criticism. I am trying not only to carry the debate

1341
forward but to get something on the statute book which can be built on in due course as a result of experience.
There is no one view in the trade union movement or in the Labour movement about this matter. I am saying to the Labour movement, to the trade union movement, to company directors and companies that if we can carry through something like this it will mark a very useful beginning to industrial democracy. I beg my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) not to retreat into his trenches and have nothing to do with it.
Mr. Henderson: Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be some welcome for the increased flexibility in the proposals? But it seems that they are so flexible that one has difficulty in understanding what the Government are recommending. Does he accept that it would be a good start if the nationalised industries adopted some of the proposals fairly quickly and acted, as they should, as pace setters to private industry.
The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Member will have no difficulty in understanding the proposals when he reads the White Paper. He will find them clear. It is certainly true that some issues are unresolved, because further discussion should take place.
I understand that the hon. Member probably did not take in all that I said in my statement. But I made it clear that nationalised industries have been asked to submit proposals by August this year so that we can carry forward with them, as we have already done with the Post Office. I am sure that that will satisfy the hon. Member.
Mr. Urwin: May I give my right hon. Friend the assurance that there will be a widespread welcome from this side of the House and from the trade union movement generally for the long-awaited publication of the White Paper? Does he understand that most of us are in difficulty since we have not had the privilege given to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Leader of the Liberal Party of seeing the document? It appears that there is to be a further extensive period of consultation with all interested bodies involved in the legislation. What time scale does the Prime Minister set on the
1342
legislative processes? When can we expect the Bill to be introduced and when will it become law?
The Prime Minister: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I recognise the difficulty of asking questions when a document has not been read. Perhaps hon. Members would like to read it first. But it is customary for me to afford White Papers to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Leader of the Liberal Party.
My hon. Friend asked about the next steps. I hope that now we have had the explosions on either side about Bullock there will be a period of serious discussion. The Cabinet thought that it was right that the Government should publish their own proposals. We are prepared to look at any suggestions for amendments. But I do not believe that discussion should continue indefinitely. We should get on with it. As far as I am concerned the period of discussion could last for some months. I should like to see legislation in the next Session of Parliament if it is possible to draft it.
Mr. Baker: Does the Prime Minister accept that many people on both sides of the House and both sides of industry who want to see a move towards codetermination will probably look upon this proposal for joint representation committees as the most effective vehicle for co-operation? The Prime Minister said that the joint representation committees would be composed of representatives of trade unions who were employees of the company. Can the Prime Minister confirm that employees who are not members of trade unions—since trade union members might be in a minority in a company—will not be excluded from serving on the joint representation committees?
The Prime Minister: I cannot give an utterly clear answer to that. It is a difficult matter, as hon. Members will discover when they become involved in negotiations for legislation. Our view is that where a joint representation committee is ready to accept homogeneous groups of non-organised workers they can, by agreement, become members of the joint representation committee which will be made up of trade union nominees. If that were not agreed—and I can think of companies in which it would not be agreed—it would be wrong to try to force this upon them.

1343
That would lead to no advance. The best thing would be for the company to consider whether it should set up parallel machinery for those who are not members of trade unions if they and the nonmembers of trade unions wish to do so. In other words, we are trying to provide an opportunity for the consultation to cover all the employees, but it will not necessarily do so in one place if there are a large number of non-unionists in a particular company.
Most of the large companies are heavily unionised. They are covered to a greater extent than smaller companies. Although this is a problem that might be discussed in the abstract there will be some practical difficulty. I believe that in the large majority of cases the problem will be settled by agreement. That is my hope.
Mr. John Evans: Does my right hon. Friend accept that industrial democracy can mean many different things to many different people? Does he accept that some of us are becoming a little disturbed at the emphasis of non-unionists by the Opposition? Does he accept that the pressure for industrial democracy came from trade unions not from non-unionists? Will he explain to the Opposition that if we were to consult non-unionists we should have to consult every single one of them because they do not have a collective body to represent them? Does my right hon. Friend accept that legislation can be introduced only through the trade union movement?
The Prime Minister: I accept that view. I have come to that view after a long study of the problem. I accept everything that my hon. Friend says. The best way forward is through the organised trade union movement. But we must take account of the Opposition's main concern, which is with non-trade unionists. We must try to take that into account and not rule out discussion on that subject. But I suggest to the Opposition that they should be concerned basically about how we get the system going among the great body of trade unions and their members. I am glad to know that that is agreed.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I fully accept what the Prime Minister says about the need to get the trade unions involved. I
1344
appreciate that there might be difficulties. May we have an assurance that in firms employing 500 people or more where the members of the committee are to be appointed by unions and where the committees are already operated within a pattern that has been agreed with both non-union and union members, the arrangements will not be disturbed simply to accommodate the particular form of industrial democracy that is set out in the White Paper? Does he agree that it would be wrong to disrupt forms of industrial democracy which have been operating for some years?
The Prime Minister: I can give that assurance. Many companies and unions are already moving along this line. I hope that the legislation will be drafted in such a way as not to interfere with any satisfactory arrangements which are already in operation and which are accepted by the company and the unions. To that extent the legislation will form an umbrella over what they are doing. They will have to satisfy certain criteria in the legislation. Provided they do that, it is our strong hope that the legislation will encourage both companies and unions to adopt by agreement their own methods for securing these ends.
Mr. Brooke: Does the Prime Minister recognise that many people will be greatly relieved that the Government are not seeking to impose immediate inflexible regulations on companies? Will he encourage the greatest possible experimentation in the future so that we have institutions which suit us in Britain rather than those that operate in other lands which have a different history from ours.
The Prime Minister: The answer to the last part of the hon. Member's question is "Yes". The British trade union movement is different from that in a number of other countries, such as Sweden and the Federal Republic of Germany, where this type of system has been in operation for a long time. Indeed, that has caused part of our difficulty and has been one of the reasons for the length of time that we have taken.
We shall not impose inflexible regulations, but there will be certain statutory obligations that must be fulfilled if the

1345
two sides cannot come to an agreement. That will be the basis of it. The essence of the proposal is agreement, but we shall not get ourselves into a position where companies can say "We are doing nothing and that is the end of it". If that were to be the line, the trade unions would be able to invoke the procedures that could, in the end, go to ACAS, an industrial democracy commission or whatever form of organisation we thought right. Employers should not think that, by refusing to do anything, they can escape certain obligations. They will be laid down clearly in the statute.
Mr. Radice: Will my right hon. Friend agree that far from being inflexible and doctrinaire, the White Paper takes into account the legitimate interests of both workers and management and should therefore be warmly welcomed on both sides of industry? Would he also agree that the White Paper offers us an opportunity, which we should be foolish to throw away, of creating a new basis of industrial consent which would be of great value to this country, both economically and socially?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is what has inspired our approach to this matter. For all the imprecations hurled at the Bullock Report, it made people wake up and think about this matter. They discovered that it was not possible for them to agree about the proposals. I am grateful to Lord Bullock and his committee because out of its report we have been able to synthesise a new approach which I believe will commend itself to a great many people—though I recognise that not all trade unions will wish to take advantage of it. They will wish to go their own way. That will be for them to decide because the automatic procedures will have to be initiated by the trade unions.
Mr. Viggers: Is the Prime Minister aware that company directors currently have an obligation to consider the interests of the members of the company and that this means shareholders only? Is he aware that this obligation is completely out of line with current practice and does he agree that legislation should be changed as soon as possible so that company directors also have an obligation to consider their duties to their employees?
The Prime Minister: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. This is becoming industrial practice and it means that the Companies Acts, especially the 1948 Act, ate getting out of date. That is why we propose, probably in the industrial democracy legislation itself, to include a reform of the Companies Acts legislation. We might need to have a separate Bill. I am not sure. We shall try to include it in the major legislation if possible.
Mr. Hoyle: I agree that there have been differences in the trade union movement, but can my right hon. Friend say how many trade unions are in favour of the two-tier board, which has been discredited by the German experiment? Is he aware that I hope that he will not take too much notice of the siren voices of the Opposition in relation to sweetheart unions? Will he remind the Leader of the Opposition that there are white-collar unions that these people can join?
The Prime Minister: My hope, as a trade unionist of some 50 years' standing, is that people will join the trade union movement and make it what I believe it has always been—a movement that will contribute to the country as well as taking something out of the companies and employment in which trade unionists are concerned. I have always believed that trade unionism has a lot to offer. It was originally constituted as an idealistic movement, and that is something of which we on this side of the House should always be proud.
The trade union movement has swung from the two-tier system. It was originally in favour of it but is now officially against it. However, I do not regard that as necessarily the last word, because everyone's opinion on this matter has been developing throughout the last few years, and I would not be surprised to find that a number of trade unions preferred the two-tier board system. However, it will be for the company to decide whether it would prefer to have one-third of the directors on a unitary board or to establish a two-tier board with a management board and a supervisory board.
Mr. David Price: Will the employee directors appointed under the second leg of the Prime Minister's proposals share equal legal responsibility with all the

1347
other directors? I think that the Prime Minister recognises that this was one of the weakest points in the majority reports of the Bullock Committee, which suggested that trade union directors should be separate somehow in their responsibilities from the other directors on the board.
The Prime Minister: I see no way out of this problem except that trade union directors should share the same responsibilities, in full measure, with everybody else. It will therefore be for the unions concerned to decide whether they wish to assume this responsibility. If so, they can invoke the legislation that I hope Parliament will pass in due course.
Mr. James Lamond: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that for some of us, these modest proposals are only cosmetics on the unacceptable face of capitalism and are no long-term substitute for Socialism?
The Prime Minister: I shall be interested to have a longer discussion with my hon. Friend about this, but as long as the face of capitalism is with us—and I agree with him that it is changing over the years and has certainly changed substantially in my lifetime—we should make sure that people who devote their working lives to a company and whose capital—their working lives and skill—is put into a company, are properly regarded and have a proper share of the decisions when that company takes its own decisions.
Mr. Forman: Will there be a sizeable minimum percentage required in the ballots in companies employing more than 2,000 people before the schemes go ahead?
Mr. Henderson: A 40 per cent. requirement?
Mr. Forman: In regard to the so-called industrial democracy commission, does the Prime Minister accept that this may turn out to be another QUANGO and will merely add unnecessary administrative overheads to the structure?
The Prime Minister: I believe that the Bullock Committee said that this should be a 33⅓ per cent. ballot, but we have put no figure in the White Paper. This is a matter for further discussion and a
1348
subject on which I should be happy to consult those who wish to talk about it.
As regards the commission, we started off with the prospect that perhaps ACAS could do this job so that we could avoid setting up another commission, but ACAS has plenty to do and considerable responsibilities. I am not sure that it would be suitable for this purpose. We shall be ready to have discussions.
Having argued it out among ourselves, we think that it would be better to have a commission. It will have to take considerable responsibilities where there is disagreement on the joint representation committees about how the election or nomination of directors is to take place. It will have a job to do there and may also have responsibilities to undertake in connection with education, which I regard as very important in this connection. We should not dismiss the commission as a QUANGO. It will have a real job to do, wherever the responsibilities go.
Mr. Moonman: I welcome the White Paper, but will my right hon. Friend comment on one important omission relating to the type of structure in multinational companies and groups of companies? I recognise that there are obvious problems in the type of structure that other countries have had to deal with, but surely we should be moving towards some type of solution to this problem before me implement anything of his sort.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has raised an important point that caused us a lot of concern. He will find that the matter is discussed in the White Paper. We have not reached a final conclusion on it, though he will find proposals for dealing with multinational companies. There are obvious difficulties that he can see, but perhaps when he and other hon. Members have read the White Paper, there will be a serious discussion about these matters so that we can reach an agreed solution if possible.
Mr. Channon: In very large companies with 2,000 or more employees, which have, perhaps, many employees here and abroad and several unions involved, how does the Prime Minister envisage that the statutory right to one-third of the number of directors will work? The process of appointing those directors could lead to considerable friction on the new board afterwards.
The Prime Minister: I understand that. Again, I ask the hon. Gentleman to read what we say in the White Paper on this matter. I do not think that we have a final solution to that, and I should be happy to have proposals about it.
Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend accept that not only are there differing views inside the party on this matter but differing views in parts of the party? Will he accept that this set of proposals probably mirrors the avuncular image of himself and a few more like him inside the Cabinet, though not the views of too many of those inside the Parliamentary Labour Party? Will he acknowledge that as he moves from this rather timid, cautious first base, to the second and third bases, if that is found to be necessary, the best possible example that he could set would be to establish a policy board in this place so that we remove the patronage, and so that Labour Members actually elect their policy board instead of having my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or someone like him hiring and firing all Ministers?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has put forward his views in his characteristic way, but I say seriously to him—
Mr. Skinner: I am serious.
The Prime Minister: I know. I said that my hon. Friend put his views forward in his characteristic way. He is always serious, if idiosyncratic at times. I think that my hon. Friend will find when he studies this proposal that it is not timid or cautious. I believe that it gets the highest common factor possible, and I believe that it will carry us quite a considerable way forward. That is my genuine view about it. What will follow from it will be determined by experience.
On the second point of my hon. Friend's question concerning the election of people, I can only say to him that I went through, I think, four elections in order to be able to stand at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. That is how we elected a new leader of the Labour Party.
Mr. Rathbone: I welcome any step to improve management-worker relations, but will the Prime Minister accept that some people will be worried that works
1350
councils do not feature in his statement? I have not had a chance to read the White Paper, so I do not know whether works councils feature in it. Will the Prime Minister comment on the matter?
The Prime Minister: The White Paper contains no reference to works councils as such, but the White Paper makes clear that existing arrangements that are satisfactory to the employees and trade unions concerned will not be interfered with by this proposed legislation. Such bodies will be able to adapt to the legislation if they wish to do so. But if there is agreement with the existing works councils or any other form of representation that they already have, they may continue with it.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be grave disappointment in some sections of the trade union and Labour movement with these milch cow proposals of Bullock? Is he aware, however, that it is also accepted that this subject raises a very difficult problem? Will he give an assurance that these proposals are merely the first tentative steps towards what we in the Labour movement are aiming at, which is for companies to be controlled to a very great extent by the people whose lives are involved in them? If he will give that assurance he will assuage the fears of many people.
The Prime Minister: These are obvious first steps because we are feeling our way in this matter. In Germany, for example, it took 25 years before the present state of industrial relations and industrial democracy was achieved. I do not know that it will take us 25 years, but I suggest to my hon. Friend that experience of doing something often changes one's view about how it should be done. I believe that when they start to practise industrial democracy in this form people may change their attitudes about what should be either their ultimate objective or the way in which they should achieve it.
But the Government would not rule out, any more than it has been ruled out in Germany, the ultimate objective of parity in these boards. I do not wish to start an argument about that, because if I do I shall frighten away a great many company directors who will look only at the question of parity and will not see that this process must move step by step. It

1351
must proceed first to the joint representation committees and then to one-third representation on the board of directors, which is looking five to six years ahead. After that it will be for the House of Commons and the Government of that time to say what they think the next steps should be. This is an evolutionary process, as it has happened in other countries.
Mr. Bulmer: Does the Prime Minister accept that the proposition that the corporate plan should be jointly discussed will give rise to difficult problems of confidentiality and flexibility, not least in the multinationals? How does the Prime Minister propose to tackle that? Does he not feel that there is a danger that the companies may become lumbered with a corporate plan in much the same way as his Government are with their manifesto?
The Prime Minister: I am glad to say that we are not lumbered with that. It has been carried through. On the hon. Gentleman's serious point, of course, corporate plans are confidential, but I hope that he was not attributing to employees of the company who are trade unionists any less responsibility than is felt by the directors of the company. If he was, I disagree with him. I think that the hon. Gentleman, with his experience of trade and industry, will have found, as I have certainly found with my slight experience of it as I go round the country talking to workers and trade unions in particular companies, that they are as concerned about the welfare and the future of their companies, and therefore about the confidentiality of information about their companies, as is any manager or director. If we approach the matter on that basis, I believe that, by agreement, employees in the company who are serving on the joint representation committees will be able to secure in complete confidence information that is available to the directors.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: Contrary to the view that my right hon. Friend has just expressed—that the proposals could possibly be an evolutionary process—will he acknowledge that while there are in the White Paper many progressive proposals which will undoubtedly contribute towards improved participatory methods in industry, there will be widespread disappointment throughout the Labour movement that in the disagreement
1352
shown in the Cabinet, Ministers have turned away from the first principle of establishing a boardroom parity between capital and labour? Does he agree that this surely should be the uppermost policy in the Labour movement? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is towards the attainment of that principle that all of us who sit on the Labour side of the House are looking?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that there are progressive proposals in the White Paper. That is true. I do not know whether there will be widespread disappointment in the Labour movement about the failure to achieve boardroom parity. I wonder, for example, whether the union to which my hon. Friend belongs will share that disappointment. I have not heard that his union has been in the forefront of this matter. I say that not to cast stones at him, but to show that there is a real division of opinion on these matters. We are trying to make progress, and I believe that we shall do so.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have been discussing this matter for more than three quarters of an hour. I shall call two more hon. Members from each side, and then we must move on.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I congratulate the Prime Minister on breaking away from the attachment of the majority of the Bullock Committee to the traditional unitary board and making possible a move to two-tier boards. Does the Prime Minister agree that, in preparation for such a big reform, there are aspects of company law which require immediate attention, particularly in regard to the rights and responsibilities of executive and non-executive directors?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that in a two-tier board there would have to be a clear delineation of responsibilities between the supervisory board and the executive and management board if that system were adopted. That matter will need considerable discussion. I hope that those concerned in the Opposition, the CBI and elsewhere will now be willing to discuss these matters instead of just throwing them on one side, that they will recognise the determination that has gone

1353
into this matter and will come forward with proposals that will best make this scheme work. I shall be happy, with my right hon. Friends, to consider what is said.
Mr. Dalyell: I hark back to the proposals that have been requested from the chairmen of the nationalised industries by August this year. Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Scottish gas industry there are deep-rooted problems of management and unions? Is the idea that these proposals should be put forward, for example, from the gas industry, to deal with deep-seated problems? Or is what my right hon. Friend said a general statement of principle as to what should be done? What is being asked for by August 1978?
The Prime Minister: Each individual nationalised industry has been asked to put forward its proposals and to state the attitude that would be taken both by the board and by the trade unions concerned. I am not, I fear, directly involved in the Scottish gas industry, and therefore I cannot answer my hon. Friend's particular question. But it would be for the gas industry to put forward its own proposals. If there are difficulties, they will have to be ironed out, if that can be done. But let no one underestimate the difficulties of getting joint representation committees working, of getting agreement on who should serve on them, or, as a next step, of getting agreement on how worker directors should be elected. All this will be very difficult, but I think that it is worth while trying, and if an effort is made to do it I shall be very happy.
Mr. Haselhurst: By what test has the Prime Minister satisfied himself that the proposals put forward in the White Paper are actively sought by workers on the shop floors of industry? Would it not have been better to keep the options wider?
The Prime Minister: I have no test to determine whether these proposals are genuinely being sought by workers in companies of the sort I have described. However, the hon. Gentleman's veiled criticism is met by the fact that it will be for the trade union representatives in a company to decide whether to invoke the procedures. If there is no interest, as he suggests, presumably they will not,
1354
therefore, invoke the procedures. If there is interest, they will invoke the procedures.
Mr. Newens: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that at present, and for many years past, the co-operative form of enterprise has usually permitted employees to be elected to the boards of societies? I entirely endorse any steps that are taken towards the democratisation of industry in general, but may I ask whether my right hon. Friend will ensure that the co-operative model is studied carefully in order that the intrinsic merits that it undoubtedly has are not lost in any changes that are introduced?
The Prime Minister: I know my hon. Friend's keen concern about the co-operative movement. I hope that the Co-operative Development Agency—I am very grateful to the House for agreeing to put through that Bill—will indeed have a part to play in all these matters of the development of democracy in industry. It is a counterpart to the democracy that we have in this country, and I should like to see that carried forward. Basically, however, I think that the system in British industry is almost certain to be built on the trade union rock, which is so strong in most of our large companies and on the boards of directors as they exist.
Mr. Michael Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we seek your guidance? In answer to a number of hon. Members, the Prime Minister has referred them to the White Paper. I think that hon. Members would feel that they could ask more poignant questions if they had the opportunity of reading the White Paper before questioning the Prime Minister. Could consideration be given to that matter in the future?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will understand that although he has raised a point of order, it was not addressed to me.
Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would not wish to make any criticism of the Chair, but in your selection of those who have been called to ask the Prime Minister questions, two Labour Members who represent Scottish seats were selected, and one Scottish National Party Member. I was the only Scottish Conservative Member who stood consistently, and none was called. I feel that this is unfortunate. This matter

1355
applies to us and is of as much interest to us as it is to the rest of the country.
Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. and learned Member's feeling. He has drawn attention to one of the difficulties that I am constantly under in the Chair. It is not that I did not want to call a Scottish Conservative.
Dr. M. S. Miller: I did not know that the hon. and learned Member was a Scot.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member has made a fair point. I have tried to get a balance when calling hon. Members to speak. There are eight parties in the House these days. It is difficult. But I am sorry that there was not a Scottish Conservative Member called.

KING'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL, LONDON
Mr. Christopher Price: 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 serious impairment to National Health Service standards, including the risk to life, at King's College Hospital in South London".
I do not know how many hon. Members were able to see yesterday the programme "World in Action", but for those who did, it revealed a situation of crisis which I believe is important, specific and urgent. Among incidents revealed were the endangering of life by inadequately trained agency nurses, the inability to provide constant nursing care for seriously ill patients, serious under-staffing of all wards, and individuals dying while waiting for operations.
Though I would have a number of serious reservations about the balance of the programme, and I would rebut the charge of any general breakdown in the National Health Service, a situation has been revealed in which very serious dangers to health and, in some circumstances, life exist. This shows that the circumstances are specific and urgent.
But the matter is important on a wider level, because it reveals a crisis on two particular levels. The first is that cuts in public expenditure which have affected the
1356
NHS over past years are now coming home to roost, and the associated quite proper efforts, through the Resource Allocation Working Party, to redistribute what are totally inadequate resources to less advantaged areas are at present crippling parts of the NHS in the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham area, and probably in many other parts of the country, too. The Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Area Health Authority is currently, on top of this very serious situation being revealed, being expected this year to reduce its expenditure by £2 million.
This matter is important for one other reason. That is that it reveals the complete inability of the management structure of the NHS—which was reorganised in a bureaucratic and inefficient manner, not by the Labour Party but by the previous Conservative Administration—to secure the proper distribution of NHS facilities and to prevent the sort of appalling frictions between the medical and nursing professions which were revealed in the programme of yesterday.
I submit that any situation which reveals a lack of space in intensive care units, which can admit of incidents in which ill-trained nurses can accidentally feed drugs into a patient's artery when they should have gone into a vein, in which a consultant can talk of 24 avoidable deaths in a year, is just one of those urgent and specific matters which justify an emergency debate. I submit that a case has been made for that.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the serious impairment to National Health Service standards, including the risk to life at King's College Hospital in South London".
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. As the House knows, it is not for me to decide whether this matter is to be debated but merely whether it is to be debated tonight or tomorrow. That is all the discretion that lies in my hands. I have to rule that I cannot submit the hon. Member's application to the House.

ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BELFAST
Mr. Bradford: 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 recent deterioration in the already inadequate security at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, due to the presence of Provisional IRA sympathisers on the security staff of that hospital".
One notes the disgusting spectacle of a security supervisor, John Devine, assisting three armed terrorists to escape from the hospital by returning their car keys, which he had in his possession long enough to convey to the security forces, and by misinforming the Royal Ulster Constabulary of their escape route.
One also notes that Devine, whose son is in prison for terrorist murder, has been joined in attendance at Provisional IRA funerals, by Peter Macken, Thomas Mallon, Liam McMenemy, Liam Dwyer, James McCann, and his brother, Charles Devine, all of whom are on the security staff of the Royal Victoria Hospital.
This House should have time to probe these incidents, especially the incidents that involve Devine, who has been photographed very recently during a Republican demonstration, which clashed with the RUC in Belfast.
To those incidents I add the very recent and very frightening experience of a leading nursing officer who, after reporting a misdemeanour by a security man, was told by members of the security staff at the hospital that he would be permanently "fixed". There are those who are willing to substantiate the assertions to any Member of the Cabinet, even to the Prime Minister.
In conclusion, I believe that this House should help the medical and nursing staff, who are committed to saving life and easing pain, by debating what steps can be immediately taken to deal with those whose psychopathological pastime is to take life and to intensify pain, and to deal with those who assist them in any way, including those members of the security staff that I have now named.
This House should immediately take the opportunity of coming to some
1358
arrangement whereby the security at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, is placed in the hands of a national organisation, such as Securicor, and certainly to remove these gangsters from the position of authority and influence that they hold.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the recent deterioration in the already inadequate security at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, due to the presence of Provisional IRA sympathisers on the security staff of that hospital".
I have listened with concern to the hon. Gentleman. As the House knows, I am not required to give my reasons in replying to an application for an Adjournment debate. I cannot grant the hon. Gentleman's submission and I would say to him, as I would say to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), who sought a debate earlier, that there are other means by which he can pursue this matter within the House.

ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BELFAST
  BILL PRESENTED
    MERCHANT SHIPPING (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION)
    Mr. Neville Trotter presented a Bill to enable effect to be given by Order in Council to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 and to any modifications of the Convention and any convention superseding the Convention; and to the Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in the cases of Marine Pollution by Substances other than Oil; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th July and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Polish People's Republic) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

EARLY-DAY MOTION NO. 444
Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a question which is important to other hon. Members. You will know that, last Friday, I tabled an Early-Day Motion on the Civil List. Having recalled what "Erskine May" said about the characteristics of parliamentary language being good temper and moderation, I carefully framed my motion to fit in with that description. However, when I took the motion into the Table Office, a Clerk demurred and suggested that it might be construed in another way by yourself and those who perform those functions.
There the matter was left until yesterday, when I received the revised version of my Early-Day Motion, which, in terms used in this House, consisted of a whole series of wrecking amendments. The final version which was put to me bore little relation to the version which I orginally put forward, including the title. The title was completely unacceptable and was altered in toto.
I shall get into deep trouble with my very large number of supporters in the country when they see the motion, which purports to be in my name, but which in fact is not my wording.
Mr. Fairbairn: Then the hon. Gentleman should not have put it down.
Mr. Hamilton: I was faced with that situation. The language that I wanted to use was parliamentary language; there was not an expression there which was deeemed by "Erskine May" to be un-parliamentary. Nevertheless, they were deleted. This should concern all hon. Members.
One of the great attributes which we sometimes claim for this House is freedom of speech within certain bounds. I thought my motion was couched within those confines, and I object very much. I feel a great sense of frustration that I cannot express the very strongly held views I have on these matters in the way I want to express them. I understand, of course, that there are limits to what one can say, but I thought that I was well within those limits in my original version.
If it is not possible to put motions down on the Paper, then I feel almost tempted, obliged to publish the original
1360
version and let people outside judge what exactly this kind of censorship means in this House. I hope this will be dealt with in some seriousness. I regard it myself with some seriousness and I hope you, Mr. Speaker, will make some judgment on it.
Mr. Mawby: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I looked at the motion put forward by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) this morning and I felt that it was outrageous.
Mr. Hamilton: It was very modest.
Mr. Mawby: I felt it was something to which I should put down an amendment. I just wanted to give you that information, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and the House will know that I take very seriously the responsibilities that the House has put into my hands concerning motions on the Order Paper. When I considered the original draft of the hon. Member's motion, I took the view that it contained certain expressions which were irregular or unbecoming, and therefore, as "Erskine May" points out on page 373, "disorderly".
It is a well-established practice that the Speaker exercises his discretion in disallowing such expressions. It would not be right for me or for the hon. Member or anyone else to say what they were.
I should add that I am surprised that the hon. Member has raised the matter because I thought that the hon. Gentlehan had accepted the ruling. Obviously I was not under the impression that a motion had gone on the Order Paper without his agreement. If that is so I shall gladly look into the matter, but his amended motion, which I understood had been sent to him and accepted by him, has appeared on the Order Paper.
Mr. Hamilton: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is true to some extent, but when one is faced with an amended version, one either accepts it or one does not get anything down at all. There was a Biblical expression that was ruled out of order. I shall not repeat it, but I see nothing unparliamentary in using a Biblical expression in an Early-Day Motion. It is true that I went into the Table Office with the amended version

1361
which was put to me, and that is what the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) has described as "outrageous". Yet it is the version proposed by the Officials of the House. The original was much stronger meat. I object to my beer being watered.
Mr. Speaker: Let me make one thing clear. The motion is not proposed by any Officials in this House. What they did was to try to help the hon. Gentleman to remove the parts which were considered to be disorderly.

SERVICES WIDOWS (PENSIONS)
4.38 p.m.
Mr. Peter Viggers: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for service pensions and in particular to provide pensions for widows of non-commissioned servicemen who retired before 1st September 1950.
People may think that "Upstairs, Downstairs" was a television series which portrayed an age that is past. But "Upstairs, Downstairs" lives on today in the pension arrangements for widows of our Service men. The widow of an officer who retired before 1950 receives a pension. The widow of a man who served as a non-commissioned officer or in the ranks does not. This Bill would correct that indefensible unfairness.
Parliament represents the employer of all those in the Armed Forces and, broadly speaking, it has done well by those now serving and recently retired. Inflation-proofed pensions have enabled many Service men and their families to retire in dignity and some comfort—although their pensions still compare unfavourably with those of most other countries.
However, the widows of non-commissioned ranks who retired before 1950—the pre-1950 widows—receive what they have always received from the Ministry of Defence—nothing. Widows of officers have received pensions for many years. It was not until 1952 that a pension entitlement was introduced for widows of ranks below WOI and a cut-off date was set at 1st September 1950. The widows of men retiring after that date were given a pension of one-third of that received by their husbands, which was increased to one-half in 1973. But the pre-1950 widows were left out. The latest estimate—made in 1972—of the number of widows involved is about 30,000. The cost of granting pensions would be about £4 million a year, also calculated in 1972.
Pension schemes need to have cut-off dates. Therefore, what is special about the pre-1950 widows? Their husbands, to be eligibile for pension themselves, all served a minimum of 22 years in the Armed Forces in conditions which would now be intolerable. Every man served through one world war, and many

1363
through two. They endured long periods of separation from their families, with pay so low that personal saving was difficult, if not impossible. Moreover, inflation has made a mockery of any personal savings they had. The Service man's entire recompense for his period of service is therefore tied up in his pension, and in the case of a Service man who retired before 1950 this dies with him and no benefit passes to his widow.
The continuation of this position derives from Government policy over a number of years. I quote from a letter written by the Prime Minister on 26th May 1976:
"The principle on which public service pensions are based is that any improvements apply to those leaving the service after the date of introduction, but not retrospectively to those who retired earlier."
But this principle is not sacrosanct. Any good pension scheme should give the trustees discretion to make special payments.
Let me give an example. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was responsible for social services, he introduced pensions for the over-80s, not because such pensions were actuarially correct but simply because the over-80s had been left out and this was not fair.
What kind of people are we dealing with? I have a letter from a constituent, a letter which I happened to take from a pile of letters, two inchs deep, from hundreds of people. It is typical of what is contained in that correspondence. This gentleman, a constituent, served in the Services for 22 years, and he points out that he survived the bombs and torpedoes that sank HMS "Prince of Wales". He says:
"My wife is 70 and I am 77 years of age. My main concern is now my wife. I hate to think what will happen to her if she is the survivor. She will have to revert to the lowest of incomes. … My wife is the same as the other widows. Her pride would not let her apply for social security when she is really entitled to part of my pension."
These Service men and their wives think that there is an entitlement. I feel that
1364
they have been left out of the provision, and that is not fair.
The widows remain as a symbol of a bygone age of service and unquestioning loyalty. They see the world changing around them and benefits of all kinds being enjoyed by people who are less deserving. Is this fair? Is it not proper for us to reconsider the position of those who have been left out of pension improvements?
There is money available when political necessity demands. Only yesterday the Secretary of State for Defence announced that Service men retiring now will enjoy the benefit of increased pensions as if they had retired on the increased 1980 pay scales. Yet the pre-1950 widows remain left out.
The Bill which I now present has the support of representatives of all parties, and indeed every person who studies the facts—indeed, every person I have ever spoken to on the subject—gives sympathetic support to the cause of the pre-1950 widows. My Bill will convert that sympathy into action.
I ask leave to introduce my Bill, and I plead with the Government to take up its provisions.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Viggers, Mr. Alan Lee Williams, Mr. Philip Goodhart, Mr. Stanley Newens, Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles, Mr. Richard Crawshaw, Mr. Julian Critchley, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Iain MacCormick, Rev. Ian Paisley, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, and Mr. John Ovenden.

SERVICES WIDOWS (PENSIONS)
Mr. Peter Viggers accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision for service pensions and in particular to provide pensions for widows of noncommissioned servicemen who retired before 1st September 1950; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14th July and to be printed. [Bill 135.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE AND HOUSING CORPORATION GUARANTEE
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Tony Durant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to mention New Clause No. I—Interpretation—which is in my name and that of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) but which has not been selected. I am in no way challenging the Chair's selection, except to say that the clause affects some 30 per cent. of new home purchasers because a mobile home often provides the first opportunity for a person to buy his own home. I feel that the definition of "a home" should include mobile homes.
  I appreciate that in Committee it was ruled that mobile homes were not classified as "homes", but I query this and wonder whether the matter has been properly examined. Therefore, I wish to place on record my disquiet that the clause, which I tabled in an effort to assist in defining "home" and to use the relevant provisions from the mobile homes legislation, will help the Bill. That is why I am concerned to see that the new clause was not selected. I am in no way challenging the Chair's ruling but I wish to place on record the fact that the ruling caused me some disquiet.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The hon. Member should have his attention drawn to Standing Order No. 33 (1), which states that
  "In respect of any motion or any bill under consideration on report or any Lords amendment to a bill, Mr. Speaker shall have power to select the amendments, new clauses or new schedules to be proposed thereto."
  I would add that this direction by Mr. Speaker is absolute, and is not open to query. It is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, not a practice of Mr. Speaker to give reasons.

  HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE AND HOUSING CORPORATION GUARANTEE
    New Clause No. 2

      DURATION OF ASSISTANCE
      Assistance under this Act shall subsist for the entire period for which the assistance is given notwithstanding the fact that the purchaser sells the house property and applies the proceeds of sale to the acquisition of another property which he makes his only place of residence.'.—[Mr. Rossi.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Hugh Rossi: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I am sorry to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment appearing at the Dispatch Box wearing a sling. I hope that he is not suffering too much discomfort and I shall do my best not to add to it.
      The Bill as presented enables a loan of £600 to be made interest-free for five years to first-time buyers who, for a period of two years preceding, have themselves been able to save a sum of £600 of their own. Once they have bought their first house and borrowed that £600, that loan will remain for the life of the mortgage which has been taken out with the assistance of this loan, enabling them to undertake the purchase. It is the first five years that is interest free. For the remainder of he mortgage they will pay interest on the £600.
      However, one finds that the Green Paper on housing produced by the Government, in Technical Volume II, shows that 51 per cent. of first-time buyers sell up their house and move within five years of purchase. In other words, there is a fairly rapid turnover of owner-occupiers. That being the case, we feel that it would be undesirable to create a situation in which people might find it difficult to change their homes. They do not do so arbitrarily; they do so because their personal circumstances are such that they have to do so. An increase in the size of family may require them to buy a larger house, or a change of job may require them to move from one part of the country to another.
      I hope that it is part of public policy to make it easy to move around freely. Unhappily, as the Bill is drawn, if the house is sold within the five-year period,

      1367
      the £600 has to be repaid and, moreover, cannot be claimed again on the purchase of the second house because the borrower is no longer a first-time buyer and no longer within the terms of reference of the Bill.
      The object of the new clause is to try to overcome that difficulty. It would enable assistance under the Bill—the loan of £600—to subsist notwithstanding that the purchaser sells the house and applies the proceeds of the sale to the acquisition of another property which he makes his only place of residence.
      Of course we have had to include that last qualification in the new clause because we agree that it would not be right that help of this kind should be extended to the purchase, for example, of second homes. That is not the object of a scheme of this kind. Nevertheless, we can contemplate a situation in which a young couple, having bought a home with the help of the additional £600 loaned to them interest free, later want to move because they need a larger house or for the other reason I gave, but find that the other house, because of inflation, is marginally more expensive than the one they are leaving. Because, under the Bill as drafted, they will no longer have the benefit of this £600 loan, since it has to be repaid and is not renewable for a second purchase, they may find themselves trapped, as it were, in their first home, unable to buy the larger home that they may need, or unable to accept a new job opportunity.
      I see no objection to the principle underlying the new clause. It would be of considerable benefit. I cannot conceive, either, with the qualification that we have written in, that such a proposition could be subject to any kind of abuse. I understand that the only objection that exists is one of administration, because, in the way that building societies operate, they have forgone the use of the clerks who of old could do simple arithmetic in their heads, and today they put everything on a computer. The more we mechanise and progress, the more difficult and complicated life becomes. Therefore, these computers are to be programmed in such a way that, at the end of the five-year period, what is left of the £600 after allocation of repayments is shown up as the final amount that then becomes subject to interest.
      1368
      If one were to say, as we suggest, that at any point of time there could be a break and a renewal of the loan, it seems that the programming would have to be done for the whole of 1,825 separate points in time—that is, the number of days within the five years. That kind of programming would apparently cause a great deal of administrative difficulty for the building societies, but it would not be insuperable difficulty.
      There is another way to approach the problem. We can say that during the five-year period none of the capital repayments should be attributable to the £600 loan and that those repayments should be attributable to the other borrowing of the purchaser of the property. If that approach were suggested, I do not think that it would be difficult to adopt because, in the first five years of a mortgage, a very small proportion of the monthly repayments is attributable to capital, the bulk being comprised of interest payments. Such capital repayments as were made within the five years would relate not to the £600 but to the remainder of the borrowing. In that case, one could overcome the administrative difficulty that appears to be the only obstacle in the way of the new clause.
      I hope that the Minister will accept this proposal in the spirit that it is made and recognise that what we are trying to do is to make the scheme more effective and of greater help to young people who may find themselves otherwise trapped in their house of first choice because if, they sell and re-buy, they will be £600 short on their borrowing.
      Mr. David Atkinson: The new clause gives me an opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the consequence that the Bill will have for first-time buyers in my constituency, including those whose jobs necessitate their moving home. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) wishes to be associated with my remarks.
      The Bill refers to the loans available being based on a purchase price with a price limit prescribed by the Secretary of State, and states that different limits may be prescribed for properties in different parts of the country. Under that proposal, Bournemouth is to be categorised as in the South-West Region, and I understand that the price limit to be applied to

      1369
      that region is about £11,200. Yet the Minister is surely aware that because of the nature of Bournemouth as an urban area, as opposed to the otherwise rural nature of the region, and as an attractive area not only in which to work but to retire to, and as a resort which attracts and encourages an above-average job mobility amongst young people because of the seasonal nature of its trade, the demand for homes there will always be at a premium, and thus so will the price be.
      The average price of a house for the first-time buyer in Bournemouth will therefore be considerably higher than the average price of a house elsewhere in the South-West Region. If one is to be entirely fair to Bournemouth, the price must be regarded as in the same sort of bracket as the average price in a place like Southampton, 15 miles away, or, indeed, equated even with London. So instead of a price limit of £11,200, one nearer £14,500 or £15,000 would be more appropriate. It is only because of the local government reorganisation that took Bournemouth out of Hampshire and into Dorset, and into the South-West Region from the South-East Region, in which the price limit for property will be considerably higher, that the first-time buyers in my constituency will be penalised as a result of this provision.
      I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take the opportunity to explain to the first-time buyers of Bournemouth, and in particular to those whose jobs will take them there, the justification for placing the borough in the South-West Region, which will have the result of giving them a raw deal in providing them with assistance under the terms of the Bill.
      Young people seeking council houses in Bournemouth are already seeing their hopes dashed as a result of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act because other people are moving into the area and are being shown preference for accommodation as opposed to those who have been living in the area for a number of years.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: Until the last minute or so I had great support for the hon. Gentleman. The Isle of Wight is in the South-East Region, and if Bournemouth goes to the South-West
      1370
      that is nonsense, because prices in Bournemouth are substantially higher than in my constituency. But it was not the present Government who reorganised the local government of Dorset and Bournemouth, the hon. Gentleman should make his representations elsewhere.
      Will the hon. Gentleman give facts and figures for those who he claims have moved into Bournemouth since the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act came into force and have got accommodation over the heads of local residents? If he would like to give the figures I would be pleased to have them for Thursday night.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman will be entirely appreciative of the situation to which I refer, because he was a sponsor of the Bill that I mentioned. The consequences of it are of considerable concern to the council in Bournemouth and to the young people who are waiting for their council house and finding that they remain on the waiting list with very little hope, quite simply because they are overtaken by people coming into the area and taking advantage of the seasonal trade in order to satisfy the six months qualifying period.
      Mr. Ross: Let us have some facts.
      Mr. Atkinson: First-time buyers in Bournemouth will be severely affected because of the provision that I mentioned. I urge the Minister to agree that Bournemouth should be recognised as separate from the rest of the South-Western Region in regard to the price limit for house purchase prices.
      Mr. Michael Latham: I should like to make a brief intervention, but before doing so I remind the House that I have an interest in this matter, as I am a director of a building company.
      It should be said in support of the new clause—which is a very reasonable and important one, in my view—that the gateways for obtaining the relatively limited assistance under the Bill are extremely difficult. This is something that will not happen for at least two years, once the provisions of the Bill begin to take effect. We are talking of something in 1980–81.
      Let us remember what a person has to do in order to qualify at all. It is clearly set out in Clause 1(3). First, he has to

      1371
      have been saving for two years—and two years continuously, at that. Secondly, within the 12 months before the two years he has to have maintained an account of at least £300. Thirdly, by the end of the two years he has to have £600 in an account with a recognised savings institution. If he has done all those things, he is eligible for the £600 loan free of interest and of any obligation to repay the principal for up to five years.
      As I said on Second Reading, many people will not bother with that sort of exercise. Although, on the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would be out of order for me to talk much about the position of house prices at the moment—perhaps it would be in order to do so at a later stage—we all know that there is some danger, at any time, of house prices outstripping incomes. If that happens, as I said on Second Reading and in Committee, a person going into the scheme would be better advised to put his money together as quickly as possible and to buy a house rather than go for the £600 loan, which at the end of the two-year period might well have been overtaken by the house price increase. He would therefore be even worse off than if he had put his money together as best he could at the beginning of the two-year period.
      But let us suppose that those bad conditions do not occur, and that the rise in house prices, as the Government would wish, is in accordance with the rise in the cost of living and the rise in people's incomes, so that it is not detrimental to go into the scheme. Even so, the five-year period will then begin to take effect, and if the house is sold during that time the repayment must be made. I emphasise very strongly—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi)—that that would have a bad effect on the chain of housing.
      I believe that in Committee the Minister said that he expected 40,000 people to be brought into the new home ownership net who would not otherwise have been brought in. I note that the Minister nods his head. There is no doubt at all in my mind that of those 40,000 people a not unsubstantial number will wish to move within the five-year period, so that the benefit will have to be repaid. That will have an adverse effect on the chain of housing.
      1372
      All of us who take a particular interest in housing policy—in other words, those of us who are here in the Chamber—know very well that the problem—
      Mr. Durant: Some of us.
      Mr. Latham: No, all of us. My hon. Friend should not be so ungenerous.
      Mr. Durant: It would be nice if we were to see some new people taking part in the debate. We always seem to see the same faces.
      Mr. Latham: There are other hon. Members who come in periodically, and no doubt we shall see them during the course of the debate.
      With regard to the five-year principle and the chain of purchase in particular, many experts have suggested that the 1980s may be a period during which houses will be difficult to sell. It has been suggested that the relationship between population and housing stock will be such that the housing stock may stick, and that in certain areas there will be a surplus. I entirely accept that in many areas there will be no building surplus; nevertheless, anything which adversely affects the chain is to be deplored, because it will have a bad effect on housing policy.
      I find it quite impossible to understand why the Minister should resist the new clause. It is drafted in the most moderate terms, it is perfectly sensible and it has a minimal effect. I cannot believe that the administrative problems for building societies would be insuperable. We are talking of only 40,000 people among the 4·8 million who have mortgages. I am sure that any problems can be overcome, given good will and a proper programming of the computer. I hope that the Minister does not have the word "Resist" at the top of his brief, and that he will accept the new clause.
      Mr. Durant: I support the new clause because I feel that one of the detrimental effects of the Bill will be to cause more immobility in housing, and I am concerned because we have too little mobility already. It is a deterrent in regard to people taking new jobs and moving around the country, and will only be another nail in the coffin of those who want to move regularly and often. I think that the new clause is reasonable and is one that we should support.

      1373
      We must face the fact that if we are to have new industries in different parts of the country, people will want to move to those parts of the country in order to take up those new opportunities. But if we continually make it more and more difficult for people to move, the country's economic problems will get steadily worse.
      I believe that we should take this opportunity to show that we believe in mobility. I am sorry that my new clause concerning mobile homes was not accepted. I believe that it would encourage people to move towards new areas, to new jobs and to new opportunities, instead of feeling that, having gone into the scheme, however small it is, they are stuck for a minimum of five years. That would be a great pity in relation to what is, after all, a worthwhile small piece of legislation.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) for his kind words at the beginning of the debate, and particularly his assurance of co-operation. I almost rushed across to get him to sign my plaster. I am most grateful to him.
      The aim of the new clause is to allow freedom from interest on capital repayments to continue for five years, even if the first-time purchaser sells his house and a new one is bought during that period.
      I shall take note of what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) said. With regard to homelessness, I suggest that he should attend the Adjournment debate later this week when that subject will be dealt with in detail. I do not think that his comments in that respect are really relevant to the new clause. I understand his representations concerning regional price limits. He will probably hear me say something about that aspect in reply to the next group of amendments.
      The points that were made in Committee—and reinforced today, quite properly and reasonably, by the Opposition—persuaded my right hon. Friend to say that he would have another look at them and give consideration to them. That is what we have done. We have also consulted the lending institutions, which will
      1374
      have the main job of operating the scheme. But, quite frankly, I have to say to the House that we have been reinforced in the view that our original judgment was correct.
      The new clause would complicate the proposed arrangements. We are anxious that the arrangements shall be as simple as posible. The point was quite properly made that the Bill will affect only a limited number of folk. We find that the take-up of most benefits that are available is somewhat disappointing, and we are anxious that this scheme will be as simple and straightforward as it is possible to make it.
      The fundamental purpose of the Bill is to assist first-time purchasers, not those who sell and buy again. The one argument that concerns me a great deal is the mobility argument. The hon. Member for Hornsey mentioned it, as, indeed, did the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant). We are very anxious indeed not to impede mobility. As the hon. Member for Hornsey will clearly recognise, the evidence is that those who have a house are much more mobile in society than those in other housing sectors. It is true—we have given careful consideration to this—that where people move for employment reasons they are very often assisted by the employer in finding, and even buying, a home. Once a first-time purchaser has been helped into home ownership, he possesses an asset. That is surely an important consideration. He owns an appreciating asset. At most times it is an asset that rises in value. Indeed, very often it would outweigh the value of the Government loan. That was freely acknowledged.
      I can give an example. Let us consider a house which costs £12,000 and which the first-timer buys with a deposit of £2,000 and a loan, including Government assistance, of £10,000. Let us suppose that the purchaser moves after three years, during which time house prices rise at, say 10 per cent. a year. He therefore sells at £16,000. After paying off the loan, including the Government loan, he has £6,000 available. Therefore, he could buy a better house—say, £18,000—take a smaller percentage loan, pay the costs of transfer and have some cash left over. Therefore, in the real world we are dealing with very few folk, although we looked very carefully at the matter

      1375
      because of the strength of the arguments used in Committee.
      In addition, compared with the advantage of the bonus and loan assistance which enables a person to become a home owner, the risk of having to move and repay the loan before the five years are up is not, in our view, an overburdening consideration. This would be one of very many matters that would obviously be considered by anyone contemplating moving or having to move for employment reasons.
      There is a second reason for resisting the new clause. As the hon. Member for Hornsey suggested, it has to do with administration. We discussed the schemes very fully with the representatives of the institutions before we presented the Bill. Our combined intention, which I am sure has the approval of the House, was to find as simple a scheme as possible which would be to the benefit of both first-time buyers and the institutions. I place on record today the helpful co-operation that we have had from the institutions. They are taking on what will be quite an administrative chore and operating it free of charge. They believe, and we share this belief after talking to them, that the proposal in the new clause would add a genuine complicating factor involving a disproportionately expensive extra burden compared with any benefits which the few people involved may receive.
      5.15 p.m.
      Under present proposals, the Government loan is contained within the main loan from the lending institutions. When that loan is paid off before the end of five years, so also is the Government loan. It is a straightforward, sensible arrangement which is easily understood. If the £600 loan were continued, we have to consider whether it would be by the lender of the first mortgage loan. If so, there would need to be a new security, because the house would have been sold. There could be difficulty about arrangements for repayments. There could well be disproportionate administrative complications, especially if the Government were to take responsibility for administering the continuing assistance. Frankly, I foresee numerous difficulties concerning security of the loan and collection of payments.
      Mr. Michael Latham: I can quite understand that administrative problems cause the Government concern, but surely the building societies cannot seriously be suggesting that these 40,000 people, out of a total of 4·8 million mortgages, would cause an immense administrative problem. The building societies are continually transferring mortgages from one house to another as people sell and buy a new one.
      Mr. Armstrong: We must bear in mind the purpose of the Bill, which is to assist a limited number who would otherwise be prevented from becoming home owners. We must consider the administrative complications in relation to the assistance that is being given and what we are asking the lending institutions to do. Let us suppose that an institution making a second loan was then responsible. The problems would then include the transfer of £600, notification to the Government and the reduction of payments for only part of the five years. Indeed, a modified mortgage deed would be required. Last but not least, we must consider the institution's decision whether to make a loan at all, given the requirement to make the £600 additional to its loan, especially if that £600 loan had only a year or so to run.
      We are not against the principle of the new clause. We want the scheme to be simple. It is a limited and modest scheme. We want to assist the first-time buyer and avoid any extra administrative burden. I therefore ask the House to reject the new clause.
      Mr. Tim Sainsbury: This short debate on an important new clause has raised a point which too often comes before this House. It is an issue which all sides of the House are agreed is worth while. The Minister has recognised the importance of the mobility of labour and the fact that there should be no discouragement of it, yet for administrative reasons nothing can be done to overcome this problem.
      I suggest that this is worth having another look at. There is a recognition of the scale of the problem. As I am sure the Minister and his right hon. Friend are aware, many house purchasers, particularly first-time purchasers, do move within the first five years. Indeed, I draw

      1377
      the Minister's attention to the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), which show that the biggest incidence of movement is in the second or third year after purchase. That is understandable, because there may be changes in the size of family and a first-time purchaser is likely to be at that stage of his career when job movement becomes more likely.
      The Minister said that administrative complexity rules out this additional help. I urge him to have another talk with the building societies. The complexity argument seems to be advanced because of the difficulty of transferring what is an interest-free loan for five years from one property to another. If I understand the intention of the Bill correctly, the £600 loan is interest free for five years. Therefore, there will be no repayment and no interest on that loan for the duration of five years. It is secured against a property during that period. At the end of five years repayment and interest become payable on the loan.
      If that is the intention—that is certainly how it was set out on Second Reading—there does not seem to be any real complexity in the transfer. After all, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), normally if somebody is selling his house the transaction for the purchase of alternative accommodation are carried out at the same time. It would be more likely than not that the same building society would be involved. Although I appreciate the Building Societies Association's generosity in operating the scheme without charging for it, if it were discussed with the serious intention of getting it accepted, ways could be found which would not become administratively too complex or expensive.
      Mr. Armstrong: I hope that I have not given the impression that the problem is merely administrative. There are two other main considerations. The Bill is related to first-time purchasers and not to those who buy and sell again. In the real world, unless there is a dramatic change in what has happened in most of my lifetime, anybody who buys a home possesses an appreciating asset which in most cases far outweighs the benefit over one or two years—the longer, the bigger
      1378
      the benefit—of any loan from the Government.
      Mr. Sainsbury: I suspect that the Minister is confusing inflation with changes in real value. The value of the house that the first-time purchaser was moving to would equally have increased. The Minister, in a curious way, devalues his Government's own scheme. He seems to be suggesting that the help that is being given is so small the loss of it on moving home would not be regarded as a discouragement. I fear that he may be right in respect of the scale of the help that we are looking for. He is saying that, since it is nothing much to worry about, if after two or three years one wishes to move and as a result one loses an interest-free loan of £600, one should not worry about the administrative complexity of avoiding that loss. I find that surprising.
      Mr. Michael Latham: If somebody sells a house for £10,000 and buys a new one, having geared up for £13,000, there are stamp duties, removal costs, and so on, and £600 as well.
      Mr. Sainsbury: We are all unpleasantly aware of the costs of moving. We hope that stamp duty will be avoided at that level. It depends upon the level of the exchange. Most of the people benefiting from the proposals in the Bill would be free of stamp duty.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I very much agree with the point that is being made, and I hesitate to interrupt when I see quite a number of lawyers present. If I remember rightly, it is not easy when one is transferring mortgages, whether or not one has an extra £600. When I moved house, I thought that I could simply transfer my £12,000 building society mortgage, which was with the same building society. The building society made me pay it off and take the mortgage out again, and I had to pay the survey fee. It is not a simple exercise. I hope that if the Minister can persuade the Government to discuss the matter with the building societies, they will discuss the simplification of the whole process and not just its effect on those people who happen to have taken advantage of the Bill.
      Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr.

      1379
      Ross). Like him. I am not a lawyer. However, I have the advantage of expert advice from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). The point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight makes about there being a relatively complicated transaction on a change of house is valid, since one has to go through the procedure of repaying the first mortgage and taking out a new one attached to the new property. I do not think that there is considerable additional complexity in transferring the unexpended balance of five years of interest-free loan to the second property. The Minister
      recognises the importance of mobility of labour. He surely also believes the scheme to be of real value and the loss of that loan to be a deterrent. If so, will he consider the matter again with the Building Societies Association to see whether it is administratively as complex as has been made out? If it is not, perhaps the matter could be considered in another place.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 167.

      Division No. 223]

      AYES

      [5.25 p.m.

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Alison, Michael

      Hodgson, Robin

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)

      Holland, Philip

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Hordern, Peter

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Benyon, W.

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Biffen, John

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Brooke, Peter

      Jessel, Toby

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Kilfedder, James

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Buck, Antony

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Budgen, Nick

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Silvester, Fred

      Carlisle, Mark

      Luce, Richard

      Sims, Roger

      Channon, Paul

      Mates, Michael

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Mawby, Ray

      Spence, John

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stanley, John

      Dodswofth, Geoffrey

      Molyneaux, James

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Viggers, Peter

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Wakeham, John

      Farr, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Fox, Marcus

      Newton, Tony

      Walters, Dennis

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Mr. Tony Durant and

      Hannam, John

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Mr. David Atkinson.

      NOES

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Ashiey, Jack

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Atkinson, Norman

      Dewar, Donald

      Horam, John

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Doig, Peter

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Bates, Alf

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Bean, R. E.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hunter, Adam

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Eadie, Alex

      Janner, Greville

      Boardman, H.

      Edge, Geoff

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      English, Michael

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Judd, Frank

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Kerr, Russell

      Buchan, Norman

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lambie, David

      Canavan, Dennis

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Lamborn, Harry

      Cant, R. B.

      Flannery, Martin

      Lamond, James

      Carter, Ray

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Litterick, Tom

      Cartwright, John

      Ford, Ben

      Loyden, Eddie

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Forrester, John

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Cohen, Stanley

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Coleman, Donald

      Golding, John

      Maclennen, Robert

      Conlan, Bernard

      Gourlay, Harry

      Madden, Max

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Graham, Ted

      Mallalleu, J. P. W.

      Cowans, Harry

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Hardy, Peter

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Cryer, Bob

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Mikardo, Ian

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Davidson. Arthur

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mitchell, Austin

      Molloy, William

      Rooker, J. W.

      Tierney, Sydney

      Moonman, Eric

      Roper, John

      Tilley, John (Lambeth, Central)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Tinn, James

      Moyle, Roland

      Rowlands, Ted

      Tomney, Frank

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Ryman, John

      Torney, Tom

      Newens, Stanley

      Sandelson, Neville

      Urwin, T. W.

      Noble, Mike

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Sever, John

      Watkins, David

      Palmer, Arthur

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Pardoe, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Whitlock, William

      Park, George

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Parker, John

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Silverman, Julius

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Snape, Peter

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Radice, Giles

      Spearing, Nigel

      Woodall, Alec

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Woof, Robert

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Stallard, A. W.

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Stoddart, David

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristoll NW)

      Mr. Frank R. White.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      ADVANCES TO LENDING INSTITUTIONS
      Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 7, after 'savings', insert 'income and capital'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 5, in page 2, line 15, after 'savings', insert
      'and the third condition is that he shall provide evidence that he would not be in a financial position to purchase the property without the assistance of a loan of at least 70 per cent. of the purchase price and that such loans would be of an amount not less than double his annual income.
      No. 6, in page 2, line 32, leave out 'both' and insert 'all three of'.
      No. 7, in page 2, line 34, after 'first', insert 'and third'.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the assistance provided by the Bill is concentrated upon those who might not be able to afford the purchase of a house without the assistance that the Bill provides. On the face of it, any measure that provides additional assistance for those who are buying a house for the first time seems a very good thing. It is quite clear that it has a very wide appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      I ask hon. Members to consider what the effect of indiscriminate assistance to house purchase is likely to be. To what extent, by simply pushing additional money into the house purchase market, are we merely pushing up the price of
      1382
      houses without increasing the supply in any way? My amendment is designed to ensure that that assistance is concentrated on those at the bottom end of the market who would not otherwise be able to afford to buy, and where there is considerable scope for increasing the supply.
      To illustrate the effects of my amendments, Amendment No. 5, contains the essential provision that there should be an additional condition to the payment of assistance under the Bill. This third condition would be that the applicant would have to provide evidence that he would not be in a financial position to purchase a property without the assistance of a loan of at least 70 per cent. of the purchase price of the house and, furthermore, that such a loan would be of an amount not less than double his annual income.
      If I can give an illustration, under the financial limits contemplated in the Bill we are told that in Greater London, if the Bill were in force now, a first-time buyer purchasing a property for a price of up to £16,200, would be eligible for assistance. The sum of £16,200, even in London at the present time, will buy a very nice bachelor pad. It will buy quite a reasonable, small single-room flat. For somebody who has ample means and an adequate income, the effect of providing the assistance that this Bill will provide and which somebody—even though he has the income and the capital—is likely to be entitled to receive under this Bill, will merely enable him to pay still more for his flat than he would have done otherwise.
      The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that this assistance is restricted to those with relatively small incomes—though not that small. If we take a flat at

      1383
      £16,000 in London at present, my amendments would provide that under the scheme nobody would be eligible who was in a position, because of his capital, to purchase without the assistance of a mortgage of up to £11,200. He would not be eligible, either, if his annual income was in excess of £5,200.
      I ask my hon. Friend to consider to what extent it is desirable for us to provide assistance out of public funds—I would have no objection if there were unlimited funds available—to somebody with an income over £5,000 a year or somebody who is in a position to put down more than £5,000 on his house. In the absence of my amendments, that is what the Bill would provide.
      At present, only about one out of five first-time buyers is buying a new house. That means that four out of five first-time buyers are buying existing houses and that four-fifths of any money that we provide to assist the generation of additional demand will generate instead an increased demand for existing houses. Four-fifths of the money flowing from this Bill will go towards inflating the price of houses and will not generate additional demand for new houses coming onto the market.
      Therefore, the principle upon which the Bill is based is fundamentally wrong. I admit that I welcomed the Bill on Second Reading, but the more we discussed it during Committee the clearer it became to me that the measure would not help those who need it most. If the Bill were concentrating help at the bottom end of the market—on those who would not otherwise be able to buy their own homes—I would very much welcome it, but to the extent that the Bill provides assistance to those who would be able to buy anyway, I think it is wrong.
      I recognise that such people need help and that they are having a tough time, but the fact remains that they are able to buy anyway. To the extent that the Bill enables them to cope with their difficulties a little more easily, it is self-defeating. It will not help them in practice; it will simply inflate the price of houses. It must do. When only one in five new house purchasers are buying new houses, it cannot generate additional supply. It will only push up house prices.
      If we were able to concentrate the additional money on those who would
      1384
      not otherwise be able to buy, it might well attract additional property into the market. I have in mind particularly the potential buyer who is a sitting tenant in private rented accommodation who would be in a better position to buy his house with the assistance available under the Bill. I also have in mind the buyer of property which is at the lowest end of the price scale. Without my amendments we will not be able to help such people.
      It may well be that the existing first and second conditions incorporated in the Bill will ensure that those with the greatest amount of family backing will benefit most. These are the ones with financial advisers. These people will be advised to ensure that they have £300 in their accounts in 1979 and they may well be helped by relatives in topping this up to £600 by 1980. This would enable them to get maximum assistance under the Bill.
      We must also bear in mind that the Bill is limited in scope because the amount of money involved is not very great. There is provision in Clause 1(6) for the Secretary of State, by order, to alter the sums specified in that clause. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that if he is ever in a position to exercise the powers of Secretary of State he intends to increase greatly the scope of the Bill.
      At present the £100 million will have only a limited effect, for good or for ill. If the hon. Member for Hornsey got his hands on the necessary powers, he could cause a lot of harm. I fear that under the leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition he would be under considerable pressure to do so, even though his own judgment might advise him against this, as I believe it would. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to consider very carefully whether tighter restrictions—whether they are those outlined in Amendments Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7 or in some other form—should not be introduced in another place.
      As the Bill stands, there is no adequate restriction on its scope in order to ensure that help goes where it is most needed rather than to those who would otherwise be able to buy their own homes Without such restriction the Bill is damaging and is more likely to result in increasing house prices than in providing any significant

      1385
      assistance to those who could not otherwise afford to buy their own homes.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Michael Latham: The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) raised an issue of considerable importance. I want to echo some of his thoughts, although I do not feel that his amendments are at all satisfactory.
      Amendment No. 5, which is the substantive amendment, says that
      "the third condition is that he shall provide evidence that he would not be in a financial position to purchase the property without the assistance of a loan of at least 70 per cent. of the purchase price and that such loans would be of an amount not less than double his annual income."
      The hon. Member did not tell us how that evidence was to be provided, to whom it was to be provided, or in what way it was to be assessed. I assume that in some way he would have to satisfy the lending institution that he had attempted to buy houses at the ruling price and had not been able to afford it. It would, in effect, be a means test. That is not necessarily in any way objectionable, but the House should know clearly what is being proposed.
      The hon. Member's proposal has more weight in principle—although I believe it to be defective in detail—in that it allows the House to face the reality of the position—that we are consciously attempting in two years time to inject new demand into the market.
      The Minister said in Committee:
      "we believe that there would be approximately 200,000 people benefiting by the operation of the Bill, of which—I speak now without checking the papers on this—about 30,000 to 40,000 would be additional people outside the margin of purchase now but who would come within the margin of purchase."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 4th April 1978; c. 14.]
      Therefore, 200,000 people, of whom between 160,000 and 170,000 would have been in a position to buy houses anyway, will benefit from the Bill.
      What worries me is whether we are doing a wise thing by attempting to inject more purchasing power in two years without knowing anything about the financial conditions that will exist in the housing market at that time. Indeed, it is very difficult to know the financial condition in the housing market at present. I give a simple illustration. I have
      1386
      with me two publications, one from the Building Societies Association and one from the Nationwide Building Society. The Building Societies Association document, entitled "Facts and Figures", published in April this year, says:
      "It appears likely that in the first quarter of 1978 prices in general were about 3 per cent. higher than in the fourth quarter of 1977 so there has been an acceleration in the rate of increase of house prices but certainly not something which can be termed an 'explosion'."
      However, the Nationwide Building Society, in a document published at the same time, says:
      "House prices rose by an average of 5 per cent. in the first quarter of 1978 which was the largest quarterly increase since 1973 and compares with an average of 1 per cent. in the fourth quarter of 1977"
      Therefore, at the precise time that we have the Building Societies Association saying that there is no cause for alarm and that 3 per cent. is certainly not something that constitutes "an explosion", we have the Nationwide Building Society—the third largest building society, and a very respected one—talking about the largest quarterly increase since 1973, which has resulted in considerable Press comment and speculation about a possible explosion.
      The feeling that came out of a report such as that of the Nationwide Building Society is the sort of thing that has induced the Secretary of State to agree with the Building Societies Association on a restriction on their lending to £610 million a month in order to try to take the steam out of the housing market.
      The House-Builders Federation, in its latest report, refers to the sharp deterioration in the availability of mortgage finance. It states that
      "The sharp deterioration in the mortgage situation is confirmed in … the inquiry. These show that from a trend of gradually improving mortgage availability and processing, as reported in the last few enquiries, the picture has swung suddenly and substantially in the opposite direction."
      If that is the position now, if building societies are now finding difficulty in agreeing on the rate of the house price increase, and if the Government—I shall use not the emotive phrase but the neutral—decided to take the heat out of the market to deal with the problem that may or may not exist, how much more difficult it will be to judge the market

      1387
      in two years' time. We are, therefore, in much more difficulty in saying that at this moment we should set up a scheme to inject purchasing power into the market in two years' time.
      I do not believe that the amendment provides the right way of dealing with the problem. The elaborate means-testing system and the arbitrary 70 per cent. are unworkable. If we are to go ahead with the scheme, as manifestly we are as it is the will of the majority of the House, although one or two hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden and myself have doubts, we must at least ensure that there is careful monitoring. It would be disastrous if in two years' time the scheme were to go into operation and produce a substantial influx of new money into the market when the market was rising naturally anyway.
      I remind the House of the similar action that was taken by President Nixon in his Federal Housing Act 1969. The President decided that he wanted to pick up the private housing building industry, which at that time was on the floor. A new scheme was produced that brought in more money. It picked up the market substantially—so substantially that the scheme had to be terminated after a couple of years because it was extremely inflationary.
      We need to consider these matters carefully. I utter cautioning phrases although I know that some of my hon. Friends will not welcome them. However, I believe that such fears should now be expressed.
      Mr. Armstrong: My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) has been consistent in expressing his reservations and doubts about the Bill throughout the time that it has been before the House, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee. Today he has tabled amendments to forward the principle that he has repeated quite often about providing assistance to those who need it most. That is a principle with which I do not disagree in any way—indeed, I support it.
      I tell the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) that we shall monitor carefully the effects of the Bill. I take seriously some of his comments. They were
      1388
      relevant, in a way, to the amendment although not strictly relevant to my hon. Friend's proposals.
      I doubt very much whether the effect of the amendment would help to achieve the principle that my hon. Friend has so often put before the House. The adoption of the amendment—I understand that he would not disagree with this—would be tantamount to introducing a means test. The purchaser would have to produce evidence that he was not in a position to purchase without a loan of at least 70 per cent. That would mean that some deserving cases would be denied assistance.
      There are those whose income is too small to contemplate a large loan and there are others who are approaching the end of their working life. Those in the latter category may have saved over a number of years and with a relatively small loan and with relatively large savings they may just be able to manage to become home owners. It cannot be right to exclude those from the scheme that we are introducing.
      The second element in my hon. Friend's proposals is the need for the loan to be not less than double the purchaser's annual income. Surely that, too, could work unfairly. Let us think for a moment of parents with large families or parents whose incomes are liable to fluctuate. It would be foolish to encourage them to undertake a large loan. How is income to be assessed? Is it to be the joint income of husband and wife? We know that practice now varies a great deal.
      The amendment would complicate these matters unduly and could act unfavourably on some would-be home owers.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: My hon. Friend asks how income is to be assessed. On every application for a building society loan details of income have to be provided. In the table of facts and figures from the Building Societies Association, to which the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) referred, there are details of the average income of the first-time buyer, from which it is clear, as matters stand, that he is obtaining a loan of about 80 per cent. of the value of the house that he is purchasing. The loan is a little under 80 per cent. but well over 70 per cent.

      1389
      The first-time buyer is getting an average advance that is slightly under twice his income. The purpose of the amendment is not to add to bureaucratic procedures. That procedure has to be gone through in any event. The purpose is merely to restrict the benefit to a significant proportion but not to a minority.
      Mr. Armstrong: I do not quarrel with what my hon. Friend has just said. However, if we are extending the qualifications when considering the eligibility of would-be purchasers for assistance under the scheme, each individual would have to be considered in a much more detailed manner than at present. It is no good talking about averages. Each application would have to be considered because the applicant's eligibility would have to be determined in a precise way.
      That which my hon. Friend seeks so as to ensure that money goes where it is most needed is best covered in the fairly simple scheme that we have proposed, which incorporates regional price limits combined with the minimum size of mortgage loan. Surely that is the best way of giving assistance to those who really need it without building up the whole paraphernalia of income testing that the amendment would involve.
      We have necessarily included safeguards to ensure that help goes where it is most needed, to enable those who would otherwise be excluded, or who are just on the margin, to receive assistance. We consider that our proposals would have that effect. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: I believe strongly that the amendment is desirable. I appreciate that there is not a body of support in the House, but I feel that I cannot withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 10, after 'date', insert 'of the approval'.
      The amendment arises out of a suggestion from the House-Builders Federation that we discussed at some length in Committee. The Minister said, towards the end of that discussion:
      "I see the attraction of handing over the benefits as quickly as possible, and it is the intention of the amendment to do so at the
      1390
      first possible moment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 4th April 1978; c. 26.]
      The right hon. Gentleman raised some technical objections to the means of arriving at a position where the benefits were handed over, as he said, "at the first possible moment", which we, the Opposition, took as valid. I hope that the amendment meets those objections. Subsection (3) would then allow assistance to be given to people who
      "have been saving with a recognised savings institution for at least two years preceding the date 'of the approval' of his application"
      rather than the "date of his application".
      6.0 p.m.
      Clearly, as the Minister recognises, time is taken in processing an application for a mortgage. Time will also be taken in processing an application for help under the scheme. If the purchaser has to wait two years before making his application for assistance, there will inevitably be further delay in the procedure of house buying, which is often more lengthy and subject to delay than people would like.
      I see no objection to allowing an applicant to apply for assistance well in advance of the two-year deadline in order to clear paperwork and receive approval, subject to his fulfilling the conditions set out in subsection (3) at the deadline point.
      The Minister's objections to the amendment originally introduced in Committee do not apply to the revised wording. I suggest that if we allow an earlier application—if we allow the paperwork, and so on, to be cleared before the completion of the two-year period—although we may not save an enormous amount of time—probably only two months, but it is still worth saving—we may save applicants some worry about their eligibility and the amount of help that they may expect to receive. Therefore, I commend this simple amendment to the House.
      The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I fear that the difficulties that I described in Committee have not been resolved by the change in the drafting, as I hope to show the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury).
      Like the Opposition, I want the benefits of the scheme to be paid as soon as practicable after the two-year savings

      1391
      period. The efforts of Opposition Members to find ways of shaving off a few weeks would, I fear, result only in confusion. Indeed, they could possibly cause delay rather than bring forward the date of payment.
      The savings period must end on the date of an event which is certain to occur. It is the only way in which we can get qualification. It is no good stipulating a closing date which is both unpredictable and outside the purchaser's control. I say this because there is no requirement under the Bill, nor indeed in the amendment, for the application for assistance to be approved by the lender at any particular date.
      Even if such a requirement were made, the prudent lender would not give formal and final approval until he was certain that all the conditions had been fulfilled, and he could not be certain of that until the purchase had been completed. He could not be certain when, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Hove, the application was processed "well in advance of the end of the two-year period". It could not be known at that stage that the conditions which would qualify for benefit under the scheme had been met.
      If assessment were delayed until the purchase had been completed, the purchaser would be unable to use his savings at the very time that he most needed them—I made this point strongly in Committee and I repeat it now—namely, in the period between making a "subject to contract" offer and completing the purchase. At best, the amendment would result in additional and unnecessary administrative procedures. At worst, a purchaser might be unable to use his savings when he needed them or, if he used them before the period was up, he might be deprived of assistance altogether.
      I explained at some length in Committee why the date of application, which is under the control of the purchaser, is by far the best closing point. It frees the purchaser's savings at the earliest possible moment for the various purposes to which he wants to put his savings in connection with the purchase—sometimes in connection with the start or the commissioning of repairs which can be required by a building society on an older property—and it enables the lender to process the
      1392
      application for assistance in an orderly way. The lender needs to know whether the savings conditions have been satisfied before deciding the amount of total loan. He cannot be certain of that until there is simple documentary evidence that the savings conditions have been satisfied.
      I shall try to make this point by reference to an example. I cannot remember whether I did it in this way in Committee. The amendment would mean that a would-be purchaser might apply for assistance with less than £600 in his account, because he would be making his application ahead of the completion of the period. How can the institution approve it at that stage without knowing the outcome of the qualifying period with regard to savings?
      Mr. Sainsbury: We seem to be going over the discussion that we had in Committee. I thought that I had got the Minister to accept that in life many things are approved subject to a condition being fulfilled, including the purchase of a house. The purchaser will buy "subject to contract", sometimes "subject to survey" and nearly always "subject to a mortgage". This is not unusual. This is a normal process.
      Mr. Freeson: That reinforces the point that we are creating uncertainty, not certainty, in the operation of the scheme. Such uncertainty will be particularly damaging to the applicant. It will also be difficult for the lender. The hon. Gentleman's intervention confirms the point that I made in Committee, and make now, that the operation of the scheme depends on qualifying conditions. If this proposal operates one, two, or more months in advance of the period of completion, as was suggested, we shall create an unknown quantity of uncertainty in the operation of the scheme for both the lender and the prospective purchaser.
      The institution will not be able to determine its final loan offer until it is sure that the applicant has reached £600, or it might assume that the conditions were not going to be met—it could make such a judgment on the information before it—and make a lower offer accordingly. The institution can make a considered offer of total loan, including the extra £600, only in response to an application made when the savings conditions have been met.

      1393
      It would not be reasonable to require the institution to determine eligibility for the Government loan on the same day as it makes its offer. How could it obtain satisfactory evidence of the purchaser's balance at the kind of period which has been broadly estimated by the hon. Gentleman and which I have accepted as the basis for his thinking, namely, two months or more before the completion of the period? That kind of information is not available instantly.
      I accept the underlying motivation of the amendment in principle, as I said in Committee, but I do not think that the proposal is workable. I think that it would add confusion and difficulty to the operation of the scheme.
      We have been back to the institutions on this and on a number of other matters. We have consulted essentially the building societies, but others have been involved. They confirm our view. Of course, they will have to administer the scheme. Our proposals will work, because they have been worked out in conjunction with the institutions.
      I appreciate that there has been a small change in the wording of the amendment compared with the proposition put forward in Committee, but it does not meet the difficulties that were raised at that time and which I have repeated today. Therefore, I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will accept what I have said today and will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Sainsbury: I think that the Minister's advisers are very skilled at finding a whole series of difficulties which might apply to a small number of cases only and making them sound even worse than they are.
      I appreciate that there are some valid doubts whether the amendment would make the scheme more administratively complex. I wish that I had confidence that the Minister had pursued with more energy the intention that he expressed in Committee about making the help available as quickly as possible. If that were a real intention, I think that he should have been able to find ways of enabling people to get through the paperwork in advance.
      1394
      In the light of what the Minister said, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 15, leave out '£600' and insert:
      'a sum at least equal to the amount of assistance for which he is making application under subsection (4)(a) below'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may discuss Government Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: The purpose of this amendment is to enable an applicant to obtain assistance under the Bill if the amount that he has saved falls short of £600. It would enable the applicant, as of right, to receive assistance up to the amount that he has saved. If he has saved £500 he will be entitled to £500 worth of assistance under the Bill.
      I am pleased to see Government Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which enable the Secretary of State to achieve the same result by order, but I should have preferred this provision to be incorporated in the Bill. Earlier in the debate I expressed anxieties about what the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) might do with that power. I am apprehensive about the ways in which he might exercise that power were he given the opportunity.
      The Government have shown their good will in their amendments, and I do not propose to press my amendment. The value of the Bill lies in the extent to which it will help those who are at the margin. I have grave reservations on the question whether we were wise to incorporate the savings provisions in the Bill. The picture in the Bill is that of the young couple carefully putting away money each week in a building society so that they will be able to purchase a house after a two years' savings period. Although house prices have not increased so much in the last two years they are starting to accelerate again. If someone is not in a position to purchase a house now, after a two years' savings period he might be in an even less favourable position to purchase.
      Those who are most likely to qualify through the savings conditions are those whose parents are in a position to assist

      1395
      them. Originally I welcomed the savings conditions, but on reflection I feel that in practice they will be fulfilled by those whose families are able to help them rather than by those who rely entirely on their own efforts.
      Since there are savings conditions it is desirable that someone who has not quite reached the target should, nevertheless, be able to obtain reduced assistance under the Bill. The Government amendments would enable this to be done by order. In those circumstances, I do not wish to press my amendment.
      Mr. Freeson: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) and the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) that the arguments advanced by them in Committee have been carefully considered. I have sympathy with the objectives of the amendment. The Bill can help to direct assistance to those, especially in the inner cities, who are seeking to buy cheaper houses or those who wish to join certain types of co-ownership schemes such as community leaseholds and certain types of shared equity schemes which will also qualify the individuals concerned so long as they have individual mortgages.
      6.15 p.m.
      Because of the thought that I gave to the subject even when the Committee was debating the matter, I concluded that we should do something along the lines set out in Amendment No. 11. I believe that that represents a more flexible method of dealing with the problem. It will permit the introduction of a sliding scale when we have more experience of the practical operation of the scheme and when we are persuaded that the need for it is established.
      It is only fair that I should put on record again my doubts about a sliding scale of loan. One of great virtues of the scheme is its simplicity. There are two elements—the £600 single value loan and a simple sliding tariff. To underline the simplicity the final saving required for the loan is also a single figure—£600. Amendment No. 4 would introduce a sliding scale involving any amount between £300 and £600. I fear that this might diminish the effectiveness of the scheme.
      The proposed scheme is intended to encourage people to achieve a reasonable
      1396
      level of savings before purchase. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, who has had second thoughts, I stand by the scheme because it involves an important principle. This measure should not be undertaken other than on the basis of a partnership between the State and the individuals concerned. That is why I stand by the principle of saving/lending assistance, plus the bonus in the scheme.
      Money is needed for deposit, survey, legal fees, removal expenses, and initial works. I am aware that sitting tenants have no removal expenses, but the majority of people have transaction costs of £300 or more, rising to the figure in the Bill. Except in the few cases where 100 per cent. loans are offered, £300 is not enough for this type of initiative. We did not choose £600 out of the blue. We thought carefully about the right level that would set a reasonable but not impossible target.
      Since the Committee stage I have asked for the views of the building societies which will administer the scheme free of charge on behalf of the Government. They confirm that a sliding scale would add substantial complications and that a separate calculation for each loan, depending on its value, would have to be made.
      I do see the force of the counter-arguments. That is why I have tabled Amendment No. 11, which will empower the Secretary of State to introduce a sliding scale of loan by order when we have had more experience of operating the scheme, subject to negative resolution procedure.
      If we find that among those buying cheaper houses a significant proportion are unable to save up to £600 an order can be made to introduce a sliding scale. We shall be able to discover this by the strict monitoring of the scheme that we propose. I envisage that we might have a tariff on the lines of the bonus, but not as suggested by my hon. Friend, although it would have the same objective if we were to go along that road.
      There would be a number of fixed points in the tariff. For example, there would be a £300 loan for £300-£399 of savings, a £400 loan for £400-£499 of savings, and so on. This system would retain some of the simplicity which is so important to the purchasers as well

      1397
      as to the institutions that will administer the scheme.
      I hope the House accepts the approach that we have adopted on this matter in our consideration of the views expressed in Committee—views with which I have some sympathy—and will accept Amendment No. 11.
      Mr. Rossi: I thank the Minister for tabling Amendment No. 11 and for meeting the case that we put to him in Committee for greater flexibility in the scheme. We accept, of course, the administrative problems that he has had to face in his discussions with the building societies, in seeking to produce a simple scheme, but we had very much in mind the fact that £600 of savings over two years represents £6 a week out of a net income, after tax, for a young couple.
      That is not an easy matter for the kind of people who are acquiring property, in inner cities, for example, on 100 per cent., 95 per cent. or 90 per cent. mortgages. In these circumstances, the £600 requirement of savings over two years could have been an insuperable barrier and contrary to the general interest of trying to make home ownership available to people in those circumstances.
      I hope that the Minister, having accepted those arguments and having brought forward the kind of amendment that we were seeking, will not allow this proposal simply to lie upon the statute book un-noted, but will quickly bring forward a scheme so that the people to whom I have drawn attention may benefit. If these people are able to save only £300 over two years they will get the advantage of a £300 loan. That will be a considerable help to them in meeting all kinds of expenses they will incur, even though they may have a 100 per cent. mortgage to cover the purchase price of the property. To that extent, I once again thank the Minister.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: Although I was slightly disappointed at the tentative tone in which my right hon. Friend the Minister set out his intentions to introduce this proposal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 34, at end insert
      'but he does not in any case qualify unless the amount of the secured loan is to be at least £1,600 and not less than 25 per cent. of the purchase price of the property.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also take Government Amendment No. 9.
      Mr. Armstrong: These amendments arise from the discussion in Committee. We took seriously the concern expressed there about the need for parliamentary control over the key elements of the scheme, and in particular we have taken on board the very strong arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) about the importance of the lower limit to the value of the loan from the lending institution which will attract Government assistance.
      We therefore want to give assistance only in cases where the secured loan is at least £1,600—that is, £1,000 plus the Government's £600—and where that represents at least 25 per cent. of the purchase price. To set an even lower limit or no limit would bring in more first-time-purchases, but people who took such a small loan would be showing that they did not need assistance. Smaller loans can cause a massive amount of extra work in the arrangement of payments and repayments over a longer period. We would not want to set the limit too high, however. There are district councils that give loans of around £2,000 to help young couples who are buying for the first time small terraced houses that they are prepared to renovate and improve.
      Careful consideration has brought us to the same view as that held by the working party, which was composed of experts from local government, the banks, the building societies and insurance companies, about the size of the minimum loan. The figure is £1,600 including any Government loan. The figure is about as low as we should go, we believe, and it should ensure that the assistance goes to the deserving young couples I have mentioned.
      As with other requirements in the Bill, there would be a power for the limits to be varied by means of an order subject to the negative resolution procedure.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 2, line 34, at end insert—
      "(6) Those who have been saving with a recognised savings institution for at least two years preceding the appointed day of this Bill will qualify to receive assistance under subsection 4(a) and (b) immediately from the appointed day by satisfying the second condition of subsection (3) provided that the loan is applied to the purchase of a recently built house not previously occupied as a home by any other persons".
      The purpose of the amendment is to add a subsection to Clause 1 to deal with the situation in which people have been saving regularly up to the time the Bill becomes law to enable them to qualify for some of the benefits under this measure.
      As the House has already been told this afternoon, the Government's intention is that the assistance under the Bill will not operate for two years after it becomes law. In other words, if it received Royal Assent next month, people would have to wait two full years from then—until the summer of 1980—before they could derive any benefit.
      One can see that this is a valid proposition in respect of the tax-free bonus on savings, otherwise it would mean that the bonus would be given retrospectively on savings made in the past. With loans, however, the proposition about retrospective revenue legislation does not apply.
      One of the difficulties that will be caused by the way in which the Bill is to be operated, requiring two years of savings before the loan can be made, is this. There may be those who will be tempted to hold back from buying a house, in order to take advantage of the scheme, until the end of the two-year period. If a lot of people took that attitude, the housing construction industry would be in difficulties.
      I do not have to tell the Minister of the difficulties of the housing construction industry or of how many hundreds of thousands of unemployed building workers there are. Any measure that further damped down demand for two years should therefore be avoided. The anxiety that I express has been expressed to me by the House-Builders Federation. It is extremely worried by this aspect of the Bill.
      There is a further extension of that proposition. Not only will demand be
      1400
      damped down during the two-year period while people are saving, but at the end of that period demand will surge for houses that are not available, and that will serve only to increase the prices of those that are available.
      We discussed this matter at some length in Committee and I detected in the Minister's reply sympathy for the problems of the house builders. However, the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to take up our proposition in respect of all house purchasers. He recognised the problem on new houses but felt that nevertheless he should retain the two-year delay on the purchase of secondhand houses and that the £600 loan should, therefore, be delayed for two years in respect of those houses.
      6.30 p.m.
      Therefore, there is a difference between the amendment that is before the House today and the amendment as it appeared before the Committee, because, in order to meet the objections raised by the Minister and to try to spell out specifically the fact that we were anxious not to cause greater problems for the house builders than they have at the moment, we have added words at the end of the amendment as follows:
      "provided that the loan is applied to the purchase of a recently built house not previously occupied as a home by any other persons."
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am in many ways greatly attracted to the idea of concentrating assistance on new houses which have not previously been occupied, for reasons that I have indicated in other speeches. But I was wondering how the hon. Member's scheme would operate. Is he aware that, according to the facts and figures of the Building Societies Association, to which reference was made earlier, in February the prices of new houses were 15·2 per cent. higher than those of a year earlier, whereas existing house prices were only 7·9 per cent. higher? Therefore, it is the price of new houses that is rising most rapidly and this, as the Building Societies Association argues, is a consequence of additional demand, principally from purchasers of new houses.
      Mr. Rossi: I am aware of those figures, but the price of new houses as distinct from second-hand houses is dictated mostly by the increase in construction costs. Looking at the figures produced

      1401
      by builders, one sees that their margins are very limited indeed. The problem that many of them have is that, having to construct new houses at these higher prices because of increased construction costs, they find that in some parts of the country they are unable to sell because second-hand houses of equal quality are being sold cheaper. Therefore, I do not think that the hon. Member should rely too much upon those figures in dealing with the point I am trying to make in regard to this amendment.
      Because the builders are in that difficulty, it is even more important that we give some immediate aid now in order to encourage them to build more houses and not to draw back from so doing by damping down demand even more than it is damped down now in this sector in some parts of the country.
      This is a matter that the Minister recognised. This was the tenor of his reply to our representations in Committee. That is why the amendment is presented to the House in this form. As we have sought to produce the amendment in this revised form, in order to meet the expressions of interest of the Minister in Committee, I hope that he will now see his way to accepting it. We could go no further to meet his wishes than as we have done.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I also find myself very much attracted to the new amendment. I think I said on Second Reading that the example in Ireland was that when the new Government came to power there they introduced a measure to help home purchasers which was directed entirely at new house building to give a stimulus to the building industry generally. I see this as giving just such a stimulus, which I think the industry still needs. I can see the strength of the argument.
      I was all for an outright cash payment to start with. The longer that one debates the Bill, the more one sees the snags creeping in. Therefore, I personally think that the Government have got it right. I can, however, see strong arguments for this amendment to try to give some impetus to the new house building industry now to encourage first-time home buyers to try to concentrate a little more on this aspect, and certainly to avoid what may well happen in two years' time, as the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi)
      1402
      has quite rightly said—a sudden upsurge of demand for the older type of property. One can foresee that.
      I am already advising people who come to see me that the Bill is coming forward and that, if they are patient and save, in a couple of years' time they will benefit from the bonus that the Government will be providing. If there is some way in which we can introduce this measure earlier and direct it at new house building, there is everything to be said for it.
      I am sure we shall be told that this is too complicated and would mean more bureaucracy. I take very much to heart the ideas of the Government that this should be a simple scheme, but I suspect that the building industry will be in need of an added stimulus. I do not think that anyone present will say that it is working at full steam. It is certainly not doing that. We need a great many more houses built in Britain.
      I do not know whether any hon. Members watched the television programme "Open Door" last night. It absolutely reiterated what I think most of us had known all the time—that there is no alternative, if we are to deal with our situation, to building a great many more houses. Certainly we need many more houses built in the inner urban areas.
      Therefore, if there is some way in which the Government, if not accepting this amendment now, could try to meet the spirit of it, either by the way in which they dealt with Amendment No. 11—bringing it in by order—or by a further amendment in the other place, they would be doing a service, because it would help the Bill to operate much more smoothly than it may do. One can foresee pitfalls ahead.
      I want to see this measure succeed, as I am sure everyone else does. I think that it is quite a bold move. It is a move in the right direction. As I said, the Government have got it about right. I do not support the idea that one can pump very much more money into this. I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), because I see the Bill, in some of its aspects, adding to inflation, which is just what we do not want to happen to house prices. The Government have a very difficult task in trying to keep the lid on house prices. They may well have been right in their conversations with the building societies

      1403
      to try to restrict lending. I certainly never want us to return to the circumstances of the period of 1972–73—certainly 1972, anyway.
      I know that we are dealing with a very delicate mechanism, but if there is some way in which the amendment can be met I think that it ought to be met. I hope that the Government will see their way to doing so.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: I sincerely trust that my right hon. Friend the Minister will not be tempted to accept the amendment. It is unlikely that he will do so, because he is clearly aware—this is the reason why the Bill has been framed in this way—that the impact of the Bill will be to add to demand. Unless the builders have the opportunity of preparing for that additional demand, the sole impact will be on house prices.
      My fear is that that will be the effect in two years' time. It would certainly be the effect if the Bill were introduced now, even if it were restricted in the manner suggested by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) in the amendment.
      I should like to commend to my right hon. Friend the concept of restricting some of the kinds of assistance that we give to house owners and house purchasers to those who are purchasing new houses. The sole real argument in the Green Paper against a reform of the system of housing finance could be summarised as saying that, if it had not been for the overall assistance—the £1,100 million a year—that we give to mortgagors through mortgage interest tax relief, no one would have been able to afford to buy any houses at all. That is the implicit argument in the Green Paper, and it is the implicit argument put forward by the hon. Member for Hornsey just now in reply to my intervention.
      I would commend both to Ministers and to the lion. Member for Hornsey Figure 5 on pages 20 and 21 of the Green Paper. That shows that the real effect of increased demand is a sudden acceleration in land prices rather than in the costs of the construction industry. The costs of that industry have remained extraordinarily stable. Earnings in the building industry have closely followed the pattern of national average earnings, whereas land prices fluctuate wildly in response to increases in demand.
      1404
      I would also commend the leading article in the Building Societies Association's facts and figures paper. The BSA is not a body on whose facts and figures I would strongly rely—I have frequently been in disagreement with ifs approach to housing finance—but in the current issue I find strong support for my views on the immediate or long-term implementation of the Bill in an undiscriminating way. The BSA says:
      "The rise in prices is not, as some commentators maintain, pricing first-time buyers out of the market. Rather, it is the precise opposite which is occurring. Because so many first-time buyers are seeking to enter the market, the price of houses is rising."
      That argument is well supported by the facts and figures in the article.
      The amendment would lead to additional demand. There would not necessarily be more first-time buyers, but there would be more first-time buyers with more money to spend, able to generate instant additional demand, with no possibility of any increase in supply to meet it. That would immediately produce a further surge in the price of houses. The amount involved might be very small, but the principle is fundamental.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. However, two or three years ago many hundreds, if not thousands, of new properties were standing empty because of lack of demand. There was a big municipalisation programme. Local authorities were stepping in to buy some of those houses—with some odd consequences. We are talking of a limited number of people anyway. Does the hon. Gentleman think that, by going some way towards the amendment's objective—by directing this money towards new house building—prices would be pushed sky high? I do not agree.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: I do not say that they would be pushed sky high. I say that we should be putting public money into pushing up prices and that it would have no other effect. If the amount involved—as it would be—were only a few million pounds, a few million pounds of public money which serves no purpose but to increase prices is a few million pounds badly spent.
      Of course, the proposal will not have a vast effect. Of course, there have been times of fluctuations in demand which

      1405
      have resulted in the construction industry being unable to sell what it has already produced. The argument of ensuring stability of demand for the industry's product is going a little wide of the amendment—although not very wide, because it is directed to the effect of demand as a consequence of this change.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: One other point occurs to me: that most new house building will be outside the range of the Bill. We are talking, therefore, about the cheaper houses in provincial and rural areas where this kind of demand does not exist and where the proposal would be very helpful.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: According to what we have been told, the relevant figures would be £12,300 in the South-East and £16,200 in London. That is for a young single purchaser who will be eligible for assistance under the Bill. A price of £16,000 can still be in the luxury class if it is paid for a very small flat.
      6.45 p.m.
      The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has drawn me rather wide. The point I wish to stress is that if the amendment were accepted we should certainly bring on our heads immediately the harm which I fear will come to a lesser extent when the Bil comes into full effect in two years. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider a selective subsidy for newly-built houses. Four-fifths of what we spend now on subsidising houses goes to push up prices, because four out of five transactions are for existing dwellings. If we concentrated on new houses, the argument in the Green Paper for persisting with the present expensive system would fall. I therefore welcome the idea in the amendment, although not the actual proposal involved.
      Mr. Freeson: Having seen a new hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) in his remarks tonight, I was almost persuaded to go along with him. However, his recollection of my response in Committee has been clouded with warm good feeling towards me which does not reflect the mood in which I responded then.
      I must repeat that the arguments I adduced against the original proposal in Committee are even stronger if the intention is to narrow this retrospective
      1406
      application simply to new houses. That would reinforce the argument that we should be putting pressure on those prices when the market had not been prepared for the application of the Bill.
      One theme brought out both in Committee and today is the need for the two-year period, apart from the administrative aspect, to allow the market to adjust to the increased demands that the injection of this assistance will place upon it. We judge that this period will provide sufficient time for adjustment. That is particularly apposite to the provision of new houses—even more than to the secondhand market. If one injected these resources immediately, the market would not have had time to adjust. The situation described by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) would be with us now as distinct from being with us in two years.
      Despite what the hon. Member for Hornsey said, I believe that if we stick to the Bill as presently proposed, so far from there being a sudden surge of demand in two years without additional houses being available, the reverse will to some extent be true. In about two years, I suspect that there will be a slight hiccup as people wait in those two or three months for these benefits to accrue. In the summer and autumn of 1980, the first year of the operation of the scheme, there will be a slight holding back while people await the concluding period of the qualifying conditions.
      Mr. Sainsbury: Would not the Minister agree that the market is much more likely to be affected, and demand adversely affected, by an upward movement in mortgage rates, which unhappily now seems likely, than by the changes brought about by the modest help in the Bill?
      Mr. Freeson: There are all sorts of factors at play. If we want to proceed expeditiously with the Bill, I think that this is not the occasion to stray too widely, although one may be tempted to do so.
      I am making the point that if we were to inject resources immediately, as proposed in the amendment, in respect of new houses when the market is not yet adjusted, we would exacerbate the problem of prices. Contrary to what has been suggested, in two years' time there will not be a sudden situation in which the

      1407
      provision of these houses will cease. The market will have been able to adjust in the expectation of the benefits of the Bill beginning to flow. There will be a constant flow of people coming into the scheme, but in the first year there will be some holding back.
      Let me give the House some background information. It has been suggested that it is important to take action now—not primarily to benefit the individual applicants in the first year, but as a one-off exercise to benefit the housing market. Let me make clear that the House-Builders Federation has not put the same point to me as it has obviously put to the hon. Member for Hornsey. The matter has not been put to me in those terms, but the federation has expressed general interest and has been warmly receptive to the Bill. In other words, that organisation would like to see more steps taken in this sphere.
      The present position in the market is that, contrary to experience in the last few years, there is a steady increase in demand as well as in building activity. The last returns made by the house builders, as I recollect—I should have to check the precise figures—showed an expectation of 135,000 housing starts in the private sector in the current year. The house builders now expect a figure of about 160,000. Therefore, in a short period of time, there has been a marked increase, which reflects a feeling of confidence and an expectation of action in the building of new houses. It is the reverse of the situation that occurred two or three years ago when, following a great boom, there was a collapse in the market. That was caused by a number of factors, and one of the major factors was the mortgage famine of 1974. That collapse in mortgage facilities is no longer with us. We got away from that position after a year or 18 months.
      Despite the restraint on mortgage flow which we negotiated with the Building Societies Association in early March, there will be a larger flow of mortgages in real terms in 1978 than in 1977. This goes against a certain amount of the mythology which has tended to creep in on mortgage flow. I do not expect to see the slightest sign of a mortgage famine. There has been close monitoring of the position in seeking to adjust matters as we think right in conjunction
      1408
      with the Building Societies Association, but the problems which have been underlined as background factors in relation to the Bill do not arise in practice.
      Let me now make a point about equity. Much has been said about the need to direct help to the older, cheaper properties in the inner city areas. We cannot at the same time select in an inequitable way certain provisions in respect of newly built houses. For these reasons, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 9, in page 2, line 38, leave out 'and (4),' and insert:
      '(4) and (5), and the percentage figure in subsection (5).'.
      No. 10, in page 2, line 38, leave out 'or'.
      No. 11, in page 2, line 40, at end insert:
      '(c) alter the second condition of subsection (3) so that purchasers can also satisfy it with lesser amounts of savings, and enable assistance under subsection (4)(a) and (b) then to be given according to reduced scales specified in the order.'.—[Mr. Freeson.]

    Clause 2

      ADMINISTRATION, ETC.
      Mr. Freeson: I beg formally to move Amendment No. 12, in Clause 2, page 3, line 5, after 'consent', insert '(a)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may take Government Amendment No. 13, and Amendment No. 17, in the Schedule, page 6, line 19, leave out:
      'the Protection of Depositors Act 1963'
      and insert:
      'this Act'.
      Mr. Durant: I wish to speak on Amendment No. 17, which concerns banks which might be permitted to enter into the scheme.
      It has been put to me by the Shelter organisation that the list we were given by the Minister in Committee in relation to the Protection of Depositors Act 1963 included a number of banks. In that list I find, to my horror, the Julian S. Hodge Ltd. bank, which is not a bank that we would wish to include in the scheme. That bank has a bad history of pyramid selling, it has caused a great deal of anxiety

      1409
      among a large number of immigrants, and I am concerned at its being involved in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 17 seeks to make the situation clearer—namely, that the Minister should have more jurisdiction over which of the banks can be included. It seeks to cut down the list as provided in Committee. It seeks to delete from the approved list the name of Julian S. Hodge. I know that he is a friend of the Prime Minister, but this is not something that we would desire to see in the Bill and I am very anxious about the position.
      The Minister assured us in Committee that that bank was not included. He then provided the list, and there was the name of that bank as large as life. The Shelter organisation has written to me expressing great concern and asking that this name be struck from the list because there has been so much bad experience with that bank in its pyramid selling and strong-arm stuff on repayments and a bad history in lending money on property. This occurred some time ago. I accept that it is not current practice, but we feel that it would be wiser not to have such a list associated with the Bill.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. Rossi: While the Minister was far too modest to extol the virtues of his own amendment and asked the House to take it for granted, I thank him for trying to meet some of the points that we raised in Committee concerning the Government's approach to the authorised institutions that will participate in this house purchase assistance scheme.
      The right hon. Gentleman will recall that we strongly criticised the approach that there should be included in the schedule a list of lending institutions to which borrowers could go in order to obtain the loans and the tax-free bonus provided for in the Bill. The matter to which we took the greatest exception was the part of the schedule which enabled any banking company or discount company which is authorised for the purposes of the Protection of Depositors Act 1963 to be a participant institution in this scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) has said, the Minister produced a list of
      1410
      authorised institutions under the Act, and they are a very varied range indeed.
      The comment that has to be made is that the Protection of Depositors Act 1963 is exactly what its title proclaims—an Act to protect depositors. One finds in the Long Title that it is
      "An Act to penalise fraudulent inducements to invest on deposit"
      in banks or discount companies, and also a measure to regulate the accounts of those companies and the advertising for deposits in them. In other words, the whole emphasis of the Act is to protect people lending money to the banks and institutions concerned.
      In this Bill, however, the emphasis is quite different. What we are concerned with here is to help the borrowers, and that is an entirely different situation, because many of the banks in the list that the Minister gave us as authorised depositors are those which no doubt protect their depositors very well indeed, as they are required by the 1963 Act to do, and offer them highly attractive interest rates for the money deposited with them.
      In the Bill, however, we are concerned with a poor section of the population seeking to buy houses with Government assistance up to a certain value, and they are the last kind of people who should find themselves involved in many of the companies whose names are listed as authorised under the 1963 Act, because they are companies which pay high interest to depositors and consequently charge even higher interest to borrowers.
      Surely it is in the interests of those seeking assistance under the Bill to direct them away from that kind of lending institution. Therefore, in Committee we criticised the fact that the 1963 Act appeared listed in the schedule as it is, and our Amendment No. 17 now seeks to leave out from the schedule any reference to the Protection of Depositors Act.
      If we did that, we would be left with the simple proposition that the companies which would be authorised institutions for the purpose of lending money to people seeking Government assistance would be those which satisfied the Secretary of State that they ought to be treated as a banking or discount company. One would have thought that the Secretary of State, in exercising his discretion under that kind of provision, would wish to

      1411
      satisfy himself that people were not going to be asked to deal with banking institutions or bank houses which by the nature of their business charge more than the prevailing rates of interest.
      The Minister is seeking by his amendment to meet the objections that we raised in Committee, but he is doing it in an inverse fashion. He is saying, in effect, "Let the list under the Protection of Depositors Act 1963 remain as it is; prima facie, all these organisations can participate under the scheme. Let them go ahead and lend money at whatever rates they do their business, but if the Secretary of State finds that some of the circumstances are not those which satisfy him he will bring himself to take action and remove those banks or discount houses from the approved list."
      I would prefer the right hon. Gentleman to look at it in another way, do a bit of work to start with and begin examining now the banks that should be included in the scheme. There is an abundance of evidence that he can obtain from the City and other major financial sources about what the attitude is and what kind of business these institutions carry out. He can start by drawing up his list of those which are approved, and not at some later, unspecified date draw up a list of those disapproved. Although I thank the right hon. Gentleman for trying to meet some of the objections we have raised—I appreciate the spirit in which he has tabled the amendments—we feel that his approach is not quite the right one.
      Mr. Freeson: This short debate and the one we had in Committee have been very useful. Many of the points made on both sides in the debates have validity. We indicated in Committee that we would consider the matter further. I remain convinced that the definition of "bank" that we propose in paragraph 6 of the schedule is sound and useful and will save a great deal of new work.
      I do not mind being exhorted by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) to do more work in connection with the operation of the Bill. I am not short of work, and we will do it when necessary. But I do not think that I necessarily wish to effect duplication of effort in this respect. There is ample opportunity in the Government to establish the experience
      1412
      elsewhere in other Departments—as is the case here—which can be used for our own pursposes in connection with the Bill. It is certainly not my wish, and I hope that it will not be the hon. Gentleman's, simply to create unnecessary new work in a life that is well pressed for time and effort already. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate and accept that his proposal would mean a repetition of much work already done.
      The definition in the schedule relates to banks which have satisfied the Secretary of State that they should be treated as discount or banking companies for the purposes of the Protection of Depositors Act 1963. This provides, without further additional and separate work on our part, an assurance of financial repute. That being said, I accept the objective of Amendment No. 17. I appreciate the concern felt by hon. Members about the need to be able to include further banks of particular interest to ethnic minorities and perhaps the need to be able to exclude some banks whose behaviour in relation to the scheme proves not to be of the high standard that we will demand. I shall explain why I prefer my approach to the problem.
      Clause 2(1) already provides the Secretary of State with power to add further institutions to the schedule. We propose to use this power to include any reputable banks, whether ethnic or not, which apply and which satisfy the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Secretary of State as to their suitability for inclusion.
      In order, however, to cope with the possible need for exclusion of an institution in the schedule, I have tabled Amendment No. 13, which is designed to give the Secretary of State power to remove institutions from the list. Thus, if the need arose, whether because an institution had ceased business, wished to stop participating in the scheme or had seriously abused its position in the scheme, the Secretary of State would be able to delete that institution from the list of recognised bodies. The amendment provides that before any order was made an institution would have an opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State.
      That summarises the position. I believe that we have met both points that were raised in Committee and which have been repeated briefly today. I think that there may have been misunderstanding in some

      1413
      quarters, arising from the preparatory work on the Bill, as to whether we were including certain banks in some parts of the country which could validly be so included. I believe that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary reassured the Committee that that was not the position, and I hope I have reinforced the assurance which he gave at that time that when further information on other institutions comes before us we shall consider it and add to the list. That is the first point.
      The second point is that I believe that the procedure we have tabled in our amendment will meet the concern that hon. Members have rightly raised about the continued inclusion in the list of banks which have not been operating in the way that is appropriate for them in connection with the scheme.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. Gentleman used the expression "ethnic bank". Would he define the meaning of that term?
      Mr. Freeson: It is a term which was used during the course of the Committee proceedings. I accept what I think is the implied concern or query in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. I have queried the rather loose usage of the word, but I must confess that I am slipping into the same trap. It is a bank which represents, in a proper fashion, a financial interest created by people within particular communities. There are certain banks which derive their resources and their organisation from certain Asian communities. I believe that there have been attempts within the West Indian community to act similarly, as, indeed, within other groups. If I may say so, I have operating in Kilburn, within my on constituency, as have other hon. Members in their constituencies, the very well established Allied Irish Bank, which has been there for some years. I suppose that that would also come within the category of ethnic banks that we have within the country.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 13, in page 3, line 5, at end insert—
      '(b) by order made in the case of a body named in it direct (but only after giving an opportunity for representations to be made on the body's behalf) that it be no longer a recognised institution'.—[Mr. Freeson.]
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Michael Morris: I beg to move Amendment No. 14 in page 3, line 11, at end insert—
      "2(a) The Secretary of State shall at any time prior to the Secretary of State making an order under Section 6(2) of this Act make an order specifying the considerations by reference to which a person is or is not to be treated as a first time buyer of house property.".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
      No. 15, in page 3, leave out lines 19 to 21.
      No. 16, in page 4, line 12, after "(6)" insert "and 2(2)(a)".
      Mr. Morris: Clause 2 is essentially to do with the administration of the Bill, and the amendment seeks to go to the very heart of the scheme, in other words, the definition of a first-time buyer.
      We recognise that there are all sorts of elements in the running of the scheme in regard to which it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to make variations from time to time, and to do it by way of an order. But when we consider that the primary purpose of the Bill is to help first-time buyers, we believe that there is a case to be made out that the Secretary of State should seek the approval of Parliament for what he, at that point of time, seeks to define as a first-time buyer.
      We are not suggesting that the Secretary of State is in any way unable to arrive at a satisfactory definition, but the more we look at the Bill, the more concerned we are—the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) referred to this earlier—that there are distinctive groups which may or may not qualify under the Bill. In the case of the first-time buyer, it would be appropriate that Parliament should have the opportunity to comment on the definition of those whom the Government of the day sought to benefit by the Bill.
      The general consensus in Committee was that it would not be applicable to pensioners, although an argument could be put forward in regard to pensioners who are housed in public housing and who seek to leave an inner city or inner urban area in order to move, for example to the seaside, as many do, and thereby to go into private housing, becoming first-time buyers. That would be to the total

      1415
      benefit of the community in terms of resources, and it might be thought that they should be encouraged in that respect.
      But more important is the single-parent family. I admit that this may not happen initially, but one can envisage a situation in which a couple have had the benefit of the scheme, and there is then a divorce, or perhaps widowhood. As a result, the single parent may again wish to take part in the scheme and become an owner, in his or her own right, as a single parent. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman envisages that that situation will be covered. I must confess that I have not raised it with the right hon. Gentleman before, and it is perhaps a slightly unfair ball to bowl at this stage.
      The fundamental point is that the House wishes the Bill a fair passage, but in the final analysis the House has the right to ask that the Secretary of State of the day should propose the definition and that the House as a whole should approve it.
      Mr. Freeson: This is an important point, and therefore I want to deal with it carefully, even though we went over the ground to some extent in Committee and I have again had a discussion with the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on the matter between the completion of the Committee stage and today's proceedings.
      We originally considered, and have considered further at some length, the question of which matters should be in the Bill, which in orders, and which in directions. Important matters, such as the framework of the scheme, are in the Bill. Major changes to that framework, such as altering the amounts of the assistance, are matters for Parliament and will be contained in orders. More minor matters, too important to leave to the discretion of the institutions involved but not of sufficient importance to justify detailed oversight by Parliament, we propose to specify in directions.
      My firm view is that to use orders would involve Parliament in overseeing detailed matters of administration. For the future, the Government need the ability to use directions to respond flexibly and rapidly to changing circumstances and problems. I believe that
      1416
      Opposition Members, by restricting their amendment to this one, recognised the force of these arguments generally, although they are making a particular point in the amendment. I have tabled my own amendment, dealt with earlier, on the minimum loan provision.
      I believe that I have the right balance, and that the intention of the amendment, which seeks to define the first-time purchaser by order, tips the balance the wrong way. I ask the House to reject it.
      There are two main objections. First, it would be wrong in principle for the definition to be dealt with in the manner proposed. The expression "first-time purchaser" practicaly defines itself. The Secretary of State has little discretion in the matter.
      Secondly, the amendment could delay the introduction of the scheme for at least six weeks, since the institutions could not be expected to embark upon printing expensive leaflets explaining the scheme, training staff and programming their computers, until the details of the scheme are certain. The order would mean waiting for the expiry of the 40-day period. I am sure that that is not what hon. Members would want, but that would be the effect of the amendment. It would delay the introduction of the scheme.
      Perhaps if I explain what our broad consideration will be in this matter when preparing directions, hon. Members will be reassured. The Secretary of State's power under subsection (3)(c) will be used to lay down a simple test to be applied by the lending institutions to decide borderline cases. One of them has been mentioned already and I shall mention some others in a moment.
      The test that we have in mind is to treat all purchasers of the freehold or a long lease—which means a lease of more than 21 years—of house property as first-time purchasers unless they have previously owned such an interest in their home. This is the test in England and Wales. In Scotland the Scottish equivalent would apply. The test would effectively exclude all those who were previously owner-occupiers within the normal meaning of that term. All those who had not previously been owner-occupiers would be first-time purchasers, including, for example, those living with their parents or in lodgings, or who were tenants under short leases. The Secretary

      1417
      of State's power cannot be used to direct that those making a second or subsequent purchase should be treated as first-time purchasers. Nor can it exclude those buying who had not previously owned property. This is basic. There is no question of a discretion being applicable in such circumstances.
      It is as simple as that. But by confining the definition to directions—which can be amended flexibly and swiftly—we leave ourselves able to react to changes at the margin, and can give help to institutions with doubtful cases. But if this amendment is accepted we shall need to come to Parliament on incredibly detailed points, with all the delay and inflexibility that is entailed.
      I have, of course, promised to make the directions publicly available, and copies will be placed in the Library. I hope that hon. Members will agree that this is an issue to which the Government have given great thought and have reached the most appropriate conclusion.
      I did say that I would give a brief indication of the kind of borderline headings, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), which have come to mind during our considerations so far. There is the question, which I think was mentioned in Committee, of tied accommodation. The classic example is that of the retiring Church minister who wants to prepare the way for retirement but who would obviously not be expected to occupy his accommodation straight away. He will still be in his existing tied accommodation. We would like to use our discretion to define for the institution, for the purpose of the Bill, such a person in that situation.
      Another category consists of separated persons. They would be eligible if permanently separated and if he or she had not previously bought in his or her own, or joint, names. With regard to joint purchasers, each must be a first-time purchaser. This follows from the nature of the assistance. A kind of new social dimension is appearing in some of our urban areas as to the nature of household and joint purchase to which we must be prepared to adjust but which we cannot define closely at this stage. Then there are self-build societies, which also provide a
      1418
      variety of action in this area and which we should like to see included.
      These are just examples of the kinds of cases that have already been in our minds. Others about which we cannot be clearly aware at this stage, may well emerge. The main points that I wished to make were my earlier ones. I hope that I have made clear that which cannot be the subject of discretion. I therefore hope that the House will accept what we are putting forward.
      Mr. Sainsbury: Can the Minister say whether those who are part of a co-operative housing movement would be disqualified as having previously owned property? Can he also say anything, either now or by writing to me, about the community leasehold scheme which is equivalent to half-and-half ownership?
      Mr. Freeson: I spent a good deal of time discussing these matters before we brought the Bill to the House. The position on co-ownership schemes—co-operative schemes—is that some schemes involve individual mortgages and others do not. People who have collective mortgages would not qualify for benefits under this Bill because they are not individual owners of the mortgage. But other co-owner-ship schemes—more generally referred to as community leasehold schemes—where individual mortgages are taken out on a long-lease basis, would qualify. Similarly, those participating in shared equity schemes would qualify to the extent that they have part of the equity.
      In other words, the benefit of the scheme would apply to co-operative, co-ownership or shared equity schemes where individual mortgages were involved. Where there is a participation in a collective mortgage, which rests with the corporate body, the individual members of that body would not qualify. However, they would qualify the moment they left such a co-ownership or co-operative and participated in a different kind of co-ownership involving individual mortgage or went into conventional owner-occupation. I hope that that satisfactorily clears up the matter.
      Mr. Michael Morris: One is always reluctant to consent to dismember Parliament's control over what is a fundamental fact and key point in this scheme. Since we first raised this point, the Minister has gone a long way and has made clear that

      1419
      there is to be considerable openness and publicity with regard to those who qualify.
      I ask the Minister to think about the situation of the widow who, having previously been a joint owner, marries for a second time, this time to someone who has not been an owner. I hope that that will not preclude the new family from benefiting from the scheme. These are flexible details, which I know the right hon. Gentleman wants to look at. Given that consideration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      BUILDING SOCIETY LAW
      Mr. Armstrong: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 4, line 36, leave out:
      'by the Secretary of State'.
      This is a technical amendment. Under Section 41 of the Building Societies Act 1962, a building society acknowledging receipt of an advance has to incorporate certain provisions of the Act in that acknowledgment. Clause 3(4) disapplies Section 41 in cases where a building society makes an acknowledgment to the Secretary of State of an advance under this scheme. In Northern Ireland, however, such an acknowledgment would be made to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, and the disapplication would be ineffective. The purpose of this amendment is therefore to extend the disapplication of Section 41 of the Building Societies Act to cover acknowledgments made by British building societies operating in Northern Ireland. It is achieved simply by removing the phrase
      "by the Secretary of State".
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 4

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      Mr. Powell: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 4, line 37, leave out subsection (1).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
      1420
      No. 22, in Clause 6, page 5, line 28, leave out from second 'Act' to 'but' in line 29, and No. 23, in page 5, line 29, leave out 'subject to' and insert 'except for'.
      Mr. Powell: The two amendments which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, mentioned are as consequential as the assistance of the Public Bill Office can make them. It would be an understatement to describe these amendments, in the time-honoured phrase, as probing amendments.
      This clause applies, or extends, the Bill to Northern Ireland. My hon. Friends and I desire to see the provisions of the Bill extended to Northern Ireland, as, indeed, we desire to see United Kingdom legislation generally embrace Northern Ireland within its scope. But the form of Clause 4 is, I believe, novel and raises questions of constitutional importance. This Report stage is perhaps the appropriate time to record matters which are of interest not only to Northern Ireland, although they especially affect Northern Ireland, but also to the House as a whole, concerned, as it is, with the quality and propriety of the legislation which we pass.
      There has been correspondence, extending over the last month, between the Under-Secretary of State—whom I am grateful to see in his place to deal with this amendment—and myself. I acknowledge the great care and detail of that correspondence. Not all the correspondence which emanates from Government offices is of the highest quality; but certainly that which comes from the Northern Ireland Office dealing with legislative and constitutional matters of this kind is of high competence. In fact, our exchange of letters on the subject during the last month might, if published, form a nice little State paper.
      7.30 p.m.
      I hasten to put you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, out of any anxiety that I might be about to attempt to read that correspondence into the record, though I shall quote one or two sentences from it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I always enjoy the elecution of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
      Mr. Powell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unworthy as I am of

      1421
      that compliment, I appreciate that enjoyment is tempered by quantity and proportion and that if my remarks are in moderation the enjoyment which you derive from them may be all the greater for that. I shall endeavour to make the difficult constitutional points which I have to make as briefly as possible.
      The House will be aware that in effect since 1972, with a brief interlude, there has been power on the part of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to legislate in Northern Ireland—albeit a part of the United Kingdom—by Order in Council. This is naturally a feature which has been unpopular in Northern Ireland, and has attracted such descriptions as "colonial rule". Experience of it has not led those of us who represent Northern Ireland constituencies to conclude that there can be any proper substitute for legislation by Bill. If legislation could have been adequately and properly enacted by Order in Council, the House of Commons and successive Governments would have discovered it long ago. However, we acknowledge that this is a transitional—though it may be a long transitional—phase and that much of the legislation for Northern Ireland for some time to come may need to be by Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, which will fall to be renewed in a few weeks.
      There are severe deficiencies in such a procedure. It means that hon. Members, not only those representing Northern Ireland, cannot bring their influence to bear at successive stages of the formulation of legislation as they can do in the course of procedure by Bill. We acknowledge that the Government, in a series of new procedures, have modified as far as may be humanly possible the stringency of legislation by Order in Council, and we make use of those procedures to the full. But there remain grave deficiencies which are inherent in legislation by Order in Council.
      There are three classes of case in which that form of legislation may be used for Northern Ireland—though it does not have to be used. One is the application to Northern Ireland of law which already exists in Great Britain. A good many of the Orders in Council which will be appearing before the House in the next few weeks—perhaps at a later hour than
      1422
      this—are doing exactly that. They are extending—many of us would say belatedly—to Northern Ireland measures which the House has passed applying to Great Britain. That is perhaps the most natural sphere in which in present circumstances it is legitimate and unavoidable to use the procedure by Order in Council.
      The second sphere is where new legislation is made which applies only to Northern Ireland. In that sphere there are cases—I refer, for example, to the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976—in which procedure by Bill has been found to be appropriate; and my hon. Friends and I would say that whenever possible, where new legislation is being made, even though applying only to Northern Ireland, it would be most proper and effective to carry it through Parliament by Bill. We have more than once indicated that in sum the time that would be required by the House and by hon. Members might well be not longer by that method than by Order in Council.
      The third sphere is that with which we are concerned in this application clause. It is where new Great Britain law is to be applied, virtually as it will stand, to Northern Ireland. Here I come to the substance of the matter—the question by what method legislation which in the view of the Government and the House is to apply virtually without differentiation to the United Kingdom as a whole ought to be extended to Northern Ireland. One method—the obvious one—is that there should be a United Kingdom Bill which applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. There are many examples of that, from the Fishery Limits Act 1976 to the annual Finance Bills, which of course apply to Northern Ireland with little or no specific application to that Province.
      Sometimes, however, United Kingdom Bills need to be extended, as to Scotland so to Northern Ireland, by application clauses. There is an example of this at the moment going through its stages in the House, namely, the Deer Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), which contains a Northern Ireland application clause.
      It is true that that Northern Ireland application clause, which was drafted by skilful and, I would suspect, Ulster draftsmen, occupies a page and a half of a Bill of 14 pages. But, then, we cannot judge the time of the House by the quantity of

      1423
      lines or pages of a Bill. I think it would be generally admitted that application clauses of this kind in United Kingdom Bills, though they receive the scrutiny of Members coming from the particular part of the kingdom, go through with very little difficulty and add very little to the legislative burden of the House. The strong preference of my hon. Friends and myself, wherever possible, is for United Kingdom Bills with an application clause of that kind extending them to Northern Ireland as they stand.
      I acknowledge and put on record with gratitude the explicit assertion of the Under-Secretary of State on behalf of the Government in the letter which he wrote to me dated only today. He is referring to the Deer Bill, which I have quoted, and he says:
      "In this Bill and in a number of Acts primary legislation is extended to Northern Ireland without the use of Orders in Council. We shall continue to use this method whenever it appears to be practicable and desirable."
      That is a gratifying statement of policy for hon. Members on this Bench, and we do not doubt but that it will be applied in the spirit as well as in the letter by the Government as new United Kingdom legislation comes forward. In other words, wherever there is to be new United Kingdom legislation, the question will be asked whether it can be extended to Northern Ireland by an application clause appearing upon the face of it; and the onus of proof will be on those who would argue that it cannot be so extended.
      However, the Government maintain—this brings me to the clause to which the amendments relate—that in some cases the application of United Kingdom legislation to Northern Ireland would be so cumbrous or complicated that it could not be brought conveniently within the scope of one or more application clauses. While one would take that assertion on trust, I must say that it has not been easy for my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself to see quite what these immense complications can be which would defeat the attempts of the draftsman to draw up two, or three if need be, application clauses for insertion in a United Kingdom Bill.
      Nevertheless, I am prepared to accept the statement of the Minister that there are cases where application clauses in a United Kingdom Bill itself would be intolerably
      1424
      and unacceptably clumsy. That being so, the question arises how those Bills should be applied.
      One method would be to pass the Bills as Great Britain Bills and then bring in an Order in Council under the 1974 Act re-enacting them, as it were, for Northern Ireland. There have been many examples of that. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I do not regard it as the method of choice and we are grateful to the Government for having attempted to find some means of avoiding that procedure, of which the vice is that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies are, as it were, strangers in this Chamber while the Great Britain Bill is going forward—it is not natural for us to take part in the Second Reading debate, and we would not normally be put on to the Committee—yet when that Bill is put on the statute book it becomes a virtually unchangeable model for the application to Northern Ireland of new legislation which we have not had the opportunity to debate either in principle or in detail.
      Therefore, the Government have sought to insert into a United Kingdom Bill a clause—that is, Clause 4, which by virtue of these amendments we are able to discuss—which shows upon the face of the Bill that it will be applied to Northern Ireland virtually without change but enables that application to be made by Order in Council.
      So far, so good. We acknowledge that that is a great improvement upon separate re-enactment for Northern Ireland by separate Order in Council. We accept that this method gives us the advantage that we are, so to speak, enfranchised from the First Reading of the Bill. The Bill is to be just as much Northern Ireland legislation as Great Britain legislation and it will be our own fault if we do not choose to attend to it at all its stages from Second Reading onwards. That is the good side of the clause before the House; but there is attached to it a difficulty which is both technical and constitutional.
      You will see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you study the clause, that its effect is to amend, ad hoc, the Northern Ireland Act 1974 so as to provide that Orders in Council made under this enabling clause shall be subject not to the affirmative procedure but only to the negative procedure. I would agree, and so

      1425
      would my right hon. and hon. Friends, if there is an order which is simply implementing for Northern Ireland, without effective change, legislation which this House has passed in the knowledge that it was to apply to Northern Ireland and with full opportunity for Northern Ireland Members to take part in the proceedings, that in most cases the negative procedure would be appropriate for that subordinate legislation. We would concede that. We do not quarrel with the proposition of the Government that, if we are making a carbon copy for Northern Ireland, there is no need for the carbon copy to go through the affirmative procedure.
      7.45 p.m.
      Our difficulty is that the Order in Council procedure, the emergency procedure whereby law can be made by a Secretary of State for a part of the United Kingdom, does at any rate carry the safeguard, never hitherto breached, that everything done under that power must come to this House, because an affirmative procedure is required. So at least we have the safeguard under those temporary provisions that we are legislated for, however cursorily, by both Houses of Parliament. Hence our dilemma: while we concede that, in the circumstances of making a carbon copy, the negative procedure would be fully appropriate, we are extremely reluctant to concede that the safeguards of the 1974 Act should be eroded. One case may follow another; and there are no fewer than three Bills at various stages at the moment which contain this clause eroding that safeguard in the 1974 Act.
      The Government have not so far been able to find a solution to this dilemma. We have put forward to them the suggestion that, if they think the application so complicated that it cannot be done in a Bill, they should do it by Statutory Instrument—not by Statutory Instrument under the 1974 Act, thus involving the erosion of the protection, but by Statutory Instrument under the Bill itself. That is the proposition which we have urged upon the Government. They have found so far that there are two difficulties.
      I will read the relevant sentences from the letters written by the Under-Secretary. He first says that such subordinate legislation could not
      1426
      "without appropriate provision being made … amend existing Northern Ireland legislation, nor could it authorise the making of subordinate legislation."
      Again, in his letter of today's date the Under-Secretary said that Orders in Council provided a method of legislation which "had the attributes of primary legislation".
      This is a matter which I believe needs to be carried forward, and I am sure that with the good will of the Northern Ireland Office it can be carried forward, in further study; for it is a paradoxical statement to say that this House cannot enact a Bill under which Statutory Instruments can be made which make provision for subordinate legislation—there are plenty of those—or which make provision for legislation which is of primary character. There does not seem to us to be anything peculiar to the situation of Northern Ireland which renders it impossible for a Statutory Instrument made under a United Kingdom Bill to be the vehicle for carbon-copying the Bill in terms applicable to Northern Ireland.
      That is the crux which, for us, lies at the heart of this new device in its present form. We are reassured by the undertaking which the Government have given in these terms from the Under-Secretary. He writes:
      "if you think that it would help for Northern Ireland Members of Parliament to be consulted before a Bill using this procedure"—
      that is, the procedure of Clause 4—
      "is introduced, we will do our best to arrange this."
      We are most grateful for that offer and would be glad to be taken into consultation at whatever stage is convenient to the Government where it is felt that a clause of this nature is the most appropriate method of application; but we would like to continue the search for a more convenient method of application to Northern Ireland and one which does not involve the very real constitutional problem of whittling away ad hoc, Bill by Bill, the fundamental safeguard which was provided in 1974 by the Northern Ireland Act.
      Undoubtedly, this clause marks a progress for Northern Ireland. It marks progress away from the rigid position first introduced in 1972 towards the position to which we aspire, when legislation for that part of the kingdom will

      1427
      be like legislation for any other part of the kingdom, taking account of its circustances and the differences of its earlier law but nevertheless going through the House and being made by Parliament in the normal way. We recognise that the havoc which was done in 1972—I am glad to think that I was in my place to vote against it—will not be easily undone. The difficulties that we are facing this afternoon arise from the fact that what was done in 1972 was done without thought and without regard to the consequences. As often happens, those consequences, easily incurred, have to be put right painfully and over a long period of time.
      However, we are making progress in this Bill and in other Bills which contain this clause, and we believe that we have to go further in the same direction, and that in doing so we have the good will of the Government, as well as the collaboration of the Under-Secretary and his colleagues. That is why we thought that it would be wrong for a matter of such substantial constitutional importance to pass without being noted on the Floor of the House, or without the implications of it being placed briefly upon the record.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): In moving the amendment the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raises a question of the means of legislating for Northern Ireland during direct rule. It is therefore appropriate for me to reply.
      I shall explain first why the Government have chosen to apply the provisions of this Bill to Northern Ireland by the procedure set out in Clause 4. Northern Ireland legislation is normally made by an Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, subject to affirmative resolution in this House. This method is not ideal. But until Northern Ireland again has a devolved Assembly it will normally be the only practicable method of enacting primary legislation for Northern Ireland, and this was recognised by Parliament when the Northern Ireland Act was approved in 1974.
      At times these Orders in Council have reproduced provisions already in force in Great Britain, the only difference being technical amendments to take account of differences between existing Northern
      1428
      Ireland and Great Britain legislation and of different legislative conventions. In circumstances such as these in future, we hope to use a different procedure. When we can foresee that the provisions to be applied to Northern Ireland will strictly correspond to those being applied by Bill to Great Britain, with the need only for technical adaptation, we will do what we are doing in Clause 4.
      We will show on the face of the Bill that the provisions will apply to Northern Ireland, thus facilitating the participation of Northern Ireland Members in the debate on the provisions at the same time and in the same way as those representing Great Britain constituencies, and we shall enable those provisions to be applied to Northern Ireland in the normal way that primary legislation is enacted for Northern Ireland by way of Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974. However since the provisions will have been fully approved during the Bill's passage, only negative procedure will be required for the Order in Council rather than the usual affirmative procedure.
      I understand that the right hon. Member for Down, South and his colleagues do not object to the provisions of this Bill being applied to Northern Ireland by Order in Council. Nor do they object to these Orders in Council being subject to negative procedure as such when, as in this case, they can contain only those provisions which correspond to those in a Bill which has declared that its provisions will be applied to Northern Ireland. There is therefore a good deal of common ground between us.
      What the right hon. Member objects to is the fact that this result is achieved by reference to the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. He argues that the constitutional safeguards contained in that Act are weakened by allowing an Order in Council in this one case to be made subject to negative procedure, when the Act normally demands affimative procedure. He believes that it would be preferable for the Order in Council to be made under the authority of this home purchase Bill. He sees this issue as one of constitutional significance.
      There is good reason why the Government chose to draft the clause in the way they did. The Order in Council, applying the provisions of the home purchase Bill to Northern Ireland, must have some

      1429
      of the attributes normally reserved for primary legislation. It must authorise the making of subordinate legislation and must amend existing legislation. It is true that the home purchase Bill could be drafted in such a way as to give an Order in Council made under it all the necessary attributes. But the resulting clauses would greatly lengthen and complicate the Bill. It is far simpler for the Order in Council to be made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, which is the normal way of enacting primary legislation for Northern Ireland. All Orders in Council under this Act have the force and effect of primary legislation. Our method is a far more economical way of achieving the desired result than that proposed by the right hon. Member.
      Nor do I accept that constitutional safeguards are weakened. Only one Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act, subject to negative procedure, can be made as a result of this home purchase Bill, and that must correspond strictly to the Bill. By approving Clause 4 unamended, this House will not be reducing any constitutional safeguards. It will simply be saying, in effect, that it has approved the provisions of this Bill for Great Britain, and there is no reason for a further debate before corresponding provisions are applied to Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Powell: I make no complaint that the Under-Secretary has restated briefly and clearly the Government's position. I would only say that since our objectives considerably overlap there is every reason why our search for even more convincing methods should continue. Since the purpose of this amendment was to record the point that has been reached, I would say, in the famous words of the BBC, "The debate continues." I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      7.58 p.m.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: As I gave a qualified welcome to the Bill on Second Reading, and as I have come to the conclusion, during the course of the Committee stage, that it is a Bill that we shall regret, it is right for me to make a brief statement indicating my reasons for reaching that conclusion.
      1430
      The measures provides for the expenditure of £100 million of public money each year—certainly for the first five years of its operation. That £100 million will come from other housing expenditure—from money which could be applied more directly to relieve housing need. It could be used for improvement, for municipalisation, for new housing construction, or for local authority lending. It means that there will be £100 million less for other sections of the housing programme. We must ask ourselves whether it is £100 million that will be spent effectively and desirably.
      I accept that there will be some benefits from the Bill, but I fear that the damage that it will do will outweigh the benefits. It must be borne in mind that only one of every five first-time purchasers is buying a new house. That means that four-fifths of the money must necessarily go to increase the capacity of those who are buying existing houses to pay more for them. That is an inevitable and inexorable consequence of the additional demand that the Bill must generate.
      As the Minister acknowledged, only about 40 per cent. of the beneficiaries under the Bill would not have been able to buy anyway. Consequently, 60 per cent. of the beneficiaries will be those who would have purchased anyway. Inevitably, a substantially greater part of the money that is to be spent will go towards the inflation of house prices.
      I accept that there will be some benefit. There will be some who would not have been able to buy who will be helped into house purchase as a consequence of the Bill. There will be some stimulus of demand for new houses. However, the principal cause of an increase in the price of property must be the generation of additional demand, and additional demand must come primarily from new house purchasers coming into the market.
      I fear that the benefits that are likely to arise from the Bill will be much less than the disadvantages. I should welcome the Bill if we had been able to amend it to ensure that it would operate in a more discriminatory fashion at the bottom end of the market. I appreciate that there were administrative difficulties in our so amending it. However, I do not believe that they would have been in any way insuperable. As a consequence of the Bill's being unamended,

      1431
      we have a measure that is bound to result in some stimulus and an addition of about £60 million a year to the price of houses. For that reason I feel that the Bill is one that we shall view with regret.
      I would take that view to an even greater extent should it come about that the Conservative Party was ever in a position to exercise the powers within the Bill. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) indicated in Committee that he relishes the powers that would be given to a Conservative housing Minister. If we are to have one, I would rather it was the hon. Gentleman, but I fear that even he would prove incapable of withstanding the pressures that would be exerted upon him by his leader to abuse the powers that exist under Clause 1(6). By means of that subsection he could alter any of the sums specified. He could substitute longer or shorter periods and generally relax the conditions.
      I fear that it would be the intention of a Conservative housing Minister to turn the Bill, which, as we have said, is a small Bill, into a major measure merely by order, without Parliament having the opportunity of debating the desirability of generating even further demand, which it would be his intention of doing. For reasons that the hon. Member for Hornsey knows and understands very well, that would almost certainly prove even more disastrous.
      We have seen the Conservative Party making irresponsible promises and suggestions on housing issues before, and we are aware of the harm that would be caused if Conservatives were in a position to exercise the powers that the Bill would give them. We shall be giving them additional powers if we enact the Bill and they come to office. At the same time, we shall be reducing the power of Parliament to prevent that harm. For all those reasons I think that the Bill, although conceived with the best of intentions, will do a small amount of good but is likely to do a greater amount of harm. I regret that we are now passing it into law.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (TREATIES)
  8.5 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): I beg to move,
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 4) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.
  The schedule to the order contains the act concerning the election of representatives of the European Assembly by direct universal suffrage, taken with the decision of the Council of the European Communities of 20th September 1976 to which it is annexed. The text of the act and decision, in the form of Command Paper No. 6623, was laid before Parliament in October 1976.
  If the House approves the order, the act and the decision to which it is annexed will become formally defined as a Community treaty under Section 1 of the European Communities Act. The European Communities Act gives effect to all the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions embodied within a Community treaty. However, only Community treaties formally defined as such, under Section 1(3) of that Act, have direct effect in the United Kingdom. Without the approval of both Houses of Parliament to the act and decision listed in the schedule to the order, they would create rights and obligations at the international level, but could not, for instance, be invoked by individuals before the courts of this country.
  The act has the character of an international agreement. Article 16 of the act requires that it enters into force only after notification by member States of the completion of their respective constitutional requirements for adoption of its provisions. In Britain, constitutional practice has required that we first enact the European Assembly Elections Bill, which received Royal Assent on 5th May, and then also secure Parliament's approval to the specification of the act and the Council decision of 20th September 1976, to which it is annexed as a Community treaty, before we proceed to ratification. This approval we now seek.
  With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I shall describe briefly the contents of the act

  1433
  and the decision of 20th September 1976. The decision consists—
  Mr. Neil Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just been to the Vote Office to get the very document about which the Minister is speaking. The Vote Office does not have it. It is not in stock. How can we possibly debate this matter if the document is not in stock?
  Mr. Judd: With respect, that is a matter not for me but for the authorities of the House. However, I point out that the document has been available. A memorandum has been available now for some days and has been before the appropriate Committees.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely this is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister, because we are being asked to give legal effect to this so-called act. It is only with great difficulty—it has taken me several days to do so—that I have been able to secure the document from the Vote Office. As no hon. Member today can readily secure it, is it not part of the duty of the Government and my hon. Friend to ensure that the main document that we are discussing is available to all hon. Members?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): There is no doubt that a ruling was given in 1966 by Mr. Speaker that it was the duty of a Department to provide the list of documents relevant to the debate. May I take it that that has been done?
  Mr. Judd: As I reminded the House in my opening remarks, the text of the act and decision in the form of Command Paper No. 6623, was laid before Parliament in October 1976. Therefore, it is a fact that the documents to which we are referring have been available to Parliament for a long time.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Although he may be right that at some time the treaty, which was, I believe, negotiated by the late Mr. Anthony Crosland, was available to the House, we are told—I understand that it is so—that it is not available to the House tonight. My hon. Friend and
  1434
  you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have used the phrase "relevant to the debate". I submit that, rather than being relevant to the debate, it is central to it. The order that is before us is in respect of the treaty specified in the schedule. The schedule specifies that. It does not specify Command Paper No. 6623. It might have done, but it does not. Instead, it specifies the treaty. My hon. Friend was about to describe the contents of the treaty which we are debating. Therefore, it is manifestly not a question of relevance but is a matter central to the debate, and apparently it is not available.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have now had an opportunity of looking at the ruling given by Mr. Speaker on 21st February 1966. He said:
  "I have decided, therefore, to accept the recommendation of the House of Commons (Services) Committee that in future a Department should supply to the Library in advance a list of all those older papers which appear to it to be relevant to a forthcoming debate."
  I take it that that has not been done. I shall hear what the Minister has to say about it.
  Mr. Judd: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I submit that it has been done. As I reminded the House, the documents—the act and the decision—were published in the form of Command Paper No. 6623 and laid before Parliament in October 1976. An explanatory memorandum has been available for some days to right hon. and hon. Members. In the introduction to that explanatory memorandum there is a reference to Command Paper No. 6623. Therefore, I underline that the requirements have been fulfilled.
  Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Time and again in EEC debates—often late at night—it is found that documents have not been available because, of the incompetence of the Department concerned in failing to get them to the Vote Office, which is where they should be so that they are available to hon. Members. On such occasions the Minister has withdrawn the motion. I suggest that that is the correct procedure for him to follow on this occasion.
  Mr. Jay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No doubt the Minister is doing his best, but he has not complied with the words that you read out. Surely, those words must be taken to mean that on the day of the debate,

  1435
  or at least between the time when the business was announced last week and the debate taking place today, hon. Members should be able to obtain the relevant documents. It is no answer to say that two years ago they were handed to the Library if they are not available when the debate takes place. I agree with the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on this matter.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In response to that point of order, perhaps I should continue to read Mr. Speaker's ruling:
  "Members will be able to consult this list in the Library "—
  that is the list to which I referred—
  "and to order from the Vote Office such papers as they require, besides, of course, any other papers which they may wish to have."—[Official Report, 21st February 1966; Vol. 725, c. 34.]
  That was the position when that ruling was given.
  Mr. Judd rose—
  Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is precisely what I did about five minutes ago. I went to the Vote Office and ordered the papers, but I was told "We have not got them." Previously on such occasions the Government have withdrawn the document being debated.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How seriously do we take the need for research by an hon. Member who orders the papers only five minutes before the debate begins? It is outrageous and makes a farce of the whole process.
  Mr. Marten: Not at all.
  Mr. Judd: I express sincere regret if any right hon. or hon. Member has difficulties, five minutes before the debate begins or even when it is under way, in securing papers from the Vote Office. But the memorandum referring to the matter of debate tonight was deposited with the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on 11th May. In that memorandum there was full reference to all the appropriate documents. Indeed, the memorandum has been made more widely available to right hon. and hon. Members since 11th May, and there has been reference in it to the appropriate documents. Therefore, if there had been difficulty and if we had been notified of any
  1436
  difficulty in this respect, immediate action could have been taken. With great deference to all concerned, I submit that it is not accurate to say that the documents being debated tonight have not been available to right hon. and hon. Members.
  The decision consists of a preamble citing the articles of the Community's constituent treaties which give authority for direct elections and reiterating the target date of May-June 1978 as set by the European Council in Rome on 1st and 2nd December 1975 for direct elections. This is followed by short provisions concerning the publication, adoption and entry into force of the decision and its accompanying provisions.
  The annexed act contains in Articles 1 to 4 the most important provisions agreed between member States concerning the elections and related matters—that is, the framework within which the national provisions adopted by member States are to operate. These provisions require elections by direct universal suffrage, set out the number of representatives from each member State, prescribe a five-year term for the Assembly and make clear that the representatives vote on an individual basis.
  Article 5 provides for the possibility of a dual mandate. Articles 6 to 13 provide for disqualification, procedural and supplementary matters. Article 14 lists those articles in the constituent treaties which are to lapse with the coming into force of the agreement. There are also three brief annexes which form an integral part of the Act and a declaration by the Federal German Government concerning the application of the act to Berlin.
  There have been few political issues so extensively debated in recent years as direct elections to the European Assembly. The commitment to eventual direct elections to the European Assembly
  "on the basis of direct universal suffrage"
  is embodied in Article 138(3) of the Treaty of Rome to which we subscribed on accession to the Community.
  As the House is aware, there were several attempts prior to our accession to work out a generally acceptable system of direct elections, but they all foundered on the difficulties of devising a uniform system of election acceptable to each

  1437
  member State. At the December 1974 meeting of Community Heads of Government in Paris, it was agreed that a new effort should be made to achieve direct elections "as soon as possible", and, recognising the difficulty of reaching agreement on a single electoral system for the whole Community, it was subsequently accepted by both the Assembly and the Council that it would initially be necessary to allow the choice of the electoral system for the first round of direct elections to be left to each member State.
  Article 7 of the act annexed to the Council decision of 20th September 1976, however, requires the directly elected European Assembly to draw up a proposal for a uniform electoral procedure, so the search for a uniform system has not been abandoned, but only postponed.
  Mr. Spearing: Is it correct that, if the House gives assent to this treaty—a treaty which it has not got before it—it will be ratifying Article 7 as well as the whole treaty? Therefore, in future, will it not be said that the House of Commons and the United Kingdom committed themselves to direct elections by some uniform procedure?
  Mr. Judd: We are committed eventually to working out a uniform system, but the system that we now have will be operated until that happens.
  The Government participated fully in the negotiations leading up to the signature of the act annexed to the Council decision of 20th September 1976 on direct elections and during this time had frequent occasion to consult and take account of the views of both Houses of Parliament on the significant constitutional issues involved.
  In February 1976 a Green Paper on direct elections was published. This was followed by debate in this House in March 1976 and the setting up of a Select Committee of the House of Commons which produced three reports, together with published evidence. The first of those reports was debated in July 1976.
  Following signature of the Council act in September 1976, the Government, in April 1977, published a White Paper which was the subject of parliamentary debate. The first version of the European Assembly Elections Bill was published on 24th June 1977 and given a
  1438
  Second Reading in the House on 3rd July by 394 votes to 147. The Bill was reintroduced into Parliament in a slightly amended version on 9th November and was finally approved by this House on 16th February by 159 votes to 45. Following approval of the European Assembly Elections Bill on Third Reading in another place on 4th May in a form unamended from that in which it had left this House, it received Royal Assent the following day. Before we proceed to ratification it now only remains, as I stated earlier, for Parliament to agree to the specification of the act of the Council and the decision of 20th September 1976 annexed to it as a Community treaty.
  The position as regards ratification of the Council act is that all member States have now done so except France and Britain. France has completed all the necessary parliamentary procedures and is in a position to do so at any time. The Council act comes into effect only after completion of ratification by all member States. Until the act is in effect, there can be no legal decision by the Community regarding the date of direct elections.
  Article 10 of the act requires that the decision should be taken by the Council of Ministers acting unanimously after consulting the Assembly. The decision of the European Council meeting in Copenhagen on 7th and 8th April in favour of the dates 7th to 10th June 1979 was a political decision and it needs to be confirmed by the Council of Ministers acting in accord with the Article 10 procedure before it has legal effect.
  Article 13 of the act provides the legal basis for the determination of emoluments of directly elected Members. It requires unanimous decision by the Council on the basis of a proposal from the Assembly after consulting the Commission. The Government believe that the emoluments issue must be decided before direct elections are held.
  Early ratification of the Council act of 20th September 1976, which approval of this order by both Houses of Parliament will enable the Government to complete, will permit all necessary steps of implementation, such as the important determination of emoluments, to be taken at Community level in ample time before the date of direct elections next year.

  1439
  After the extensive public debate that there has been on direct elections in this country and in the House, early ratification of the Council act by the United Kingdom will demonstrate to our Community partners our firm commitment to holding direct elections on the dates of 7th to 10th June next year.
  8.22 p.m.
  Mr. Neil Marten: I am afraid that the order is rather unhelpfully drafted. It is unbecomingly drafted, because there is little mention in it of the direct elections. It would have been more open-minded of the Government to have said that this is the ratification of the European Assembly Elections Bill. However, I let that pass. We are getting used to obfuscation in these matters.
  It is logical for people such as I to oppose this ratification, which I propose to do. All through the debates on the Bill I voted against it. One of the reasons why I voted against it was that if and when the Assembly comes about it will be toothless. The people attending it, drawing their apparently large salaries, will get extremely bored and frustrated unless they are given greater powers. The French and British Governments and Parliaments will ensure that they do not have greater powers. It will be an expensive operation. Direct elections in this country will cost about £10 million or more. I am sure that many hon. Members can think of far better ways of spending that amount of money.
  My second objection is that basically, as most of those who think about these matters know, this is a large step towards a federal Europe. As I have said many times, I am utterly opposed to that. I shall not go on about that because I have expressed my views for a number of years.
  When the Assembly is directly elected a great conflict will arise between that Assembly and this House. It will arise fairly smartly after the elections take place. There will also be a conflict between Members of the Assembly—the MEAs—and members of the House. For example, if one of the new Euro constituencies is basically Labour and Labour gains the seat and its Member goes to Luxembourg, to the Assembly, and if there are in that constituency one or two Conservative seats, Conservative Members of this Parliament might
  1440
  become angry if that Labour MEA comes freely into his constituency to preach an entirely different doctrine from that of the sitting Member of Parliament. That could cause endless trouble. The reverse could happen. It would cause considerable heartburnings among Members of this House. It would be a recipe for conflict and bitterness.
  Those who vote for the order and those who voted for direct elections know what they are doing. They will not, therefore, have any right to complain when that happens. But I am sure that they will complain.
  I turn to the question of pay and allowances, which the Minister mentioned, and the proposition that they should be taxed according to United Kingdom taxation. When I asked the Prime Minister on 27th April he told me that he did not know the answer himself. He turned to the Chief Secretary of the Treasury and whispered to him "What is the answer?" The Chief Secretary told him clearly that the salaries of the directly elected Members of the Assembly would be taxed at United Kingdom rates. That is right.
  On another occasion I tabled a Question for Written Answer by the Prime Minister. I asked him
  "if he will give an assurance that the final act of ratification for direct elections will not be moved by the Government until the salaries of the proposed Members of the European Assembly have been fixed."
  The Prime Minister replied:
  "The legal basis for determining the salaries of Members of the directly elected European Assembly will be Article 13 of the Council act of 20th September 1976. It will not, therefore, be possible for the Council to reach a decision on the matter until the act has entered into force following ratification by all the member States."—[Official Report, 5th May 1978; Vol. 949, c. 289.]
  The Council will decide finally. I fear that once the Council of Ministers has agreed the salaries of the MEAs the Community will then seek to pass a regulation saying that the Community decrees that these salaries will not be taxed by national Governments. I should like an assurance from the Minister on that matter.
  That is an assurance that the Minister could give now. He could simply say that in the light of what the Prime Minister said the other day, if such a proposal came forward the Government

  1441
  would veto it. He could make a firm commitment on behalf of the Government to that effect. He could do that without regard to the level at which the salary will be fixed. That is not relevant. I want the Government to veto any Community proposal that salaries from the Assembly will be tax free.
  There is also the question of the allowances that are to be paid. I cannot understand why this matter has not been worked out before. In an article in The Economist on 13th May I read:
  "On top of this"—
  that is, the salaries—
  all Euro MPs would get generous attendance and travel allowances, payable at the same cash rate for all nationalities. Present allowances are £54 for each day in attendance at the parliament plus 25p for every kilometre travelled from home … Last year Euro-MPs collected an average of about £21,000 each in expenses (including secretarial allowances). Euro-MPs would get facilities including an office in their own country, a secretary, a constituency agent"—
  needed in Britain because of our system—
  "and a research assistant, plus generous allowances for telex, telephone and postal charges and for domestic travel."
  Mr. John Roper: The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has quoted from The Economist. I was not clear what he was quoting—whether that was an actual proposal of the Parliament, or whether it was merely supposition on the part of a journalist employed by The Economist.
  Mr. Marten: The article says:
  "An unofficial paper is now circulating in Brussels which offers an ingenious solution. It runs as follows".
  I was quoting from that unofficial paper circulating in Brussels. I am not saying it was a proposal, but it gives some idea of what was circulating in the minds of the people who are responsible for these matters.
  The second question that I want the Minister to address his mind to is whether the very generous allowances will be treated in such a way that the Member of the European Assembly, being subject to United Kingdom tax, will have to justify that expenditure to the Inland Revenue and will be taxable on the balance that he may draw. I should like that assurance. I am sure that is a
  1442
  perfectly routine matter for the Inland Revenue to agree.
  There is a third point which is perhaps more of a Treasury matter. If the Minister knows the answer I should be grateful if he will give it to me. What happens if, for example, a Member of the European Assembly draws his expenses or part of them in Belgian francs which he brings back to this country? If he pays his secretary here in Belgian francs and she takes the money to the bureau de change and changes it back into sterling, could she not in that way avoid income tax simply by claiming it was money she had brought into the country from abroad? That needs a bit of tightening up. The whole area of taxation needs thoroughly tightening up before we go ahead with these elections.
  Finally, there is the lunacy of the location of the Assembly. I am sure that here the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), who has been muttering under his hand, giving a running commentary while I have been speaking, will agree that the way in which the Assembly moves from Luxembourg to Strasbourg and from Strasbourg to Luxembourg is one of the many lunacies of the European Community. That is something which ought to be settled before we go ahead with any elections, should the House vote in favour of the order tonight. In general, the whole thing is a complete waste of resources.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Apart from some of the general considerations that the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) put before the House, this order is another disturbing example of the profoundly unsatisfactory way in which EEC legislation is now being dealt with in this House. This order is designed to give legal force, binding in United Kingdom courts, to an agreement reached by Ministers in September 1976 and so to facilitate direct elections to the EEC Assembly. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that the legal position is that if the order is not approved by the House tonight, direct elections, in the United Kingdom, at any rate, cannot go ahead.
  All that the Leader of the House did when he first announced this week's business last Thursday was to describe the order as "The European Communities

  1443
  (Definition of Treaties) (No. 4) Order". I do not think that that would have conveyed a very great deal of its true import to most hon. Members in the House. When one looks at the order, one sees that all that the explanatory note, so-called, tells one is that
  "This Order declares the treaty mentioned in the Schedule to be a Community Treaty as defined in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972."
  I do not think that that would carry many hon. Members very much further.
  In fact, it is not until one turns to the Foreign Office explanatory memorandum that one discovers the reference to the White Paper about which we heard earlier tonight, setting out the actual treaty in question, and one finds out that it is all something to do with direct elections to the European Assembly. Then, when one goes to find the treaty that we are declaring to be legal in this country, one finds that it has not been readily available in the Vote Office to most hon. Members seeking to get it for several days after the announcement of the debate was made. This seems to be a very extraordinary fashion in which to ask the House to legislate.
  We are then told by the explanatory memorandum—which, incidentally, the Minister did not have the face to sign himself, for some reason—that certain parts of the act or the treaty may be directly applicable, as law, in this country. But the Government are not able to tell us which parts. They are not even able to tell us which parts of the act in question will automatically become law in this country. I quote the exact words of the explanatory memorandum:
  "it is thought that, although no undertaking can be given as to the completeness or accuracy of the list, the following Articles of the annexed Act contain or may contain directly applicable provisions."
  Then it proceeds to list them.
  Therefore, the Minister is, in effect, telling the House "I am asking the House to enact certain legislation which is directly enforceable in the courts of the country, but I cannot actually tell you what this legislation is because I do not know, and apparently no one else does, either." That is the point in legislation, indeed, as a procedure, that we have reached in the case of EEC legislation being imposed on this country.
  1444
  I really do not know what would be thought of a Minister who asked us to legislate in that way without telling us what the legislation meant, on any subject other than the EEC—on taxation or anything else that one cares to mention. But apparently certain hon. Members do not mind this complete neglect and disregard of all decent principles of legislation as long as it has some relationship to the EEC.
  My hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Banbury spoke on the question of the emoluments that Members of the European Assembly are to receive. I noticed that the Minister used the word "emoluments", and not "salary". Therefore, I imagine that he also had in mind that there may be considerable expenses allowances as well as salary.
  It seems to me exceedingly unsatisfactory that we are expected to approve the order without knowing what salaries or what level of expenses the Members of the Assembly will receive. After all, some of the money is British taxpayers' money, which is now being paid at the rate of nearly £700 million a year net into EEC funds. Thus, we are being asked tonight to vote money for the salaries of the Members of the Assembly without our having any idea of what the actual figures will be.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) questioned the quotation from The Economist which the hon. Member for Banbury mentioned a few minutes ago, and I shall therefore revert to precisely what The Economist said on 13th May and what the sources of its information were. Incidentally, it first stated that the salary of a German Member of Parliament, which is being cited as one criterion that one ought to use, is now, in sterling terms £22,700 a year.
  The Economist then stated—this was not mere speculation by a journalist in Brussels—that a committee of the EEC Assembly itself has recommended a salary for the elected Members of the Strasbourg Assembly of £35,000 a year, subject, I presume, in the case of this country, to British income tax. But what I regard as more disturbing—this is again a statement of fact, not speculation—is that The Economist then added that on top of the salary
  "all Euro-MPs would get generous attendance and travel allowances, payable at the same cash

  1445
  rate for all nationalities. Present allowances are"—
  this is a statement of fact—
  "£54 for each day of attendance"
  plus a lot more for travel.
  Then The Economist went on:
  "Last year Euro-MPs collected an average of about £21,000 each in expenses"—
  that is, in addition to the salary. That is what The Economist said. It was a statement of fact, and I suppose that those facts are known to the Government and, possibly, to some hon. Members. It would be interesting to be told whether that is correct. I am only asking, but is it correct that, in addition to salary, last year these Euro-Members collected an average of about £21,000 each in expenses, some, presumably, getting less and others, in that case, getting more?
  We ought to be told. Is it true that that has been the situation up to now? If so, it seems to me that if we were to send Members from this country to the European Assembly on financial conditions of that kind, it would be regarded by many people here as a scandalous operation, with even an air of something pretty near corruption about it.
  I do not believe that the House should become involved in any sort of slush funds—or whatever one cares to call them—of this kind. Are we to have a situation in which there will be Euro-Members of the Assembly receiving about £20,000 a year in salary, for rather fewer hours of work than we do in this place, and another £20,000 tax-free in expenses on top? It seems to me so out of relation to any sort of rate for the job or what people are paid in comparable circumstances that it would be intolerable if that were to happen.
  If the Minister can give an assurance that no such figures as those will be accepted by the Government, we shall, I think, have made a little progress, but I repeat that I think it profoundly unsatisfactory that we should be asked to approve the order tonight without any of these facts or any firm information being before us—and that, in itself, in my view, is sufficient ground for hon. Members to vote against the order.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Hurd: This order is a further step forward in a cause
  1446
  —that of holding direct elections to the European Parliament—which most of us on this side have heartily welcomed and exerted ourselves to forward—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not tonight."] I am talking of debates over three years now, during which the opinion of this party, and, indeed, of the House as a whole, has been expressed unmistakably. So this is a further step forward, but there are a number of important points raised in the Minister's speech on which he should elaborate.
  The Minister mentioned ratification by others; he said that, apart from ourselves, only France still had to ratify and that that was imminent. What is the position about domestic legislation? Obviously that is also a precondition of having elections next June. Our domestic legislation has achieved Royal Assent. What is the position in the partner States?
  Following our own arrangements, I understand—I should be grateful for confirmation—that the next step is that the regulations for the conduct of our elections will be published after consultation with the political parties. I understand that that consultation has not yet started, but the Minister's colleagues in the Home Office promised when we discussed the Bill that those regulations, which will be of great importance, will have to be approved by the House. Therefore, time is pressing if we are to have consultation about the regulations, publication of them and debate and approval before the Summer Recess.
  We tried to incorporate in the Bill some matters which seemed important to us, such as the level of the deposit and the regulation of election expenses. The Government said that they would prefer those matters to be included in the Home Office regulations. That makes it all the more important that there should be no skimping of the procedure for discussing the regulations. I accept that this is a Home Office point, but I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about it.
  The subject of salaries and allowances has dominated the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) rehearsed his strong constitutional objections to the whole idea of direct elections. He then talked about salaries and allowances. Others less fastidious than he are now concentrating

  1447
  their whole opposition on the question of money. This is a great pity. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I referred to others less fastidious than my hon. Friend.
  One has only to be present when this matter is discussed at Prime Minister's Question Time to see that, immediately, those who oppose our membership of the EEC home in on the question of cash. I do not complain about that, but it is a pity because the politics of envy have a sufficient grasp of our life already without that.
  The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who is normally a careful debater, was a bit free with his talk of posible corruption and of slush funds. He was following a trend which has gone too far.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: Does not the hon. Gentleman simply think that this happens because that kind of money adds insult to the gross injury of this whole procedure?
  Mr. Hurd: I am coming on to what I think should be done, and I suspect that the hon. Member will agree with me.
  It is most important that the right response is for the House and the Government to take as severe—and, indeed, puritanical—an approach to this matter as is compatible with the proper working of the European Parliament. That is necessary because one of the most harmful things about the EEC's reputation in this country is the feeling that it is a rich and expensive gravy train. Much nonsense is talked on that subject, and it is up to this House and the Government to ensure that it is shown to be nonsense.
  Mr. Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say that he would not approve a level of, say, £20,000 in salary, plus £20,000 in tax-free expenses?
  Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman must not hurry me on. I shall deal with what I mean by the severe and puritanical approach which I think is necessary.
  On the subject of procedure, when will the Council of Ministers take this decision, and in what circumstances? The Minister said that it would be dealt with on a proposal by the European Assembly. But what happens if the present European Parliament makes no such proposal?
  1448
  There has been a working party on the subject, but I understand that it is a long way from making a definite proposal, and, indeed, may never do so.
  What, then, is the procedural position? Is the Council of Ministers prepared to tackle this matter on its own? It seems to me, and, indeed, to most of us, that the sooner the Council tackles the matter, the better. The situation should not be allowed to drag on. It should be brought before the Council of Ministers at an early opportunity. If there are procedural hang-ups or if everybody waits for everybody else, as sometimes happens in these matters, Her Majesty's Government should ensure that discussion is started in the Council of Ministers and that a decision is taken as soon as possible.
  Personally, I believe that the case for a common salary for Members of the European Parliament is overwhelming and that it would be wrong to pay different people different rates for doing the same job in the European Parliament. But I think it is possible to use that argument in terms of common purchasing power rather than in terms of common cash.
  The Commission in handling its own employees follows exactly this principle. It applies what is known in the jargon as the corrective coefficient. That means that the salary of a Community employee is related to the cost of living in the country where he actually works. If this is applied to a British Member of the European Parliament, it would mean that he would be given about half the salary of his German equivalent because it would be deemed that the British Member would be living in this country where the cost of living is correspondingly lower than in Germany. That is a principle that is already adopted and accepted in terms of employees of the Commission. In view of the need for a severe approach, it is well worth considering whether this is the right principle to be applied by the Council of Ministers to the salaries of Members of the European Parliament.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Surely, in reality the Member would be spending part of his life in Europe and part of his life back home. He may leave his family in this country or move his family out of this country. Therefore,

  1449
  there is no comparison between his position and that of employees who are domiciled in one country and who spend their entire time there.
  Mr. Hurd: That depends on how they organise their lives. There might need to be adaptations. This principle, which is helpful and useful and is already applied in the Community, could be of assistance in deciding this matter.
  I now wish to deal with the subject of taxation. Mention has been made of competence. There has been discussion in the Press on this point, and the Minister should clear it up. Is it the Government's view, after taking legal advice, that the subject of taxation of British Members of the European Parliament is within the direct control of Her Majesty's Government and of this House?
  The Government in recent months have made a number of slightly ambiguous remarks on the subject of taxation. Ministers have sometimes spoken of taxation under United Kingdom rates. They have sometimes talked of taxation under United Kingdom rules. I am not a tax expert, but there is a significant difference between the two. This concerns the point raised by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell).
  As I understand it, under the tax rules the question would then arise whether Members of the European Parliament were deemed to be resident in this country or overseas. It seems to me that it should be established as a principle, and I hope that the Minister will agree, that British Members of the European Parliament should in principle be taxed at the same rates as those they represent. That is a principle of great importance politically for the success of this experiment in direct elections. Despite the statements that have been made, this whole situation is still somewhat ambiguous and I hope that the Minister will clear it up.
  Then there is the question of allowances. If all that I have said about salary and taxation is accepted, it is clear that in these circumstances salary and taxation so defined would not be enough to cover all the necessary expenses. Nevertheless, it must be right to apply the same basic principle again that allowances should be strictly related to necessary expenditure actually incurred.
  1450
  We in this House are not in a very strong position—I rather glide over this point—to preach at others about control of expenditure actually incurred by Members of Parliament. Nevertheless, I think that this is a right principle, and it may be that if they work out proper procedures for the control of expenditure actually incurred other people will be able to give us a lesson in the matter.
  I ask the Minister to expand a little on his reference to a common electoral system for later rounds of elections to the European Parliament. This is a very important matter. We have not really begun to discuss it and it is natural that we should not do so at this stage. Nevertheless, when does the Minister foresee discussion of the subject beginning and in what forum? Is this something that the directly elected European Parliament will be expected to start, or is it something that the Council of Ministers will start discussing off its own bat? We need to know something of the time scale. These are early days, but we should have an assurance that no proposals or position will be taken by the Government on this very important point of a possible future common system until this House has had an opportunity to debate the matter further.
  Mr. Max Madden: What is the hon. Gentleman's attitude to the principle of duel membership of this House and the European Assembly? If he supports dual membership, would he believe it right for any candidates in a forthcoming General Election in this country which took place before next June to declare whether they intended to stand for election to the European Assembly?
  Mr. Hurd: I do not think that it is possible for anyone in this House to say that a dual mandate is impossible or out of the question. We discussed the point during the passage of the European Assembly Elections Bill. There was no disposition on the part of the House to put into the Bill a clause excluding the dual mandate by law. Nor, I would think, would any political party wish, as it were, to outlaw it.
  I think that practical difficulty would arise when it came to persuading a constituency selection committee that one could do both jobs satisfactorily, and I

  1451
  think that that would be an almost insuperable task except perhaps in a handful of cases. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) has pointed to one of the difficulties. That is particularly so in view of the timing at which the first direct elections are working out. It seems to me that if an hon. Member is proposing to try to persuade a selection committee that he could do both jobs, he would be well advised to let his present Westminster constituency know fairly soon that he wants to make the attempt. But that is essentially for the individual and the selection committees when they start choosing candidates for these first direct elections, presumably at the turn of the year.
  In the short time that I have been here, there has not been an issue which has been debated so long and so often and, on the whole, so interestingly. We shall never reach total agreement on the points of principle. This is a further step forward. There are important practical matters which still have to be elucidated. I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up some of them when he replies and that he will let us know later about others. But the principle of the order is, in our view, welcome, because it is a further step along a road which we tread with some enthusiasm.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I agree with one point that the hon. Gentleman for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) has made, and that is that direct elections have been debated regularly and interestingly, but in more or less everything else I part company with him straight away.
  Although the debate is ostensibly about an order—the Draft European Communities (Defintion of Treaties) (No. 4) Order 1978—it is an order which designates a treaty to which the United Kingdom may become a party. It is concerned with the way in which this House ratifies, or does not ratify, a foreign treaty.
  This is, I think, the first major debate—other than a late night debate, with half a dozen people in the House—whereby the Government wish to ratify a treaty under the procedure laid down in Section 1 (3) of the European Communities Act 1972. That, I think, is very important. I am informed that, until that
  1452
  Act was passed, this House did not have to ratify treaties entered into by a Government. All that happened, under the Ponsonby rules, was that if the House chose to disagree with the terms of the treaty within 40 days, that treaty was not considered binding. But, since our membership of the European Economic Community, at least in relation to Community treaties, the opposite procedure has applied. In other words, we have to ratify, as part of our new written constitution, treaties entered into not by Her Majesty's Government alone but by Her Majesty's Government as part of the EEC, and that is a very different matter.
  The debate tonight is about something of which we have a working knowledge—direct elections to the EEC Assembly. We have a working knowledge of it not only because of the debates to which the hon. Gentleman referred but because we have had a Bill and that Bill has now become an Act. That, I suggest, is fortuitous. Any European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order could come before this House when there had been no general debate about the issues, when there had been no Bill, and when there might be no knowledge of the matter in question. In addition, there might also be no treaty available in the Vote Office, which is the position faced by the House tonight.
  It is not just any ordinary treaty, either to trade with Israel or to give wheat aid to some South American State, which some of them have been; it is a question whether this House should ratify a foreign treaty, or a treaty which is a matter of foreign affairs from the point of view of the United Kingdom, which sets up and establishes what could be a rival Assembly. That is what tonight's debate is about, and that is the question before the House.
  The treaty is not available. What a reflection on the way in which we go about these matters. But it is even worse than that, because the order before us designates the treaty, as it says in the schedule, and the schedule refers to an act concerning the election of representatives of the Assembly, and so on. It does not say, in the schedule to the order, that there has been a Command Paper 6623, which was presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State in October 1976. The order does not even mention it.

  1453
  This, I think, justifies up to the hilt the sort of thing that we have been saying time and time again—that the way in which the European Communities Act works, and the way in which the Government operate, or are forced to operate, by membership of this outfit, means that this House is being asked to approve things clandestinely, without openness.
  We talk about open government, but the Government cannot even present the treaty that we are supposed to be discussing. Moreover, it is a treaty which does not present direct elections as we have discussed them. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State admitted in his introduction, Articles 7 and 11 of that treaty commit the United Kingdom in principle to the eventual adoption of elections by a uniform procedure. I know that they may not come for some time, but that is what it does. If that is not federalism I do not know what is.
  When speaking on this subject the Foreign Secretary said:
  "I am well aware that in 10 years' time events may have confounded any analysis that I make. The way that Europe has evolved has been extremely hard to predict.
  In my view it is time that we all recognised how unreal the debate about federalism has become."—[Official Report, 20th April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 206.]
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State had to admit that this non-existent treaty before us tonight is committing this House to elections throughout the EEC by a uniform process. Yet the Foreign Secretary not only says that the debate on federalism has become null and void—which it has not, because it is before us tonight—he cannot even predict which way the matter will go. We all know that there are differences of view about the way in which this Assembly will operate once it becomes directly elected if, indeed, we ever get that far.
  Mr. Roper: I have listened with care to what my hon. Friend has said about this dangerous new commitment that we are taking on with regard to eventual elections under a common system. Does he admit that that obligation to have elections by a common system is one that was already apparent within the Treaty of Rome, and one that we have considered for some time within this House?
  Mr. Spearing: I do not agree with my hon. Friend, for the simple reason that it is not apparent. I have before me the Article 138 in question. Paragraph 3 states that
  "The Assembly shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States. The Council shall, acting unanimously, lay down the appropriate provisions, which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
  In other words, it can be vetoed not just by the member of the Government in the Council but by this House. That is not an obligation, because it is written in as a veto. At least it is the only veto there is, because the other vetoes are not really there, unless there is a qualified majority. That is a non-existent veto, just as we have a non-existent treaty.
  I am afraid that I disagree with my hon. Friend. I believe that I am right to disagree, quite apart from the fact that in the official literature no commitment to direct elections was mentioned at all. I can find nothing in the White Paper of 1971, published by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), which says anything about it, either. He was the man who should know, because he believes in direct elections.
  Indeed, in an intervention to the Prime Minister on 29th March 1976 I said:
  "the choice of our own electoral procedure is pending the entry into force of a uniform electoral procedure."
  He replied:
  I know that it is in the document, and if my hon. Friend will contain himself I shall explain what has to happen. It has taken 18 years or so to reach the present stage. I do not know but I am willing to have a modest bet with my hon. Friend that he will be retired before we reach the second stage about which he is so worried, because it will demand the unanimous agreement of all the member States before they ever get there."—[Official Report, 29th March 1976; Vol. 908, c. 910.]
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home, when Foreign Secretary, said the very same thing to this House in respect of direct elections themselves. That was not 18 years ago; it was 10 years ago. He said that we may have to have constitutional developments. He said that the matter would have to be unanimous in the Council and that it would have to come before this House. It is before it tonight. Therefore, I say to the Prime Minister that what Sir Alec Douglas-Home said 10 years ago may

  1455
  well happen again in respect of direct elections by common procedure. The law is quite clearly there. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) agrees. He is always fair in debate, just as I try to be.
  Earlier in the debate the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) raised the question whether it is proper for the debate to proceed. Here we have a very important international treaty designated by this curious kack-handed, secretive procedure, not of tabling a motion to say that the House approves the treaty, Command 6623. That would be the open way of doing it. That could have been written into the European Communities Act if the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) wanted it. That would have been the right way to do it. Had it been there, that would have been handed out to the Vote Office and the Table would have had a copy of it for reference purposes to see that we were in order in what we were talking about. However, neither of those things has happened, formally at least. So we have not got it with us.
  Mr. Speaker, your predecessor in the Chair read out the ruling of Mr. Speaker of 21st February 1966, which stated that in the event of documents not being available there would be a list available in the Library and hon. Members could find out about it. My researches in the matter are not complete. Later in the debate I may wish to raise the matter. It is of great constitutional importance. We are asked to ratify a treaty which hon. Members cannot obtain.
  The Lord President may say that in this typewritten memorandum "Command 6623" appears in brackets. That may be so, but Command 6623 is not available. If my hon. Friend does not say that on principle he will not put the motion, there might be some other treaty, about which there might not be so much interest, and which might not be available either. The Government would say "Ah, but Command 6623 was not available on the night of 23rd May. What are you worrying about?" I suggest that custom, practice and precedent in these matters are all. That is why the matter should not be entirely left for the moment. When I have made more inquiries I may wish to raise something about it.
  1456
  I suggest that there is a wide variety of views about the way in which the Assembly, if it is elected, will operate. Some people say that it will be only an advisory chamber. It will not be an advisory chamber, because it has already changed the nature of the budget. It may have relatively limited powers, but it was admitted in our debates on the European Communities Act that there had been a tennis match between the Council and the Assembly over the last budget and that the Assembly had rung changes. The Assembly already has the sanctions of expenditure. Therefore, it could develop in ways in which the House would not wish it to develop.
  On the other hand, some hon. Gentlemen say that it will not be like that at all. They say that it will consist of a lot of people who do not want to come here or who may have come here and not wanted to continue and that it will not be very active. Some people, unkindly but not without point, have said that it will become Mr. Jenkins' poodle. There is evidence of that. Civil servants and servants of the EEC can speak in the EEC Assembly. The traditional split between the Executive and the legislature is all mixed up. That should make people pause for thought. Mr. Jenkins, speaking in the EEC Assembly on Tuesday 13th December 1977, said:
  "May I say that one objective we have in mind"
  —that is the Commission—
  "is to be able to put forward proposals which will command the support of Parliament without amendments being necessary."
  It is nice to put up something which is within the ideas of Parliament. But does that mean to say that the Assembly has not any power?
  If the Commission is to follow that line it means that the only proposals that it can put before the Council of Ministers are those which will be acceptable to this directly elected Assembly which is not supposed to have any power. Not only does it have powers over the budget in some manner or other, which is exactly the way in which this House gained its power; if Mr. Jenkins is correct, and there is no reason why he should not be—and there is no reason why another Commissioner should not follow the same policy—it will have other powers, too. Therefore, the views of the Assembly act

  1457
  as a constriction, as a sieve, sifting out matters which it does not like.
  The Council may wish to act in all sorts of ways, but if the constriction of the Asesmbly's assent operates, the Council will never have the proposals before it on which it might be able to act. I do not say that that is what will happen, but it is clearly a strong alternative.
  I come now to the effect of these possible elections, if ratification comes. We must not forget, of course, that there will be other Assemblies which have to ratify this treaty. I refer to the effect upon the parties and upon our democracy. Addressing the British Labour Club in Brussels on 6th February 1978, the Foreign Secretary, talking about the EEC debate, said:
  "This debate has divided families in Britain and has, at times debilitated both our party and the country."
  I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. Whatever views we hold about the EEC, whether we are federalists, unionists, anti-EEC or whatever, we would agree about that. That is the situation without the fact of direct elections. When we come to the selection of candidates, when we come to the argument about what the Commission should be, when we get a "pro" Labour man against an "anti" Conservative man—if there are any—the cross currents can only further debilitate the traditional party structure and democratic machinery of this country.
  Mr. Rooker: That is the idea.
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend may be right. Even if he is not right, I believe that a written constitution of the sort to which we are now binding ourselves would inevitably have that effect. Inevitably, in politics it is the unintentional and unforseen secondary effects which are the most virulent. I believe that that is true in respect of this treaty more than anything else that the House has had to debate, certainly this century.
  The House may think that I am exaggerating. This is where I return to the treaty, which, alas, the House does not have before it, which my hon. Friends and I cannot consult, which the Government have not seen fit to put in the Vote Office, and which the order
  1458
  ratifies. The treaty is yet another addition to the written constitution of the United Kingdom. It may well be irreversible. The freedoms and the democratic processes to which we in the United Kingdom are heir and in which we are proud to participate, depend upon an unwritten, tacit agreement, upon the conventions of the constitution and ultimately upon confidence between those of differing political views—confidence in each other and in the system which we operate.
  I suggest that if we ratify this treaty tonight that confidence will not exist for much longer in the same form. Inevitably this written form of constitution, the statutory elections and the statutory duties and responsibilities of those so elected, cannot fail to undermine the practice and traditions of this place and with it the freedoms and traditional democratic practices of the British people. That is why it is so ironic and so typical that when the House is asked to ratify the treaty we cannot get hold of it and hon. Members going to the Vote Office cannot get a sight of it.
  Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have doubtless been told by Mr. Deputy Speaker prior to your arrival in the Chamber of the important matters which have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) concerning the non-availability of important documents relating to the order. You will know of the circumstances, which my hon. Friend has described at some length. I believe that these are important revelations which he has brought to the attention of the House. Surely the appropriate course of action for the Government to adopt would be to adjourn debate on the order so that the omissions of documentation can be repaired by the Government and the debate continued at another time when hon. Members are furnished with the relevant papers.
  Mr. Roper: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise the problems that are before the House—at least, for those hon. Members who were not able to acquire a copy of the Command Paper in time for the debate by sending the appropriate document to the Vote Office and having one supplied to them.
  Before giving your ruling on this matter, I ask you to remember the ruling

  1459
  given by Mr. Speaker King on 10th November 1965 on the question of the availability of papers. He made it quite clear that the matter of the supply of papers was not for the Chair but for the Government. Indeed, even the question of what papers were relevant was a matter not for the Chair but for the Government.
  Mr. Speaker: I also have a ruling that was given by Mr. Speaker on 21st February 1966, in which he said quite clearly:
  "I have decided, therefore to accept the recommendation of the House of Commons (Services) Committee that in future a Department should supply to the Library in advance a list of all those older papers which appear to it to be relevant to a forthcoming debate. Members will be able to consult this list in the Library and to order from the Vote Office such papers as they reqiure, besides, of course, any other papers which they may wish to have."—[Official Report. 21st February, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 34.]
  Perhaps the Minister would like to comment.
  Mr. Judd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. No one is more concerned than I am that the House should have every opportunity for proper scrutiny of all EEC matters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), with his passionate sincerity of commitment which nobody on either side of the House would challenge, has pointed out, this is a crucial issue.
  But of course, Mr. Speaker, in the statement that you have just made you reminded the House that a list of relevant documents should be provided. The list of relevant documents has been provided in the form of the explanatory memorandum. Then, in your statement you said, Mr. Speaker, that it should be for the Member who so wished to go to the Vote Office and order or secure for himself a copy of those relevant documents which he feels he requires for the purposes of the debate.
  All the documents referred to in the explanatory memorandum have been available in the past in the Vote Office. What seems to have happened is that this evening some hon. Members have found that supplies have been exhausted. If an explanatory memorandum is lodged on 11th May, as was the case in this instance, hon. Members have had ample facility to go to the Vote Office and secure the document that they want. It is not a matter of the document never having
  1460
  been lodged in the Vote. Office; it is simply a matter of supplies having been exhausted. If hon. Members had been to the Vote Office in sufficient time, they could have secured the relevant document. Therefore it is not in the spirit of the statement you have just made, Mr. Speaker, that we should have to take exceptional action tonight, because the document has been available in the Vote Office for two years.
  Mr. Jay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be prepared to accept a motion, if I moved it, to adjourn this debate so that we can ascertain whether the Government really have—and I think they have not—complied with the ruling which you recently read out?
  Mr. Speaker: In view of the ruling that was given by Mr. Speaker in 1966, I would be prepared to accept such a motion.
  Mr. Jay: I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned until such time as the relevant documents are before the House.
  It seems to be perfectly clear from the statement that you have made, Mr. Speaker, that the Government are bound, when they announce the business for the coming week, to place in the Library a list of the documents which are relevant to the debate. Nobody disputes that the White Paper. Command 6623, is relevant to the debate. After all, it is the document that we are declaring to be legal in the United Kingdom. It is not merely relevant, it is essential. It is inconceivable that the debate could continue without it.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State says that, although the document was not available to any hon. Member who went to the Vote Office in the past 48 hours, at some date—I think 18 months ago—it was placed in the Library and, presumably, was available in the Vote Office. However, at some date unknown after that supplies became exhausted. Therefore, during the period since the debate was announced, which was only last Thursday, it has in practice not been available to hon. Members.
  Surely it is not complying with the ruling to which you have referred, Mr. Speaker, if a Minister says "I have

  1461
  placed in the Library a list of the relevant documents but, unfortunately, the most relevant of them was totally unobtainable when the list was read." That does not seem to be complying with the spirit of the ruling or with the letter of the requirement.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Hon. Members: No. This is a point of order.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) is moving to adjourn the debate.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) tell us when he applied for a copy of the relevant document, Cmnd Paper No. 6623? Will he tell us whether he has a copy of the document?
  Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman's intervention shows that I was wrong to give way, as I was about to make those matters clear.
  As soon as the announcement was made last Thursday that the debate would take place today, I went to the Vote Office and asked for the document. I was told that it was not available but that if I put in a request the Vote Office would ascertain whether it could obtain it. I continued to make requests for the document on six occasions between Thursday afternoon and today. Finally, I secured a copy today—it may have been late last night—after a good deal of persistent effort. At that stage I had a copy of the document, but many hon. Members have found it not possible to obtain a copy in the past 24 hours. I do not think that it is complying with the regulations that in order to have a copy of the most important document in the debate it is necessary to devote almost one's full time for four days to that end.
  Mr. Judd: I have already made plain how seriously I and my colleagues in Government take the availability of documents. In the best possible spirit, I suggest to hon. Members that if we are to be certain in future in our consideration of EEC matters that the spirit of
  1462
  that which the House has laid down is being observed, a great deal of co-operation is required between the House, the authorities and the Government.
  In good faith we prepared an explanatory memorandum. I listened carefully to what was said about secretiveness and the contradiction in terms of open government. When that was being said, I was reading the explanatory memorandum. Although I accept that there may be argument about whether the memorandum could have been better drafted, it is an honest attempt by the Government to fill in the background of that which is before the House.
  Mr. Buchan rose—
  Mr. Judd: In the context of the explanatory memorandum, we referred to all the relevant documents. These documents had been available to the House. If the Government had received any indication that supplies had become exhausted, and if the authorities had received such information, I am sure that action could have been taken to put things right.
  We have already been told by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who has associated himself with the motion, that he has been able to secure the relevant document. Therefore, it is not a matter of the document not being available. I suggest that many hon. Members who have raised this issue—I understand the spirit in which it is raised—have also been able to obtain access to the relevant document. Therefore, I feel that in the circumstances the spirit of what was laid down by the House is not being breached on this occasion. After careful consideration, I feel that I have no alternative but to oppose the motion.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bell rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the House would like to come to a quick decision on this matter. Shall I put the Question? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] The Question is, That the debate be now adjourned. As many as are—
  Mr. Ronald Bell: I think that there is a certain danger of these matters being

  1463
  passed over too lightly. That was indeed the burden of the main debate before the motion to adjourn the debate was moved. With respect to the Minister, it is no longer a point of order whether the technical requirements of the document which you read out, Mr. Speaker, have been complied with. I doubt whether they have been, because putting an explanatory memorandum in the Vote Office is not lodging a document in the Library, which is what Mr. Speaker's predecessor ruled should be done.
  This is a matter of the highest importance. If the motion were to go through tonight, a considerable number of questions—I confess that I do not know which ones, because the explanatory memorandum may or may not correspond with the White Paper—will be permanently removed from the competence of Parliament. That is what we have to get clear. They become designated treaties under the European Communities Act 1972 and they become the law of the United Kingdom which we cannot thereafter repeal or alter. It is an irreversible process and it will be decided tonight.
  If we pass the order, among other things we shall be committed to direct elections in future on a uniform system throughout the Community. The House will not be able to debate that matter again. Therefore, we are dealing with a matter of the highest importance.
  The document containing the matters which will be removed from all future
  consideration by the House is not before us. It is no use saying that if, when the business was announced, hon. Members had put in for the document they might have got copies just in time, as did the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).
  The answer is that the nature of this business is not at all clear. I confess to having been totaly misled. It is rather fortuitous that I am here this evening. The title of the document sounded totally innocuous—European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 4) Order. How was anyone to know that on an order called the "(Definition of Treaties) … Order" we were going to vote away for ever our right to consider the important matters in that treaty? Perhaps we should read through every document that is mentioned, but we do not. I put it to hon. Members—the decision lies with the House, not with the Chair—that, whatever their view of the European Communities, this is too important a matter to be rushed through without the relevant document.
  Mr. Roper rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House that I put the Question?
  Hon Members: Yes.
  Question put, That the debate be now adjourned:—
  The House divided: Ayes 61, Noes 119.

  Division No. 224]

  AYES

  [9.34 p.m.

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Atkinson, Norman

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Bean, R. E.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Bell, Ronald

  Henderson, Douglas

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rooker, J. W.

  Biffen, John

  Kilfedder, James

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Body, Richard

  Lamond, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Buchan, Norman

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Budgen, Nick

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Canavan, Dennis

  Loyden, Eddie

  Thomas, Ron (Bristoll NW)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Tilley, John (Lambeth, Central)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Marten, Neil

  Torney, Tom

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Welsh, Andrew

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Woof, Robert

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Moate, Roger

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Flannery, Martin

  Molyneaux, James

  Mr. David Stoddart and

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Newens, Stanley

  Mr. Max Madden.

  Forrester, John

  Noble, Mike

  NOES

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Boardman, H.

  Brooke, Peter

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Bates, All

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Cant, R. B.

  Janner, Greville

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Cartwright, John

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

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Judd, Frank

  Roper, John

  Crawshaw, Richard

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rowlands, Ted

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lawson, Nigel

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Dewar, Donald

  Luce, Richard

  Sever, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  MacGregor, John

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Durant, Tony

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Marks, Kenneth

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Eadie, Alex

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Stanley, John

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Ford, Ben

  Mawby, Ray

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Golding, John

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Goodhew, Victor

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

  Tinn, James

  Graham, Ted

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Viggers, Peter

  Gray, Hamish

  Moyle, Roland

  Wakeham, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Harper, Joseph

  Nelson, Anthony

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Newton, Tony

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Normanton, Tom

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nott, John

  Whitlock, William

  Hawkins, Paul

  Oakes, Gordon

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Horam, John

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Woodall, Alec

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Pardoe, John

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Huckfield, Les

  Parker, John

  Younger, Hon George

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Hunter, Adam

  Radice, Giles

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hurd, Douglas

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Mr. Peter Snape and

  James, David

  Rhodes James, R.

  Mr. Jim Marshall.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Original Question again proposed.
  9.46 p.m.
  Mr. John Biffen: That interlude emphasises some of the points made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) in his strong protestation against a written constitution. I find myself profoundly in agreement with those remarks. They were inherently Tory remarks and a Tory analysis of our situation.
  The hon. Member was quite right to remind the House that this evening's debate is part of a wider process, the process whereby this House is trying to determine what is the appropriate relationship between this country and sister European countries. That debate was not terminated by the European Communities Act, by the referendum, or by a decision to proceed with a directly elected European Assembly; it is a debate that will proceed and in which those who are determined to preserve the interests of national Parliaments as the forums for decision taking will count this evening as one of the darker hours. Even so, there will be those who will keep watch and who will record their votes, and who will hold in trust for the future the traditions of parliamentary
  1466
  independence that we have inherited from the past.
  In doing that, we shall be none the less good Europeans—if I may use a meaningless phrase—for what we shall be seeking to do is to establish the kind of institutions which we think should have primacy within the European Community, for if the European Community is to have a chance of success, it must be an organic and evolving institution.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South was quite right to warn us against the chains that are made and fashioned from seeming paper constitutions, for if we consider the paper constitution to which we are committed, the Treaty of Rome, we find that it is now observed in the breach, in the sense that the Luxembourg Accord gives the right of national veto in terms which are totally contradictory to the provisions of the treaty. Yet we know that that is the safety valve without which the Community could not proceed. It seems to me that it is likely that it will be a safety valve and a device of increasing significance as the diversity of the Community is enhanced by the prospective membership of Spain, Portugal and Greece.
  In that circumstance we are now being invited to make a commitment to a directly elected European Assembly,

  1467
  for that is the purport of this evening's vote. A number of other significant issues, such as the remuneration of Members, have been raised, but the central issue is whether we are to make a commitment this evening. With the option before the House, in however unsatisfactory a form, shall we or shall we not consent to a directly elected European Assembly?
  It seems to me that the central question is whether this is a natural and evolutionary development, likely to facilitate the happy reciprocal workings of a European Community, or whether it will add a point of developing discord. I believe that it will add a point of developing discord. I regard it as inherently artifical.
  The first artificiality which strikes me is the extraordinary attempts now being made to cobble together some kind of political identity on transnational frontiers. I look, for eample, at the groupings of the Socialist parties within the Community. What sort of deliberations will take place within those groupings? I would say that the present courteous mutual debate between the Manifesto Group and the Tribune Group is as nothing to what will be the range of discord within the Socialist Group in the Europea Community.
  Then I look at the Conservative Party, hawking around and trying to find allies of some sort or other—I shudder to think that they might be the Italian Christian Democrats—but, wherever I look, I ask myself the one simple central question: when it comes to the defence of exclusive fishing rights or to arguments in respect of the Milk Marketing Board, to what continental European parties do the Tories turn for sustenance and support? My bet is that they will find that most Christian Democrat parties of continental Europe will be more disposed to take an adversary role in respect of their interests as perceived by the Tories in this country, and, ironically, they will find themselves making common cause with the British Labour Party. It seemed to me that was precisely what happened over the Milk Marketing Board issue.
  I say, therefore, that this is a contrivance, an artificiality. That is my first observation upon the directly elected Assembly—that it will place upon this country a dimension of total artificiality in its political relations with neighbouring
  1468
  European countries through some attempt to contrive a confederation which will bind a series of national political parties. I say frankly that the Community is still a sufficiently tender flower as not to be able to afford the chill winds of that kind of artificiality.
  The second cause for unease concerns the competition which, I believe, will come between a Continental Assembly with a direct mandate and national Parliaments, and more particularly our House of Commons.
  There has been reference to the considerable funds that will be at the disposal of European Assembly Members. I do not particularly wish to take part in that controversy. I do not believe that money will purchase loyalties. Patronage helped to contrive the Union between Ireland and Great Britain, but patronage could not survive the onslaught of the Roman Catholic Irish population throughout the nineteenth century. Neither do I believe that one can fashion some European loyalty which will override national loyalties, unless there is a popular will and desire for it.
  Into this situation I see interposed the dangers of a directly elected Assembly wanting to reinforce its already established spending power. Secondly, I believe that a directly elected Assembly will wish to enter into some kind of partnership with the Commission to try to establish the fact that the Assembly and the Commission have enhanced powers, to the detriment of the Council of Ministers answering to their national Parliaments. Such a development, in the context of prospective enlargement, is foredoomed to failure.
  Given that analysis, I cannot believe that it will be in the long-term interests of those who want to promote a working Community partnership that we should proceed with a directly elected European Assembly. If this House has to make the gesture, so be it: we should not be so unsure of ourselves that we shrink from making the gesture and carrying on the fight—for I believe that we do so on a far wider range of interests than are immediately represented here.
  Although I have no doubt that when the vote is held this evening it will be one more that will go the Government's way, those of us who will be in the

  1469
  Opposition Lobby will be carrying forward the argument knowing that time is on our side—and that we will win.
  9.56 p.m.
  Mr. John Roper: The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) has been a consistent opponent of the process of European integration, so his speech can have come as no surprise to the House. But there was one part of it with which I agreed. It is, of course, not surprising that it is difficult to create transnational political parties. That process will take time. The surprising thing is that they have gone so far along the road to their creation.
  Inevitably, there are many issues in the European Parliament—as there was a week or two ago over the Milk Marketing Board—in which national interests override the interests of political parties. But there are also regular occasions—this week is a good example—when party political interests clearly override divisions between Members from different countries.
  I have in mind the hearings which will take place tomorrow in Brussels on human rights in Argentina, which were determined by the Political Committee of the European Parliament and which then, by some parliamentary device, were boycotted by the non-Socialist parties. Thus, the Socialist Group, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will be taking an active part in those hearings.
  Clearly, in such matters party divisions are far more important within the European Parliament than divisions at national level. We shall see in future a number of issue in which party interests will outrun national interests, but that process will take time. As the hon. Member for Oswestry said, it is not surprising that there is difficulty, particularly on the Conservative side, in finding a party with which they can form a group.
  There have been a number of debates on this subject, and this will not be the last. As the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) said, we shall still have to have debates on the order laying down the details of the electoral procedures and of the boundaries, later in the year. But those debates will be matters of detail. Tonight is the last debate on the principle of direct elections.
  1470
  Since I have been somewhat experienced in earlier debates, I feel that this is a useful occasion on which to start by declaring a non-interest. If one starts to discuss the salaries of Members of the European Parliament, one is frequently interrupted and asked what one's intentions are. I therefore begin by declaring a non-interest.
  The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) discussed at length the problem that might arise if a Member of the European Parliament were of a different party political complexion from a Member of this House. In rural Oxfordshire it may be unusual to have a local authority of a different political complexion from that of the Westminster Member of Parliament, but in other parts of the country we frequently have situations in which the local authority is Conservative-controlled but the local Member of Parliament happens to be Labour. We have known for some time that representatives at different levels of government—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (TREATIES)

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That the Solomon Islands Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (TREATIES)
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Roper: I do not see that any greater problem will arise in the case of the European Parliament than arises, for example, with members of local authorities who belong to various political parties.
  Mr. Buchan: Does my hon. Friend mean what he is saying? Is he saying that the conflict between the local authority with a clearly defined ambit of interest and the interests of a Member of Parliament is comparable with the situation in an elected Assembly? Is he suggesting that such an Assembly, if it seeks to dictate to the Council of Ministers, which is also responsible to native Parliaments, will create a conflict?
  Mr. Roper: My hon. Friend was not present when the hon. Member for Banbury spoke. I was referring not to a conflict between this House and the European Parliament but to a conflict in a locality between a Member of the European Parliament and a Member of the Westminster Parliament if those Members happened to come from different parties. I do not believe that the fact that people come from different parties in the same geographical area need create the terrible problem highlighted by the hon. Member for Banbury. I know that in one's own area in debates on educational and housing policy one often finds that one is in conflict with people of another party who are locally elected as councillors in the area. I do not think that the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Banbury is either a novelty or such a difficulty as he suggests.
  We must also consider the subject of remuneration. It is important to note that not until there has been a decision from this House, and not until the Nine have ratified the legislation, will the Council of Ministers consider a proposal under article 13 of the treaty. Therefore, it is important to obtain a ministerial assurance on the subject of United Kingdom taxation. The Government have given a fairly clear indication on that point, but we should be given further clarification.
  I hope that the Minister will also comment on the proposal that the salary of Members of the European Parliament should be varied in different parts of the Community according to the cost of living. That proposal would go a long way to meeting the obvious discrepancies that would exist if the same salaries were paid throughout the whole of the Community.
  Alternatively, it is not unreasonable, until we reach a common system of election for Members of the European Parliament, for such people to be paid on the same basis as Members of their own national Parliaments with appropriately monitored and scrutinised expenses. I hope that the Minister will make some comments about this.
  Mr. David Stoddart: On what basis does my hon. Friend think that a member of the European Parliament should be paid the same amount as a Member of this Parliament is paid? Members of the European Parliament will
  1472
  have no constituency responsibilities and will probably work a couple of days a week, and that will be the end of their task. Does he believe that such a person is as worthy of being paid as much money as a Member of this Parliament?
  Mr. Roper: My hon. Friend suggests that Members of the European Parliament will have no constituency responsibilities. Perhaps they will not. But that was not the point of view of the hon. Member for Banbury. So, on the one hand we are told that Members of the European Parliament will be interfering in our constituencies too much by being, in effect, second Members of Parliament, and on the other hand we are told that they have no constituency duties at all. I believe that if they have constituencies as large as those suggested by the Boundary Commission they will indeed have fairly heavy constituency responsibilities, perhaps each of them covering an area comprising seven or eight Westminster constituencies.
  My hon. Friend's constituency of Swindon will be in the Upper Thames constituency of the European Parliament, and even if his constituency is excluded from the activities of the Upper Thames Member of the European Parliament that Member will still have six or seven other Westminster constituencies to cover, so he will be reasonably busy. The suggestion that Members of the European Parliament will have no constituency responsibilities should be closely examined.
  Perhaps the point about comparability between salaries should be referred to Lord Boyle and his committee. Nevertheless, one might start on the approximate basis that it would be reasonable for Members of the European Parliament to be paid at about the same level as Members of the various national Parliaments.
  I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) had to say about the debilitating effects on politics of the direct elections. He posed a problem that a number of us have considered. If he rereads the speech by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the Brussels Labour Club, he will see that my right hon. Friend talked about debilitating effects as being effects of the past. My right hon. Friend went on to refer to the Prime Minister's letter to the general

  1473
  secretary of the Labour Party and the new basis for discussion and co-operation within the Labour Party on this matter, and suggested that although there might have been a debilitating effect in the past, there would not be in the future.
  Mr. Spearing: I emphasise that I accept that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was speaking about the past and not about the future. I tried to point out that I thought that the future in respect of direct elections would indeed cause that fear. My hon. Friend has referred to the Prime Minister's letter to the NEC of the Labour Party. A lot will depend on what emerges from that. It may well be that if certain things do not emerge, debilitating effects, at least on the Labour Party, will, unhappily, continue.
  Mr. Roper: I do not want to get involved in a medical debate on those matters which may or may not debilitate the Labour Party. I believe that the Prime Minister's letter provided the basis for constructive and useful discussion within the party and that we have now seen some of the first signs of that in the activities of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Brussels.
  I suggest that the important positive effect of direct elections will be to focus attention both within the political parties and between them on the issues of Europe. All too often we have to listen to speeches by those who say that we are obtaining European integration by stealth and trying to achieve it clandestinely. One way in which we shall avoid doing it by stealth is by ensuring that there is public debate among our people every four years on these issues. The four-yearly direct elections will ensure that the issues are presented to the electorate and that those opposed to further stages of integration will be able to put their points of view, just as those holding the opposite points of view will be able to put theirs.
  Mr. J. W. Rooker: Does the encouragement of public debate every four years extend to the nobbling of the media in which my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) are involved in selling direct elections as a media issue by seminars to representatives of the media
  1474
  throughout the country? I have raised this matter before because their correspondence was made available to me.
  Mr. Roper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening on that point. I am, of course, pleased that organisations of various sorts are trying to ensure that the media inform the British electorate. We have debated these matters in the House before. I am pleased that the BBC is to give proper attention to this matter and will develop a Euro-service later in the year, so that people can be fully informed on these issues. I believe that these issues will be of importance, and I am not in any way ashamed of the activities of organisations such as the European League for Economic Co-operation in promoting such study and understanding.
  Mr. Marten: Is the BBC intending to broadcast the proceedings of the European Assembly? If so, in what language will it be?
  Mr. Roper: I have no idea whether the BBC is to broadcast the European Parliament. I hope that it will. I understand that there will be a translated version in English for those who do not want to listen to other languages. But that is not a matter for this present debate. My point is that the BBC has said that it will be introducing some form of Euro-service later in the year. This matter was debated on an earlier occasion when my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South raised it.
  Mr. John Evans: My hon. Friend has raised a fascinating point as to the issue of European integration, economic and monetary union and so on being placed before the people every four years at elections. The presumption would appear to be that the candidates will be pro-Common Market or anti-Common Market. If there are Labour candidates who are pro-Common Market, Liberal candidates who are pro-Common Market, and Conservative candidates who are pro-Common Market, there will be no choice. Is he suggesting that the Labour Party, which is basically an anti-Common Market party, should put up anti-Common Market candidates?
  Mr. Roper: I think that this point was dealt with very adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington,

  1475
  South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in an earlier debate when he said that perhaps these elections should take place between fast Europeans and slow Europeans. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) is, I think, simplifying matters when he refers to anti-Common Market and Pro-Common Market people. I think that he would agree, on consideration, that there are many people who may have been opposed initially to British membership of the Community but who, none the less, believe that, having gone in, we ought to stay in and see what can be done that is useful. There are others who say "Let us integrate as fast as possible." The vast majority of people, I believe, are somewhere in between.
  1476
  I think that in the debates leading up to direct elections we shall see a focusing of attention on these issues and a gradation of positions between the political parties on the issue of integration as well as on the much more important issue of the sort of Europe they want to see and the sort of values they want to see adopted within the European Community.
  I feel, therefore, that it is of great importance that the House should give a substantial majority to the order tonight, so that the Government can go ahead and ratify the treaty and so that the necessary progress can be made to enable direct elections to take place, as planned, on 7th June next year.
  10.14 p.m.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I am not quite sure whether I agree with the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) that the divisions within the European Parliament will be along party lines. On the other hand, I hope very much that they will not be along national lines. I believe that great issues will emerge. One great issue in particular which will provide the dividing line within that Parliament will, I believe, be that of protectionism. I believe that this will be the great argument within the European Parliament.
  Perhaps I should begin, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I am not, and in no circumstances will I be, a candidate for the European Parliament. That, I hope, puts me in some position to regret the stress which my delightful and hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) invariably puts in his speech—which we have heard a good many times now—on the pay and allowances to be awarded to the Members of the European Parliament. Frankly, when he bases the bulk of his case—at any rate, in terms of column inches—on this one issue, I do not think that he does himself justice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, like my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen)—whom I am sorry not to see in his place—is a hopeless romantic. He is a hopeless romantic rather like those other delightful hon. Members—who are not present tonight—of Plaid Cymru. I really think that they believe in an independent Wales, knowing full well that an independent Wales may be proud, but, my goodness, it will be poor. Knowing that, they continue to proclaim their faith. In doing so, they differ very substantially from the Scottish National Party, which believes that an independent Scotland will be a very rich Scotland and to hell with the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Marten: I think that the difference between us is not whether one of us is a romantic. The thing is that I believe in the ability of my own country to survive, whereas my hon. Friend does not. That is all it is.
  Sir A. Meyer: I shall be coming to that point at the end of my remarks. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to
  1478
  make my speech in the order in which I composed it rather than deal now with the point that he has just raised.
  I like romantic idealism. Although I disagree with my hon. Friend, I can find something to admire in his attitude. I find it very much more difficult to admire the attitudes of Labour Members who reject the idea of closer co-operation in Europe, in particular their rejection of the concept of democratic control through an elected Assembly. I find it very difficult to admire anything in Socialism. If, however, there is one thing which commands my reluctant admiration, it is the concept of Socialism as an international brotherhood in which a foreigner is as good as an Englishman and we are all human beings together. I find the emergence of what I can only call a national Socialism on the Left of the Labour Party, and also among respected figures in the Centre of that party, a deeply disturbing phenomenon.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury asked whether the European Parliament was the first step on the road to a federal Europe. [Hon. Members "Yes."] I must answer that by saying "Alas, no, it is not." But it is the first step towards providing that leadership which the other members of the Community have looked for in vain to this country. Ever since the Community was first formed, its progress has been held back by a longing for this country to come in and take its place as the leader. [Hon. Members: "Arrogance."] The Germans, who by virtue of their economic strength, had every right to claim that position, held back because of memories of what had happened 30 years ago. They were very ready to allow us to set the example.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: What about the Frogs?
  Sir A. Meyer: What my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) refers to so eloquently and elegantly as "the Frogs" were themselves very ready to accept lessons from this country in how an elected Assembly could provide effective control over an Executive.
  Mr. John Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is arrogance of the sort which he has displayed which makes

  1479
  the rest of the Right-wing parties in Europe want nothing whatever to do with the British Conservative Party?
  Sir A. Meyer: When I refer to leadership, I am not suggesting that this country is in any position to give orders or even to take the first place. I am suggesting that at the heart of the European Community from the outset there has been a gap. It has been an agreement among Governments. It has achieved closer relationships among people. It has lacked democratic institutions of control.
  This country, with its thousand years' history of parliamentary democracy, was surely the country to supply exactly that. That is what we have conspicuously failed to provide up to now. That is what the proclaimed democrats of the Labour Party would try to deny even at this last stage. Where else does this country pretend to supply the leadership in question? Is it in matters of social services? When we first talked about joining the European Community, there were many areas in which the British social services were in every way superior to those available in the European Community countries. That is no longer so.
  Does this country pretend to supply the leadership in matters of industrial production technology or new inventiveness? That is only very dubiously so today. Is it in our capacity to defend ourselves and to take the lead in the defence of Europe, as we did in the last war? I doubt whether the events in Africa during the past few weeks have lent much encouragement to that point of view.
  However, it is even now open to this country to play a decisive role in ensuring that the Community develops institutions which enable the people, through their elected representatives, to influence, perhaps decisively, the way in which the Community develops.
  I believe that the world is moving into a very dark age. I have only limited confidence in the ability of the industrialised world, whether Communist or non-Communist, to find a satisfactory answer to the problem of structural unemployment. I fear that the events that are now taking place in Africa will fuel racial conflict throughout the world. I do not believe that the kind of world to which we are moving at a frightening
  1480
  pace is one in which a single nation State, however proud and self-confident, can hope to survive on its own.
  Mr. Marten: Japan?
  Sir A. Meyer: Most certainly not. The question is whether the European Community can survive in this kind of world. The question was asked—and was not answered—in an article in The Sunday Times at the weekend by Keith Richardson in which he spoke of the impact on the Community of the growth of competition from low-cost countries. That is why I referred at the beginning of my remarks to the issue of protectionism, which will be the dominating issue in the debates within the Community in the years ahead.
  In the kind of world that is coming, it will not be possible for single nations to survive, to defend themselves, to ensure a decent standard of living for their people and to secure a reasonable level of employment, even by the most Schachtian policy of protection. Because of that, I am convinced that it we visionaries, who believe in the possibility of achieving an integrated Europe in which an elected Assembly has a major role to play, who are the realists. As to those who tell us that a single nation State can conceivably survive in those circumstances, their is the realism of Lilliput.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I must say that I find a strange disharmony between the argument of an hon. Member who describes himself as a visionary and an idealist and the concept he advances of the creation of yet another bloc, on the grounds that we shall otherwise have insufficient technological powers. This is not the kind of vision to which I particularly look forward.
  I have to say to the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) that, while he has tried to deny some of the patriotic expressions that we have heard in the House this evening, he has been guilty of arrogance in the way in which he propounded the view that the whole of Europe was waiting for every word of leadership that might be hanging on our lips. That is nonsense. It is not only inaccurate now it was inaccurate 30 years ago, as those of us who were in

  1481
  Europe at that time know. I do not think that we can look for visions and ideas in that direction.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) raised the question of conflict. It is a real issue. It is no use saying that we are accustomed to conflict and, therefore, another kind of conflict may not be serious. This House depends upon conflict. Within our parties, ideas emerge from conflict. We understand this. But there is a difference between conflict which produces ideas and conflict which arises because the functions are coming under different authorities.
  The conflict that my hon. Friend describes between a Member of Parliament and his local authority does not arise because someone makes the decisions in the housing committee. It arises because he argues and protests, sometimes, about the decisions made in the housing committee. This is an argument involving ideas and concepts, sometimes conducted publicly. It is not an argument in which the Member has a function to perform. The seriousness of the conflicts which we envisage in relation to Brussels arises from the fact that such an Assembly will have a say and a responsibility a direction in relation to the functions of the Commission and the Council.
  We too, in this House, have that kind of responsibility, directly and by vote, for the functions of our Ministers who appear in the Council. That is a different kind of conflict. It is not a creative conflict. It is not the conflict that arises from the normal argy-bargy of political discussion. It is a conflict arising from confusion as to who controls the same set of functions.
  Mr. Roper: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on this point. The point I was making concerned the conflict which might occur within the constituency. Nevertheless, there will be creative tension between this House and the European Parliament.
  Mr. Buchan: With respect, I would prefer to use the expression "creative tension" to describe the relationship between a Member and a local authority rather than the relationship between ourselves and the Assembly. The other is not creative tension but a destructive conflict.
  1482
  My hon. Friend earlier said that the conflict which he was dealing with involved the possibility of conflict between a local constituency Member and the Assemblyman. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) dealt with that rather smartly when he said that no Assemblyman would deal with his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth said that there would not be a conflict if the Assemblyman for the area was of a different political complexion from the Member of Parliament. I do not think that that is true. This is bound to lead to the kind of involvement and interference I have described earlier. I do not accept that point.
  I want to make my main point the argument over what was called the debilitating effect upon our political institutions. I make no apology for being a party man. I join a party to try to combine with others of a like mind. When they are not sufficiently alike, I try to convince them that my interpretation and viewpoint are right.
  I see no other way by which we can change society, except through party politics of this kind. The alternative to party politics is not this great panacea of the individual Member voting. It is, on the contrary, the closed conspiracy. Not only our politics but our society will be debilitated if that is to be the replacement for open party politics.
  By having an elected Assembly, we are immediately moving past two milestones in the same direction. The first milestone is that an elected body immediately seeks power. It has power by the very process of election. It is no use saying that our Parliament alone will control our Ministers on the Ccl when we have elected Members in Europe. If they have no power, they will immediately seek power. All bodies seek power, and impotent bodies will seek absolute power.
  The second milestone is that the politics immediately will begin to change, because the next great conflict is involved. That conflict will be based not upon politics but upon national attitudes as decided by the political complexion of this House, and which should continue to be expressed by Ministers, and the political complexion that will develop in such an elected Assembly.
  The search will be on for Members of the Assembly to create their own political

  1483
  pattern, their own political groupings and their own political parties. But the political parties that will emerge from a combination of 10 States, each with its own traditions, background, phases of development and particular trade union or political awareness, will be different within the Socialist movement or within the Right wing of these political parties. But either of these will be different from the requirements of a Right-wing or Left-wing party in this country which arise from the particular conditions of Britain in this particular year and with the centuries of background that have created them. That is the kind of difficulty.
  The politics of the Assembly will immediately become different in an institution which is now demanding power and which will exact power over the most powerful instrument in Europe, as it will become—the combination of the Council and the Commission. The pattern that will be imposed on this bloc will be a very different pattern, and what will emerge from it is the second milestone along the road—the inevitable drive towards federalism.
  Such an Assembly, having now established its own political pattern and its modus vivendi for operating this political pattern, with control over the Council, will find that the next logical step is, of course, a federalist Europe. There is no other way. The only other way is that it remains permanently impotent. If it does that, it is an artificial creation and the sooner we drop it the better.
  I do not believe that it will remain impotent. I believe that it will develop and achieve power, and that that power must express itself in a federalist Europe. It cannot be disputed that, whatever else the people of Britain voted for in the referendum, they did not vote for a federal Europe with one basic elected institution to control the effective governing body—the Council that will emerge and the Commission that will work with it.
  Sir A. Meyer: I have been listening closely to the hon. Member, and, as he knows, I take a diametrically opposite point of view from his. Can he explain how a directly elected Parliament will bring about this federalism of which he complains, unless it is in the position to
  1484
  make or unmake the government of Europe. It cannot do that unless the Council of Ministers gives over its power to the Commission. That cannot be done without a fresh treaty, and that treaty cannot be achieved without a national veto.
  Mr. Buchan: Ever since the hon. Gentleman's Government took us into Europe, we have been fighting to try to control our own Ministers in Brussels. That has been the process over the past half-dozen years. Within a short period of entry, we are still fighting to regain control. Time after time the answer we get is "Yes, we may discuss these matters tonight". A motion may be passed to the effect that the House takes note or rejects, but that will not stop its coming into law.
  European law already has supremacy over British law. That is a process that will take place in many areas. That process will sharpen because in the Assembly and in this place there will be those who wish to move in that direction. There will also be the argument in the national parties to move in that direction. No one will produce a resolution in the European Parliament next week to the effect that it will have absolute power and control over the Council and the Commission. We know that, but that is why I talk of inevitable progress in that direction. I cannot see anything that can block that inevitability.
  I turn to the Act that we did not have in front of us when we embarked on this the most crucial of our discussions on these matters. It may be that it will be the last of these discussions. I hope that it will not, but in any event it is a black day for democracy in this country. I have been loaned a copy of the Act. As I have said, when the debate started copies were not available. Article 4 refers to the European Assembly Members. It states:
  "Representatives shall vote on an individual and personal basis. They shall not be bound by any instructions and shall not receive a binding mandate."
  What we are being asked to approve? A binding mandate from whom? What is
  "an individual and personal basis"?
  Is a man to stand in the European elections, whether for the Cotswolds or for Upper Thames, an area of 600,000 people, and say "Vote for me. However, I

  1485
  accept no mandate from you and towards me"? Is that what is being said?
  I accept party politics. I am a party man. The alternative is the closed conspiracy. If we have an Assembly that is based upon those who by statute or by law recognised and accept no mandate of any sort, that can lead only to the closed conspiracy in the politics of Europe. I regard that as highly dangerous. I want the Member of Parliament to act in an individual and personal way, and part of that is the voluntary surrendering to and acceptance of the party structure that is open and avowed around him.
  Members of Parliament often have to behave as individuals. It gives me no great pleasure when I have to vote against my own Government, as I had to do earlier this evening. It is right that it should be difficult for us when we wish to act against our own party. Were it not so, we should move into the situation that I have described of closed groupings rather than an open Parliament. However, it seems that Article 4 is writing in that Assembly Members shall be responsible to no one. I cannot accept that.
  Are we being asked to vote for that? That is what is in front of us, although I did not have available to me a copy of the document when I entered the Chamber. Whether it is written into the British constitution or whether it is not, we all recognise that there is a bond and a mandate between us and our electorates, between us and our open party for which we have campaigned, between us and the statements that we have made during the election, and between us and the manifesto on which we have commonly fought.
  That which is before us is a negation of democracy and a move towards closed conspiratorial politics.
  Mr. Jay: What would happen if one of the Members of the Assembly, having been elected, announced that he did not propose to accept the position as laid down? Would he be automatically disallowed from taking his place?
  Mr. Buchan: It seems that that should follow. It is a pretty powerful "shall". It is not stated that representatives "may". Anyone who has been in the Scottish Grand Committee will know that
  1486
  we can spend weeks discussing the difference between "may" and "shall". This states that
  "Representatives shall vote on an individual and personal basis."
  I reject that.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so soon after a sympathetic intervention. I am trying to follow his argument, though he dropped to hushed tones because he was so shocked by his discoveries in the document of which he said he could not obtain a copy only an hour ago. Is he so shocked to discover that there is no legal constraint on a representative in the European Parliament to accept a mandate? Does he not realise that he is under no legal or statutory constraint to accept a mandate in this House? Once elected, he comes here as an individual. He is, of course, under the ordinary democratic restraint when he seeks re-election of having to answer to his electorate for those things that he said when he was elected. All that he is describing in these shocked and ridiculous terms is precisely the same legal and constitutional position as a Member of the Westminster Parliament.
  Mr. Buchan: I do not mind the length of the intervention, but I resent the obtuseness of it. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my argument, he would have realised that I was dealing with the unwritten acceptance of mandate between the electorate and Members. None of us would dare to stand for an election on a manifesto which said "Vote for me, but when I get to Parliament I shall vote on an individual and personal basis and shall not receive a mandate."
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Buchan: No. The second consequence of this article is the recognition of the difficulties of Members going as representatives of a nation and of political parties. Because that problem has been incapable of solution—I fear that for many years it will be insoluble—this aspect has had to be written in.
  Mr. Dykes: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he has given way twice in quick succession. Is he not exaggerating in an over-dramatised form the supposed dangers arising from his own abstruse theorising

  1487
  on a political notion which in practice will not obtain? Does he agree that all he is saying is that a national Member of Parliament has, in effect, more than one hat in that he is to some extent not only a party person but an individual elected constitutionally in his or her own right? In the same way, a European MP would be elected with more than one hat. In the election campaign, would not the normal political constraints that oblige a Member to seek re-election in due course and his party adherence clearly manifested before election come out in a natural way for the most sophisticated electorate to grasp?
  Mr. Buchan: My argument was linked to my opening argument in analysing the relationship between the party, this place, the Assembly and the Commission. I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman looks at my speech tomorrow, he will see the connection.
  I return to the debilitating effect, to pick up the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), on political strategies. But there is a further debilitating effect to be looked at if we have now moved along the road towards federalism. It is an artificially created federalism—a federalism brought about in the guise of the joining together of the mutual interests of a number of nations still dominated by the political controls, checks and bounds of native countries. But society changes. When the shift of political consciousness, of economic development and of history reaches a certain point, change occurs. When a number of nations with different traditions, different periods of development, different balances in economic strategies, different political experience and different forms of democratic controls join together, such a structure tends not to enhance the possibility of social advance and change but to inhibit the inevitable development of social change in those countries. It is in the inhibiting effect of the bureaucratic, artificially created Common Market that the final error lies. It is for that reason that I hope we shall seek to reject the order tonight.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: An hon. Member on this side and another
  1488
  on the Government side described this as a dark day, or dark evening, because of the subject. It has been a dark evening not only for literal reasons but for different reasons from those contained in earlier remarks.
  We have had the depressing manifestation, particularly below the Gangway, of hon. Members who conjure up all types of terrors and anxieties about a development that repeatedly has been welcomed widely by the House in substantial votes. Those votes show that direct elections are the will of the House. That is not the same as saying that hon. Members who are in favour of direct elections and, therefore, of ratification by the passing of the order, wish to inhibit, limit or reduce the arguments of minority who have been against direct elections.
  In the context of all the debates that we have had and all the documents that have been issued, it is depressing that none of the arguments from below the Gangway and elsewhere is new or succeeds in arousing anxieties in the electorate. The electors seem to be more sophisticated than most of their elected representatives in that part of the House. They have been deprived of sufficient information on the subject, but they seem to be more sanguine and more willing than those hon. Members to accept this development, which is to some extent a political experiment.
  I do not say this in an arrogant spirit or in a dismissive sense, but the House should have had a fairly routine debate. The substantial Act which was given Royal Assent on 4th May has been debated at great length when compared with any other measure, except perhaps the devolution measures for Scotland and Wales. Yet again and again we hear repetitions of the tired old canards and the absurdly defeatist and chauvinistic arguments, mainly from hon. Members below the Gangway who have terrors and fears in their minds which do not afflict other people.
  It is dangerous and misleading for them to speculate in narrowly defined channels which, by the nature of the future existence of the Community, let alone the European Parliament, are unascertainable by definition, as is the future itself. They are not remotely likely to result in the awful dangers that are conjured up in those hon Members' minds.
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: The hon. Member referred to the terror felt by hon. Members below the Gangway. There are two terrors. The first is the increased cost of living which affects the housewives of this country and the Community. The second is the terror of the House of Commons becoming lobby fodder to the European Parliament.
  Mr. Dykes: I cannot accept the remote danger of the latter part of that intervention. These economic problems which affect housewives and others in this country can be solved only jointly. I believe that direct elections are a vital part of the whole exercise. The concerted action by the Council of Ministers on economic policy, which I presume the hon. Gentleman favours in view of his comment on prices, can be supported only by an energetic and directly elected Parliament.
  I would never have favoured direct elections along the lines we now anticipate, depending on the future shape of the Parliament and on its relationship to the Council of Ministers, if I had thought that the House of Commons would in any way be weakened thereby. I do not accept that it will be. We have always been proud of the intrinsic strength and great resourcefulness of this Parliament, but it has, by sheer force of circumstances in terms of the Executive, the powerful machinery of government and all the world economic forces that are making life very difficult, if not intractable, for us and the other member States, been made into a weak Parliament. That is a much more important factor for this House to tackle than the abstruse theorising about the nineteenth-century doctrine of intrinsic parliamentary power which all hon. Members know in their hearts, but will not admit, no longer obtains.
  There are then the supposedly awful high rates of pay that, according to speculative articles in The Economist, European Members of Parliament will receive. There is no evidence or proof to back up those articles. No final decisions are anywhere near being made. There has been no real discussion of the matter in the European Parliament or elsewhere. The final decision will rest with the Council of Ministers. But are not hon. Members indulging in a severe form of
  1490
  hypocrisy? They, certainly privately but perhaps even publicly, admit that the British parliamentary salary is too low, given the amount of work involved and the relativities of our society. Whatever the ultimate figure for European Parliament salaries, it should be at a realistic but not excessive level given the work involved. Deliberately to try to distort the facts on that matter and to try to mislead public opinion is wrong.
  This order should be entirely routine, although I do not suggest that the procedures for scrutinising EEC instruments in this House is other than unsatisfactory. I believe that that is common ground to both pro- and anti-Marketeers.
  Surely this House now has the experience, knowledge and necessary self-confidence on the subject of direct elections to proceed tonight expeditiously to approve the order with, if there is a vote, which I hope there will not be, a substantial majority to show once again the continuity and consistency of the will of this House to vote for the European Community and its future institutional development.
  10.53 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: We began this important debate by addressing ourselves to the fact that the House was unable effectively to debate this serious issue in the absence of the relevant papers. The Minister, in an attempt to try to put the matter right, indicated that the papers were available 18 months ago but that publication of them had been exhausted. He certainly used the word "exhausted". I therefore went at once to the Vote Office.
  There has been a great deal of discussion recently about the position of the United Kingdom in Europe, about our ability or inability to lead. But can we say to our electors that tonight we are well enough informed on this matter to vote when we have not studied those important documents?
  When the vote on the motion to adjourn the debate took place, I was rather appalled to find that hon. Members were apparently being ushered into particular Lobbies for reasons which I had not heard in the House. Therefore, that again is a measure of the intensity of quickly-called lobbying to force a voting complex on an issue that is important

  1491
  to the United Kingdom, and it was out of all keeping with the tenor and concern of hon. Members who had been involved in the debate prior to the motion to adjourn it.
  During a point of order, the Minister, quite rightly, indicated that a paper had been drawn up which was described as the explanatory memorandum. To say the least about that, it is brief. As far as I am aware, after listening to the debate with care, it leaves out a good deal of information. This document does not satisfy the needs of those of us who are concerned about the issue.
  However, one of the sentences in the introductory paragraph is pertinent. The preamble, as it were, states:
  "The Instrument specified in the Schedule to this Order"
  that is, the order that we are debating—
  "is the Act concerning the Election of the Representatives of the Assembly by Direct Universal Suffrage, taken with the Decision of the Council of the European Communities of 20 September 1976 to which it is annexed. (Command 6623.)"
  I went immediately to the Vote Office when the Minister had indicated that certain publications had been exhausted, although bearing in mind that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) had been patently honest with the House in indicating his attempts to get such a paper and other papers. I think that it was after five attempts that he had found it prudent to inform the House that he had got such a paper, after much effort, a very short time, I think, before the debate started. That was the position. But when I went to the Vote Office, I was informed that this Command Paper—I use the words addressed to me—"is quite beyond us."
  I want to cast my vote tonight. I place myself no higher and no less in importance in that matter than any other right hon. or hon. Member. I do not go so far as to say that I am more informed than some hon. Members who have spoken consistently on these matters. But I am not prepared to say that I am uninformed. I am sufficiently aware of the significance and the importance of the debate to the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Spearing: I think that my hon. Friend will wish to place on record that the knowledge of his colleagues is that
  1492
  this is no fault of those who run our Vote Office or who deliver the Vote to us. I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) agrees with that. However, does my hon. Friend agree, therefore, that it was the Government's fault in not ensuring that in placing this Statutory Instrument they also at the same time placed equivalent numbers of copies of the treaty and saw that they were distributed at the time?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Although I was not in the Chair at the time, I am under the impression that these matters were fully discussed during discussion on the motion to adjourn the debate.
  Mr. Leadbitter: Yes, I take the import of your advice to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As always, I am not in a position to question it, nor do I wish to do so. The importance of this subject, however, is that the will of the House at this stage is such that it would not want observations of this kind of importance to be limited to a period prior to a vote on the motion to adjourn the debate. In the vote on whether the debate should be adjourned, we decided that it should continue.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leadbitter: No. I had enough of the hon. Gentleman last night.
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman would not give way then either.
  Mr. Giles Shaw rose—
  Mr. Leadbitter: No, I will not give way. I will give way to any right hon. or hon. Member who claims to understand what we are talking about and who has some record of being honest with the House of Commons—and last night the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was not.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I offer a little further assistance to the hon. Gentleman? The decision which the House took a short time ago was that we would return to the original motion.
  Mr. Leadbitter: That is what I was saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The outcome of the vote on whether the debate should be adjourned means that we now continue with the debate on the original

  1493
  motion. I have the right in the House to refer to the lack of papers.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that?
  Mr. Leadbitter: No. The hon. Gentleman must understand that unless he is prepared to come to the House following the debate that we had last night and withdraw his untruthful remarks, I shall not give way to him.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am under the impression that I heard the hon. Gentleman talk about "untruthful remarks". I am sure that, on reflection, he would not wish to leave the record in that way.
  Mr. Leadbitter: So far as I am concerned, the word "untruthful" is not unparliamentary language. I am prepared to come to the House on another occasion on this matter in order to fall in line, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the temper of what you are suggesting. Last night, in another situation, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe was challenged on the very point—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not very profitable to pursue a matter which was discussed last night. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come back to the motion which is now before the House.
  Mr. Dykes: On a point of order—
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order—
  Mr. Leadbitter: It is this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood you to invite the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) to withdraw the suggestion that I made untruthful remarks at any stage in the House. Last night, he did not withdraw those suggestions. He was not present when I made the remarks that he claimed were untruthful. I ask you to say that it is unparliamentary language to persist in making such allegations about remarks which the hon. Member never even heard in the first place.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I have accepted your invitation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to continue with the debate—and that I now propose to do.
  Mr. Dykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leadbitter: Coming back to the question of the papers which are not available to us, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked me to make it clear that the responsibility does not lie with the Vote Office. I confirm that. Having made it clear that, without these essential papers, the House could not deal with this matter, I was about to deal with the second point.
  Mr. Dykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leadbitter: No, I will not. I have had plenty of interventions.
  The second point is that it must alarm the electorate to know that time and again important matters relating to the Common Market are discussed in this House at a late hour—
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Always.
  Mr. Leadbitter:—when sometimes fewer than one-quarter of the Members can be present.
  Mr. Flannery: It is deliberate, of course.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I now want to express my concern about the United Kingdom's role in Europe—something that the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), in his visionary and romantic way, sought so dismally to describe.
  I believe that not only did Europe not want us for long years but that it actually vetoed any steps to take us into Europe. I also believe that the idea of joining Europe did not emanate from a feeling that the rest of Europe was waiting anxiously for us to join. The Common Market was already in too much of a mess. It had fatuous argumentative sessions that went into the early hours of the morning. Even the simplest of issues could not be dealt with. Those of us who studied energy matters knew what a terrible situation had been created. The advantages went to the Soviet Union and the United States of America, particularly in respect of the fast breeder reactor and nuclear research.
  When we think of our role in Europe, those of us who are internationalists and

  1495
  who are concerned with the socialisation of the Communities know full well that the large bureaucratic system in Brussels is the antithesis of our objectives.
  There have been a number of difficulties in Europe and there are many more to come. One contributor to this debate said that the Council of Ministers will have the last word. Does anybody think that the European Parliament, a body that is already seeking more power, will want to give the Council of Ministers the kind of power suggested by one hon. Member? I believe that the contrary will happen.
  The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) described the situation adequately. The process that is in being is designed to take power away from national Governments. Europe is not becoming the outward-looking unit which the European "hot gospellers" in this House suggest. Some of them appear to have been well paid. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is the hard truth. It is certainly not as outward-looking as they have said. It is becoming an inward-looking organism, an anti-democratic organisation. Our place in Europe at present does not reflect the will, thoughts and aspirations of the British people.
  Those of us who take this stand should not be charged with being anti-European, because that is not true. Those of us who take this stand on Europe are far more daring than those who gave in to romantic notions and who gave the matter such little thought. They responded to "Grimm's Fairy Tales". Surely it is far better to look to realities.
  A number of Opposition Members are smiling. Those smiles are as relevant to this debate as are the smiles on the face of dead men, and they are just as hopeful. The Opposition must know that the British people are disillusioned with Europe. Our people were persuaded by the colourful, expensive brochures exhorting them to "Say 'Yes' for Europe". They now regret it. All the promises that were made have been examined and found to be wanting. Those same people are looking to Europe and saying "That is the cause of our price rises." Naturally, those in the Common Market will pooh-pooh such suggestions. But we all know that on the subject of metrication the Government have had to get down on their knees.
  1496
  Often I hear the pro-Marketeers saying "Let us be good Europeans and do what the French and Germans do." When I have seen the institutions of France, Italy and Germany, when I have seen the disparity between rich and poor there, when I have seen the conditions of the people I say to our people "Do not listen when the romantics tell you about France, Germany and Italy. They are beautiful countries, and we want good relations with them, to co-operate with them in many areas and to pool our resources with them in such things as science and technology. But we have our own way of life, our own institutions, our own qualities and our own aspirations."
  Our technological expertise and our research and development are as good as those in Europe—indeed, in many respects they are better. We have more stable institutions and a more reliable democratic process whereby arguments such as those used in the House of Commons can fructify, enlivening and enriching us all.
  We sometimes talk affectionately about the House of Commons. We of all people should not be entering into any kind of arrangement such as this so hurriedly as not to question the consequences. It may well be that in course of time a British Government, of whatever colour, will show less haste. I hope they do. I hope that they will heed the old Latin phrase festina lente—hasten slowly—and let evolvement take place. The time could come when we get these instruments right.
  The lesson that we must learn is not to be panicked into rushing into these matters. Let us be clear. Our people know full well—far better than some of the potiticians—what the true situation is. Most of those who seek to promote the interests of Europe against its true long-term interests are so anxious to get there at any price that therein lies their very weakness. We must all at least try to say to the Government "Hold steady. Do not rush, because the will of the people will in the end prevail, and it will be reflected more properly and objectively in this House."
  11.14 p.m.
  Mr. Judd: There is one point that needs clarification before I say anything else. Whatever the problems about documents earlier, I say as a Minister that no blame or criticism attaches to the staff

  1497
  of the House, whether in the Vote Office or elsewhere. I believe that we all, on both sides of the House, agree that in our staff we have examples of outstanding loyalty and service which are exemplary for the nation as a whole. I would not wish to associate myself in any way with implications or criticisms to the contrary.
  This has been a searching and reflective debate. Indeed, that has been true of all the discussions and deliberations in the House on the question of direct elections to the European Parliament. Members have spoken with deep and passionate sincerity and with great commitment. I believe that the House is at its very best when this happens. This has been indicated by a number of speeches, such as those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) and the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer).
  I should like, in the time available, to try to deal with some of the detailed points which have been made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North asked what would happen if we did not approve the order tonight. If we did not approve the order tonight, it is clear that the United Kingdom would not ratify the Act, because we are not able or prepared to ratify that Act, and we have no intention of ratifying it, without the implementing order. A date for the elections could not be fixed by the Community because the Act would not be in force, and this would obviously result in the direct elections being held up.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South and the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) asked about the long-term objectives for a uniform system of election and where discussion about such a system might originate. Article 138, paragraph 3, of the Treaty of Rome is clear in this respect. A decision of the Council has to be made on a recommendation by the Assembly, but it has to be a unanimous decision. Through our system of accountability of Ministers operating at the Council of Ministers, this must mean that, with the assistance of the
  1498
  Scrutiny Committee and the other machinery, this House will have the ability to veto any proposal which comes forward from the Assembly.
  There were also questions about emoluments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North and also from the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). I know that this is a source of very deep concern to many Members of the House, whether in the past they have been supporters or opponents of the European Community.
  Some of the figures quoted in the Press with regard to the likely level of emoluments that Assembly Members will receive are, as I stated during the Committee consideration of the European Assembly Elections Bill on 16th February, grotesque. Nothing would do more to discredit the European Assembly and undermine the credibility of directly elected Members in British eyes than that they should receive such inflated salaries, so completely out of line with salary and wage levels in the constituencies which they represent. I hope that British Members of the European Assembly who are present here tonight will heed the concern expressed during the debate—and, indeed, the concern expressed on previous occasions as well—and convey its full force to the Assembly.
  The subject of debate tonight is not the level of emoluments of directly elected Members—
  Mr. Hurd: Is not the Minister slightly misleading the House? Is it not fairly clear that the present nominated European Assembly will not reach a recommendation on this matter?
  Mr. Judd: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I am coming to that. The subject of the debate, as I am suggesting, is not essentially the level of emoluments of directly elected Members. What we are debating is an order designating as a Community treaty the Act of the Council of 20th September 1976 and the Decision annexed to it.
  The Act of 20th September 1976 does not fix the level of emoluments of Members of the Assembly. That is clear. It merely, in Article 13, sets out the procedure whereby they can be legally determined. This procedure requires a unanimous decision by the Council of Ministers, acting on a proposal from the

  1499
  Assembly, having consulted the Commission. The Assembly may propose but it will be the Council, acting unanimously, that will dispose.
  This Article 13 procedure is not, however, yet operative, as the Act of 20th September 1976 enters into force only after completion of ratification by all member States. As I have already stated, all member States have now ratified the Act except France and the United Kingdom. France is in a position to do so at any time. Approval of the order by the House tonight will also place Britain in a position to proceed to such ratification. It is, therefore, highly desirable that the Act should be brought into effect as soon as possible if the emoluments issue, which has so rightly concerned right hon. and hon. Members during our direct elections debates, can be cleared up before direct elections are held.
  Mr. Jay rose—
  Mr. Judd: I wish to deal with the points that were raised. Candidates in direct elections are entitled to know the emoluments they will receive before they are nominated. Even more so are the voters before they go to the polls. It would be harmful to both the status of the Assembly and its directly elected Members if emoluments were still an unresolved issue by 7th June next year and became an election issue. The attention of the voting public would become diverted from the issues of public policy, such as the common agricultural policy, to the inevitably more emotional subjects of pay and allowances. No one would emerge with much credit from electioneering conducted on such a basis.
  As I informed the House during the Committee stage of the European Assembly Elections Bill on 16th February, any proposal made by the Assembly to the Council with regard to emoluments under the Article 13 procedure will be submitted to the House under the scrutiny procedure.
  Given the lively interest shown by hon. Members in this topic, I should be extremely surprised if the Scrutiny Committee did not recommend it as a priority item for debate by the House. I repeat the assurance that I gave my right hon. and hon. Friends on 16th April that the House will be able to debate the salaries
  1500
  of directly elected Members before they are fixed by the Council. The Government, in the meantime, have made it clear—I want to underline this—that they are utterly opposed to excessive salaries for directly elected Members which bear no relationship to those received by national parliamentarians.
  Mr. Jay: Having said all that, as the Council is to decide will my hon. Friend tell me what the British Government think is approximately the right level of salary?
  Mr. Judd: I have just said that we are not prepared to contemplate salaries which bear no relationship to the salary received by national parliamentarians.
  Several of my hon. Friends have raised in the same connection the fiscal status of directly elected Members. The position on this is absolutely clear. The directly elected Members will, under Article 4.2 of the Act of 20th September, enjoy only the same privileges and immunities as non-directly elected Members of the Assembly at present enjoy under chapter 3 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities annexed to the Merger Treaty of 1965. That is, for example, immunity from detention for opinions expressed and votes cast. The protocol does not accord to Members of the Assembly any special tax status as it does in chapter 5, Article 13, to officials and other servants of the Community who are subjected to Community taxation rather than to national taxation.
  Members of the Assembly are not officials and servants of the Community any more than hon. Members of this House are civil servants. They will remain subject to national taxation until such times as member States decide to amend the protocol and change their tax status. This would require a unanimous decision by all members of the Council. I can assure the House that there is no disposition in the Government to agree to any change in the tax status of Members of the European Assembly after direct elections, as, indeed, was made clear to the hon. Member for Banbury in an exchange—to which he himself referred—at Question Time on 27th April with my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
  I can also assure the hon. Member for Banbury that any proposal to exempt Members of the Assembly from national

  1501
  taxation which might be presented to the Council of Ministers will be resisted by the Government. Of course, if such a proposal were included in the communication on emoluments to be sent to the Council by the Assembly under the Article 13 procedure, it would be submitted to the Scrutiny Committee of this House.
  Mr. John Evans rose—
  Mr. Judd: Electoral regulations were raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon. The Government have started work on the draft regulations to be made under the European Assembly Elections Act for the conduct of the elections. There will probably be two sets of regulations. One set will relate to the conduct of elections under the simple majority system in Britain and the other set will relate to the conduct of elections by STV in Northern Ireland. The Home Office proposes to consult—I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon will be relieved to hear this—the political parties and the local authority associations in the preparation of these regulations and to publish them in draft for public comment. The regulations, revised, if necessary, in the light of comments, will be laid before both Houses of Parliament and will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
  I was also asked about the state of play in other countries. All member States have now ratified the Council Act of 20th September 1976 except France and ourselves. France has completed all the necessary parliamentatry steps and can ratify at any time. Constitutional practice in other member States differs from our own. Other countries were able to ratify the Council Act before they enacted their electoral law. The necessary electoral law has been passed by France, Denmark, Ireland and Germany. The law is still before the Parliaments in Belgium and Luxembourg. It has not yet been introduced into the respective Parliaments in The Netherlands and Italy. Discussion is proceeding between the political parties in those countries and Bills are expected to be presented shortly.
  There will be no requirement to delineate new constituencies in either Italy or The Netherlands, and failure as yet to introduce the required electoral legislation is not in any way expected to
  1502
  affect the 7th to 10th June 1979 date for direct elections set by the European Council.
  What I have said demonstrates, and it is essential that we should understand this, that Britain is not, as is often alleged, the laggard in implementing the commitment of 20th September 1976 to direct elections. Once the House has approved the Order and we can proceed to ratification, we shall be well up in the field and certainly ahead of Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Italy.
  I want to dwell for a moment on the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South, the hon. Member for Oswestry and others. I said earlier, and I hope that the House accepts my conviction on this matter, that, although there may be a temptation to dismiss those with whom we disagree at this juncture in history, I feel that hon. Members on both sides who have had strength of commitment throughout these debates in recent months, epitomised by the speeches we have heard tonight, will be thanked for having put the Administration under detailed scrutiny.
  This is an enormously significant issue which we are debating. The order has great ramifications for the future of our country. It is unthinkable that we should approach it in any light-hearted or frivolous way. I want to say, as one of the Ministers most intimately involved with the order, that I am grateful for the commitment which has been shown, even if at times it has proved trying and difficult—
  Mr. Spearing: Embarrassing.
  Mr. Judd: And embarrassing.
  May I put this point to the House? I know that there will be profound regrets and disappointment among many people that we are moving forward in this way. I believe that the challenge now to all those in this House, whatever their views about the issue, is to bring all their experience, all their commitment and all their political conviction to bear in fashioning the future of the Community in which we are now involved. The tragedy, for which we would be condemned by history, would be if we at this juncture, when our future is so

  1503
  intimately intertwined with the Community as a whole, were to be so preoccupied with the old debates that we did not put our energies constructively into working for the future, in the interests of our people an the interests

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Resolved,

  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 4) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.

  of all the people of every members State of the European Economic Community.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 52.

  Division No. 225]

  AYES

  [11.29 p.m.

  Anderson, Donald

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Rhodes, James R.

  Archer, Peter

  Hodgson, Robin

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Horam, John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Huckfield, Les

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Bates, Alf

  Hunter, Adam

  Roper, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Hurd, Douglas

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Judd, Frank

  Sever, John

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Lamborn, Harry

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Brooke, Peter

  Lawson, Nigel

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Cant, R. B.

  Luce, Richard

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  MacGregor, John

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Snape, Peter

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Dewar, Donald

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Tinn, James

  Dormand, J. D.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wakeham, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Dykes, Hugh

  Moyle, Roland

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Eadie, Alex

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Ford, Ben

  Newton, Tony

  Woodall, Alec

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Golding, John

  Pardoe, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Parker, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Mr. Ted Graham and

  Hardy, Peter

  Radice, Giles

  Mr. Joseph Harper

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  NOES

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Bell, Ronald

  Forrester, John

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Biffen, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Body, Richard

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Kerr, Russell

  Skinner, Dennis

  Buchan, Norman

  Lamond, James

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Budgen, Nick

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Stoddart, David

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Madden, Max

  Tilley, John (Lambeth, Central)

  Carson, John

  Marten, Neil

  Urwin, T. W.

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Woof, Robert

  Cowans, Harry

  Mitchell, Austin

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Moate, Roger

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Molyneaux, James

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Newens, Stanley

  Mr. Nigel Spearing.

  Flannery, Martin

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  SOLOMON ISLANDS BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  SOLOMON ISLANDS BILL [Lords]
    Clause 2

      EFFECT OF INDEPENDENCE ON BRITISH NATIONALITY
      11.41 p.m.
      Mr. Christopher Price: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 19 to 22 and insert
      "shall remain a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies until he becomes a citizen of the Solomon Islands or takes out other nationality whereupon he shall cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies".
      The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take Amendment No. 2, in clause 4, page 4, leave out lines 3 to 7.
      Mr. Price: I do not want to detain the Committee for long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] However, in spite of the howling mob below me, I wish to draw attention to some of the important principles that lie in the Bill and the manner in which the Bill finds itself before us tonight, which is unprecedented in my experience in the House of Commons.
      A Business Statement was slipped in when no one was listening—it was unquestioned—on Monday. The Government should not be allowed to get away with that sort of thing. If they intend to make the citizenship provisions of the Bill a precedent for future debates on a Green Paper followed by a White Paper, and, no doubt, on a Bill on citizenship, for various reasons the Bill before us is crucial for the future principles for deciding British citizenship and the various options in the Green Paper. It is for that reason that I tabled the amendment.
      I understand that it is the desire of the Government, especially the Home Office, never to be faced again with a Ugandan Asian or Kenyan Asian situation of the sort that has faced us in the past few years. I also understand the real desire of the Solomon Islanders
      1506
      when they came to make the settlement to get independence on their terms. Their terms, because of the historical make-up of the population in the Solomon Islands, excluded certain citizens from automatic citizenship, as, I understand, the British Government would have wished. Therefore, as has been said in another place, the settlement is regarded as not very satisfactory to the Government but one that they accepted because of the great desire of the Solomon Islanders to have a settlement on that basis.
      The issue is why the Government are insisting, for almost the first time in history, on potentially taking away the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from a group of citizens who may not apply for citizenship, as is their right to apply, by 1980. If we do not discuss the issue and get things right, we may have trouble for ourselves in future. Therefore, I make no apology for raising the matter this evening.
      My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will no doubt reply that it is only a small number of individuals who may be affected by the amendment. However, the amendment provides that, instead of turning all those citizens who might not have applied for citizenship by 1980 into British protected persons and taking away the citizenship that in previous independence settlements we have always allowed those who do not take the citizenship of the country in question to retain, we should allow them to keep it and follow precedent instead of starting a new precedent.
      Will the Minister explain the difference between the two statuses of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, on the one hand, and British protected person, on the other, into which category the Government want to turn these people? We shall not know how many there are until 1980.
      I understand that there are only two substantial differences. One is that a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies can transmit his citizenship to the nth generation if he registers in a proper way, whereas a British protected person can do it only once, so his grandchildren cease to have that privilege. A citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who comes here is allowed to vote in our elections, whereas a British protected person is not.

      1507
      It may be said that there is very little difference between the two statuses. The Minister may ask why I should be making such a fuss. I am making a fuss because we are breaking precedent at a time when, if we are to break precedent, we should do so in an orderly manner by discussing the Green Paper and the White Paper and then legislating on citizenship instead of sliding something into a Bill such as this which may be quoted as a precedent. If the Minister uses that argument, it works both ways. I could ask: if there is so little difference between a British protected person and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—the status that I want these people to keep—why not give way to me?
      Next, will the Minister confirm that this will be the first time that, in giving a country independence and in leaving a residual minority, however small, in a situation where those people may become stateless—citizens of nowhere—we have taken away citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies?
      I want an absolute assurance from the Minister, if the amendment is not to be pressed, that the Government will not quote this Bill in future as having preempted the Green Paper on nationality with regard to dual and single nationality. If the Government were to do that, it would not be the first time. Therefore, I think that we should discuss citizenship properly. We should not have something lumbered on us by means of a Business Statement on Monday and sitting into the middle of the night on Tuesday. I contend that we can read the clauses relating to citizenship in the Bill only in conjunction with the paragraphs relating to nationality and British overseas citizenship in the Green Paper.
      The Green Paper suggests that if in future we are to have a new transitional status of British overseas citizenship, both the statuses about which I have been talking should be included within it. If so, why pre-empt it? Why make the jump now? Why not do what we have always done in the past?
      We do not know how many citizens are involved. They might number 500 or 1,000. It is intended that instead of their having their present status of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies they shall be given the status of British
      1508
      protected person. What does that status give them? It gives them almost nothing. They will be able to get a British passport, but that will not give them a guarantee that they can go anywhere in particular on that passport.
      If a time should come when Britain decides that it is too expensive to keep representation in Honiara, the capital of the Solomon Islands, it will be of even less help. There is no point in being a British protected person if there is no British representation to protect one.
      I am sure the Minister will say that we are being generous by giving these residual citizens the status of British protected person. I suspect, however, that that does not amount to much. It could amount to a good deal less in the future.
      I move the amendment because, if the Minister is right and the numbers involved are small, in view of the last hundred years of history of the Solomon Islands when they have not had a particularly square deal from the so-called protectorate, we might as well be generous and give them the slightly more favourable status. We should do nothing in independence negotiations to pre-empt the discussions that we shall have on British nationality law.
      I apologise to my hon. Friends if I have spoken for a long time, but this is an important problem. I shall listen carefully to the Minister, particularly for his guarantee that we are doing nothing tonight that will be quoted against us in the future. The Solomon Islands are the last protectorate of Britain. Most of the protectorates came from the German colonies after the First World War. If we are ridding ourselves of our last protectorate, why on earth do we increase the number of British protected persons in the world instead of reducing them? I shall need convincing about the proposal.
      Sir Bernard Braine: The Committee should be grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) for raising this matter in the way that he did. Normally, when an independence Bill is discussed both sides join together in congratulating the Government on achieving a settlement which enables a former dependency to become a sovereign State. It is normally an occasion for congratulations and good wishes.

      1509
      However, it would seem that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office thinks that hon. Members are not interested in the details, believes that it can slip these odd proposals through and that we shall accept them without question. That is an unfortunate attitude. But two of us questioned the Minister. The more we questioned him, the more doubtful we became about the Government's intentions.
      I said on Second Reading that I wish the Bill a swift passage and I have no intention of taking an undue time now. I wish, however, to raise a slightly different aspect of the matter from that which has been quite properly raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West.
      The first thing that disturbs me and should disturb the Committee is that the Government have reached an independence settlement without tying up satisfactorily the question of the status of all the people who are domiciled in the Solomon Islands. One would think that after all our sad experience in Uganda, Tanganyika and Kenya over the Asian settlers, we would have learnt the lesson that thereafter we should go into independence negotiations determined that there shall be a complete and satisfactory agreement on the question of nationality before legislation is presented to the House. The opportunity to reach such an agreement has not been taken in this case and the Minister's explanation of the Bill's provisions on Second Reading certainly did not satisfy me. The fact that our own citizenship law is in a mess, as the Green Paper makes clear, is no excuse for leaving unresolved the status of people in a British dependency which is moving to independence.
      In the case of East Africa, Conservative Ministers and their advisers assumed all too readily that if there were Asians who did not opt for citizenship of their new countries, they would not wish to come here, but would go back to India. That was a facile assumption. Anyone who knew East Africa at the time knew that the ties of many of these people were more with this country. Many of their children had been educated here. One would have thought that this matter would be taken care of in the case of the Solomon Islands.
      1510
      Instead, we have perpetuated the notion here that some people are British subjects without citizenship, some are British protected persons, and where both are regarded as potential citizens of their new country, there is no clear idea of what will happen if they do not opt for citizenship of the Solomon Islands.
      Neither of these two categories has any right of entry into the United Kingdom. But what happens to them if they do not take Solomon Islands citizenship and are unable to find citizenship in any other country? If circumstances changed and they felt obliged to leave the Solomon Islands, where would they go? What rights have they? They have no automatic right to entry into the United Kingdom, yet the Under-Secretary told the House on Second Reading that they would not be left in a limbo, that we would take care of them. What does that mean?
      Surely a solemn obligation rests upon the British Government, particularly after all the angry debate on the subject of immigration, to say what they mean. Do they mean that if these people are left without Solomon Islands citizenship and cannot get citizenship anywhere else, we have an automatic obligation to take them into Britain, even though their status is said not to allow that to happen? If that is what is meant then the Government should say so. The British people and Parliament should be told. Yet it was left to three of us to extract these facts from the Under-Secretary, line by line, question by question. That is not the way for the Government to treat the House of Commons.
      There is a matter of principle here. There are, I understand, about 5,000 citizens of European and Chinese descent. We should like to have the exact figures. It is a great pity that we have to drag them out of the Under-Secretary. They should have been given on Second Reading. When the Under-Secretary tells us that these people would not be left stranded, what does that mean?
      The Under-Secretary did me the courtesy of writing me a letter after the debate, trying to explain what would happen to Gilbertese settlers in the Solomon Islands. I never raised that question. I never mentioned the Gilbertese. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West did so. I did not. The letter was the wrong letter,

      1511
      written to the wrong person. It was as irrelevant and as meaningless in relation to what I had said as everything else that the hon. Gentleman said on this subject in the debate.
      12 midnight
      The hon. Gentleman spoke of 5,000 people of European and Chinese extraction. What happens if those of them who do not apply for Solomon Islands citizenships have to leave? Presumably, at a pinch, the Chinese might be accepted into Singapore or Hong Kong. But what of the Europeans who cannot get entry anywhere else? The only conclusion that one can draw from the Under-Secretary's statement is that they will be permitted to come here.
      It is no use the Home Secretary shaking his head. If that means that they cannot come here, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is open to precisely what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West has been saying, namely, that there is a possibility that we are consigning a number of people who have hitherto enjoyed British protection to the limbo, with no right of entry to anywhere, if they cannot obtain citizenship in any other country. The Government cannot have it both ways. The House is entitled to an explanation of Government policy.
      We should bear in mind that there are still 2·6 million citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in Hong Kong and 190,000 more in Malaysia, India and Africa. We really must have this question tidied up so that we know where we stand. We must be told what are the limits to the residual obligation to take in such people if they are displaced by political circumstances.
      Clearly, this opens up the whole question of nationality law. I think that it is unfortunate that this question has had to be raised in connection with a Bill which otherwise, as I have said, would have been accepted with joy on all sides of the House. The matter cannot be dealt with in any great detail here, but I wish to register a protest at the sly way—that is a correct description—in which this provision has been slipped into an independence Bill, in the hope that on a Friday afternoon no one would take any notice. There were three of us present who did take notice—only three of us. I submit, therefore, that the Under-Secretary must come clean and explain
      1512
      these matters, or else the wrath of the House of Commons will descend upon him.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I rise to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) only in the sense that it is better than nothing. The real answer is that Clauses 2 to 6 ought never to have been included in the Bill in their present form, dependent as they are upon the agreement with the Solomon Islanders, which is set out in the White Paper issued by the Government last year, which the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) did not read and I did not read. I suspect that that is as much our fault as the Government's fault.
      I think that the Government are to be criticised not on a sly way of getting something through but on the total mismanagement of the negotiations with the Solomon Islanders on this issue. It is that to which I wish to draw attention. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if I stray a little wide, you will forgive me, in the light of the fact that I shall not speak again in any Clause stand part debate.
      The thing that astonished me was the last paragraph of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts in the other place, when he said:
      "Even if it did, everything in this Bill—and here I must speak frankly to the noble Lord"
      —it is always as well for Ministers to speak frankly—
      "relating to nationality and citizenship, citizenship is there at the request of the Solomon Islands Ministers and leaders. This is how they wanted it. They wanted the two categories. I do not want to enlarge upon this, but they wanted it in this way; that the indigenous would automatically on Independence Day become Solomon Islands citizens, but that the non-indigenous, including the categories which the noble Lord quoted to me, would have to apply, and I had no recourse but to agree to what the Solomon Islands leaders wanted." [Official Report, House of Lords, 27th April 1978; Vol. 390, c. 2016.]
      I just do not understand that. Anyone would think that if there were two parties to an agreement, one of them—and that the most powerful, with the power to pass this legislation to enable the Solomon Islanders to get their independence—had no power in the negotiations to make an agreement which would have been more fair not only to the Solomon Islanders but to this country.

      1513
      It is clear that we have done again what we did in East Africa, which was the cause of the difficulties which arose in relation to the East African Asians. We have done again what we did in India, which created British subjects without citizenship. When I hear the Minister tell us in due course, as no doubt he will, that the Solomon Islanders have given solemn assurances that the people that we are talking about—5,000 of them as he says, 20,000 on other figures—will be allowed to take the citizenship of the Solomon Islands after independence by registration, all that I can say is that the most solemn assurance were given by East African Governments before they became independent that all people in their countries would be entitled to take citizenship there.
      Of course there were some who were reluctant, but there were also some who wanted to take citizenship but found it very difficult because all kinds of devices were put in their way.
      The reason that there are 110,000 United Kingdom subjects in Malaysia who are still to some extent our responsibility is that the Malaysian Government have made it difficult for them to take citizenship, even after the most solemn assurances. The reason that we have the status of British subjects without citizenship—a most absurd status—is that the Indian Government gave the most solemn assurances that after independence they would be allowed to take the citizenship of India—but they never have. As a result, they are to some extent our responsibility, in the same way as the East African Asians were.
      My hon. Friend has assured me that we are talking only about 5,000 people. For that reason, I do not intend to divide the House, either on this or on any other question, although it had been my intention to do so if it had been a more important issue in this case.
      What we have done is continue a pattern that we have followed since 1948 of making decisions about citizenship for the former inhabitants of our colonies which will call for responsibility by the British Government at some future date. We have signed a post-dated cheque. In doing so we have laid ourselves open to taking on responsibilities which at the time we have to take them on we may find
      1514
      a great embarrassment. Five thousand may not be many, but if 5,000 people were thrown out of the Solomon Islands before 1984 and we were asked to take them into this country, there would nevertheless be a major political outcry.
      We could have avoided that by making an agreement with the Solomon Islanders that would have ensured that on Day I everybody living there was a citizen of the Solomon Islands. It would not be a breach of the agreement set out in the White Paper if we were not to include that aspect in this legislation.
      It is interesting to not that the agreement is very different in phraseology from the Bill that is before us. The agreement says:
      "Citizenship of the Solomon Islands shall be acquired on the date of independence by every person who is a member of a group, tribe or line indigenous to the Solomon Islands and every person whose application for citizenship is in accordance with the naturalisation process."
      Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with interest, but how would he ensure that an incoming Solomon Islands Government would stand by any guarantee that they would ensure automatically at a certain date that such persons would continue to have citizenship?
      Mr. Lyon: I suggest that my hon. Friend reads the Bill. That will tell him who is to be a citizen of the Solomon Islands. We here are deciding who will be citizens of the Solomon Islands—not in respect of future legislation from the Solomon Islands Government. My complaint is that we are deciding this matter on the basis of what the Solomon Islanders want, and not on the basis of what we want. Because that attitude was adopted in 1948 in the British Nationality Act and in subsequent independence legislation, in every case what was decided was that the people who were taking independence should decide the nature of their own nationality law. We have an interest, but at the time we did not think so. We should have made the matter clear then, and perhaps we did not have that foresight to do so. We now know from experience what is wrong.
      If this Bill was based on the indepedence legislation for Hong Kong, I can only say that I would have divided the House on it, because there would have

      1515
      been the most serious implications. We know that in this case only 5,000 people are involved. I am now simply putting up a marker. I am saying to the Government that we can let it go for the Solomon Islands. I still think that the 5,000 people whose status will be ambiguous after this legislation is passed are too many. Nevertheless, it is a small number—and, if the worst came to the worst, it is a number that we could accommodate.
      Of course, that would not happen in the case of Hong Kong. The arguments there is that there is no small group in Hong Kong who could be treated differently from the Chinese in Hong Kong. Therefore, an anomaly of this kind is not likely to arise.
      I do not know enough about the separate nature of the population of Hong Kong to rebut that, but it may be that there is a difference between the Chinese who have lived on the island and the Chinese in the New Territories and their origins that may cause the future Hong Kong Government to take a line about giving citizenship to all the inhabitants of the New Territories who might well feel that they have to draw the kind of line which the Solomon Islands Government are trying to draw in this legislation.
      If we were to have an argument about that, we would have a crowded House, and such a proposal could not be passed at 12 o'clock at night. It would be a serious issue. The Foreign Office should have that in mind when we come to conduct future negotiatins. In future, the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will not be allowed to tell the other place "We are sorry, we could not get what we wanted, but the Hong Kong Government had to have their way." That may be the case with the Solomon Islands, but not with the Hong Kong Government. If we had been as firm in 1948 and in the independence legislation for the East African Territories. It would never have led to the immigration difficulties that arose thereafter.
      12.15 a.m.
      When we were pursuing the working party report on which the Green Paper is based, we examined all the possible commitments which this country has to accept in regard to the people who could not be accommodated within any sensible
      1516
      definition of British citizenship and yet have some kind of citizenship that gave us some kind of liability for them. They are the transitional people, who became our responsibility only because in 1948 we did not have a clearly defined citizenship of the sort that every other independent Commonwealth country took.
      There is real difficulty in meeting those cases. We met the difficulty with the East African Asians by allowing them to come here, but there are still 25,000 of them in India about whom the Government have to make up their mind. But that is a commitment that we have to decide. After that, however, there are 110,000 citizens of the United Kingdom in Malaysia whom we have to decide about in the future. Are they to be British citizens under the new legislation or not?
      In the Green Paper it is proposed that they should become British overseas citizens. But there are many people in this country who find that idea nauseating and take the view that what we are doing is what we did in 1968—abandoning our commitment to people whose only citizenship is one connected with this country, who have no citizenship of any other country, and who, if we make them British overseas citizens, will have the right of entry into no country whatsoever. It would be a matter of some moral criticism if we were to take that course.
      But I believe that we have to take that course. It was my judgment that, in relation to those people, we have to say that we cut them adrift up to the point where we give them a citizenship which does not entitle them to entry into any country. But what we are doing here tonight is adding to their number. We are putting those 5,000 on the total, and when we come to make the decision about the new British nationality Act, these 5,000 will be added to the 110,00 in Malaysia, the 25,000 or so in Singapore and the several thousand in the Mediterranean. They will all be added together, and people will say "We must take them because we have the moral commitment" or "We must not do so because it would be too great a liability for our immigration commitments to take these people on".
      Here tonight, here when everything else has happened, here when we have through the whole immigration story, we

      1517
      are still making the same mistake. Why? Because, Lord Goronwy-Roberts says:
      "I had no recourse but to agree to what the Solomon Islands leaders wanted."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27th April 1978; Vol. 390, c. 2016.]
      "All I can say is that I wish someone else had been doing the negotiations. It is intolerable that we should have been put in this position yet again. I take the view that I take—making this speech with no vote thereafter—only, because so few people are involved, but the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had better be warned for the next time.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) has done a service to the Committee by putting down this amendment. Indeed, it follows the questions raised by my noble Friend Lord Avebury in another place. It was in answer to those questions that the remarks quoted were made by Lord Goronwy-Roberts.
      There is perhaps a danger that the remarks of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) will be misconstrued in some quarters as implying that we were seeking in some way to influence or control the future of the Solomon Islands Government, but I am sure that that is not what he intended. I agree with his intention to make it clear that there is one issue on which we in these matters do have a very important say, that is, what responsibilities we will retain when we grant independence to what will be a new sovereign State.
      The one matter that must be crystal clear in any independence negotiations is which citizens we are subsequently responsible for and which citizens the new sovereign State is subsequently responsible for. It is to me a matter of very great regret that in the negotiations it was not possible, or does not appear to have been possible, to get over to the Solomon Islands leaders that from the beginning of their new sovereign State they really ought to take responsibility for those who have made their home in the Solomon Islands.
      Mr. Christopher Price: I take the point that both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) have made, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the situation in
      1518
      Solomon Islands was a very special one. Many of the 5,000 were imported into Solomon Islands against the wishes of Solomon Islanders by the British Government in a particular crisis.
      I had some small part in trying to bring the two sides together in the middle of the negotiations. It was a question either of the negotiations breaking down and the Solomon Islands not getting independence at all or of the British Government giving in the way they did. The situation was a little more complicated than has always been apparent, and before more odium is heaped on the head of poor Lord Goronwy-Roberts I think that some of these facts ought to be made clear.
      Mr. Beith: I think that no one would underestimate the difficulties which these negotiations encountered, but there can scarcely be a sovereign State to which we have given independence over recent years which has not contained within it some group of people or other who have been brought there at the convenience of British Governments or British interests in the past, and about whose position there was some domestic concern. There is a very long list of States in which that problem has arisen. Many of them are the very States with which we now have difficulties over groups such as the East African Asians.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that there is no better example of what he is saying than the island of Mauritius, where people from Europe, Asia and Africa were brought together under first French and then British colonial rule? When independence approached, this very point was made, but the ultimate settlement was that on the appointed day all those living in Mauritius were deemed to be Mauritian citizens. That was the model. That was the lesson learned from East Africa. Why has it not been applied ever since?
      Mr. Beith: My speech is in danger, Mr. Godman Irvine, of becoming a compendium of erudite interventions, but I wish to underline the point that the one legitimate interest that the British Government have, and are entitled to pursue to a very great degree in any negotiations of this kind is in ensuring that they are not left responsible for citizens who can legitimately claim that

      1519
      their home is in the country to which independence has been given, and who have a rightful claim on citizenship of that country.
      The end result that the Bill presents—and the source of the complaints which have come from all sides—is a very unsatisfactory position for any group of people to be put in, that of the British protected person. What are we inviting these people to become—the latter-day Don Pacificos, the people who have a moral claim upon British Governments but whose passport entitlements are more limited than any other category one can think of?
      I am bound to say that I cannot imagine the British Government being able in future years, if they were confronted with a group of such people being dispossessed of the right of citizenship by a country such as Solomon Islands, being able to resist the moral force of the argument "You left these people in this position. You must now do something about it". We had better face that fact now.
      The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) posed it as a dilemma. I should be very surprised if any group of British Ministers could resist the force of the argument "You allowed independence to be arrived at in this territory and you left a group of citizens who had no secure claim upon the citizenship of that territory. There is no one else upon whom they can make a claim but you, the British Government". How could we resist the force of that argument in future years? Had we better not admit that now? But that calls to mind all the problems associated with British nationality which we are now mulling over in the context of the Green Paper and the general intention to try to get a new British nationality Act. The precedents are frightening but the particular instance created here is frightening.
      Assurances have been given as to the apparent near certainty that applications made by people in this group will all be granted and processed within the time available, but none of this seems to me to obviate the prime responsibility of the British Government to ensure that on the outcome of any independence negotiations they know who their citizens will be in the future, that they know to whom they have effectively transferred citizenship in another country, and that those concerned
      1520
      know upon whom they have claims and the extent of those claims. This does not seem to apply to this group of people, and I believe that it leaves us trouble in store for the future.
      Mr. Richard Luce: There should be no misunderstanding—I am sure that there is not—that, despite the fact that we are debating some rather sensitive citizenships problems with regard to the Solomon Islands, there is nevertheless, a great deal of good will on both sides of the Committee with regard to the future of the Solomon Islands and their proceeding towards independence as soon as possible. Indeed, Mr. Goodman Irvine, I believe that I am right in saying that you yourself know the Solomon Islands. I am sure that you have taken a great deal of interest in these proceedings.
      As the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) so rightly highlighted, the problem stems from the unusual nature of this independence Bill, in that the the request of the Solomon Islands, and with the consent of the British Government, we have allowed these clauses to be inserted in the Bill which means that certain existing non-indigenous citizens, or people living in the Solomon Islands, will not automatically be able to become citizens overnight when the Solomon Islands obtain independence. Equally, we are discussing this matter against the background of the confusion of our citizenship laws, about which we all know.
      I should like to ask the Minister to clarify two points. The first concerns the scale of the problem. A figure of 5,000 people has been mentioned from several sources. This emanated originally from another place. I should like the Minister to tell us what proportion of these 5,000 non-indigenous people are potentially British protected persons once the Solomon Islands have proceeded under present law to independence.
      As I understand it, of the 5,000 people about 2,500 are Gilbertese who, if they did not opt for citizenship of the Solomon Islands, would presumably go back to the Gilbert Islands. We are then left with about 2,500 other people of whom perhaps 1,400 are Europeans, Australians or New Zealanders and perhaps 500 are Chinese. It would help the House if the Minister were to say precisely what proportion of these people would potentially be British protected persons under this rather

      1521
      unusual category of people, so that we knew exactly the scale of the problem about which we were talking.
      The second question I should like to ask has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), namely, what precisely are our obligations to these British protected persons? As I understand from the Green Paper on British nationality law, about 274,000 people at present are British protected persons, of whom the large bulk come from the Solomon Islands and Brunei. I assume this means that the citizens of the Solomon Islands will, on independence, automatically stop being British protected persons. Therefore, the actual number of British protected persons will diminish very substantially indeed.
      However, I should like the Minister to clarify this matter and to make it quite clear that this is a unique problem. Will he tell the House precisely what obligation we have to the residual number of people who are likely to be British protected persons? Regrettable though it may be, I believe that even at this stage the Committee should express the hope that as many non-indigenous people as possible will commit themselves to the future of the Solomon Islands. I hope that they will for their sakes and for the sake of those islands. It is important to know precisely what obligation we have to those who fail to obtain citizenship. What does it mean when the Minister says that in the last resort we have obligations to them, for example, under the "statelessness convention"? That was the term he used during Second Reading on Friday. What precisely does that mean?
      It is most important that the Minister should clarify these points both for our sakes—because it is our responsibility to determine this matter—and for the sake of those who live in the Solomon Islands.
      12.30 a.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): May I deal first with the point made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), who suggested, without any justification, that the Government had attempted to slip through these provisions in what he
      1522
      described as a sly way. If he reflects on it he will realise that that was a grossly unfounded charge and I hope that he will be willing to withdraw it.
      As has been pointed out, the fact that these provisions were likely to be in the legislation was apparent in the White Paper published a year ago. Secondly, these provisions were debated at length in the House of Lords recently. The hon. Member will be aware of this if he has followed the proceedings. Thirdly, we arranged to have the Second Reading of the Bill last Friday, at which the hon. Member was present, and when any other hon. Member could have been present. Finally we provided for a Committee stage this evening. I do not see how that was not perfectly reasonable, enabling all hon. Members to raise points of the kind that have been raised. It is totally unjustified to say that we were trying to slip this through the House of Commons.
      Sir Bernard Braine: The only conclusion I can draw, if this was not a sly device, a means of getting something through in the hope that the House would not notice it, is that the Government's conduct is inept.
      Mr. Luard: That remark is as unjustified as the hon. Member's earlier remark. It has no basis in fact. We are having a normal debate on an independence Bill and it is open to any hon. Member to raise any point he cares to raise. To suggest that we are trying to slip this through without hon. Members noticing is to cast a reflection upon the hon. Member's alertness and awareness of what is going on. I must reject that charge, and I hope that the hon. Member will not revert to such accusations.
      The amendment seeks to ensure that inhabitants of the Solomons who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and who secured that status because of their connection with the Solomons shall not lose that status unless they have already secured some other nationality, either that of the Solomon Islands or some other State.
      I deal first with the question of numbers. The number likely to be involved is a small proportion of a total of about 5,000 people who are mainly of three different kinds—Gilbertese, Chinese and European. Of this number, about 2,500 are Gilbertese. They will not be affected

      1523
      by the provisions that have caused concern because they will remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of their Gilbertese origins, until the Gilbert Islands become independent. Therefore we are concerned with perhaps fewer than half, about 2,000—
      Mr. Christopher Price: When my hon. Friend says with such confidence that these 2,500 will not be affected because they are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, is he not making that statement on the assumption that they will apply for citizenship? Surely, as the Bill stands, if it should happen that any of these Gilbertese are not citizens, because they did not apply or could not apply for whatever reason, after 7th July 1980, and if they do not want to go back to the Gilbert Islands and take what will probably, but not certainly, be their Gilbert Island citizenship—assuming that the Gilbert Islands are independent by 1980—they will become British protected persons, because that is what it says in the Bill.
      Mr. Luard: They would have that opportunity to do so, but for the moment they would remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and the assumption would be that they would eventually become nationals of the Gilbert Islands, when the Gilbert Islands became independent.
      Mr. Christopher Price: That is an assumption.
      Mr. Luard: It is, but it is a reasonable assumption.
      We are left with 2,000-odd people, of whom by far the greater majority are likely to register and to become citizens of the Solomon Islands. We are concerned, therefore, with a small proportion, which might be tens, scores and at worst, I would say, hundreds. Of that number, I think that one can assume that by far the greater proportion will exercise that option, because it is the natural thing for them to do. Some have belonged to the Solomon Islands for a considerable period. It is their home. Many have never seen the shores of these islands. Therefore, I think that we are reasonably entitled to assume that a great majority will register within the Solomon Islands.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will my hon Friend give way?
      Mr. Luard: I do not want to give way too often, but I shall on this occasion.
      Mr. Lyon: If the assumption that they will all register is correct, why on earth cannot we give them in the Bill, as of right, the citizenship that they will get by registration? If there is no doubt about it, we could do that. If there is a doubt, the possibility is that, if it is only hundreds, some hundreds will be in the same position as those East African Asians who received from previous Ministers assurances similar to those my hon. Friend is now giving to these people.
      Mr. Luard: It is perfectly reasonable to assume that most of them will want to register as citizens of the Solomon Islands and will exercise that option. We are concerned with what will happen to them meanwhile, in case some of them do not exercise that option. That is the problem that has been posed in this debate.
      This situation arises because of the attitude taken by the Solomon Islands Ministers in the negotiations. Their feelings on the matter are deeply held. They have said that while they would be prepared to confer their citizenship on the non-indigenous people they wanted them to apply for it.
      I must stress that the Chief Minister and his colleagues have given firm commitments that all who apply for citizenship will be granted it. We have no reason to doubt that assurance. I think that my hon. Friend will recognise that Ministers of a highly respected Government of an almost independent State who have given assurances of that kind are very unlikely to flout that obligation within the next year or so.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: It happened in India.
      Mr. Luard: We have no reason to doubt that the vast majority will secure Solomon Islands citizenship by that means.
      I have explained that of the 5,000 about half, who come from the Gilbert Islands, will in any case be allowed to remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies after independence, at least

      1525
      until the Gilbert Islands become independent, because of their connection with the Gilbert Islands colony.
      Sir Bernard Braine rose—
      Mr. Luard: This is the last time I shall give way.
      Sir Bernard Braine: My intervention is purely on a matter of fact. The Minister is implying that at least half the 5,000 are Gilbertese. He said specifically on Second Reading:
      "That did not mean that they were not prepared to grant citizenship to the 5,000 other people of European or Chinese extraction."—[Official Report, 19th May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 1021.]
      Let us be quite clear about the figures. Are we dealing with 5,000 people of European or Chinese extraction, or only half that number? What the hon. Gentleman is telling the Committee now does not square with what he said on Second Reading.
      Mr. Luard: I am trying to clarify the figures for the hon. Gentleman. If he will listen to what I say, he will find that I am giving the exact facts about this question. If one excludes the Gilbert Islanders, there will be just over 2,000 of European and Chinese origin.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Then the hon. Gentleman misinformed the House on Second Reading.
      Mr. Luard: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall go on with my own speech.
      So that nobody would be left stateless if he or she absolutely refused to apply, the Bill proposes that even if such people have been citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies solely by connection with the Solomon Islands they should be afforded the status of British protected persons. This is an internationally recognised national status, and it would be wrong to regard anyone holding it as being virtually stateless.
      I was asked to explain the difference between being a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and being a British protected person. The status of a British protected person enables the British Government to protect that person when necessary and to issue him with a passport. There is no difference
      1526
      in respect of immigration rights. Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies themselves, if they enjoy that status as a result of their connection with the Solomon Islands, have no entitlement to enter this country, so there is no change in their immigration status. In this respect they will be in no different position from their present position.
      The only significant difference is that the status of British protected person is not normally transmissible. The children of such persons will normally automatically become Solomon Island citizens by reason of their birth there. There is no reason to expect that British protected persons from the Solomon Islands will find eventually that they have nowhere to go. There is not the slightest reason to think that they may be expelled, whatever their citizenship. If it were to happen, I can only repeat what I said before—that we cannot say now what view we might take of a situation at some time in the future. It is premature at this stage to foresee such a problem. But if such a situation were to arise I have no doubt that the Government of the day would deal with it responsibly.
      I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) whether this was the first time that we had taken from any group the status of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. This is not the first time. It has been done before in relation to certain citizens of Cyprus, and earlier still in relation to certain people in Burma. It has been forced on the British Government from time to time. However, I stress that this is an abnormal situation because of the position that was taken by the Solomon Islands Government during the negotiations for independence. In our view, this is most unlikely to be a precedent for any other case because we know of no other territory which is likely to become independent where the same situation would arise.
      Nor is it an anticipation of the provisions of the Green Paper as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West. The decision reached in this particular case was entirely independent of the proposal in the Green Paper which, after all, is only a discussion document. The Government are not implementing any proposals in that document at present. What we

      1527
      have done in the present case has resulted entirely from the unforeseen situation that arose from the Ministers of the Solomon Islands Government taking the position that they did and expressing their unwillingness to accept these people immediately and automatically as citizens of the Solomon Islands.
      As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out, there are some possibly understandable reasons for this. Many of these people have come from other territories, some in the not-too-distant past, and the Solomon Islands Ministers felt that they were not belongers in the same way as the indigenous people were.
      My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) took a very different position from that taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West and the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. While they were, in effect, saying that the British Government should be accepting a greater degree of responsibility for these people, my hon. Friend the Member for York took the opposite view—that we should not have taken any responsibility for them at all, and that we should have compelled the Solomon Islands Government to take that responsibility. But it is not easy to compel the Government of a State that is virtually independent to undertake obligations which they resolutely refuse to take. We cannot coerce them. We have sought very hard to persuade them, but eventually they completely refused to accept this obligation.
      We, rather reluctantly, but knowing that the number was extremely small, decided that on this occasion, as a very great exception, we would agree to take some responsibility. We did not agree to let them remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who transmitted their citizenship to future generations indefinitely, but to afford them the status of British protected persons, so that the obligation was more limited. However, that gave them a nationality, and they were not left in the position of being totally stateless. I hope that that deals adequately with—
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon rose—
      Mr. Luard: I give way, but it is for the last time.
      Mr. Christopher Price: We are in Committee.
      Mr. Lyon: I repeat what my hon. Friend says, that we are in Committee. We can always come back to it, but my hon. Friend might as well deal with the issue now. The British protected person cannot transmit his status to his children. That means that his children living in the Solomon Islands would become stateless. The creation of the stateless person would be a breach of the convention. What do we do? In any event, we shall have to commit ourselves. We might as well leave these people as citizents of the United Kingdom and Colonies, because they have everything else apart from the ability to transmit.
      12.45 a.m.
      My hon. Friend does not realise the power of the House of Commons. If we had really worked ourselves up into a fit, the Bill would not have come this far. If the Bill does not pass through the House of Commons, it does not matter what the Solomon Islanders will not agree to in negotiations. The House of Commons decides what they will get. It decides that in the measure before us. If we had refused the clauses, the Solomon Islanders and the Government would not have had the Bill. We could have told them that in the negotiations. That is what I should have liked to do, and I am only sorry that we did not do it.
      Mr. Luard: Obviously my hon. Friend is right when he says that the House of Commons finally decides on matters of this sort. In the final resort it would be open to the House of Commons to exercise its will. I was describing the position of the Government and the way the Government felt, in view of the firmly expressed view of the Government of the Solomon Islands: we should make a special arrangement in this instance. My hon. Friend correctly states that the British protected person cannot transmit citizenship to his children. That was the point that I was making when he intervened. As he would have heard if he had listened to what I was saying earlier, in almost every case the children themselves will acquire the nationality of the Solomon Islands.
      It is true that if for any reason that failed to happen and there was a danger of statelessness arising, we would be

      1529
      bound by the provisions of the statelessness convention, as I mentioned on Friday and as was raised against this evening by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. I made it clear on Second Reading that in the final resort we were bound by the terms of the statelessness convention.
      My hon. Friend the Member for York made comparisons with the situations that has arisen in the past in East Africa and India. He said that we were repeating the follies of the past. I must observe that there are major differences. The most important difference is that of scale. The numbers on those occasions that were left in an ambiguous position were infinitely larger than the number we are now discussing. My hon. Friend said that we are talking about 5,000, but we are talking of only a small proportion of the 5,000. At the end of the day we may find that a small proportion have not registered and are left in a position in which they remain as British protected persons.
      Doubt has been cast on whether in giving the Islanders the status of British protected persons we are not conferring upon them some sort of second class status. In almost every respect their status is the same as if they remained citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. The only major difference is the one that I have mentioned, namely, that they cannot transmit citizenship. However, in either case they would not have the right of immigration to this country. In that sense we are not changing anything. In any event, those concerned will secure diplomatic protection from this country, which is the main reason for someone wishing to acquire a passport of a particular sort.
      A very small difference is that British protected persons will not have the right to vote in elections in this country. That is a right that they would have if they remained citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. However as they would not be able to come here even if they remained citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, that is not an important difference.
      I hope that I have answer the major points that have been raised. I stress that we are talking about a protectorate. It has always been a protectorate. Those who come in the small category that we
      1530
      have been discussing have become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies only because of their connection with a protectorate. It is not illogical in that situation to give them the status that goes with a protectorate, namely, that of British protected persons. They are all put into the one category. Of course, some are already British protected persons. We are assimilating the others with that category so that they all have the same status. I hope that only a small proportion will be involved. I hope that their children will have acquired other nationalities. Therefore, we are talking about a short-term temporary problem. I hope that I have said enough to persuade my hon. Friend to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Christopher Price: I think that the last point made by my hon. Friend was not very logical: we get rid of our last protectorate and invent a new category of British protected person.
      Mr. Luard: It is there already.
      Mr. Price: It is not. The amendment refers to people who at the moment hold the status of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. We are proposing that, if for any reason after 7th July 1980 they are not citizens of the Solomon Islands or any other country, they become British protected persons. I have followed this matter and I know all the reasons why the British Government, in their wisdom, have reached that decision. But it is not logical. Logic demands that we get rid of our last trust territory, our last protectorate, with the last big group of British protected persons in the world that we have. Instead, we are creating some potentially new ones.
      I thought that my hon. Friend was a little bland about the Gilbertese. I agree that very few of these people would want to come to Britain. If you went to the Solomon Islands, Sir Meyer, the last place you would—
      The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I should like to go to Millport, never mind the Solomon Islands.
      Mr. Price: That was a hypothetical statement, Sir Myer. Were you to go there, I think that you would not want to come back here. The idea of someone in Melanesia, Polynesia or anywhere in the South Seas wanting to come to Britain

      1531
      as an escape route is rather far fetched. I accept that. But I want to pose the problem of the Gilbertese. If something goes wrong and they do not go back to the Gilbert Islands or if something goes wrong with the Gilbert Islands Bill, which is not yet on the stocks—there could be problems with the Banabans and Ocean Islands—and it is delayed much longer than the British Government want it to be delayed, the Gilbertese, the biggest of these minorities, might be in a difficult situation.
      I understand that the one concession that the Government got out of the Solomon Islanders during the negotiations was that the period of registration for citizenship should be not only the two years following independence, but a period of six months before independence, so that the House could see how things were going.
      I understand that of the 5,000 eligible, about 70 applications have so far come in. That is not a significant figure. My view is that if the Gilbertese applied for citizenship, they would all apply. If they do not apply, very few of them will apply. Many of these minority groups within the Solomon Islands will decide to act as groups rather than as individuals. But if something were to go wrong with the assumptions about the Gilbertese taking citizenship or desiring or willing to go back to the Gilbert Islands, they would be in this kind of situation.
      The Minister says "There will be no problems, because I assume this, I assume the other". He is making assumptions. If we find that these people are in an unfortunate situation, we should give them the slightly more favourable status.
      I had hoped to be wholly convinced by the Ministers' arguments. I fear that I was less than convinced. But, because I desire to allow the Solomon Islands to reach independence, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 3 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule agreed to.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      12.57 a.m.
      Mr. Christopher Price: After that somewhat acrimonious short debate—which was useful because it alerted us to the Pacific independence Bills which will come before the House in the next few months and years—it is right not to leave this business without saying something hopeful and positive about the future of the Solomon Islands.
      Certain strictures have been made aaginst Lord Goronwy-Roberts, to whom I was PPS 12 years ago. I should like to get it on record that these negotiations were difficult. The Solomon Islanders were justified in insisting on their side of the bargain. They said to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office "If you do not want us to be independent, you can put it off." But the brief of the Foreign Office was to make this country independent by hook or by crook. It is therefore wrong to blame the Islanders. They had clear views about the form of citizenship that they wanted. They knew that the desire of the Foreign Office to make them independent was greater than the desire to exclude future problems.
      I congratulate all the Ministers in the Solomon Islands Government who came here, particularly their leader, Peter Kenilorea. I wish the new independent country well. This is the first of the last group of countries of which we are finally to divest ourselves. Most of them are in the Pacific. The Tuvalu Bill is now in the Lords. The Bill dealing with the Gilbert Islands will come next and, with the French, we must try to divest ourselves of the New Hebrides which will be the most difficult. These measures will create small independent countries of islands in the Pacific. In one way we are putting appalling burdens on them. We are expecting Tuvalu, for instance, with only 8,000 people, to try somehow to be viable, to have diplomatic representation and to make its way in the world. The same is true of the Solomon Islands.
      Before we pass this Bill, we should be aware of what we are doing. With the increase in territorial limits, as the Law of the Sea Conference gradually extends the areas of national authority, these tiny islands in the Pacific become more and more important. The Russian fleet is all over the Pacific. There will be pressure on these islands to

      1533
      trade political influence for cash, of which many of them have very little. The Solomon Islanders are in the middle of negotiating a fishing agreement with the Japanese, who have particular connections with those islands since half of the Second World War was fought over these islands.
      In wishing the Solomon Islanders well, we should not just say goodbye to them and sever any further connection. They will need all the help of the aid clauses of the White Paper for many years yet. I am very pleased that the Solomon Islands will be applying for membership of the Lomé Convention because in one curious way that convention is taking over from the British Empire a sort of parent responsibility for helping some of these countries which are not economically viable.
      At the moment President Giscard d'Estaing is trying to create a sort of French Commonwealth several hundred years after we began ours, but much upon the same lines. It is regrettable that there are islands in the Pacific such as New Caledonia and French Polynesia, which the French, in contrast to our country, are flatly refusing to allow any form of independence. It would be unfortunate if the French entered a period of aggressive, linguistic neo-colonialism, in which there was rivalry in the Pacific as there is in many countries in Africa between the English-speaking and French-speaking countries.
      I hope that as the second stage of the Lomé Convention is negotiated the Solomon Islanders will be associated with the negotiations to add a little more Pacific weight to the ACP—the African-Caribbean-Pacific—agreement. That would provide a growing political superstructure. Then, when, as will inevitably happen, the political pressure comes on some of these newly independent countries, as has happened with the Seychelles already, to take up a certain political stance in return for aid, there will at least be an organisation like the Lomé Convention to which they can turn which dispenses its aid with far fewer political strings than is involved with multilateral aid or direct bilateral aid from anywhere else. In leaving the Solomon Islanders to fend for themselves, it may then be possible that we are not leaving them completely
      1534
      on their own, but that they will have someone to turn to.
      In welcoming the Bill and wishing the Solomon Islanders well in their independent status, I hope that the House of Commons will have further contact with them. I hope that some contact is maintained through the EEC, although it is an institution for which I have very little love. I left the European Parliament because I could not stand it. I have just voted against direct elections. But it is an institution within which the Lomé Convention offers some hope of helping these countries through a reasonable period of gestation as they grow to full independence.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (BRIGHTON)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]
  1.5 a.m.
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I am glad to have the opportunity to initiate a brief debate this morning on the National Health Service resources available to the Brighton health district.
  I should like to make two points clear initially. First, I am not attacking the National Health Service as such, and least of all the devoted work of the medical staff and the nurses, and the commendable efforts of most of the ancillary staff, to provide to all patients the best possible care. I would stress, indeed, that the Hove District Hospital is a model of what can be achieved by way of the best possible care in premises that are over 100 years old. Secondly, I am not calling for additional Government expenditure. I wish that it were available. Indeed, it is a depressing thought that capital spending on the NHS has declined so substantially over the last four years. If the economy had been rather better managed by the Minister's administration, perhaps we would have more money available for the many and evident needs of the NHS.
  What I am asking for is a fairer allocation of the available resources for the

  1535
  Brighton health district, within which is my constituency of Hove. I should explain that I am not asking for this at the expense of the Eastbourne or Hastings health districts, which together with the Brighton health district make up the East Sussex Area Health Authority, because I know that both of those health districts have very similar problems and similar populations to those of the Brighton health district. What I am saying is that the East Sussex AHA as a whole is not getting a fair share of the resources available to the South-East Thames Regional Health Authority.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Sainsbury: As the Minister knows, the basic method of allocating resources is by means of a formula arrived at by the Resource Allocation Working Party. If for a moment we accept that that formula accurately reflects the need for resources, it is clear that the East Sussex AHA and the Brighton health district are seriously under-funded. The RAWP target allocation for East Sussex last year was £58·5 million, and yet the allocation this year is only £51·75 million—a very considerable shortfall of nearly 15 per cent.
  To achieve the full RAWP target by 1986–87 would require an additional £12·5 million to be added to the existing allocation to East Sussex. That gives us an indication of the size of the problem. I do not see how the problem can be reconciled with the Secretary of State's statement in December 1976, when he said:
  "I am determined that the resources of this national service should be more fairly shared. Redistribution must not only be between regions but within regions."
  The Minister quoted that on 3rd March this year, as reported in Hansard for that date, at column 939.
  But I would further argue that the RAWP formula does not fairly reflect the needs of Brighton health district and East Sussex AHA. There are several reasons. First, I would cite population growth. Between censuses, area population statistics are always suspect, because they tend to underestimate migratory movements and are likely to understate the population of areas such as Brighton. The population in the area must be
  1536
  expected to continue to grow over the next decade, and this will continue to exacerbate the severe shortage of health care facilities.
  It is calculated that if the RAWP formula remains unchanged and the population forecasts for the county prove fairly accurate East Sussex will require an additional £5·6 million by 1986–87 to provide services for the additional number and changed age structure of the population at that time.
  The second reason why I believe that the formula does not accurately reflect the needs is that it takes no account of holiday visitors or student populations. Not only is the area attracting far more holidaymakers but the season is lengthening and students, including language students—a growing area—are present throughout the year.
  The third reason is that National Health Service facilities in the area are old and expensive to run and maintain. The area's ability to meet the needs of the population is further aggravated by the age of the buildings, especially the geriatric accommodation. The current valuation of the capital stock is £68·9 million, compared with the RAWP target of £93 million.
  But the fourth and by far the most important reason for doubting the RAWP formula being fair is the weighting given to the population make-up. Whilst the formula takes account, perhaps inadequately, of the over-65s, it does not take account of the proportion of over-75s. The Age Concern publication "Profiles of the Elderly" suggests that 35 per cent. of health and personal social service expenditure is devoted to those over 65, who are 17 per cent. of the national population, and no less than 20 per cent. to the over-75s, who are only 5 per cent. of the population. So they need four times the national average expenditure per head. The Brighton health district has 22·6 per cent. of its population over 65 and 9 per cent., which is nearly twice the national average, over 75.
  The validity of the standardised mortality ratio for older age groups is highly suspect. That also adversely affects the allocation of funds on the morbidity factor in the RAWP formula for those areas with an above-average elderly population, as in the Brighton health district.

  1537
  The age structure of the population of East Sussex is perhaps the most outstanding characteristic of the county. A quarter of the residents are over 65 and a tenth are over 75. Population projections by the county show that by 1986 the population will have increased by 32,000 or 5 per cent., but that the total of over-75s will have increased by 26 per cent. to over 84,000, reaching 12 per cent. of the population.
  The elderly make heavy demands on nearly all parts of the NHS, and make especially heavy use of hospital beds. It is not always appreciated, however, that this use is of acute hospital beds as well as of geriatric accommodation. The elderly suffer a much higher proportion of acute illness, as well as chronic disease, than other age groups. For example, much of the work of the orthopaedic service is in treating fractures of the hip in old ladies.
  The elderly also make heavy use of many high technology and expensive acute services. About one in three of admissions to a coronary care unit are patients aged over 65. The need for cardiac pacemakers also rises steeply with age, as do the need for joint replacements and the use of radiotherapy and chemotherapy for cancer. For example, a population with 24 per cent. aged over 65 would be expected to produce 47 per cent. more malignant disease than the same size of population with an age structure similar to that of England and Wales. That is the sort of position we have in East Sussex. Even such new developments in technology as the whole-body scanner are likely to be used to a considerable extent for elderly patients. Moreover, the social and other difficulties faced by many elderly people means that their length of stay in hospital, even for acute conditions, is longer than for the middle-aged.
  All these factors underline the fact that a population with an age structure like that in East Sussex puts considerable pressure on the acute hospital services.
  The implications of a population with that age structure for community services are just as great. The simple aim of maintaining reasonable mobility in the elderly requires considerable investment in chiropody services. Common to the proper functioning of hospital day care and community services is the need for an adequate
  1538
  transport facility. Public services are limited and, in any event, present real difficulties to the elderly, especially those with some disability. This throws a considerable burden on ambulance and hospital care services, which are at present unable to meet all the calls upon them.
  Even on the basis of the RAWP formula, Brighton health district is seriously under-funded. These inadequacies in the formula make the shortage of resources that much worse.
  Let me give a few brief examples of what this means on the ground. Although in the area there is a desperate shortage of psycho-geriatric beds, it has been possible to open only half of F-block at the Brighton General Hospital, which would provide just the beds needed, with 35 left unused. At this moment there are 35 chronic sick in need of hospital accommodation who cannot be accommodated, mainly because the district has a shortage of 257 beds, or 41 per cent. of its estimated needs. There are excessive waiting lists for non-acute treatment. In Portslade it has not been possible to start on the desperately needed health centre, with the inevitable result that doctors struggling to work under poor conditions are not able to give of their full potential.
  I wish to conclude by putting some specific questions to the Minister which I hope he will be able to answer in his reply, or will let me have a reply shortly after this debate.
  First, will he review the RAWP formula to ensure that it takes adequate account of the demands on the NHS by the elderly, especially of the over-75s? Secondly, will he undertake to ensure a faster reallocation of resources within the South-East Thames Regional Health Authority? Thirdly, will he as soon as possible come down to Brighton and Hove to examine our problems? I regret that the Minister of State has not yet been able to accept the invitation issued to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) on the grounds that his diary is full until August. I regret even more that the Secretary of State for Social Services found time this week to visit China rather than East Sussex.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): My right hon. Friend was in

  1539
  East Sussex a few weeks ago, met the area health authority and discussed its problems at a meeting there.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman did not come down as far as Brighton and Hove to talk to those on the ground, including Members of Parliament.
  My final question to the Minister is to ask whether he will undertake that any additional resources that become available are allocated primarily to make up the shortfall in funding in areas such as the Brighton health district.
  1.17 a.m.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Has the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) obtained the agreement of the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) to take part in the debate?
  Mr. Rathbone: My hon. Friend has allowed me to associate myself with him in the debate.
  Half of the Lewes constituency falls within the Brighton health district. The points made by my hon. Friend apply equally to my constituency as to the rest of the Brighton health district. I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend on instigating the debate and to associate myself on behalf of all my constituents with all he said.
  1.18 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): We have had a brief debate on the resources allocated to East Sussex for National Health Service purposes. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) for not asking for increased public expenditure. It is a temptation to which Opposition Members sometimes succumb to ask for public expenditure in particular cases while being opposed to it in general. I am glad that in this instance he avoided that pitfall.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has spoken a number of times about the Government's commitment to a fairer distribution of financial resources to the NHS in relation to health care needs, not only among the 14 regions of the country, but within the regions as well, because
  1540
  some of the biggest inequalities are between rich and poor areas in the same region. My right hon. Friend and I are equally determined not to destroy the quality of excellence in the NHS—for example, in teaching, which is absolutely vital for the future of the National Health Service in the opportunities to discover new techniques.
  We do not want to put existing basic services at risk. Therefore, the task facing the Health Service under the RAWP is to strike a proper balance. The resources of the NHS are at any one time finite and we have to ensure that no community is deprived. At the same time, we want to ensure that significant imbalances in some regions are straightened out because the South-East Thames Region is a striking example of imbalances within a region.
  The problem, with such a wide range of health services available, has always been how to devise a practical means of securing the necessary allocation of provision. From the beginning of the Health Service until fairly recently, successive Governments relied on historical factors, but the experience of relying on such factors was that the resources of the NHS went to the parts of the service where the activity was already greatest and served to increase the disparities between one part of the country and another. That is why we set up the Resource Allocation Working Party, to produce a new approach to the reallocation of resources in the service.
  The working party interpreted the objective of its terms of reference as being to stress that there should eventually be equal access to health care for people equally at risk. Para 1.5 of its report said:
  "Resources allocation is concerned with the distribution of financial resources which are used for the provision of real resources. In this sense it is concerned with the means rather than the end. We have not regarded our remit as being concerned with how the resources are deployed. This must be a matter for the administering authorities and is essentially part of their policy-making planning and decision-making functions in response to central guidelines on national policies and priorities. Resource allocation will clearly have an important influence on the discharge of those functions and be the most critical guideline within which they have to be discharged".
  The object of the working party was to set up target allocations, and such

  1541
  targets were used by the Department and the health authorities for improving and refining. Therefore, on a whole range of questions which the hon. Member put to me, the answer is that work on developing the formula is continuing all the time with a view to refining it and making it more efficient.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I stressed the evidence of the over-75s who put a particularly heavy burden on the facilities of the NHS, and that does not appear to be adequately reflected in the formula as it exists. Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that this point will be very carefully looked at in the light of the evidence now to hand?
  Mr. Moyle: I cannot say that it will be looked at in the light of the evidence now to hand, but all these points for the refinement and improvement of the formula will be considered. We are conscious of some of the drawbacks to it, and they are the subject of further research with a view to making it a more sensitive reallocation.
  The formula is aimed at producing target allocations, but once we have them there is not a mathematical approach towards achieving them. The targets cannot be mechanistically applied. The element of judgment has to be exercised all the time in deciding what is feasible and what has merit in switching resources towards the various target allocations of regions and areas.
  Much depends on the financial resources available and the practicalities of adjusting patient services, and resources allocation has to be linked all the time with NHS planning. We have told the local health authorities that they have to take account of local circumstances and not seek to apply a predetermined rate of change to the process of allocation.
  This is what we call the pace of change. It must depend on the ability of above-target areas to rationalise services without disruption to the existing pattern of provision or to teaching or other specialist needs. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has told regions that he expects a significant redistribution of revenue to be achieved this year and next year, and if that does not happen the authorities will have to make clear to him just why it is not practical in particular circumstances.
  1542
  The task facing the South-East Regional Health Authority against the background of this policy is not easy, particularly as the continuing population movement that the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to is likely to make disparity between the various areas in the region greater rather than less as time goes by.
  The regional authority has committed itself to a more equal distribution of resources between the five health areas, and this means switching resources, broadly speaking, from London to East Sussex and Kent. A modest step was taken in this direction in 1976–77, but in 1977–78 it was felt that a temporary halt should be called to it, because a breathing space was needed to deal with various existing commitments, including the necessity of running new facilities and to adjust some overspending in some of the areas.
  This year the regional health authority has reduced the revenue allocation to the teaching area by about £1·8 million and has obtained agreement from the Secretary of State to closures and changes of use in the Greenwich and Bexley area which will also make some significant savings available for redistribution to Kent and East Sussex. As a result, East Sussex is getting £600,000 extra from the redistribution exercise and a further £180,000 as a result of the extra money from the National Health Service budget.
  There have been one or two alarms and excursions in the local Press about the attitude of Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Area Health Authority to the regional health authority's decision to reduce its revenue, but I think that these articles were probably based on a Press misunderstanding of decisions taken by the area and were probably wildly alarmist. Nevertheless, I am quite prepared to concede that there are difficult problems in the area, and my right hon. Friend has invited the chairman of the region and the chairman of the area to meet him to discuss the situation at an early date.
  With regard to the regional health authority's longer term strategy, at the last meeting it agreed to pose regional strategic guidelines to its areas which provided for redistribution options, both of them to take effect by 1987–88. The

  1543
  first was based on a 25 per cent. movement towards target allocations, and the second on a 40 per cent. movement towards target allocations. The area health authorities have been asked to prepare their strategic plans showing what the effect of these options would be on their delivery of services. There will have to be a review of those options by the region when the area health authorities' plans are received.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate that this movement is at least a movement in the right direction, but does the Minister regard it as satisfactory that over such a long period it is only a modest percentage movement towards achieving the target, which I have suggested is in any event probably inadequately reflecting the real needs because of the population make-up, and is in another sense a moving target because the population continues to shift from the over-provided areas to the underprovided areas?
  Mr. Moyle: That is really an elaboration of the question the hon. Gentleman put to me about whether I would foresee the RAWP target allocation achievement being speeded up. One cannot be dogmatic, but I should have thought that the 40 per cent. target was the most extreme likely possibility that could be achieved.
  The hon. Gentleman must remember that many of the resources of the teaching area, for example, are tied up in the three large teaching hospitals of Guy's, St. Thomas's and King's, and they will to a large extent produce the doctors which places such as East Sussex will need for the future. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that in his anxiety to relieve the shortage of health resources in Sussex now he should not mortgage the ability of the NHS to produce the doctors required in East Sussex for the future.
  As I said earlier in an intervention in the hon. Gentleman's speech, my right hon. Friend visited East Sussex on 28th April and attended a meeting of the area health authority there. At that meeting, the area health authority discussed the question of resource allocation.
  There is, I know, a particular need to provide services for the large elderly population. I think that about a quarter of the population is over 65, and that about one-tenth is over 75. There is also a need for services for the mentally
  1544
  handicapped, the young chronic sick and the mentally ill. These are all areas to which we have urged health authorities to give priority during the course of their planning.
  With regard to the services for the elderly, there is a shortfall of hospital beds in the health district represented by the hon. Gentleman, and there is emphasis on the continuing improvement, therefore, of community health care. Extra health visitors have been appointed specifically to visit elderly people in their homes, and the health district has a very good night nursing service. There are also sufficient beds for the mentally handicapped in the area served by the East Sussex Area Health Authority, but they are poorly distributed. This is something which the health authority has to sort out. Recently, staffing levels have been increased at the Pouchlands Hospital and a children's unit of 18 beds has opened at Foredown. This unit has good community links.
  The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is a desire with regard to the mentally ill, mentally handicapped and the elderly that as much as possible of the care for these groups will be done by community services rather than by hospital services. Consideration is being given—
  Mr. Sainsbury: Does the Minister accept that it is highly desirable that mentally handicapped adults who do not need hospital treatment but who need in-care treatment should have a provision available which is not as elaborate or expensive as full hospital treatment? That is another shortfall which needs to be met.
  Mr. Moyle: That, of course, falls primarily within the sphere of social service departments of local authorities. A wide range of care is needed for the elderly, the mentally ill and mentally handicapped in their homes with perhaps meals-on-wheels support at one end and full hospital treatment at the other, ranging from Part III accommodation, day centres, hostel accommodation and facilities of that sort.
  Hospital provision for the mentally ill in Brighton does exist, but many of Brighton's patients are in St. Francis's Hospital, Haywards Heath, which is unduly far away from the ideal point

  1545
  of view. The health district is attaching priority to the provision of facilities for patients within the Brighton district. A start will be made on 1st June when it is planned to bring into use 35 psycho-geriatric beds in a new purpose-built unit at Brighton General Hospital. Eventually the unit will take 70 beds. A new psycho-geriatric day hospital is currently being planned for Hove, and capital provision for that has already been earmarked.
  On 1st January 1979 the third phase of development at the Royal Sussex County Hospital will be brought into use. This will include three operating theatres, 40 acute beds and new kitchens. There will also be a whole-body "Cat Scanner" which will offer the local medical staff the very latest in modern X-ray techniques.
  Nevertheless, having said all that, we accept that the district and the area remain under-funded. If we are to ensure that the standards of patient care in the health service continue to rise—an aim to which all Ministers at the Department are committed—and if we are to take a more objective view of priorities, the distribution of scarce resources requires us to ensure that there is a much fairer distribution within the South-East Thames region in favour of Kent and East Sussex.
  Unless this major redistribution takes place, the demographic change, the increasing number of elderly and the movement of the population from London and its suburbs towards the coast will make the position even worse.
  I hope that what I have said will be enough to reassure hon. Members that
  1546
  the regional health authority and my Department are determined to secure the necessary redistribution of resources. I hope that it also indicates some of the real difficulties, particularly with regard to the production of the appropriate medical manpower, which make it essential that we ensure that change is prosecuted at a realistic pace and that we do not destroy the seed-corn of the National Health Service in trying to achieve justice.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would visit Brighton and Hove. I shall look into that. It will probably not be before the autumn, and I shall try to do so then. He asked whether any additional resources would be directed towards areas such as Kent and East Sussex. That depends to some extent upon the current situation and what new projects are being brought on stream at any particular time. Obviously, it is much easier to achieve redistribution by directing new money and extra resources to the less well-funded areas than it is to close down existing services in the well-funded areas and try to direct that money towards the less well-funded ones. Obviously, there is a general tendency to direct additional resources to areas such as Sussex and Kent—
  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 twenty-six minutes to Two o'clock.

DEFENCE
  Energy Saving
  Energy Saving
  Defence Planning Committee (Meeting)
  Defence Planning Committee (Meeting)
  Expenditure (International Comparisons)
  Expenditure (International Comparisons)
  BAOR
  BAOR
  NATO Defence Ministers
  NATO Defence Ministers
  Army Pensions Office, Stanmore
  Army Pensions Office, Stanmore
  RAF Stations (Catering)
  RAF Stations (Catering)
  RAF (Manpower)
  RAF (Manpower)
  Nuclear Weapon Tests
  Nuclear Weapon Tests
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Arms Conversion
  Arms Conversion
  China
  China
  RAF Pilots (Training)
  RAF Pilots (Training)
  Enhanced Radiation Weapons
  Enhanced Radiation Weapons
  Dockyard Workers (Pay)
  Dockyard Workers (Pay)
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Arms Sales (Aldershot Exhibition)
  Arms Sales (Aldershot Exhibition)
  Army Officers (Resignation Applications)
  Army Officers (Resignation Applications)
  Majors (Pay)
  Majors (Pay)
  Chiefs of Defence Staff
  Chiefs of Defence Staff
  Indonesia (Defence Minister)
  Indonesia (Defence Minister)
  Western European Union
  Western European Union
  Tanks (Armour)
  Tanks (Armour)
  Policy
  Policy
  Disarmament (United Nations Special Session)
  Disarmament (United Nations Special Session)
  Exercise "Purple Oyster"
  Exercise "Purple Oyster"
  Army Vehicles
  Army Vehicles
  Armed Forces (Overseas Allowances)
  Armed Forces (Overseas Allowances)
  Armed Forces (Deployment)
  Armed Forces (Deployment)
  Wellington Barracks
  Wellington Barracks
  Senior Staff (Medical Checks)
  Senior Staff (Medical Checks)
  Iran (Arms Supplies)
  Iran (Arms Supplies)
  Chinese-speaking Defence Staff
  Chinese-speaking Defence Staff
  RAF Personnel (Training Costs)
  RAF Personnel (Training Costs)
  PRITTLEWELL
  PRITTLEWELL
  CHINA
  CHINA
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SECURITY VETTING)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SECURITY VETTING)
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  FRIMLEY HOSPITAL
  FRIMLEY HOSPITAL
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  ANGOLA
  ANGOLA
  SOUTHAMPTON
  SOUTHAMPTON
  BULAWAYO
  BULAWAYO
  SCOTLAND
  SCOTLAND
  UNEMPLOYMENT (INCOME MAINTENANCE SCHEMES)
  UNEMPLOYMENT (INCOME MAINTENANCE SCHEMES)
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Community Relations
  Community Relations
  Criminals
  Criminals
  Kirklees Metropolitan Council
  Kirklees Metropolitan Council
  Released Prisoners
  Released Prisoners
  Police (North-West England)
  Police (North-West England)
  Crime (North-West England)
  Crime (North-West England)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Zambia
  Zambia
  PARLIAMENTARY PRINTING AND STATIONERY (COST)
  PARLIAMENTARY PRINTING AND STATIONERY (COST)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Sitting Days and Recesses
  Sitting Days and Recesses
TRADE
  China
  China
  Holidays (Cancelled Bookings)
  Holidays (Cancelled Bookings)
  Oil Tanker Wrecks
  Oil Tanker Wrecks
ENVIRONMENT
  Pauls Dene Estate, Salisbury
  Pauls Dene Estate, Salisbury
  Lucas Aerospace
  Lucas Aerospace
  Jersey and Guernsey
  Jersey and Guernsey
  Hartlebury (Former RAF site)
  Hartlebury (Former RAF site)
  Parliament House, Edinburgh
  Parliament House, Edinburgh
  Local Government Superannuation Scheme
  Local Government Superannuation Scheme
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Clothing
  School Clothing
  Jersey and Guernsey
  Jersey and Guernsey
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Goods and Services Suppliers
  Goods and Services Suppliers
  Secondary Schoolteachers (Mathematics Teaching)
  Secondary Schoolteachers (Mathematics Teaching)
  Comprehensive Education (Matlock)
  Comprehensive Education (Matlock)
  Middle Schools Reorganisation (Havant)
  Middle Schools Reorganisation (Havant)
  Japanese Language Teaching
  Japanese Language Teaching
ENERGY
  Fuel Costs
  Fuel Costs
  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Oil Exploration (Dorset)
  Oil Exploration (Dorset)
  Nuclear Electricity
  Nuclear Electricity
  Gas Production and Cost
  Gas Production and Cost
  Power Station Coal (Subsidy)
  Power Station Coal (Subsidy)
  National Coal Board (Manpower)
  National Coal Board (Manpower)
  British Nuclear Fuels (Uranium Supplies)
  British Nuclear Fuels (Uranium Supplies)
  Beatrice Oilfield
  Beatrice Oilfield
  Coal Industry (Output)
  Coal Industry (Output)
  Fuels (Pricing Policies)
  Fuels (Pricing Policies)
EMPLOYMENT
  Retirement and Job Creation
  Retirement and Job Creation
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Financial Assistance (Refusals)
  Financial Assistance (Refusals)
  Micro-Processors
  Micro-Processors
  Employment Agencies
  Employment Agencies
  North-West England
  North-West England
  International Comparisons
  International Comparisons
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Health and Safety (Universities)
  Health and Safety (Universities)
INDUSTRY
  Selective Investment Scheme
  Selective Investment Scheme
  Industry Act Assistance (Wales)
  Industry Act Assistance (Wales)
  Assisted Areas (Incentives)
  Assisted Areas (Incentives)
  Manufacturing Undertakings (Change of Control Prohibition)
  Manufacturing Undertakings (Change of Control Prohibition)
  Financial Assistance
  Financial Assistance
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Helsinki Agreement
  Helsinki Agreement
  Greenland
  Greenland
  Namibia (Uranium Imports)
  Namibia (Uranium Imports)
  Jersey and Guernsey
  Jersey and Guernsey
SCOTLAND
  Bakers
  Bakers
  Sheltered Housing
  Sheltered Housing
  Health Boards (Hospital Patients)
  Health Boards (Hospital Patients)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Domestic Fixtures and Fittings
  Domestic Fixtures and Fittings
  Prices (Common Agricultural Policy)
  Prices (Common Agricultural Policy)
  Mortgages (Redemption)
  Mortgages (Redemption)
  Banks (Saturday Closing)
  Banks (Saturday Closing)
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
TRANSPORT
  Road Maintenance (Manchester)
  Road Maintenance (Manchester)
  Manchester Outer Ring Road
  Manchester Outer Ring Road
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Thames Flood Barrier
  Thames Flood Barrier
  Eggs Authority Members
  Eggs Authority Members
  Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Members
  Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Members
  Food Additives and Contaminants Committee Members
  Food Additives and Contaminants Committee Members
  Food Science and Technology Board Members
  Food Science and Technology Board Members
  Food Standards Committee Members
  Food Standards Committee Members
  Home-Grown Cereals Authority Members
  Home-Grown Cereals Authority Members
  Horticulture Board Members
  Horticulture Board Members
  Meat and Livestock Commission Members
  Meat and Livestock Commission Members
  Meat and Livestock Commission Committees
  Meat and Livestock Commission Committees
  Intervention Stocks
  Intervention Stocks
  Abattoirs
  Abattoirs
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Social Security Pensions Act
  Social Security Pensions Act
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Public Places (Non-smoking Provision)
  Public Places (Non-smoking Provision)
  Widowers with Children
  Widowers with Children
  Mining Diseases
  Mining Diseases
  Vaccination Certificates
  Vaccination Certificates
  Self-employed Persons (Reciprocity)
  Self-employed Persons (Reciprocity)
  Area Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Area Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Skateboarding (Accidents)
  Skateboarding (Accidents)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Meals on Wheels
  Meals on Wheels
  Married Women's Invalidity Pension
  Married Women's Invalidity Pension
  Dudley Guest Hospital (Hip Operations)
  Dudley Guest Hospital (Hip Operations)
  Back Pain
  Back Pain
  Maternity Services
  Maternity Services
  Maternity Benefits
  Maternity Benefits
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Foreign Student Nurses
  Foreign Student Nurses
  Family Incomes and Benefits
  Family Incomes and Benefits
  Oakmere Rehabilitation Centre
  Oakmere Rehabilitation Centre
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Unemployment Forecasts
  Unemployment Forecasts
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Building Contractors
  Building Contractors
  Goods and Services (Government Expenditure)
  Goods and Services (Government Expenditure)
  Fixed Capital, Machinery and Equipment
  Fixed Capital, Machinery and Equipment
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Output
  Output
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Government Purchases (Settlement of Bills)
  Government Purchases (Settlement of Bills)
WALES
  Substandard Housing
  Substandard Housing
  North Wales Expressway
  North Wales Expressway
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Emigration
  Emigration

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

LEAFIELD, OXFORDSHIRE: LATTICE MAST
Lord BULLOCK: 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 institute an inquiry into the decision to erect a 120 ft. lattice mast in the middle of Leafield, Oxfordshire, against the advice received from the district and local councils and in face of strong opposition from the local population.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Government see no reason to hold an inquiry in this case.
Lord BULLOCK: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. If the Government are unwilling to hold an inquiry, can she confirm that the Thames Valley police authority—one of the emergency services for which the mast was erected—regard its location in Leafield as unsatisfactory, have no intention of using it and are looking for an alternative site which can serve the other emergency services as well, and so allow the Leafield mast to be removed?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my information is that the Leafield mast was for the fire and ambulance services, and not for the police.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm whether this comes within the realms of planning? If it does, if there were a substantial objection, as the noble Lord, Lord Bullock, has suggested, will she say whether the Minister would normally call it in for that reason?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords; there were objections, but I am sure the noble Earl will appreciate that it is for the county council to decide whether those objections shall be met, because it is a planning decision. But I understand that, in reaching their decision, they were guided by advice from the Home Office that a guy line mast was not suitable, because it would not be fitted with safety devices such as ladders, fall arrest systems and rest platforms. In cases where these cannot be fitted, a structure has to be capable of being lowered to the ground in order to gain access to the aerials, and this was not possible at Leafield.

CHILE: BRITISH DEFENCE ATTACHé
2.39 p.m.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps have been taken to replace our naval attaché—recently retired—at the Embassy in Chile, where there is also unfortunately a vacuum as far as the ambassador is concerned.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the defence attaché in Santiago left in March after completing his tour of duty and there are no plans to appoint a successor.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, which is most discouraging. Is she aware of what a very important post this is from the naval point of view? Is she also aware that Russian and Polish ships are proliferating South of Chile, and that we have no ambassador there, although the Chilean Navy is an old friend of ours, with whom we have always had the most friendly relations? Will she ask the Foreign Office to reconsider their point of view?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, we are indeed aware, as I am sure your Lordships' House is aware, of the increase in Soviet

823
fishing vessels all over the world, including the South Pacific. But this, in itself, would not justify the appointment of a defence attaché. We are also very much aware of our traditional friendship with the Chilean Navy, and we very much look forward to renewing it under a democratic Government.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that Service attachés and ambassadors are appointed to countries because they are useful to us, and not as an accolade or a sign of approval of the Governments to which they are accredited? Will the noble Baroness and the Government reconsider the reappointment of an ambassador to Chile?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, indeed, my Lords. We are fully aware of the conditions under which we appoint defence attachés. But it has been the view of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and of the Ministry of Defence since early last year that there is no justification for such an appointment in Chile.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, will the Government agree that if, for any reason, it is desirable to have diplomatic relations with any country, it is also desirable to have a Mission which is fully equipped to do the job?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have every confidence in the Mission in Santiago, which is competent in discharging its duties well.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask one further question? Is the noble Baroness aware of the tremendous sea coast of Chile—I am not interested only in fishing—and of the whole of that area of the Pacific, which is of interest to our Navy? Will she please ask the Foreign Office to reconsider this matter?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am sorry to be what I know is very disappointing to the noble Baroness. We know of her interest in shipping of all kinds, but I am afraid
824
that this is a much larger question. I will, of course, report our Question and Answers to my right honourable friend, but this involves very much larger issues.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the ambassador to Chile is not being reappointed because the Government are satisfied with the Mission as it is, or because they do not want to appoint an ambassador?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, an ambassador is not being reappointed because, among other things, the Government were gravely dissatisfied about the representations which we made over the torture and arrest of Dr. Cassidy, and this is a perfectly good reason.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, does the Minister not consider that this fight is a fight for a job for the boys?
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to reappoint an ambassador until a satisfactory explanation has been given by the Chilean junta as to what has happened to as many as an estimated 2,500 people who have disappeared without trace in that country, including many, such as Mr. William Beausire, who have close connections with Great Britain?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords. I can confirm that. I should also like to confirm that we are gravely disturbed by the unsatisfactory replies which we have had about Mr. William Beausire. I should like to point out, too, that the previous Conservative Administration when they were in power made representations about the human rights situation. What this Government have done is to put words into action.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government satisfied with the treatment that has been given to dissidents in Russia and to the thousands of people who have disappeared there? If they are not, why is our ambassador there?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, that is a very different question and, if I may say so, a rather naïve one.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government have the overwhelming support of the members of our Party in the decision which they have taken?
Viscount MONTGOMERY of ALA-MEIN: My Lords, in view of the improved economic position in Chile, is the noble Baroness able to give some advice as to when ECGD cover for the medium- and longer-term will be restored?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is aware of the special interest which the noble Viscount takes in Chile. However, as I am sure the noble Viscount knows, the ECGD cover for exports has been restricted to short-term credit transactions since 1972 when the previous Chilean Administration defaulted in respect of its commercial debts. And that is where the position remains now.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether or not it has been the case until recently that we have had a naval attaché on each coast of South America, among other things for defence sales? Therefore, could the Government say when they intend to reinstitute a West Coast attaché, in whichever country it may be?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, that is a rather different question. May I emphasise that apart from the sale of arms, the official policy of the Government is not to cut off trade with Chile. We are not in favour of trade boycotts unless they are supported internationally and have international authority.
Viscount MONTGOMERY of ALAMEIN: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness did not quite answer my question—which was in respect of medium- and longer-term credit, especially in view of the strong economic position which currently holds in Chile.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I should need notice of that particular question.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, we have done very well on this Question. We ought to proceed.

USA BASES IN BRITAIN
2.46 p.m.
Lord MILFORD: 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 what recent events have taken place in the world to cause the American military establishment's urgent request for the reopening of their former airforce bases in Britain.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am not aware of a request in the terms which the noble Lord has mentioned. However, in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, on 2nd May, I referred to the United States' request for a peacetime base for tanker aircraft in this country. The use of such aircraft for air-to-air refuelling would lead to significant increases in operational effectiveness, and the United States' request therefore reflects a welcome example of their commitment to the strengthening of NATO's deterrent strategy.
Lord MILFORD: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. May I ask him whether or not the timing is a little inopportune when one considers two very important events, one of which took place about a fortnight ago while the other is taking place today? I refer, first, to Mr. Brezhnev's speech in Germany. Do not Her Majesty's Government consider that speech—in which Mr. Brezhnev expressed terrible concern at the way the arms race is taking place and stressed very strongly that the Soviet Union is not seeking superiority and that we must all sit down together to stop this absolute madness of an arms race—to be a very import step forward?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is not a question of an arms race. These aircraft already exist. They enable the Alliance as a whole to strengthen its deterrent strategy.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, while appreciating fully that it is vital that we should have these American refuelling aircraft in this country, may I ask the Minister whether he would consider the possibility in the near future of a debate in this House as to where the tankers are to go?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is not for me to answer; it is a question for the usual channels.
Lord MILFORD: My Lords, may I ask the Minister my second supplementary question. Are the Government aware that a very Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly is starting today which illustrates world despair over the armaments situation? May I also ask the Minister whether or not what I have read is true; namely, that Britain is taking a lead in putting forward new proposals? If our proposals are accepted, will Her Majesty's Government fight in every way possible for them to be carried out?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the residents of Fairford and many other villages are acutely interested in this subject, for different reasons? May I ask the noble Lord whether or not he agrees that, if the aircraft in question could be re-engined, a great deal would be done to improve international relations as well as the environment?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is a fascinating question. However, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has made an estimate of what it would cost to re-engine these aircraft?

INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Industrial Democracy, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
EXPORT GUARANTEES AND OVERSEAS INVESTMENT BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
OATHS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WALES BILL
2.50 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint your Lordships that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Since the beginning of March the House has laboured conscientiously and at length in discussing the Government's proposals for devolution in Scotland. Our debates on Scotland will be resumed during the Report stage after the blessed interval of the Whitsun Recess. Today we turn our attention to the companion devolution Bill for Wales. I confess readily that I myself will feel more at home in discussing its implications for West Glamorgan than for West Lothian, or for Llanelli than "Llanark". The paucity of the Welsh Members in the House for the purposes of the consideration of the Wales Bill in contrast with the serried ranks from Scotland who spoke on the Scotland Bill will no doubt be balanced by the hwyl and eloquence of the chosen few from Wales.
Although the Scotland and Wales Bills are different—significantly so in some respects—they have been framed on the basis of the same underlying principle. This principle is crucial and it cannot too often be underlined. It is that devolution, while bringing decision-making closer to the people most affected by those decisions, must not involve any loss to the political and economic unity

829
of the United Kingdom. Those who live in the United Kingdom have an immense bond of friendship, of shared history and, indeed, of shared sacrifice in war and peace. Working in union over the years, they have achieved far more together than they could have done separately. They have a deep sense of allegiance to the United Kingdom as a whole. It is our belief that devolution will strengthen the United Kingdom by recognising the need to give the people of Wales and Scotland a proper and more direct responsibility in meeting their own particular needs.
In recent years, the distinctive traditions and needs of Wales and a desire for greater participation in public responsibility there have increasingly led to a growing wish for special governmental arrangements for and in Wales. This has been met by the establishment by successive Governments of bodies to deal with various Welsh matters and problems, and by the establishment in 1964 of the Welsh Office itself. Since then, the Welsh Office has assumed responsibility for a large range of matters including housing, local government, health, personal social services, education and, most recently, agricultural policy. However, this process of administrative decentralisation, important as it has been, has been accompanied by a growing desire for closer democratic control and accountability in Wales. We believe that this can best be achieved by a democratically elected body directly answerable to the people of Wales.
Of course, Wales and Scotland have different histories, traditions, problems and aspirations. Wales was politically united with England by the Welsh Tudors long before the Act of Union with Scotland. Wales has been, and remains, more closely associated with England legally and administratively, historically and geo-graphically, than Scotland. This is basically why the proposals in the Wales Bill are different from those in the Scotland Bill. While the main areas of devolved activity are the same in the case of Scotland and Wales (with the notable exception of law and the legal system) the critical difference is that in Scotland the Assembly will have legislative competence. The case for this rests partly on the existence of Scottish law and a separate legal system, and also on a long tradition
830
of distinctive Scottish legislation in other matters. Wales does not have a separate legal tradition and system, although it did have nine centuries ago in the glorious days of the great law maker Howell Dda, which, for the benefit of the uninformed, means Howell the Good. That may, however, have been known to most noble Lords already.
The Government's consultations have suggested, as did the Kilbrandon Report, that, whereas public opinion in Scotland favoured a legislative assembly, the aspirations in Wales were different. There, the desire is for greater democratic control over central Government activities in Wales—in other words, executive but not legislative devolution.
We came to this conclusion ourselves, but not without considerable discussion and consultation. This started in 1973 with the report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution, which had itself engaged in a great deal of consultation. It continued with several White Papers and Discussion Documents, leading in the last Session to the Scotland and Wales Bill and in this Session to the two separate Bills currently before the House. We have not been inflexible. We have listened to and taken account of the views which have come to us. And where it seemed right to do so, we have made changes in our proposals to meet those views.
I would suggest, even to those who might be firmly opposed to our proposals and indeed to any concept of devolution—and of course I appreciate a difference of view about this—that they cannot escape from the fact that the possibility of devolution is now firmly before the Welsh people. There is also now a clear expectation that their views will be able to be expressed in a referendum. That possibility, that expectation, cannot now be rightly denied.
I turn now to the Bill itself. In view of the list of noble Lords who have indicated a wish to speak in the debate, I shall not seek to describe its provisions in detail, but I should like to draw attention to certain of the major provisions and to the points where the Bill differs substantially from the Scotland Bill. It may well be that in subsequent debates your Lordships will wish to concentrate on those points of difference. There is a

831
good deal of provision in the early part of the Bill corresponding to that in the Scotland Bill, when we come to consider it.
My Lords, the Bill provides for a directly-elected Assembly in Wales with functions currently exercised as regards Wales by Ministers of the Crown. Arrangements for elections to the Assembly and qualification for membership are set out in the Bill. Unlike the proposals for Scotland, however, the Bill confers, as I have indicated, executive functions directly on the Assembly itself. This is an arrangement more appropriate for a body which is to exercise executive but not legislative functions, and follows a pattern suggested by the Royal Commission in their report. There will be subject committees covering the Assembly's functions and reflecting the political balance in the Assembly. They will be democratic committees. The Assembly will be able to delegate functions to these committees and the committees in turn will be able to delegate to their leaders. The most important of the committees will be the Executive Committee, the composition of which is set out in Clause 18. It will include the leaders of the subject committees. The Bill places certain essential responsibility on that Executive Committee. Over and above these arrangements, it will be for the Assembly itself to decide what rôle the committee should adopt and how this might be developed.
The precise arrangements for carrying out the devolved functions are for the Assembly itself to decide. The Bill simply provides the framework. This is a principle that arises at several points in the Bill. What we have tried to do is to strike a balance by which the minimum requirements to establish the structure and essential roles are set out in the Bill, but the Assembly is left free to construct its own working arrangements on the basis of those minimum requirements.
The Assembly will exercise its powers over a wide, but precisely defined, field. The powers to be devolved are in the fields of primary concern to the Welsh people, such as health, personal social services, education, cultural matters, physical planning and the environment, roads and transport. In these and other
832
fields the Assembly will take over the powers of the Secretary of State for Wales and other Ministers. The principle has been to devolve those functions which are domestic to Wales and on which decisions can be taken by the Welsh Assembly without detriment, damage or disturbance to the United Kingdom as a whole. Nevertheless, the Bill confers effective responsibility on the Assembly over a range of important powers
Parliament will, of course, continue to be responsible for primary legislation in devolved and other fields. But so far as secondary legislation and executive action are concerned, it is necessary to strike a balance between the functions which are to be the responsibility of the Assembly and those which will continue to be the responsibility of Ministers. Our proposals, therefore, include the essential reservation of those functions where there is an overriding United Kingdom interest. Ministers will, accordingly, retain direct control over such matters as the conduct of international relations (including our developing partnership in the European Community); policies for national security and the management of the economy; energy, employment, regional policy and our system of social security. As an example of a field where devolution must be accompanied by a system of control, the industrial functions of the Welsh Development Agency will be carried out under guidelines to be laid down by the Secretary of State. There need therefore be no fear that the devolution of certain powers to Wales must necessarily be at the expense of another part of the United Kingdom. We are legislating for a considerable increase in decision-making in Wales, but in respect of those matters which are essentially domestic to Wales. The proposals in the Bill—and I here return to what I call the arch-essential underlying principle—will not act to the detriment of the political and economic unity of the United Kingdom.
I turn briefly to the provisions in the Bill dealing with executive competence. Because the Scottish Assembly is to be provided with legislative competence, it is possible to describe the fields of devolved activity in plain words as in Part 1 of Schedule 10 to the Scotland Bill (although it should be noted that in Part 3 of that Schedule it has been necessary to define

833
borderline cases with some precision by listing the appropriate enactments). In Wales, where executive competence only is involved, it has been necessary to single out in each particular case the ministerial functions which are to be devolved, and this is done by listing the appropriate enactments which confer powers and duties, and that is set out in the lengthy—and, I must say, on the face of it alarming—Schedule 2 to the Bill. This, I fear, is inevitably a complicated process—individual Acts of Parliament may embrace a wide variety of topics within a single and simple title; and reservations are needed to cover powers which cohere with those which are not to be devolved rather than those which are.
Many functions, I need not emphasise, cannot be devolved in toto; for instance, within education, teachers' pay will continue to be fixed on an England and Wales basis to preserve mobility within the profession, and the University of Wales (as indeed was the case with the Scottish universities) is not to be devolved, because we believe it is better dealt with as part of the wider United Kingdom university system. The first column in Schedule 2 specifies devolved functions; the second column then specifies exceptions from the functions as identified in the first column. Although Clause 10 and Schedule 2 deal with most of the functions, other functions which it is desired to devolve are covered at present by pre-rogative powers. These are dealt with in Clauses 11 and 12; and Clause 12 is designed to give the Assembly a specific task to review local government.
I readily concede that the provisions in the Bill will provide scope for conflict. So there was when county councils were set up. But experience has shown that, with goodwill and willingness to make the new arrangements work, the difficulties can be resolved. I concede that the partnership between Westminster and the Welsh Assembly must be based on consultation and co-operation if it is to work satisfactorily. However carefully the lines are drawn between devolved and non-devolved functions, there could occasionally be circumstances in which the legally proper exercise of functions by the Assembly could have unacceptable repercussions on matters which remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government.
834
In those cases the Government must retain the power to intervene in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole. But the power to intervene will be available only where the activities of the Assembly would adversely affect reserved matters; that is to say, those matters, such as the management of the economy, for which the Government maintain direct responsibility throughout the United Kingdom. This accounts for the overriding provisions in Clauses 34 and 35 of the Bill setting out the powers of the Secretary of State to prevent or require action which would or might affect a reserved matter and to revoke subordinate instruments of the Assembly affecting a reserved matter. Those provisions require such an override direction by the Secretary of State to be subject to the appropriate resolution procedure in both Houses, but in addition they provide that the House of Commons can confirm a resolution which this House has rejected or failed to pass. The details of those arrangements are set out in Clause 71 of the Bill, and a similar provision was included in the Scotland Bill.
My Lords, it may be helpful for me to indicate now that the Government accept that this House has already decided, in a Division on the Scotland Bill, that the arrangements proposed in Clause 71 of the Wales Bill are not acceptable to your Lordships. The House decided that that Bill should be returned to another place without the procedure proposed. The Government will be ready to accept that same outcome, so far as this House is concerned, if similar amendments are, in due course, advanced to the Wales Bill.
I have already made clear that the conduct of international relations is to be reserved, but the implementation of international obligations in so far as they relate to devolved functions is to be the responsibility of the Assembly. However, as in the Scotland Bill, the Government will retain concurrent powers themselves to implement any obligation if this appears desirable or necessary. In other words, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that our international obligations are discharged is retained by Ministers at Westminster, as are the powers necessary to ensure implementation, but the Welsh Assembly can nevertheless itself act to secure implementation in the matters for which it is responsible.

835
Clause 12 of the Bill specifically charges the Assembly with reviewing the structure of local government in Wales. As your Lordships may know, there is considerable and widespread unease about the way in which local government reorganisation has affected Wales. This is not the time to describe the concerns which have developed, but there is little doubt about their existence or strength. It is I believe appropriate that when the Assembly is established, one of its early tasks should be to review the matter. It will, after all, have to work very closely with local authorities in Wales because it will be taking over central Government responsibility in many fields in which local authorities are also closely involved—for example, housing and education. But I should stress that the Assembly itself will have no power to reorganise local government; its remit is solely to report its conclusions to the Secretary of State. Any changes in the present system would require primary legislation and as such, of course, will be for Parliament itself to decide.
One area in which the Wales Bill is almost identical to the Scotland Bill is that of finance. Briefly, the approach we have adopted is that the Government and another place should decide what aggregate financial resources should be made available for the devolved services collectively, but the Assembly should decide how that total should be divided up between the different devolved services. We believe that only the Government and the House of Commons can properly decide how the financial resources of the United Kingdom should be shared between the different parts of the United Kingdom, and that this must be done on the basis of relative needs, which only the central Administration is in a position to assess, following consultation with the devolved Administration.
To use the language of the Kilbrandon Commission, we have chosen to adopt an expenditure based system and not a revenue based system, under which the resources accruing to each part of the United Kingdom would depend on its own revenue raising capacity. We have done this advisedly because we see the effects of the expenditure basis—that is, based on relative need—as unifying, whereas those of the revenue basis would
836
be divisive. We have repeatedly made clear that we are not opposed in principle to granting to the devolved Administration independent powers to raise supplementary revenue to meet particular spending objectives which may not be catered for by the block fund. But, for reasons which the Government have made clear on a number of occasions, it has not been found practicable to include supplementary taxation powers in the present Bill.
A good deal of time has been rightly spent in our discussion on the Scotland Bill on pre-Assent challenge to the vires of Assembly Bills and post-Assent legal proceedings involving devolution issues. These problems, of course, do not arise in Wales, so we cannot look forward to a repeat performance of the remarkable differences expressed by noble and learned Lords of the Appellate Committee upon this matter. As the Assembly is to have no legislative competence, it was unnecessary to describe its functions in broad general terms as had to be done for Scotland. A question of whether a particular function is or is not exercisable by the Assembly can, therefore, arise but rarely. The legality of the exercise of the powers of a Minister is, of course, open to challenge in the ordinary way in the courts by an aggrieved citizen. The same will apply precisely when these same powers are exercised by the Assembly. Clause 70 will not affect the citizens' rights. Its object is to establish beyond doubt that the Attorney-General will be able to bring proceedings to protect the public at large from acts of the Assembly which are not within its powers. Clause 70 provides specifically that the Attorney-General can institute an action.
Finally, my Lords, I wish to say a few words about the referendum, which is another area in which our proposals for Wales and for Scotland are now identical. The evidence of our extensive consultations demonstrates that the Welsh people want a greater voice in the government of their own affairs, and that we believe a democratically-elected Assembly can best provide. They want greater control, in this way, over the decisions that are taken on matters involving distinctive Welsh interests and circumstances. But it is equally clear that they, like the Scots, I believe, overwhelminglyrejectindependence

837
and separation. However, the Government fully accept that, before we embark upon a constitutional change of such significance as is proposed, it is important and right that the Government's beliefs should be tested. In order, therefore, to be sure that our proposals do command popular support a referendum will be held in Wales. We believe that it is right to let the people of Wales express their views on the proposals. It must be evident that there is no question of the Assembly being imposed against the wishes of the Welsh people, and that certainly is not the Government's intention.
I have outlined the major provisions of the Bill and indicated the more significant ways in which they part from the Scottish proposals. We believe that our proposals represent a satisfactory and workable system for political devolution to Wales within the continuing political and economic unity of the United Kingdom. The people of Wales, as I have ventured to say, want greater participation in their own affairs and more direct accountability, but not separation. They now expect the opportunity of making known their own views directly to Parliament. I believe that if Parliament were to deny these legitimate and reasonable expectations by rejecting this Bill, we run the risk of fuelling a campaign which, on a false prospectus, has the declared aim of breaking up the United Kingdom. What is more, I believe that it would now damage Parliament itself.
Our proposals offer the Welsh people greater democratic control over those matters that directly concern them and greater participation in government within the continuing framework of the United Kingdom. The important constitutional reform that the Bill proposes will, I believe, by allowing more scope for the expression of national diversity, strengthen the union, not weaken it. The next step is to give the Bill a Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.19 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I think that the House is fortunate to have a Lord Chancellor of such astonishing
838
stamina and charm that with so much pleasant persuasion he can introduce this Bill when he is already so fully extended with the Scotland Bill. As I think he is the only Member in the front runners in the debates that are to follow who will be fully committed to both at the same time; I should like to state my admiration in advance for what I know is his capacity in running them both together.
It is perhaps fitting that we should be debating this Bill so soon after hearing the words in the Prayers referring to the:
"…uniting and knitting together of the people of this realm".
That is a question which will have to remain closely within our purview throughout. Of course Her Majesty's Government are in a strange position on this Bill. They have ignored the advice of my honourable and right honourable friends in another place, just as Mrs. Worthington was deaf to the advice of Noël Coward. The noble and learned Lord will remember the song, "Don't put your daughter on the stage, Mrs. Worthington ". But here he is for the Government standing before us with his ill-favoured protégée as if it were a beautiful and accomplished actress at the final audition before some grand opening—the opening of the great referendum season playing to packed, if rather horrified houses all the way from Anglesey to Gwent. In fact, of course, what is wanted is not an audition so much as a consultation. Whether even surgery—both plastic and drastic—can save the career of this sorry little starlet remains to be seen. For myself, I doubt it; but on that we shall have more to say later.
First, let us look at this less than acceptable document to see what it actually is. This Bill is a draft Act of Parliament and one might, therefore, suppose that it had been produced by some Parliamentary process; that it was the product in toto of the House of Commons. But, of course, for the most part it is not. The Government, by a three-line Whip, carried a timetable Motion putting a gag on the Commons for a great part of the Bill's process. The Bill has 83 clauses, but only 16 have had any debate at all so far in another place. After the clauses are printed 12 Schedules, only two of which have so far been debated in another place. No

839
fewer than 67 clauses and 10 Schedules are the product, not of Parliament, but of the Civil Service and Government Ministries as yet unchallenged by Parliamentary discussion of Amendments.
A very large and important part of this Bill to reform the government of Wales is untouched by any elected representative of the people, least of all by the elected representatives of the Welsh people whom it so closely touches. In going through the Bill in the Committee stage we must, therefore, remember that we are the first House of Parliament to do so and we must recall also that we—and only we—can make it possible for the elected Members of another place ever to discuss any of it in detail from now on. Once it has left another place the rules of Parliament, as your Lordships well know, allow discussion in another place only of those parts that we send back to it altered by Amendments.
Being aware of this, Her Majesty's Government must recognise and accept that Amendments will have to be pressed, not out of hostility or Party spite, but in order to enable the elected House of Parliament to do the job it was elected to do. I hope that they will also agree that it is fair for me to say that, although we shall do all that we can reasonably be expected to do to keep up with the timetable they propose, we should be failing in our duty, not as a Party but as a House of Parliament, if we did not give very thorough attention especially to those parts of the Bill which have not yet been scrutinised. After all, under our Constitution, law is not made by a Government acting in isolation; though it is a very sinister threat to our Constitution that so often Governments behave as if it was. Law is made, and ought to be made, by each House of Parliament acting in agreement with the Crown. On this occasion, if our House does not act, the other House will have precious little say in the matter. That then is the task that we have to carry out starting on 6th June.
Let us look, first, at the avowed purpose of the Bill and then at the means by which it chooses to achieve that purpose, and its chances of doing so. Throughout the whole of this process let us remember the two overriding considerations of
840
the preservation of natural justice within the Principality and the Kingdom, and the preservation of the unity of the Kingdom itself. These are standards which I devoutly trust are common to all Members of this House. The avowed aim of this Bill is to bring control of the government of Wales more closely into the hands of the Welsh nation, and in this we have no quarrel with the Government whatever. We are absolutely at one with them. We believe in a louder and more effective Welsh voice in deciding how Wales should be run. That is an important point, of course, of agreement; we are agreed where we want to go, but, alas! we are not agreed about how to get there.
The Welsh want a bigger say in the government of their Principality because they are concerned about the state of the economy and particularly unemployment in the Principality, and because they are a distinct and separate nation with a distinct, separate, proud and very long national tradition—some would say a good deal longer than that of the rest of the United Kingdom, for Welsh was spoken in these Islands long before the English tongue existed. But this Bill will do nothing that cannot already be done to encourage the use of language or bolster tradition, and it will do nothing whatever to reduce unemployment. Truly, the Welsh have asked for bread and the Government have given them a stone.
How have they set about it? They have set about it in a remarkably costly and inefficient way. The initial bill for implementing this peice of legislation is to be £6·6 million according to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum at the front of the Bill, and the running costs on top of that will be £12·5 million a year. As I understand it, that corresponds to approximately £9·50 per adult head of population in Wales in the first year and £6·25 every year thereafter, whether or not this budget is subsequently exceeded. It also requires the employment of 1,150 extra civil servants. If there is no compensating reduction for these jobs in England, this is manifestly—whatever we are told elsewhere to the contrary—the construction of a new and expensive tier of Government. On the other hand, if there is a reduction, these resources are simply being transferred from England to Wales. I really cannot

841
believe that the Welsh will cheer aloud at this great crowd of earnest officials, this great rustling heap of paper, and above all this spectacular charge of £12·5 million to be added to the burdens which they already carry.
What, I wonder, will the sacked English civil servants have to say on the matter? Will they just waste naturally, as so many steelworkers are expected to do, or will they follow their jobs to Wales? I see that £1¼ million is allowed for the transfer of staff to Cardiff. Maybe that is what it is. If so, will the Welsh be so delighted to receive into their midst a lot of English civil servants? Is that the sum total of administrative devolution?—that they shall he administered by the same Englishmen but from Cardiff rather than from Westminster. The Bill is full of such anomalies—privileges for which the Welsh will have to pay if they accept this Act, if it does become an Act.
It is likely that democratic injustice will be involved, and this I think will become clearer as I work through my theme. After all, there is a likely preponderance—I would say an inevitable preponderance—of nearly two-to-one of urban and industrial constituencies to rural and agricultural constituencies, and I presume, that also applies in their representation. This of course is a fact of life, though it may be aided by artifice. But up till now there has been the moderating influence of the Secretary of State, without which, frankly, the Welsh farmers and many of my noble friends would be alarmed.
I shall illustrate in a moment how the structure laid down in the Bill for the Assembly, together with the powers which it is proposed to give it, combine to make this a very real and rational fear. But, first, may I say that if Her Majesty's Government are going to argue that the Secretary of State will still stand continually in judgment upon every decision of the Welsh Assembly, like some archetypal nanny running a playgroup, then there is no real devolution at all. What is more, he will be building such a pressure of frustration and hostility towards himself as can only do irreparable damage to relations between Cardiff and Westminster.
It is at such unsuspected points that the Bill begins to drip its corrosive drops on the
842
fabric of the Union. Indeed, I wonder at times, as I get deeper into the text of the Bill, whether the advisers to the Government have not been the small extreme group of Welsh separatists, the very people, I understand, whom this Bill was designed to buy off. It seems to have in it a powerful engine with which to advance their cause. If it is to be a means to put Wales at a distance from England, instead of bringing the Welsh people closer to their own government, then it offends both my own loyalties and I believe those of most of my Welsh fellow subjects. Indeed, there is an equal and opposite danger; that is, the danger of making the Assembly so powerful in restricted areas as to make it unsuitable to exercise its authority unsupervised. This Government, who have always surprised me with their agility, seem to me to be about to perform the incredible feat of falling into both traps at once.
The organisation of the Welsh Assembly has within it, as it is set out in the Bill, dangers not already properly grasped. It is to be organised on a committee structure, as the noble and learned Lord from the Woolsack said, with a number of committees which would be democratic, in that they reflected as closely as possible the political affiliations of the main Assembly. So far so good. But the Executive Committee—which I hope your Lordships did not take to be covered by the noble and learned Lord's reassurance of the democratic principle, because it is not—is to be comprised chiefly of the chairmen of the subject committees, and the majority of the subject committees will, of course, appoint the chairmen. Therefore, the urban and industrial interest, which I referred to earlier as being seen as a threat to the Welsh rural interest, will predominate. It will not merely have charge of the business of the democratic committees, as they have been called, but also it will comprise the hard core of the Executive Committee where all the real decisions are made. Although the Bill permits other Members to be added to this caucus, it does not require them to be so, nor does it require them to deliberate before the media. There is therefore an open invitation, which it would be very difficult to resist, for a Party caucus to conduct its business in confidence behind closed doors.

843
I wish to make it absolutely clear at this stage—and I do not wish ever to be accused of not having done so—that I impute to Welsh people or to Welsh local government no more and no less human frailty than to English or to Swedes or to Scots or anybody you care to name. But the fact is that where you have one-Party Government, particularly at the local level, particularly when it is enabled to conduct its business in private, and particularly when there is no introduction of people of an opposite political colour into the Chamber where the real decisions are made, there is a very great temptation for corruption, and very often it takes place. We are not here to legislate for saints, nor are we here to legislate for best cases; we are here to legislate for human beings and against worst cases. This is something we must bear in mind when we come to that part of the Bill.
It would, I suppose, be natural to have at this stage a discursus upon the financing of this Bill but this is ground which has been covered to some extent in the Scotland Bill. Not only that, but I feel that the niceties of the situation are better thrashed out in Committee, though I will say this: it is necessary to be aware that what is proposed is that the Welsh Assembly shall receive large sums of money, which it has not raised, and for increasing which it will not receive the odium if it requires more, and shall distribute them to client local authorities. It will be open to them—in fact, I dare say that it will be necessary—to give more in proportion to one of their clients than to another. This will of course make for political stress and will also enable an authority to be starved so that some favoured project must either be abandoned or a separate rate raised for it. To that extent, therefore, the Assembly has a rate-raising power in the Bill.
However, what should principally catch our eye is the fact that this body will now stand square across the road to Westminster along which the negotiations with central Government were made by the local authorities in Wales before the Bill. If that is not a way of making government more distant from the Welsh people, and if that is not a ludicrous obstacle to find when you are trying to make people feel that they are closer to Government, I do not know what is.
844
Maybe there is a way round it; we shall look for it. The excuse which will of course be given to every disappointed client authority will be that the English were too mean. It is a divisive provision, and I think in the light of various considerations, that, rather than saying that the Welsh had asked for bread and been given a stone, I should have said that they had asked for an egg and being offered a scorpion.
I am not encouraged under these circumstances—in fact, I should frankly be discouraged under any circumstances—to learn that the Welsh Assembly is to decide how large a staff it will employ. I should be disconcerted under any circumstances to find that, apparently, the Auditor and Comptroller General, who is to inspect the Assembly's books, annotate its balance sheets and supervise its finances, can actually be sacked at the Assembly's request. I am sure there must be countervailing provisions about this, and I look forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord's explanation of them. What I find very hard to swallow is that the Assembly can in fact itself write the cheque for its own salaries. Not only that, but I see that the Members can also, after perhaps a minimal tenure of office and possibly even upon vacating it at the request of the electorate, vote themselves a comfortable pension as well. When they expose themselves to the risk of being voted out of office is another matter of some interest as there is no provision for dissolution except by passage of time.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, has the noble Lord—
Lord ELTON: I wonder whether we are wise to get ourselves into exchanges in the Second Reading. I am sure I shall make the noble Lord more excited in a minute or two. Perhaps he will bound forth when I have said what I have to say next. If I may revert to the anxiety of the Welsh farmers, may I say that it is not a special case, it is a convenient case typical of the position of many. As I read the Bill, there is a thoroughly bad principle running through it. By very many channels through the clauses and Schedules there are transferred to the Assembly the duties of hearing appeals and deciding upon them. The

845
noble and learned Lord may put me right on this hut, as I see it, this is what happens. May I give an abbreviated example.

Under the Bill, the Welsh Commission inherits the duties and powers of the Countryside Commission and the Welsh Assembly is empowered to give to that Commission general but binding directives. These may well require them to purchase land compulsorily—agricultural land—and that is nowhere in the Bill defined. The appeals procedure is set out in the Countryside Act 1968 and the appeal was formerly to the Minister, but now, as I read the Bill, through the operation of Clause 9 and Schedule 2, it would appear to be the Assembly that discharges this function.
The Assembly can and will delegate its functions under the Bill to the committees, including the Executive Committee, the character of which we have already discussed, and can in fact delegate its functions to one man. What is worrying people is where the appeal is to lie and by whom it is to be heard. Will it be a committee which reflects the political colour of the Principality or will it be a committee which reflects the political colour of the caucus, which will be necessarily an urban bias. As I say, this runs right through a lot of considerations—education, health, planning and many others. The function of devolution ought to draw the administrative and judicial apart. What it does here apparently is to make them converge. A decision in justice ought to be made by somebody without an interest. It should not be brought as close as it is apparently under this Bill, so that it may acquire a local colour in the justice itself.
To the same Assembly will be given in Clause 12, as the noble and learned Lord has already said, the option, in fact the task, of reviewing local government and suggesting reorganisation. I think it is naive to suggest that this effort would be gone into without those suggestions being considered and acted upon, and there is widespread alarm among many that yet another reorganisation of local authorities should be following so soon upon the last. In the light of the advice which I understand is circulating in advance of the formation of the Assembly, I think it likely that many people in the district councils will expect the county councils
846
to be abolished. I think that they will then find that the process continues because a power-holding body is something like a sponge. It tends to draw power up into it, and other functions will be devolved upwards as well.
So far, I have said nothing in the debate on this Bill about an important consideration. I am happy that I have not, because the noble Lord anticipated me with the welcome announcement of the Government's position on Clause 71. That has saved your Lordships from four or five minutes of diatribe from me, and may have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, to remain in his seat after all.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: That is not very likely.
Lord ELTON: I have left many other matters untouched: the shape of Westminster legislation after devolution; the appointments to, and financing of, public, statutory and appointed bodies; the effects in this respect of Clause 60, which allows the Assembly to gobble up that enormous, elaborate and powerful organisation that we recently spent so long creating—the Welsh Development Agency. I shall not go into what I suppose will have to be renamed the Carmarthen question, or whatever, from the West Lothian question.
This Bill creates an Assembly ill-suited to express the aspirations, or direct the affairs, of a proud, loyal and talented nation, and places it at the head of a vast throng of superfluous civil servants squarely in the road by which local authorities have hitherto communicated directly with national Government. It encourages them to be in conflict with Westminster over resources and policy. It gives them vast sums to spend which they have not raised, and puts before them numerous temptations which I do not think mortal men will for long resist. This body will be entrusted with apportioning virtually the whole revenue of local authorities and with hearing appeals from their neighbours against the effects of policies they have themselves instituted. It is instructed to investigate local government and to suggest changes in it. The only check upon its proceedings will, in normal circumstances, be supplied by the Minister whose power it is supposed to be exercising.

847
I have not dwelt upon the truly hideous complexity of the inter-relationships of clauses and Schedules. Indeed, when a Lord Chancellor describes a Schedule as "complicated", as we heard this afternoon, mere mortals such as we quake at the thought of unravelling their complexities. I think I have said enough to convince your Lordships at this stage that I believe this to be a very bad Bill indeed. It is a tragedy that it should be chosen as a means of achieving a desirable purpose. I referred earlier to the Bill as being a hapless child. The Lord Chancellor has been standing in relation to it as Mrs. Worthington. I called it his squinting protégée. I did not do it justice. I apologise. It is not only squint-eyed, it is also knock-kneed, pigeon-toed and hollow-chested.
However, this is a consultation, not an audition. It is our job to try to make the Bill presentable. We shall do what we can, but we cannot achieve miracles. Nor, my Lords, shall we any longer try to stop Mrs. Worthington putting her daughter on the stage. The audience has already booked its seats and has a right to see the performance. However, there is a limit to what surgery can accomplish. If she is booed and hissed off the stage, that is no worse than she deserves for producing this tortuous and doubtful thing, and presenting it as if it were a fitting reward for the aspirations of a great and good people who inhabited these Islands before we did.
Finally, I am no Welsh speaker, but the first Amendment that we must surely draft into the Bill is to the appendix to Schedule 12. This prints the form of ballot paper to be used in the referendum. There may be a reason—I do not know what it is—but incredibly it does not have a single word of the Welsh language upon it when it asks the question "Do you want devolution to Wales?" So much for the sensitivity of this Government. Many of their supporters do not speak Welsh, either. Let me enlighten them as to two phrases they may quite soon and quite often be hearing: "Ewch i ffwrdd; dim cynulliad i Gymru". In case the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, is not at hand to perform the offices of translation for them, I shall tell them that they mean, "Go away, no Assembly for Wales".

INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY
3.45 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the White Paper on Industrial Democracy to be presented to Parliament this afternoon. Copies of the White Paper are in the Vote Office.
"The Government have now completed wide-ranging consultations on the report of Lord Bullock's Committee of Inquiry. It has not been possible to reach agreement between those principally concerned and the Government accordingly submit their own proposals.
"The basis of the White Paper is that employees at every level in companies and nationalised industries, like their counterparts in some other advanced industrial countries, should have a real share in the decisions within their enterprise which affect their working lives. The objective is positive partnership rather than defensive co-existence. This shared responsibility should bring improved industrial relations and increase the efficiency of British industry.
"The Government's intention is that this objective should be secured, wherever possible, by voluntary agreement between employers and representatives of employees. It is not the purpose to impose a standard pattern of participation on industry by law. Employers and employees will be encouraged to devise arrangements best suited to their own circumstances.
"But, where agreement proves impossible, employees will be able to claim certain statutory rights and the Government will introduce legislation to that end.
"The White Paper proposes that employees in companies employing 500 or more people in the United Kingdom should have a statutory right to have all major proposals of the company affecting them discussed with their representatives before decisions are

849
taken. These discussions would include such matters as investment plans, mergers, take-overs, expansion or contraction of establishments and major organisational changes. This right should be vested in a joint representation committee. The committee would be composed of representatives of trade unions who are employees of the company and discussions will take place with this committee.
"The Government's consultations show that in some cases arrangements on these lines will be as far as employees will wish to go in taking part in the affairs of the enterprise.
"But in many cases there will be a wish to go further and for representatives of employees to be appointed to company hoards. If this cannot be achieved by voluntary agreement, the Government propose that employees in companies employing 2,000 or more people in the United Kingdom should be able, if they wish, to claim a statutory right to appoint, as a reasonable first step, up to one-third of the directors on the policy board of a new two-tier board structure. This right would be initiated by a request to the company from the joint representation committee and would be invoked after a ballot of all the company's employees to decide whether they wanted to be represented on the policy hoard.
"Company law would be amended to provide for the option of a two-tier board system where the company prefers. Where there is agreement, the right to board representation can be on the existing unitary boards. The White Paper proposes that there should be a period of three or four years' experience from the date of establishment of the joint representation committee before this statutory right comes into operation. The introduction of industrial democracy will be a developing process and the Government do not exclude parity of representation as an ultimate outcome.
"The Government are convinced that trade unionists have an essential rôle to play in industrial democracy. But the White Paper recognises that the responsibilities to be given to trade unions for the appointment of employee representatives on the boards
850
will need further discussion. The Government will reach a decision on this matter after further consultations.
"The Government will continue to encourage the development of industrial democracy at all levels in the nationalised industries. Chairmen of nationalised industries have been asked to consult with unions and put forward proposals by August 1978. When legislation is introduced, it will give employees in nationalised industries the right to representation on boards, where it is desired.
"In the public service, accountability of Ministers to Parliament and Parliament to the electorate must not be eroded. Similar considerations apply in local government. But, subject to this principle, and the need to safeguard the interests of the community as a whole, the Government want employees and their representatives in the public services to be given all possible opportunities to contribute their views on matters affecting their legitimate interests.
"The Bullock Committee proposed the establishment of an Industrial Democracy Commission to provide advice on the implementation of industrial democracy. The Government are disposed to accept this recommendation but are ready to consult further about it.
"The direct involvement in overall company policies will require employee representatives to have a knowledge of business finance, management and other subjects. Training for board members in these matters will be essential. No doubt much will be undertaken within the organisation itself, but it is also proposed that training should take place in residential or non-residential colleges and other institutions. Public finance will be needed to assist this.
"The Government believe that these proposals will enable employees and managements to achieve real co-operation by sharing responsibility for the future prosperity of the companies in which they work. Both our economy and our democracy can benefit greatly. The Government will continue to consult widely so as to achieve the greatest

851
possible agreement on the legislation that will be laid before the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.51 p.m.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. We shall of course need to study the White Paper, and in due course probably to debate it. May I straight away say that we welcome the last words of the Statement about the need for, and the possibility of, much further and wider consultation, because I am sure that that, to put it mildly, will be very much needed. We on this side of the House want all employees to have a growing opportunity to participate in the affairs of the enterprises in which they work. We believe that the development of employee participation will indeed play a critical rôle in the future development of British industry. We agree with the Prime Minister that the objective is partnership, but we ask ourselves whether these proposals will achieve partnership, and I am afraid that our answer is that we are extremely doubtful whether they will. These proposals certainly back down from some of the worst of the proposals of the majority of the Bullock Committee. For example, they provide more room for a voluntary and gradual approach, but they still seem to us on first sight to be far more concerned with extending trade union power than with extending real democracy among employees.
I should like, if I may, to put just three points to the noble Lord. First, are the Government aware that, in our view, participation must be available equally to all employees? We agree with the Prime Minister that trade unionists have an essential rôle to play—an essential rôle, but on no account a monopoly rôle. We regard it as wholly unacceptable that membership of the joint representation committees should be open only to nominees of unions approved by the TUC. They should have a major rôle in them, but not a monopoly rôle. We cannot have first- and second-class citizens among our employees.
852
Secondly, within this general point, are the Government aware that employees who have special responsibilities of the junior and middle as well as the senior levels of management ought to have a clearly defined place in the machinery of participation as they have, for example, in the West German system? So far as I can understand, they are not being given such a place in the proposals as they stand at the moment. Thirdly, may I ask the Government whether they would reflect again about the wisdom of beginning this process by bringing in firms down to the size of as few as 500 employees. This will ensnare very large numbers of firms which are pretty small, many of which have good participation arrangements which will have to be scrapped.
Moreover, it certainly raises in much more acute form the basic democratic point that I put a few moments ago, because very large numbers of firms of 500, rightly or wrongly, have only a minority of their employees as members of trade unions. If they are to have joint representation committees which can be comprised only of members of trade unions then they will indeed be representing only a minority of the employees in those firms. These are preliminary reactions, and I can only hope that the Government will give these matters serious consideration.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for reading this Statement and welcome, in the main, the contents of the Statement. After all, over a period of 50 years, this Party has argued in favour of employee participation of this kind, and we have long been committed to the need for a statutory base for the development of employee participation. We particularly welcome the changes that have taken place since the discussions which were held arising out of the Bullock Committee, and the extent to which the Government spokesmen are now apparently moving more in the direction which many of us have advocated for a long time. The much greater degree of flexibility suggested in the Statement is in line with what we have pressed, recognising that no one standard of participation is appropriate to cover the

853
whole range of British industry. This is much to be welcomed.
We also recognise that there is much to be said in appropriate cases for the development of a two-tier system. However, we are glad that it is not suggested that a two-tier system should be imposed on all organisations whether it is appropriate for them and whether they wish it or not. We welcome the reference to the need for training for persons who are to take part at directorial level, at board level, in the discussions and decisions that that the company has to make. It needs to be pointed out that that training will need to be thorough and continuous, and that one short period of training at the outset will not be sufficient but that continuing opportunities for up-dating are going to be required. This will need money, and it is a relief to hear that the Government are prepared to make resources available.
There are aspects of the Statement as read today which still leave us with some concern. We must agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, has said about the need for the representation of all persons in the enterprise and not only the trade unions. Indeed, there seems to be some inconsistency in the Government's own thought on these matters, for they define the need for development in terms of the requirement that employees should have a real share in the decisions within their enterprise which affect their working lives. "Employees" must mean all the people who are employed; it cannot mean a selective group of employees however they choose to be represented. Therefore, we would strongly stress the need to see that the joint representation committee includes on it not only union members.
I believe it is suggested in the White Paper that non-union members may be included if it is agreed by those already on the joint representation committee that such non-union members should be included. I believe this to be a pious hope at the very best. If non-union representatives are to be included, and all employees are to have the democratic rights which the Government themselves say all employees ought to have, then they must have a right to be on the joint representation committee, and not to be
854
admitted only if those already there grant them permission to come in.
Similarly, on the nationalised industries committees, it is surely important to remember that where nationalised industries are also monopolies, or near monopolies, as is frequently the case, it is not only the interests of the employees—certainly not only the interests of trade unionists—which should be represented at the decision-making level. We must repeat, as we have done on so many previous occasions, that in these cases there must be consumer representation as well as employee representation.
4 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I do not detect any major criticism of the proposals—
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord PEART:—and noble Lords should carefully read the White Paper before expressing any bitter partisan approach. I believe this is positive; and, after all, the Conservative Party are also anxious to have better relations and trade union and employee participation, as indeed we see from their published proposals. Ours are much more liberal and radical perhaps, and that is why I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her acceptance of our approach. She argued that we must be careful about trade union power. That was also stressed by Lord Carr. I accept all that; I do not want to create a trade union monopoly. But we must catch up with other countries in Europe, especially in the Community, where worker participation is succeeding and has helped to improve the efficiency of the firms in question. Thus, I do not think there is any dispute between both sides of the House or with the Liberal Party, who broadly have supported our policy.
The Government's approach is to encourage the voluntary development of participation. I would remind Lord Carr that where this fails, employees should have, as we say in the White Paper, two statutory rights: the right to discuss company strategy and the right to appoint worker directors, and for both these

855
rights trade unions and companies should set up joint representation committees. These will discuss common strategy with management and, after being in existence for three or four years, trigger the right to employee representation on the board; so there is a long period of discussion.
That right will be exercised in this way: first, a request by the JRC for a company to organise a ballot of all employees and, if the ballot is affirmative, the appointment of worker directors to up to one-third of the seats on the policy board in a new two-tier board structure. The functions of the policy board are spelt out clearly in the White Paper; I will not weary the House with them because we will return to the subject, and this should be carefully considered. Here is a policy which is based on co-operation and which I believe will enable us to make the advance forward which is so necessary.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, my noble friend seemed to leave one field right open. He said that a great deal of discussion had yet to go on. Do I take it that much of that discussion will be with those trade unions which do not wish to participate in management? As he will be aware, there is a subdivision on this issue within the trade union movement. I take it that where a trade union does not wish to participate in management, there is still room for discussion with them.
Secondly, on the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, am I right in believing that the formula will be that all employees may take part in the ballot but that they will not be permitted to be members of the committee unless they are representatives of trade unions? In other words, this is reverting to the old war period formula of production committees.
Lord PEART: My Lords, all I can say to my noble friend is that we must consider with whom we are negotiating. We will have discussions; primarily, the responsible body to discuss with must obviously be the TUC, and the trade unions are involved there, as indeed we discuss with employers through the CBI. Yes, there will be discussions, and I cannot go beyond that.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's earlier importation of the phrase "bitter partisan" discussion, may I, as one who, if he has been or is bitterly partisan, has only ever been on the side of the Party to which the noble Lord belongs, ask whether he is aware that there is nothing bitterly partisan about arguing that, when it comes to discussion in participation decisions which affect an industry or an enterprise, there is all the difference in the world as against the factors to be taken into account when negotiating wages and conditions of work? Will he therefore please accept that many of us who are not bitterly partisan, as he would put it in that context, believe very strongly that workers, employees, managers, salaried workers or wage earners, whether or not they are members or representatives of trade unions, should be, indeed must be, allowed to take part in any discussions to do with the management and operation of their businesses?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I understand the principles outlined by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, who has been and is a distinguished trade unionist, and I am anxious not to use the word "partisan" in that sense; I was thinking of it more in the political sense, of the House being divided on the matter. But I do not think that will be the case. I believe that when noble Lords and Members of another place have carefully read the White Paper, they will see it as a positive document which has broad liberal views and will be good for our country.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, as a strong supporter of the principle of extending partnership in industry, may I ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that the best way of promoting this practice is to encourage its growth from the grass roots upwards—from the lower levels to the top—rather than by imposing something from the top?
Lord PEART: That is an important point, my Lords, and from my own knowledge of industry I would accept that. On the other hand, one now needs to have something positive to create a framework within which we can have the beginning of a development which will last three to four years in the way I

857
mentioned; it will take some time. We can do it only gradually and we must have co-operation, and that is what we want. Of course we may need to have legislation, but the Government believe that we can make a major advance through co-operation.

WALES BILL
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.7 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, perhaps we may now return to the affairs of Wales, and I wish at the outset to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the comprehensive exposition he gave of the provisions of the Bill. In the absence of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who is abroad, it falls to me, a Scot with an Irish Christian name living in England, to express the Liberal Party's view on the future of Wales.
I am fortified by two things in facing this daunting task; first by the fact that that my noble friend will return in time for the Committee stage, and, secondly, by the thought that devolution, as we said many times during our debates on Scotland, is a matter which concerns the whole of the United Kingdom. That brings me to my first comment. I regret that we are not seeing the Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill as part of the structure of devolution for the whole of the United Kingdom, including England. We on these Benches, as we have emphasised many times, would prefer to see that structure a federal one, with a clear division of powers between each tier of Government.
Two objections to that solution were put forward in the debates on this Bill in another place by the Lord President of the Council. He said that that would involve a Bill of Rights, judicial review and a written Constitution. I would welcome that. I believe we need a new constitutional settlement bringing together all the constitutional reforms on which we are engaged at the present time and those we are discussing, such as devolution, direct elections to the European Parliament, reform of the composition of this House and electoral reform. The second objection, which is not unrelated to the
858
first, is that a federal solution would undermine the doctrine of the sovereignty of this Parliament in Westminster. But with some power going from Westminster to the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, and with some power going to the European Community, that doctrine will be increasingly difficult to maintain in the future in any event.
We on these Benches support the Bill because the Liberal Party, has throughout this century, argued that Wales should have a Parliament to deal with purely Welsh affairs; and we support it because we believe that it is a step on the road to a federal system. During the Second Reading debate in this House on the Scotland Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, chided us for putting forward the agrument that it is a step on the road to a federal system. He maintained that a system which was neither fully unitary, nor fully federal, would break down. However, I do not believe that the system as set out in the Bill before us today will break down. I believe that defects in it will be revealed, once it is in operation, and I believe that those defects will cause further reform of the system, but in a federal direction.
I reject the argument that the Bill will somehow destroy the unity of the United Kingdom, despite all that is said about the West Lothian question—or the West Glamorgan question, as it is more appropriately referred to in the context of this Bill. If the English do not like Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament having a say in matters relating to England—a say which English Members of Parliament will not have in similar matters relating to Scotland and Wales—then the solution is there: let them press for regional government in England. I believe that that is the way that they will go if they feel strongly about it.
I regret that there is in the Bill a lack of legislative power for the Welsh Assembly—that the Welsh Assembly will have no power to pass primarily legislation, as the noble and learned Lord has explained to us, but will have power to pass subordinate legislation. Some of the powers of Ministers under existing Acts of Parliament are devolved to the Welsh Assembly; some of the powers of Ministers under existing Acts of Parliament are reserved.

859
But it is specific powers that are devolved or reserved, and not subjects. This means that every time a Bill applying to Wales comes before Parliament, a decision has to be taken by Parliament as to whether the powers to issue orders under the Act should be devolved or reserved, or part devolved and part reserved. There will be a continuing debate, and it might be argued that that would be unsettling. Legislative devolution would have avoided that, as it has very largely with Scotland.

In the Scotland Bill powers are devolved to Scottish Secretaries—in effect, Scottish Cabinet Ministers—and the structure is that of a Cabinet and a Parliament. In the Wales Bill powers are devolved to the Assembly as a whole, acting through committees, as the noble and learned Lord explained earlier. The system is much more like that of a county council. Indeed, there is some truth in the criticism that the Welsh Assembly will be a kind of glorified county council. It would not surprise me if, before long, the people of Wales express dissatisfaction with the absence of legislative power and with the county council image, and demand parity with Scotland.
I cannot accept the argument, which has been put forward by the Secretary of State for Wales on more than one occasion during debates in another place, that no third tier of government is being created because there is only executive devolution, and not legislative devolution. Powers have been devolved to the Assembly, and if the Assembly was responsible to Parliament for the exercise of those powers, and had to come back to Westminster to give an account, I would agree that no third tier had been created. But the Assembly is not responsible to Parliament; it is responsible, rightly, to the electors of Wales. Therefore, there is no doubt at all in my mind that a third tier of government is being created.
This leads to the question as to whether one of the tiers of local government in Wales should disappear, and that, in turn, leads to the further question of local government reform. I welcome the fact that the Welsh Assembly will review the existing organisation of local government in Wales, and report to the Secretary of State. The Welsh Assembly will not have the power to make any decisions in
860
this matter, but it will report to the Secretary of State, and, as has already been said, its views will obviously be of very considerable importance and weight. It is argued that this should not be in the Bill, because it has created uncertainty. That may well be the case, but that is the consequence of the folly of proceeding to a wholesale reorganisation of local government before receiving and considering the report of the Kilbrandon Commission. If ever there was a case of putting the cart before the horse, that was it.
I have referred to the absence of legislative power. There is also the absence of revenue raising power, to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton referred; and here we have the same problem as that which we discussed when considering the Scotland Bill. I recognise the difficulties which have been described by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor today, but I feel that in the long run it will be essential for both the Assemblies, in Wales and in Scotland, to have some measure of revenue raising power, and I very much hope that there will be a continuing research into the possibilities of this.
Finally, there is the absence of proportional representation in the method of election to the Welsh Assembly. The House was convinced of the case for proportional representation for the Scottish Assembly. Similar arguments apply for Wales, and I need not repeat them this afternoon. However, I hope that during the Committee stage we shall with the Wales Bill, as with the Scotland Bill, insert a measure of proportional representation into the electoral system. I need not say how strongly we on these Benches feel on this matter.
To sum up the position of my noble friends and myself, I should say that we utterly reject separatism. We uphold the unity of the United Kingdom. We believe that some measure of devolution is necessary to secure that unity. We think that the ideal solution is a federal system. This Bill, and the Scotland Bill, fall far short of that. Furthermore, in our view there are defects in the Bill: the lack of legislative power; the lack of revenue raising power; the lack, at the moment, of proportional representation, being among them. Nevertheless, we support the Bill as a step in the direction in which we want to go.
4.17 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, one morning in January 1957, a sister-in-law of mine, who is Welsh and at the time was living in Tenby, heard on the radio that I had been appointed Minister for Welsh Affairs. She was pleased; I think she sent me a telegram of congratulation. Then she went out shopping, and her eye fell on a newspaper poster, which read: "Government changes —shock for Wales". However, the shock was mitigated, at any rate in South Wales, when the reporters and the media discovered that I was the son-in-law of a Welsh rugby international. Of course that had no effect in Mid Wales or North Wales, but it was the greatest asset that I possessed in South Wales during those years. I served in that office for four and a half years. It was one of the most human and enthralling assignments I ever had in my political life. A personal gain to me was that, through it, I acquired a working knowledge of the whole of Wales which, curiously enough, very few Welsh people themselves have. So many who live outside Wales fail to realise the gap in geography and in outlook between North and South Wales. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will confirm that. It is a hard fact to which we must all adjust ourselves, and the Welsh Assembly above all will have to do that.
The Assembly may serve a good educational purpose within Wales, in that people from North Wales and South Wales will be brought together in debate, and will gain considerably more knowledge than many of them possess at the moment as to how the other half lives. I remember addressing an election meeting one year in Tonypandy. I was not expecting to swing the majority of the Rhondda on to my side, but it turned out to be a model election meeting, and I am sure that, had your Lordships been there, you would all have enjoyed it. There was an excellent chairman, and everybody was represented. There were Conservatives, Liberals, Labour, Communists, Plaid Cymru and so on. The one complication was that, although all these people asked me questions, the questions which the Plaid Cymru supporters asked me were generally incomprehensible to the rest of the audience. This was because most of them referred
862
to decision I had taken about incidents in North Wales which were unacceptable to the Welsh Nationalists or to the protagonists of the Welsh language, but they were incidents about which the people of the Rhondda neither knew nor cared. After a little, therefore, I decided that the best thing to do was to explain to the whole of the meeting what the significance of the question was before I proceeded to answer it.
I must say that if I were myself a Welshman living in North Wales I should be worried about the risk of the people from North Wales in the Assembly being constantly over-borne and out-voted by the big battalions from Glamorgan and Gwent. It will be a virtue of the Assembly if it in fact brings these different outlooks closer together, because at present it is very hard in many fields to say with confidence what the Welsh outlook as such really is. Incidentally, is it proposed by the Government that the Welsh Assembly should be bilingual? Will the use of both Welsh and English be in order, as the Canadian Parliament is bilingual? The Government will have to make up their mind about this, because under Clause 15 the Secretary of State has the power to give directions for regulating the procedure of the Assembly before it will have had time to make its own Standing Orders. I think it is an important question which has not, so far as I know, yet been mentioned in your Lordships' House; and one goes on to wonder whether simultaneous translation will be set up not only for Welsh speeches into English but for English speeches into Welsh.
When I first received my responsibilities towards Wales I set myself to get as far forward as I possibly could at that time with the devolution of administration from England to Wales. I have always had considerable sympathy with the Welsh Nationalist complaint that over many years in the past—though it is not so now—Parliament at Westminster paid too little attention to the fact that Wales is a different nation from England. Parliament at Westminster was for many years disposed to legislate with its eye upon England and to allow Wales to tag along afterwards. It does not surprise me in the least that very many people in Wales reacted against this; and, while I

863
deplore some of the extreme manifestations of Welsh nationalism, I cannot resist having sympathy with the origins of the movement in the way that I have described.
Of course, since my day, in respect of devolution and decentralisation of administration, a great deal has happened. A great deal of water has flowed down the Taff to the sea and down the Towy, and the Trifi, the Conway and the other great rivers of Wales, including those rivers like the Dee, the Wye, the Severn and so on which have the awkward feature of originating in Wales and flowing into England, causing intense difficulty to those who are trying to devise a Welsh national water policy.
However, it is not so very long ago since senior civil servants who were charged with the administration of government affairs in Wales lived, in the main, in London. That has changed now, and so far as I know pretty well all of the principal civil servants administering Welsh affairs are, and have been now for some time, domiciled in Wales, as well as working in their offices in Wales; and I have absolutely no doubt that that is to the good. The Secretary of State, since there has been a Secretary of State, co-ordinates the civil servants, and he directs departmental policies.
I venture to claim that the greatest contribution I made in my time to the better governing of Wales was when I pressed Mr. Macmillan, who was Prime Minister at the time, to appoint a Minister of State for Welsh Affairs who would be resident in Wales, who would have an office in Wales and—this was important—who would be a Member of your Lordships' House, because it seemed to me hard for anybody carrying heavy Ministerial responsibilities, resident in Wales, to be constantly obliged to rush up to London to respond to three-line Whips. Very fortunately for Wales and for us all, there was at that time available the late Lord Brecon, a man of outstanding gifts who also had exactly the right qualifications for this; and I believe it would be an excellent move forward in Welsh administration and Welsh politics if there can be found in Wales new men or women able to perform the sort of ministerial task that Lord Brecon carried out with such distinction. If
864
this Bill becomes law, most of the responsibility, as I read it, will be transferred away from the Secretary of State to the committees of the new Welsh Assembly. That will surely require from a great many civil servants a dual loyalty—loyalty to the Secretary of State and loyalty to the Assembly. And if it is assumed that that will be overcome by the Secretary of State and the Assembly always taking the same view, somebody has got to think again.
An exciting prospect is presented by this Bill. I am critical of it as a whole, but it is excitingly important. I believe that before Parliament embarks on something of this kind it must be sure that it has thought through all the principal difficulties that may arise. Remarkably little has been said, so far as I am aware, as to the way in which head-on clashes between the Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly are to be mitigated or avoided, because that is liable to happen, not only when there are different Parties involved but even within the same Party, as we all know well. It may work, it may be a success, but I am very far from convinced that it really will contribute to the better government of Wales. Certainly it is not something which should be foisted on the Welsh people unless we have really satisfied ourselves that it is something which they want, something which the people of Wales themselves really want to experiment with; because if it is tried prematurely and then fails, that will be a serious setback for all.
What I have said emphasises the appropriateness of holding a referendum. There is a real danger that the Welsh Assembly, if it is brought into existence with too little support, will become a white elephant, or perhaps I should say a white dragon—and that none of us want. Fortunately, it is not for me to decide these matters. My qualifications are too far out of date for me to dare to give judgments and expect other people to accept them; but so far as this Bill is concerned, I am anxious on two main scores.
First, it seems to me to demote the part which the Welsh Member of Parliament will play in the future. That I would regard in principle as a very bad thing. I happen to be convinced that the relationship between the Member of Parliament

865
and his constituents throughout the United Kingdom is a very precious one which at all costs must be preserved for our democracy. If I were a Member of Parliament for a Welsh constituency, whatever my Party, I should be unhappy, I should feel that my usefulness was being devalued to some extent if part of what had hitherto been my work is now to be handed over to an elected Member of a different body dealing with matters where I may be even warned off the ground because they are matters exclusively for the Assembly.
The elected Members of Parliament for Wales will surely find themselves cut out of the decision-making process in many of the subjects which most closely concern the people whom they were elected to Westminster to represent—matters like schools, homes, health services and so on. That is the real essence of representation of constituents by their elected Member in the House of Commons, and it must not go. Under this Bill, the Welsh Member of Parliament will surely lose a considerable amount of his influence, power and responsibility in the social field; although he will still, of course, preserve the right to speak and vote on questions like the Solomon Islands Bill.
The other matter which causes me anxiety is that this Bill is going to add £l2½ million a year to Government expenditure in Wales, on top of the initial non-recurrent £6½ million. I can hardly believe that £12½ million could not be spent more beneficially for the good of Wales each year. I may be wrong. I know it is thought that all this money will go a long way towards satisfying the as yet unsatisfied aspirations of the Welsh people; and some of those aspirations are very genuine. But I believe that the aspirations not yet satisfied, which the authors of this Bill claim it will satisfy, are shadowy compared with the solid reality of the greater happiness which could be secured for the people of Wales, for young and old alike, if there were an extra £12½ million a year available to be spent on the schools, the homes and the social services all these people would like to be able to enjoy.
4.34 p.m.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: My Lords, I regard it as both a privilege
866
and an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. When he was Home Secretary and had all the exacting work of Home Secretary there was added to him the work of looking after Wales and, if I may say so, the work that he did was keen and invaluable. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is not Welsh himself but he had at all times the assistance and support of his gracious Lady, Lady Brooke, and as your Lordships will remember she showed her Welshness by including as part of her name the charming village in which she had lived, that village which for all of your Lordships is a place so easy to pronounce and so simple to spell—and I refer of course to Ystradfellte. The noble Lord, as I say, at a time when he had to undertake such activities as those of Home Secretary, devoted as much time as possible to looking after the interests of Wales. There was no Secretary of State for Wales. There was a limit to what he could do, but he identified himself with the people of Wales and learned their conditions; and I am so very happy to have this opportunity of saying for myself that I think he rendered a great service to the people of Wales.
In expressing the hope that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill, I do so as one who is a staunch supporter and believer in the unity of the United Kingdom. There is no derogation from that position if I invite your Lordships to approach this Bill as dealing not with a region but with a nation. The word "region" suggests the cold calculations of the co-ordinator. When we speak of a nation we speak of something alive, vigorous and vibrant. Scholars may write learnedly on the topic of what constitutes a nation. Suffice it to say that Welsh people feel they are a nation and know that they are a nation. For Wales they have patriotism but that is not to the exclusion of their patriotism for Britain, the United Kingdom. It is a part of it. It is a preparation for it.
I deplore at any time any talk which would suggest or provoke any rift or friction between the English and the Welsh. Rivalry, yes; good fun, yes. But when in this century we have had two cruel wars, how mightily was proof of unity and solidarity shown! I hope that I can say that both in the case of the Scot and in the case of the Welshman

867
there is a special quality in the love of his own land. When he returns to it there is a thrill and a throb. What other nation has such a sturdy, first line of its national anthem as:
"Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn anwyl i mi "—
"The land of my fathers is dear to me". Yet how truly did the English poet proclaim of the Welsh when he said:
"In whose fiery love of their own land no hatred of another's has a place".
The Welsh do not nurse grievances. They had no special reason to be grateful to King Edward I. In the last century there was undoubtedly a certain insensitivity in Whitehall due to a lack of understanding of Wales. But it is foolish to harbour resentments. We are legislating in 1978 for the future. We start from here and look to the future. That insensitivity to which I referred at the end of the last century I think undoubtedly contributed to the decline in the use of the Welsh language. Some there are who believe in the old saying, "There is joy in Heaven when a language perishes". I do not believe it. What a tragedy it would be if the Welsh language was to die! I can testify how much a Welshman loses if his knowledge of the language is imperfect. The words of Clause 10 of this Bill are deserving of study:
"The Assembly may do anything it considers appropriate to support museums, art galleries, libraries, the Welsh language, the arts, crafts, sport and other cultural and recreative activities.".
It would indeed be sad if the Welsh language were to decline.
I hope that I can say with reasonable but not excessive modesty, and with an emphasis that only stops short of being aggressive, that the Welsh as a people have sufficient dignity and sense of humour as will deter them from harping backwards or finding some basis for resentment. I firmly believe that our country, the United Kingdom, has a great part to play today in the affairs of the world. The strength—and by this I mean the moral strength—of the United Kingdom is created and is sustained if there is a blending of the talents and the gifts of the English, the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh. Unity does not demand and could not command uniformity. To play her part in all this Wales must be outward-looking, but her contribution to the power
868
and the influence of the United Kingdom will be the greater if first to herself she is true.
What this rather modest Bill will do in creating an elected Welsh Assembly will be not only to stimulate all those activities to which I have referred in reading Clause 10, with which Clause 11 may be linked, and not only under Clause 12 to review and report on, but not to legislate on, the structure of local government in Wales, but to place not legislative power but executive decision-making in the hands of elected representatives in regard to matters which, very broadly speaking, are local matters. The noble and learned Lord and Lord Chancellor used the better word "domestic" matters. Those, not legislative, but executive decision-making powers will be in the hands of elected representatives in regard to matters which are very broadly domestic ones. Those representatives rather than Ministers can best know the needs of the people in the fields to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred, such as those concerning health, education, housing, the environment and roads.
I am sure that all your Lordships listened with careful attention to the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Undoubtedly he has given great thought to the matter, studied the Bill with great care and all his points demand close attention. He paid eloquent tribute to the Welsh people, and I am sure that the tributes were sincere. He made it quite clear that he disapproved of the present Bill. But what was not quite so clear to me was whether the tributes he paid to the Welsh people should lead him to the conclusion that there should be some devolution, that there should be a further devolution of powers to representatives of the people. But if so, I did not think that the noble Lord gave us a clear picture as to what he thought should be the devolution.
If he is against any form of Welsh Assembly, so be it; but if, as his tributes to the talents of the Welsh would suggest, he is in favour of there being some Welsh Assembly, quite what kind and in what form? Maybe the noble Lord will put down Amendments to improve the Bill so as to have a form of Welsh Assembly of which he will approve. If so, will he be able to do it without having any

869
officials to help that Assembly? The noble Lord remarked: "Look what it is going to cost!" Of course, if there is an Assembly there is going to be a cost. Will the noble Lord be able to set up some Assembly of his choice, to his liking, without cost and with no officials? I do not think that the noble Lord called them "officials"; I think he called them "civil servants". I noticed that throughout the Scotland Bill if one approved of the Bill one perhaps referred to officials; if one disapproved of the Bill one referred to civil servants or, to wipe them straight off the slate, one referred to them as bureaucrats.
How is the noble Lord to produce what he would think would be an ideal Welsh Assembly? If he is willing to concede that there should be one, how will he do it without having officials? How will he have officials without paying them? Of course the present scheme involves cost, and those who will have to decide will have to say: "This is going to cost money". They will then have to decide whether the cost be worth while. Some will say that the cost is too great; others will say that the cost is well worth incurring in order to get the benefits of this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor (whose speech, as I have already indicated, I so greatly enjoyed) raised points which will demand close attention. The noble Lord referred to the question whether speeches in the Assembly will be in Welsh or in English. Surely there can be no difficulty there. If a Welshman in his own country is more fluent in Welsh than in English, surely he will be allowed to speak in Welsh? Probably most of the speeches will be in English. But will there be the smallest difficulty in arranging for similtaneous translation and, if necessary, both ways? In the court of the University of Wales, over which I had the honour of presiding for many years, we had simultaneous translation, and those who wished to address the court in Welsh were of course allowed to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, raised another very important point. He asked: Will the work of a Welsh Member of Parliament be demoted if this Bill is passed and if the Act is put into operation? That is a most important point. Of course the duties to some extent will be varied and changed.
870
Just before I conclude, may I refer to some of the concerns of the average citizen in this land and in Wales, and consider how they will be affected if this Bill becomes an Act in operation. One of the first concerns of the citizen is for the security of his country, his family and his home. He hopes that our defences are adequate; he looks to our Services, to the united Services of Army, Navy and Air Force. He would not begin to contemplate separate defensive Navies, Armies and Air Forces for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Next, the citizen is concerned with our relations with foreign countries, with our place in the world and our voice in the affairs of the world. The citizen will want our Foreign Secretary to speak for all of us. The citizen will continue to look to Westminster. We must pay by national taxation for all that we spend. The citizen will look to Westminster to consider its levels and its fairness. The citizen will need the products of the nationalised industries such as coal, gas and railway and telephone services. He will continue to look to Westminster.
The citizen will be concerned to ensure law and order. He will want our criminal laws to be kept under constant review. He will look to Westminster. Particularly will he be concerned in regard to economic conditions and employment conditions. He will wish to support wholeheartedly the perseverance of the United Kingdom in its struggle against inflation and against unemployment. He will look to Westminster. He will have concern for trade union law and conditions of employment. He will look to Westminster. Furthermore, he will at all times be vitally concerned and involved in all the massive protections which we trust the Welfare State will provide: unemployment insurance, health insurance and pensions. The citizen will continue to look to Westminster.
In all these vast and vital fields, the Secretary of State for Wales in the Cabinet must continue to represent Wales, and will be needed to do so. In regard to them, Welsh Members of Parliament will have undiminished concern. Their work will not decline in importance even though they are to some extent, as the noble Lord pointed out, relieved of local duties. The strategy which should guide

871
the conduct of our national affairs will need their full consideration and guidance. So, my Lords, here is no major upheaval; here is no cause for alarm, suspicion or fear: rather, while the unity of the United Kingdom will be preserved, special heed will be paid to the welfare of the people.
4.54 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is it not a great pleasure to listen to the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken and to appreciate the gentle deftness with which he leads his argument sweetly, superbly and commandingly to a conclusion at which you yourself do not want to arrive! Nevertheless, this is the result of the vast experience of this noble and learned Welshman, and it is an honour and a privilege to follow him. I agree, of course, with 90 per cent. of what has been mentioned and some things were brought to my notice that hitherto I had missed in looking at the Bill.
Now may I say something to the noble Lord who sits opposite—and I apologise because I interrupted. I was not at all excited, but when the noble Lord ploughed into a description of all these Welsh morons in the Assembly voting themselves vast salaries and vast pensions—did you notice that, my Lords?—that nearly brought me to my feet. Then I thought of the gentleness of this Chamber and said to myself, "You must not interrupt"— but I was on my feet before the gentleness and the courtesy of the Chamber hit me. Then I sat back again. I only want to draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that we would not do that. We are not a race of morons. In fact, the noble Lord himself, and the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, called us proud, loyal and talented. I do not suppose the English people knew that the South Wales Borderers had eleven VCs until they saw Stanley Baker in "Zulu".
We are very proud of that, too, and I did not put on my "grand slam" tie today because I regret that one of the Prince of Wales' feathers—you see the "Ich dien"—is the right way up but the coats of arms of the other three countries are upside down; and I thought that I could not wear a "grand slam" tie like that on a day when we are discussing devolution. Therefore, having
872
explained myself to the noble Lord opposite, and knowing that he did not mean that impression to get across, I have put in this qualification just in case anybody should think he was being so mundane as to believe that we would vote ourselves all that money. In fact, I hope they are not too dependent, if they come to exist, on the other place because those of us who are noble Lords and work for nothing do not do very well ourselves out of the other place.
I should like to think, though, that devolution has nothing to do with separatism—and this was emphasised by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. But with some of our ultra nationalists I depict a xenophobic extravagance that is sometimes unimpressive to those of us who also love our country. Others of us who may be over-stimulated by cries of "Devolution!" are just as much in favour of keeping alive the culture, the beauty, the music or the little cottage that is not far from Borth-y-Gest, Y Carreg Wen, where the greatest Welsh harpist lived. I know that the noble and learned Lord knows that lovely little cottage. We want to keep those things. My own mother enjoyed singing "Penillion" while the harp was being played. We want to keep those things, to stimulate and spread them, just as much as the ultra Plaid Cymru.
Furthermore, despite all the debates on Scotland and Wales regarding nationalism, I still seem to think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, who had an Amendment down during the latter part of the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill, had a point. Devolution in Wales and Scotland does, to my mind, change the constitution of England or of the United Kingdom. It changes the constitution of this Parliament, and the relationship has yet to be worked out. Changes in the government of the United Kingdom are things that we learn ultimately by trial and error. We have had two speeches. One was from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke —and I remember his period in the other place when he served Wales well and, as the son-in-law of a Welsh Rugby player, who could think anything but grand of him? We would even let him walk on water! But I think it does change the functions of a Welsh Member of Parliament in this place. How, we shall have

873
to learn by experience. We can argue that it will not, but I think the facts and realities of Government will mean that it will.
I had the pleasure, with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, with representatives of the Liberals and others, of discussing the Kilbrandon Report on television. All this has come out of the Kilbrandon Committee, which was set up by a Labour Government. They saw the force of nationalism and its movements in Wales and in Scotland. I want to use the word "nationalism" without the colour and without the prejudice. I do not want the word to be synonymous with xenophobia; in other words, I am talking about true nationalism. These were the objectives put to Kilbrandon and it is worth repeating them, despite the well-informed House to which I am speaking. The objectives were to examine whether any Government changes or economic changes—I ask your Lordships to note the word "economic"—were necessary in the United Kingdom, including Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The report implied that Wales and Scotland should have Assemblies with legislative power. The minority report did not concur with this. But what I want to emphasise is that Kilbrandon also looked at the economic side of the question.
I have said this before, but when I was a child there were 60 pits in the Rhondda and the old Welshmen used to say that the Rhondda was so narrow that the river ran sideways. Will the Welsh Assembly re-establish any of those mines? Will it bring to those valleys some hope of economic activity? Those are not nasty questions to try to prove a partisan point of view. They are important to all sides of this House and the other place, whatever our political views. I do not want to score a political point from it, because one does not know what will be the Party power in that Assembly. So we should now be concentrating on the realities—I shall now use an ugly word —of the doomed international business system.
I say that, because in some ways the old-fashioned international business system is doomed. We have to find new ways for man to exchange his services, and the only ways which we now have
874
which are working well, are the invisible exports. They are doing more than the man in the street realises for the prosperity such as it is, of a nation like this. I noticed that the other night in connection with a practical problem that I had, because I am interested in platinum. I do not want noble Lords to run away with the idea that my pockets are full of platinum, hut we are trying to establish the platinum market in London. Because of the competition from the Common Market and other places, this is a new activity and we are succeeding. This is the fifth year that men and women from all over the world who know what they are talking about in the platinum market have come here.
What has this to do with Welsh devolution? It has to do with the fact that new methods of earning a living must be discovered by the United Kingdom. New methods applied to the old-fashioned ways of earning a living might be a better way of putting it. So I say we should be concentrating on these realities. Do not let us make this a Party point, because when the Conservative Party are in power they have to do it, too. They have to grant millions of pounds to shipbuilders. As I said years ago, we have discovered a system of society that socialises the losses, and privatises the profits. I ask your Lordships to look at the report of the Public Accounts Committee and see how much money we are putting into private enterprise in order to create employment.
Will the Welsh Assembly have the same powers of distributing largesse to industries in Wales?—it might be mushroom growing, or it might be Welsh farming in carrion, which we were interested in when I was a little boy. Will the Assembly even have powers to contradict, sometimes, or to appeal for more money to help investment in industries which have under-investment? I need not go into the esoteric fact that economists are now discovering, that, because of mechanisation and modern technology, the more investment you put into something the less employment you get.
Always one is shouting for more and more investment, but look at the machines that will be bought, and look at the printing industry and Fleet Street. That is part of the problem. You may not have had

875
your Sunday Observer or your copy of The Times. Some of your Lordships may take the Daily Worker, which came out. These are the problems facing the entire world. Where does this Assembly stand? The Kilbrandon Report talked about economic changes. Do we realise, when we talk of nationalism, that it springs out of a dialectic? It springs out of the fact that part of the reason for the growth of some nationalism is work, and a feeling that it will do better for the country.
I enjoyed the noble and learned Lord's remark and he was quite right; we are all a little prejudiced. When I am up against civil servants, they are just civil servants. When I think that they are doing moderately well, they are officials. But when I think that they have wrecked the Davies Plan they are bureaucrats. We all tend to think that. I do not want the Welsh Assembly to establish another 1,000 or more bureaucrats, because the responsibility in Government is already overlapping enough. The man in a remote Welsh village today probably has a little more difficulty than the Chinese—and I have been in a number of Chinese villages —in solving his little problem of sharpening his plough or repairing his little tractor, because of the simple system of Chinese production. That is the kind of Marxism which noble Lords opposite know about, because they are snuggling up to China, with its Mao-Leninist Marxism. I do not know why noble Lords laugh at the truth, although I suppose that one should sometimes do that. So I hope that there will not be serious points of overlapping in government.
Another realm of exaggerated, eccentric and capricious promises was when the sovereignty of the United Kingdom was pruned and the loyal Commonwealth was cut off. We were promised many safeguards, and when the noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked whether we would discuss this Bill word by word, and paragraph by paragraph, I remembered that I sat on the opposite Benches when the Bill on the Common Market went through here like lightning. We did not make an amendment to it, we did not change a comma, semi-colon or full-stop, and it went through—whizz. The chief gardener with the pruning hook was the right honourable gentleman Mr. Edward Heath
876
because he had instructed his minions not to let Davies or anybody else stop that Bill going through, so they went into the Lobby like rabbits to support the Bill on the Common Market. They did not want a long discussion on that, because it was the law of the Medes and Persians from the other place.
This is different. I am prepared for a long discussion on this Bill, and am ready to cross the "Ts" as well, but I resented and regretted some promises that were made when that former Bill went through. We were promised that beef and dairy products from New Zealand and Australia would be safeguarded? Are they? I do not want to be controversial, but I do not know. If a Welsh Bill is enacted, it will mean fundamental changes in our conventions and, eventually—I may be corrected here—there may be some changes in our courts of law. The Welsh Assembly will be jealous of the power in local government.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest was meticulous, clever, articulate and so accurate when he pointed out that the Assembly can make recommendations for local government but cannot implement them. We ought to listen and we must listen to those recommendations. While there is all this interference with government, the economic bandwagon is going backwards. I do not think that we can afford the luxury of new national Assemblies. The whole nation should be dropping some of its bitter antagonism one against the other, so as to build up an economic system which can withstand the shock of multi-nationalism in firms and the shock of the economic system in which we are living.
Genuine local government in Wales needs to be improved. The Welshman wants to feel that he has a say. There will be questions from Welsh Members on education, housing, water supplies, roads, social work, tourism, forestry. I notice that agriculture is not mentioned in the Bill. However, anybody who tries to make a living on a Welsh hill farm is a person who really works, and so is his wife. I remember that after the war the women of Britain were invited to celebrate their contribution to winning the war; but one woman was missing—the small farmer's wife who throughout the war had been milking and ploughing. She was

877
forgotten. In many of the wilder parts of Wales hill farming is one of the toughest ways of earning a living. The hill farmer earns much less money than a bus conductor, but he lives that kind of life because of its freedom. He can breathe deeply. That kind of life develops the bass voices, the contralto voices, the tenor voices. There is a certain joy in that kind of life which has got nothing to do with making money.
If I may turn to the question of who will be able to stand for the Welsh Assembly, I believe there will be nothing to prevent a Lord from standing. In fact, I might have a go myself; it might be a place where I can earn a few coppers besides the pittance I get here, which I spend every day.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, would it not be rather sad for this House if the noble Lord were to sit in the Welsh Assembly, for then we should not have the pleasure of listening to him?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, am sure that I should so work it that I could come here as well. To be serious, is there to be only Welsh representation in the Assembly? This House and the other place have accepted people from the Commonwealth. People from the Commonwealth have been elevated to this House —proudly and justly so—and they have been allowed to stand as Members of Parliament in the other place. However, will the Welsh Assembly allow an expatriate Welshman like me to stand for the Assembly? I would go back to Wales tomorrow to live, but I have to listen to my wife. I was delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, say that of course there must be the opportunity to speak in either Welsh or English in the Assembly and that it should not create great difficulty. However, we ought to let Plaid Cymru know that a Welshman like myself might take it into his head to stand for the Welsh Assembly, and that it will not be packed with people who are madly ultra-nationalist.
Clause 37 is full of economic guidelines. If I may refer to the Kilbrandon Report, economic changes are emphasised. We must not speak just about sweet nationalism and forget about the realities of the world in which we live. I do not believe that
878
the Welsh Assembly has been given sufficient power to deal with the basic needs of Welsh industry and employment. May I ask what constructive schemes the Welsh Assembly will be able to generate for the small hill farmer, for the mining industry, for the quarrying industry and for research? Let us also consider the geographic possibilities in terms of looking again at the country and mapping it. May I ask what powers the Assembly will have to attract investment in industry and agriculture?
Accompanying these essential questions is this point. If the Welsh nationalists insist that when my wife is driving her car through Wales she should read the signposts in Welsh, they will create the greatest confusion. The Welsh nationalists say that they want to attract tourists, but they will lose millions of pounds through loss of tourists. To change the signposts from English into Welsh is an absolutely idiotic idea. Noble Lords opposite will be travelling to China by the cartload now, and they ought to realise that even the Chinese are putting up signs in English. When I first went to Peking I knew about 100 words of Chinese and about three hieroglyphics. If I visit Peking now, though, I do not get lost because, sensibly, the Chinese are beginning to attract tourists and are catering for them. Surely the Welsh can learn this simple lesson and leave the English signposts alone. Welsh signposts could be put up as well, but for wild men to go around blacking out the English signposts seems to me to be idiotic if one wants to attract tourists to the country.
Noble Lords will be glad to hear that I have come to the end of my speech and that I shall leave on one side the erudite information which is contained in the rest of my notes. Instead I shall say that I am quite sure that both in this House and in the other place we have shown the Welsh people that we want to try to find an answer to this problem. I hope that it will be a sound answer. When we are speaking of nationalism we should remember that the economic factors, too, are—I would not say of paramount importance, but of basic importance.
5.18 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I am no Welshman and I have no personal

879
associations with the Principality. When I read that this debate was to take place I carried out an investigation in depth into my family pedigree to see whether I could find a modicum of Welsh blood flowing placidly through my veins, but not a drop came to light. I was told that nothing short of a massive blood transfusion would do the trick. Therefore, I do not feel qualified to express a personal view as to the feelings of the people of Wales as a whole about devolution, or about the strength of the demand in Wales for some measure on the general lines put forward in this Bill. We shall have to wait for the final reactions for the referendum which is to be held—I think deplorably and regrettably late in the proceedings.
We have listened with pleasure to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, speaking with great charm of the Welsh nation. As he spoke, I wondered whether I could get on to the housing list of Borth-y-Gest or share the little cottage that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, mentioned with the Welsh harpist. I am very fond of the harp. I should like to say only this about the referendum. If there is to be a referendum, it seems to me to be a pity that it should not take place before instead of after weeks of Parliamentary time has been consumed in discussion about the actual format of Bills which may never be approved. If these Bills are eventually rejected by referenda I think many admirers of our Parliament as the most experienced Parliament in the world will feel surprised and confused at our Parliamentary methods.
My own view is adverse to the use of referenda except in extremely rare circumstances. I regard a referendum as a device by which Parliament passes back to the electorate decisions which it is constitutionally elected to decide. Anyway, thank heaven that the Government on second thoughts have decided to bring forward separate Bills for Scotland and Wales because the circumstances in each country are very different. In all my Parliamentary experience I can never remember major Bills which have attracted less real enthusiasm from the ranks of any of the political Parties, including their respective heirarchies. The reactions to date are utterly confusing. Am I right in understanding that to date fewer than half
880
the Welsh Labour constitutencies have supported the intention to set up a Welsh Assembly? My noble friend Lord Elton mentioned the number of clauses and the number of Schedules which have not received any consideration in the other place. Only a tiny minority have received consideration. That is hardly evidence of much enthusiasm there. Therefore the Bill which has come before us today is largely a bureaucrat-official-civil servant Bill.
My Lords,
"When the trumpet gives forth an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself for battle?"
All I propose to do is to pass on to your Lordships a few reactions which I have received in my capacity as President of the Association of County Councils from members of the eight Welsh county councils. I see the noble Lord, Lord Heycock is in his place. He knows 10 times as much about the Welsh county councils as I shall ever know, and we shall look forward to hearing his views, derived from his long and expert experience. The Association of County Councils, with its membership covering both the 39 non-metropolitan counties in England as well as the eight Welsh counties, has naturally taken a great deal of trouble to elucidate the views of its Welsh members. I think it would be right to say that, while some members would be in favour of some measure of devolution and some form of Welsh Council, very few seem to favour this Bill as it stands.
What are their criticisms? I will mention briefly four criticisms which have been brought to my notice by consultation with them. First, they believe that the net effect will be to weaken, and not to strengthen, local government in Wales. That is the most important conclusion. The Explanatory Memorandum says that the Bill does not alter the responsibilities of the local associations. That may be true at the time the Act comes into force, but many knowledgeable people believe that once the Assembly gets under way there will be a strong tendency for it to seek, and probably to obtain, additional powers and responsibilities, and almost certainly some of them from subordinate authorities. Thus, local government may well end up not closer to, but further away from, the people concerned. There is a strong Welsh opinion that that may happen.

881
Secondly, the Secretary of State for Wales on many occasions in another place has protested that the Assembly does not constitute an additional tier on the grounds that the powers are already being exercised and only transferred. Nevertheless, it seems to me as it has seemed to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, apparently, that in terms of administrative machinery the Bill will, if it is passed, constitute an additional tier.
Third, as regards finance, one cannot feel at all happy about Clause 58 which transfers to the Welsh authority responsibility for the allocation of the rate support grant between the local authorities. Will there not be a real danger that the local authorities may lose their rights of consultation which they now have with departments before grants are settled? What about the cost? We are told that the Bill will involve an additional number of—what am I to call them?—bureaucratic-official-civil servants, at a cost of £9½ million and another £3 million, adding up to a total running cost of £½ million. From past experience, such estimates in Financial Memoranda are almost always greatly exceeded in practice. Where will trained staff come from—from the Departments in London? One doubts whether that will happen. Then, the unfettered power of the Assembly to appoint as many officers and servants as they think appropriate and to pay themselves what remuneration they deem they are worth, seems to be an open-ended commitment. I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, will find that if he gets himself elected to the Assembly. One cannot feel happy about the accountability of the Comptroller and Auditor General, as my noble friend has mentioned.
Then the proposed committee system of the Assembly will mean that there will be committees dealing with the same subjects of education, planning, social services, transportation, et cetera, at two levels: at the level of the Assembly and at the existing level of the local authority. That might well prove a source of conflict between the Assembly and the local authorities and also bring about additional costs in manpower, time and potential delay. Lastly, Clause 12, to put it mildly, seems to have few supporters among members of the Welsh local authorities and I shall be interested to
882
hear what the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, has to tell us about that.
The invitation in the Bill to the Assembly to suggest changes in the structure of local government in Wales is considered to be most objectionable, on two grounds. First, it is an open invitation to initiate—not more than that—a major reconstruction of local government when the dominating need is for a period of stability during which local authorities can concentrate their efforts on continuing to improve their standards of service to the community. Secondly, the Welsh Assembly having itself assumed responsibilities in this field must surely be the wrong body to adjudicate on problems in which it may well have acquired a vested interest by that time. This clause will clearly call for severe criticism at the Committee stage and I trust that it will be eliminated. In the dramatic phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, we must not let that clause "whizz through" without a great deal of comment.
The last thing required is another basic reconstruction of local government and the transfer of responsibilities from more local authorities to a regional Assembly. As the Government's own White Paper, Devolution: The English Dimension, says:
"A further reorganisation so soon after the last one would be bound to create confusion in the mind of the average elector. It is also probable that he would feel more remote from the affairs of a local government body administering services over a much wider area".
That is in paragraph 83. I believe that to be as true of Wales as it is thought to be in the case of the rest of the United Kingdom.
There are a lot of other matters which will require clarification in due course which I will not mention now, such as what will happen on the transfer of the right of appeal from a local authority to a Minister in a devolved matter. Will it be adjudicated on by the Assembly itself or will the Assembly delegate it to a committee of the Assembly? If that last course were followed, I think it would be regarded as a further source of conflict and delay. The Explanatory Memorandum says:
"The Bill does not alter the responsibilities of local authorities".
Perhaps, again, it is not without significance that the Government White Paper, Devolution: the English Dimension, says:
"Many functions of the counties would need to be raised to the new regional authorities".

883
My Lords, we have been warned. My noble friend, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I thought made a very good point when he referred to the depreciation of the responsibilities of Welsh Members of Parliament.
So, my Lords, there we are. We have a Bill brought forward, I think, with no clearly explained reason, with no powerful indentifiable support, to deal with problems which many, perhaps most, Welsh people believe will not be solved in that particular way. Any improvements in local government organisation which can be seen in the light of experience of the past few years to be required, can perfectly well be brought about by consultation and administrative adjustments without major legislation such as we have brought before us, and without further complicating the system, without adding further to its expense, or counter-productively rendering local government not closer to, but more remote from, those whom it is its function to serve.
5.33 p.m.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, apparently there has been a typing error in the list of speakers. I am told that in the original list my name appeared as the eighth speaker to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and I have been directed by our Chief Whip to do so now. Let me state at the outset that I am a Welshman and very proud of the fact. The people of Wales, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, stated, form a distinctive and separate nation. No one as yet has been able to define nationhood, but we do know what are its characteristics.
First, we in Wales have our own language. According to the late D. R. Grenfell, M.P., it is the oldest language known to man. In that case it must have been the language of the Garden of Eden, but I am not suggesting that Adam and Eve fell because they spoke Welsh. I once had to spend a night in an hotel on the shores of the Dead Sea in Jordan. It being a very hot evening, I took a chair and sat on the beach. An Arab came up to me and said, "Do you see that mountain over there? That is Mount Nebo. It was from there that Moses ascended to Heaven". I thereupon jumped to my feet and sang an old
884
Welsh hymn appertaining to Mount Nebo. When I had finished he said to me, "What language is that?" "Oh", I said, "That is the language that Moses learned after he got to Heaven".
In Wales all our place names have a meaning. Some names are short, others are rather long. For instance, we have Cwm which means a valley; that locates the village for you instantly. Then in Anglesey we have a very small village called Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwillllantysiliogogogoch. I think we deserve to have this Bill passed if only because we have that name.
It is a spoken language. It may surprise your Lordships to know that I have never spoken an English word to the Lord Chancellor, not once. I greet him in Welsh and we chat in Welsh, with never an English word. Representatives of Wales have been in the forefront in every sphere. We gave Britain its greatest king in the person of Henry VIII, who spoke Welsh. He was quite modern in the manner in which he dealt with wives. We provided the greatest statesman of all time in the person of David Lloyd George.
What about the theatre? There we have had Emlyn Williams, Sir Lewis Casson, Richard Burton and Rupert Davies. What about our great singers. I am thinking of such persons as Leila Megan, James Sauvage and Ben Davies. Any great artists? Yes, Augustus John. What about architecture? Who can forget Inigo Jones and Sir Clough Williams Ellis? The man known as the Homer of Britain was our poet T. Gwynne Jones. Theologians? Yes, the greatest, C. H. Dodd. Doctors of Medicine—the renowned Sir Robert Jones. Boxers—Peterson, Tommy Farr and Jimmy Wilde. Variety entertainers—Harry Secombe, Max Boyce and Shirley Bassey. We hold sway in the world of sport, with Dai Rees the golfer, Billy Meredith, the footballer, and John Gareth Edwards, the rugby player. Lastly, we have our own country, and what a delightful country it is—visited every year by thousands of tourists from all parts of the world.
I have said all this simply to establish the fact beyond all question that we are a separate nation. If this is true, then we are entitled to all that this Bill proposes. Let me make it quite clear that we do not

885
believe in separatism. We do not want to separate from Britain. We are British and wish to be attached to the United Kingdom and governed by the central Government here in London. However, London is so far away that we feel a need for the proposed Assembly to consider Welsh problems and advise the Government as to the best solutions.
The proposed Assembly, unlike the one in Scotland, will be an administrative body and not a legislative body. The Assembly will be composed of men and women who have spent years in social service. They will consider in great detail all the problems presented to them and then propose to the Government their solutions to such problems. The Welsh Office has neither the time nor the facilities to deal with the varied problems. Let us take as an example the good news given only last week by the Secretary of State for Wales. He announced a massive £6.5 million factory building programme in North-East and North-West Wales. The Welsh Development Agency confirmed the announcement, and added that the Agency is now programming advance factories at the rate of four a week. That is a remarkable achievement which has not been equalled since the end of the last war. The programme announced concerns 1,100,000 square feet of new factory space to he built during the current financial year.
Would it not have been a blessing had the proposed Assembly been already operating and able to offer expert advice on the placing of these factories? That would have avoided the distress which we have so often experienced of seeing some of these factories unoccupied for several months and even several years. Indeed it is a waste of money. What pleases me most in the Bill is the inclusion of a provision requiring the Assembly to review the structure of local government in Wales. Local government in Wales is, in my opinion in a shambles. The last reorganisation of local government was bungled by the then Government and, of course, it was a Tory Government. In the process of reorganisation many local identities were lost. Many of the towns and cities that had carried out certain functions of local government over the generations and centuries lost their powers. That was most regrettable.
886
Fancy the Borough Council of Wrexham being reduced to a community council, a parish council!
Local Government reorganisation was a bureaucratic extravaganza. We have been reduced to eight county councils with a number of counties without identical interests being clubbed together. Fancy Merionethshire, Caernarvonshire, and Anglesey now forming one County! It is simply ridiculous, to say the least.
The first duty of the Assembly will be to spend a few months studying carefully how to reorganise local government on a fairer, less bureaucratic and cheaper basis. When its recommendations are completed it will present them to the central Government here in London. The Government in their turn, knowing the care which had been taken by the Assembly to form its conclusions, will readily accept them.
About an hour ago I picked up a volume in the Library entitled, The Principal Secretary of State. I was struck by the first sentence in the preface which read as follows:
"Queen Elizabeth solved her problems by sound and sagacious administration rather than by any striking political measure".
Similarly, I believe that the problems of Wales can be solved by the sound and sagacious administration of the proposed Assembly.
May I say in conclusion that, in view of the fact that in this Bill there is no impairment of the supremacy of Parliament and that the people of Wales by means of a referendum shall eventually decide the fate of the Bill, we should pass it in this House in a matter of days and not weeks. I cannot tell your Lordships what will be the result of the referendum. I have my doubts. However, let the people of Wales decide. Do not let us waste weeks and weeks and the time of this House discussing this Bill. Let us pass it and let the people of Wales tell us what to do with it.
5.44 p.m.
Lord MANCROFT: My Lords, I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, who has just spoken with such eloquence and others who have addressed themselves to the same theme that no one in this House for one moment

887
doubts that the Welsh are a great people; Wales a great country; and the Welsh language a great language. However, that is not what we are debating. We are asking ourselves: is the Wales Bill a great Bill? And one of your Lordships at least thinks that it is a half-baked Bill!
I shall try to explain to your Lordships why I take that view. I realise, of course, that with so many Welsh men and women of distinction in their places today, starting with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who has advanced the cause of the Bill with his customary charm and eloquence, Englishmen like the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and myself must give some explanation for having the temerity to address your Lordships at all.
For three years I for my part was Under-Secretary of State for Welsh Affairs and in charge of them at the Dispatch Box opposite. I am happy to see the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, in her place, because I remember that Walter Elliot, of happiest memory, once remarked that there was no more rumbustious Parliamentary occasion, nothing to make the political pulse race more quickly, than a midnight adjournment debate on Scottish agricultural housing. Fortunately that type of thing did not happen in any Welsh debate in which I took part, and I assure those who have not done so that a debate in your Lordships' House about an attempt by some city like Manchester or Wolverhampton to flood a Welsh valley for the sake of its water supply turns Cardiff Arms Park into a mausoleum in comparison.
Indeed, I remember that I also participated in a personal indiscretion when I allowed your Lordships to refuse the dismemberment of five Territorial Army bands. There were loud cheers in your Lordships' House. There was singing in the Valleys but that joy was not reciprocated in the Treasury where I had absentmindedly failed to obtain permission for my action. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury at the time was Mr. Enoch Powell who had hitherto been a friend of mine. He did not speak to me for quite a long time after this happened, and when he did he spoke with point and without his customary mysticism.
888
My master in those days was Gwillym Lloyd George the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Welsh Affairs. He was a most charming and sophisticated politician who came to this House as Lord Tenby and whose son made his maiden speech the other day. However, Gwillym Lloyd George was not a man who ever allowed excessive activity to interfere with his common sense. In other words, he let me get on with the job. He gave me two pieces of advice which I have never forgotten. The first was "Never venture to speak a single word of Welsh in Wales—they will not give you the benefit of the doubt". The second was: "If you want to hold a conference at which you wish people of both North and South Wales to attend, hold it in Birmingham or London".
Occasionally he went to Wales but, fortunately he preferred to send me on a great number of occasions. I noticed, however, that whenever he did go the stationmaster at Cardiff wore a top hat but for me he only wore a bowler. My duties enabled me in the course of three years to travel all over Wales and I am happy to think that I know Wales better than many Welshmen. Once a quarter I used to preside over a meeting of the Welsh Heads of Government Departments in Cardiff and we discussed all the problems that primarily affected Wales in those days. (This was nearly 20 years ago.) We discussed unemployment, agriculture, the environment, health, education and other day-to-day problems. I do not know whether we achieved a great deal, but the Welsh civil servants (I shall not call them bureaucrats), the highly-skilled Welsh civil servants, listened to me with patience and courtesy, as all Welshmen always do, and then they went away back to their desks as if nothing had happened.
There were Members of the Party sitting opposite who called this window-dressing, and it was for that reason, think, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, reminded us, that the post was upgraded to that of a Minister of State and the office moved to Wales. However, it was still called window-dressing and I have a nasty feeling that this Bill is also a bit of window-dressing. Look therefore who is talking now! This Bill is just a political expediency disguised as a modest administrative reform. There is even a risk that it will not be an administrative

889
reform at all, but will turn out to be a costly administrative jumble. Of course, as has been indicated in the debate, it will help some people.
I thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, in his most eloquent speech, rather played down the dangers of separatism and devolution. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, was more frank about it. I do not say that this risk is widespread; I do not say that it is widely felt; but there is the danger—and we must admit it—of demands for more separatism, more devolution and a greater desire to separate Wales from England. The demand exists and it is stupid not to admit it. There are even those who wish to see the break up of the United Kingdom. They may not be numerous, but they are vocal. There are also those who would like to see a concentration of political power, and this will inevitably lead to cliques and caucuses.
We have heard a great deal about unemployment being helped by the creation of 1,500 more jobs for the administrators. That does not worry me a great deal. However, the man I should like to see employed in this role is Mr. Leslie Chapman. He wrote a book, which was published only a few days ago, called Your Disobedient Servant, in which he describes his attempts to make savings in the Civil Service throughout Britain and the ways in which he was continually thwarted.
The real danger however that I see here is the danger to the Welsh language. I would agree with every word that has been said about the rights of this proud people to maintain their beautiful, ancient though difficult language. But if one has to be able to speak Welsh in order to reach a senior position in the administration, I can see quite a few English speaking Welshmen saying "It is not worth it" and they will look for jobs in England to the detriment of the administration in Wales.
So much for people who would be helped by the Bill. What about the potential damage? Frankly, I think that there will be constitutional and administrative confusion, particularly as it looks as though the Bill may come into operation about the time of a General Election. I think that there is real justification for the ministerial
890
misgivings which we hear echoing down the corridors of Whitehall. I think that this Bill is an irrelevant diversion of effort and energy, which is greatly required elsewhere in Wales. There is also a risk of constitutional conflict, particularly if the Assembly starts to flex its muscles, remembers what Acton said about power tending to corrupt, and asks for more.
I am also worried by the point made by several noble Lords about the relations between the Assembly and Members of Parliament in another place. I think that there is real ground for friction here. Nor have we discovered the relationship between the Assembly and your Lordships House. We know that the right honourable gentleman, the Member for Ebbw Vale, wants to "lop us off". But there are others—myself included—who feel differently. Are the Lords to be allowed to discuss Welsh affairs at all? What matters are to be confined to the Assembly? Has this been thought out? Where will the line be drawn?
Therefore, I think that the whole constitutional situation requires very careful thought, and I hope that we shall give it that thought during the Committee stage. I hope we shall also pay particular attention to the relationship of the Secretary of State both to the Cabinet and to the Assembly. I impolitely called this Bill a piece of window dressing. I am in the retail trade myself. I am the chairman of a group of about 60 shops, and window dressing is a particularly important part of our trade. But we also make certain that the goods on the shelves behind the windows are worthy of the window. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not so convinced me that he will find in me by any means an enthusiastic customer.
5.55 p.m.
Lord HEYCOCK: My Lords, when I last spoke in your Lordships' House I raised three distinct points. The first was that we should have a separate Bill for Wales, and I then indicated quite clearly to your Lordships' House that Wales had a background quite distinct from that of Scotland. At that time the urge for devolution in Wales emerged very clearly from its linguist c background; it sprang essentially from a desire to preserve the language. On that

891
occasion I said that in Scotland it sprang from an economic motive. They were quite distinct and different philosophical approaches to the question of devolution.
I then went on clearly to indicate that it was for the people of Wales to decide this issue. In the original Bill—and the debate on the Bill was guillotined—under pressure the Government conceded that in a purely free and democratic society a referendum should be held and the people should decide the issue for themselves. I have cited those two points because I believe that the people of Wales should be able to decide whether or not they require a devolved system of government. Because of the linguistic background I believe that it is necessary for the people to decide.
Earlier the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated that consultations had taken place since 1973. I took part in those consultations. During that time I represented the Welsh counties and we were given the clear impression that if we supported an elected Assembly for Wales, there would be no general effect upon local government in Wales. However, in the first White Paper there was no indication of that. When the Bill was published and for those reasons, six Welsh counties decided to support an elected Assembly; one county decided not to support any form of devolution in Wales, and a third county—a Northern county where my noble friend Lord Maelor comes from—was vitally concerned that Wales should have a legislative Assembly.
That promise to support the Assembly was clearly based upon the promises made that there would be no interference in local government. I shall deal with the elected Assembly and its relationship generally in a moment or two. My noble friend Lord Maelor said that lie denigrated the local authorities; he said that local government was in a shambles. I say to my noble friend Lord Maelor that I would not dare criticise the Houses of Parliament, where he has sat for so many years. I have spent 42 years of my life in local government, so I know it. A prominent Minister has made the same statement, that local government in the Principality is in a shambles. If it has been in a shambles in the Principality
892
since 1888—and local government is linked historically to England—it must be in a shambles in England. I made the point earlier, when I asked some years ago whether or not it was possible to prevent the advent of local government reorganisation before the Crowther Report, and the answer given me by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who is not here today, was that they would not anticipate local government reorganisation in advance of the Crowther and then the Kilbrandon Reports. But we had reorganisation.
Noble Lords have stressed the importance of the preservation of the Welsh language. One realises historically that culture in any form springs from language. The moment people are able to convey their ideas to each other, that is the beginning of culture. Springing from the Welsh language is a fine cultural background. But I say to my noble friend Lord Maelor, "Who preserved the Welsh language in South Wales? Was it the Members of Parliament?" No, it was the local authority of Glamorgan, which with I am privileged to be associated. For 30 years I have been a member of that authority and we were able to preserve the cultural heritage of that part of the world. If the county council had not accepted its responsibility and decided to do everything in the primary schools of Wales, the language would have been lost. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that if we are not to have a division in Wales, which we could very well have, at least we should try to develop the concept that our schools in Wales should become bilingual, so that at the end of a period children would be able to converse in both languages.
It has been said that the Assembly does not mean another tier of government. Certainly that is not the situation. I am concerned at this stage with the question as to why there are not the appropriate bodies to examine local government reorganisation. I have lived in Wales all my life, and it has been very clearly explained here this afternoon that the centre in the Assembly is precisely the same centre for the committee structure for the county council.
In some parts of Wales it is said that the Assembly will become more or less a glorified county council. That is the body which is going to determine when local

893
government is to occur in Wales. I opposed it before in this House. I felt it was premature to have local government reorganisation. West Glamorgan was a new county. We built it into a county in four years, and I want to give that county council many more years to establish itself. In four years what was the result of the administration in that county? Eighty-five per cent. of the children are in nursery schools. In the last Budget provisions was made for in-service training of 70 teachers. But those teachers cannot be released from school to do the in-service training required to enable them to fit in with the philosophical changes occurring in education. That is what the county council have done.
I am not going to listen to people who say we are in a shambles. In the four years —and I am looking at the Minister for the Arts—we in Glamorgan have a Mozart Festival, and we are keeping abreast of all developments. For 30 years I was chairman of an education committee. I want to say this afternoon that I played second fiddle to no one in making provision for the boys and girls of our county. When I began there were 84 scholarships, and when I finished there were 8,400 scholarships. We say that, in a civilised community, boys and girls to whom God has given an intellect, should have the opportunity of using it to the full.
The county councils in Wales are doing their job and I am privileged to be their president. I said earlier what would be their reaction if they had realised that there was going to be inserted in the Bill a clause, such as Clause 12, which gives responsibility for local government reorganisation. When local government reorganisation is being considered it is necessary to secure people who are completely independent. If the Bill had provided that independent people should examine local government in Wales, I would have said that is fair enough; but this Assembly will be self interested.
The logic of this Bill is that there will be a new Assembly with no reservoir of experience whatsoever, and we are going to ask it to do fundamental things—to change the character of local government. There is to he a cleavage on the reserve powers given to the Secretary of State and the devolved powers given to the Assembly. At this moment on the rate support grant
894
we can have consultation. But here we shall have to talk with the Secretary of State and talk with the Assembly—a complicated process of trying to get the allocation of money to carry out the services the responsibility for which Parliament has placed on the local authority. It is as complicated as it can possibly be.
We come to the question of devolution. I was charmed, as I have been charmed for many years, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. I have been privileged to serve for all the years he served the university. I admire his choice of words, his eloquence, his way of putting the case concretely and correctly. But I say with respect that I have been nearer to the political base of Wales than he has. I listened to the eloquence of Queen's Counsel and of the Lord Chancellor putting the case, but I realised the noble and learned Lord was not altogether with it; he was not quite the Lord Chancellor. He has a lot of charm, but he was not quite right in putting forward the case as a cause he believed in. Make no mistake, there are political elements in Wales that want separation, and those political elements are very important.
There is one thing that I fear about this process of devolution. One does not object to devolution, because power has already been devolved in many ways to the Secretary of State. On further education, as I argued 10 years ago should have been done, powers have been devolved; also on agriculture. One does not argue on the philosophical basis of a devolved situation. But when devolution comes to change the character of government of a people one must look at it extremely carefully. I live in the constituency that the Secretary of State represents. I have been treasurer of the local Labour Party for 40 years. I am the man who finds the money for him. If I walk down Station Road and say to people, "What about devolution?", they say, "What are you talking about?". But if one walks down Station Road on a Saturday morning and asks them about developments in the Steel Company of Wales, and how to guarantee its future, one receives a ready response, very clearly. These issues will face any future Government: unemployment and prices —not devolution. It is said that inflation

895
is going down, but my wife tells me that she pays more for food. Those are the basic situations.
Having spent the whole of my life in the Principality, my concern is whether we are doing the right thing at this stage and whether the people of Wales want it. Recently a Gallup Poll was taken, as a result of which it was said that 48 per cent. of the people voted and that the vote balanced out. Where they got that from I do not know. The previous week another Gallup Poll said that 53 per cent. of the people were against and 33 per cent. were for. I hope that people's minds are not pre-conditioned by Gallup Polls. I hope that when the referendum is given to the people of Wales, logical and intelligent questions will be put to them. I hope that the people will decide their destiny, because—make no mistake—the change in local government will vitally affect the economic, sociological and philosophical life of the Principality. In that sense I am a democrat.
In conclusion, I say this. We live in a free society. I have been a democrat all my life. I shall support the Bill on one premise: that it gives the people of Wales the right to decide their own destiny. That is the attitude of most people. If there were no referendum I would violently oppose the Bill. However, as there will be a referendum, and as the Government have been good enough to say that in a democratic society the people shall decide, I shall not oppose. I believe in government for the people, by the people. We know that phraseology. Let the people decide. Despite all my apprehensions about separatism from the central Parliament, I say "Let the people decide". I am pretty certain in my own mind that when the people decide, the decision will be "No" to this form of devolution that we are trying to force upon the Welsh people.
6.13 p.m.
Lord SWANSEA: My Lords, I must first of all offer my apologies in advance, in case I am not in my place at the end of this debate. I have another engagement this evening: I must ask your Lordships to forgive me if I cannot stay until the end. I think that many of us must have a slight feeling of déjà vu
896
about these whole proceedings, with the shadow of the Scotland Bill hanging over us, too, which has been going on for some weeks past and which is liable to go on for quite a while yet. And now the Wales Bill comes along. I have no doubt that many of the same arguments will be adduced for and against the Wales Bill as were adduced for and against the Scotland Bill. I have been looking back at the report of the debate on the White Paper, slightly over two years ago, in January 1976. I have read some of the speeches made then. I must be careful not to repeat what I said on that occasion. This debate has fewer participants than the Second Reading debate on the Scotland Bill. However, I am sure that that does not mean that any less interest w ill he taken by the people of Wales, as this Bill affects them greatly. It provides for the greatest constitutional change which anyone has introduced since the Union with Scotland. This proposal vitally affects the whole population of Wales.
I must congratulate my noble friend Lord Elton on his really masterly speech. Although he is not a Welshman himself, he deserves to be one. That is the highest compliment I can pay my noble friend. We also had a notable contribution by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor. He has perhaps greater experience of government covering the whole of Wales than possibly anyone else in your Lordships' Chamber. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that his speech was one of the major contributions to this debate. I do not come in the same class, I am afraid.
I was born in Wales. I have lived there all my life. I have a great love for the country. I would not choose to live anywhere else. I could never call myself a Welsh nationalist but I am, I think, a true Welsh patriot, because I love the country and want to do everything I can for the benefit of my country. However, I should hate anything to happen, or any legislation to be passed by Parliament, which would ultimately be detrimental to Wales. I believe this Bill to be just such a measure. It would eventually weaken Wales. It would make her a poor relation in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. As it is now, she has an opportunity to play her part as a partner in the United Kingdom and in the United Kingdom Parliament. I

897
see a Welsh Assembly as a first step to an eventual break-up of the United Kingdom. The same, in my view, applies to the Scottish Assembly. I see them both as being eventually divisive. For that reason I cannot support this Bill. We must obviously give it a Second Reading today. But we must do our best to improve it during its passage through this House and try to make it slightly better than it is. However, one cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
I travel around mid-Wales and South Wales a fair amount. I have talked to people about this Bill. I have yet to find anyone who is in favour of setting up a Welsh Assembly. My travels do not normally take me to what I might call the more Welsh strongholds of North Wales and West Wales. There, doubtless, one would find more support for this Bill on nationalistic grounds. But the people with whom I have spoken in my own part of Wales and in South Wales cannot see any merit in the Bill or in the Assembly. It is to be thought of as nothing more than a monstrous red herring brought in for reasons of political expediency and a colossal waste of Parliamentary time, when we have far more pressing questions which we would be better employed in discussing—for instance, the national economy, Welsh unemployment, and the housing situation. I am sure that Parliamentary time could be far better spent on a constructive discussion of these matters.
I suppose that we could be grateful to the Government for saving us in this Session from some ghastly piece of Socialist legislation. There are silver linings to every cloud—but this cloud is rather murkier than most. I wonder what a Welsh Assembly can do—what it can achieve—that cannot already be done by the Welsh Office as at present set up under the Secretary of State and under the present powers of the Welsh Council? There is probably room for enlargement of the Welsh Council, but it is a valuable advisory body and has proved itself so over the years. I see little that a Welsh Assembly could do that is not already achieved by the Welsh Council and the Welsh Office, and at far less cost.
It is only four years since we had a major reorganisation of the local government areas in Wales. Local government
898
has really been put through the mangle. I am not convinced that it was a change for the better. We were far better off under the old county councils. However, that is another matter. The point I wish to make is that here we are, only four years later, discussing a still bigger constitutional change affecting the whole of Wales when the 1974 reorganisation is barely beginning to work. It is much too soon to introduce yet another upheaval of this kind. The Welsh Assembly will mean a sixth tier of government and, so far as the people of Scotland and Wales are concerned, it looks like a severe case of over-government as well as over-representation in their respective Assemblies and in the United Kingdom Parliament.
There is a grave danger that the Assembly will be dominated by the more thickly populated industrial areas in South Wales. They cover only a small part of the country, and the rest of the country is predominantly agricultural and relatively thinly populated; and there is a grave danger that the rural interests of Wales will find themselves in a minority and pushed on one side by the spokesmen for the industrial areas. The Assembly will have no legislative powers: it will simply be a talking shop. It will have responsibility, but it will have no real powers. What use is a body like that?
My noble friend Lord Mancroft mentioned the question of the Welsh language. Of course I would agree with other speakers that the Members of the Assembly would have a perfect right to address the Assembly in whatever language they chose. The question of simultaneous translation is a complication, but those systems are quite workable now. The more important question is that of the officers and staff of the Assembly. Are they going to be required to speak both languages? If so, I can foresee a Welsh speaking elitist class of civil servant springing up, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft mentioned, and the monoglot English-speaking civil servants will find themselves pushed out in the cold.
Let us take a closer look at the cost of this Assembly, because it terrifies me. There was a certain reluctance on the part of the Government at first to disclose some of the figures involved. They are now beginning to emerge. It appears that at present costs it will cost £3 million

899
to adapt and equip the Exchange Building in Cardiff for use by the Assembly, plus another £1 million for office accommodation. Running costs, salaries and services, will run to about £3 million, and on additional civil servants to staff the Assembly there is the staggering figure of £9/ million per annum. Add to that the cost of the referendum and the initial elections to the Assembly, in which connection the figure of 1 million has been mentioned, and a similar sum for the initial removal of staff to Cardiff.
Before the first word is spoken in the Assembly, in whichever language, £61 million will have been spent, and it will cost £12½ million a year to run at present costs, and who knows what inflation may bring in the future. When we are told of the necessity to curtail public expenditure in Wales and in the rest of the United Kingdom, especially on housing, the National Health Service, and on defence, it seems sheer insanity to talk of adding yet another £12 million per annum, on an increasing scale, to our budget.
The next point I wish to talk about is the method of election to the Assembly. Although I am a firm supporter of the first-past-the-post system for Parliamentary Elections, I think that in the case of the Welsh Assembly we ought to have some form of proportional representation because there is a grave danger, looking at the present representation of Wales in Parliament, that you would get a permanent one-Party majority in the Assembly, which would be very undesirable. So for that reason I think you would get a much fairer representation of the minority Parties if the Assembly was elected on some system of proportional representation.
The passage of this Bill in another place was a patchy one because, as my noble friend Lord Elton told us, the discussion of certain parts of the Bill was severely curtailed. It is a shameful indictment of the present Government that they were prepared to allow this to happen to a Bill of such major constitutional importance. Therefore, it is more than ever necessary, more than ever the duty of this House, to give this Bill a thorough and searching examination before we finish with it. We must do
900
the best we can with this Bill. It is a thoroughly bad Bill, but we must try to knock it into some kind of shape before we send it back to the other place.
When cases like this arise where the other place is inhibited from discussing a Bill in full, who can doubt the indispensability of a second Chamber in our Parliamentary system. At the end of the day when this Bill is passed—as I suppose it will be, although perhaps not quite in its present form—the issue will be put to the Welsh people to decide. The Welshman, or Welshwoman for that matter, is a canny individual and not easily hoodwinked. He or she does not easily allow the wool to be pulled over his or her eyes. In the end the native common sense of the Welsh will prevail. They will see through this Bill for the piece of window dressing which it is, and as my noble friend Lord Mancroft called it. It is totally unnecessary and it will not achieve anything. It will not improve the position of Wales one iota and I hope that, when the day comes for the referendum, the people of Wales will consign this half-baked idea to the oblivion which it so richly deserves.
6.30 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, one of the many extraordinary features of your Lordships' House is that it gives someone with no political ambition a platform from which to pontificate. While noble Lords may not like very much what I have to say—I am sure that as usual, my Front Bench will not like it—noble Lords can always go to sleep. However, I hope to put a slightly earthy and plebian view on the Bill. Certainly I am unable to dissect it analytically and logically as other noble Lords have done, though I must say it gave me some pleasure to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor find that Schedule 2 was a little complicated.
I am a mongrel Welshman, my ancestor sensibly and successfully seducing a very beautiful Welsh heiress a couple of centuries or so ago—which, in Wales, I would remind the House, was only yesterday—so I am therefore speaking with rather less knowledge than usual; I am happier discussing things like farms or sheep or even boats. I therefore ask for more indulgence than usual, particularly

901
as I am sandwiched in the list of speakers between my noble friend Lord Swansea and the noble Baroness, Lady White, both of whom are unfortunate enough to come from the wrong end of Wales.
I fully and completely sympathise with the spirit behind devolution for Wales. I understand and admire the wish to retain and enhance the Welsh language, the Welsh philosophy, individuality, sensitivity and particularly romanticism, and indeed the wish to see that Wales remains Welsh; and I hope I shall not be classed as a racist for making such a remark. I understand and agree with the resentment that is, and has been, felt in Wales against the interference, attitudes and actions particularly of the English Tory landlords in the last century. They were less than creditable in their attitudes and even today some of the actions of the English living in Wales—and I am half one—could do with more thoughtfulness. I understand and support the annoyance and irritation in Wales at having crazy legislation sent down from Westminster for them to obey; the idiotic reorganisation of local government, in my case the destruction of an efficient and personal county council in Anglesey to be replaced by a new and costly big and beautiful bureaucratic beast across the Straits somewhere—an idea thought up, I am sorry to say, by English academics and politicians. What better recipe for disaster?
Added to that, the unfortunate Welshman is showered once a day and twice on Sundays with a litter of legislation so complicated and verbose that it cannot even be translated into Welsh, all of it originating from England. If that is not enough, the unfortunate Welsh farmer suddenly finds that he is being undercut by Irish cattle coming across the Irish Sea, and the reasons given to him are extraordinary things called green pounds, MCAs, co-efficients and intervention, in his mind all originating from England. No wonder there is the cry, "Let us set up shop ourselves and be rid of Westminster".
Those are a handful of the reasons why Wales wants to be devolved, and I go along with the frustration of the Welsh people, and myself, and if this Bill solved any of those frustrations it would have my support. However, I fear I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord
902
Chancellor that it will. It will not, and indeed I fear it will have the opposite effect and remove even further from the Welshman on the ground any control of his affairs. It satisfies none of the wishes of the Welsh and will in fact only add to the list of complaints. It will obliterate Wales in paper, and with the paper will come even more civil servants—sorry, I should have said bureaucrats; let me make my position absolutely plain—in district council, county council, Welsh Office, Water Board, Welsh Commission and, last but not least, at the Welsh Assembly.
For obvious reasons I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, that Henry VIII was England's greatest king. I believe his father, Henry VII, also a Welshman, was. I doubt very much indeed whether he would have approved of this expenditure on bureaucracy. I think your Lordships will know of Henry VII's innate meanness; he might, if alive, have a few of their heads off to lie with my former kinsman's. The Bill is a horror and insult to Wales. I must complete the Sermon on the Mount of my noble friend Lord Elton by saying that Wales has asked for a fish and this Bill gives her a serpent.
It will, of course, be up to your Lordships to try to improve the Bill and I am sure that, as always, the House will try so to do. I have three minor points which were touched on by Lord Elton and at some stage I should like them answered. First, who will act as the Executive in the Welsh Assembly when appealed to? If he is the person mentioned in Clause 18 in respect of cases under Clause 10 of land acquisition, will he not be the same person who authorised the original acquisition? As a Welsh farmer, I was not so thrilled as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, about parts of Clause 10. Secondly, who will be responsible for agriculture? The Bill states that agriculture will not be devolved, but all the powers relating to land—land use, control and requisition—are. It is somewhat difficult to farm without land, though I am sure that the ever-resilient Welsh farmer will try to do so; but some clarification of this problem from the Government might possibly be appreciated. Thirdly—perhaps noble Lords may think it a facetious question: How does one get from Anglesey to Cardiff?

903
I will not bore noble Lords with more questions as time is getting on. I fear that the Bill is so hopeless, impracticable and expensive to Wales that it is past redemption. Fortunately, being a farmer, it is not up to me to suggest what the alternative should be; that is for greater minds. May we be told who is to explain the Bill to the Welsh people? Noble Lords may be able to read it like a James Bond novel, but, as will be apparent, I cannot. I do not think that even the Lord Chancellor will be able to put this question simply to the Welsh people so that he can know and give the correct answer to what he is being asked. There is a real problem here, and I have yet to hear anybody give me a perfect answer. Thank goodness we in your Lordships' House do not have to answer this question! It will be left to Wales, but in my opinion it is an insult to a great and talented people.
6.39 p.m.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, I rise to explain briefly and with considerable regret why I feel it will not be appropriate for me to take a very active part in the deliberations on this Bill. It is certainly not that I haughtily subscribe to the dismissive remarks of Alexander Pope:
"For forms of government let fools contest"—
although I would go along with his next line:
"Whate'er is best administered is best".
It is certainly not indifference to the issue of Welsh devolution, which is one of the most important to have confronted the Principality for many generations. Nor is it due to opposition to the principle of devolution as such, because I believe firmly that certain functions of government would be better carried out even in Cardiff than in London.
I am afraid that I cannot go along with the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, in supposing that the Welsh Council—an advisory body—would be an adequate substitute for the proposals in the Bill. I was chairman of the Welsh Council for some time, and I know its weaknesses as well as I know its potential. Nor would I be unduly swayed by matters of cost, important though they are—this question has been touched upon several times by noble Lords opposite. There is another side to this question. For example, I
904
could draw attention to several firms which have indicated quite clearly that, if there is to be a Welsh Assembly in Cardiff, they will think of locating their offices or enterprises there, and if there is not, they will look elsewhere. So the proposals could have a stimulating economic effect.
My particular difficulty is that for me this is a situation in which the rules of the late Lord Addison are applicable. Perhaps I have not always paid the respect to Lord Addison that I might have done. However, I have thought very carefully about my position in relation to the Bill. My problem is this. I am the paid—part-time, but, nevertheless, paid—chairman of a public body which stands to be subsumed by the Welsh Assembly, should the Bill become law, and I seem perhaps to have too direct a personal and public interest in the matter to be able at least to appear to take an entirely objective view. Of course, I am concerned not only for the body itself—the Land Authority for Wales—but also for my colleagues on the board, and for the staff. Therefore, I consider that I shall have to be much more reticent than I would otherwise have been.
I have spent quite a long time trying to work out how far I can, with propriety, comment on the details of the Bill, and most regretfully I came to the conclusion that really one cannot distinguish between what is proper and what is not; one cannot pick and choose. It is not in my nature to be unduly subservient, or to feign approval of any matters of which in fact I do not approve. Equally, I should hate to be in a position where it was supposed that I was approving something simply because it might be convenient for our particular case. Therefore, I think that the only course open to me is that I should simply take the opportunity to put on the record the reason I do not expect to be a very active participant during future stages of the Bill, although I expect to listen to much of what is said, and I certainly hope to read the rest. Perhaps as an envoi I may quote the lines of Dylan Thomas which, I see, were quoted by a colleague of mine in the final debate on the Bill in another place. This quotation contains the words of the Rev. Eli Jenkins, who was addressing his Maker as follows:

905
"We are not wholly bad or good,
Who live our lives under Milk Wood,
And Thou I know wilt be the first,
To see our best side, not our worst."
In that charitable spirit I hope that your Lordships will bring the Bill to a successful conclusion.
6.43 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady White, cannot give us more information and help, as we know that she has great knowledge on this subject. We quite understand and respect her reasons, and we wish her the best of luck with her work. I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in the Chamber, because in the Second Reading debate in the other House, on 15th November, he was particularly mentioned by the Secretary of State as being one of the galaxy of stars who had helped with Wales. I do not necessarily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, because the Irish in Southern Ireland learned perfectly well to speak Irish, and it did not make them élite. They had it taught in their primary schools, and they could have it in their secondary schools if they wished. At that time all civil servants had to speak Irish, and most of them have to now. Furthermore, I did not find any difficulty with my Member of Parliament when I was on the London County Council. So I do not think that there will be here the effect which some people fear.
I have spent some time in Wales, especially when I was young, when I was in Denbigh. One of my jobs during the war was to visit Ministry of Supply factories in connection with the welfare of the women. I spoke in General Election campaigns in Anglesey and in Ebbw Vale. At the latter place someone shouted that the only thing that he liked about me, on hearing my speech, was the colour of my red hat.
I have read the Gallup Polls, and the whole of the debate in the House of Commons, and I listened on the radio last week-end to the Labour Party Conference, and it seems to me that on this question opinions are very divided; and this impression has also appeared in your Lordships' House. This makes the position all the more difficult when we know we must take the Bill seriously. Most
906
of the points that I intended to make have been made, but I have one or two others which I want to put forward. Reference has already been made to the high cost, and I notice that the referendum, plus the elections, will cost £1¼ million. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, that the form of ballot paper, as shown in the Appendix on page 88 of the Bill, is most unsatisfactory. It states:
"Do you want the provisions of the Wales Act 1978 to be put into effect?"
I do not know how the people will know what is in the Bill (if it becomes an Act) unless the details are spelt out in leading articles in local papers, and in other ways. Surely they could be asked a more direct question. They could be asked whether they want devolution, or the question could be put in some other way which is simpler than the proposed wording. I think it would be very unfair to ask people merely whether they want the provisions of the Wales Bill to be put into effect, when they can know very little about it.
I also notice that the Bill is likely to involve an increase of about 1,150 in the number of civil servants in Wales, and that there will also be expenditure of about £1¼ million in respect of the initial movement of staff. I want to put in a plea for more local people to be recruited. Surely people can be trained locally. The unemployment rate in Tenby is 17·5 per cent., and in Rhyl 14·9 per cent., and I feel that there must be people living locally who could be qualified to join the Civil Service. I recall that when I was speaking in Anglesey during a General Election campaign someone who had three days' growth on his face got up and said that he was very worried about the question of civil servants, because there had been talk of cutting them down. I was slightly mystified, and I wanted to know what he was. He spoke in Welsh, and I asked for a translation. He said that he was the local rat catcher. I was able to say to him that I thought that, whichever Government got in, I did not think there would be any less work for him.
I turn now to the question of powers. Clause 34 refers to the power of the Secretary of State to prevent or require action, and this provision seems to me to be all-embracing. This especially applies to subsection (6). Should the Welsh Assembly have one political complexion and the House of Commons another?

907
It would appear to me that in those circumstances, the way the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State would have too much power.
I also do not like what is involved in Schedule 2. Pages 36 to 62 set out the existing statutory functions. I think that it will be necessary for us to go through the excluded functions because there seem to be so many—I do not want to enumerate them at the moment—which would be much better done locally. It also appears that the Assembly can implement the EEC international obligations. Yet the Secretary of State said, during the Second Reading debate in another place, as reported at column 360 of the Official Report:
"But, whenever necessary … the Government themselves will be able to ensure that international obligations are implemented within Wales, and elsewhere."
This might be against the direct wishes of the people. It seems to me that if we are to have an Assembly as laid out in the Bill, there will be too much interference.
I also want to refer to Clause 61, in regard to tourism. It is stated that:
"The Assembly may make arrangements with the British Tourist Authority for that Authority to undertake activities outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Wales."
As we know, tourism is a very great asset to Wales. It brings not only a lot of money, but also friendship. According to this Bill as it stands, they have to go through the British Tourist Authority. I should like to take the opportunity to close down the British Tourist Authority, keeping the English, Welsh and Scottish Authorities and letting them manage their own arrangements.
Clause 12, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords, deals with the review of local government. Surely this is unwise at a time when the Assembly itself will be building up its own house. I cannot see how it can do both at the same time. Therefore, if this clause must be left in the Bill I should like to see a date given, so that, if they must have those powers, they do not start reorganising local government until later. Furthermore, it is stated that the Executive Members—and this, too, I read in the Second Reading debate, at column 365
908
—together with, I understand, a small number of other Members, will comprise the Executive Committee of the Assembly and then apparently it will be for the Assembly to evolve its own detailed methods of working. I can see a lot of trouble in this because, after all, there will be, I presume, several different political Parties, with completely different ideas, and it may cause a considerable amount of delay.
Furthermore, I should like to quote from the Secretary of State, also during the Second Reading debate, when he said, at column 365:
"Within that framework it will be for the Assembly to evolve its own detailed mode of operation, but I believe that we shall in this way be able to ensure that the representatives of North and South Wales, of industrial Wales and rural Wales, will be able to participate in the democratic control of decision-making."
Knowing the difficulties (or shall I say the differences? that is perhaps a better word) between North and South now, even in language—and, as has been mentioned before, if one wants to get them together they have to be invited to meet in Birmingham—I think this is going to be extremely difficult to implement. Also, there will be, of course, the very different views that we have heard expressed in this House. I consider, therefore, that it is unfortunate that the Assembly should have a committee system rather than a Parliamentary system. I would much prefer to have open debates. Having been on the old London County Council, I know the difference between the two; and I think that if we are going to set up something different in Wales, as opposed to local government, which seems to me to be working quite well, then we should have the Parliamentary system rather than the other.
I would also think that it might be possible for the Welsh, who are so good at their language, to ensure that, if they are to have an Assembly, it is given a Welsh name, and that whoever is going to lead their House is also given a Welsh name, and not just be called the First Minister, or something like that. After all, the Southern Irish Parliament manage quite well. They call it the Dail, and they have a name for their Prime Minister. I would have thought it much better to have a distinction, and not just to call it an Assembly.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I can help the noble Baroness there. In medieval Welsh assemblies we had a Pendragon. That was the name of the official.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, if the noble Lord is going to suggest that, perhaps he will put down an Amendment. It might be an interesting debate. To finish, I hope that the financial provisions will not create regular conflict between Wales and Westminster, and so upset the unity of the United Kingdom. This is the one thing I really fear; that is, if there are going to be difficulties over the money allocated, then this may create unfortunate barriers between the Parliament in London and the Assembly in Wales.
6.54 p.m.
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE: My Lords, now that the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill is out of the way, and before proceeding to the Wales Bill, I should like to take the opportunity, with your Lordships' permission, to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on the way he carried out his marathon task on the Scotland Bill. He did this with feeling, great tolerance and skill, with the exception of one slightly bitter comment on the Opposition being "loaded". Whether the noble and learned Lord meant that we were loaded with too many Members or whether he meant there was too large a representation of Scottish Peers, I do not know. If it was the latter, one thing is certain: we cannot be accused of the same thing with regard to the Wales Bill.
I believe it is a fact that we on this side have only four truly Welsh Peers, although we can claim with some pride that in the person of my noble friend Lord Tenby we have the grandson of one of Wales's most distinguished statesmen. The paucity of Welsh Peers on our side means that the Committee stage of the Bill will have to be carried out largely with the help of an Anglo-Scottish alliance. Past history has shown that this alliance is not always the strongest of ties. Speaking for myself as a Scot, and one who has no wish to have a vicious ruck with the Welsh back row, I feel the Committee stage should be conducted with as few political differences as possible. It should be
910
carried through with the object of modifying this Bill and producing the result which is most advantageous to Wales and to the United Kingdom.
At this stage I do not intend to go into too many details—these will come later, when we start on the Amendments—but with your Lordships' leave I will touch on a few minor points and one major point to try to show that as the Wales Bill now stands it is like its elder sister, the Scotland Bill, and to a certain extent the Scotland Bill still is a Bill which requires many improvements. If one takes the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974, one finds that in the case of the Scotland Bill it is fairly simple. This Act is not an Act which is solely for Scotland; it covers the United Kingdom. However, in the case of the Wales Bill it is loaded with section after section. Why, when it is the same Act, should Scotland have only a portion of it and Wales be burdened with considerably more legislation?
Another difficult point will be when we come to make a decision on the Severn and Trent Water Authority. If your Lordships decide wrongly, this could cause offence both to England and to Wales. Then there is a strange clause in the Bill which forbids a Member of the Assembly to sit on a Scottish jury. I cannot find the reciprocal clause in the Scotland Bill. Why should a person in the Welsh Assembly be disqualified from sitting on a Scottish jury? I admit that the situation is unlikely to arise. However, this person in the Assembly might be eccentric and have a burning passion to sit on a jury North of the Border. After all, there are eccentrics in England and in Scotland, and I dare say that if one were to look hard enough one could find people in Ireland who are not eccentric.
Finally, I come to what I consider to be the seriously bad part of the Bill, and this has already been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. That is the part of the Bill which was Part VI, Clause 72, in the Scotland Bill and is Part V, Clause 71, in the Wales Bill. This is the vexed question of reducing the delaying powers of this House to 10 days. This is a major constitutional alteration smuggled into the Bill—a Bill which has nothing to do with constitutional change of this form, which concerns your Lordships' House. My Lords, this side

911
of the House will contest this part of the Bill with the utmost vigour.
6.59 p.m.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, your Lordships' House is a dangerously disarming place. The noble Marquess, Lord Tweed-dale, from the Conservative Benches, rises to speak in resonant English tones in praise of a Welshman, a radical Liberal, David Lloyd George, who came out of Wales to govern Britain. Standing as one of the back row of the Welsh pack in this debate, and rising at this time of night at this stage of the debate, it would be inappropriate if I were not to say that we take considerable pride in the fact that this debate was begun and will be ended by a Welsh Lord Chancellor. Marginal figures in our history were mentioned by name and by reputation by other noble Lords, but we take equal pride and particular pleasure that Wales is so well represented in this Palace of Westminster at this time and in the affairs of the government of our nation. I do not say that in a parochial sense: I say it with a sense of patriotism, and it is right that other noble Lords throughout this debate have mentioned their patriotism. A country is a poorer place when the people who speak within it and for it are afraid to mention the fact that they are proud of it.
At this point, having made those (I think necessary) praises of those who have spoken for this country and for Wales in this place, I should remind your Lordships that it was the Welsh wizard, David Lloyd George, who proved Hooker's contention that no change, even from good to better, can take place without hurting someone. I have been conscious as I have been listening tonight that voices raised have been, in some cases, those of people who are being hurt by the transition towards devolution for Wales. There are people whose lives and careers have been committed to creating the local government body in Wales. We heard a fine plea from the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, who has served his country well in its local government. He defended all that had been achieved in it and, rightly, too, defended his own position as one who had been, by means of the patronage of local government, a great benefactor of his nation and the children of that nation.
912
I deliberately choose to single him out as an example as, one of those whose life's work seems in part to be threatened by the success that the Government are having in bringing their Bill through the various stages of the Commons—perhaps neutered, perhaps cut by friend and foe alike, but, not essentially changed.
I think, in a sense, your Lordships in this House and our right honourable friends and honourable friends in another place are too close to the problem at this moment to see clearly what we are about. Inevitably, as legislation proceeds, those who take part in it, for and against various points, become so committed to it that they see themselves as dealing not so much with a policy change but with deep and fundamental principles. I have been sad to see certain hackles raised and tempers inflamed over issues which are quite properly political and procedural issues, and people have talked as though they had been wounded in principle when it is only a policy that has been criticised. That is why I say that this House is a disarming place. In it one feels almost always that so long as the debate is logical and so long as the arguments are sound, one can say almost anything to friend or foe alike and meet outside as one who has made a contribution to its procedures and the debate.
I have been following the debate closely and I have tried to take some account of what noble Lords have said, from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor (should I say, in this House?) sideways. It seems to me that all of us have some doubts as to individual phrases within the Bill itself. As I walked into the Chamber—and I apologise that I was out of the House for part of his speech—I heard the noble Lord, Lord Elton, speaking a phrase in Welsh. It was a startling choice because, as I was approaching my place, he said, "Get out! Get out!" I thought for a moment that he was referring to me; but he was, as always, talking closely to the Bill. I want to try to follow him in that example at least.
I am quite sure that when the Magna Carta was presented by those who were most likely to benefit from it to those who were most likely to lose most, there were considerable protests over the wording. I am sure that when the Petition of Rights was drawn up, there were those who

913
believed that it was a fundamental attack on the standards of life of those most affected by it. As I heard the clichés being sprayed, one of those who sprayed most was a Commonwealth marksman; and although he fired all round the target in his description of this Bill, I could not help feeling that he was more wide of the mark than usual and would not have gained a gold medal for his performance this evening; I refer to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Swansea.
It seems to me that what we are talking about here are not those issues as to whether the thing is going to pay for itself—important though they are, as my noble friend the noble Baroness pointed out; we are talking about the structure of this Bill and how it will affect the history of the Welsh nation which is a part of the United Kingdom. Lloyd George, when presenting his People's Budget to a Liberal Cabinet, met such bitter opposition that the thing would not have been carried through at all if it had not been for the English statesman who was his Prime Minister, who, when the row was at its height, said, "Now that we have reached a substantial measure of agreement, I declare the meeting closed."
Here, my Lords, we have a Bill which deals historically with those key decisions that affect the lives of people living in Wales. These decisions have been made either locally or by Parliament till now. But during the last 30 years, there has emerged an intermediate level of decision-making. It is neither local nor national but positioned midway between local authorities and Parliament. To those noble Lords who see this Bill as threatening to create an intermediate stage, I would say that that intermediate stage is here already; it has been here, and with increasing power and strength, for the last 30 years while I have been in local government in Wales, and lately on a wider stage.
In Wales this has resulted in the creation of a scale and nature of government addressing itself to the problems facing Wales—problems which are different from those faced in other parts of the United Kingdom, not in their essence but because they occur in Wales. It was a member of my own Party, the late Aneurin Bevan, who used to say that there was no such thing as Welsh unemployment, there was
914
only unemployment which was bad where-ever it occurred. When it occurred in Wales, he did not call it Welsh unemployment, but unemployment occurring in Wales. The problems that occur in Wales, although they may not be different basically, are nearer and closer to the Welsh people; and their solution should, in fact, rest with them. Consequently, the solutions that have to be worked out and implemented should be worked out and implemented by the people who in their everyday contact are close to the Welsh people. We have no objection to—and I, personally, welcome, as I am sure other noble Lords who have spent all their time in Wales will have done—the helpful and positive interventions in this debate by noble Lords who have not pretended to call themselves Welsh, who have made no apology for not being Welsh, because this is an issue which is fundamental to the United Kingdom. And we must say—and here I might part company with some who seem to be firmly on my side and with whom I share the battle—that of course there must be an effect upon the United Kingdom and its future from the proposal to give even this diminished measure of devolution to Wales; because you cannot, in any sense, create a new structure or a new method of going about government in a unity of a Kingdom without disturbing the balance of that unity.
Many of the all-Wales decisions to which I have referred are taken today by the Welsh Office. The principle of public accountability is maintained by the Welsh Secretary of State; and he is responsible to the British Parliament. During the hearings of the Crowther-Kilbrandon Commission in 1969, the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Welsh Office conceded that there was a danger that Wales could be governed by a Civil Service élite—a point which was made in moving as well as intellectual terms by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest.
I should also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, because I am trying to take as objective a look at our developing history as it is possible to take in this Chamber, where, at this hour of the night, we try to come to grips with the problems we face. Although I have not always in politics universally supported the noble Lord, Lord Brooke

915
of Cumnor, as a Welshman I pay tribute to that period of the evolution of the Welsh Office over which he presided and to the identification of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, with the development of the Welshness of Welsh administration to its present point.
Having said that, I think that few would claim now that the much wider range of functions of the present Welsh Office are adequately scrutinised by a Parliament overburdened by responsibilities, many of them arising from our membership of the Common Market and other dimensions of Government into which they have gone. It is as well to remind ourselves that this whole thing began not in 1960 or in 1955, but in the earlier 1950s when this nation rebuilt its institutions after the war; when it decided that some of the responsibilities which it was placing upon its Ministers were so huge that they could not fairly and properly be borne any longer by one man.
I remember first hearing the word "devolution" used in the context of the fact that the Prime Minister of the day in the 1950s was a small individual physically, but a giant in intellect and energy, the late Lord Attlee, a Member of your Lordships' own Chamber. He said that it was probably impossible to foresee the development of so many functions of State vested in individuals who, no matter how good they might be, were only human. I think that at that point we went wrong. I interject here a little thought of my own: If the word at that time had been "de-centralisation" rather than "devolution", your Lordships would not be debating dots and commas of clauses in a Bill here tonight. Long ago your Lordships would have accepted the view of the Welsh people, the Scottish people, the Irish people and the people of the regions in England, that they do not through our current Parliamentary system appear to have, nor do they in fact have, an adequate say in the day-to-day administration of their lives.
No matter how self-satisfied we may be with the eminence that we have achieved in this Chamber or in another place, it remains a fact that the people of Britain are not universally convinced that their Member of Parliament, or a
916
noble Lord sitting in this place, knows better than them what is good for them. I say that as clearly as I possibly can. A whole host of decisions covering numerous activities in Wales are taken by an assortment of ad hoc bodies, authorities and nominated bodies. Like the noble Baroness, I too have to cite the Addision Rules because I am a member of a number of bodies, and I am a paid member of the Welsh Development Agency. Anything I might say in the context of this paragraph must be taken by your Lordships' House as being said by an individual and not by a member of either a nominated or a paid body.
Currently there are some 70 committees, boards and other public bodies operating in Wales which are responsible for the authorisation each year of more than £300 million of public expenditure. Some, like the Welsh Council, are merelyadvisory. However, the advice they give can be enormously influential in determining ministerial decisions and Government policy. Others, including the Welsh Water Authority, have executive powers; and of course the Welsh Development Agency spends a very great deal of money on behalf of the nation in trying to expand and develop the Welsh economy.
Here I would mention and pay tribute to the rich experience of the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, who spoke, as he always does, with such loving affection of his native land, and also side-swiped at one or two of us and the policies of building factories in anticipation of development in order to make that development easier when expansion comes. It is not in any sense an attack upon him when I defend myself from his gentle barb and say that I believe it is right and effective to prepare in advance for an expanding economic situation. However, he makes his point and I make mine. Despite their wide dissimilarities, all the public bodies have one thing in common: their membership is undemocratic—as undemocratic as is this House—and their meetings are secret. Their membership comes, as ours does, by nomination. Their nominated members—almost 2,500 people—are responsible for supervising an increasingly important element of Welsh public administration and they do not have an equal degree of democratic control.
I have already said that I can go no further into the specific policies of these

917
bodies; but the point I want to leave with you is that a Welsh level of authority already exists and has existed for some time year by year, month by month. It plays a key role in the process of government in Wales. This level of decision-making must now be democratised and made more accountable to the Welsh electorate. In case the question is asked again—because it has been asked over and over again in this debate as though it has never been answered—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales in another place on 9th May 1978 met head-on the question which is asked over and over again: "Is there not going to be some diminution of Parliamentary authority by the establishment of the Welsh Assembly?" Yes, of course there is; there is bound to be. This is what my right honourable friend said at column 996 in Hansard in the other place on 9th May, 1978, speaking of:
"… the position of Parliament after devolution in Wales and the relationship between Parliament and the Assembly. Let there be no question that we are, in the Wales Bill, completely devolving a large number of the powers and functions now exercised by myself and my colleagues—by Ministers—to the Assembly. The Assembly will be fully responsible for the exercise of those powers and functions and will be answerable for the exercise of those functions to the people of Wales and not to Parliament.
In other words, the Bill transfers certain executive responsibilities of central government to the Assembly, but Parliament will continue to legislate in these fields for Wales, and Members of Parliament will continue to be responsible for all primary legislation applying to the Principality."
This is what devolution is all about. This is what decentralisation of government is all about. The ill-assorted criticisms of devolution we have heard in this Chamber and elsewhere claim that it will lead to the creation of another level of "bureaucratic authority" in the life of Wales. The point that I am making is that this criticism not only misrepresents the position, it is meaningless. The all-Wales level of authority is already in existence, taking decisions and often prescribing the life-style and a pattern of service for many Welsh households.
The question is: What degree of democracy do we want to achieve? I heard this said at least three times by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in his three Second Reading addresses in the course of the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill. He was quite right when he said that the
918
problem to which we must address ourselves is: Are we making democracy better? Are we making democracy more democratic? It is no good standing up here and saying how democratic we are in a non-elected Chamber of government, presiding over non-elected bodies that affect the lives of the people, if we do not analyse how we are going best to see that better control is exercised over it in the future than has been exercised over it in the past. Is the all-Wales nominated body, whose decisions affect the development of Wales and its people, to stand apart in splendid isolation from the pattern of democratic Government? Surely not, my Lords? Democracy must be extended to every level of Government where decisions are taken which affect the conditions and quality of life of people like ourselves—and some of us think we are extraordinary when we are very ordinary people.
The Welsh Assembly will provide a significant and exciting opportunity. New policies within a broad framework laid down by Parliament will be initiated by a Welsh Assembly. It will determine its own scale of priorities in tune with the needs and aspirations of Wales. It will decide what is more appropriate to the Welsh situation and therefore more beneficial for the Welsh people. I do not think that we ought to have these things questioned as though we were not quite being honest. This whole innuendo has coloured argument on devolution. I do not take it as a crusade. My last crusade in this country is a long way back in my own personal history. I feel now that I am in a place where we are trying to bring what experience we have to bear on the problems of the day for as long as we are allowed to do it:
"Seek ye the Lord while he is yet found."
It will provide a new focus and bring a powerful, beneficial and democratic impetus to Welsh life, I believe.
People, in their attitudes to polls, are totally ambivalent. They seem to delight in them when they come down in their favour, and they question them, either directly or indirectly, when they seem to be heading against them. We have had an interesting pair of polls this weekend which seem to show that the policies of the Government are receiving a wider support than appeared to be likely a week or so ago. I cannot be more

919
forthcoming than that. I have tried to express that in the characteristic fashion of your Lordships' House.
When it comes to what the polls say about what the people in Wales think, we ought to look at the detail of it. The public opinion poll showed that the people of Wales are moving towards the concept of the Assembly as defined within the Act. The opinion poll commissioned by the BBC in Wales, which was carried out by the Cardiff market research company Abacus as late as 5th May has revealed significant shifts in Welsh opinion in favour of devolution during the past 12 months. Fifty three per cent. of the people were then against it and 27 per cent. were for it out of 40·8 per cent. people polled in a Western Mail poll. Perhaps I should declare my interest here since I have from time to time worked for both the BBC and the Western Mail, but not for the poll. The poll also revealed that 67·3 per cent. of the Welsh electorate are determined to vote. This seems, I think, to disappoint those who fondly believed that the Welsh people knew little and cared less about the devolution referendum.
If anyone were to ask me why I think this change has come about, I would say that the biggest single contribution to it has been made by the creation of those huge, amorphous, local government authorities which, though the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, defended them, as one would expect—not simply adequately but forthrightly and downrightly—have in fact caused more heart-searching among people in Wales and in Britain generally than anything else. Here I would say that if this Bill were to "decentralise" it would win even greater support than it seems to have under the poll.
I would say that even the Tory Party in Wales, which seems to be opposed to devolution, has more than one-fifth of its supporters who were polled in this poll in favour of the proposal. The support for the Welsh Assembly related to Party voting and the intention is quite clear. The Welsh workers who would, under the social class registration, be classified by the old-fashioned terms to which I am prone, as "working class" seemed to be more strongly in favour. Although all social classes in Wales contain devolution
920
enthusiasts, the support seemed to be strongest in those groups which would be classified under social groups as "working class". The support for the Welsh Assembly as it related to class background is clearly stated in the poll.
I am going to keep your Lordships no longer. I have made this contribution, believing that in this House anything you say is listened to. I have attempted to show that this is not an issue upon which we should find ourselves embattled one with another. It is an issue we should approach as a sea-change, taking place in democracy. It is not something which is an expedient or which is window-dressing; it is an attempt to come to grips with a movement of opinion of those people who, in a democracy, from time to time vote for it by not voting at all. They register by their abstention from voting. They express their feeling that they are cut off from the democratic process by cutting themselves off. I think we can make this into a good Bill and a good Act, and I urge your Lordships to give it a Second Reading and a quick Committee stage so that we can go to the people in Wales and confirm the polls in a referendum, removing all doubts as to what the people of Wales think about the Bill.
7.24 p.m.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Parry. I am only an Englishman, of course, and cannot speak with all the passion which has been exhibited by my noble friends who come from Wales and sit on the opposite side of the Chamber. However, there are two points I should like to take up with the noble Lord, if I may. I think he said that the problems which face Wales can be surmounted only by the Welsh people. As an Englishman, I find it very difficult to understand why, in a small country like Wales, it is not possible, with the representation we get in a British Parliament, to secure the satisfaction of the Welsh people in respect of some of their problems. I say that I speak as an Englishman in that connection and I find some of the arguments rather difficult to understand.
The noble Lord also said that the Welsh people at the present time were rather fed up with the British Government,

921
and with the British Parliament in particular, and therefore it was also necessary to devolve a certain amount of responsibility to people so that they might be responsible for their own affairs below a British Parliament. I do not think that any local Assembly, as such, or any body of people locally entrusted with the responsibility of dealing with the great problems which exist in this country today, can necessarily solve those problems. The problems facing us today are so great, compared with what our forefathers had to contend with, that the difficulties are simply immense. That is the reason why there is dissatisfaction: it is because we cannot solve these problems as quickly as we did in former times.
I shall now turn to the Bill itself. I should like to say that I much enjoyed the speeches that have been given today on the Second Reading of this devolution Bill for Wales. That is not because I believe it to be a good Bill necessarily, or because I particularly like it. My only qualification for speaking on this Bill at all is the fact that I have had some experience overseas of granting independence to other peoples. I do not, of course, class my noble friends from Wales as being in any sense people of a colonial status; but I have had experience of devolving powers to a State legislature.
With regard to the proposition of the Assembly, we were told, I think, by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—I think I am quoting him correctly—that the Welsh people now have a passion to obtain a greater degree of responsibility in the management of their own affairs. So it is now considered wise to give them this responsibility, and the devolution Bill is the means by which responsibility is to be granted to them. What follows from that is the establishment of a Welsh Assembly.
The noble Lord then went on to warn us in the British House of Lords, that we only courted trouble for ourselves when we denied a people their legitimate aspirations. I well remember Mr. Ormsby-Gore, the father of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, coming out to me in the jungles of Malaya when at that time we were about to give self-government or to bring people up to believe that they were fully capable of standing on their own feet. He asked me what I thought my duties were. I
922
said I thought that my duties were to carry out my responsibilities to the best of my ability. He said, "That is not the position at all: your duties are to lead these people to their own self-government".
There are two points I should like to make on this. I believe it was in 1965 that the Welsh were granted a Welsh Office and a Secretary of State for Wales—presumably because the Welsh at that time were dissatisfied with the existing arrangements for the administration of Wales. They have not been very long before concluding that this was not enough for their aspirations, for only 12 years later—that is, in 1977—it is considered by the Government to be necessary, in pursuance of legitimate Welsh aspirations, that the Welsh should now have their own Assembly.
It seems to me that Welsh aspirations are somewhat insatiable. In another 12 years will they want a Prime Minister of their own and perhaps even their own independence? I submit to your Lordships that this is a possibility, for in my experience overseas in the devolution of powers to a State Assembly, it was only a matter of three years before that State Assembly was asking for its own Prime Minister.
It is not my purpose, in anything that I have said in speaking about this Bill, to make any imputation of colonial status to any of my Welsh friends. They are as British as I am, and I am English. But in this small island, it should surely prove possible to meet all Welsh aspirations in a British Parliament at Westminster, which, after all, is only a few hundred miles from Cardiff.
As my noble friend Lord Elton indicated in a particularly brilliant speech, which I much enjoyed, a duty now falls upon your Lordships to do what the other place failed to do, because of the guillotine. Of 83 clauses in this Bill, only 16 were debated; and only two of the 12 Schedules were discussed. So I know that at the Committee stage we shall do our best to carry out our responsibilities.
Many of us on this side of the House feel that, whatever we do, it will be extremely difficult to improve the Bill, when many clauses seem to bring it into possible conflict with the Government's administration within the United

923
Kingdom. For example, Clause 44 refers to payments into Welsh funds out of United Kingdom funds. Is there not a danger here that a Secretary of State in the British Cabinet may be fighting for adequate funds, but is unable to secure what is asked for by the Welsh Assembly?
Is the new Assembly for Wales to be charged with the oversight of a whole series of services and functions, which have a direct or indirect bearing on financial and Treasury decisions? There is also the question of reform of local government in Wales, as envisaged in the Bill, and, under Clause 12, this is apparently to be undertaken by the new Welsh Assembly. Is there not a danger here that the Welsh Assembly will take over more and more powers from local government, and that this body to be established with these powers will not be able to act in an impartial way? These are just a few problems that will face us at the Committee stage of this Bill. It is an unenviable task facing your Lordships, but I am sure that you will do your best.
7.32 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise, as somebody from the North-East of England, to speak about Wales. But my family originally came from the island of Lambay, where I believe that they mined alum or something like that in the 17th century. Further back, there was a chap named Llewellyn ap Jerwath. So I think that I can just call Wales Mae hen wlad fy nhadau.
It is a pity that the referendum could not be held at this stage, rather than at the end of a great deal of work which will be done by local authorities and by Parliament, because that would have saved valuable time. Perhaps the argument is that people would not know what they were voting for, but I cannot help thinking that, at the end, the great majority who vote then will not know what they are voting for, either. I hope that that referendum will be followed by another in England, to see whether we can have English devolution from domination by the Scots and the Welsh.
It is most important that local government should not be weakened, and the
924
Explanatory Memorandum states that the responsibilities of local authorities will not be altered. But as the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, said, it would not be surprising if the Welsh Assembly were to seek additional powers and responsibilities, and wanted to take over some of the functions of local authorities. That would call into question the need for two-tier authorities, and open up the whole question of local government, ending up with administration further yet from the people.
The fear is accentuated by Clause 12, whereby the Assembly will review the structure of local government. However bad the present system is in England and Wales, and I should not for a moment defend it, there was the 1974 reorganisation and any further reorganisation would be highly controversial and very costly in time, both to members of the authorities and to officers, and must be avoided. Furthermore, the Welsh Assembly would surely not be an appropriate body to review local authority reorganisation, as inevitably it must be totally biased. Certainly, the county councils are unanimously against any further changes.
As regards local authority finances, Clause 58 transfers to the Welsh Assembly responsibility for the payment of rate support grants. How far will local authorities be consulted on this? In particular, will they be consulted on the allocation of grants as between England and Wales? Also, will they be consulted regarding the alloction of grants for local government and other services, and regarding the distribution of block grants to the devolved services? There is a great danger that local authorities will lose their present rights of full consultation on these matters.
Under the present proposals, the Assembly will be an additional executive tier between central Government and local authorities, and it is believed that that would complicate Government processes and tend to move decision-making further from the consumer of local services and from local authorities. There is a strong feeling that it will cause confusion because of the variety of responsible authorities, particularly the Assembly and the appropriate Government Departments. What is needed by local government is a removal of central controls,

925
not new processes and controls from Westminster, Whitehall or the Assembly.
It is proposed not to devolve agriculture, as it is at the heart of the unity of the United Kingdom. However, there are many functions which are devolved and which seriously affect agriculture. Environmental and social matters are to be devolved, but the economy, industry, agriculture and training are not and are to remain with the Welsh Office. However, education, housing, the environment and roads will be controlled by the democratically elected body, and these will vitally affect agricultural interests. There is great concern that agricultural interests will not be adequately represented, and that agricultural problems will not be properly understood by the Welsh Assembly.
The Assembly will be overwhelmingly an urban elected affair, with a proportion of nearly two to one of the electorate living in the town counties. Furthermore, many of its representatives will be from the towns within the rural areas. The power of the Welsh Assembly will be exerted through committees, and Clauses 17, 21 and 54 ensure that these will be composed to reflect the political membership. So that there is great concern that agriculture and agricultural problems will not be represented or understood by an authority consisting mainly of urban people, and that it will not take the right decisions on issues affecting agriculture. I hope that I shall be able to support an Amendment which may be moved to help agriculture repair that situation.
With regard to nominated bodies, such as the Countryside Commission and the Water Authority, many of those are most concerned as they operate on agricultural land and are subject to great urban pressure. Again, the agricultural interests are most concerned that they will not have enough representation on those bodies, because they will reflect the political make-up which will be predominantly urban.
Clauses 10 and 27 give wide powers to the Assembly to purchase agricultural land. Again this could lead to great urban dominance. I believe that it will be necessary to have a long stop appeal to the Secretary of State for Wales to determine what the effect would be on agricultural land of the acquisition of large stretches of such land.
926
With regard to water and land drainage, Section 5(1) of the Water Act 1973 will have to be altered. The Welsh Assembly may direct water authorities regarding fish, land drainage and so on in the execution of the national policy. I hope that the Minister will be able to say whether that national policy is to be the national policy of the United Kingdom or the national policy of Wales. This point undoubtedly needs to be clarified. Hereford is to be treated as part of the Welsh Water Development Authority, yet it is in no way part of Wales. At the moment, Hereford has no representation. If Hereford has to be a part of Wales for this purpose, then it must be not only represented but thoroughly represented, so that again a country area is not totally dominated by an urban area.
There is also the question of drainage. It is proposed that the Welsh Assembly should cover arterial drainage while the Welsh Office would retain responsibility for field drainage. At the moment, both of these kinds of drainage are grant aided centrally by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There seems to be no reason why these two matters should be divorced from the present unified administration. Furthermore, separating them will involve delay and disagreement, and, so far as drainage is concerned, there will be an overlap between the Water Development Authority, the Welsh Office and the Welsh Assembly. Also, the drainage committee will apparently have to serve three masters.
The county councils will exercise an important role in agricultural education and planning, both of which affect agriculture very severely. The Bill does not guarantee the continued status of county councils, as I mentioned earlier. It would be extremely bad for agriculture if local administration were to be removed to Cardiff, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance on this point.
With regard to forestry, the Assembly may acquire land for that purpose. This could create enormous difficulties. All the functions under the Forestry Act 1967 should be retained by the Secretary of State for Wales.
There are many other points which are of great concern to both agriculture and the

927
local authorities. Agriculture is high in production and efficiency and low in labour, and it will be very, very low in representation. Agriculture needs to be protected from the block urban vote which little understands the problems of the land.
7.43 p.m.
Lord ENERGLYN: My Lords, the speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, bring home a fact which seems to haunt me all the time; namely, the aspirations of these two Assemblies in Scotland and in Wales. It is absolutely clear to me that whatever is given to Scotland will be demanded by Wales. For many, many years there has been a Secretary of State for Scotland. Progress in Wales has been good and finally we obtained a Secretary of State for Wales. This arrangement has worked exceptionally well.
I was, as always, impressed by the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. To me, the noble and learned Lord is the symbol of Wales in all its dignity, honesty and imagination. I listened to the analysis by the noble and learned Lord of the remarkable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and finally he asked, what kind of an Assembly the noble Lord, Lord Elton, could assemble without money.
Then we heard, from his vast experience, the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, who pointed out with remarkable clarity the functions of local government in Wales—acting like mini-Parliaments—and the remarkable success which they have had. The noble Lord then brought out, I thought with great clarity, the issue that lies between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton; namely, what kind of an Assembly shall we have? As he put it, it will be a cumbersome, contentious body. At this time in our history, surely we should not be divided. There are too many pressures from the world outside for us to be divided if we are to retain our position in the world. This is the time to close ranks.
As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said, is this the right time to be
928
embarking upon a philosophical adventure in politics? The more I listen to all that noble Lords have to say and the more I read, the more I begin to doubt this word "devolution". As I listen to the arguments and try to understand them, it seems to me that the aims of the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill will lead to convolution. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Parry, said, these Bills are really political expedients to meet extremist points of view, and I do not think that this is the time in our history for us to be embarking upon that kind of adventure.
I have been more impressed by reading the works of Professor Anthony Birch than I have been by reading the White Papers on devolution. Professor Birch published a book entitled Political Integration and Disintegration in the British Isles. It is a clinical evaluation of the situation that we have been discussing this afternoon. Professor Birch goes through the history and background to what is called devolution and he is not afraid to express a clear opinion about the problems that are confronting Wales. If I may quote from his book, this is what Professor Anthony Birch says. He is not afraid —as so many speakers in both Houses have been lately, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek—to refer to the Welsh Nationalists. He says:
"What Welsh nationalism lacks at the moment is an eruptive factor which might transform it from a small and rather sectarian movement into one of mass appeal. If further economic difficulties and a growth of unemployment led to a crisis of confidence for the Labour Party in industrial Wales, and if this coincided with the discovery of an oilfield off the Welsh coast, conditions might favour the growth of a nationalist movement that was not based on the language issue".
I think that this statement is worthy of thought.
What are these countries that we call England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? They are simply portions of the British Isles which are delineated by fictitious lines on a map. To give frontier status to these boundaries would be adding disaster to disaster. And by "disaster" I mean Northern Ireland. By drawing a line across that island we have caused the deaths of more people than we care to remember; and, what is worse, all of them think that they have God on their side. Surely we do not

929
want to repeat this performance by the creation of Stormonts in Wales and Scotland—nay, even in Cornwall.
I am in no doubt that the repetition of a tragic, nonsensical outburst of violence in Wales and Scotland might emerge from this nationalistic approach to boundaries. We have only to recall the antics of the Messiah of Plaid Cymru, Mr. Saunders Lewis, who, in a pamphlet entitled The Principles of Nationalism, says:
"I personally believe that careful, considered public violence is often a necessary weapon for national movements, necessary to defend the land, the valleys of Wales, from being violated by the Government and the big corporations in England".
Thus spoke the Messiah of the Welsh Nationalist Party. If I may remind your Lordships, when the Air Ministry established a bombing range in North Wales, Saunders Lewis and two others—one of them a minister of the Gospel—went to North Wales and burnt down the aerodrome. At his trial he declared that he had done this
"as a protest on behalf of the truly sacred things in creation: the nation, its language, its literature, its separate traditions and immemorial ways of Christian life".
We have only to acknowledge that kind of outburst to realise what we are playing with.
We have heard outbursts from young irresponsible people in Wales that they might become the dam busters of Wales and deny the English the water from the reservoirs. All this could happen, and this I see as one of the essential elements embodied in this ill-conceived idea of giving Wales an Assembly and divorcing it from England. I would say the same thing about Scotland.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, pointed out, we only have to look overseas. Let me pause for a moment to remind your Lordships what is happening in the centre piece of Africa at the moment, all because man has drawn artificial boundaries across a geological complex which contains strategic minerals. In Zaire there is tremendous violence going on, not because of nationalism but because of greed. So we come back to the materialism of this situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, put his finger on an interesting approach to this problem. He said "Would the Welsh prefer to spend the
930
£12½ million per annum on something else?"Let us consider what they could do with it. First, I find that £4 million or thereabouts is going to be spent on rebuilding the Exchange Building in Cardiff to house the Assembly. Perhaps some noble Lords do not know where that building is. It is situated in the worst part of Cardiff's dockland, containing the most vandalistic elements of the city; and when it is completed it will stand out like a sore thumb against the magnificence of the civic centre of Cardiff. What an image for a Welsh Assembly! For £4 million.
What could you do with £4 million? Just think of all the sophisticated equipment that could be bought for £4 million and used to create employment in South Wales. One could buy civil engineering machinery to remove the tips of Wales and formulate them into barrages. I have many times referred to the construction of the barrage between Cardiff and Newport. If I had £12½ million a year to spend for five years I could do it and remove every coal tip within 30 miles of Cardiff and provide work for 500 men. Inside that dam there would be placed turbines which I would buy out of the £4 million which is to be spent on the Exchange Building, to put in two-way turbines which would create enough electricity to service industry in South Wales for practically nothing.
There you would have something for your money; something which would give the Welsh a chance to exploit their imagination, their verve, their drive, to create new industries in South Wales. Behind that barrage there would be about 20 square miles of land recovered from the sea—just like the dams of Holland—and here you would start a horticultural industry of permanence and in character with the Welsh way of life. I am choosing cases at random. With £12½ million to spend every year we could repeat the performance between Neath and Swansea and all the big estuaries, and if I may say so to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, by using schemes of this kind we may hear the bells ringing again in Aberdovey.
These are not romantic ideas. With £12½ million worth of development money we could create industries in the very parts of Wales where we want to preserve the culture and the characteristics of the

931
Welsh way of life. Take Merionethshire: with £12½ million there is no question about it that within that area there are potential gold mines, copper mines, lead mines and zinc mines which could be developed. In Pembrokeshire I could develop a mine which would satisfy the demands for silver for the whole of this country. It is there, but the money has never been there to develop it. Worse than that, there has never been any possibility of persuading the planning authorities to give permission to develop these strategic mineral deposits in Wales. I could go on for half an hour in the same vein about Scotland. If this Assembly were formed it would have built into it a cumbersome element of authority which would give the planners even more power than they have now—and they are strangling every bit of initiative in every venture that I have tried to portray to your Lordships this evening.
So I feel this is not the time to develop an Assembly in either Scotland or in Wales. But we must wait and see what the people of Wales themselves will have to say about whether they will or will not have the Assembly in Wales. Unfortunately, the difficulties associated with referenda are that they become rather emotional, and I very much doubt whether the issues that will be presented to the Welsh and to the Scots will be presented with such clarity that the people will be able to judge whether this is good for the present and good for the future. I hope that too much emphasis will not be put on trying to remedy the bad things of the past. I hope that in projecting these referenda the advantages and disadvantages will be put fairly, so that the people of both nations can say "yes" or "no" to these two Bills.
7.59 p.m.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I thought my noble friend Lord Energlyn made a very wise speech and I hope his words will be heeded. My noble friend Lady White prefaced her speech by declaring that, because she was an employee of an appointed body in Wales, she felt that she could not participate fully in this debate and give her true expression of opinion upon the Bill. Until that moment the thought had never even crossed my own mind that I also am the chairman of
932
an appointed public body in Wales, which also will be subsumed should the Assembly come into being. Nevertheless, I shall take that situation when it comes. If the new town of which I am the chairman is abolished, it is abolished. If it is decided to keep it and I am considered inadequate, I shall be sacked, but I hope I shall not be sacked for expressing my views upon this Bill in this debate.
My noble friend Lord Heycock, did us all a service I think by reminding us that the rock upon which our democratic administration is founded is the local authority. The new local authorities have been much criticised, but they have really been attacked in Wales as a means of advancing the cause of an Assembly. They have been made out to be very much worse than they are. I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Parry; it is not right to claim that the Assembly would do more for people than the local authorities do. The Assembly will take powers from the local authorities—it cannot help but do so—and those local authorities are the very bodies which are closest, not just to the electorate but to all the people, and are by their nature most accurately aware of people's real needs and real aspirations.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, if my noble friend would allow me to intervene for one moment, may I explain that what I was saying was that it was proposed in the Bill that the Assembly would institute an inquiry into local government, and one supposes that reform of it would follow.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I want to move to another theme similar to that with which my noble friend Lord Energlyn began the first half of his speech. There was a time, within the lifetime of many Members of this House, when those who dwelt in the area of Wales and in the area of England were politically integrated. But gradually, through the action of successive Governments, they have been levered apart, so that it has become the received opinion of most people that these are separate nations, and, therefore, not surprisingly, there has come a demand for a Welsh national Parliament, which is what this Bill proposes to set up, although it does not say so.

933
I suppose that I am more sensitive to the whole question of nationalism, the cult of a nation, than otherwise I might have been because of the land of my birth. I live in the house in which I was born, which is in the county of Gwent, which used to be called Monmouthshire. There lies my affection, and, I suppose, what I would call my patriotism. All my life I have been only too familiar with the argument which still goes on about whether Monmouthshire, or Gwent as it is now called, is in England or in Wales. I early remember thinking what a footling question it was, because what does it matter? And because of the animosity between those who claimed they were Welsh and those who claimed they were English I believed the equivocal position of the county to be a positive bonus and an example to all.
The county itself thought it had settled the argument when it adopted the motto Utrique Fidelis, which being translated meaneth "Faithful to Both". It has not been permitted to follow that advice. In the last few years we have been told quite firmly that we are in Wales. We have not been consulted; no one had that common politeness. We have just been told that we have lost our identity. Westminster and Cardiff collaborated in that, over our heads, as a gesture towards Welsh nationalism. That happening brought it home to me, perhaps as nothing else could have done, that nationalism is nothing at all to do with democracy. It is about ordering people to conform. Nationalists claim and they take. That is their historical record in the last 100 years or more. And it is quite in character that the Welsh nationalists, who like to declare that their beliefs spring from the hearts of the people, were passionately against a referendum being held on this Bill.
If one reads the political philosophers of the 19th Century who propounded the theory of cultural nationalism, one sees that the whole concept is one which militates against democracy as we know it, against the liberty of the individual and against freedom of choice. They accepted that, they urged it, because in logic the theory of the cultural nation as a political unit could lead them nowhere else. The idea that the self-governing nation should be classified as one homogenous organism—one land, one people,
934
one voice—has had terrible consequences. Some over here in this country flirted with the idea, some others were greatly attracted to it. We did not get totalitarian government in Britain because, I guess, our democratic traditions are very deep and well antecede the coming of the theory of cultural nationalism. Other places were not so lucky. But we have certainly not escaped being affected by its basic concept, which we know as racialism.
I want to dwell upon that for the moment, because a number of generations of people in Wales now have suffered from the consequences of racialism. It is important to understand that that is so, and, of course, it is equally important to understand why it is so, and I shall attempt an explanation. At the time when the theory of the cultural nation was taking root on the mainland of Europe, most strongly, as we know, in Germany, and elements of it were filtering over here, came the theory of evolution and a sort of evolutionary theory became attached to nationalism. The idea was—and it has had wide acceptance, but in my view, and in that of many others, it does not fit the facts—that each race was developing its own culture independently, and had been progressing naturally on its way, though at a leisurly pace, towards improving itself. Each race was judged on how far up this sort of Darwinistic scale it had managed to progress. Germany, France, Britain and Italy—name one's own nation of course to be the top one, and judging from the recent newspapers one would name somewhere like New Guinea to be at the bottom. In other words, we grade it superior culture as against inferior culture.
In the racial classification as it was applied to this country—and in some people's minds still is—the English were said to be Anglo-Saxon and the Welsh were said to be Celts. History said that the Saxons had defeated the Celts and so therefore the Celts were inferior. Furthermore, they must be required to better themselves by learning the Anglo-Saxon language. The result was pain and grief and the generation of much egalitarian sentiment. I do not think that I need elaborate on that to those who know the South Wales scene. I believe that resentment is very strong in the North, but I have had no experience of it since I am out of my region there.

935
However, and this was about 100 years ago, some sturdy spirits retaliated. Using the same twaddle as that with which they had been attacked, they said: "We are Celts; we are a nation. We are a very ancient and great nation, and to prove it we have a Border which history ordained for us" and they pointed out the thing which squiggles from the Dee to the Severn about which everyone until then had forgotten. They said, "This side we Celt; that side you Saxon; just you get over there where you belong". And they followed that up by a recitation of ancient injustices perpetrated by Saxon against Celt. The nationalists are very great on history, or their version of it. So the scene was set for the creation of a Welsh nation and an English nation, and we have the belief that this Welsh nation is in subjection to an English nation.
Lloyd George, who came from North Wales which traditionally has imperialistic leanings towards South Wales, was the first politician to give that belief governmental sanction and therefore general credence. True to nationalist form in imposing cultural uniformity on a chosen area he disestablished the Church in the area West of the boundary and he prohibited the sale there of alcohol on Sundays. I do not know who he consulted about the Church, but he certainly did not ask anyone about the drink. It was not until about 40 years later that someone—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor—decided that people might be treated as adult enough to be able to decide for themselves on this matter in a referendum taken county by county.
Then, what began the count-down for this Bill was the Conservatives appointing a Minister for Welsh Affairs in 1952, since when things have moved rapidly, and I shall tell your Lordships why. As soon as the Government supported by discriminatory action, whether legal or administrative, the hypothecation that Wales was a separate nation from England, then the relationship of Wales with England was transmuted from that of being an equal and integral part to that of being a junior partner. Indeed, the relationship has been compared, with reference to devolution to Scotland, as being that of parent and child. The complaints consequent have been, and will be, endless. "We are deprived.
936
We are oppressed. Why can't I have a bicycle like Jock". Anything which is devolved is looked upon as no more than Wales' due: anything which someone thinks ought to be devolved and is not is treated as a matter of dignity and an aspersion upon the maturity of the people of Wales. No one has known, does know or will know where the line should be drawn between matters that should be devolved and matters that should not, and we are in a hell of a mess.
Even if the Bill is defeated on a referendum, as I hope, I can see the Welsh Office continuing to gather greater powers to itself, not for the purpose of good administration but on the grounds that anything less would be an insult to Wales and the Welsh are not an inferior race and so on. We get all that now, and the pressure would be even stronger if there were an Assembly. Because the people who reside in Wales, who once governed themselves undifferentiated from and together with people in England next door, have been removed by nationalists from their status of political adulthood, and relegated to a status of political adolescence. Nobody could have produced a better formula for generating political inferiority complexes.
That is pointed up well in the reduced role which the Bill seeks to impose upon Members of the Westminster Parliament. Already they find it more and more difficult to make representations at the top, for the more powers which are acquired by the Secretary of State in his continual search for status, the fewer are the subjects upon which Members of Parliament can approach the specialist Ministers and Departments in Whitehall.
Under the Bill they will be relieved of responsibility for those subjects which are of concern to most people and they will become ciphers in these matters—the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor used the word "devalued"—and that is something which can only damage the interests of their constituents. And how it is expected that the English should allow these MPs to continue to vote on those same devolved matters when they concern England, I do not know; but it is typical of the blinkered approach of those who caused the Bill to be brought —either they have disregarded the English or expect them to swallow an inequitable

937
and non-democratic arrangement. Such an arrangement would not last, because it could not in fairness and equity last.
If those who live in Wales—or in Scotland—wish to be exclusive, the time will come when they will be excluded. That will be inevitable, and the loss will be great to all of us, particularly to those who live in Wales or in Scotland, nationalist and non-nationalist alike.
The Nationalists allege that they wish to be excluded, although they thrive on what are imagined grievances. Successive Governments, through a lack of courage derived, I think, from a lack of understanding, have been encouraging and strengthening the basis of these grievances. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Parry, but I respect his views. Yet those who in their innocence have been led to believe that the purpose of the Bill is to help democracy should have another think: it is really about increasing the political status of Welsh nationalism.
The time has come when the Government—whether this one or any future Government—must stop running away from nationalists of whatever Party. They are not placatable. They feed and grow in importance on every gesture made towards them. The problem has to be tackled with realism and understanding; and with sympathy too, because one is dealing with people who, however great their contribution may be in other spheres, in this case live in a world of their own. Future generations of the inhabitants of Wales deserve better than to be required to live in that world too.
6.20 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, we have had a long and interesting debate. I shall be only a short time, as all noble Lords will be looking forward to hearing the reassuring words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor while answering criticisms of this Bill from all sides of the House. Some of those criticisms from the other side of the House have been fairly sharp. The noble and learned Lord will have a lot of ground to cover, but I hope that he will deal fully with the matter of the use of the guillotine in another place. I think that even he will have difficulty in persuading your Lordships that to use the guillotine on two such important
938
constitutional pieces of legislation as the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill, is not a travesty of government.
It seems to me that this House is being put into a well-nigh impossible position. As we are all well aware, this is a revising Chamber, unpaid and unsung, and, incidentally, run at the trifling cost of about £4 million a year, which compares favourably with the estimated cost of the Welsh Assembly which, as my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor mentioned, is £12½ million. It is one thing to revise a highly complex Bill which has been disentangled with a fine tooth comb in another place; but it is quite another thing to place the responsibility on your Lordships of the detailed scrutiny of 68 out of the 83 clauses and 10 out of the 12 Schedules, plus the normal process of revising the remainder—and this at time when we are engaged in a similar task over the Scotland Bill.
Furthermore, it is probable that we shall be on to a hiding to nothing; we shall either be accused of not having taken sufficient trouble in scrutinising the Bill or of having taken too long over it. So at this early stage of the passage of the Bill I wish to emphasise that if, in the course of time, the Bill is accepted in the referendum and is enacted, and if it becomes clear that there are serious deficiencies in its operation, the blame will lie fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the present Government. To shift that blame would require one of the most monumental shrugs in history.
Therefore, I disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Leek and Lord Maelor, when they suggest that we should pass this Bill quickly so that we can hold the referendum. To do that would be the worst possible plan. There would have been much to recommend holding the referendum before having spent any Parliamentary time on this Bill. But to spend a lot of time but not enough to get the Bill as good as possible, and then to go to the referendum at half-cock, would seem to me to be a most misguided procedure. If I mistook what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said, I apologise.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, for the record I did not even mention the word "referendum". I should like to

939
look up my speech, but I am quite sure that I did not utter that phrase. If I did, I beg the noble Lord's pardon; but I do not think that I did.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I shall withdraw the comment. Before leaving this point I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to assure the House that there will be no question of a subsequent use of the guillotine when the Bill is returned with Amendments.
I do not think that there is much argument over the advantages of decisions on local issues being taken locally, so long as they are made by impartial, prudent and fair bodies. Evidently there are many people in Wales who do not think that the institution of a Welsh Assembly at Cardiff will serve their purpose. As we have been told today, strong views are held by county and district councillors that the Assembly would steadily wrest power from them and in due course, using the power to undertake a review of local government structure in Wales under Clause 12, would recommend the demise of either the county or district councils, thus moving decision-taking further away from the people. My noble friend Lord Amory has explained this with his customary clarity, and I hope that his remarks will be faithfully recorded by the media. He was very fully supported by the noble Lord, Lord Heycock.
It is vitally important that the possibility —and some would say probability—of any such future structural change is made known to those who will be voting in the referendum. They should also be made aware of the fact that under Clause 32, as the Bill stands, Assembly men will be able to pay themselves what they think they are worth. They should also know that the original Clause 1 of the Bill, declaring that the provisions do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom, has been dropped from the Bill. What is the reason for dropping Clause 1? Was it because the Government think that there is such certainty that the unity of the United Kingdom is in no way endangered, so that such a declaratory clause is but a superfluous truism? In that case, why was it originally included? Or is it that the Government have dropped the clause as it declares something of which they are in doubt?
940
There are many other important points which have been raised today which will need to be subjected to critical examination during later stages of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor asked whether the Assembly was to be bilingual. He also questioned whether £12½ million could not be used in more useful ways. The noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, made many very interesting suggestions for alternative uses of that money. My noble friend Lord Amory suggested that this figure would be sure to turn out to be an underestimate. What right of appeal will there be against decisions of the Assembly? That matter was raised by my noble friends Lord Amory and Lord Stanley of Alderley. What would be the relationship between the Assembly and both Houses of Parliament?—as was asked by my noble friend Lord Mancroft.
Referenda are a novel method of government in this country. We are accustomed to decisions—right or wrong —being taken by Parliament, the Members of which have the opportunity of listening to the debates and reading the Official Report. For the Welsh voters to be put into a position where they can make a balanced judgment in the referendum, two things are essential: first, that Parliament spotligths the vital issues; and, secondly, that they are communicated fairly and objectively to the voters by the media. At a time when there is an even higher level of unemployment in Wales than in England—it is estimated at 100,000 during this summer—there will be a natural tendency to grasp at devolution as a panacea. So the issues must be made plain.
There seems to be considerable vagueness in respect of the financial arrangements. There is a strain of open-endedness running through the Bill. Under Clause 24 the Assembly is empowered to appoint as many officers and servants as it considers appropriate. Clause 32 enables Members of the Assembly to pay themselves such salaries and allowances as the Assembly may from time to time determine, and to pay pensions and gratuities or allowances to persons who have ceased to be Members. Clause 50 enables the pay and pensions of the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General to be determined by the Assembly; and arrangements for printing or not of

941
official minutes are left to the discretion of the Assembly.
These open-ended provisions will make very difficult the settling of the annual block grant, and even more difficult to gauge what it should be for a period of four years. Presumably this will be attempted by studying the total of Welsh expenditure in recent years, making allowance for inflation at the anticipated rate and adding the forecast costs of the Welsh Assembly. But this will be no easy matter as great variations occur in different sectors from one year to another. For instance, expenditure per head on health and social services rose from £86 in 1974–75 to £131 in 1976–77, and on education and libraries, science and arts, over the same period, from £106 to £152. At the end of these calculations Parliament will have to take into account the state of the United Kingdom economy as a whole and make such adjustments as is deemed to be reasonable. The likelihood then of annual conflict between Westminster and Cardiff is, I think, obvious.
There is also concern over the rate support grant since the Assembly will be in a position to levy tax by withholding full distribution of the grant thus forcing the authorities to increase rates. Many noble Lords have referred to this today. I should have thought that the Assembly should not have this power, and we will return to this issue in the Committee stage. Since the original proposals of the Welsh Labour Party for a personal income tax, and I quote—
"a right to levy and utilise certain minor taxes on capital as well as stamp duties, motor vehicles and selective employment tax"—
were turned down by the Labour Party and the Treasury, it seems inconsistent to leave open a backdoor method of taxation. We are considering here extremely large figures. In 1975–76 the rate support grant was 38 per cent. of total income and amounted to £427 million, rising to £463 million in 1977–78.
In conclusion, my Lords, we on these Benches are not averse to the idea of transferring more power to the Welsh. After all, it was the Conservative Party which first appointed a Minister for Welsh Affairs in 1951 and later, in 1957, a full-time Minister of State for Wales. In 1960 it gave Members of Parliament the
942
Welsh Grand Committee to debate Welsh Affairs, and it established the Welsh Office in 1963. In 1970 the Conservative Party transferred powers over primary and secondary education in Wales to the Secretary of State for Wales, and in 1971 responsibility for the urban programme. It also exerted consistent pressure on the Government to devolve agriculture to the Welsh Office, which occurred on 1st April this year. The Department is now responsible in Wales for housing, health, social services, primary and secondary education, child care, town and country planning, water, highways, tourism, forestry and agriculture jointly with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and many other functions. Doubtless there are other areas where the Welsh Secretary of State could extend his remit, for example, in the field of transport.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, pressed us as to our alternative proposals for devolution. We believe that there is great scope for consolidating the role of the Welsh Council. We believe that by introducing an elected element into this Council from local Government we would create a much more independent and worthwhile forum for Welsh opinion. We are committed to establishing a Welsh Select Committee which would probe and examine the Secretary of State's doings and those of the civil servants beneath him. We believe that this would be a powerful step forward in bringing democratic accountability to the people of Wales. This Select Committee would be free to sit in Cardiff, or elsewhere in Wales, and would form the democratic counterbalance to the increasing power of the Secretary of State. My Lords, I look forward to hearing what the noble and learned Lord says.
8.34 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, David Lloyd George, on one of his more eloquent occasions, described Wales as a nation of quarrelsome nightingales. In today's debate the nightingales have not been quarrelsome, but they have not entirely agreed with each other. We had the powerful array of those supporting the Bill, with some qualification, perhaps, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, who is presently but no doubt temporarily absent, the

943
noble Lords, Lord Davies of Leek and Lord Parry, singing a supporting song. What is interesting is the number of other noble Lords who spoke having had some fascinating associations with Wales. There were the two former Ministers for Welsh Affairs.
The first of those who spoke, and with such distinction, was the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. As a Welshman, I would repeat the gratitude that Wales owes to him for his crucial role, when he was Minister for Wales, in the evolution of the Welsh Office and the great work he did for Wales. I give him that acknowledgement most willingly. He had the most interesting and particular Welsh association in that, apart from his lady, he is himself the son-in-law of a Welsh international. I never like to seek to improve on anyone, but I have the great privilege of being the brother of a Welsh rugby international captain. Indeed, the only distinction I shall ever really have in Wales arises from that fact. They tell the old story in Llanelli, "I met Elwyn-Jones the other day". "Who is he?" "Oh, he is the brother of Idris, the Welsh captain". They obviously have got their priorities right in Wales, and I share with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, a common vicarious distinction. While he was critical, he approached the matter most sympathetically. He was prepared to concede that the Bill may work and may be a success, but he thought it would not. That was rather different from the somewhat strident total rejection in most pessimistic terms that emerged from one or two other noble Lords who spoke.
Then there were other noble Lords with Welsh connections. By now I have come to regard the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as an honorary Welshman, so often have we opposed each other on Welsh matters, and in a moment I shall come to one or two of the matters he has raised. Then we had the fascinating disclosure from the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, of the rather romantic roots of his family. Although he was highly critical of the way in which Wales had been dealt with in the past by England—perhaps he was indicating certainly by Westminster—I am sorry he was not able to agree with this step forward in recognition of the greater need to enable
944
the great nation of Wales, which has commonly been so described, to have a greater voice in determining its own domestic problem.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough —and I am afraid I was temporarily absent and did not hear the bulk of his speech—also is of Welsh ancestry. It is regrettable that owing to her present professional position the other distinguished Welsh speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady White, was required to adopt an unaccustomed role of neutrality in debates concerning Wales. We fully understand her restraint, while regretting that it should be constitutionally necessary.
Having, I hope, mentioned those with Welsh connections, however remote in some cases, however indirect in others, the matters which arose in the debate have covered a very wide span, and I am not sure that I am entirely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashborne, for inviting me in the broadest terms to deal with them all. I am afraid that he would not thank me if I did so. Clearly very important points have been raised which call for critical attention in Committee, and any suggestion in the proposition that because the referendum is now expected and should be permitted to take place, therefore we need not rush, the quicker we have that the better, is absurd. It is clearly the duty of noble Lords—as they will do, as they did with the Scottish Bill—to give their full attention to it. The Government have indicated that they are certainly not inflexible on matters. As we did in the case of Scotland, we are again certainly prepared to listen to what is proposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, addressed a very direct question to me, which I shall not answer directly. However, I shall answer indirectly in a moment. It related to the fact of the guillotining of this Bill in another place. Your Lordships may like to hear again what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland drew attention to when there was a similar complaint in regard to the Scotland Bill. He quoted the observation of the right honourable Francis Pym, I think, in another place, which was made by him in a Press release issued by the Conservative Central Office, so it was said, on 23rd January, to this effect:

945
"But the Government is right in one matter. Under the present procedure no constitutional Bill could get through Parliament without a guillotine".
Of course, there are many precedents for guillotining constitutional measures. The recent example about which, I confess, in another place I complained with passion, even as intense as that we have heard tonight, was in regard to the European Communities Bill.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, while I take the point that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is making, it is fair to say that time was allowed for every clause of the Bill to which he has referred to be debated in some part in the other place. That cannot be said of this Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord is anticipating with extraordinary prescience what I was about to deal with. If he will bear with me, he will have to listen to me for a little less time.
As to the point that I was making, there are other examples such as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill 1968. That, it is true, was the work of a previous Labour Administration. But at any rate there are other precedents. The most dramatic was that on the European Communities Bill, which was, of course, a major change, not only in our constitutional relationships but in our international relationships as well. So much for precedents.
Now we come to consider—and I do so with some reluctance as those of us who are in this House always ought to exercise in regard to proceedings in another place. The position, as I understand it to be, was that there was a very lengthy consideration indeed of the Bill in another place. In the last Session four days were spent on the Second Reading of the Scotland and Wales Bill. That was followed by a further 11 days in Committee before progress was halted. In this Session, following one day for the Second Reading, nine days were spent in Committee on the Wales Bill, and two days on the Wales Bill on Report and Third Reading—12 full days in all. What is more, of course, is that many of the provisions in the Wales Bill are identical to those in the Scotland Bill, which had previously been debated at great length.
946
If I may respectfully say so, the allocation of time cannot really be regarded as unreasonable, particularly as the Government accepted representations in the Commons to have two devolution Bills in place of one. It is not for noble Lords in this House—certainly not for me—to reflect on whether the other place best used the time available for the discussion of the Bills. But your Lordships who may have had the pleasure of reading the debates may well have come to the conclusion, perhaps, that they used the time extravagantly and not well. But there it is. Now the matter comes to us. I could give further elaboration of what happened to the clauses and how there was a great deal of explanation as to why all were not discussed.
However, I come to the question that I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, as to whether I could give an assurance now on whether there would be a guillotine in another place on the return of the Bill there. Clearly, of course, I cannot possibly give an answer to that, or any assurance about that, at this point of time. We must await the outcome of the Bill's deliberations in your Lordships' House. It may indeed be that so few Amendments are passed that a day or two in another place may be adequate to deal with the matter. Who can tell? As Mark Twain said, it is always dangerous to prophesy, especially about future events. Let us, to use the advice of a former Prime Minister, wait and see.
The noble Lord, Lord Cullen, also asked me why Clause 1 was dropped. On the face of it, it looks rather sinister. I repeated, and I believe—and this is one of the reasons indeed why I support the Bill—that the unity, economic and political, of the United Kingdom must be retained. It is essential. How can we continue to succeed as a people if we throw that overboard? I, as a devoted Welshman, certainly feel that very intensely.
What happened was this. It is true that there was a Clause 1 in the Scotland Bill, which the Government supported. But there was a vote against it that was carried by the strength of the Conservative Party. Who are they, now, to complain of the abandonment of the simple proposition that the unity of the United Kingdom must be sustained? No. I am not a man to make Party political points.

947
But, really, now that I am standing two steps away from the Woolsack, I am entitled to do so. That is the case. The clause was in any event merely declaratory and, to avoid a repetition of that operation in another place, it went.
I have been asked questions which have troubled noble Lords—and troubled noble Lords of great experience and seriousness. I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, who is a Welshman and has contributed enormously. He explained to me that unfortunately he had to go away because of a bereavement and could not be here. He has contributed enormously to the life of Wales—to its political life, its local government, and many other aspects of the life of Wales. He, along with several noble Lords, expressed concern about the impact of the Bill on local government in Wales. One of the matters that has caused concern was the proposal—indeed the provision—in Clause 12 of the Bill imposing a duty upon the Welsh Assembly (I had better get the words right) that it should:
"review the structure of local government in Wales and shall report its conclusions to the Secretary of State".
I do not know whether there is a general opinion that goes so far as did that of one of the noble Lords who spoke. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, who spoke of the idiotic destruction of local government that took place. At any rate there is a real feeling in Wales that the local government structure which we inherited from our predecessors has been highly unsatisfactory and that it calls for review. The view we have taken is that the Assembly, as a democratically elected all-Wales authority, with substantial responsibilities in relation to Welsh local authorities, will be well qualified to conduct a review under Clause 12.
It will be no more than a review. We expect that it will be a thorough one. However, the Assembly is neither given any material local authority tasks in the Bill nor any powers to reorganise local government. Its job will be to review the present structure, in consultation with local authority organisations, and then to make recommendations to the Secretary of State. It will be for Parliament to legislate, if legislation is decided upon.
948
Therefore, there will be abundant opportunities to deal with any recommendations that may transpire from that review.
The noble Lord, Lord Heycock, suggested that there had been some misleading of Welsh local authorities. But the record appears to show that the Government always made it clear—for example, in paragraph 236 of the White Paper of November 1975—that the Welsh Assembly would become responsible for central Government supervision of most aspects of local government. It was made equally clear that the Assembly would not, under the Government's proposals, take over any of the material tasks of local authorities, and I submit that that remains true. Then, as regards the proposed review of local government under Clause 12, notice of that provision was given in the White Paper of August 1976. That appears to be the position. We shall examine in due course in detail the exact relationship between the Assembly and local government, and between the Assembly and Parliament itself, which has been a subject of discussion and concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, who began the debate with a pretty scathing adjectival attack upon the Bill, was, however, extremely gracious in commending the quality of Wales as a great nation, with a people whom he admired, and with an ancient language and culture. I am quite sure that he is sincere about that. He also seemed to be indicating that there was a case for the people of Wales having a bigger role in deciding their own domestic problems. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest——I am glad that he had already gone on the Bench before I started practising at the Bar on the Wales and Chester circuit, for his advocacy is superb—tried to smoke out the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as to how he was going to give effect to his pious declaration that something ought to be done; that we ought to walk on this devolutionary road. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, perhaps somewhat wickedly, was saying how he looked forward to seeing the new Assembly proposals emanating as the Bill proceeds through the Committee stage, and how I also look forward to Lord Elton's version in the fullness of time. I cannot wait to hear it.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord really cannot wait, I can relieve his anxiety at once. First, I would ask him to read the greater part of my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne's concluding passage. Secondly, I would point out to him that the terms "devolution" and "Assembly" are in no way synonymous.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, my Lords, that is good as far as it goes. It does not go terribly far. The truth is that the Conservative Party has been basically negative in its attitude to this difficult problem almost all along. But then I am getting Party political again. I keep trying to avoid that temptation.
I cannot overpraise, with emotion, the noble speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. I hope that all Welshmen will read it. It will give them pride that a man of that great quality should speak as he has done with such feeling about his people, to whose life he has contributed so much. The fact that he, with whatever modifications and reservations that may emerge, came out so clearly in support of what the Bill seeks to do has given me great comfort indeed.
There was concern about the Welsh language aspect of this matter. Some anxiety was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and others about this. The noble Lord, Lord Swansea, also expressed concern that there might be discrimination by the Assembly against non-Welsh speaking members of its staff, and generally. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, whose delightful speech I am sure we all enjoyed greatly, expressed doubt whether non-Welsh speaking Members of the Assembly staff would be able to achieve senior positions in its administration. With respect, I think the doubt is answered.
In Clause 65 the Bill provides that the staff of the Assembly shall be members of the home Civil Service. The procedures for recruiting, appointing and promoting civil servants I think provide ample safeguards against discrimination among the Assembly staff, if indeed such safeguards are needed. But I do not believe that the Assembly will discriminate against Welsh or non-Welsh speakers. It will be
950
representative of all parts of Wales, and the fact must unhappily be faced that the considerable majority of the people living in Wales, alas, do not speak the Welsh language. They will be voting. Their representatives will be in and of the Assembly, and I would expect the Assembly to be fair to Welsh and non-Welsh speakers alike.
As to the use of the Welsh language in the Assembly, of course it will be a matter for the Assembly itself. The Welsh language will undoubtedly be used there. It will be for the Assembly itself to decide whether simultaneous translation facilities should be used for debates and matters of that kind. I understand that some preparations are already being made technically for that possibility. It is better that it should be left to the Assembly to be sure that the arrangements are fair to both Welsh speakers and English speakers.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Elton, very rightly pointed out that there was not a word of Welsh in the whole of the Bill. That is probably right; but of course nor is there in the end part of the very last page of the Bill, page 88, on the form of the ballot paper. I am happy to assure the noble Lord that there is no need to amend the Appendix to Schedule 12 to his exquisite Welsh—and I congratulate him on the convincing quality of the Welsh that he spoke. There is no need to amend the Appendix to Schedule 12 to provide for a Welsh version of the referendum ballot paper.
Under Section 2 of the Welsh Language Act 1967 it will be possible for the Secretary of State to prescribe the Welsh version, which will certainly be necessary, and of course that will be done. Indeed, the Welsh text of the paper has already been considered, but I will not trouble noble Lords by giving the proposed Welsh version. I detect a note of disappointment on the face of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, but at any rate the two critical words at the end will be rhowch groes yn y blwch yn cynnwys ydwyf neu nac ydwyf, which, being translated, means Yes or No; or I suppose we should try, being the Chamber that we are, to put it down as Contents and Not-Contents. On the other hand, if one ever asks a Welshman if he is fully content, the answer will undoubtedly be No, so I should resist a question in those terms, but that at any rate will be dealt with.

951
The hour is late and noble Lords have been patient with me. It is quite clear that there is room for a considerable difference of opinion about the Bill and its provisions. There is room for worry as to whether there will be conflicts between Parliament and the Assembly, between the Secretary of State and the Assembly, between the Assembly and local authorities. There are possibilities of conflict, but I believe the politically alert, educated and articulate people of Wales will want to make this thing work. I think they will make it work, and my expectation at the end of the day is that the result of the ballot, whether one supports the Bill or not, will be ydwyf, Yes.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WRITTEN ANSWERS

  UN MEMBERS' CONTRIBUTIONS: ARREARS
  Lord BARNBY Lord BARNBY asked Her Majesty's Government:
  How many Members of the United Nations are in arrears with their contributions; which country is most in arrears: for what amount; and for how long has it been in arrears.
  Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: According to United Nations document ST/ADM/SER.B/233 of 22nd February 1978 (a copy of which has been placed in the Library), contributions to the regular budget of the United Nations were outstanding from 63 Member States on 31st December 1977. According to the same document, the largest outstanding contribution, 32,522,168 US dollars was due from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The USSR have been withholding certain parts of their regular budget assessments since 1963.

  NHS HOSPITALS: AVAILABLE BEDS
  Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What was the average daily number of available beds in the National Health Service Hospitals for 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974.
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The average daily number of available beds in NHS hospitals in England for the years 1970 to 1974 was as follows:

  Average daily number of available beds

  1970

  423,600

  1971

  419,600

  1972

  412,700

  1973

  403,500

  1974

  396,200

  Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What was the average percentage daily occupancy of available beds in the National Health Service Hospitals for 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974.
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The percentage of available beds occupied daily on average in NHS hospitals in England for the years 1970 to 1974 was as follows:

  Average daily percentage occupancy

  1970

  82·9

  1971

  82·7

  1972

  82·8

  1973

  81·4

  1974

  81·2

  YOUNGER REPORT ON PRIVACY: RECOMMENDATIONS
  Lord GARDINER Lord GARDINER asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they approve or disapprove of each of the 27 recommendations contained in the Younger Report on Privacy (paragraphs 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52), none of which are within the terms of reference of the Data Protection Committee or have been referred to the Law Commission or affected by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
  The MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)The MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): The recommendations set out in paragraphs 45, 46 and 48 to 51 were addressed to bodies other than the Government. The bodies concerned have acted on most of them, and the Government have no proposals at present for legislation or other action on these matters. As regards the recommendations contained in paragraph 52, I would refer my noble and learned friend to the Answer to his Question immediately following.
  Lord GARDINER Lord GARDINER asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they approve or disapprove of each of the 10 recommendations contained in the Younger Report on Privacy (paragraphs 52, 53 and 56) which require legislation.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The Government have under consideration the recommendations relating to private detectives and surveillance devices. Both present considerable practical difficulties, and the Government have not reached any final conclusions. The recommendation that there should be a tort of disclosure or other use of information unlawfully acquired will be considered in the light of the report of the Law Commission on breach of confidence, which is likely to be available later this year.

  WESTERN DRAFT PROGRAMME OF ACTION
  Lord BROCKWAY Lord BROCKWAY asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Which Governments have sponsored the Western draft Programme of Action for the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament and what is the attitude of the United States' Administration to its proposals, particularly the strengthening of the peace-keeping capacity of the United Nations.
  Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: The Western draft Programme of Action was sponsored by Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom. A copy is in the Library of the House. The draft was the subject of close consultations with the United States' Administration, who have extended their broad support to its objectives, including the proposal for a United Nations study on the strengthening of the Organisation's role in peace-keeping and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

  ZAMBIA: UK AID
  Lord BROCKWAY Lord BROCKWAY asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether an agreement has been reached for the United Kingdom to provide loans totalling £9·26 million for the purchase of buses and other imports to facilitate agricultural development in Zambia.
  Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes. The agreement to provide a loan of £9·26 million at 2 per cent. interest for 25 years with a 7 year grace period was signed in Lusaka on 11th May. £7½ million will be spent mainly on various essential imports for the agricultural sector already agreed between our two Governments and the remaining £1·76 million on 50 Leyland buses for the United Bus Company of Zambia.
  During President Kaunda's recent visit my right honourable friend the Prime Minister told President Kaunda of the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make available a further £15 million bilateral aid as a contribution to the international assistance to be arranged at the meeting of the World Bank Consultative Group on Zambia at Paris in June.
  House adjourned at two minutes past nine o'clock.