Sitting of 17 February 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    River Water
    Mr. Carter-Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has now received the results of the national survey on river water quality carried out in 1980 by the National Water Council; and if he is satisfied with the conclusions reached on the quality of rivers.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): Yes, Sir. The survey shows an encouraging improvement in the quality of our rivers, especially some of the worst ones. But others have a long way to go.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the National Water Authority believes that we have reached the point of no return? Does he agree that, in view of the large scale unemployment in the North of England and the fact that sewers are collapsing in inner city areas, he should improve the time scale that he has announced? Is he not being a little complacent?
    Mr. Shaw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in the North-West and on Merseyside there is a real problem of pollution. However, he should be aware that the North-West water authority has started a major 15-year project costing about £85 million in order to clean up one river. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend has very much in mind the need to proceed with such a development.
    Dr. David Clark: What is the Minister's response to the part of the report that says that unless there is further investment there will be a deterioration in standards? In view of the breakdown of the sewerage system in some parts of Britain, will the Government commit more money to try to eradicate river pollution?
    Mr. Shaw: I accept that there is a great need for further investment, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that all the water authorities have major investment projects to improve pollution and river control. It would appear from the report that the worst category of rivers has been halved in the 10 years between 1970 and 1980.

    Population Changes
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to monitor population
    268
    changes which affect the number of children and adults moving from Liverpool or other parts of Merseyside to St. Helens for council housing and private housing, respectively.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): No, Sir. Monitoring such population changes and the implications for local housing and other policies is essentially a matter for the local authorities. In common with other authorities, St. Helens sends an annual housing needs appraisal to the Department as part of its housing investment programme submission.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware that when I made inquiries of the local authority about the movement of population from Liverpool and the Merseyside area in general into council and private properties, it was unable to help me because it kept no figures and there is no monitoring of people taking private accommodation? As the matter is important in making a case for special development area status, will the Minister give it more serious consideration?
    Sir George Young: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman with the figures. The estimates from his local authority suggest that the population will fall from 191, 300 in 1981 to 187, 500 in 1986. The evidence shows that the migration flows between St. Helens and the rest of Merseyside are broadly in balance. I take on hoard the hon. Gentleman's points and will write to him.

    Council House Building
    Mr. JosephDean asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses were started in 1981.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Heseltine): About 21, 000 dwellings were started in English local authorities in 1981.
    Mr. Dean: Is the Secretary of State aware that those are the worst figures since council house building was started in Britain? Is he further aware that if one is underprivileged, badly housed or homeless, under his present policies the possibilities of being rehoused are worse than in the period of Rachmanism? When will he give some hope to the three classes of people that I have mentioned and do what not only the trade union movement but the CBI has suggested and start more public sector house building to alleviate the problem?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember that Rachmanism was a phenomenon of the private rented sector and would wish the Labour Party to withdraw its embargo on shortholds, which are an attempt to improve the position. The lack of council house building is in part a reflection of many Labour-controlled councils' decisions to improve and repair rather than to build new houses.
    Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this may be the time to introduce more legislation to allow the private market to produce more accommodation for rent? At the moment the private sector is not pulling its weight, because it is waiting for the Government to make the right moves.
    Mr. Heseltine: I support my hon. Friend's instincts in the matter. However, he will be aware that we have

    269
    introduced legislation to initiate assured tenancies and provide for shorthold tenancies. It is not the lack of confidence in the private sector that concerns me, but the deliberate attempts by the Labour Party to make it impossible for the private sector to find a way to do this and to protect its own investments.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Secretary of State stop trying to put the blame on local authorities? Does he not realise that many local authorities want to build more council houses but that the Government are preventing them from doing so? Will he confirm that, if the Government run their full term of office, in five years of Conservative Government fewer council houses are likely to have been started than in 1975—just one year under the Labour Government?
    Mr. Heseltine: I hope that the hon. Lady will now devote her attention to encouraging Labour authorities with significant under spend on their capital accounts for housing to get on and spend the money that they are authorised to spend.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that members of the Labour Party are wrong to assume that the people who are looking for homes necessarily want to wait on a council house waiting list? Does he further agree that his Department's initiative to encourage local authorities to homestead, build homes for sale, improve existing housing stock and release land that they have locked up for years will go some way to meet that demand?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will welcome, as I do, the fact that private sector starts in England were up 22 per cent. over last year.

    Vacant Land
    Mr. Steenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will advise local urban authorities to give priority to utilising existing vacant land within cities rather than develop green field sites.
    The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): The Government have already given such advice to all local authorities in circular 22/80, which specifically advocates the priority of using existing sites within cities and towns. The registers of under-used public land, which are now being extended to the whole of England, should greatly help in this.
    Mr. Steen: Will my right hon. Friend explain why 100, 000 acres of good agricultural land are being lost each year, according to his Department's information, when 250, 000 acres of vacant, dormant and derelict land in the principal urban areas are still unused?
    Mr. King: It was precisely to tackle that problem that we introduced the registers. We have established in 33 districts registers of 21, 000 acres of under-used or unused publicly owned land. The first 500 acres have already been sold and a considerable amount more is coming forward for development.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister agree that whether houses are built on green field sites outside cities or on sites within cities, the number of starts is now at its lowest level, not since the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) became Prime Minister, but since she was born?
    Mr. King: I shall not enter into the housing aspects of the matter which seem to have arisen on the previous question. I am sure that the whole House supports the need to use derelict sites in inner cities to avoid further encroachment into the countryside. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has sought to distract attention from that important matter.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that areas of green land within city limits are important to the quality of life within cities and that to resist development on them is one of the duties of those who are responsible? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on refusing development in the Hardwick Farm area at Plympton, which is designated as an area of outstanding beauty, but I caution him that yet another attempt to develop that area is under way.
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the second part of his question if there is to be an appeal to the Secretary of State. The suggestion about using inner city sites is not intended as an attack on existing open space—parks and other amenity areas—but it is no asset to any town to have derelict or rubbish sites in the middle of it. We want such sites to be given back a useful purpose.
    Mr. Eastham: Is it not true that open spaces and derelict land patches in cities are often in private ownership? For example, in Manchester, the old Central station site, which covered 26 acres, was privately owned and stood vacant for 10 years.
    Mr. King: The majority of publicly owned land on the survey is owned by local authorities, but a substantial amount is owned by nationalised industries. Our concern relates to our economic pressures, which make it difficult for private sector developers to afford to leave sites unused. However, sometimes those economic pressures are not so keenly felt in the public sector.

    World Cup
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about his last meeting with the football authorities to discuss the arrangements for the World Cup.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)—[Vol. 17, c. 462.]
    Mr. Canavan: As well as concerning himself with the conduct of fans, will the Minister concern himself with the related matter of the conduct of some of the travel agent sharks, who are trying to exploit some of the football fans with questionable standards of travel and accommodation for the World Cup in Spain? In view of the recent advertisement in the Spurs programme, proposing to herd the fans into camps with four in a tent at £275 each, does the Minister honestly think that that kind of exploitation is conducive to good crowd control and good behaviour?
    Mr. Macfarlane: As this is such an important subject, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make sure that any such information reaches my office, because I should like to know more about it. At this stage it is too early to know how these arrangements will shape over the next few

    271
    months. My officials will watch the matter closely. As I said in the House a few weeks ago, a committee is now reviewing all aspects of the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me have any information that he has.
    Sir Hector Monro: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are glad that he went to Spain recently and met officials there? Did he visit the grounds where the preliminary rounds are to be played by the three home countries? If so, did he feel that the standing spectator accommodation was adequate for crowd control, as it is in this country?
    Mr. Macfarlane: My officials visited all five centres where the three United Kingdom teams will play their first phase matches. They have also had discussions with all the relevant authorities in those five centres. We have discussed crowd segregation and the elimination of the provision of alcohol, as well as many other aspects. There are still other matters that I want to discuss with all the various authorities over the next few months.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House support his efforts to ensure that British travellers to the World Cup behave in a sensible and civilised manner? However, does he realise that there is likely to be considerable difficulty because of the intense holiday trade and traffic which will be going on quite legitimately at the same time? Does he agree that the key to the matter is to ensure the use of passports and immigration control to make certain that at the point of sale of tickets for matches, transport and hotels only genuine supporters receive such facilities?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I take note of what he said. There are many issues that we have yet to discuss with all the interested parties. Four million people from this country go to Spain every year and enjoy the hospitality that is offered to them. I can only hope that the good relations and co-operation that currently exist will be maintained over the next few months.
    With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said about ticket distribution, I urge all those who go to Spain to watch any of the first phase matches to make certain that they have accommodation and tickets before they set off.
    Mr. John Carlisle: When my hon. Friend was in Madrid, was he satisfied that the Spanish authorities realised what a vicious, ugly and unpleasant animal the British football hooligan is? Is he satisfied that the Spanish police will be able to cope with this particular type of hooligan, if he offends?
    Mr. Macfarlane: We must be careful to retain a sense of balance, because 99. 9 per cent. of British spectators at football matches behave themselves thoroughly competently. However, I am concerned about the hooligan minority. I can only hope that the Spanish football authorities and all those who are responsible will take note of the requirements of spectators. I am confident that they will do that, judging by the dialogue that has taken place so far. Behaviour off the field and away from the arena is a matter for the Spanish authorities.

    Rate Support Grant
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from
    272
    local authorities and their associations following his announcement of the 1982–83 rate support grant settlement.
    Mr. Heseltine: About 50 authorities have made written representations to the Department since the announcement of our proposals for the main elements of the settlement on 21 December.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State realise that in the history of local government he will have the privileged position of being Scrooge, without the last redeeming chapter? Does he not realise that throughout the country local authorities are at their wits' end to know how to provide services for people and how to carry out their manifesto promises—for example, the Greater London Council and Sheffield? Will he take note of that and see that enough money is given to those authorities to carry out their manifesto promises without bringing in a group of tame judges, such as the Official Solicitor, to impose surcharges on them and blackmail them into carrying, out his wishes?
    Mr. Heseltine: I think that the hon. Gentleman, when he learns to moderate his language—
    Mr. Flannery: Pick up the Mace and swing it round.
    Mr. Heseltine:—might feel that those who are at their wits' end are the ratepayers of Sheffield, who, in the last two years, have had to find the cash to pay a 45 per cent. and a 41 per cent. rate increase to help to finance a local authority that does not appear to recognise the depth of the recession and its effect on the private sector.
    Mr. Major: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rate support grant will always remain controversial while the Government provide such a large proportion of local government expenditure? In his present review of the rating system, will he endeavour to produce a system that ensures that local authorities raise a larger percentage of the money that they subsequently spend?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will know that I am consulting widely about alternatives to and the reform of domestic rates. It is appropriate that I should wait until that consultation period is at an end before I express my views about the direction to which we should switch.
    Mr. Oakes: Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many of the 50 authorities that have made representations have told him that, as a direct result of the rate support grant, they will have to increase their rates, and how many are Conservative authorities?
    Mr. Heseltine: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to see a contrast between the rate increases in Labour and Conservative authorities, he has only to look at what is happening in the shire counties, where the largest rate increases are levied by authorities taken over by Labour last year.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend try to move towards a system whereby the rate support grant is determined well in advance—a few months before the beginning of a council's financial year—to give it the chance to do more effective planning and allow people in the area to put forward their views on what balance of rates and services they want?
    Mr. Heseltine: The Government, at the beginning of their period in office, stated the level of public expenditure

    273
    that they expected. Therefore, it has been possible for local authorities to plan the reductions in services and expenditure that were necessary. However, it is not possible—I do not want to give the impression that it is—for the Government to reach decisions about the rate support grant until they have conducted their detailed public expenditure review every year. That must be relatively late in the day.

    Council Rents
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received over the proposed increase in council rents.
    Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend has received 173 letters on the subject of council house rent increases.
    Mr. Winnick: What justification can there be for the continuing outrageous Government-imposed rent increases, which will have amounted to 117 per cent. in three years against a rate of inflation of 53 per cent.? Is the Minister aware that what is now required to follow the substantial rent increases imposed by the Government is a rent freeze? Why have the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing and Construction refused to receive a deputation from council tenants to discuss rents?
    Sir George Young: If the hon. Gentleman believes that a 22 per cent. increase in rents is outrageous, what adjective from his colourful and well-stocked vocabulary would he select to describe what his colleagues in the GLC did last night, which was to increase Londoners' rates by 91 per cent?
    Mr. Chapman: Council rent increases are worrying, but what proportion of council tenants receive help in rent subsidies or supplementary benefits towards the payment of rent? Does my hon. Friend agree that a fairer yardstick would be to compare today's average rent levels and average earnings with those of eight to 10 years ago?
    Sir George Young: Almost 50 per cent. of tenants in England and Wales receive help towards their rents and almost 27 per cent. receive supplementary benefit, which would cover 100 per cent. of any increase. Almost 23 per cent. receive rent rebates. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that approximately half the tenants will not have to pay the proposed increases.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: In view of what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) said, will the Minister confirm that council house tenants are now paying a higher proportion of their income in rent than ever before? Many council house tenants are having to apply for rebates or are falling into arrears for the first time ever. Does that not prove that the burden that the Government are imposing on council house tenants is too great?
    Sir George Young: No, it proves not such thing. The hon. Lady would do well to look at an opinion poll, published today in The Guardian, which shows that more council house tenants favour the policy of £2. 50 rent increases than the Opposition's policy of a rent freeze. It seems that many tenants have a clear understanding of the need for that. I remind the hon. Lady of what her hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) said about 10 minutes ago when he called for more investment. Every penny that goes towards subsidies is a penny off housing investment.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We usually take points of order at the end of Question Time, in order to speed up questions.
    Mr. Fry: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Conservative-controlled East Northamptonshire council has announced that there will be no increase in council house rents next year? Will he join me in congratulating that council and commend its good housekeeping to other local authorities?
    Sir George Young: I am sure that the electors in my hon. Friend's constituency will take note of the action outlined by his authority. It is worth reminding the House that a number of local authorities propose to increase their rents by more than the £2. 50 suggested by the Government.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the progress made so far with the sale of council houses to sitting tenants.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): Between April 1979 and September 1981 almost 200, 000 council dwellings were sold in Britain, and we estimate that a substantial further number of dwellings will be sold this year and next. However, my right hon. Friend is continuing to take steps to accelerate progress in certain authorities where progress has been unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Knox: Which local authorities are still dragging their feet?
    Mr. Stanley: I shall be glad to write to my hon. Friend. The list is extensive, so I cannot give it here.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Minister now give tenants with three years' standing the right to buy their houses at a discount from private landlords?
    Mr. Stanley: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear earlier this week, we believe that transactions in the private sector should be by voluntary negotiation.
    Mr. Butcher: Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities, such as Coventry, which claim that they do not have enough staff to process backlogs of valuations and conveyancing, could speed up the process by appointing outside solicitors and valuers, thereby getting rid of some unhealthy waiting lists?
    Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the energetic way in which he has been seeking to support those of his constituents in Coventry who want to exercise their right to buy. In that city we are looking to a significantly greater rate of progress. It is open to local authorities to make use of private sector surveyors or solicitors, and also of district valuers, as has been confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the Norwich case.
    Mr. Weetch: Is the Minister aware that, apart from the principle of council house sales, which is a matter of political controversy, a satisfactory feature of the transfer arrangements is that mortgage costs are limited by statute to £50? Will he have urgent discussions with the Lord

    275
    Chancellor to extend that limitation to the private sector, where people paying conveyancing charges are being robbed because of restrictive practices? Will he extend the limit provided in the 1980 Act for the public sector to the private sector?
    Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, conveyancing issues are for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. We considered that a necessary protection for tenants exercising the right to buy was some form of statutory limitation upon the maximum mortgage costs that could be passed on to tenants by local authorities. To judge from the way in which certain authorities in East Anglia and elsewhere have sought to exercise their responsibilities with regard to the right to buy, that precaution was well justified.

    Public Sector Housing
    Mr. Douglas-Mannasked the Secretary of State for the Environment by what criteria he assesses the need for public sector housing; and what assessment he has made of such need in England and Wales for the years 1982–83 and 1983–84.
    Mr. Stanley: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Government's views on assessment of need and demand for housing set out in its replies to the first and third reports from the Environment Committee.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is that not another way of saying that the Department has no interest in ascertaining the extent of the need, as its reply to the Environment Committee certainly gave no such information? Would it not be more honest for the Government to say that they do not collect the information because they do not wish to know, that they are not interested in the 500, 000 or more families who are homeless or in acute housing need, and do not care about them because they are not likely to vote Conservative in any case?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, through a system initiated by the Government of the party that he previously supported, we collect annually from each local authority, through the HIP system, its assessment of housing need. The somewhat speculative nature of the assessments of demand and need to which the hon. Gentleman refers was amply borne out by the Labour Government's experience, as, although their Green Paper was published in June 1977, its projections for public sector completions were met neither in 1978 nor in 1979.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Does the Minister accept the conclusion of the 1980 study group that 125, 000 houses are required this year to deal with homelessness and disrepair, and that the rate of obsolescence is now estimated to increase to some 90, 000 per year? Is he aware that that means that the number of people who are inadequately housed will increase by one-third to 4 million by the end of the decade? If that is so, do not the figure of 21, 000 that he has announced and last year's figure of 36, 000the lowest ever recorded—constitute a gross obscenity and an increase in human misery and despair that no Government should tolerate? How does he intend to reverse that disastrous position?
    Mr. Stanley: The first necessity is for local authorities throughout England to spend the allocations made available to them. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary
    276
    of State has said, substantial numbers of local authorities seem unlikely to spend in full their allocation plus their housing capital receipts in the current financial year. I hope that they will devote the maximum attention to ensuring that they use those funds in full and also take advantage of the increase by a further 3 per cent. in real terms in gross provision for local authority housing capital expenditure next year.
    Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister ensure that before the Secretary of State goes to Wandsworth on Friday, presumably to investigate housing problems there, he examines a publication produced by a member of his Department—the inspector who reported on the Wandsworth borough plan—which states that the council's policy of selling council houses is severely prejudicial to the interests of the poorest families 1n the community and is liable to contribute to social unrest?
    Mr. Stanley: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider any relevant documents. Whether that document is relevant to his visit, I am not sure.

    Domestic Rates
    Sir David Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in order to ensure a good response from the public to his invitation to let him have their views on his Green Paper"Alternative to Domestic Rates", he will publish a shorter popular version, which should be both cheaper and more readily available.
    Mr. King: We have no plans to do so.
    Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at £4. 75 this useful but somewhat slim Green Paper is grossly overpriced and that I and my constituents can buy the complete works of William Shakespeare for rather less? If, as I hope, this useful document is to be discussed, can it not be produced at a lower price?
    Mr. King:"Overpriced" is not an expression that I would use in connection with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), but I understand his concern. We were anxious to see whether it would be possible to produce a shortened version for more widespread distribution, but the issues are complicated and it was difficult to condense them in a way that would be equally valuable to those studying them. I am concerned at the price of such publications, but substantial sums and major interests are involved. Against that background, I do not think that the price is too unreasonable.
    Mr. Jay: Will the Minister explain why, when the Government so much deplore increases in rates, they apparently support increases in rents?
    Mr. King: The payment of rates applies right across the board, although there seems to be some illusion that council tenants do not pay them. The impact of the very high rate increases, which are well in excess of the proposed rent increases, are a major burden for council tenants as well as for industry and commerce.
    Mr. Squire: Although we do not yet know whether the Green Paper will become a best-seller, or even perhaps a film, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, whatever representations are received, any long-term reform should be such as can be sustained for a long time and not be overturned in five years or so?
    Mr. King: As we have made clear, we are anxious to listen to the widest representations on this important issue. I take note of my hon. Friend's comment.
    Mr. Oakes: In order to gain that good response, and in view of the earlier reply of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, will the Government produce the document in cartoon form and publish it in The Guardian alongside the public opinion poll on council tenants' attitudes to rents?
    Mr. King: If anyone wishes to read The Guardian, I recommend The Guardian Diary of yesterday.

    Vacant Land
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to require that vacant and derelict local authority land should be sold at auction if not fully utilised.
    Mr. King: My right hon. Friend has power to direct the disposal of under-used public land registered under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act, and he is prepared to exercise that power in any case where he considers that land is being unreasonably retained. Whether disposal in such a case should be by auction would depend on the circumstances.
    Mr. Greenway: Do we really need registers for this? Would it not be better and easier to tell local authorities to auction 25 per cent. of vacant land, allowing them to choose which land should be sold?
    Mr. King: That approach might be most unfair in some cases. We consider it more satisfactory that the land should be registered so that everyone may see which land has been determined as unused or under-used and consider whether there are purposes for which it could properly be used. An important aspect is that the register does not apply only to local authorities. In some ways this will help local authortities, as in some areas there are major problems with land belonging to nationalised industries—British Rail, the Post Office, electricity boards, and so on—and local authorities have in the past attempted to obtain land from nationalised undertakings but have lacked the power to do so.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister direct that vacant, neglected and empty private property should also be put up for public auction? Is he aware that in almost every town there is empty property, but that local authorities cannot deal with it because money has been withdrawn from their municipalisation budgets?
    Mr. King: I have already answered that question in part in relation to the pressures on private sector land. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities also have powers in that respect.
    Mr. Eggar: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when land is sold, by his direction or otherwise, the proceeds flow direct to the local authority, nationalised industry or other body such as the National Health Service?
    Mr. King: That is correct. In many cases there has been willing acceptance of the register and co-operation by local authorities. The majority of undertakings welcome this approach and are willing to co-operate. For example, British Rail disposed of a considerable amount of land before the registers were established, although
    278
    there are other areas that many people feel could have been disposed of sooner. That is to the financial benefit of the authorities concerned, which otherwise have assets lying idle.
    Mr. Cryer: Does that not reveal the double standard of the Tory Government? They and their Back Benchers always want to attack local authorities and public utilities and force them to take action, yet they will not take the same powers to force private sector land to be sold, even though it is under-used, because they are too concerned with the rights of private property. In exactly the same way, they will not force private landlords to sell houses in the way that they are forcing local authorities to sell houses.
    Mr. King: That question only indicates the hon. Gentleman's lack of knowledge of the true position regarding the ownership of unused and under-used land in our inner cities. This a major problem which must be tackled. That is why we have set up the registers, and that is why the scheme is already achieving results.

    Regional Water Authorities
    Mr. Heddleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to increase the level of consumer representation on regional water authorities.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: My right hon. Friend will be considering the arrangements for representing consumers in the light of responses to our consultation paper on the membership of regional water authorities in England and the consultative document on"Consumers' Interests and the Nationalised Industries", issued last December by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.
    Mr. Heddle: Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of all water consumers on the initiative that his Department has taken in issuing this consultative document? Does he agree that, to the majority of water users, regional water authorities are monolithic and bureaucratic, insensitive to their needs and deaf to their protests? Therefore, in order to increase democratic accountability in the regional water authorities, might it not be a good idea to increase council representation and perhaps establish a water users' consultative council?
    Mr. Skinner: Another quango.
    Mr. Shaw: The consultative paper makes it clear that there are a number of possibilities, including increased local authority representation, but we do not consider that directly elected bodies would be appropriate. How nationalised industry consumer representation transpires is a matter for the other consultative document to which I referred.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that many water authorities have a bad image because of the remote democratic control that many people feel exists? Does he not feel that if there were more accountability we might get a better and cheaper service?
    Mr. Shaw: I share my hon. Friend's views. He will be aware that one of the results of the investigation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the Severn-Trent water authority has been to improve significantly the way in which that authority is organised. I look forward to other possibilities in that direction.

    Wildlife and Countryside Act
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, further to his answer of 20 January 1982, Official Report, column 145, he proposes to make additional resources available for the implementation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act; and if he will give the figure.
    Mr. King: As I said on 20 January in reply to a question from the hon. Member, the increased level of grant-in-aid to the Nature Conservancy Council for 1982–83 is £11. 27 million and takes account of the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. However, it is for the Nature Conservancy Council to decide exactly how the grant is distributed among its various responsibilities.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that the main criticism of the Wildlife and Countryside Act was that it did too little, too late? Does he agree that the money to be made available this year barely covers inflation and does not provide sufficient resources to finance the"too little"?
    Mr. King: I do not agree with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I have been encouraged by the increasing recognition of the value that can flow from the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will abandon the ranks of those who keep knocking this important piece of legislation and try to ensure that it is effective for the objectives that I thought a considerable number of hon. Members shared.
    Mr. Farr: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is one of the most important conservation measures to be put on the statute book for many years? Does he agree also that in the countryside people are not necessarily financially recompensed for keeping the countryside in decent order in accordance with our undertakings and responsibilities to the public at large?
    Mr. King: Clearly, it is the only major piece of conservation legislation to have been put on the statute book, and the Government are extremely proud to have carried it through the House to enactment. I very much endorse the second part of my hon. Friend's question, which queried the idea that there must automatically be compensation. During the passage of the Bill, we sought to emphasise the need for co-operation and good will. A tremendous amount can be achieved in the countryside through the co-operation of people who live there, who are not all rampaging around searching for grants. They live there and have a vested interest in preserving the amenity and beauty of their surroundings.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the money sufficient to cover the work that we gave the NCC in relation to sites of special scientific interest during the passage of the Bill?
    Mr. King: We hope so. Obviously it is unproven at this stage, because we do not know what will evolve. We have made it clear to the NCC that we shall keep in close touch about this matter, but we believe that the money will be sufficient for the first year of its operation.

    Local Authorities (Statutory Responsibilities)
    Mr. DavidAtkinson asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the statutory responsibilities of local authorities.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: The Government examined the statutory duties of local authorities very thoroughly shortly after taking office and have made proposals for repealing or amending many of them. In addition, we have already removed about 200 of the 300 central controls, which we promised in our White Paper of 1979 (Cmnd. 7634).
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that among the wealth of legislation that has been passed over the years and which imposes statutory responsibilities on local authorities, there still exists much that is out of date and no longer relevant to local needs which could be repealed, thereby reducing significantly the cost of local government?
    Mr. Shaw: I agree with my hon. Friend. There are prospects for doing that. That is why consultations are now going on with the local authority associations. No doubt there will be a legislative opportunity to deal with this matter in due course.
    Mr. Hooley: Does the Minister agree that where local authorities have statutory duties, such as running an effective transport service for the benefit of their electorates, there is now a need to make those statutory duties so clear as to put their powers beyond peradventure and the reach of the Law Lords?
    Mr. Shaw: Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that no local authority duty should be carried out in defiance or against the wishes of the law. The fact remains that local authorities have the power to carry out their statutory duties.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the statutory responsibilities of local authorities might be extended to take greater note of advice from local business men and industrialists on the efficient working of councils? Is he aware that ratepayers in Peterborough face a 20 per cent. reduction in their rates next year because of that type of activity?
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. He will also recall the audit commission proposals in the Bill now passing through the House, which will go some way towards introducing management efficiency audits, which could have a great bearing on local government.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State is already guilty of shackling local authorities? I suggest that if he pokes his nose any further into this he will get it punched by local authorities. Indeed, I shall probably be the first one in.
    Mr. Shaw: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's observation.

    Green Belt Land
    Mr. Stevenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce new measures to make green belts more effectively subject to planning control.
    Mr. King: The Government attach great importance to the protection of the green belt. This policy was clearly restated in circular 22/80, which is issued to all planning authorities and inspectors. We consider that these controls are adequate and would not propose any additional measures.
    Mr. Stevens: In view of the hundreds of thousands of acres that are being lost each year to urban sprawl, would

    281
    it not be more practical and effective if my right hon. Friend called a halt to green belt development until city centre space was fully used?
    Mr. King: As my hon. Friend knows, there are the strictest controls over developments in the green belt. We intend to maintain those very rigorously indeed. The circular that we issued to all local planning authorities and as guidance for all planning inspectors makes clear the importance that the Government attach to the use of the green belt to contain the sprawl of built-up areas.
    Mr. Newens: Does the Minister recognise that the problem of non-conforming activities in green belt areas is sometimes considerable? Will he therefore encourage local authorities to provide adequate industrial estates where business men can develop reasonable activities, and strengthen the powers of local authorities to deal with objectionable activities that frequently continue for many years and ruin whole areas of the green belt?
    Mr. King: Obviously that is a matter first to be directed to local authorities, which have their clear responsibilities. The determination to use proper arrangements and the desire to use inner city and existing urban land in preference to green field sites are related to the aspects that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    Mr. Chapman: I appreciate the impracticability of introducing a planning requirement that, for example, third parties should have the right to appeal against planning permissions, but will my right hon. Friend consider sympathetically the introduction of such a procedure where a green belt is affected? It would not require new legislation, because the practice could be made perfect by the Secretary of State calling in applications for a public inquiry in such special circumstances.
    Mr. King: My initial reaction to my hon. Friend's suggestion is that I think real difficulties would arise. However, if he cares to write to me to put his suggestion in greater detail, I shall consider it.
    Mr. McWilliam: Bearing in mind the Minister's reply to a supplementary question, why did his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so capriciously interfere with the Tyne and Wear county structure plan?
    Mr. King: I do not know to which aspects the hon. Gentleman is referring. That being so, I cannot comment further on his supplementary question.

    Hospital (Southampton)
    Mr. R. C.Mitchell asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will hold a public planning inquiry into the proposal to build a private hospital in Southampton adjacent to the Southampton general hospital.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: My right hon. Friend can hold a public local inquiry only if he calls in a planning application for his own decision. He decided not to do so in this case because, although controversial locally, there were no issues of wider significance which would have justified his intervention.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will cause dismay to hundreds of Southampton citizens? Does he accept that when the Southampton city
    282
    council planning committee took its original decision to grant outline planning permission for the private hospital, it did not have all the facts at its disposal? Does he agree that the building of the hospital will add tremendously to the traffic congestion from which the area already suffers?
    Mr. Shaw: It is evident from the hon. Gentleman's comments that all the matters to which he has referred are essentially local matters within the purview of the local authority. He will be aware that the local council at Southampton took a decision recently on this issue in the light of all the evidence that was then available.
    Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the decision was taken in the Southampton council chamber, certain councillors were barred from voting because they happened to be members of BUPA? Was that not an infringement of their democratic right to make a decision? Can something be done about it?
    Mr. Shaw: I take note of my hon. Friend's observation. Prima facie it appears that a councillor was debarred from undertaking his normal duties as an elected councillor. That requires further investigation.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is it not a sad commentary on the Social Democratic Party that, led by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), it is prepared to throw overboard life-long principles of opposition to private medicine and support for the Health Service? Will the Minister condemn this piece of political chicanery, which is based on a new-found lust for votes and a departure from principle?
    Mr. Shaw: I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman is entering into special pleading.

    Local Authority Services
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take further steps to encourage local authorities to investigate the introduction of private competitive enterprise in place of services provided by the councils themselves and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. King: My colleagues and I take every opportunity to impress upon local authorities the importance of considering the scope for using the private sector in this way. An increasing number of authorities are doing so. We have also commissioned and recently published a study by Coopers and Lybrand on"Service Provision and Pricing Policy in Local Government", which I believe will prove a most useful stimulus to further developments.
    Mr. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Monday night, when the GLC was increasing its rate by 90 per cent., in Southend a decision was made to freeze the borough rate for the current year despite inflation and despite the cut in Government grant? Does he realise that this decision follows the cut last year in the borough rate? In view of Southend's proven success in saving money for the ratepayers and providing good services through privatisation, does my right hon. Friend think that it would be a good idea if he and his colleagues visited Southend to ascertain how its success could be applied in other areas?
    Mr. King: My noble Friend Lord Bellwin, the Under-Secretary of State, has visited Southend. He takes a close interest in these matters. We have taken a keen interest in

    283
    the developments that have taken place at Southend. I pay tribute to all that has been achieved, which demonstrates clearly that when economies in expenditure are mentioned it is rubbish to complain that that inevitably means cuts in services. Where there has been a positive approach to these issues, and where more economical ways of achieving improvements are sought, as at Southend, it has been to the great benefit of all concerned.
    Mr. Graham: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that at Southend the trade unions offered to review working practices, which would have reduced costs below those of the contractors, and that the council refused to take up that offer? Does the Minister accept that trade refuse charges have doubled and that the assets of the cleansing department were virtually given away to contractors? Is he prepared to allow public bodies to squander public funds and assets so disgracefully?
    Mr. King: I do not know how much of that information the hon. Gentleman drew from an article in the New Statesman, which I was interested to read. I took the trouble to have it checked and I found that there were many inaccuracies. I understand that the council is now in the process of correcting the figures. I understand, too, for example, that the figures given for overheads were incorrect. It is extraordinary if the hon. Gentleman is attacking a scheme that can provide better working conditions for employees, lower costs for ratepayers and a better service for the borough. If there is to be a serious approach to public expenditure in this place, the hon. Gentleman should consider seriously the benefits that can be achieved instead of taking a dogmatic and doctrinaire attitude.
    Mr. Murphy: Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing early legislation to give private enterprise the right to tender for council contracts?
    Mr. King: This is a matter for councils to consider, and many councils are now doing so. One would have been more impressed by the supplementary questions by Labour Members if improvements had been offered in areas where there have been restrictive practices as an initiative by those concerned and not in the face of competitive tenders from outside.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not true that this Tory-controlled council awarded the tender to Exclusive Cleaning Ltd., although it did not submit the lowest tender, and despite the provision in the tender that where extra houses were built, the company would charge the council—the ratepayers—£15 for every additional 100 houses for refuse disposal, an agreement upon which it reneged? When it was awarded the contract it claimed from the council not £15 for every additional 100 houses but £15 for every house, an increase of 1, 000 per cent?
    Mr. King: I think that we have identified another reader of the New Statesman. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously interested in the truth, he should make some more serious efforts to obtain the real facts and not merely take the article at face value.

    Consultative Council on Local Government Finance
    Mr. McWilliamasked the Secretary of Stale for the Environment whether he is considering the abolition of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance.
    Mr. Heseltine: No, Sir.
    Mr. McWilliam: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the description"consultative council" is inaccurate as applied to this body, given the delay in convening statutory meetings to announce the rate support grant order and the use of diktats rather than consultation? Does he agree that the lack of consultation is evidenced by the opposition of the three local authority associations to the 1980 Act and to the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman does not follow the deliberations of the consultative council very closely. Following discussions, I increased aggregate local government expenditure in 1982–83 by £1 billion.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider with the consultative council the position of the Rotherham metropolitan authority, which he commended yesterday, which can demonstrate that it has complied with the law and operates with both efficiency and economy? However, in the next financial year it will suffer enormous disadvantage for so doing. Does that not illustrate that the right hon. Gentleman's arrangements are inadequate and need further revision by himself in consultation with the council?
    Mr. Heseltine: I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman in introducing the Rotherham authority into the question. I am sure that the local authority associations would be delighted to hold discussions about his authority. The difficulty is that 419 other authorities would want similar discussions.

    Planning Applications
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the average time taken by local planning authorities to determine applications and by his Department to determine appeals.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: The welcome improvement in the proportion of planning applications determined within eight weeks—from 60 to 69 per cent. between early 1980 and early 1981—fell to 62 per cent. in April-June 1981 when changes to the general development order and fees for planning applications were introduced. However, the latest figure of 64 per cent. for July-September shows a healthy sign of recovery.
    The times taken to decide planning appeals continue to improve for all categories, particularly for inspectors' written representation cases—three-quarters of all. appeals—which now take a median time of 17 weeks compared with 21 weeks in early 1981 and 28 weeks in early 1980.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome trend and the up-to-date information.

    BALLOT FOR NGTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 5 MARCH
    Members successful in the ballot were:
  BILL PRESENTED
    SHOPS (AMENDMENT)
    Sir John Langford-Holt, supported by Sir Anthony Fell, Mr. George Gardiner, Mr. Warren Hawksley, Mr. Ralph Howell, Mr. Ray Mawby and Mr. Barry Porter, presented a Bill to amend the Shops Acts 1950 to 1965: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

Right of Reply in the Media
3. 32 pm
Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give members of the public the right to reply to allegations made against them in the press or on radio or television; and for connected purposes.
Individuals or organisations whose views have been misrepresented must be given the opportunity to reply, in an equally prominent position and time, to correct harmful or damaging inaccuracies. I propose first to quote three recent examples of the sort of distortions that the Bill would end, secondly to state the terms of the measure to meet them, and, thirdly, to quote the support that I have received from Members of all parties and from all quarters.
Last month, the right to reply was granted to Sir Anthony Part, a former top civil servant, who had previously been refused the right to a television reply. Sir Anthony stated that an interview he had given to ATV was cut by half and that the edited version was not balanced. He complained immediately to ATV but received only a private apology. Later he was told that there would be a press apology. Sir Anthony rightly insisted that the offence was committed on the air in prime time and that the apology should appear at an equally prime time. That protest to the IBA won him a two-minute, peak time, apology on Central Television, which was recently granted the ATV franchise.
Not every victim of distortion is as fortunate as Sir Anthony. On the same day, The Sun published a story about two trainee railway drivers, one of whom, a week earlier, had been sent to trial for falsifying his worksheet—although The Sun conveniently avoided mentioning that fact. On January 23, The Sun devoted the front page and two inside pages to the story. It alleged drinking, fiddling and cheating by railwaymen, and brought into question the integrity of all railwaymen. It was clearly likely to provoke a strike. The headline read"Taken for a ride", but I suggest that it was the 12 million readers of The Sun who were taken for a ride. ASLEF and NUR members refused to touch the newspaper, and also the News of the World, The Times and The Sunday Times, all belonging to the Rupert Murdoch group. The following day, another three pages were devoted to the allegation.
ASLEF demanded a full front page retraction. On January 27, four days later, the paper agreed to publish an article by two union officials. However, it compounded its offence with another smear article. If the Bill had been in operation, there would have been no need for that strike action.
The third example concerns an educational organisation that was attacked in a two-page article in another mass circulation newspaper. It was a highly and deliberately damaging article, although it skillfully avoided libel. Members of the foundation asked the paper for an opportunity to refute the article. No one request received even a letter in reply. The foundation conducted a public survey that overwhelmingly supported a right of reply in such cases. It collected 14, 000 signatures on a petition which has been presented to a number of Members of Parliament in London and the home counties today.
Under the right of reply provided by the Bill, an individual, organisation or company can require the editor of a newspaper that has carried a factually inaccurate or
288
distorted report involving the complainant to print a reply within three days. The reply must be printed without charge and be of equal length to, and in the same position as, the original article. In the case of weekly or monthly periodicals, the reply must be printed in the next issue. The same right would apply where there had been a misrepresentation or distortion of fact on the radio or television. That is vital, as damage can be done through those media before an even larger audience than the readership of a newspaper.
The existing libel laws will continue and will not be changed in any way. Unfortunately, people of small or moderate means cannot afford to sue for libel, as legal aid is not available for that purpose. Not everyone has the resources of Sir James Goldsmith. The bill would require a newspaper to publish the reply, and failure to do so could mean a fine of between £2, 000 and £40, 000—a practice that applies in France.
Such a law has operated successfully in France, West Germany, Denmark and other Western European countries for many years, and is clearly practical.
The inspiration for today's Bill came from Mr. Torn Baistow, a distinguished British journalist and the former deputy editor of the New Statesman. I offer a tribute to him for his work.
Since I introduced a Bill on this issue for the first time last year, I have received widespread support. It has come from the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), one of the most eminent lawyers in the House. He is Conservative Member with journalistic experience dating back to the Sunday Express of 1945. On the other side there has been support for the principle of the Bill from the Campaign for Press Freedom, a trade union body with 10 union general secretaries and many others in its ranks.
Lastly, I have had backing from a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I mention that because, unlike last year, a Conservative Member intends to oppose the Bill. In addition, many members of the general public have written to support the Bill.
The Bill is no panacea. The millionaire press will continue to mislead vast readerships. The Bill would not touch the selection of the news that suits the television and press proprietors—the main way of misleading the public. It would, however, provide some safeguard to an individual or organisation that is not provided at present. I commend the Bill to the House.
3. 41 pm
Mr. Robert Adley: I was hoping to deliver a brilliant and witty speech in opposition to the censorship Bill of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun). However, information has just reached me which leads me to believe that it may be an abuse of the House to spend time on the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman introduced an identical Bill on 2 June 1981. As he said, the Bill was not opposed, but, on the due date for the Second Reading of the Bill on 12 June 1981, the hon. Gentleman did not even bother to turn up. That seems to show the seriousness with which he treated the subject. In case he had been ill, or unable to get to the House, I sought to look at the contents of his Bill. I found that, although he had been given leave to introduce the Bill, not only did he not move the Second Reading, but he did not even bother to have the Bill printed.

289
Therefore, the Bill does not seem to be a serious legislative proposition. We have a busy day ahead. In view of the hon. Gentleman's behaviour last year, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will not consider it an abuse of the House if I do not seek to divide the House, but merely inform it of what the hon. Gentleman did last year.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Alexander W. Lyon, Mr. Phillip Whitehead, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. John Tilley, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. David Watkins, Mr. Dennis Canavan and Miss Jo Richardson.

RIGHT OF REPLY IN THE MEDIA
Mr. Frank Mr. Frank Allaun accordingly presented a Bill to give members of the public the right to reply to allegations made against them in the press or on radio or television; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

Canada Bill (Mr. Speaker's Ruling)
Mr. Speaker: On Thursday of last week, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis), and yesterday the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) raised questions with me concerning the Canada Bill, the Second Reading of which is due to take place today. I have also been asked privately by other hon. Members for advice.
I will now give a ruling on the points for which my guidance has been sought.
The first question is that of language. The rule of the House is that we speak in the English language. The Bill before us is a Bill in two languages—Canadian French and English. The House will be aware that the Canadian Federal Parliament is bilingual. The Bill that is before us comes from that Parliament after very long deliberation. The long title and preamble to the Bill show that the Canadian Parliament requests the House to enact
"the provisions hereinafter set forth."
Those provisions embrace the French text which, according to clause 3, is to have the same authority in Canada as the English version. [Interruption.] Order. This is a very important ruling.
Since the Bill is unique in modern times, it is essential for us to be quite clear in our minds about the course to follow. I cannot escape the conclusion that the bilingual Canadian Parliament, which has made the request to us to pass this Bill, is satisfied that there is no difference in substance between the Canadian French version and the English version.
In addressing itself to the substance of the Bill, this English-speaking House will therefore need to direct its scrutiny to the English version. If the House were to make any amendment to the English version of the Bill, it might well become necessary, at some later stage, for a consequential amendment to be made to the French version. However, after consultation with the Chairman of Ways and Means, I am satisfied that it will not be proper—either in Committee or on Report—for amendments addressed to the French version to be selected for debate.
It follows that the rule that requires any amendment, if it is to be in order, to be accompanied by any necessary consequential amendments, will not be so interpreted, either in Committee or on Report, as to require an amendment to the English version to be accompanied on the Notice Paper by a consequential amendment to the French version. Our debate, therefore, although confined to the English language, will in no way be inhibited from dealing with the substance of the Bill.
I have also been asked about the extent to which discussion and amendment of the Bill and its schedules would be in order. As with any other Bill, that is a matter for decision in the first instance by the Chairman of the Committee concerned. However, it may help the House if I say that I have no reason to believe that the English text of the Bill is unamendable.
In reply to those right hon. and hon. Members who have drawn my attention to the fact that certain legal proceedings are still pending, I remind them that the sub judice rule has never been allowed to prevent the House from undertaking legislation. In that context, the hon. Member for Hackney, South referred to the possible effect of the Queen's consent. However, I am satisfied on

291
precedent that this is not a Bill to which the Queen's consent is required. I hope that what I have said has been helpful to the House and that we may now proceed to the Second Reading debate.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful if you would advise the House whether those hon. Members who have visited Canada at the expense of a party with an interest in the Canada Bill should specifically declare that before—should they have the good fortune to catch your eye—speaking in the debate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to a very important matter. I should have thought that it was clear to all hon. Members that if any hon. Member has been placed in that position he should inform the House, when he addresses it, that he has been so entertained.
Mr. Peter Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did I understand you to say, Sir, that the Queen's consent would not be required? Perhaps you could explain to a layman such as myself how any Bill can become an Act of Parliament, under our constitution, without the Queen's consent?
Mr. Speaker: Bills are considered regularly without formal consent being necessary in this Chamber before we can proceed. The question is whether consent is necessary before we proceed.
Mr. Leslie Spriggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House must feel obliged for the ruling you have given. However, one aspect is not clear. When today's business is concluded, will any business which should go to the House of Lords be dealt with before this Bill goes into Committee? Should we delay Committee proceedings until we get the answer from the House of Lords?
Mr. Speaker: We will follow our normal method of Procedure.
Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to clarify two points concerning your ruling on the French language, which, of course, we all accept. If amendments are made to the English version, who is responsible for the consequential amendments into French Canadian? You made it clear, Mr. Speaker, that as the Bill stands we must accept both the English text and the French Canadian text to be a request from the Canadian Parliament. However, if an amendment were made, any translation into French Canadian could not bear that assumption which we can make for the Bill as a whole.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raises a speculation on which I am not prepared to embark. We will see if that situation arises. If it does, I know of no-one in this House capable of amending it. In any case, the House must understand what amendments are on the Notice Paper. I cannot rule on that until the situation arises; we will deal with it then.

Orders of the Day

  Canada Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Clinton Daves rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is another point of order., but I hope the hon. Gentleman realises we have had Orders of the Day.
  Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You inadvertently referred to me as the hon. Member for. Hackney, South. I hope that that confusion will not be perpetuated.
  Mr. Speaker: I apologise and I presume that there is another hon. Member to whom I should also apologise.
  [Relevant documents: The First and Second Reports, Session 1980–81, and the First Report, Session 1981–82, from the Foreign Affairs Committee, on the British North America Acts: The Role of Parliament (House of Commons Papers Nos. 42, 295 and 128) and the Observations by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the First Report, Session 1980–881, Cmnd. 8450, are relevant.]
  3. 53 pm
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is an occasion of unique importance, not just to us here, but to all the people of the United Kingdom and, in particular, to all the people of Canada. All our lives we have admired Canada for what she is—a great, modern, independent country which has rightly taken her place among the leaders of the Western world. She is a shining example of freedom and of democracy and she has defended that freedom against every onslaught, both during two world wars, when we fought side by side, and ever since, when she has willingly shared the burden of preserving the peace of the world.
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I omitted to tell the House that I had not selected either of the reasoned amendments on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Atkins: Canadians are also fierce defenders of the Commonwealth ideal. In 1973 the present Prime Minister of Canada said:
  "To future historians, the Commonwealth shall be irrevocably associated with the desire of free men and women representing more than a quarter of the world's population to gather, to discuss and to understand."
  We are proud that we are sister members of the Commonwealth with Canada. We are also proud that the Queen of the United Kingdom is Queen of Canada.
  It is this great country that has asked us to enact the legislation before us today. It is incongruous that Canada should have to make that request of us, 115 years after the passage of the first British North America Act in 1867. Canada has in every real sense been independent for a very long time. That independence was given formal recognition by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. At that time, however, the Canadians had not been able to agree on a formula for the future amendment of their constitution. Thus it was that section 7 of the Statute of Westminster provided that nothing in the Act should be

  293
  deemed to apply to the repeal, alteration or amendment of the British North America Acts. The power of amendment was thereby retained, at Canadian request, by the British Parliament.
  However, the Statute of Westminster also recited in the third paragraph of its preamble that, in accordance with the already established constitutional convention,
  "No law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion."
  The request and consent of Canada is evidenced by the approval of a resolution of both Houses of the Canadian Parliament addressed to the Queen requesting the enactment of the proposed measure by the British Parliament. We have enacted about 14 amendments to the British North America Acts since 1867. Not just since 1931, but in all cases since 1886, this has been done at the request and with the consent of the Canadian Parliament.
  The effect of the Statute of Westminster was that the status quo on amendment of the Canadian constitution was retained until agreement could be reached in Canada on methods of constitutional amendment. It was expected, no doubt, that that process would start immediately and agreement would be reached soon. However, the process was slowed by the preoccupations of the depression and then of the war. It was not until much later that the search for a solution was seriously renewed. That process has culminated in the Bill now before the House.
  The long title is:
  "A Bill to give effect to a request by the Senate and House of Commons of Canada."
  This request was in the form of an Address from the Canadian Parliament to the Queen, which was approved on 2 December 1981 in the House of Commons by a vote of 246 to 24, on 8 December in the Senate by a vote of 59 to 23 and delivered to Her Majesty on 9 December. The first preamble to the Bill reflects the terms of the Address and makes it clear that everything that follows the first preamble forms part of the Canadian request. That request has three elements: first, the amendment of the Canadian constitution by the provision of a charter of rights, and, secondly, the conferral of full power on the Canadian Parliament to amend the constitution under an agreed formula.
  Both of these are contained in schedule B. The third part of the request is for the termination of the power of the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate for Canada. This is effected by clause 2. Schedule A, of course, is a translation into French of the measure itself.
  In your ruling just now, Mr. Speaker, you referred to the fact that the Canadian Federal Parliament was bilingual. All Acts of the Canadian Federal Parliament are in both English and French. This has been the case since at least 1867 when, under section 133 of the British North America Act 1867, both languages were designated as having equal authority and were prescribed for use in the Federal Parliament.
  The present legislation has come to us in both languages because the Canadian Parliament wished thereby to give full recognition to the official place of the two languages in a request which was so fundamental because the Constitution Act which forms schedule B to the Bill,
  294
  together with the statutes and orders listed in the schedule to the Constitution Act, will form the new Canadian constitution.
  The Canada Bill, when passed, and the Constitution Act will have the force of law in Canada in the same way as Acts of the Federal Parliament. Therefore, they were drafted and passed by the Canadian Parliament in both languages from the outset.
  There are examples of United Kingdom Acts which give the force of law in the United Kingdom to schedules containing the texts of conventions on treaties in both English and French—the Carriage by Air Act 1961, the Carriage by Air (Supplementary Provisions) Act 1962, and the Carriage by Air and Road Act 1979.
  Furthermore, those Acts provide that, if there is any inconsistency between the English and French texts, the French text shall prevail. But in this case the schedule to the Bill, whether in English or in French, will have the force of law only in Canada.
  The House will recall that when the Canadian Government first put forward their constitutional proposals in Canada, towards the end of 1980, they were opposed by eight out of 10 provinces. On 30 January last year the Foreign Affairs Committee of this House published its first report entitled:
  "The British North America Acts: The Role of Parliament".
  It concluded, if I may over-simplify, that, if a request from Canada for the patriation of the constitution affected Canada's federal structure and was opposed by a majority of the provinces, the United Kingdom Parliament should exercise its judgment on whether the request conveyed the wishes of Canada
  "as a federally structured whole".
  Under such circumstances, the report said, the United Kingdom Parliament might decide that the request was not a proper one, because it did not enjoy a sufficient level of provincial concurrence.
  I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the detailed work of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Canadian constitution. It is a complex subject and its report is very lucid. The Government, in their reply to it, made it clear how useful they found the material.
  In the event, the United Kingdom Parliament is not now confronted with the situation envisaged by the Foreign Affairs Committee in its first report.
  Mr. Michael English: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to one of the Committee's reports. Does he agree with the strictures in the most recent report? Does he accept that previous Foreign Office Ministers have been badly advised?
  Mr. Atkins: I am coming to the third report.
  As I said, we are not now confronted with the situation envisaged in the first report. Following that report, the constitutional question was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. The court decided on 28 September, by a seven-to-two majority, that there was no impediment in law to the making of a request for constitutional amendment by the Canadian Federal Parliament without provincial concurrence. Equally, however, the court concluded, by a six-to-three majority, that there was a constitutional convention about provincial assent. The court did not conclude that unanimity was necessary for any constitutional amendment affecting federal/provincial

  295
  relationships—and this would include the proposed patriation measure—but, although not being prepared to quantify the exact level of assent necessary, said that
  "at least a substantial measure of Provincial consent is required".
  Mr. Julian Amery: My right hon. Friend referred to previous amendment of the constitution. Have any amendments that touch provincial rights ever been taken without unanimity among the provinces?
  Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir. The British North America Act 1907, which affected the provinces' rights, was opposed by British Columbia, both in Cananda and in the United Kingdom, but it was, nevertheless, passed.
  Following the Supreme Court judgment, the Canadian Government, as we know, embarked on a further effort to seek an agreement with the provinces. On 5 November a revised package of proposals acceptable to nine out of the 10 provinces was announced. Quebec alone was not party to the agreement. We therefore have before us proposals which have been agreed not only by the great majority of provinces, but which have been approved, as I have said, by both Houses of the Canadian Parliament.
  Those new circumstances were acknowledged by the Foreign Affairs Committee in its third report, published on 18 January. The Government entirely agree with the views expressed in that report as to the propriety of the United Kingdom Parliament enacting the proposals as requested.
  The Canada Bill contains not only the all-important clauses regarding patriation and future amendment, but a charter of human rights and freedoms. The charter is the most significant addition to the existing constitutional arrangements enshrined in the British North America Acts. It has been controversial in Canada; it is still contested by Quebec and by some of the indigenous peoples. I now propose to say a word about each.
  It is, of course, a matter for regret that the present proposals do not have the unanimous support of the Canadian provinces. But, as I said, the Supreme Court of Canada considered that the consent of all the provinces was not required, either by law or by constitutional convention, to the making of a request to us. No one would deny that nine out of 10 provinces constitutes the substantial measure of provincial consent to which the Supreme Court referred.
  We would all wish that outstanding disagreements could be resolved, but the Government believe that this is a matter for the people, the provinces and the Parliament of Canada to decide. We do not believe that the existence of the disagreement provides grounds for declining to act, as we have always acted, upon the request of the Canadian Parliament.
  Somewhat similar considerations apply to the indigenous populations of Canada. Their existing rights are specifically recognised in the Constitution Act in schedule B to the Bill; but a number of them have made it known in Canada and in this country that they are dissatisfied and oppose the passage of the Canadian proposals through this Parliament without additional safeguards. Some of the Indian groups refer to their ancient treaties with the Crown and maintain that there are United Kingdom obligations arising from these which persist to the present day.
  As the House knows, three groups have instituted proceedings in the courts in this country. Indeed, in one instance they go so far as to invite a ruling from the courts that Parliament is not free to pass this Bill without their
  296
  consent. These proceedings are still before the courts, but you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that that fact is no impediment to Parliament's proceeding, if it thinks tit, to discuss and enact legislation, despite the fact that the legislation, if enacted, will necessarily determine the outcome of the litigation or render its continuation pointless.
  I know that there are hon. Members who would wish the House to delay consideration of the Bill until the proceedings are over. But it is not as though we were dealing only with the one case brought by the Alberta Indians. As I said, two further sets of legal proceedings have already been instituted. In one, a statement of claim was served on 22 January. In the second, a statement of claim has not yet been served. There can be no certainty about when the various legal proceedings will be concluded, let alone about the prospects if any further litigation were to be started, which is not at all improbable.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Why, then, did the Government defer the Second Reading pending the Court of Appeal proceedings? Having taken that decision, why does the right hon. Gentleman now decide to go ahead with the Second Reading and Committee stages, with proceedings pending in the House of Lords?
  Mr. Atkins: The Bill was brought forward at the Government's early convenience in response to a request. The judgment of the Court of Appeal encouraged us to proceed. It was clear and definite. As I say, there conies a moment when one cannot wait for further possible litigation. Otherwise, we might wait for a long time. We might easily wait for years. The Government do not believe that the request made to us by the people of Canada should be deferred that long.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: We stated in the first report that
  "we do consider that it would be constitutionally questionable as well as politically undesirable for the processes leading to UK legislation to be hastened so as to pre-empt the decision of Canadian courts. Indeed, that could be interpreted as involving the UK authorities in improper intervention in the internal affairs of Canada."
  At present the province of Quebec has a case before the Supreme Court of Canada. In view of the time that the court took to decide the other appeals from Manitoba, Newfoundland, Quebec and so on, should not the Government have delayed the matter so that Quebec does not feel unfairly treated because it has not been allowed to exhaust its legal rights in Canada, especially as the court's decision will probably go against Quebec anyway?
  Mr. Atkins: The report was written before the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. The proceedings now instituted by Quebec are before not the Supreme Court, but the Quebec court. It is our belief, as I have stated, that we owe a duty to the people of Canada, who have expressed their views through their elected representatives, to proceed with the Bill and that is what we have decided to do. I think that I have spent long enough on this matter.
  Mr. David Ennals rose—
  Mr. Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman will surely make his point in a speech, Mr. Speaker, if he catches your eye.
  Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
  Mr. Atkins:No, I think that I will not give way.

  297
  I was dealing with the Indian peoples, and I had said that it has consistently been the view of the Government, and has been given in evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee and repeatedly been explained to all those representing Indian interests, that any treaty or other obligations which still subsisted became the responsibility of the Government of Canada with the attainment of independence, at the latest with the Statute of Westminster 1931, and that it is to the Government of Canada that the Indians must look for the solution of any of their problems.
  The Foreign Affairs Committee agreed with that view and said in paragraph 9 of its third report:
  "Indian rights and affairs have been an exclusive responsibility of the Canadian Government and Parliament for generations".
  Furthermore, as the House knows, the Court of Appeal, in a unanimous judgment on 28 January, came to the same conclusion. It is the Government's view that in these circumstances we would not be justified in waiting any longer before acting on the Canadian Parliament's request.
  There is one other matter that I want to mention, because I think the House should know the Government's view about the possibility of amendments being made at a later stage, assuming that the Bill gets a Second Reading tonight.
  Mr. English rose—
  Mr. Atkins: You have ruled, Mr. Speaker that the body of the Bill is amendable. I shall merely give the Government's view about that.
  I have referred to the preamble to the 1931 Statute of Westminster, which says:
  "It is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as a part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion".
  It would, of course, be inconsistent with this "request and consent" convention for Parliament to make amendments which have not been requested and consented to by Canada in the first place. This is also the view of the Foreign Affairs Committee, as expressed in conclusion 11(iv) of its first report. In the light of this, I have to state the clear view of the Government that any amendment to the Canada Bill which may be put forward should not be passed by the House. That will be the advice of the Government during all the subsequent stages of the Bill.
  Mr. English: The right hon. Gentleman is, I think, confusing the issue, because the Committee can make amendments which may not be passed on Third Reading and may not ultimately be passed by the other place. I think that we should not discuss that at this stage. However, the right hon. Gentleman promised that he would refer to the strictures mentioned in the third report of the Committee on the wrong advice given to his predecessors in office, of both parties. He has mentioned the third report, but he has not mentioned that. He promised me that he would.
  Mr. Atkins: As a matter of fact, I gave no such undertaking. I told the hon. Gentleman that I would refer to the third report, and I have done so. I do not propose to refer to the whole of it. I shall refer to those pieces to which I wish to refer, and that is all that I shall do.
  Mr. EnglishAre we, as Members of this House of Commons, really going to be fobbed off? Here is a clear case—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear already that the hon. Gentleman is making not a point of order but a point of argument. There is a world of difference between the two.
  Mr. English: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but, on behalf of the whole House, I put it to you that if Ministers of both parties are ill advised, and if a Select Committee points out that fact, it should surely be mentioned by the Minister responsible.
  Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to say whether Ministers are ill advised. I should be very foolish to start on that game.
  Mr. Atkins: I do not know about my predecessor. He can speak for himself. I am satisfied with the quality of my advice. It is not for me to say which amendments are selected for debate, but I thought it proper to tell the house at this stage, before hon. Members decide how to vote at the end of this Second Reading, that the Government's advice during the subsequent stages of this Bill will be that amendments should not be passed, because, if they were, it would be inconsistent with the"request and consent" convention which I read out from the Statute of Westminster 1931.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is warning the House that the Government would advise against the acceptance of amendments, on the ground that to accept them would be inconsistent with the convention that no legislation be passed for Canada except on the request of the Canadian Parliament. I take it, therefore, that the Government's advice will not extend to the omission of parts of the existing Bill, since that would not fall within the mischief of the principle that he has enunciated.
  Mr. Atkins: It would, because we have been requested, and been given the consent of the Canadian Parliament, to enact a piece of legislation as a whole. That will be my advice to the House. It is, of course, for the House to decide whether to take that advice, but I thought it right at this stage to make it clear to the House before we decide whether the Bill should be read a Second time.
  Earlier in my speech I said that it was incongruous that Canada should have to come to the United Kingdom Parliament on matters affecting her constitution. It is more than that. In 1982 it is an anachronism which is totally out of keeping with Canada's place in the world.
  The present Government of Canada have sought tirelessly to find an acceptable way of amending their own constitution, of taking it into their own hands and of providing a method of amending it in the future. They have succeeded where all their predecessors over 50 years have failed, and it reflects the greatest credit on their efforts.
  The Parliament of Canada is asking us to agree to what it itself has devised and agreed. If the Bill goes through, it will be the last time that Canada has to ask us for any legislation. Its constitution will be its own. That is exactly as it should be, and it will mean that we will be able truly to fulfil the definition, set out at the 1926 imperial conference, of the relationship between the countries of the Commonwealth:

  299
  "Autonomous Communities, equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another in any aspect of their domestic or international affairs, but united by a common allegiance to the Crown."
  I invite the House of Commons to do what our fellow parliamentarians in the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada have asked, and give the Bill a Second Reading.
  4. 18 pm
  Mr. Denis Healey: This Bill and the issues it raises have already aroused deep emotions on both sides of the House, but for 24 million Canadians it is of immense and historic importance because it represents the final achievement of absolute independence, combined with some important changes in the constitution of Canada. We are, after all, discussing the future of the second largest land area in the world, with a population larger than that of most members of the United Nations, a country which has produced some of the greatest figures in our own history books and those of France, and which made a major contribution to Allied victory in two world wars. Since 1945, Canada has made a major contribution to shaping the post-war world. Many of us will recall the role of Mr. Pearson as the Canadian Foreign Secretary in the foundation and early years of NATO; and successive Canadian Governments have acted as a bridge between North and South on major issues such as Suez in 1956, the South African issue over the years and the Caribbean and Central America at the present time.
  However, although Canada has been for practical purposes independent for over 100 years, and has had all the other attributes of sovereignty for half a century, it has not had the right to amend its own constitution. As the Lord Privy Seal said, successive Governments and Parliaments of Canada since 1931 have specifically asked us in Britain to retain exclusive power to amend fundamental parts of their own Canadian constitution.
  We in Britain have never sought that power, but we have always been unable to terminate it without the request and consent of Canada. There is no doubt that the time was long over due that we should have received that request and consent. Because the past 50 years have seen enormous changes in Canada and in the world in which it lies, large scale immigration has affected the balance of the population inside Canada. New technologies and industries have arisen. Oil has been discovered in large quantities, and there has recently been an enormous increase in the importance of oil. It was high time to end an anachronism, yet until Prime Minister Trudeau grasped the nettle 18 months ago no Canadian Government dared risk the arguments that would inevitably follow a decision to ask Britain to patriate Canada's constitution.
  The initial approach made by the Canadian Prime Minister, and some of the rhetoric that accompanied it, aroused serious misgivings in the British Parliament. Those misgivings reflected similar misgivings in Canada itself. Opposition Members here were particularly influenced by the fact that our sister party, the New Democratic Party, was deeply divided on the initial approach, with the Government of Saskatchewan under Mr. Blakeney taking a completely different line from that of the federal party under Mr. Broadbent.
  The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee described the misgivings in its first report, and made itself as unpopular with the British Government as with the Canadian Government in doing so, but I believe that the
  300
  Committee had no alternative. The central problem that it came to grips with was how the federal nature of the Canadian constitution affected the right of the Canadian Government to require automatic approval of is requests by the British Government and House of Commons.
  A year ago we faced a situation in which the Canadian Government were determined to use their legal powers to determine the new constitution without regard to their constitutional responsibilities, yet they were simultaneously demanding that the British Government should act in accordance with their constitutional responsibility and renounce use of their legal powers. The risk of a confrontation between the two Parliaments was real a year ago, but it was removed when the Supreme Court of Canada, by a majority decision, clarified the issues along lines that our own Foreign Affairs Committee had supported. The Canadian Government then reached agreement with nine out of the 10 provinces, substantially satisfying the criteria suggested by the Committee in its first report.
  A year ago, the Canadian Government's request was opposed by eight out of the 10 provinces. Now it is supported by nine out of the 10, and thus, to quote the words of the Foreign Affairs Committee,
  "conveys the clearly expressed wish of Canada as a whole".
  We in Britain must be grateful to the Canadian Prime Minister for his readiness to compromise and to the indefatigable Minister of Justice, M. Jean Chrétien, for his cheerful and beguiling energy during the long arid complicated negotiations in which he was involved.
  In its third and final report on the matter, the Foreign Affairs Committee said:
  "We therefore think that Members can properly welcome this opportunity finally to discharge the responsibilities of the UK Parliament to the federal community it established in Canada in 1867 and for whose convenience it retained anomalous legal powers for fifty years after its first attempt to transfer them."
  I hope that we can all say "Amen" to that. I believe that we should indeed welcome this opportunity to terminate the responsibilities that we have carried for so long and so reluctantly, although I have some reservations about the timing of this debate, reservations that I shall come to in a moment.
  As the right hon. Gentleman said, many problems remain unresolved by the Bill. Some may feel that some problems have been mistakenly resolved in the Bill. The opposition of Quebec is undoubtedly unfortunate. We all regret it. It is particularly unfortunate at a time when the State of Belgium risks even splitting into two as a result of the conflict between Fleming and Walloon, a conflict based on differences of language and culture not very dissimilar from the differences between Quebec and the other provinces of Canada. However, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that is no ground for opposing the Bill. I hope that, to quote Prime Minister Trudeau, this empire will not strike back on this or any other issue.
  The plain fact is that many countries have problems of that nature which they must resolve by their own efforts internally. We have not altogether dissimilar problems in Scotland and Wales on which we would not want the Canadian Parliament to interpose its views. I dare say that if all the Canadians of Scottish origin returned to Britain the economic and political balance of our own country would be very different from what it is today.
  However, there is also concern—more widespread on the Opposition Benches, I dare say—about the position of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
  Mr. Raymond Whitney: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree about the importance of taking note of the point of view of the Liberal Party in Quebec, which has now supported the propositions of the Federal Government? In the last Quebec Assembly elections the Parti Québecois, the party of government, secured 49 per cent. of the vote and the Liberal Party secured 46 per cent. Therefore, while we take serious cognisance of the opposition of the province of Quebec, there is a sizeable minority in the province which accepts the new provisions.
  Mr. Healey: I take note of everything that is relevant, but I am surprised that a former member of the Diplomatic Service should seek to trap me into an argument between the Government and Opposition of a province of a friendly Commonwealth country. I hope at any rate that in future the hon. Gentleman will take the views of the Opposition in this House as seriously as he takes the views of the present Government.
  As I was saying before I was so pleasantly interrupted, there is real concern about the position of the aboriginal peoples, the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples, but particularly the Indians, who constitute over 1 per cent. of the population and I understand are the most rapidly growing part of the Canadian population.
  When I heard that the Indian Association intended to refer to the Court of Appeal British responsibility in this regard, I asked the right hon. Gentleman to defer Second Reading until the court had given its judgment, and I thank him for doing so. We now know that the Court of Appeal has ruled against any residual responsibility lying on this House, on the British Government or on the Queen as Queen of the United Kingdom. The Foreign Affairs Committee took the same view even in its first report, and in its third report it pointed out:
  "The rights of…native peoples are acknowledged more amply in the present request than in the original proposals".
  That is undoubtedly so, but the legal processes which were started by the application to the Court of Appeal are not yet exhausted. The Indian Association has now petitioned the House of Lords on the matter. When I heard that it was likely to do so I asked the Lord Privy Seal to defer Second Reading until the petition had been heard and the whole judicial procedure had been exhausted, as it will be in a few weeks' time. I greatly regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not find it possible to accede to that request.
  I well understand the desire of the Federal Government and of all the provincial Governments but one in Canada to bring this story at last to an end. There is no doubt that it has distracted the attention of Canadian Governments and Parliaments from other important matters for a long time, but after at least 50 years I cannot help feeling that a few more weeks should not be all-important. I have some fear lest the attempt to rush this matter through before the Lords have given their judgment may not shorten the process but prolong it.
  If the purpose of this precipitousness was to get the Bill into law before 15 March when the Quebec court of appeal is to hear a case put by the Government of Quebec I cannot feel that there is any guarantee that this haste will assist in achieving that purpose. It is difficult to tread a proper path between the law's delays and the proud man's contumely, as the Government have had to do for about 18 months now, but it is unwise to press the matter, as they are doing, before the judicial process is exhausted.
  302
  Nevertheless, I have no doubt myself that on the substance of the issue before the House of Lords the findings of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and of the Court of Appeal are right. I do not believe, as has been stated many times by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, that this House has any status in seeking to affect or change the position of the aboriginal peoples in Canada, but it is right that I should take this opportunity to express a concern which many of us feel about the position of the aboriginals, although I do not wish to block or amend the Bill because I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said on that: it should be passed as it stands. If it were to be amended that could open a major and unnecessary constitutional crisis between us in Britain and the people of Canada: but one has the right to ventilate some of the concerns in the hope that the authorities in Canada will take account of our views.
  Like many other hon. Members on both the Front and Back Benches, I have been bombarded over the last 12 months by representations from those who purport to represent not just the aboriginals but almost every other interest in Canada. I have had a chance to discuss the question of aboriginal rights with representatives of various groups of those concerned. I must tell the House that they are as divided on what precisely should be done to help them as the parties in this House are between the wets and the dries, or the softs and the hards, or the Steelites and the Smithites, or the Jenkinsites and the Owenites.
  There is no agreement among the Indians themselves about precisely what they most object to and precisely how to put it right. At the extreme we are asked to reject the Bill in its entirety or to ensure that it does not come into force until or unless the Indians are given the right to form independent states in Canada, if they wish to exercise that right. I doubt if many hon. Members would wish them to have that right. This is a point which has been put by some representatives of the Indian peoples in Canada.
  A more moderate and, I found, a more widespread view in regard to the reference in clause 35 to the existing aboriginal and treaty rights is that the word"existing" may be held in some way to limit the rights. Otherwise it would not have been introduced because it is either otiose or in some way limiting.
  The other concern which these people have is that the participation of the aboriginal representatives in the discussion at next year's conference which will define and identify those rights may be inadequate to ensure that the rights are properly defined and fully protected. That is the nub of the case which the more moderate representatives of the Indian peoples have put to us. I know that some of my hon. Friends share this concern. Although we have no legal or constitutional right to raise these matters, no doubt some Members would find it much easier to support the Bill if we could have from Canada an authoritative statement which would allay the concern which I have just expressed.
  I am well aware that even the expression of this interest and concern may be resented by some in Canada, but the same concerns have been expressed in Canada's own debates, particularly by representatives of our sister party, the New Democratic Party. I have noticed that Canadian Members of Parliament are no more reluctant than British Members of Parliament to discuss the internal affairs of other countries when they feel strongly about them, whether it is South Africa or Central America. I hope that

  303
  what is said in this debate and in Committee will evoke some response from the Canadian authorities, because the Bill will get a much larger and a much freer majority if the concern can be met in some way.
  The debates on this Bill will be the last in which the House will he required to involve itself in the Canadian constitution; I think we are all grateful for that. In my experience constitutional arguments are always the most exhausting, frustrating and often fruitless, certainly for our House of Commons. I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will say"Hear, hear" to that because he succeeded in rendering at least one debate totally fruitless with assistance from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) some time ago.
  The debates which have taken place in Canada have managed to resolve this immensely difficult problem from which earlier Canadian Governments have shied away for half a century and in a way which must be profoundly satisfying to the people of Canada as a whole. For that reason the Bill must commend itself to the House. I hope that the House will pass the legislation unamended. I know I speak for the whole House when I wish for the people of Canada the happiest, most prosperous and peaceful future when the Bill becomes law.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) I want to tell the House that seven Privy Councillors have indicated to me that they hope to speak in the debate. The House knows the interest that there is on the Back Benches. I hope, therefore, that those who have the advantage of being called because they are Privy Councillors will bear in mind that we will be able to call many more Members if speeches are brief.
  4. 39 pm
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The House embarks on this important Bill in a spirit of dedication but with a natural reluctance born not of indifference—far from it—but of respect, affection and solicitude for the position of Canada as a well-loved and independent sister nation in the Commonwealth. It is, after all, half a century since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster and more than a century since the British North America Act. Much has changed in vital respects, not in good will and affection but in constitutional relationships. It is axiomatic that Britain plays no part in the internal affairs of sister nations of the Commonwealth and has in principle no legislative function in regard to them.
  Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster provides:
  "No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion…unless it is expressly declared…that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof."
  That is the general rule, but here we are faced with the exception—the legacy of an enactment passed in mid-Victorian times at the apogee of British imperialism and the British raj, all seemingly remote today. However, the exception is specifically written into section 7 of the 1931 Act at the express request of Canada. So the duty, unwelcome as it is, lies upon us and we are here to discharge it.
  The broad avenue of our approach is clearly marked. It is a desire to do what is right for Canada, to respect its sovereignty in its affairs and to hand over in law what must
  304
  surely belong to it in principle—suzerainty over its constitution. Put thus, it must sound a simple task arid a simple decision that we must make today. However, in a sense it is like Clausewitz's definition of war:
  "Everything is simple but the simplest things are difficult"
  I shall show the difficulty that appears to arise in giving effect now—I stress the word—to that proper and seemingly simple aspiration.
  First, may I express my appreciative thanks to al I those, both public and private—the High Commission here and representatives of the Federal Government, agents general, corporate bodies and private citizens—who have been good enough to talk or write to me and invite my consideration of their views. I am deeply grateful to all of them.
  I am not wholly unfamiliar with or inexperienced in the consideration of the constitution of Commonwealth countries. It has been my task, in my professional capacity as a Queen's Counsel, to try to interpret and advise on many of them for the benefit of my clients. However, I have no professional interest in the subject matter of the Bill and no technical interest of any description.
  I have only two interests to declare. The first is regard for Canada as a sister member of the Commonwealth, and the second is regard for compliance with the principles of constitutional propriety and the rule of law, which link together this unique association of free peoples. Their importance cannot be over stated. In Burke's words, they are
  "ties light as air, but strong as the links in a chain of iron".
  Why should there be any difficulty today in giving effect to the expressed will of the Canadian Parliament and enacting its constitution in the form desired? All would wish, other matters being equal, to meet the desires of our sister Parliament, and none would wish to retain for a moment longer than necessity dictates or principle requires a jurisdiction so ill suited to contemporary concepts of the Commonwealth.
  The difficulties arise because we are on unfamiliar ground. We are not dealing with the relative simplicities of a unitary State with no written constitution and operating only under the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. Here we are accustomed to the omnipotence of Parliament expressed in the classic phrase:
  "Parliament can do everything except make a man a woman or a woman a man."
  That example has perhaps lost some of its striking impact due to the marvels of modern surgery since those times.
  No such principle applies in a federal State. Parliament in a federal State can do only that which is lawful and constitutional, and the courts are the custodians of the constitution in those States. Therefore, our position is not only unwelcome but paradoxical. On 30 April 1981, I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister:
  "Does my right hon. Friend agree that both the Government and Parliament in Britain would be well advised to await the informed guidance of the Supreme Court in Canada before taking up any fixed positions, in view of the rather paradoxical circumstance that we in this House of Commons, as the representatives of a unitary State without a federal constitution, are not best placed to advise on the intricacies of a federal constitution in written form?"
  My right hon. Friend was good enough to reply:
  "I wholly take and agree with my right hon. and learned Friend's point. I am grateful to him for putting it"—[Official Report, 30 April 1981; Vol. 3, C. 907.]
  At that time I expected that one judgment of the Supreme Court would clear matters up. However,

  305
  although judgment was given five months later, it did not achieve the clarity for which we could have hoped. As the House knows, the court gave answers to three questions: first, that the federal-provincial relationship is affected and that there exists a constitutional convention that action by the British Parliament be not invoked and amendment of the constitution be not enacted without the prior agreement of the provinces although, as a matter of law, no such agreement is required. Two difficult questions were left outstanding. The first was the dichotomy between law and constitutional convention and the significance attaching to the latter. The second was the meaning of "agreement of the provinces" and the quantification by which such agreement is to be measured.
  As to the dichotomy, the constitutional convention must be seen against a background of the origin and purposes of the federation. That is well expressed in a judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Right hon. and hon. Members who are eager to go to primary sources will find it in 1932 Appeal Cases. I would have cited the case, but in deference to what you have said, Mr. Speaker, I shall leave it for hon. Members to read for themselves. That citation illustrates clearly the duality of federation—the preservation of the rights of the provinces, with sufficient power to the Federal Government on matters of common concern. To achieve the highest common factor of those two separate and sometimes conflicting concepts is the aim of the constitution by which its conventions must be judged. That is a difficult balance to strike involving difficult judgments, at least for us as legislators of a unitary State.
  Against that background, the Supreme Court analysed the nature of a constitutional convention. In its judgment it adopted a passage from Sir Ivor Jennings' "The Law and the Constitution", wherein he identified a method of establishing whether there is a constitutional convention. Again, right hon. and hon. Members can read it at page 136 of the fifth edition of Sir Ivor's work.
  The important matter in the dichotomy between law and constitutional convention is that no one should underestimate the importance of constitutional convention and say that, as a matter of law, it is of less importance. The Supreme Court put the matter aptly in the form of an equation:
  "Law plus constitutional convention equals totality of constitution."
  In the pending case, the Procureur-General of Quebec maintains two propositions. As to unanimity, he submits that the consent of Quebec is required because constitutional convention imposes a requirement of unanimity. The difficulty for us is that the Supreme Court did not determine the degree of assent required. It stated:
  "The question is to determine if conventionally provincial assent is obligatory and not if, in this case, it ought to be unanimous."
  It did not have to consider unanimity in those different circumstances. The Supreme Court concluded that it expressed no opinion on the degree of consent from the provinces and recalled that it suffices that the court decides whether there is at least an appreciable degree of provincial consent.
  That being the primary submission, there is an alternative submission that the consent of Quebec is required because the principle of duality is basic to Canadian federation. It is important to get into perspective
  306
  the question of unanimity of the degree of provincial assent required. There is little doubt that as a matter of vires, strict law, provincial unanimity is not a condition precedent of legislation by the House.
  However, we are not concerned with the question of vires. We are concerned not with what we, as a Parliament, have the power to do, but with what we, as a Parliament, ought to do. Clearly, though we may technically have the power to legislate without regard to the requisite degree of provincial assent, it is a material consideration in guiding us as to the proper exercise of our discretion and discharge of our duty. Obviously, that is the more so if it should turn out, on the final analysis of the courts of Canada, that the Canadian Parliament had acted under a misapprehension about the degree of assent constitutionally required, which would strike away the foundation for its resolution.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. and learned Friend allow me?
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I have very much in mind Mr. Speaker's adjuration. I think that we would be more popular with the House if my hon. Friend, whose opinion I greatly value, communicated his point to me in a more private way.
  Fundamental questions of interpretation and clarification are therefore outstanding. As the House knows, steps have been initiated to have them resolved by the appropriate procedures. The Procureur-General has instituted his appeal in the Quebec Court of Appeal and submitted this question for the court's consideration. As it is short, I shall read it to the House, with the warning that it is my translation. I hope that it is accurate.
  "Is the consent of Quebec necessary by constitutional convention for the adoption by the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada of a resolution having for its object to modify the constitution in a way doing injury to: (1) the legislative authority or legislature of Quebec by virtue of the Canadian constitution. (2) to the status or role of the legislature of the Government of Quebec at the heart of the Canadian Federation?"
  I found that difficult to translate. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General can give a better rendering of it.
  "And does the objection of Quebec render the adoption of such resolution unconstitutional by convention?"
  The Procureur-General submits that the answer to those questions is in the affirmative.
  The Quebec proposition goes to the heart of the matter, because, if it is accepted that the objection of Quebec makes the resolution of the Canadian Parliament unconstitutional, clearly the House could hardly or properly give effect by Act of Parliament to an unconstitutional resolution.
  I say nothing about the determination of this question. It is not a matter for me. What is material is that these outstanding and vital questions are awaiting resolution. It is not for us to anticipate the determination of the questions, and it is certainly not for us to prejudge the matter and conclude that submissions contained in 50 pages of argument by three learned Procureurs are an untenable proposition. I should not dream of doing so myself, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General would not do so. I have great respect for him personally and for his learning, and he knows that that is no mere façon de parler. In the nineteenth century it was said that one could always quote Latin in the House

  307
  of Commons, occasionally Greek, but never French. However, that was on political grounds, and the basis of the saying has somewhat changed. Even if my right hon. and learned Friend were a Blackburn or a Sumner, I do not believe that he could brush aside summarily an argument awaiting hearing in this form.
  Moreover, the case is to be heard very soon. It is listed in the Quebec Court of Appeal for 15 March. No doubt it will go to the Supreme Court on appeal by the losing side, and no doubt on an expedited hearing.
  Mr. Aitken: May I prevail on my right hon. and learned Friend on that matter?
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I think not. Mr. Speaker has given a fairly clear indication that I should continue.
  Mr. Aitken: I think that my right hon. and learned Friend has got it wrong.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Very well.
  Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, for whose views I have great respect, and who has stated the legal position absolutely correctly. However, he has forgotten or omitted to say that the political situation is totally the opposite, because no one other than the Premier of Quebec signed an accord in April this year renouncing the Quebec veto. It is only now, since the situation has changed, that they are trying what is an entirely bogus legal ploy to re-establish, through the courts, a veto which the Premier on his own signature renounced many months ago.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend talks about a bogus legal ploy, bringing to difficult questions of law and construction the certainty that attaches only to those who have never had to concern themselves with those matters. Nevertheless, to show the genuine good will that I feel for my hon. Friend, I respectfully express the hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will not hold it against him, if he seeks to catch your eye, that he has unnecessarily taken up a little of the House's time.
  As the House knows, the Quebec Prime Minister wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister:
  "A final decision could be anticipated perhaps in September 1982."
  That judgment should conclude the constitutional argument. The timetable may be a little optimistic. These things often are. It will delay things a little, but it will not be a long delay relative to the history of the matter—six months or so in the context of 115 years, or about 0. 43 per cent., according to my calculator.
  Ministers may think that postponement and short delay may offend the Canadian Government. That, of course, is a material consideration. However, I believe that greater offence might be caused to the Canadian people as a whole by actions which could, and no doubt would, be interpreted as a prejudgment of the constitutional issue and a virtual usurpation of the rights and jurisdiction of the Canadian courts.
  To that offence will be added a further ground of offence—that the passage of the Bill would frustrate the appeal to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords from the Court of Appeal decision in the Indian case, in which the petition for leave to appeal has already been settled by eminent counsel. Time prevents me now from canvassing the issue in the Indian case. I may refer to it at later stages of the Bill, if it proceeds further tonight.
  308
  I conclude by urging my right hon. Friends to reflect on the constitutional aspect to which I have adverted, and not to seek a Second Reading today. There is nothing unworthy or to be derided or apologised for in such a decision. Nor does it preclude or prejudice a subsequent introduction of the Bill when the constitutional position is clarified, assuming that the Canadian courts in the event hold the resolution of the Canadian Parliament to be constitutional, according to the accepted constitutional convention, as well as intra vires in the strictly legal sense.
  There is nothing to prevent reintroduction of the Bill. In those circumstances, I might, and probably would, support it, because there is much good in the is, at least, a curate's egg of a Bill—and in the charter that it embodies, and also because of the respect due to the request of the Canadian Parliament. However, that situation is hypothetical at this time, and is dependent on the resolution of the constitutional question.
  Today the Second Reading of the Bill, whatever its merits, is premature. It seeks to pre-empt the proper constitutional processes. I am bound by the logic of my argument as expressed in my question to the Prime Minister, which I quoted. As it has turned out, it looks as if two judgments of the Supreme Court will be necessary for the full clarification of the constitutional position instead of the single judgment anticipated. No doubt that is inconvenient to Ministers on both sides of the Atlantic, but it cannot alter the logic of the situation.
  Balancing the good in the Bill against its prematurity, my approach is that of the classic dictum of Arthur Hugh Clough:
  "Thou shall not kill; but need not strive Officiously to keep alive."
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I shall not give way as I am about to finish my speech.
  I never differ from the judgment of my right hon. Friends without deep thought and great regret. I know how devotedly long and laboriously my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been engaged in this matter, but there are imperatives that are greater than that of the guidance of the Whips Office. Those imperatives are at the heart of the matter—the principles of constitutional propriety and the rule of law. Having regard to those imperatives, I say to my right hon. Friends with great regret, but deep conviction, that I can have neither part nor lot in the thing that they seek to do.
  5. 2 pm
  Mr. James Callaghan: I was not sure whether the poetry to which the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) treated us meant that he would vote against the Bill or abstain from voting on it. I thought that it as an obscure reference that could lead him either into the "No" Lobby or to say that he did not intend to take part in the Division. I hope that the least he will do is to abstain and not vote against the Bill.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith indicated assent.
  Mr. Callaghan: I gather from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's affirmative nod that that is what he proposes to do. I trust that the Government will not yield to his plea to put off the Second Reading of the Bill once we have embarked on this course.

  309
  I do not intend to judge whether the Government were right or wrong to introduce the Bill at this time. There are powerful arguments for it, but, if I may say so to an old colleague like the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, not only lawyers are involved in this matter, but politics and politicians.
  Having embarked on this course and having presented the Bill, the Government have invited us to give it a Second Reading. If they were to back off in the middle of the debate in the light of the appeal made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I can conceive of nothing more likely to embitter relations not only between us and the Federal Government of Canada but between this Parliament and the people of Canada. Therefore, I hope that the request made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although I have every affection for him, will not be listened to. As a simple politician, I would not like to argue with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the court, but I was not wholly convinced by his law. I believe that more than law is involved.
  Although the Bill has been a long time coming, we have had plenty of warning of its arrival. During the last two years, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), I have received hundreds of letters from all over Canada. Two years ago, in my simplicity and naivety, I began to respond to them. I hope that those in Canada who have not had an acknowledgement from me during the past 12 months will take this as a generic acknowledgement of all their letters. To my relief, the correspondence has now died down, largely due to the fresh negotiations between the Federal Government and the provincial Governments, which led to an acceptable agreement being reached between most of those concerned.
  As the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East reminded us, those fresh negotiations took place because of the judgment of the Supreme Court last summer, which ruled that the original Bill would have altered the balance of powers between the Federal Government and the provinces.
  Prime Minister Trudeau began new negotiations. I add my tribute to him. Those negotiations have resulted in the present Bill being placed before us in a form that has secured the consent of nine of the provincial Governments, but not of Quebec or of some of the Indians. In fairness to the Federal Government I should like to say to hon. Members—I dare say that many of them will know this from their contacts with Canadian Ministers—that when two Canadian Ministers, Mr. Mark McGuigan, the Minister for External Affairs and Mr. John Roberts, the Minister for Science and Technology, came to see me as long ago as October 1980, they assured me that the Federal Government had no wish to change the balance of power between themselves and the provincial Governments. Nevertheless, it seems as if they did so inadvertently. The judgment of the Supreme Court has led to the new negotiations.
  I do not cast any doubts on the good faith of the Ministers who came to see me. I do not know what evidence my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has for doing anything other than that. I forecast to both Ministers at that time, as well as on other occasions, that opposition by the provinces, Quebec or the Indians would affect the attitude of the House. I urged
  310
  them to meet such opposition and offset it as far as possible before the Bill was placed before us. In my view, they have fulfilled that requirement. If, after the successful efforts to reach a large measure of common agreement in Canada, we in Westminster were now to refuse to enact the legislation, it would be an intolerable affront to a nation of 24 million people with a democratically elected Parliament.
  A further factor would lead me strongly to oppose any attempt to delay or vote against the Bill, which is based on a broad measure of consent. Embarrassment to the Crown could be caused. The Queen is the Queen of Canada as well as of the United Kingdom. To say the least, it would be disconcerting if her Ministers in Canada were to offer different advice on a matter that concerned them from the advice offered by Parliament in the United Kingdom. The Crown would be placed in an invidious situation. The Lord Privy Seal gave us one reason why we should not amend the Bill. I shall add to that reason. That the Crown would be placed in an invidious situation is a further argument against making any amendments that hon. Members might be thinking of. Therefore, I hope and expect that the Bill will be passed in the form in which it has been presented. I believe that those arguments will appeal to my hon. Friends and to Conservative Members.
  When the Bill is passed and when Canada is invested for the first time in her long history with final and total legal responsibility for the future of Canadian citizens, there will be important differences between her constitution and that of Britain. They arise because of the federal nature of Canada. The rights of the provinces must be upheld. That logically places a corresponding limitation on the powers of the Federal Parliament. There is good reason for that. Canada is not a culturally homogeneous nation; hence, the proposed constitution provides that the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy shall be fettered, a doctrine that we in the House would not readily accept for ourselves.
  By the enactment of the proposed Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian people are entering into a solemn compact with one another. They can fairly argue—I completely accept the argument—that it is worth paying the price of giving Canadian judges greater powers, even at the expense of weakening Parliament. However, I would resist such a proposition if it were advanced in the House in respect of the different circumstances of the United Kingdom.
  The Federal Government and the provinces have also carefully and fairly negotiated a procedure for amending the constitution. By doing so, they have achieved a result that has eluded their predecessors for 50 years or more. In the face of all that, if, at the last moment when we had legal jurisdiction, we were to intervene to alter those carefully worked out compromises that have secured the consent of the great majority in Canada, Britain would be acting as foolishly as King George III did at the time of the Boston Tea Party.
  Nevertheless, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said, we have received representations from Quebec and from the Indian people. I am sure that Canadian Ministers will not consider it an unwarrantable intrusion if such matters are discussed during the final passage of this Bill.
  There are more than 1 million Indians, and representatives of the 300, 000 so-called "treaty Indians" have expressed grievances and complaints about such

  311
  matters as education, language, unemployment, life expectancy and unsettled land claims. It is not possible for hon. Members in this House to judge how far such grievances are justified, if only because the Westminster Parliament has not concerned itself with Indian questions since the passage of the British North America Act over 100 years ago. If we were to take up these matters again after such an interval, we should find ourselves in continuing dispute with the Canadian Parliament, which has absorbed these responsibilities and whose Members would rightly regard Britain's intervention as a gross infringement of their sovereignty, as we should if the circumstances were reversed. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East will agree—I am trenching on his ground, but I look at the matter a little differently—that Westminster's obligations, which were originally undertaken by the Kings of England, have now passed into the responsibility of the Queen of Canada, advised by her Canadian Ministers.
  Therefore, whatever sympathies we have with the Canadian Indians, I conclude that we cannot accept the basic plea of the Indian people that patriation of the constitution would be unconstitutional and that, as has been argued by some of their representatives, the Bill should be rejected. It would be perverse on our part to do so. Moreover, we would have no power to enforce remedies for any grievances that we might think were well-founded against the Canadian Government. The best prospect for the Indian people—I have listened to their representations with some sympathy—is for them to take up wholeheartedly, and with the same vigour that they have shown in their representations to us, the opportunities afforded to them by clause 37(2), which provides for constitutional matters and the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to be discussed at a constitutional conference within 12 months of the passing of the Act with a view to their inclusion in the constitution of Canada. Clause 37(2) should be approached with good will by those who operate it.
  At this last moment,. we are entitled to ask the Canadian Government to judge those rights and grievances as generously as possible. It was an obiter dictum of the Court of Appeal that they are extremely ill defined at present. I support the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East that it would be helpful to the House and would satisfy those who have made representations to us if an authoritative statement could be made by the Canadian Government which would flesh out some of what has been said so far.
  Quebec stands in a special position. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East has taken us through some of the constitutional problems which arise. Quebec was a founder member of the modern State of Canada under the agreement which brought Lower Canada and Upper Canada together. Politically speaking, however, the representations from Quebec, with their strong emphasis on her unique position, ignore the development of Canada since the original union. At that time, there were no provinces west of Ontario. Since then, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and others have all been added to the federation. I do not think it possible now—I speak politically, not legally—for Quebec to rely completely on what happened at the time of the union of Upper and Lower Canada.
  I have read with great care the memorandum of 11 February prepared by the government of Quebec. It is a
  312
  well-argued document, as is the case with so many that we have received, and I deduce from it that they accept that in the past the Supreme Court of Canada has consistently preserved the exclusiveness of Quebec's legislative sovereignty. Paragraph 11 of the memorandum states:
  "Quebec's legislative sovereignty has been preserved in the past and will be in the future in a similar manner".
  I repeat, Quebec is satisfied that its exclusiveness has been preserved in the past and will be preserved in the future. As I understand the submission and the Bill, what is removed is the veto that Quebec can at present exercise to prevent the remaining provinces from going ahead on a course on which they are all agreed but from which Quebec dissents. I cannot accept, politically, that such a right of veto should be held by any one province in the federation, especially as clause 38(3) gives Quebec or any other dissenting province the right to opt out, so it can move out if it wishes.
  Surely for one province to prevent the rest from acting together when it is itself allowed to remain outside the bargain would be a dog in the manger attitude. I repeat that I speak politically, not legally. No doubt these matters will have to be determined, but as the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, who is both a distinguished lawyer and a distinguished politician, will know, it is the political realities that will triumph in the end, and I believe that that is what will happen in this case.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the political reality in Quebec is that it would be impossible for a separatist Government to support a Bill designed to increase the strength of the federation?
  Mr. Callaghan: That may be so, but it is not on that aspect of the Quebec Government's attitude that I wish to comment today, for reasons that have been given. The House must concern itself with the fact that in the Bill Quebec's distinctive linguistic and cultural status—and it is distinctive—is entrenched in clauses 16 to 22 about the official languages and their use, and in clause 23, about rights in the language of instruction in schools. Moreover, if Quebec decides to opt out of any change which affects its exclusive legislative powers, clause 40 provides for financial compensation to be granted to it in relation to
  "education or other cultural matters".
  Only the future can show whether the Bill will lead to a hardening of opinion in Quebec in favour of seeking independence. Such a decision is at least four years away, due to the accidents of general and provincial elections. Fortunately, that will give plenty of time for the people of Quebec to judge how the new constitution has worked out and whether the hon. Gentleman's fears are accurate. It is clearly not possible for the United Kingdom to resolve this long-standing debate. Only Canada and the Canadians can do that. I am a great admirer of Quebec.
  In view of the point of order raised earlier, U should say that I have not been invited to Canada during the past two years and I have not been there, so I have nothing to declare, but I hope to go very soon. If I do not get an invitation after this speech, it will be very sad. Having travelled widely in Canada, including Quebec, on many occasions, I hope that the people of Quebec will not stand isolated but will use their tremendous capacity and potential to increase the prosperity and well-being of their own people in conjunction with the whole of Canada.

  313
  Canada needs Quebec, and Quebec needs Canada. It is worth all parties reaching out for agreement on these issues in Canada in a way that will strengthen the historic national identity of Upper and Lower Canada—a people separate from that of the United States, but much influenced by them and working in close harmony with that great country.
  As the Lord Privy Seal and others have said, the latest round of negotiations has resulted in a historic compromise between the provinces and the Federal Government. Sometimes I thought that they would never be able to reach it, but they have now reached an agreement that will benefit all. It is a most important and encouraging sign that Canada has a great future ahead of her. By passing the Bill today, the British Parliament has an opportunity to take its part in settling a problem that has irked Canada for 50 years. I support the Bill in its entirety.
  5. 20 pm
  Sir Bernard Braine(Essex, South-East): Canada is a country for which all of us have deep affection and respect. None of us can have any pleasure in voicing criticism or disquiet about the Bill. If we do so, it is only for the most weighty reasons of constitutional propriety, and in defence of human rights.
  The Bill is before us because only this Parliament has the power to repeal or amend the Canadian constitution. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal reminded us that our jurisdiction was reaffirmed, at Canadian request, in section 7 of the Statute of Westminster of 1931, but it is one thing to repeal or amend that constitution and another quite different thing to enact a wholly new constitution. With respect, I do not think it is right to advise the House that we should not amend the Bill. The Supreme Court of Canada accepted that the legal competence of our Parliament
  "remains unimpaired, and it is for it alone to determine if and how it will act."
  More recently, in a judgment to which I shall refer later, Lord Denning ruled in the Court of Appeal that
  "in point of law the power still rests in the Parliament of the United Kingdom to repeal, amend or alter the British North America Acts…To my mind, this shows that, in strict constitutional law, the Dominion of Canada is not completely independent. It is still tied hand and foot by the British North America Acts of 1867 to 1930. The dominion itself cannot alter one jot or title of those Acts."
  These undoubted powers make us fully responsible for what we do today. Furthermore, they place firmly upon our shoulders responsibility for the content of the Bill and its consequences to Canada and the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Bernard Braine: I shall not give way. I have not yet developed my argument. My hon. Friend will, I hope, have the opportunity of catching your eye shortly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The title of the Bill is
  "To give effect to a request by the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada."
  Before we agree to that request there are certain questions that we should ask. What if the request is constitutionally improper? What if the Supreme Court of Canada subsequently finds that the Bill falls short of the test that it applied last year on consent? What if it were to be a breach of solemn treaties entered into by the Crown with
  314
  the native peoples of Canada, or even of the spirit and intent of those treaties? If there is any doubt about any one of the answers, it would be an improper Bill, one without justification, and an unconstitutional constitutional Bill.
  Had Canada simply requested us to repeal the British North America Acts, the obligation would have been to ensure that the request reflected the will of the Canadian federation as a whole. That is not what the Canadian Parliament is asking us to do. The Bill is far more complex. It encompasses a new constitution for Canada. It includes a detailed charter of rights and freedoms. We are being asked to provide the very framework for government, its continuity, and the protection of life and liberty in another country. Yet, if we enact the constitution contained in the Bill, we do so knowing in advance that it is strenuously opposed by Quebec, one of the two founding nations of the confederation, and by the native peoples, who can justly claim to be Canada's first nations.
  My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal suggested that we should pass the Bill without demur. That was also the tenor of the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs made a similar recommendation. I accept that the Select Committee has played a valuable role. Its first report influenced the Canadian Government to think again before presenting us with a Bill that is not dissimilar to the measure now before us, but was bitterly opposed by eight out of the 10 provinces.
  Indeed, had the Canadian Prime Minister not succeeded in winning over seven of those eight dissenting provinces, I have little doubt that this House would have exercised its power to reject his proposals. In truth, it is unlikely that the proposals would have reached us. Did not the Governor General of Canada make it plain last month that in those cirumstances he would have exercised his prerogative and called an election in Canada to block unilateral patriation?
  Perhaps the most remarkable commendation of the Select Committee's first report was that its conclusions anticipated the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. It will be recalled that the Committee advised that
  "the United Kingdom Parliament is bound to exercise its best judgment in deciding whether the request, in all the circumstances, conveys the clearly expressed wishes of Canada as a federally structured whole".
  On 28 September last the Supreme Court found that a
  "substantial degree of provincial consent is required"
  in a request to this Parliament for legislation that would affect provincial powers. It would not quantify the phrase "substantial degree". It was sufficient for it to decide that a substantial measure of provincial consent was required.
  The situation before the Supreme Court at that time was that only the provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick supported the federal resolution. Today the situation is different. Nine provinces now support the resolution, all of them English-speaking, and there is only one dissenting province, French-speaking Quebec, albeit one of the two founding nations of Canada.
  I shall not comment in any detail on the reasons for Quebec's refusal to accept the resolution and, therefore, the Bill. I am sure that hon. Members will have received the Quebec Government's second memorandum, which sets these out clearly and cogently, and tells us, contrary to what my right hon. Friend said, that this is the first time

  315
  in the history of Canada that amendments have been proposed altering provincial powers against the will of Quebec.
  Furthermore, the changes that the Canadian Parliament, with the support of the nine English-speaking provinces, wishes to impose on the one French province are not changes that it is able to bring about in Ottawa. It must ask an English-speaking Parliament at Westminster to do its work by proxy in a way that destroys the whole spirit and concept of the union into which two distinct peoples with two distinct cultures freely entered 115 years ago.
  I remind the house that the Royal Arms of Canada symbolise that union, with the Crown flanked on one side by the Union Jack and on the other by the fleur de lys. As the Quebec memorandum says, the Bill
  "strikes at the very heart of this alliance of the French and English-speaking peoples that gave substance to the Canadian Federation of 1867".
  It is true that today the French nation of Canada comprises only one province out of 10, but it numbers a quarter of the population of Canada. How can any rational person accept that a resolution by the Canadian Parliament, opposed by a Canadian element as important and as central as Quebec, has achieved that substantial measure of agreement which the Supreme Court considers essential before any request to us to legislate can be regarded as proper?
  That is not all. Even more improper is the fact that the judicial decision that would resolve this very question in Canada is being pre-empted by the Government by thrusting the Bill prematurely upon us. We are being asked to judge whether a constitutional measure of the highest importance to the future of Canada is a proper one at the very moment when that question is before a Canadian court. Until the Canadian courts have ruled—if they do—that the present resolution is constitutionally proper without the agreement of Quebec, it would be a grave abuse of our powers, and quite wrong, to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  I come to the effect of the Bill on the native peoples of Canada. In response to the point of order raised earlier, I should say that I have made many visits to Canada over the years. They have always been enjoyable and instructive. On one occasion I accepted the hospitality of the Alberta Indians.
  Lord Denning's truly remarkable judgment traced with accuracy and feeling the history of the relationship between the Crown and the Indian nations. The matter upon which he ruled is still the subject of legal process, although, as Mr. Speaker ruled at the beginning of the debate, it is not improper for us to debate this matter simply because of that.
  The Indians of Alberta, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia came to our courts to ask whether the treaties signed by their ancestors with the Crown were still in any respect the concern of their sovereign as Queen of England. Although the Court of Appeal has ruled against them, they have since petitioned for leave to appeal to the House of Lords, as is their right. It is improper for us to proceed with the Bill in such circumstances. It may be perfectly legal, but I believe that it is improper.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) when he said last week:
  "It cannot be asserted that the legal proceedings are vexatious or frivolous."—[Official Report, 11 February 1982; Vol. 17, c. 1127.]
  316
  What then is the Government's motive for rushing ahead in this way without careful reflection on what they are doing? Is it merely that they wish to preserve their relationship with the present Government of Canada? Of course that is a proper matter for concern, but what of our future relationship with the people of Canada when it becomes known that we have failed to see our duty clearly?
  In his judgment Lord Denning accepted that the Indian peoples feel that the assurances given to them in the treaties are in danger of being dishonoured and that their special rights and freedoms will be in danger of being reduced or extinguished. Certainly the Royal Proclamation of 1763 laid down that the native peoples were not to be molested or disturbed in possession of their lands. Lord Denning agreed with the Canadian judges in confirming that the proclamation is, in fact, an Indian Bill of Rights. He described its status as analogous to Magna Carta. The Proclamation also made it clear that the aboriginal nations were distinct peoples, with their own cultures, customs and languages. They are still so today.
  Lord Denning went on to remind us of out own traditional attitudes. He said:
  "Our long experience of these matters taught us how to treat the indigenous peoples. As a matter of public policy, it was of the first importance to pay great respect to their laws and customs, and never to interfere with them except when necessary in the interests of peace and good order. It was the responsibilty of the Crown of England—and those representing the Crown—to see that the rights of the indigenous people were not imposed upon by the selfish or the thoughtless or the ruthless."
  This relationship with indigenous peoples that we have governed all over the world—seen by Edmund Burke and others as being in the nature of a trust—has shaped our present-day attitude to self-determination. I do not have to argue that direct responsibility for the native peoples of Canada is in any way a matter for the British Crown. I accept that it is not. The days of imperial rule are now far behind us. I rest my case on the fact that today we have recognised that there are new but not dissimilar obligations that we have accepted as a member of the international community and which Canada has accepted too.
  Mr. Percy Grieve: If the Indian rights are not a matter for the Crown, they must be a matter for the Canadian Government. Wherein does the passing of the Bill into law affect the fact that Indian rights must be protected by the Government of Canada?
  Sir Bernard Braine: That is a proper question to which I shall now turn. As my hon. and learned Friend will know, article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which our two countries adhere, states:
  "All peoples have the right of self determination."
  A distinguished Canadian jurist, Professor Douglas Sanders, known no doubt to my hon. and learned Friend, has observed that
  "the right of self-determination has not been authoritatively limited to overseas or non-contiguous geographical areas. It is not necessarily linked to the achievement of full independence. Home rule for Greenland, within the State of Denmark, is a realisation of the principle of self-determination."
  Furthermore, as my hon. and learned Friend will know, article 27 of the covenant states:
  "In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, and to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language."

  317
  That right to self-determination is fully recognised by the international community. It is an obligation that rests on us as well as on Canada. The native peoples of Canada demand that they be allowed to maintain their separate identity, which can be done only by safeguarding their rights, particularly their rights to land.
  They are not asking us to help them secede from Canada. They would not be in a position to do so. Their communities are scattered around what has already been described as one of the largest countries in the world. There are 600 different Indian bands. Their reserves are tiny islands in vast areas long since ceded to the Crown for settlement of Canadians of European origin. They simply ask that we in this place should play our part to ensure that they are not deprived of their land and are not absorbed into the great white majority, so losing for ever their ancient and diverse cultures. That is the extent of their demand for self-determination, and who among us would say that it is not justified?
  What is the Government's response to their cry for justice; their demand that the Bill should conform to the International Civil and Political Rights Covenant which our own Parliament has ratified?
  In introducing the Bill my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal repeated the argument that was contained in the reply to the public petition from Indian chiefs which I had the honour of presenting to the House on 22 January. His view is that there is a convention that we can make no law in respect of Canada save at its request and with its consent. He says that it would not be proper for the House to suggest to the Canadian Government and Parliament how they should care for their native peoples—this is the point that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) was making—as this would amount to interference in Canada's internal affairs.
  The Select Committee came to the same conclusion in its first report, but went further. It told us that we should not even deliberate upon Indian rights and interests. This is a complete denial by the Government and the Select Committee that we have any right to exercise our powers as law makers to protect the native peoples of Canada.
  Let us consider the implications. It is being asserted that we are tied hand and foot by a convention that we should do nothing to amend the Bill, even though by such washing of our hands our country may be in breach of an international human rights obligation. What sort of convention is that?
  I invite the House to consider what the Supreme Court of Canada said about the need for a good reason for any convention or rule. It observed that a string of precedents does not make a rule without a good reason. What good reason is there behind the convention that we should not either discuss or amend the Bill's provisions? There is, I suggest, none.
  Some hon. Members may have read an impressive opinion on the Bill that was prepared only a few days ago by Professor James Fawcett, three times president of the European Commission of Human Rights, who is without doubt the most eminent British jurist in this sphere. He holds that our Parliament cannot treat the enactment of the Bill as only a procedural or constitutional formality. He gives three reasons. The first is that judicial and administrative protection of human rights, and recognition of the principle of self-determination, have come close to
  318
  a constitutional convention in British practice since 1960, that many independence constitutions that we have enacted have included Bills of Rights in one form or another, and that, while what is proposed in this Bill is different from the forms of other independence legislation, the function of the British Parliament is essentially the same.
  The second reason is that, although the Court of Appeal ruled that Indian rights were the responsibility of the Crown of Canada, this did not mean—nor did the courts say that it did—that the British Parliament has no responsibility to secure observance of those rights. It has a statutory duty to perform since we are enacting a Bill that deals with those rights.
  The third reason is that our Parliament cannot dispose of the problem by saying that these are internal affairs for Canada and outside our control, since it has the exclusive right to enact a constitution for Canada, and the very reason for us having that unique power, which is an exception in Commonwealth practice, is to secure an independent resolution of possible internal conflicts in Canadian affairs.
  Professor Fawcett concludes that our Parliament has an international obligation under the covenant, and a constitutional responsibility, to examine the Bill and to make any changes in it that are called for by this obligation or by a fair regard for the rights of the Indian nations. I submit that the views of that eminent lawyer cannot be ignored. We have no choice in honour but to give precedence to the convention that we should protect human rights wherever these are threatened. We have the power to do so under the Bill.
  Some hon. Members may have the impression—this is clear from what we have heard already—that when Prime Minister Trudeau reached accord with seven of the eight dissenting provinces last November that was a reasonable conclusion to an unhappy and long drawn-out dispute. But how was that accord reached? We have not been told. How did the Prime Minister succeed in securing the support of all the dissenting provinces save Quebec after so long a dispute? Clearly a price was paid, but what was the price? The Indian nations believe that the price involved their land rights, upon which their future existence depends. That is a serious charge to make.
  Consider for a moment the chequered history of what now appears as clause 35, which purports to entrench native rights. First, it was dropped altogether at the insistence of provincial Premiers. The Attorney-General of Ontario explained clearly why he wanted it eliminated in a private letter to the Federal Minister of Justice, which somehow found its way into the Toronto Globe and Mail on 19 November last year. He said that if the clause was not dropped from the resolution, and if at a future date it was
  "the overwhelming will of the Canadian Parliament that certain lands subject to aboriginal title should be expropriated in the public interest…this could not be done."
  It is obvious that some provinces were insisting that native title should be capable of extinguishment if that was considered a requirement of public policy. As a result, the clause was dropped—only to be revived because of a great public outcry within Canada.
  When the vital clause reappeared, the word "existing" was introduced to qualify native rights. The Canadian Justice Minister told the Federal Parliament not to worry about that word because it did not change the substance of

  319
  what was previously proposed. So why was it included as part and parcel of the deal made last November to bring the seven dissenting provinces into line? The truth is that the insertion of the word "existing" was the final compromise reached to secure accord.
  The Bill not only limits native rights in that way, but contains the mechanism to extinguish those that survive. The amending formula enables the Federal Government, with the agreement of seven out of 10 provinces, to eliminate each and every provision protecting the native peoples of Canada. Native consent is not a requirement of the amending formula. It must become so if this House wishes, with a clear conscience, to pass the Bill.
  Lord Denning has given us clear guidance. In the concluding words of his judgment he said that the rights and freedoms of the native peoples of Canada
  "are guaranteed to them by the Crown, originally by the Crown in the United Kingdom…now by the Crown in respect of Canada. No Parliament should do anything to lessen the worth of these guarantees. They should be honoured by the Crown in respect of Canada so long as the sun rises and the river flows. That promise must never be broken."
  A great judge is showing where the path of duty and honour lies for us today in this House.
  The Bill in unconstitutional in its effect on one of the two founder nations of the Canadian federation. It is immoral in its effect on the native peoples of Canada. It flies in the face of the concern that this House has always felt, thank God, for minorities. We should not pass the Bill in its present form.
  5. 43 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is not, in the ordinary sense of the term, a Government Bill. Despite being presented by a Minister and backed by the names that appear upon it, it is not a Bill for the contents of which any responsibility can be taken by the Government of the United Kingdom, or which in any way involves the confidence and authority of that Government. From the moment that the Government put into legislative form and placed before the House the request that had been received from the Canadian Parliament, it was discharged from its task. From that moment onwards the question became one for Parliament and, more specifically, for the House. Insofar as the Government are involved in it, they are involved as an integral part of Parliament and of this House.
  When, 50 years ago, by the Statute of Westminster, Parliament made an all but comprehensive renunciation of the possibility of legislating for the self-governing Dominions, it did not alter anything—even at that time. It merely recognised a constitutional and political impossibility that had long existed. There was one qualification, which is the occasion of our being here today, of that renunciation: it was qualified and limited for one of the self-governing new nations—namely, Canada. But that was a limitation that could continue only as long as it was the will of the Canadian Parliament that it should. From the moment that will is withdrawn, the power of the House—legal, moral or political—to legislate for Canada automatically ceases.
  There was no reason for us in this House to be surprised or dismayed, or to do other than comply with alacrity, when we received an intimation from Canada that it no longer wished that qualification of the renunciation of our legislative power to stand. But a most remarkable thing then happened. In the very moment that we were
  320
  stretching out our hand formally to transfer what we no longer possessed in reality, the right to legislate for Canada, to that to which alone it could be transferred—the Canadian Parliament—our ears were assailed by a cry of, "Stop, not yet—not for one instant yet. Before you acknowledge that the Parliament of the United Kingdom has no legislative authority, nor can or should have any authority, in Canada, you must enact a new constitutional code."
  There is a saying that authority deserts a dying king; but this king has been long, long dead. At the moment when the inconceivability of our existing legislative authority in Canada is, at the request of the Canadians themselves, to be recognised, it is an intolerable paradox and absurdity that we should be told to hold our hand—albeit only for an instant—so that we may enact a full constitutional code for Canada. It is so striking a paradox, one that assaults so violently our natural sense of what is reasonable and proper, that we must endeavour to understand why this extraordinary request lies before us.
  When legislative power passes from this House, as it did formally for all but Canada through the Statute of Westminster, it does not evaporate into thin air. It remains unimpaired, but only migrates, when, in modern phrase, it is patriated. It does not cease, this plenitude of legislative authority vested in the Crown and Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is not destroyed, but is transferred and comes to rest elsewhere. It follows, therefore, that the Parliament of Canada is fully capable, once the limitation in the 1931 statute is removed, of enacting anything and everything that it now asks this House to enact. It must follow also that whatever the House enacts in these last few moments, with these last dregs, of its no longer existent legislative authority, the Parliament of Canada has the unfettered right to repeal, alter and amend in any way whatsoever.
  What, therefore, can be the meaning of the contradictory request which has reached us from our fellow Parliament and from our fellow nation? There lies behind it a profound misunderstanding, which it is our duty in this House to resolve, a duty that we owe not only to ourselves but to those from whom this request has been received.
  There lies behind this paradox the notion that somehow a code or a fundamental law can he entrenched if it is enacted by this Parliament; that somehow this Parliament can do what the Canadian Parliament cannot do. The Canadians are really groping for some means of endowing themselves with an entrenched constitution, which will be beyond the reach of a sovereign Parliament—an entrenched constitution in the sense in which entrenched law is unknown to our constitution, and, indeed, is unknowable under a sovereign Parliament.
  The Canadians want to have an entrenched constitution; in fact, they want to entrench the particular constitution that is set out upon the face of the Bill. They cannot do that for a fundamental reason. A sovereign Parliament cannot create, except in its own image. It is impossible for this sovereign Parliament to transfer to any recipient less than the plenitude of sovereign power that it possesses itself.
  We have never sought to do that. We have never laboured under the delusion that we could do it. In earlier times when we complied—before and since 1931—with requests from Canada, we did not comply at the very moment at which we were renouncing and transferring our

  321
  sovereign legislative power. There are no means whereby we can create and fashion an Act of Parliament such that a body in our own image cannot alter, amend or abolish that Act. It is inconceivable that we, a sovereign Parliament, could create the constitution of a non sovereign Parliament. This country and its Parliament have not been in the business of setting up non-sovereign States. Indeed, it would have been impossible for us to engage in such a business.
  Of course, there is a special reason why this unattainable aim is being pursued and sought by Canada. Canada is a federal State, and a stable federal State is incompatible with a sovereign Parliament. A stable federal State implies the existence of a fundamental constitutional law, fixing the functions, rights and existence of the component parts. That fundamental constitutional law cannot subsist together with a sovereign Parliament. Undoubtedly, the fact that Canada is a federal State has fuelled and strengthened the desire of the Canadians somehow to find the means of presenting themselves with an entrenched constitution—with a constitutional document beyond the reach of a sovereign Parliament, even their own Parliament. And here is a corollary—but only a corollary—to the central principle that a sovereign Parliament can create only sovereign Parliaments—that is, that it is not in a sovereign Parliament's power to create permanently and unchangeably federal States.
  So there is a limit—although a limit that we would not wish otherwise—to what we can bestow upon the new nations that have sprung from our own. We cannot endow them with fundamental constitutions nor with fundamentally unchangeable federal constitutions.
  The Canadians are entitled to ask "Since you are unable to do this for us—since the appearance of doing it turns out, on examination, to be a mere absurdity and contradiction—how can we fulfil our purpose? How can we give ourselves an entrenched, fundamental federal constitution?" The answer is "You alone can do it for yourselves. You alone can do it by entering into an internal compact, so binding that the very existence of the Canadian State is understood to rest on the maintenance of that contract. In other words, you must start again and create a new State upon the basis of contract, upon the basis of the will that that contract should be made and observed. You must create a contract similar to that upon which your neighbour nation, the United States of America, rests its constitution, which has no knowledge of a sovereign Parliament. It is impossible for this House to do that for you. Indeed, you cannot do it unless you cut the umbilical cord that still links your parliamentary institutions to this House and this Parliament."
  That is the price that Canada must pay for giving itself—in the full sense—its own constitution. It must make it itself and must do so by its own compact. It must enact it itself upon the basis of that contract. We shall deceive Canada and dishonour and degrade its purpose if we purport to do for Canada what we cannot do. It is part of the duty of the House to understand and to point out to Canada that these are the only conditions upon which Canada can fulfil its wish.
  So we should assent to all that it is in our power to do. We should complete the 1931 renunciation of our legislative power and should declare, as fully as we then did in respect of every other nation, Parliament's future
  322
  incapacity to legislate for Canada. Having done that, we should stop there. The rest is not for us and cannot be for us, and it would be a mockery if we attempted it. The rest, as it lies in the hands of the Canadians, so it must be done by the Canadians among themselves and for themselves.
  However, the Bill is in front of us. I hope that we shall not give it a Second Reading, though I hope we shall give a Second Reading to a Bill which completes the work set in hand by the Statute of Westminster. However, if this Bill receives a Second Reading tonight, the House will be proceeding to legislate—on its own authority, because that is what it has been told to do, and on its own responsibility, for that is what it has been asked to do. So we shall have to mean whatever we allow to be placed, even momentarily, on the statute book of the United Kingdom. It will be our business to ensure that we, as a Parliament and House of Commons, assent on our own judgment to what is placed before us.
  However, that aspect will arise later. Meanwhile, I hope that this House and Parliament will draw back from an action which is at once contradictory and derogatory, and that thereby we will do what is in our power to assist our fellow nation in Canada to provide itself, in the only way it can, with the fundamental constitution, the entrenched federal constitution, which is evidently its desire.
  6. 2 pm
  Sir Ian Gilmour: I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) when he says that there is an element of paradox in what we seek to do today. He made a most powerful argument, although I fundamentally disagree with his conclusion. I agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that it would be an intolerable affront to the Canadian Government if we did not pass the Bill.
  The Imperial Conference of 1926 laid down that
  "so far as Britain and the Dominions are concerned, equality of status is the root principle governing inter-imperial relations."
  That has been the position since 1926 and was certainly so long before that. It is not affected because Canada is a federation.
  Because of the untrammelled legal powers of this Parliament, there was thought to be some difficulty when the Statute of Westminster was being drafted about achieving that position legally as opposed to inreality. The supposed difficulty stemmed from the well-known fact that Parliament cannot bind its successors and, merely to repeal the Colonial Laws Validity Act, would not necessarily have met the case.
  Therefore, the position was dealt with by paragraph 3 of the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, which dealt with the convention, and section 4 of the statute, which dealt with the law. That double-barrelled approach was thought necessary to achieve the equality of status. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) seemed to pay more attention to the constitutional conventions of Canada than to those of this Parliament, which most immediately affect us.
  There are two principles or facts which govern Canadian and United Kingdom relations. The first is equality of status, and the second is that both are independent countries. As one would expect, in the case of an independent country, this Parliament cannot legislate for Canada

  323
  "otherwise than at the request and with the consent"
  of Canada, My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) doubted the presence of that convention. He should read the Statute of Westminster about which, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said, there was nothing new. It merely rightly consecrated the position that had existed for a long time.
  That is the essential background and foreground to the Bill.
  Canada is an independent country whose Parliament and Government are responsible to the Canadian electorate. We in Britain are responsible to the British, not the Canadian, electorate. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East rather neglected that important aspect. With respect to him and to the right hon. and hon. Members who tabled the amendment, it too, neglects that very important aspect.
  Of course, all hon. Members are entitled to say what they wish about anything and do. They can express their opinions on Canada and anything else. However, this House has no more right to alter the Canadian constitution, except at the request of the Canadian Government, or to demand an alteration, than it has to demand an alteration of the constitution of the United States or any other country. If we followed the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East we should be interfering in Canada's affairs—the affairs of an independent country. We should be behaving as if we were still the colonial power which we no longer are. Therefore, we cannot behave in a colonialist fashion.
  Canada's politics are not our business. We have no more right to interfere in the internal affairs of Canada than Mr. Trudeau has to interfere in the internal affairs of South-East Essex, Brixton, Toxteth, Walsall, Epping Forest or anywhere else. That is the basic argument and, in my view, the reason why the Bill should be passed quickly.
  Sir Bernard Braine: This is a matter not for flippancy but for serious consideration. I quoted the Supreme Court of Canada and the Master of the Rolls as part authority for my remarks. There is no doubt that this House has the right to amend or alter any Bill. It is not the case, as my right hon. Friend suggests, that we should do nothing of the sort and simply pass this legislation without demur.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: My hon. Friend really cannot cite the Master of the Rolls for that proposition. There is nothing in his judgment that justifies that. The Master of the Rolls would be horrified if we broke the Statute of Westminster or the convention. He certainly did not say anything to the effect that my hon. Friend claims.
  Not to accede to the Canadian request and give Canada something that it as not requested—as the right hon. Member for Down, South suggested—would breach the convention. As I understood it, he said that we should enact not this package, but we might enact another.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Give them everything.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: The right hon. Gentleman said that we should not go ahead with the Bill.
  Mr. Powell: I contend that we should renounce our right to legislate for Canada.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: The right hon. Gentleman says that we should not enact the Bill, as I said. Again, that would be a breach of the convention in the Statute of
  324
  Westminster. The Foreign Affairs Committee has done us all a great service by setting out the issues and giving its views in such a clear-cut way. The first of its three reports states that
  "it would be unconstitutional for the United Kingdom. Parliament, if requested to patriate the British North America Acts along with a new Charter of Rights, to enact only part of the requested package…Such a course of action would amount to legislating for Canada without its request and consent. A partial package is a new package."
  I believe that statement to be right.
  I think it is fair to say that if, on any other issue, this House sought not to do what the Canadian Government wanted, Quebec would be the first province to complain. There would be loud shouts of neo-colonialism and how intolerable the English were to interfere in Canadian affairs.
  Secondly, the issue of the Quebec opposition is not as clear-cut as it seems. It is true that the Quebec Assembly voted by 70 to 38 against the package, but in the Federal Parliament 71 out of the 75 Members representing Quebec supported the proposals.
  Thirdly, the Supreme Court recently considered the matter. One of the appeals was from Quebec itself. Had the court considered that Quebec had a veto, or that unanimity was necessary, presumably it would have said so, but all that it said was that there should be
  "at least a substantial measure of provincial consent".
  According to the third report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the court went on to say:
  "It will be for the political actors, not this Court, to determine the degree of provincial consent required."
  That deals with many of the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East.
  Canada is a sovereign, independent country. Rightly, the United Kingdom has no control over it and no right to meddle in its affairs. This Parliament is not an old-fashioned House of Lords to a Canadian House of Commons, with the right to pick and choose the Canadian legislation that it likes.
  The constitutional position is clear. This Parliament legislates for Canada only at the request and with the consent of Canada. We are asked by the Canadian Government, with the concurrence of nine out of 10 provinces, to enact the constitution. That is what we should do as soon as possible.
  6. 11 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: In deference to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I declare the hospitaity that I have received from organisations and institutions in the federation of Canada. I have had two meals at the High Commission, one at Simpsons, lunch with the Secretary-Agent for Quebec, three days in Quebec as a guest of the Quebec Government, one meal from Nova Scotia and a Christmas card from Saskatchewan. I was privileged to visit Canada at an historic time, the constitutional conference, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes).
  Let me put one or two things straight about the Select Committee's work. They are important in view of the way that the Government are dealing with the Bill. I asked my colleagues on the Committee to examine the role of the British Parliament in relation to any changes in the constitution of Canada that it might be invited to pass not because I felt that this Parliament had a right to nit-pick

  325
  about what Canada wanted or did not want for its citizens—that is a matter for Canada, and we cannot properly intervene—but because we had a right and a duty to protest when it appeared that the Canadian Government sought to rubber stamp proposals through this Parliament which they could not get through their own Parliament and provinces under their own procedures. Instead of the British Parliament intervening in Canadian internal affairs, the Canadian Government sought to use our procedures to legitimise what they could not get through in their own country. That was an abuse of their position.
  One of the first leaked documents on the matter to go before the Canadian Government was headed "For Ministers' eyes only", which gave the clear impression that, should any of the resolutions going through the Canadian Parliament be challenged in the courts of Canada—the appeal courts in the provinces or the Supreme Court—it would not matter. By the time that the appeal had been heard, the issue would have been resolved in this Parliament. The Canadian courts would have been presented with a fait accompli. That is a denial of the rule of law and of the procedures that should be followed.
  When the Lord Privy Seal mentioned the proceedings before our courts, I intervened. The principle still applies in relation to the Indian matter before the House of Lords and to the issue before the appeal court in Quebec, which will doubtless go to the Supreme Court of Canada.
  I believe that the House of Lords will come down strongly, firmly and directly in the same way as the Court of Appeal, but I do not know. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) read out part of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which was to the effect that what amounts to reasonable provincial understanding will depend on the decision of the political actors. If nine of the 10 provinces have acceded to the proposition, Quebec's fate will have been decided. But, equally, I do not know.
  We should have respect for proper constitutional practice. Therefore, we should wait, first, for the House of Lords to decide the Indian case. Once the House of Lords says, as I believe that it will, that any rights, duties or responsibilities that we had for the Indian and aboriginal people were extinguished, at the latest, by the Statute of Westminster, further appeals from Indian bands or federations will be considered frivolous and vexatious. The House would then be entitled to proceed on the question of the Indians. Secondly, I have stated what I believe the courts in Canada will decide about Quebec, but if I am wrong we must go back to Canada and have a new package.
  It is worth the Canadians waiting about a year to decide for two reasons. First, there is the duty to the people and the province of Quebec for their role in the history of Canada. For the interest of the House and the hon. Member for Tiverton, I state that my parents lived there for many years and my elder brother was born there and lived there. I am not sure whether I was the result of a sad farewell or a happy reunion, but I have a long and happy family interest in Quebec. I have relatives there and throughout the rest of Canada.
  More importantly, we have a political responsibility not to leave a grievance in Quebec which can be used continuously against this House and the Federal Government—that the king that the province felt that it
  326
  had in its hand was trumped by the British Parliament's ace. That responsibility was exactly what the Select Committee considered.
  There is an historic compromise. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire and I wore the badge of the Quebec delegation and, although we were not members, we were allowed to attend the important constitutional conference. At the beginning, historic gestures were made. Quebec agreed to give up its historic veto in return for the agreement with which the provincial Prime Ministers went into the conference. But what emerged was an entirely different package from that which had been on offer when Quebec was prepared to give up its veto. Quebec could therefore regain its veto. I do not think, therefore, that that argument can be thrown at Quebec on this occasion. Having said that, Quebec loses a lot of sympathy here and elsewhere because of what is regarded in many places and on many occasions as the harsh enforcement of Bill 101.
  If we, as a Committee and as a House, say that it is wrong to go behind the backs of the courts, that it is wrong to give people who believe they have a grievance no opportunity to exhaust all their legal processes, what do we do about it? In my opinion, the Select Committee did something very wise. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) who as Chairman of the Committee, on a very difficult and complicated matter, helped us to come to what I believe were intelligent and sensible conclusions. I say that as a member of the Committee, but it is an observation made by the Government and by other hon. Members.
  We therefore wrote into both the first and third reports specific reference to the aboriginal peoples, which, on the basis of the evidence, we need not have mentioned at all, because, according to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, all rights and responsibilities with regard to the aboriginal peoples went at the time of the Statute of Westminster, if not before. I believe that the Canadian Government paid attention to what we said in the report about these people having a right to have their grievances discussed.
  It is not true to say that the Select Committee did not examine the position of the Indians. When the Foreign Office made its statement, in answer to the Chairman of the Select Committee—and it is there in the evidence—I immediately asked whether this matter had ever been challenged in the English courts, and was told that it had not. It was only at the time of the introduction of this Bill that the Indian nations, for quite understandable reasons, decided to have recourse to the courts. The Select Committee, the Government and the Canadian Government were, therefore, entitled to feel that if, after that long period, there had been no recourse to the courts, the Indian people had at least accepted that position. That is no longer so, because they are going through the courts here.
  I believe that we would be wrong indeed to seek to amend this constitutional Bill in any way, because we would be interfering in the internal affairs of Canada and it would mean a new package. We are right, however, to expect that the legal processes should be exhausted. I would not, therefore, agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) that we should not proceed to vote on the Bill. We have it before us. We cannot deny it a Second Reading.

  327
  What would, however, be in the long-term interests of the Federal Government, of this Government, of this country and of Canada would be, when the Bill has been read a Second time, to wait until the legal processes have been exhausted. We have shown our good will, ability, willingness and concern for the people of Canada in being prepared to accept their wishes, but even greater than their wishes are the legal processes on which both of our countries depend and the importance of their being followed. That is the way out of the embarrassing situation in which the Government now find themselves.
  I urge the House not to nit-pick on the Charter of Rights and take exception to the possibility of there not being a closed shop or of taking away the freedom of property or whatever is contained in that charter. That is not our concern. It never was. It is the concern of the Canadian people. If we give the Bill a Second Reading and wait to resolve the problems, instead of coining back in Committee, as I understand it, next week, we shall be doing a greater favour to Canada if we wait for the courts' decision.
  We would be able to convey this legislative power to Canada with dignity, devotion and respect, rather than have a great moment in the history of two great nations ruined by a squalid argument, because, important though the issues in these arguments are, the procedures, the methods and the filibustering will make what should be a great charter and a great occasion for the Canadian people something demeaning to this Parliament and to the people of both countries.
  6. 26 pm
  Sir Anthony Kershaw: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), because he has contributed in a very remarkable way to the deliberations of the Select Committee and his advice and initiatives have been most valuable. While I do not entirely agree with his conclusions this evening, this report of the Select Committee would not be nearly as good if he had not been a member of the Committee. I am sorry that, because of promotion to the Front Bench, we have lost him, at any rate for the time being.
  When, in the autumn of 1980, it became known that the Canadian Government intended to send a request to this Parliament which would effectively remove the power of amendment of the Canadian constitution to Canada, where most of us think it ought long to have been, we in the Select Committee thought that it might be of some service to the House if we were to study the matter. As requests from Canada are not very frequent, we wondered whether all right hon. and learned Members would have the matter entirely at their fingertips.
  We also had it in mind that many members of our public and of the Canadian public might think it curious and even humiliating that a great country like Canada, independent for years, even for generations, should have to come to the legislature of another country to validate its laws. If we could explain how this situation came about, it might serve to reduce any spontaneous resentment which could arise in Canada.
  It was indeed already clear that such resentment was being felt, because Prime Minister Trudeau started his campaign to patriate the constitution at what I can only
  328
  describe as"a fair old gallop" so that already, before we knew the nature of the request, we were being told that, whatever the request, we must grant it unseen,
  "holding, "
  as the Canadian Minister in a notable phrase remarked,
  "our noses as we did so".
  We decided to devote our attention only to the British role. We thought it wholly inappropriate to consider in any way whether the measures which Canada was to propose were good, bad or indifferent as far as Canada's welfare was concerned. We regarded this as none of our business. Canada is and has long been, even before the Statute of Westminster 1931, a wholly sovereign State, and only Canada can judge the usefulness of its own laws. Furthermore, none of us here has been elected by Canadian voters. We are not answerable to them and we are not entitled to put upon them any burdens or to regulate their lives in any way whatever. Even to comment in the way some have thought fit to comment tonight on the suitability for Canada of the request seems to me to be out of place.
  What we are entitled to do—indeed, what it is our duty to do—is to check whether the making of the request is done in the proper form which law and convention demand. We therefore invited only British witnesses to appear before the Committee. We invited my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the Minister then responsible, who was accompanied by his legal advisers and officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We also invited Dr. Geoffrey Marshall, lecturer in politics at Oxford university and Fellow of Queen's; Professor H. W. R. Wade QC, professor of English law at Cambridge university and Master of Gonville and Caius; and Mr. E. Lauterpacht QC, lecturer in law at Cambridge and Fellow of Trinity. As specialist adviser we appoited Dr. John Finnis, reader in the laws of the British Commonwealth and the United States and Fellow of University college, Oxford, to whom I pay tribute for his invaluable advice.
  I mention those names to call attention to the quality of the advice that we received, and because at one stage in the process a Canadian Minister asserted that our advice was poor and even called into question the integrity of our advisers—a charge that was wholly unjustified and which sounded bizarre at the level of international discussion that we were at.
  In addition to those oral witnesses, we received a mass of written evidence, mostly from Canada. We became aware of the Canadian Government's position through various public documents, among them the Federal Government's case before the Court of Manitoba. The Canadian Government did not deal in any way direct with us, which was certainly diplomatically correct, but I pay tribute to the personal help and kindness which we received from the Canadian high commission in London and especially from the high commissioner herself, whom we in turn sought to keep informed at all times.
  The main question to decide was whether the only criterion for judgment was the law as written in the British North America Acts or whether there were also conventions which had to be borne in mind in applying that law. We looked first at the circumstances surrounding the making of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, which made Canada in law what she had been for many years in fact—a fully independent country.
  We found that the reason for leaving the amending powers in the United Kingdom was that under the 1867

  329
  constitution Canada was a federation with constitutional rights divided between the central and provincial Governments, and that agreement had not been reached on how to alter their respective rights. For the time being, therefore, the amending powers were left in London, but it was always envisaged that agreement would be reached between the central and provincial Governments, and that amending powers would be taken to Canada. There were repeated efforts, but agreement was not reached, so here we are today.
  British Governments have never relished that position. Indeed, in 1943, after a difficult passage between Ottawa and Quebec, the British high commissioner wrote to the Canadian Government saying that the system was sure to lead to difficulty in the future and should be ended as soon as possible after the war.
  The reason for leaving the amending powers here was that Canada was a federation. We therefore concluded that if a proposal were made to us which, in the opinion of a substantial number of Canadians, diminished the federal nature of the constitution we should hesitate to carry it out. I do not regard this House as being obliged to insist that federalism should always be preserved in Canada; nor do I think that this House is the champion of the provinces or indeed of the Federal Government. I think that our role is to uphold the federal nature of the Canadian constitution—the reason why we were given that role—until we are asked by a substantial and convincing majority of Canadians to change it.
  The Select Committee also examined the 20 or so occasions on which the constitution of 1867 had been amended by this Parliament. We found that in every case, with a possible exception in 1907, which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal mentioned, when the late Sir Winston Churchill was Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, there had been Canadian consent. This had led many to believe, and the Canadian Government to say, that our consent must be automatic, that we must be a rubber stamp. In some cases there had been opposition, but in those cases the rights and privileges of the provinces had not been at stake.
  What such people had overlooked, or wished to hide, was that there was absolutely no precedent for this House passing an amendment affecting the rights and privileges of the provinces to which a large number of Canadians and a large number of provinces were opposed. It emerged that there was indeed substantial opposition to the request as known, and in the end no fewer than eight provinces were against it.
  I was perfectly clear after hearing the evidence that the destruction, or indeed the alteration, of the federal nature of the Canadian constitution was something that we could not agree to unless the Canadians asked us to do so. But it was difficult to decide how we were to judge whether Canadians were or were not in favour of the change. First, we must consider the voices of the provinces. Was one enough? Does everyone have a veto? We found no evidence that unanimity of the provinces was essential. Indeed, we could go further. Even if the Government of a province were against, the opinion of the people, expressed in a referendum or in some other way, could be taken note of. However, in our opinion, we were saved
  330
  from having to make a too difficult judgment. By the time eight provinces were against, it was clear that eight were too many.
  During these months of debate the Canadian Government were maintaining that the law was clear and that no conventions could limit it. That is true in a way. The only law that the courts can administer is what is in the law books, but when because of growing opposition, not least in this House, Mr. Trudeau put the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada the court was perfectly clear that
  "constitutional conventions plus constitutional law equal the total Constitution of the country".
  It seems clear to me, therefore, that a request which violates a convention is an improper request and that we should have been right to reject the request as originally foreshadowed.
  The request before us today is different and has secured the support of nine of the 10 provinces. I suggest that just as eight against were too many, nine for are enough.
  It is indeed a pity that the dissenting province should be Quebec, a founder province and a distinctive province, because of its Frenchness. Nevertheless, there is no veto binding upon this House which precludes us from deciding that the present request in fact represents the general will of Canada regarded as a federally structured whole. I suggest, therefore, that we are not only constitutionally able, but are constitutionally obliged, by law and convention, to pass the Bill.
  What we cannot do is to amend the Bill. We can pass it or reject it, but to amend it is to do something that Canada has not asked us to do. Both the preamble to the Statute of Westminster and the conventions of the constitution join in saying that it is not for this House to legislate for a fully independent country against its will.
  In regard to the representations of the Indian and other peoples, the Select Committee had the advantage of a large amount of written material from them. If we did not deal at any great length with their problems in our report, that is only because we were so clear in our minds that all their treaties were with the Crown of Canada. When those treaties were signed the Crown was undivided. When Canada became independent the Crown became divided as between the United Kingdom and Canada. There can be no doubt about that. I associate myself entirely with the expressions of friendship for and sympathy that we have heard today towards the Indian and other aboriginal peoples of Canada, but I have no doubt what the true constitutional position is.
  Finally, I believe that Her Majesty's Government were right to proceed with the Bill, even if some court proceedings are still pending. It was surely correct to wait for the verdict of the Supreme Court of Canada, as a matter of good sense. Indeed, that verdict had a decisive effect upon the course of events. But in our system this sovereign House will not be bound by those court decisions. Further, it is the convention that we use all reasonable dispatch in dealing with a proper Canadian request once received. That has been the practice of Parliament, as repeatedly stated by Ministers in the House.
  It has been well said today that for political reasons it would be wrong not to pass the Bill. I agree. I also say that we should pass the Bill for sound constitutional reasons as well.
  6. 40 pm
  Mr. Douglas Jay: I note that in the opinion of the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) the Select Committee had the right to reject the original request from Canada. That in itself might have been regarded by some people as interfering in the internal affairs of Canada. Nothing that I have heard so far this afternoon has altered the conviction which I held before the debate began that the Government have gratuitously complicated the issue by rushing in with the Second Reading of the Bill while the courts both in this country and in Canada are involved in judging some of the issues.
  When the constitutional arrangements have lasted, with minor changes, for over 100 years, and when this controversy has been going on for several years, surely the Government could have waited another few weeks to let the courts give their opinion. The Minister suggested that there was a risk that we might have a continuous series of vexatious proceedings in the courts which would have been a sort of constitutional filibuster. In theory that might occur; but it has not begun yet in anybody's opinion. It is a pity that we are being pushed ahead as hastily as we are.
  Our predominant aim in this controversy, I believe, should be to avoid any breach or worsening of relations between this country and Canada. There are enough international quarrels going on in the world without our starting another unnecessary one between the United Kingdom and Canada. There is in any case no dispute that Canada is an independent sovereign country in the full sense of the word. Therefore, it would be wrong for the House to reject the Bill either tonight or at any of its subsequent stages.
  For that reason, ought we to disregard entirely the approaches which have been made to hon. Members in recent weeks by the Indian peoples of Canada, which have really been approaches to the British Parliament? I am not convinced that we should disregard entirely those approaches. In a broader sense the historical record of the European peoples in North, Central or South America has not been so good over generations that there are not quite a few wrongs waiting to be redressed. I sometimes wish that United States' politicians would devote more attention to the conditions of the Indians in their country than talk nonsense about Ireland, as some of them at times do. Nor do I believe that we should ignore the fact that Indian representatives have come to London to put their case before the British courts and the British Parliament.
  In the few minutes available I shall not follow the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) into all the complicated legal and constitutional issues. Indeed, I am not qualified to do so. There are, however, some things which are tolerably clear. There are approximately 1 million Indians living in Canada. Not all but some of them are covered by the original treaties. There was a Royal Proclamation of 1763, and a number of treaties were signed with the British Crown. The Statute of Westminster, although it may have transferred the responsibility for those rights, has not extinguished the original rights. Indeed, the very fact that Canada is asking us to pass the Bill shows that the United Kingdom Parliament still has some residual powers and responsibilities. If we have not, there is no need for the Bill. In addition, we now have it on the authority of Mr. Speaker that it is possible to amend the Bill.
  332
  It can, of course, still be said, as Lord Denning said in his judgment, that the Bill itself contains express safeguards and conditions for Indian rights, notably in clauses 35 and 37. But the representatives of the Indians do not regard those rights as adequate or wholly reliable, particularly in regard to their titles to land. On the evidence available, it seems to me that they have justification for that anxiety.
  Their anxiety is a political fact. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that we are concerned with political realities as well as with the proper conduct of the law. It would surely be far better, if possible, and far happier both for the United Kingdom and the Canadian Parliaments, if a substantial measure of consent, which seems to be the ruling phrase, could be obtained with the Indians, as well as with the provinces, for the whole settlement and if no serious grievance were left.
  Although I agree that we must in no way interfere or appear to interfere in the internal affairs of Canada, and although I do not myself presume to pronounce on the precise legal and constitutional rights and wrongs, several firm conclusions seem to be warranted at this stage of the debate.
  First, whatever our legal powers, the British Government certainly have the right to invite the Canadian Government of their own free will to agree to adjustments or changes, or at least to give further assurances, which would allay the anxieties of the Indian peoples. Secondly, there is surely a sufficient moral and historical case, and sufficient legal doubt, to make it highly desirable that the Indian case should be stated fully and debated fully in the discussions of the Bill by the. British Parliament. Thirdly, in spite of all that has been said in this debate so far, I am still far from convinced that proceedings on the Bill ought to go forward while some of the relevant issues are still before the courts both in this country and in Canada.
  6. 48 pm
  Sir Angus Maude: Because many hon. Members want to speak, I shall try not to detain the House very long. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) is not in the House. because I wanted to address myself to one or two points in his speech. I should like to get some matters out of the way before I come to the main reason for my disquiet about the Bill.
  Although obviously we must respect Mr. Speaker's opinion, which he expressed at the beginning of the debate, I cannot feel that the Bill is amendable. If the convention is right—that we can legislate only on the proposal or at the request of the Canadian Parliament—it must be true that we cannot insert into any measure bits which we have thought up ourselves and which the Canadian Parliament has not proposed to us. Therefore, it seems that additions to the Bill would be constitutionally improper.
  As for the implication of the right hon. Member for. Down, South (Mr. Powell), that one might nevertheless leave out parts of the Bill, that is a point, as P. G. Wodehouse once said, "verging on the moot". I do not wish to go into that, but I strongly suspect that it would also be an improper procedure. The House must take or reject the Bill as it stands.
  Although I have the greatest sympathy for the aspirations and grievances of the aboriginal peoples of

  333
  Canada, I feel that we must accept the judgment of the learned judges in the Court of Appeal that the responsibility for their rights passed, at least in 1931, from the Crown and Parliament of the United Kingdom to the Crown and Parliament of Canada. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) that it is extremely unlikely that the judgment will be overturned in another place.
  I also agree with my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal that if we delay the legislation until that litigation is out of the way we might open the way to an interminable series of attempts to delay the measure by litigation. That is a reasonable attitude for the Government to take. However, I remind the House that other litigation is proceeding in Canada in respect of the Quebec application. It cannot be said that the same principles apply to that, because it is a limited issue and the timetable, while no doubt subject to delay, is comparatively limited. It can be argued that we should delay a final judgment on the Bill until that process has been completed.
  I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud for stating so clearly the matters that influenced the Select Committee in its reports. We all congratulate him on the clarity of those reports. However, he made two rather astonishing comments. First, he said that, although the Quebec appeal was under discussion in the Canadian courts, the House could not be bound by the decisions of those courts. That is a strange and questionable proposition. I hope that the Minister who is to reply to the debate will answer the important question: what happens if the House and Parliament as a whole pass the Bill and the Supreme Court of Canada then finds that the proposal on which our legislation is based is improper and unconstitutional? Will that render the Bill, as enacted, unconstitutional? Apart from making the House look silly, it will cause a considerable problem for the Crown and Parliament of Canada. We must have an answer to that question before we come to a final decision—at least on Second Reading.
  Another matter that seemed to be less than logical in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud—an illogicality that has appeared in other speeches from those who support the motion—was the suggestion that by convention we must pass any legislation that is proposed to us by the Parliament of Canada. It has been said many times that we can legislate only on the proposal and at the request of the Canadian Parliament. I accept that. It does not follow that we are under an obligation to pass without question every piece of legislation proposed or requested by the Canadian Parliament. That would be carrying the convention too far.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said that the Select Committee came to the conclusion that, since eight out of the 10 provinces were opposed to the proposal of the Federal Government of Canada, it was an improper request to which it could not recommend the House to accede. One cannot say that there are circumstances in which the House should regard a proposal as improper and unconstitutional and therefore reject it, and at the same time say that we are obliged by convention to pass unchanged any legislation that is recommended to us by the Parliament of Canada. Yet that assumption has underlain much of the argument in support of the Bill.
  334
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked how many provinces must be in favour and how many against the request of the Canadian Parliament for us to accept it. It is unacceptable for so many hon. Members to say that only one province out of 10 in Canada objects to the Bill, that one in 10 is not very many, and that the overwhelming majority is in favour of the proposal, so we are justified in passing it. In my view, Quebec is not just one of 10 provinces. It constitutes a quarter of the population of Canada and is almost a nation in itself. As other hon. Members have said, it is one of the founder nations of the federation with a culture and a language of its own. Clearly, it is in a different position from the other provinces.
  We are entitled to look back at the history of Canada and to the accession of Lower Canada—as Quebec was then called—to the federation in 1867. Any hon. Member who reads the history and the discussions at the time would find it difficult to believe that the people and leaders of Quebec would have acceded to the federation unless they believed that, under the British North America Act 1867, the British Government would secure their rights as a province against the possible encroachments of the Federal Government. They would not have acceded without what they regarded as the strongest and most enduring guarantees from the United Kingdom Government.
  Should Quebec have a veto, or does it have a veto? We cannot know or decide that until the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) said that Quebec had, in effect, renounced its veto. I think that I agree with the comment on that subject that was made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central, because we should bear in mind that the First Minister of Quebec still says—at least, he said at the beginning of this week—that Quebec regarded as threatened what he described as its
  "traditional veto right with regard to fundamental constitutional changes".
  So it cannot be argued that Quebec has renounced its veto, because clearly the First Minister believes hat constitutionally Quebec has, or is entitled to, a veto.
  For some years I lived in a country that has a federal constitution. I do not need any constitutional expert to tell me that the federal constitution of Australia is very different from that of Canada and, indeed, of many other federations. However, the one thing that is common to all federal constitutions is that the constituent states or provinces consider the question of state rights or provincial rights as against the central Government as a vital matter which has to be defended by every possible entrenchment in the constitution.
  There is no doubt that at present Quebec considers not merely that its constitutional rights are at risk, but that the United Kingdom Parliament still has a residual obligation to guarantee those rights, so long as Quebec is not satisfied with the formula proposed.
  Quebec is right in saying that the United Kingdom Government originally guaranteed the rights of the provinces as against the Federal Government. I think I am right in saying that the Parti Quebecois would never have entered the federation unless it believed that the United Kingdom had, and would retain until it specifically asked it to abrogate, a duty to protect those rights.
  Therefore, I believe that we should not give the Bill a Second Reading as long as the question of the constitutionality of the request and the opposition of

  335
  Quebec are still open and before the higher courts of Canada. In my view, it would be right for us to wait, not only for the verdict of the Quebec courts, but for what undoubtedly will be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. This, as I have said before and as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said, cannot be an indefinitely protracted procedure. It should be carried through within months, rather than years. We have a duty to hold our horses and to go carefully. I therefore tell the Government that I shall not find it possible to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
  7. 4 pm
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Sir A. Maude) feels unable to support the Bill. He is right to say that provinces in federal systems attach particular importance to their powers in relation to central Government. It is also fair to say that federal systems are usually a strange mixture of legal rigidity, on the one hand, and of a flexible horse-trading approach to that relationship, on the other. We are at the end of a long process in Canada, and it is the latter political aspect, referred to by a former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), which is dominant, bearing in mind, of course, that several legal hurdles have already been crossed.
  We have been assiduously lobbied about this matter. I understand that the Saskatchewan Indians, whom I saw again this morning, have succeeded in seeing 175 individual Members of Parliament. That is a considerable number. The problem with which many of us are wrestling is the extent to which it is proper for us to take into account those representations in determining what we do, not necessarily tonight, but possibly in Committee. For a layman like myself, it is a strange anachronism that we in this House retain the power to amend the constitution of a country which has long been recognised as proudly independent, and one which occupies a significant place and exercises a significant influence in international affairs.
  So far as I could understand the somewhat convoluted speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), he said that we should pass a simple one-line Bill saying that we in this Parliament renounce all powers in regard to Canada. That is what I understood him to say. He was not saying, as some hon. Members thought, that we should take bits out of the proposed Bill or put bits in. He was saying that we do not want to have anything to do with the matter at all, and that as in reality we have no powers, we should say so. In the absolute logic in which he deals that may be true in an absolute sense, but politically it is not a viable option. The reality is that we have to look at what has been presented to us.
  The Lord Privy Seal, in introducing the Bill, was properly careful not to comment on anything in the Bill. He outlined the history and spoke of the matters that are in contention, which we knew about already. Beyond that, he would not go. Inevitably, however, the debate has been preoccupied with the matters which are in contention. I shall refer to them briefly, but first I want to make three general points.
  It is right at this time to pay tribute to the achievement of Prime Minister Trudeau in succeeding in knitting together, in circumstances of great difficulty, a
  336
  constitutional package, which, as many hon. Members have said, clearly has the overwhelming support of the Canadian people. I do not believe that it would have gone through without his personal commitment. The Liberal Party of Canada is a member of Liberal International, arid my party, because of our regular contacts, has gained some appreciation of the highly emotional and stressful time that Canadians have been through.
  Secondly, we all know that Canada faces considerable internal strains, involving not only Quebec, but some of the other provinces. Patriation will not solve the crisis of national unity in Canada, but it will make it possible. I contend that without patriation it is impossible.
  Thirdly, I wish to put it officially on the record on behalf of the Liberal Party that we are in complete agreement with the views that have been enunciated by the Front Benches of both the Government and the Opposition that we cannot contemplate instructing, not just the Government, but the Parliament—we should remember that the majority by which the Act was passed was considerable—of a friendly country what its internal policy should be. Nevertheless, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said, all Members of Parliament in free countries have concern for freedoms elsewhere and, in general, are not slack to refer to them. It is in that spirit that I shall refer briefly to the position of Quebec and that of the Indians.
  The point was well made by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir Ian Gilmour), the former Lord Privy Seal, that Quebec speaks with two voices. It speaks in its votes in the province by electing the Parti Quebecois, which takes up the view of the province, and at federal level it speaks with another voice, electing 71 out of 75 members, which provides the Trudeau Liberal Government with its majority. Those two views are different views from the same place.
  As I said when I intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, it is a political reality that it is impossible for the present Parti Quebecois Government of Quebec to take any other view, because of its political stance, and because of its political history and the present position of the party.
  I refer to a point made by the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. If there were a convention requiring Quebec's consent, it was given up by the Quebec Government when it agreed to the formula based on the equality of the provinces in September 1980. In choosing to oppose and defeat the Federal Government's proposal that Quebec should have a veto over constitutional amendments, the Quebec Government at that time destroyed any potential argument that was required for constitutional change. It is not logical to invoke an argument which the Quebec Government's previous actions refuted.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman said, as others have, that the issue is still contentious in Canada. Given the proper independence of Canada, is it right and proper that we in the House should pass a measure that is contentious in Canada? Should we not wait until we can get something that is agreed in Canada and let the Canadians sort out their contentious issues? Is it not gross interference by the House to pass a measure that is contentious on the other side of the Atlantic?
  Mr. Johnston: The point has been made by number of hon. Members that there are degrees of contentiousness.

  337
  The patriation resolution was passed in the House of Commons of Canada by 246 votes to 24. That is a fair sign of support. I know that the hon. Gentleman is contentious by nature and that he will probably always be so.
  The position of the aboriginal peoples in Canada is more difficult. The nub of their case is that patriation will transfer their rights to the Canadian Government, so that whatever may now be said to be the case, those rights will no longer be entrenched as at present. Therefore, those rights could be changed or removed by the Canadian Government.
  The Saskatchewan Indians, whom many hon. Members have seen, have produced a document, dated 9 February. I shall give a taste of what it says:
  "What will happen to Indian rights if the Canada Bill passes? The Canadian Government will move swiftly to implement the White Paper on Indian Policy (1969) which proposes that special constitutional status of Indian nations be eliminated in five years. Indian lands will be expropriated, Indian hunting, trapping and fishing rights will be reduced and extinguished. Indian languages…will be systematically eradicated…Our people will be faced with the cruel dilemma of living in abject poverty, without status or legitimacy in the hinterland or moving to the towns and cities to become an indistinguishable element among the urban poor."
  That is what the Indians genuinely fear. It is surely impossible to believe.
  The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) dwelt on that matter at length. He referred to the risk to human rights. Canada is a signatory to and bound by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As a country it has an extremely good record in human rights. It does not deny the economic, social or cultural difficulties of the Indians. That the Canadian Parliament or a potential Canadian Government would act in the way that some people fear is unlikely.
  It is clear that the Bill gives to the Parliament of Canada the right to amend or change the aboriginal treaty rights. That does not mean that the Parliament of Canada intends to abrogate those rights, any more than we in the House would unreasonably abrogate the rights of British citizens.
  I have been concerned to learn of the fears of the Indian population. I am sure that if we rehearse them the Canadian Government will pay close attention to what we say. However, I am troubled that we in the House would seem to be holding out to the Indians expectations that we cannot fulfil and about which we cannot do anything. Responsibility for those peoples resides with the Government of Canada. It is with that Government that they must live and with that Government that they must deal.
  We shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that this was a matter of law, but also one of politics. Politics says that there is no case for delay. We will also vote for the Second Reading confident that the constitution is passing to safe and steady democratic hands.
  7. 16 pm
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: A number of interesting points have arisen in the course of the debate. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is not here because this is not the first occasion on which I have heard him put forward a
  338
  manifestly wrong assumption, and then build upon it with incontrovertible logic an edifice that would be indestructible, were it not based on nothing.
  The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's fascinating speech was based on the assumption that this Parliament had no power to legislate for Canada. The reverse is the case. Not only has the Queen in the Parliament of the United Kingdom the power to legislate for Canada, but there is no other Parliament that has that power. That is the exact reverse of the position described to the House by the right hon. Member for Down, South. Therefore, I need say nothing more about the elaborate structure that the right hon. Gentleman built upon that premise.
  Alas, my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) is also no longer present. He said that because the House had the power to legislate in the matter or to refuse to legislate in the matter—an unchallengeable proposition—it was therefore responsible for the content of that legislation. I wonder whether he would be of the view that, because the Monarch possesses the power undeniably to refuse Royal Assent to a Bill, the Monarch is therefore responsible for the content of that Bill. I doubt that he would adopt that proposition, yet it has the same logical content as the one that he offered to the House with such great emotion.
  Canada has a responsible Parliament possessed of one defect and one defect only. It lacks the power to legislate for itself, a power that the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Queen of the United Kingdom—in this context, Great Britain and Northern Ireland—alone can transmit to the Queen in Parliament in Canada.
  Only by the passage of a Bill such as this can that power now be passed to Canada. I am the first to agree that this Bill is not the only way in which that power could pass to Canada. In the last Session, I introduced a Bill with only one effective clause which would have transferred from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to the Parliament of Canada full legislative power over its own affairs. For reasons into which I need not go, that Bill progressed to no more than a somewhat truncated beginning of a Second Reading debate. Be that as it may, the case for passing this Bill, and passing it now, is not that this is the only way of transmitting power to the Canadian Parliament from this Parliament, but that it is the way that has been chosen by the Canadian Parliament.
  It has already been said that Members of this House are not elected by the electorate of Canada. The truth of that must be self-evident. The Parliament of Canada is elected by the electorate of Canada. On that basis, I assert that it is right that the vehicle for transmitting final legislative power from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to the Parliament of Canada must be the vehicle chosen by the Parliament of Canada and not a vehicle chosen, or tinkered with, by a Parliament which was not elected by the people who will suffer the consequences of that choice. That is why, although we have the undoubted power to amend this or any other Bill, we ought not to exercise that power on this occasion. There are many examples of circumstances in which the House should not exercise a power. This is but one of them.
  Another argument which has been put forward is the Quebec would not have entered the union with Upper Canada if its leading politicians at the time had foreseen the course of events culminating in the passage of this Bill, should it pass. That may be so; but it is no reason for giving Quebec a veto.

  339
  I take an analogy which is arguable but equally incapable of proof. Had the Scottish Parliament foreseen the full consquences of the Act of Union, including the passage of a Bill acceding to the Treaty of Rome, it would have required a measure of foresight unusual even among Scottish Members. By the same logic, however, it could be argued that Scotland should be able to veto any constitutional change—I dodge the question of what changes are constitutional—on the grounds that the Scottish Parliament might not have agreed to the Act of Union had it, by some gift of clairvoyance, foreseen those changes any more than the leading politicians in Quebec in 1867 could have foreseen this.
  Sir Angus Maude: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to a point that I made. His analogy is not valid. The point about Lower Canada's accession to the Federation was that it thought that the United Kingdom had guaranteed it a veto against the State Government in defence of provincial rights. It considered that veto to be continuous. There was no question of discontinuity or lack of foresight as to what might arise. It still believes that it has a veto and that we have guaranteed it, and the Supreme Court of Canada may well say that that is right.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: There is a difference between believing that one has an inalienable right and hoping that whatever one wants will always be granted by the Parliament concerned. I thought that my right hon. Friend was about to draw to my attention a rather different distinction—that whereas Scotland was at one time a sovereign State, Quebec was not. It lay entirely in the hands of the Parliament of Great Britain at that time to legislate to put Quebec into a new and larger political unit, whether or not the people of Quebec at that time found such legislation agreeable. It was not a necessary condition of such legislation by the Parliament of Great Britain at the time that there should be consent on the part of Quebec. Such consent was an undoubted political convenience, as it got the new union off to a more promising start, but it was not a necessary condition for the passage of the 1867 Act.
  We may also consider other matters. In Quebec, there is a separatist movement in a situation not unknown on this side of the Atlantic. The legal right of Quebec to separate herself and to erect herself into a sovereign State by her own action does not at present exist. Therefore, that possibility is not affected by the Bill, nor is the power to do so unlawfully by auto-decision or auto-resolution affected. I should have thought that the course of events as they concern the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada will depend not upon whether the Bill receives Royal Assent but upon the reality of the give and take between Quebec and the other provinces in the whole nexus of relationships not only with the Federal Parliament but with the other provinces, and on the interchange of ideas in the media and the tolerance which Quebec has shown in its own provincial legislation towards minorities in its midst whose position is analogous to Quebec's own position vis-à-vis Canada. That will be the determining factor in a Canada as remote in a century or two from now as it is now from 1867.
  Those are the realities. Therefore, should we debate and consider the merit of the Bill? My answer is emphatically that we should not. The Bill has been sent to us at the request of the Canadian Parliament, and with
  340
  its consent. I do not believe that our constituents consider it appropriate that Parliament should have a continuing responsibility for, or legislative authority over, the sovereign, independent Dominion of Canada. The Bill is the means of terminating that responsibility.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) seductively invited us to do what we have to do, but not to do it now. He said that we should wait until a particular series of legal processes has reached its point of exhaustion at the Supreme Court of Canada, or the House of Lords Judicial Committee, if it agrees to hear the appeal.
  I endeavoured to intervene to ask what view he would take if that was immediately followed by another motion on another point of law. I do not see how the process can logically end by saying "Ah, but just once more." If one admits the validity of delaying the Bill until the point which Quebec has sought to bring before the courts has exhausted the due legal processes, what would prevent Quebec from raising further legal points?
  Mr. Jay: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the question put by the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon Sir A. Maude)? What is the position if, on the Quebec application, the Supreme Court of Canada finds that a section of this package is constitutionally invalid in the Canadian constitution? The Minister said that if we made any amendment, the resultant Bill would cease to be the Bill requested by Canada arid, therefore, that it would not be a valid Bill for us to pass. If the Supreme Court of Canada finds that part of the Bill is unconstitutional, it would equally follow that the Bill would not be valid.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Surprisingly, that is not a difficult question to answer. Once the Bill has received Royal Assent, it is for the courts in Canada, not the courts in the United Kingdom, to determine whether it is good law in Canada. This is the other side of the mirror. The Court of Appeal in a unanimous judgment has held that it is not for the Canadian Indians to ask the British courts to make declarations about the validity of the Canadian proceedings. Therefore, if the Bill passes into law it will not be for me, for the Attorney-General, for the Lord Privy Seal, or for a Minister of State at the Foreign Office to pronounce on the law of Canada, because it will then have become, or not become, the law of Canada according to what the Supreme Court in Canada has determined.
  This is a hypothetical question that will be answered, should the occasion arise, not by me, the right hon. Gentleman, the House of Commons, or any Minister or Law Officer of the United Kingdom, but by due judicial process within the Dominion of Canada. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. Jay: It is certainly a hypothetical question, but I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has answered it. If the Supreme Court of Canada holds that the request made to us is in some respect unconstitutional, will the Bill based on that request be law, either in this country or in Canada, if we proceed with it?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I have already answered that question. That judgment will be given by the Canadian courts. They will be charged with answering that question. It will be entirely presumptuous for our legislature, or, I guess, even for a legislature in Canada, to presume to say what answer the Canadian courts would give to the

  341
  particular circumstances that might then arise. That is a matter for the Canadian courts. It is not a matter for the House of Commons, United Kingdom Law Officers or British Ministers. It would be quite inappropriate for them to give an answer that lies not within their authority but within the authority of the Canadian courts.
  The Canadian Parliament has fulfilled the conditions of the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, even though by section 7 of that Statute it is not a legal necessity that those conditions should be fulfilled before this Parliament legislates. It is a desirable condition, but it is not a necessary one. As well as being desirable, it is an utterly essential condition, in terms of democratic theory as we know it, not because of the Statute of Westminster, but because the Parliament of Canada is elected by the Canadian electorate whereas the Parliament of the United Kingdom is not.
  There has been considerable delay, of which I make no complaint. There has been considerable compromise. I had my own doubts and worries about the Bill as it first appeared. Moreover, I offer the opinion that, had the Bill been altered to give Quebec alone a right of veto, that would have transmuted it into a hybrid Bill. It would not have had the characteristics of a public general Bill. I do not believe that the hybrid Bill procedure in this Parliament is one which, after due thought, hon. Members would wish to be used on legislation wholly concerned with matters within the Dominion of Canada. That would be the most inappropriate use of the hybrid Bill procedure that there could conceivably be.
  Our judgment should be to give the Bill a Second Reading tonight. We should pass it through its remaining stages in the form in which the duly elected Canadian Parliament has asked us so to do. After it has received Royal Assent, should there subsequently be any question about its interpretation or validity, that will not be the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament or the House of Lords to determine, but the responsibility of the properly constituted courts of the Dominion of Canada.
  7. 40 pm
  Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) referred to matters within the boundaries of Canada, and they are not the reasons for this debate. The debate is about whether the Canadian Government need to come to the British Parliament to ask for the patriation of their constitution. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there should be no tinkering with the Bill, and the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Sir A. Maude) said there should be no attempt to insert anything into the Bill. With respect, that is not the intention of the amendment to which I am a signatory.
  We are being asked to say "Yes" or "No" to patriation, but I am saying that Second Reading should be refused until judicial proceedings have been concluded. I do not accept the argument that those proceedings could go on interminably. In practice we know that they could, but it would be for the Government, after a reasonable time, to say that the courts were being used as a way of delaying Second Reading. We could easily have waited until the judicial proceedings had been concluded.
  We would like the Canadian Government to give some guarantees for the rights of the Indian peoples. We have
  342
  a duty to examine what we are doing in agreeing to the wish of the Canadian Government. We have the power to correct certain injustices to the Indian peoples and to ensure that as far as possible such injustices are avoided in future.
  Hon. Members have said that, with the exception of Quebec, all the provinces are now agreeable to the proposed procedure, but that was not so when the issue first arose. The Government have made adjustments or compromises to get the provinces to agree. If Parliament shows its wish to protect the rights of the native peoples of Canada, the Canadian Government will make similar adjustments or compromises to secure the return of their constitution. We cannot, like Pilate, wash our hands. It will be a conscious act if we make this agreement without any adjustment.
  Treaties have been made in the past by British monarchs and Governments. If hon. Members wish to regard solemn agreements as scraps of paper, they must accept the responsibility for doing so. I know what it is like for people to be moved from their land. Therefore, I have a great feeling for the attitude of the Indian peoples.
  Throughout the period of colonisation, the Crown recognised the principle of bilateral negotiations with the Indians. That principle was formalised by the enactment of the Royal Proclamation in 1763. More than 80 treaties were concluded between the various Indian nations and the Crown. Although the terms of the treaties varied, all recognised the sovereignty of the Indian nations and the consensual nature of future negotiations. That relationship was intended to endure the passage of time and Governments.
  The grant of authority by the British North America Act evolved in such a way as to allow Canadian Governments effectively to regulate the internal affairs of the Indian communities as well as the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indians. The Government have been able to exercise control over all aspects of Indian life—and the infamous Indian Acts, the first of which was in 1876, denied basic freedoms to the Indians.
  Since 1940, the attitude and policy of the Canadian Federal Government has been one of detribalisation and forced assimilation. The Government hoped that the Indians would disappear as a people. Many programmes were deployed over the years to eliminate traditional tribal systems of government and Indian practices, beliefs and languages and to deprive the Indian nations of the resources necessary to maintain the economic basis of their livelihood.
  The Canadian Government brought that policy to its zenith in 1969 when Prime Minister Trudeau introduced a White Paper which directed that all Indian lands and resources should be assimilated into Canada, and that the constitution should be amended to delete all references to Indians. The Canadian Government believe that they are doing the Indians a favour. They want them all to be assimilated into white Canada. But that is not what the Indian peoples want. They have a right to be concerned that their rights are maintained.
  Clause 6 declares equality of opportunity to all citizens of Canada. That is meaningless to the Indians, because Indian unemployment in the prairie provinces is estimated at between 60 per cent. and 80 per cent. The level of employment in those provinces as a whole is higher than the national Canadian rate.
  Clause 15(1) declares:

  343
  "Every individual…has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination".
  That may represent a denial of the recognised legal status of the Indian peoples as "citizens plus". The aboriginal peoples suggest that it will lead to further abrogations of treaty rights in respect of hunting, trapping, fishing, education, health, medicine, social and economic assistance and self-government.
  Clauses 16 to 23 deal with languages. There is no guarantee given to the Indian peoples that their languages will be preserved or that their children will be educated in their own languages. I have experienced a similar problem in trying to get some status for the Gaelic language in Scotland. Professor Fawcett, who was mentioned by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), informs us that 25 per cent. of Canadian Indians speak only their own languages and that a further 35 per cent. are bilingual. We are not talking about an insignificant number when we bear in mind the way in which Indian numbers have grown in the past 50 or 60 years.
  No damage will be done to Canada by the refusal of the Bill until various matters have been put right. For the past 50 years Canada has gone its own way and made its own decisions without let or hindrance. We have a responsibility to ensure that there is justice for the Indian peoples before we give the Bill a Second Reading.
  7. 49 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I share the reservations voiced by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) about the Indian peoples in Canada, although I do not go anything like as far along that road as he does in saying that they are a reason for voting against the Bill. I give the Bill a warm welcome and I shall be glad to vote for its Second Reading. With the heartfelt feelings of someone whose father, grandfather and great-grandfather were Canadians, I rejoice in the fact that Canada is shortly to have its own home-made constitution.
  We are first and foremost removing an absurd anachronism, in that Canada is the only sovereign State in the world that does not have a constitution of its own that is amendable by its own legislature. There will surely be no tears in the House when this link with the antiquated imperial chain is broken.
  As we repeal the British North America Act and enact the Bill, we are walking a constitutional and diplomatic tightrope of peculiar delicacy. As we walk it we must beware of being blown off by legalistic or imperialistic hot air, a few breaths of which have been felt in the Chamber this afternoon. Although in theory we are legislators in the true sense of that word on this or any other Bill, in practice on all matters affecting the constitution of Canada convention shows that we should limit ourselves to being ratifiers and implementors of any constitutionally proper request from the Government of Canada.
  Until a few months ago it appeared that the request from Canada might be in a contitutionally improper form. We thought we might receive a unilateral request from the Ottawa Parliament only. I pay tribute to the immense efforts not only of the statesmen in Canada but of hon. Members on both sides of the House who were responsible for preventing the Governments of Canada and Britain from trying to railroad that unilateral request through the House. They insisted that Back Benchers would not tolerate it unless it went first to the Supreme Court of Canada for a clear constitutional ruling.
  344
  Once that ruling was given, a new flexibility entered into the higher echelons of the Government of Canada. As a result, Prime Minister Trudeau showed a new and welcome flexibility in his dealings with the provincial Premiers. After a great deal of talking and trading, the request has arrived in a constitutionally proper form—a Canada Bill undoubtedly supported by the people of Canada as a whole. Any attempt to block, thwart or even amend the proper legislative request of the Canadian Government will be regarded in Canada as a misguided, even hostile, action by Westminster. It will be seen as an abuse of long-forgotten imperial power, which might have been appropriate in the reign of Queen Victoria, but has no place in the thirty-first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II.
  I am not unsympathetic to some of the criticisms from all parts of the House about the Bill and some of the processes that led to it. The Bill still bears far too many of the scars of compromise. I agree with the right hon. Member for Western Isles and others that the treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples are not protected. I regret that the minority language rights of English speakers in Quebec, and those of French speakers in Ontario, are not adequately protected. The minority rights generally were far better protected by section 133 of the British North America Act than they are by the Bill.
  Above all, I regret that the inadequately covered minority rights were bargained away in Executive horse-trading between provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister in what is known as the November accord. How much better it would have been had the provincial legislatures voted on the new constitutional arrangements. That would have given confidence that the minority tights had been altered by a more desirable legislative process than Executive horse-trading among individual politicians, however excellent.
  I voice those reservations simply as a friendly British observer. Such comment is free, but voting against all or part of the Bill because of such reservations, however deeply felt, would be an act of legislated sabotage that would rightly affront most Canadians. All the matters of which I have complained are domestic internal Canadian affairs. The best that we can do is to express our view and hope that, in the course of time, the Canadian Government will use the amending formula in the Bill to improve the rights of the Indian and other minorities. I welcome the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that while the Bill passes through the House there should be a clarifying statement from the Canadian Government.
  In response to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I declare a gastronomic and aeronautical series of interests of such length and complexity that my speech would last for too long if I referred to them all. I do not think that those interests have any effect on my judgment. The great hospitality that I have received from Quebec has done neither it nor me any good, as I find myself in complete disagreement with the Quebec Government about the constitutional debate.
  The Government of Quebec argue that they have the right of veto of constitutional arrangements. Although that matter is before the Canadian courts, and may be legally correct, it is politically bizarre. In April last year the Premier of Quebec signed an agreement repealing the

  345
  Quebec Government's right of veto. To try to press in the courts what was denied in a repeal in a political agreement is a bizarre volte face by that Government.
  We must be careful when saying what Quebec thinks or feels. There is a difference between the views and attitudes of the ruling Parti Quebecois Government and the people of Quebec as a whole. We must take into account the views of Canada as a whole, and therefore of Quebec as a whole. Following a visit to Quebec, and many friendly talks with the Premier, Mr. Levesque, the Parti Quebecois—consisting of a Government committed to the form of separatism known as sovereignty association—will find it virtually impossible to support any constitution that remains federal in nature. Many people in Quebec, other than Parti Quebecois, support Mr. Trudeau, such as the 74 Liberal Members of Parliament, the Liberal Party in the Provincial Assembly in Quebec and the English-speaking minority. The people of Quebec as a whole may take a broader view of constitutional issues than does Mr. Levesque and his party.
  As the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said, we must consider the political dimension of the Bill. Above all, we must consider the emotions and feelings of the 24 million Canadians. As someone who is half Canadian, I have some hereditary understanding of how much most Canadians want this admirable Bill of Rights, which entrenches certain constitutional requirements, such as habeas corpus, which have been at risk occasionally during difficult times in recent years.
  I have some understanding of how strongly some Canadians wish to sweep away the anomalous machinery of the British North America Act, which leaves a great sovereign State in the humiliating position of having to come, cap in hand, to another nation's legislature to change its constitution. Above all, I have some glimmering of understanding of the growing and swelling sense of Canadian nationhood and patriotism that has been and will continue to be enhanced by the Bill and the great debate surrounding it.
  I shall end on a personal note. My late father, whose memory I cherish, was a Canadian who came to England to fly in the RAF during the war. He stayed here and sat as a Member of the House for 14 years. From time to time he used to speculate on whether the British North America Act would be repealed during his lifetime. I remember him saying to me words to the effect "When the repeal of the British North America Act comes and the Canadian constitution goes home, I hope that it will go through the British House of Commons on the nod in silence, or perhaps with just a few words of good will and good wishes from one or two speakers on either side."
  It has not worked out quite as the paternal vision saw it, but it has not been that far away from it either, for in many ways we have seen the House at its best at times this afternoon—burying our differences and seeing the big picture in preference to legal quibbles, although there have been one or two of them. Above all, we wish Canada and the Bill good luck and godspeed. I am proud to have played my small part in the debate.
  7. 59 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: While waiting patiently to be called, I began to compare our Privy Councillors and knights—those illustrious gentlemen who
  346
  monopolised previous debates on Canada, as they have this debate—with Indian chiefs. I now fully appreciate the origin of the expression "too many chiefs and not enough Indians". I am delighted that the ordinary Indians, the Back-Benchers, have pulled a few goals back. There are other parallels, too. I refer not just to the luxuriance of headgear that we have seen this afternoon. The Iroquois believed that they should never put people of high competence into office and there is an affinity between our system and theirs. As time goes on, we will appreciate that even more.
  When the Lord Privy Seal comes to tot up the score of speakers, it will be glaringly obvious that a clear majority of hon. Members are affronted by the speed with which this legislation is going through. If the Government seek to introduce the Committee stage next week, or very swiftly, there will be even greater anxiety. Therefore, I ask the Government to pause and to listen to what has been said. Perhaps they should postpone proceedings until definitive rulings have been delivered by the British and Canadian courts. That will give the constitution much greater legitimacy than if there is disagreement, as there clearly is.
  In accordance with the request made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I declare an interest. I travelled tourist class to Canada and back the following day as a guest of the Indians. That has been more than equalised by my considerable loss in terms of dinners. I worked out that I was on the losing side to the tune of 18 to 3. It is not quite as strong an interest as others might have. There has certainly been a gastronomic explosion since the Canadians hit town. If I were a Canadian Member of Parliament, I would be asking how much money had been spent on entertainment by the High Commission.
  The hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) seemed to think that only those who supported the Bill on Second Reading were interested in and had an affection for Canada. That is not strictly true. This is an historic day. Members of Parliament and their constituents rightly regard Canada with respect, affection and admiration. One does not have to go into the "Aye" Lobby to demonstrate that affection.
  Today, we have reached the final hurdle in the long-delayed patriation process. If one believes the press, our proceedings are nothing more than perfunctory—a rubber stamp. If one believes the Government, we are merely ratifying a deal that has been struck in Canada between the Canadian Federal Government, and also with the British Government. I wonder whether the Bill will be purely formal and acclamatory. Many people have expressed considerable reservations about the substance and timing of the Bill. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts and realise that we are not seeking to be obstreperous or to delay the Bill indefinitely. The legislation will have much stronger effect if there is greater consent.
  Hon. Members should feel no sense of guilt that these proceedings have taken so long to arrive in the British Parliament. Had the Canadians wished to request patriation earlier, surely that request would have been granted. If there is any blame, it lies within Canada, because it was Canada which wished to continue its dependence upon the United Kingdom. I for one will be happy when that dependence is eliminated. It has been said that in strict constitutional terms the Dominion of Canada

  347
  is not completely independent. It is still tied hand and foot, as Lord Denning said, by the British North America Acts. The Dominion cannot alter one jot or title of those Acts. Canada is not independent. That situation must be ended as quickly as possible, but in the right way.
  I have never opposed patriation. I have always wanted patriation to be completed correctly. Up to the present, I do not think that that correctness has been obvious for all to see. Why are we dealing with such an important Bill today? We are proceeding too hastily, in a way that is inconsistent with the principle of constitutionalism and fairness, of which the House is justly proud. Why the haste? Who is determining the Government's timetable? Is it the Cabinet here or the Cabinet in Ottawa?
  Why not wait a little longer for the definitive ruling of the other place? The Lord Privy Seal implied that once the Court of Appeal had made a decision, that was that. If that is so, do the Government propose to abolish the other place as the final court of appeal? In our system, no decision by the Court of Appeal can have finality. Therefore, I hope that the Government will not proceed further until the Court of Appeal has disposed of the legal claim put forward by the Indian Association of Alberta. I also hope that the Government will consider postponement until the Quebec claim is resolved.
  When you were not in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, several right hon. and hon. Members subtly questioned your ruling. However, you have taken the view that the Bill is amendable and I should have thought that that has put the issue beyond doubt. It is unworthy of hon. Members to wriggle and argue that we have no right to amend the Bill. Amendments will be tabled.
  My support for the Indian peoples is well known. It is obvious that the Indian peoples of Canada did not consent to the Bill or to the resolution from which it stems. They rightly place enormous reliance on the treaties that they signed and that they regard as sacred, although that sacredness is not replicated by the Canadian Government or by Britain.
  In many respects the Bill is gravely defective as regards the aboriginal, treaty and other rights and freedoms of the aboriginal peoples. Those defects will be demonstrated by the amendments that will be tabled in Committee. I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Amendments will be tabled and we hope that some will be accepted. It is ironic that constitution makers are often regarded by historians as demigods who bring down tablets from on high. No amount of public relations can alter the sordid nature of the accord or deal that was struck, by First Ministers of the Federal Government, but without the consent of the Indians and in their absence. Indeed, they were the victims of the agreement because some of their land and rights were distributed by the beneficiaries.
  In Plato's "Republic" Thrasymachus defined justice as
  "what is in the interest of the stronger party"
  in any society. A deal was struck at the Indians' expense. I do not want to be a party to a process that will perpetuate the degradation that Indians have suffered at the hands initially of the English and then of the Canadians.
  I must declare an interest, although it does not concern finance. I have a deep respect for and affinity with indigenous peoples throughout the world. They were the victims of Western expansionism. The fight on behalf of many aboriginal and tribal peoples is already too late. The Tasmanian aboriginals, the Cape bushmen, the original
  348
  inhabitants of the Canary islands and of Tierra del Fuego, and the tribes of New England are now extinct and will never be seen again.
  In 1837, the Select Committee on aborigines, with a mixture of emotion and guilt, said:
  "Of the Caribs, the native inhabitants of the West Indies, we need not speak, as of them little more remains than the tradition that they once existed."
  Of the Indians of Newfoundland it was said:
  "Under our treatment they continued rapidly to diminish; and it appears probable that the last of the tribe left at large, a man and a woman, were shot by two Englishmen in 1823…In the colony of New Foundland it may therefore be stated that we have exterminated the natives."
  The Indians received the settlers with open arms. Perhaps it was the laxity of the immigration laws that allowed so many settlers in. However, the Indians paid a heavy price in the following years. They helped colonialists to sustain themselves in the inclement climate and to survive. The Lord Privy Seal spoke about Canada's support for the Commonwealth. However, the last invasion of Canada by the Americans in 1812 was repulsed by a force that included a large contingent of Mohawk Indians.
  The Mohawk nation declared war on Germany in 1939. Therefore, loyalty and affection for the Crown are by no means the monopoly of Canadians who happen to have light skins. The Indians signed sacred treaties which were to exist in perpetuity, and to last as long as
  "the rivers shall flow and the sun shall shine".
  Such treaties have been broken with an endless trail of tears, disaster, degradation and humiliation. The Indians have been confined to reserves without an economic base which makes the South African Bantustan policy seem almost liberal. They live in poverty and have a life expectancy 25 years less than the whites in Canada. They have 70 per cent. unemployment, high infant mortality and poor housing. Only in the past 20 years have they been allowed to purchase alcohol or to vote. People in Parliament will say "We wash our hands of the matter." They are prepared to pontificate on the rights of peoples in Poland, Argentina and South Africa, but when dealing with an ostensibly Christian and democratic country they shut their eyes and say "It is no business of this House to tell the Canadians how to run their affairs."
  We have a moral and legal obligation. The Government must await the House of Lords final judgment before dismissing the legal claim that that House will receive.
  The 1969 White Paper earlier mentioned demanded paper genocide and a policy of assimilation within five years. Therefore, how can the Indians trust any Federal Government in Canada? They have been reduced to third-class citizens in a land that they once owned. They occupied it 20, 000 years before the British or French knew that Canada existed.
  Thankfully, some Canadians have a sense of guilt about what has been done to the Indians. Even Mr. Trudeau said some time ago:
  "The Canadians are not too proud about their past in the way in which they treated the Indian population of Canada. I do not think that we have any great cause to be proud.
  One may think that that amounted to some encouragement from the Canadian Prime Minister. However, he later said:
  "The Indians are really saying, 'We were here before you. You came and you took the land from us. You cheated us by giving us some worthless things in return for vast expanses of land and we want you to preserve our aboriginal rights'. Our answer—it may not be the right one or the one that is accepted—is no."

  349
  Is this the fine liberal politician who goes around the world pretending to support indigenous peoples? He and his country have a good record on human rights abroad. Unfortunately, that record does not extend far beyond the boundaries of Canada.
  The Conservative leader, Joe Clark, said:
  "The aboriginal people were here before our civilisation. Our treatment, our meagre, mean treatment of them, has increased our obligation, not diminished it."
  Despite these fine words, little has been done. Some hon. Members have read that members of the Canadian Federal Parliament said:
  "The aboriginal peoples have little reason to trust the Federal Government because, going back over 440 years, they have been deceived and been given broken promises."
  What trust can Indians have in the Canadian Federal Government or the provincial Governments? The Select Committee on Aborigines 1867 said, in effect, "Do not transfer power to the provinces because that would be disaster". It said that the aboriginal problem should be
  "considered as a duty peculiarly belonging and appropriate to the Executive Government because it is not a trust that could conveniently be confined to local legislatures."
  The way that provinces have responded on the patriation debate over the past two years confirms our predecessors' analysis of almost 150 years ago. The Indians will get little from the provinces and slightly more, but not much, from the Federal Government.
  Can one hope that the Indians will receive a little more from the courts? They can expect very little; an analysis of court judgments shows a long history of powerlessness on aboriginal rights such as hunting and fishing and on treaties. The Canadian Parliament has rendered the judiciary almost powerless to protect Indian rights.
  Lord Denning testified to the importance of the treaties signed in perpetuity in Canada. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) agreed with that. Lord Denning said:
  "No Parliaments should do anything to lessen the worth of those guarantees."
  That is a clear indication of our residual duty here in Parliament.
  Some treaties were entered into as sovereign agreements between Britain and various Indian nations. Some bands have had no treaties at all and, therefore, suffered. What does the Federal Government say about these sacred treaties? I have read one of the many leaked documents emanating from the Federal Government which said, on the argument that the treaties gave aboriginal rights on the Indian claims to self-government,
  "This argument is based on Indian claims that British sovereignty over Indian lands resulted from Indian acceptance and consent. Britain, in fact, asserted sovereignty over the lands in question by conquest or cession from France or by discovery and settlement."
  I have never heard such a brazen expression of dominance.
  Does the Bill do anything to protect the Indians? Lord Denning thinks it does, but the Indians do not agree. We heard the phrase"existing rights". To many Canadians, and hon. Members sympathetic with the Indians, it seems that that phrase will lead to confusion and ambiguity. The inclusion of clause 35 sounds fine. It states:
  "the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognised and affirmed."
  That sounds fine but it also means that those Indians whose claims have been extinguished in the past without
  350
  compensation will have their avenues for redress closed for ever if clause 35 is passed. Bands who have lost most will gain nothing from this legislation.
  Clause 35 has had a chequered history. It was not in the resolution of October 1980, then it was included, and was later ditched because of the sordid accord. It was reincluded, containing the word "existing". That word was described by the Minister of Justice as
  "quintessentially a liberal compromise."
  The addition of "existing" to clause 35 was a shabby compromise and was certainly done without Indian consultation. An NDP Member said:
  "It is a sad reflection of the events of 5 November 1981, when the First Ministers met privately to dump treacherously entrenchment of section 34, never having said a word publicly of their opposition or any reasons for their opposition."
  Lord Denning said:
  "This post-patriation conference will settle Indian rights."
  This could be a bogus consultation. It could be another example of divide and rule that the British have taught the Canadian Government. It is up to Prime Minister Trudeau to decide who represents the Indian nation and this would be open to abuse.
  Lord Denning continued in his appeal court judgment:
  "Will not the Governor-General protect the Indians?"
  Clause 48 refers to the powers of the Governor-General but that was not debated in the Canadian House of Commons because it was guillotined. The many sensitive issues involved in the powers of the Governor-General is one aspect that we must bring up in Committee. On listening to the debate, I am convinced that there are many imponderables and issues that need to be clarified. Therefore, surely delay is imperative.
  Rights are supposedly entrenched in certain clauses. Other clauses might be used to unentrench rights. Therefore, one understands every reason why the Indians view with suspicion the deal struck in Canada and the transatlantic deal struck between the British and Canadian Governments.
  The Indians' future will be in jeopardy without their securing a land base. The arguments on human rights have been dealt with. I believe that they will be raised again in Committee. We must not have double standards. We must not deny that human rights are being violated in Canada.
  The native people of Canada have been denied genuine consultation in Canada and the protection of the courts and of provincial governments and Federal Government. They have made a costly, long journey to this country to speak to Parliament, to put their case before the courts and to get a response from the British public. What an indictment of the Canadian Government when the Cree, the Micmac, the tribes of Labrador, and the Mohawk are forced to come here to try to get from this House, which is many thousands of miles from their home, redress for their grievances! Will we deny them our support? Will we seek refuge in the argument of party loyalty to our parties or to a concept of sister parties—the Liberals here supporting the Liberals there and the Labour Party supporting the NDP? Will we waste our critical faculties in thinking up bogus party loyalties?
  I hope that we do not follow Mr. Trudeau's advice and collectively hold our noses. I hope that we shall not be cowed into submission. A couple of years ago Mr. Trudeau said that he had heard that Members of Parliament may object to patriation,
  "but all I can say is, 'They had better not try.'"

  351
  I hope that hon. Members will vote against Second Reading. I would have hoped to have a reasoned amendment to vote on. It would have allowed us to express our qualified support for patriation. I regret therefore that I cannot support Second Reading. I have reservations about voting against it, but, because of my loyalty to and belief in the native peoples of Canada, the only genuine action that I, and I hope others, can take is to vote against Second Reading and introduce amendments in Committee. I hope to God that the legislation, when passed back to Canada, will afford the native peoples the rights that for so long they have been denied.
  8. 22 pm
  Mr. John Roper: The House respects the convictions of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) in defence of Indian rights, but, as I have given an assurance that I shall not detain the House for long, I shall not follow him in detail. However, I draw attention to paragraph 9 of the Foreign Affairs Committee's report. The first two sentences state:
  "The fact is that Indian rights and affairs have been an exclusive responsibility of the Canadian Government and Parliament for generations. For at least fifty years, the UK Government and Parliament have lacked even residual constitutional authority to intervene in relation to those rights or affairs."
  We must take that statement into account, even though we may share a great deal of the hon. Gentleman's emotion and have great sympathy for the Indians.
  The Social Democratic Party supports Second Reading. In spite of the problems surrounding the patriation of the Canadian constitution, we believe that it would be wholly wrong to refuse the request of a sovereign, independent Commonwealth Government to take charge of its own constitution. We believe that a refusal by the House and Parliament to pass the Bill would be widely misunderstood, not only in Canada, as an attempt to resurrect a dependency between our countries which has long since disappeared.
  Like other hon. Members, I have received and read many submissions from people in Canada who are dissatisfied with the Bill. I am relieved that, as a result of last year's negotiations between the provinces and the Federal Government, the number of such submissions is now much smaller. I too, am sorry that the province of Quebec and some of the representatives of the aboriginal peoples are still dissatisfied with the legislation, but, as has been said, litigation on their objections is still proceeding before the courts in Canada and in this country. It must have been difficult to decide whether to proceed with the Bill while the actions were before the courts. On balance, my right hon. and learned Friends feel that the Government are right to bring the Bill forward for Second Reading today.
  I accept generally what the Lord Privy Seal said about amendment to the Bill, but a number of my hon. Friends feel that, if the House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal decision while the measure was going through this House or the other place, Parliament should reconsider its decision.
  Like others who have spoken in support of Second Reading, I, too, wish Canada and its people a peaceful and prosperous future.
  8. 25 pm
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: It does not look like it, but this is a historic occasion. The Lord Privy Seal said that this was a unique debate. I find it a relief to turn from domestic pre-occupations in these hard times to a grand Commonwealth constitutional occasion.
  Like others right hon. and learned Members and one of your predecessors in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I have Canadian kin. I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the admiration that we all feel for Canada. I also seize the opportunity to thank all those Canadians who have taken so much trouble to inform me of the problem. Through the months of controversy, many of us have grown closer to colleagues in all parties in the other House of Commons and the Senate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) spoke of the great anachronism of the British North America Act. I do not dislike all anachronisms or anomalies on principle. Among the mass of correspondence that I have received from Canada, there have been several letters from Canadians who are well satisfied with the arrangements under the Act. I doubt, however, whether there is an hon. Member who does not believe that it is time that Canadians were endowed with a constitution made in Canada by Canadians.
  The Lord Privy Seal said that the consent of nine out of 10 provinces was sufficient. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavillon (Mr. Amery) asked whether there was any precedent for this Parliament legislating changes in the Act affecting provincial rights without the unanimity of the provinces. The Lord Privy Seal referred to the case of British Columbia in 1907.
  I think that we should set the record straight. The British North America Act 1907 established a new scale of financial subsidies for the provinces in lieu of those that had existed previously. There had been a Dominion provincial conference, all nine provinces had been consulted and the amendment was made with the consent of all the provinces except British Columbia. The Act was passed by the British Parliament. However, the words "final and unalterable settlement", which were included in the original draft, were rejected here on the ground that they were inappropriate in a United Kingdom statute. This change met British Columbia's principal concern, so that in the end there was unanimity. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal only needed to turn to page xxxii of the first report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, so admirably presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), because the position is there set out.
  Also on the same page is a quotation from the Canadian White Paper of 1965:
  "In fact, in the 97 years that have elapsed since Confederation, no amendment has altered the powers of the provincial legislatures under section 92 of the British North America Act without the consent of all the provinces. This clearly reflects a basic and historic fact in Canadian constitutional affairs".
  Then we have to reckon with what the Supreme Court of Canada said:
  "No amendment changing provincial legislative powers has been made since Confederation, when agreement of a province whose legislative powers would have been changed was withheld. There are no exceptions."
  So much for precedent.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Stratfordon-Avon (Sir A. Maude) made the point that, while

  353
  Quebec is one province, it is not just a province. French Canada, the province of Quebec, include more than a quarter of the total population. They constitute—and this has been said by many hon. Members—one of two founding nations, its rights protected by our predecessors here. Incidentally, as a matter of history, its Roman Catholic people were granted full civil rights before the emancipation of the Irish and other Catholics of the United Kingdom.
  I have put my name to the reasoned amendment, which was so eloquently spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), but I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill. I shall do so less out of respect for the judgment and timing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office than out of regard for the sovereignty and dignity of Canada, which I respect so much. However, I must counsel delay at a further stage, not because I presume to say whether Quebec has the right to a veto, but because I think it prudent, proper and sensible to await the completion of the legal proceedings that the Government of the province of Quebec have undertaken. I do not want this House to become the excuse for or to attract the odium of the break-up of a great confederation which our forefathers helped to build upon the parliamentary principles that we practise in this place.
  8. 32 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: At the start, I should tell the House and, even in his absence, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that, with my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), I spent a few days in Quebec as the guest of the Quebec Government. I also had a balancing day, following that, with my own native people in Nova Scotia. I speak as someone who strongly opposed the original package which was to be put before us. It was, in the view of the Select Committee and of the Supreme Court of Canada, improper. It manifestly failed to have a substantial measure of provincial consent. The comments and reactions of the Prime Minister of Canada at that time, asking us to "hold our noses" and pass the legislation, were most unhelpful. Indeed, the advice given to the Government and to the Select Committee by Foreign Office officials was equally unhelpful in the consideration of this matter.
  It ought to go on record that it was the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—this is a tribute to the system of Select Committees—that fired the warning shots to the peoples and Government of Canada, indicating that the original package would not have been passed by the House and Parliament. If the members of the Select Committee had listened to what was being said by Government spokesmen at the time, they would have received the clear impression that anything that the Federal Government of Canada asked of the British Parliament would automatically be approved. That was clearly not the case.
  Thankfully, that package was withdrawn. The Supreme Court of Canada gave its judgment and the Federal Government rightly accepted it and went to a conference of First Ministers in Ottawa. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central and I had the great privilige of attending that conference. Many Canadian people who were there and many others in Canada had the feeling that the conference was to some extent a sham, that
  354
  the Prime Minister of Canada was going through the motions, that the talks would collapse and then he would shrug his shoulders in typical fashion and say that the provinces would never agree—of course, they would not. Then he would press on as originally planned and put the original package to us for our approval. But anyone who had been there would have been convinced, as we were, that they were real negotiations. There was give and take between the Federal Government and the provinces.
  At one time there was a clear indication that the conference would reach an agreement which would include Quebec but might not include the Western provinces, so it is clear that alternatives were being discussed. It had been thought that the conference might last for a day and a half, but it went on for nearly a week. At the end an agreement was thrashed out. No hon. Member should be unaware that real discussion and negotiation took place.
  However, two issues remain unresolved, and I wish to speak briefly about both. With my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central I visited Quebec, where we received unfailing courtesy. Hon. Members will have received a well-argued case advanced by Quebec. I have read with great care the most recent, second memorandum, sent this month.
  It is clear that Quebec is different from the other provinces, not simply because it is a founding province but because of its large French population and its different juridical system. When I heard the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Sir A. Maude) argue that case too far, I thought of my own country—Scotland—and the precedents that he might create in this country if he carried the argument too far.
  Notwithstanding the reasoned arguments advanced by Quebec and put forward on its behalf tonight, at the end of the day we must make a balanced judgment. On the one side, supporting patriation, are the Federal House of Commons and Senate of Canada, with the House of Commons including the Members from the province of Quebec, and nine of the 10 provinces of Canada. On the other side, there is the province of Quebec, or at least the Government of the province—a Government committed to separatism—who would always find it difficult to endorse a new federal constitution for Canada.
  If we agree, as I hope we shall, to enact the Bill, Canada will not have a static constitution. I hope that through its amending formula it can be changed, and I hope that there will be further discussions between the Federal Government and Quebec to try to resolve some of the outstanding issues.
  The other question concerns the rights of the aboriginal people, who include not only the Indians who have been referred to in all the speeches so far but the Inuit and Eskimo peoples. I have received correspondence on the matter, and when we were in Ottawa we spoke to representatives of the Inuit people. I understood that they accepted the proposed package and agreed with patriation.
  Mr. McNamara: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ironies of the situation is that the province of Quebec has been most generous to the Eskimo people in its James Bay provision, and that in some ways the Federal Government could regard that as a generous way of dealing with the aboriginal people?
  Mr. Foulkes: I do not dissent from, nor do I disagree with, what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South

  355
  (Mr. George) said earlier. My hon. Friend puts the case for the Indians passionately and with concern, and he has knowledge and understanding of their case. I have listened to him with great care, not only today but on many other occasions.
  On the all-party Select Committee considering the matter we heard a number of representations by Indian delegations from different provinces. They put the case very well. I have read carefully not just clause 25, which states that there will be no abrogation or derogation from treaty or other rights, but clause 35 on existing rights and the most important clause 37, which deals with the constitutional conference.
  The Select Committee said that the proper forum for discussion of the rights of the Indian peoples was the constitutional conference. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, I cannot dismiss the Federal Government of Canada and all the provincial governments as having no concern for the Indians; I cannot accept that all concern for them rests only with us. That is an arrogant assumption and grossly discourteous to the peoples and governments of Canada. I trust that the constitutional conference will give proper consideration to the rights of the Indian peoples.
  Does my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South believe that the Bill should be used as a lever to get more rights for the Indians? The run-up to patriation has achieved much for the native people, not just in publicity for their cause but also in writing things into the Bill. Would it now be proper for us to threaten or qualify, to hold up or even to block the Bill until specific action is taken on behalf of the natives? What would that specific action be? For which groups would it be? For the Métis? For the Indians? Which tribes of Indians will have the final veto before the Bill is enacted? That is a dangerous path for us to go down. There is a substantial guarantee for the rights of the native peoples in the Bill.
  In the view of the Select Committee, of which I am proud to be a member, this is a proper request from Canada. It satisfies the test of its own amending formula. To vote against the Bill on Second Reading would be to vote against a proper request from the House of Commons and Senate of Canada, supported by nine of the provinces. It would be to vote against a final act of decolonisation. We must support the Bill on Second Reading and end an unacceptable imperial anachronism by patriating to Canada its constitution and letting all future decisions regarding the government of Canada be made in the proper place—Canada.
  8. 43 pm
  Mr. Percy Grieve: I do not always find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), although we have many interests in common, but I say immediately that I am in complete agreement with everything that he has just said.
  In this debate and in considering the Bill we must take the broad and realistic approach. We must not allow ourselves to become legalistic. I am not suggesting that we should abandon the rule of law—far from it.
  Since 1931 the responsibility of what in those days would have been called the Imperial Parliament for the constitution of Canada has been an anomaly and an anachronism which we shouldered at the request of the Canadian people, the Federal Government and the Canadian provinces, because they could not reconcile the
  356
  differences which they foresaw arising over the years with regard to the respective powers of the federation and of the provinces.
  This is always a problem in a federation. In the United States of America, for two centuries there has been a pull and a tension between the powers of the states and the powers of the federation. Because the differences in Canada could not be reconciled in 1931, we continued to shoulder a responsibility which we voluntarily abandoned to all other countries of the Old Commonwealth and which we would have given to Canada had she wanted it. The time has now come when the federation has said enough is enough. It is asking Parliament to give it that full power over its affairs, which Australia and New Zealand already have and which South Africa had.
  A year and a half ago, when the matter was first mooted, it would not have been right immediately to accede to that request, because the provinces were still bitterly divided. However, that is no longer the case. All but one of the provinces are now agreed that we should give to Canada the power over its constitution. I shall not say "Give back". We have become bogged down with words such as patriation and repatriation, which are rather horrid inventions to meet the case. However, we have been asked to give Canada the ultimate power over its affairs that a sovereign State should have. We face two difficulties. The first is Quebec and the second is the case that has been made out by representatives of the Indian communities. I have had the honour to meet most of the delegations that have been in London during the past two to three months.
  As to Quebec, the position would appear to be that one province says that Britain should keep the residual power while the other nine provinces go along with the Government of the Dominion of Canada. My right hon Friend the Lord Privy Seal said in his opening speech that it would be contrary to precedent for our Parliament—the matter resides not only with the House of Commons but must be decided by the Queen and Parliament in the end—to give Canada the right to have control over its affairs. Because one province, in a special position, is holding out, we should not say "No" in complete disregard of the precedents that have been set in every case that has come before Parliament since the British North America Act 1867. For that reason the Bill will have my full support. I hope that it will have the support of most of my right hon. and hon. Friends and of many right hon. and hon. Opposition Members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) made a strong speech on behalf of the Indian communities. The Queen is advised in Canada by the Prime Minister of Canada. She is not advised by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the rights of the Indian communities in Canada must be affected in Parliament by the advice given to the Queen by the Prime Minister of Canada. It does not matter a whit that the ultimate sovereignty is now being transferred to Canada from the United Kingdom Parliament.
  Mr. English: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I should not like Hansard to record a constitutional inaccuracy. I am sure that he will appreciate that the Queen is advised by the Cabinet of Canada or of the United Kingdom, and not by their Prime Ministers.
  Mr. Grieve: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for arty ellipticity in my speech. I do not believe that I was

  357
  misleading the House, and I am sure that the House knows perfectly well what I meant. The hon. Gentleman's intervention has not greatly assisted the debate.
  I have the utmost respect for the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I always listen with great interest and respect to the views that he expresses in this Chamber. His views never lack cogency or persuasion. However, in my view he is wrong to suggest that we should vote against the Bill because, as he says—I hope that I understood his meaning, and no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong—we are being asked to give Canada a constitution which Canada should really make for herself. May I say, first, that Canada has made this constitution for herself. The constitution comes to us from Canada as an Act of the Canadian Parliament, which it has asked Her Majesty the Queen in Parliament in this country to enact.
  Sir Bernard Braine: It is not a demand.
  Mr. Grieve: I did not use the word "demand". Far be it from me to use any such word. It is a request.
  The second point is that, within the constitution that we are asked to give Canada at her request, there is the procedure for amending that constitution. It is true that, in most cases where a federal constitution has been enacted or propounded and agreed, it has been done within the federation by a process of consensus, a constitutional council or a committee, and so on. There is no reason why it should not be done in the way that has been suggested by the Canadian Government, with the consent now of nine of the Canadian provinces and which, within itself, has the means of amending that constitution.
  I shall not waste time at this late hour by reading the particular passage, but it is contained in articles 38, 39, and so on, of the proposed Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under the heading
  "Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada".
  Therefore, the objection of the right hon. Member for Down, South to the Bill is fallacious. Having said that, and having replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East, I wholly support the Bill, for the reasons that I have given.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Front Bench has agreed not to start the winding up until 9. 20 pm. I hope, therefore, to call at least three or four hon. Members before then.
  8. 54 pm
  Mr. David Ennals: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks, for reasons of time. I hope, too, that the House will understand if I deal with only one issue, and that is the question of the Indians and the protection of their rights. In this connection I associate myself almost completely with what was said by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George).
  The hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) said that the treaty rights of Indians are not properly protected in the Bill. That is so. I believe that that alone is enough of a reason for the Bill not to be passed at this stage.
  I join in the criticism of the Government for bringing the Bill before the House when there are legal proceedings under way, not only in Canada, but in Britain. I do not
  358
  believe that there is a need to rush the measure through. I hope that plenty of time will be given between the Second Reading and the Committee stage.
  It would be easier for all of us to wash our hands of the whole affair and let the Canadian Government have what they want, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said. Although I have no doubt that the Bill will go through the House, I hope that what is said today and what will be said in Committee will be listened to with respect in Ottawa and throughout Canada. I hope also that before Royal Assent is given some action will be taken or a statement will be made by Prime Minister Trudeau and his Ministers to respond to the deeply held convictions that have been expressed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Frankly, I believe that it is not good enough that the Bill has been prepared without consultation with the Indian nations. It is easy to say that they are only a minority. All right, they are just a minority, but the tradition of the House is to preserve the interests of minorities. We are asked to approve a new Canadian constitution with a detailed charter of rights and freedoms when we know that those whose rights the charter claims to protect are deeply sceptical about whether their rights will be protected. I believe that we should satisfy ourselves, and not only them, as they will not all be satisfied. The Canadian Prime Minister and the Government can do much more than they have done to satisfy the real concern of the Indian peoples.
  The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) referred to some of the Indians' concerns about the White Paper on Indian policy in 1969, which would affect their special constitutional status. He referred to the danger of the expropriation of Indian lands, the importance that Indians attach to Indian hunting, tracking, fishing rights and so on, to the preservation of their cultural traditions and history and their own form of government.
  In other parts of the world, too often we have seen proud peoples with proud traditions and cultures being forced into a common mould because there was not enough protection for them. If we look at the Indians in the United States, we can see exactly what I am talking about.
  Mr. Foulkes: What about the Irish?
  Mr. Ennals: I want to preserve the rights of all minority people, with their own languages, so that they can feel safe in the country in which they are proud to be.
  When I have heard representations by Canadian Indians in London, I have heard none of them say that they want to break up the federation or that they do not want to be Canadian. However, I have heard every one of them say that they want to be Indian and that they want to preserve their nationhood. It is difficult to understand why in the charter there is the requirement for a constitutional conference to be held within a year. I wonder why that has not been done before and why there has not already been a definition of the rights of the Indian nations that are to be preserved at the constitutional conference.
  If that were done, and if the Canadian Prime Minister and the Canadian Government were to set out carefully and after consultation with the Indians just what rights they will protect, that would help. It is no good merely saying that the existing rights will be protected. Many Indians are not satisfied with some of their present rights. Many of them do not know what are the intentions of the Canadian Government. The House is the last place to which they can come to make their representations.

  359
  Why have men with great dignity presented their case proudly and sincerely to us over many months? It is because they feel and care for their own Indian nationhood, their traditions and their culture, not just their standard of living. Of course they care about their standard of living, but it is for their nationhood, as a part of Canada, that they care most.
  My plea is that what has been said by others better qualified and more eloquent than I will not only be heard in Ottawa, but will be acted upon by the Canadian Government. I hope that what has been said will be publicised and that when the constitution is, as it must be, patriated to Canada, it will be done at a time when the Indians themselves feel that their rights are safe and that the trust that they have in the Crown and Parliament can still be put in the Crown and Government in Canada.
  At this stage, without the necessary assurances, and with all the uncertainties for the Indian population, I cannot vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
  9. 1 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am especially pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. I broadly welcome the Bill, but I shall concentrate my remarks on an area in which I have particular knowledge and concern.
  When I stood for selection for a parliamentary seat, I included in my curriculum vitae the fact that I had been a teacher on a remote Indian reservation in British Columbia. I listed it, as do most of us at that stage of our political careers, in the hope that that experience would help my application to end up higher rather than lower in the pile. Neither I nor my selectors ever expected that that experience would be so directly relevant to my work in the House.
  The time that I spent at Aiyansh on the Nass river in British Columbia among the Nishga Indians was happy and fulfilling. I can speak now with some authority, understanding and certain warmth not only for the Indians whom I knew, but for all those Canadians who are truly native horn.
  The House, in its discussions on the Bill, should give special consideration to how the rights of the Indian peoples can best be safeguarded. The Indians of the Inuit and Métis nations are minority groups still living uneasily with modern Canada. Consideration of their position today takes us back a quantum leap in time to the very root of British North America. In their eyes, their ties with the British Crown and Parliament have always been of a special kind. That is what the treaties mean to them.
  The House has a responsibility—it may be an uncomfortable one—to act with care before that link is broken. As has happened many times before, we debate and decide with history at our shoulder. Canada's economic progress—fast, inexorable and continually reaching further into the wild land—is inevitably, as the Indians see it, a threat to the Indian way of life. However, they appreciate that it is also an opportunity.
  The Indian way of life is, to a degree, Westernised. Many Indian bands and individuals are, to an extent, adjusted to and earning from the normal Canadian economy. But let us make no mistake about it. There is a strong Indian identity and an increasing Indian population. The Department of Indian Affairs estimates that four centuries ago the Canadian Indians numbered 250, 000. By 1900, the number had dwindled to 100, 000.
  360
  Now the number of registered Indians is once again 250, 000 or more, and there are 1 million of Indian descent. In the bands, which is the description used for an Indian community, 75 per cent. of the population are under 21 years of age. Thus, they are not a dying race but an increasingly articulate, vigorous and growing part of Canada's population.
  I wish to take up two points made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in his constructive and balanced references to the concerns of the aboriginal peoples. I, too, confirm that it is now clear to me that after much discussion and some conflicting views the two main concerns of the aboriginal peoples centre first, on the description "existing aboriginal…rights" in clause 35, and, secondly, on the lack of any adequate method for representation of their views to and with the Canadian Government.
  The political championing of Indian rights is, to say the least, not a generally popular cause in Canada. I therefore hope that the Canadian Government will decide to give firmer assurances on those two points while the Bill is still before the British Parliament.
  In response to your direction, Mr. Speaker, I have much shortened what I wished to say. Throughout the world today, Governments and citizens are at last waking up to the responsibilities of majorities towards the rights of minorities and to the benefits of preserving and nurturing native cultures. Canada already has a great tradition of supporting human rights on the world stage. I hope that she will not now, nor ever in future, forget that she, too, has a great responsibility at home for her own original native population.
  I shall abstain in the Division tonight, not in anger against the Bill or in insult to the undoubted sovereignty of an old dominion, but in sympathetic hope for the future well-being of the Canadian with whom I spent good days and whose way of life I still admire.
  9. 8 pm
  Mr. Michael English: I find this an occasion of almost infinite sadness. It is almost exactly—there is one year to go—200 years since a British Prime Minister had to come before the House to ask it to ratify the treaty which gave the United States of America the independence for which it had fought. Many people in what is now the United States had fought on the side of what is now the United Kingdom, and many of them then migrated to Canada which has remained with Britain from that time to this.
  We do not need to argue about the causes and reasons for the Bill. It was decided by the Canadians in 1931, and the necessary clause was drafted in Canada then by all the provinces and the Federal Government.
  I shall vote, reluctantly, in favour of the Bill. But it is still a matter of sadness to me and, I hope, to everyone in the House—partly for historic reasons.
  I believe I speak for both sides of the House in saying that the way in which the Federal Government of Canada originally assumed that this Parliament was a rubber stamp is objectionable. We are not. When the majority of provinces in Canada disagreed with their Federal Government, the Canadian press said that the Bill would automatically go through the House of Commons in a couple of days, whatever the Federal Government

  361
  decided. We were placed in the position of trustees, not by our own will, but by the provinces of Canada and the Federal Government in 1931.
  The analogy that I have used on previous occasions is that Canada has a wall. On one side there is a large garden, which I call the federal part. On the other side there are 10 small, attractive gardens. Since 1949, we have had only the keys to the doors in the wall—nothing else. The provinces in Canada have the power to amend the Canadian constitution in respect of each separate province. The Federal Government, at least since 1949, has the power to amend the Canadian constitution on federal matters. All that the Bill should be about is the keys to the 10 doors in the wall between the 11 gardens.
  We are supposed to make a decision, but we have been presented with the nasty proposition that we are to legislate, so to speak, at the last gasp. We have to make a decision for Canada and embed it in the Canadian constitution as if it were the American constitution where an alternation can only be made with the assent of three-quarters of the States. We should never have been placed in that position, but, given that we were, it was wrong and improper of the Federal Government of Canada to suggest that we would automatically agree with what they suggested. The Third Report of the Select Committee pointed out—I shall not go into detail—that the Foreign Office more or less assented.
  I asked the right hon. Gentleman why he did not comment on that earlier. He should have done so. We are not a rubber stamp. A Parliament that has been in existence for more than 700 years is hardly likely to be a rubber stamp. The Foreign Office has been in existence for a somewhat shorter time and has been known to be a rubber stamp. I 'know that the right hon. Gentleman is only the second Cabinet Minister in his Department, but he should have made the point in his opening speech and answered the intervention which I made. I am surprised he did not. He said that he was not going to do so.
  It is wrong for a Department of State improperly to advise its Minister—under whatever Government. If Ministers are improperly advised, that is a matter for investigation. There is something wrong in a system of government where wrong advice is given, publicised, and statements made. I do not blame Ministers under successive Governments. They probably believed what they were saying, but it was wrong. They were told by someone what to say.
  What is basically wrong with our whole system of Government is that improper and incorrect advice can be given and a Cabinet Minister can come before the House, as the right hon. Gentleman did today, and say that he is not going to comment. I think that he should. I accept that it was not to the right hon. Gentleman's own Government that this advice was given, but if we have a system of government at all, the people in it at this moment in time must surely be responsible for the advice given to their predecessors; otherwise Ministers are liable to be misinformed for ever after.
  I do not propose to talk about what might be regarded as Committee points. I am grateful that there may be Committee points. I speak little French, but I regard this—language—as a serious issue. At a later stage I hope to be able to say that I have a deep regret that the Quebecois were not carried with the rest of Canada about
  362
  this Bill. This is not the time to do so. I shall vote for the Bill—I believe that the majority of the House of Commons will—but I think that in some ways we shall regret it.
  We would willingly have voted for the repeal of section 7 of the Statute of Westminster. After all, that section was written in Canada, and not by us. I do not think that any of us is willingly voting for the introduction into Canadian law of things that we have not thought of ourselves.
  9. 17 pm
  Mr. Richard Body: Minutes are precious, and I know that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument.
  Not for the first time, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has pointed the House in the right direction. Far better that we should renounce all such powers we might have under the British North America Acts and say to the people of Canada "This is 1982, and the year is long since passed when we had any business interfering with the constitution of Canada."
  The other objection to the Bill is that it seems to place the House in an intolerable dilemma. To slight or offend the people of Canada is our furthermost desire. All of us have too much respect and affection for Canada to do that. The Bill invites us to approve a charter of rights, certain parts of which refer specifically to the rights of the first nations or Indian peoples.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has shown clearly and cogently how certain parts of that charter offend and infringe two international agreements to which we are signatories—article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 1 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
  Some of us may not wish to be signatories to those two agreements, but we are bound by them. So long as we choose to be fettered by those covenants, they remain shackles upon the House and we should recoil from any legislation that infringes upon them. To do otherwise would be dishonourable—even disreputable. It is, of course, true that Canada is also a signatory to both agreements, but whether she decides to infringe them is not a matter for us. Two wrongs cannot make a right.
  The Indian nations are justified in questioning the bona fides of the Canadian Prime Minister. I say that with great regret. As long ago as 1969, he spoke in Vancouver about the need to bring to an end the historic treaty rights of the Indian peoples and spoke of how in due course those rights must be extinguished. He refuses even now to sit at the conference table to discuss and define what those rights are. He will not do so until the new constitution of Canada is established, and at that stage he will have the power to override the Indians.
  That is our dilemma. We do not wish to offend Canada, but if we pass the Bill in its present form we shall infringe two international agreements and at the same time disregard the rights of the Indian nations given under 83 treaties between them and the British Sovereign. For that reason, I shall find it difficult to support the Bill.
  9. 20 pm
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I make my maiden speech as a spokesman on foreign affairs in what has been a remarkable debate by any standards. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken

  363
  with considerable knowledge. We have heard speeches from the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), who chaired the Foreign Affairs Committee with distinction, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the former Prime Minister, who made a powerful and moving speech, and from other right hon. and hon. Members who have served this country with distinction. Other hon. Members have spoken with expertise, including the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson).
  Faced with that backcloth, I am forced to take comfort in an advertisement that I saw in a magazine not long ago, which read:
  "Wanted: man to work on nuclear fissionable isotope, molecular reactive counters and three-phase cyclotronic uranium photosynthesisers. No experience necessary".
  It is in that regard that I am highly qualified to participate in the debate.
  I declare my interest at once, because I was the guest of the Indian Association of Alberta during the Christmas Recess. I am glad that I was its guest. I was enabled to visit Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario and to have discussions with many Indians.
  The arguments today have centred on three main themes. The first is that it is extraordinary that we should be debating this matter at all and that it is a quirk of history. Associated with that is our fellow-feeling towards the Canadian Government and the Canadian people and our wish not to do anything to cause them offence. The second theme is the position of Quebec, and the third is the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. We should remember that, whether we have been in Canada for 10 days—I could not claim to be an expert, because I should have needed another afternoon to achieve that—or whether we have worked on the reserves, we are not living there now. We are not the experts. We are not the people who have to face the burdens, responsibilities and deprivations.
  Therefore, the Opposition recommend that the House should vote in favour of the patriation of the Canadian constitution. We genuinely wish the Canadian people well in this enterprise, but we cannot and would not wish to hide the fact that we approach the Bill with certain misgivings and qualifications. The misgivings are about the Government's determination to push ahead with the Bill at this stage, without waiting for a final determination of the legal issues before the House of Lords, which could be determined in a very short time. Their position, having regard to the stand that they took with the Court of Appeal, is utterly illogical.
  We have misgivings about the pressures to which the Government have been subjected by the Federal Government of Canada. There is no doubt that there is a feeling in the House that we are expected to rubber-stamp the Bill and to do no more than that.
  We have misgivings about the fact that the Indian peoples have not been parties to the consultations that have taken place. They have not even been asked to give their consent to the proposals.
  As I have said, it was my privilege during the Christmas Recess to visit Canada. I had the opportunity to have a long discussion with Mr. Chrétien while I was there and, more recently, with him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), He argued characteristically, forcefully and passionately that his Government had good will towards the aboriginal peoples.
  364
  He specified the help that was available, and his resolve was clear that the basic rights that they are asserting should not be subverted.
  I met also Federal Government officials and members of our sister party, the NDP, at both federal and provincial levels. I was able to hear at first hand on my visits to Indian reserves, and while meeting members of Indian bands and tribal councils in Alberta and British Columbia, some of the anxieties, doubts and suspicions of which we have heard something today, about the intentions and the good faith, in their eyes, of the Federal and, perhaps even more particularly, the provincial Governments.
  I heard their doubts about the motivations of those Governments in their constitutional proposals and their long-term objectives for the Indian peoples. I was able, too, to see at first hand something of the conditions on some of the reserves. I was made aware of the devastating unemployment that stalks the Indian peoples, impoverished housing conditions, problems with drink and drugs, their sense of alienation and their strong sense of religious devotion, which perhaps goes to the heart of their way of life and their claims for a special status.
  It was argued by some that whatever may be the situation of the Indians it should be no concern of this House. I concede that ultimately, after patriation, the task of reconciliation will be, as in practice it has been for many years, the burden of all the Canadian people in Canada. It cannot be otherwise.
  If injustices have been perpetrated, and if the Canadian Indians have a sense of grievance, I submit that we have a duty to consider them and to articulate their grievances as long as we are required to adjudicate on the Bill. If their voice has not been heard properly in Canada, as it is claimed by them, it is right that it should be heard in the House of Commons, as it has been today. Whether it is right to divide the House on various amendments that may be tabled is a matter of political judgment. Our judgment now is that it would be preferable to discuss these matters, but not to divide the House.
  I and others expressed that view as friends of the Federal Government, whose record on international human rights is exceptionally good, and as friends of the Canadian people as a whole. Our wish is to do our best to enable redress to be provided if wrong has been done. In the constitutional talks which are to follow patriation, the views and the criticisms expressed in the House will be of assistance in the resolution of the complex problems which have bedevilled Indian-white relations in Canada for so long. I cannot believe that such discussions can damage those interests.
  We all want to see a just charter of rights and freedoms enacted and, above all, practised. We want to see a just method of amending the constitution of Canada. We want to ensure that the 1763 proclamation and all that it stands for is indelibly accepted. We want all Canadians to share in the pride of the accomplishment of patriation of the Canadian constitution. Would it not be sad in the extreme if one group of Canadians were to consider that they had been excluded from that process?
  Whatever arguments there may be about Quebec, it cannot be said that Quebec was excluded from the discussions and consultations. During my discussions in Canada, even the most ardent supporters of the constitutional proposals conceded that the history of Indian-white relations has been sadly chequered. There can scarcely be a shred of doubt about that.

  365
  The Indian peoples were in Canada long before the European settlers. They did not seek to impose their way of life on the Europeans. Indeed, they welcomed them. They allowed them to live in a wholly different culture. They fought side by side with White Canadians on many occasions, not least in the two world wars that we have bitterly experienced this century.
  Many would concede that in many instances an unequal bargain was struck when the dominant culture pushed its way across the vast land of Canada and the old culture had to respond to that new influence. In essence, the generous attitude displayed by the Indians was scarcely reciprocated. The Indian Act was exceptionally paternalistic. It relegated Indians to reserves—mostly small parcels of land. Today there are approximately 2, 200 parcels of reserved land. It was land of apparently little or no value, but when it was found to be valuable, there were few compunctions about evicting the Indians, expropriating their land and trampling on their rights. The Indians had no right to vote or participate in Government until 1960. They had no provincial voting rights until 1969. They had none of the rights that white Canadians had taken for granted for years.
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James rose—
  Mr. Davis: I have deliberately given up a considerable amount of time. If I have time, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Is it surprising that the Indians are fighting to have their rights entrenched beyond any doubt in the constitution? They fear that the constitution will remove historic constitutional protections and that it will give power to Federal and provincial Governments to extinguish Indian rights. Their fear is that, in accordance with previous precedents, Federal Governments will move to eliminate gradually the special constitutional status of the Indian nations. That could lead to the extinction of their rights to land, hunting, trapping and fishing and to the erosion of their languages, social systems and religious beliefs. Those are the fears that they vividly expressed to me.
  If the Indians are wrong—I hope fervently that they are—it would be enormously helpful if, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, East and for Cardiff, South-East said, the Canadian Government were to demonstrate that those beliefs are wrong.
  I hope that the Canadian Government will take the opportunity to do that before we complete our deliberations on the Bill. It is not enough simply to say that those anxieties are misplaced or groundless. The Canadian Government must say that the consultations will be real. It is not just a question of complying with the letter of the proposals.
  Why were the Indians not consulted before? Would it not have been preferable if that had been done? What happened? Initially, nothing was said in the proposals about the recognition of aboriginal and treaty rights. Then, at the instance of the New Democratic Party, provisions similar to those in clause 35 were inserted, except that there was no reference to the word "existing". The provision was then deleted altogether as being unacceptable to most of the provincial Prime Ministers.
  As the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) said, that caused massive indignation. Miraculously, a solution was found that was acceptable
  366
  even to the most hostile provincial Prime Ministers. Lo and behold the word "existing" was found. Canada's Minister of Justice said that that word was entirely meaningless.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East pointed out that if the word is meaningless there is no reason for importing it and it should be deleted. If it is not meaningless, why has it been included? Can it be that the word "existing" would limit the rights and that there would be no recognition of cultural or religious rights or of language? Those rights are not now recognised by the Federal or provincial Governments, so how can they exist in future?
  Can the word "existing" limit aboriginal rights? The Indians do not forget the words of Prime Minister Trudeau, which have been quoted repeatedly in the House. In British Columbia, the present Attorney-General stated affirmatively that the provincial Government did not recognise aboriginal rights. At best, the federal position has recently changed from a positive "No" to an equivocal "Maybe". However, that is not true of the provincial Governments.
  Mr. Rhodes James: Would the hon. Gentleman not describe his speech as gross interference in the internal affairs of another country?
  Mr. Davis: No, I would not. Is it wrong to criticise the situation in El Salvador or South Africa? Fears are being expressed and I do not accept that it is gross interference to criticise. My view is shared by many of the senior Members who have spoken in the debate. The Indian peoples are suspicious. Their claim is not for secession or independence, but for special status as the first citizens of Canada and for a degree of self-government.
  We shall debate clauses 25, 37 and so on later and I shall say no more about them now. It is hard for us, inured in the workings of a modern technological society, to understand that many of the Indian peoples still require hunting, fishing and trapping rights simply to survive. Indeed, I am sure that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, who was a teacher on a reserve, will bear that out. About 90 per cent. of the Indian population on some reserves are unemployed.
  The White Paper published in 1969 proposed the assimilation of the Indian peoples and was fiercely rejected and resented. It has sullied the atmosphere in Canada for the Indians. I hope that these matters can be swept aside. I hope that the constitution will build a bridge of comprehension between the peoples of two different worlds. The feelings that have been expressed by the Indian peoples—their reserves, qualifications and anxieties—must be taken into account by the House. However, we should take them into account as friends of the Canadian peoples. I resent the view that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) uncharacteristically expressed. I have heard him express opinions about other countries, and I dislike the view that we should hesitate to say anything about such matters.
  The Indian peoples want to share the resources of Canada so that all will benefit. Obviously whites and Indians must live together in Canada. We want the aspirations expressed by the Canadian Government from time to time about the desire to see them living together harmoniously fulfilled. Therefore, a way to get them to live together with dignity must be found. The House

  367
  expressed its feelings with dignity today. We wish to assist the Canadian Government along the path that they have chosen and make it acceptable to all the Indian peoples.
  9. 41 pm
  Mr. Richard Luce: If the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) does not regard my comments as patronising, I congratulate him on making a maiden speech from the Opposition Front Bench as a spokesman on foreign affairs. I shall reflect on some of our differences in approach to the subject. The hon. Gentleman said that he was not an expert on Canada, but I assure him that the House listened with great interest, as he recently visited that country.
  There is no doubt that this has been not only a significant but an historic debate. Sticking my neck out, I believe that on this, unlike many other occasions, the House has risen to the occasion. We have had not only a great variety of speeches, but forceful and moving speeches. The right hon. Members for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) both made moving and impressive speeches supporting Second Reading on what one can only describe as an exceptional occasion.
  After all, we are dealing with an unusual constitutional relationship between two countries which have, first, the closest of ties. As my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said, some 40 per cent. of the Canadian population are of British origin. We have long historical associations. Secondly, we are both members of NATO and equal partners in the Commonwealth. We have both been allies in times of war.
  Tonight's debate concerns the termination of this unusual aspect in our relationship. I use the word "unusual" again, but I noted during the debate that the word "anachronistic" frequently featured. That word might also accurately describe the matter.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), who dealt with these responsibilities in former days, implied that in considering the Bill we must be very careful not to put ourselves in the position where we are charged by Canadian people with being "neo-colonialists". It is fair to say that there is a big difference between this Bill and the normal sort of independence Bills passing through the House. Whatever the differing views expressed this evening, we would come to a common view on that distinction.
  As we see it, we are not here to determine whether the conditions are right within Canada to proceed to a new form of independence. We are debating a very unusual situation and we surely must keep our sights, therefore, on the main and salient points.
  First, we are responding to a request by the Federal Parliament and Government to return, if one may use this expression, our residual constitutional responsibilities to Canada where they belong, in line with our obligations under the Statute of Westminster 1931. In other words, as my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said earlier and as was strongly urged by the Foreign Affairs Committee, it is only at the request and with the consent of that Dominion.
  We are responding to the request against the background of a close and important relationship between our two countries. We must remember, too, that the Federal Parliament passed the resolution by substantial majorities. In the House of Commons it was 246 to 24. I
  368
  reinforce what the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said. Out of 75 Quebec Members in the House of Commons, 72 supported the resolution. The proposal has substantial support in the provinces. Although Quebec is important and significant, no one can deny that nine out of 10 provinces supporting the proposal is a substantial measure of support.
  We must also consider the strong endorsement by the Foreign Affairs Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), who was Chairman of the Committee, spoke lucidly and clearly. He was supported by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), who is also a member of the Committee. They strongly support our view.
  Strong views have been expressed on two aspects. The first concerns the Indian and aboriginal people. We all know that my hon. Friend the Member for Essex. South-East (Sir B. Braine) has strong and passionate views about human and minority rights. The first time that I met him was when I was a student and he asked me to the House to discuss the Somalis living in Kenya. It made an impression on me that an hon. Member was prepared to listen to anyone outside Parliament. I remember his kindness. We respect my hon. Friend for his strong views.
  We also respect the strong and passionate views expressed by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), who has great experience of working with the Indian and aboriginal people in Canada, my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) and the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). But it is the Queen in right of Canada, as opposed to the Queen in right of the United Kingdom, who has the ultimate responsibility. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central spoke strongly after his recent visit. But whatever feelings and experience we have, the Government believe that it is not for them to make a judgment. It is for the Canadian Government and people to make a judgment and to do their best for the Indian and aboriginal people. That view is strongly endorsed by the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have a shrewd suspicion that the Canadian Government are observing the debate and will have noted the views on this and other matters.
  The other issue which has caused a great deal of interest and anxiety is that of Quebec. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal described at the beginning our position on Quebec. There is no doubt that we feel that we are conforming with the "request and consent" provisions of the Statute of Westminster, which have a substantial measure of consent. Of course, as the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said, it would be very good news if progress could be made and a reconciliation obtained between Quebec and the rest of Canada. All Members of the House must earnestly wish that happen.
  However, I feel bound at this stage to respond to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Sir A. Maude) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) on a very specific point about Quebec. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon asked what would be the position if, as a result of the Quebec proceedings, the Canadian Supreme Court subsequently found the resolution of the Federal Parliament to have been unconstitutionally adopted; and I think I should attempt to answer that, although my hon. Friend the Member for

  369
  Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) gave a most lucid and splendid explanation of the position. I will, however, put the British Government's viewpoint.
  In the light of the Canadian Supreme Court's judgment of 28 September 1981, this question seems very unlikely to arise in practice, but even in the hypothetical event of the Supreme Court's subsequently finding the resolution to have been unconstitutionally adopted, that would have no effect on the operation of the present Bill, once it had become an Act of this Parliament as part of the law of the United Kingdom. Whether it would have any effect on the operation of the Act as part of the law of Canada is, of course, a question of Canadian law, not United Kingdom law, and it is not something on which I should express an opinion here; it is a matter which, in the last resort, might have to be decided by the Canadian courts, the consequences of which, if any, might have to be resolved by the Canadian Government and Parliament.
  It is that Government and Parliament that have requested us in these circumstances to proceed with the Bill, and the Government do not think that it would be right to do anything other than act in accordance with that request.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I respectfully suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that the answer to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratfordon-Avon (Sir A. Maude) is really quite easy. The Act of Parliament here would not be invalidated as a matter of English law. On the other hand, under the ordinary operations of the Federal constitution, the resolution of the Canadian Parliament would be ultra vires and consequently in Canada the new constitution would be illegal. That would be very unfortunate. That is certainly the answer.
  Mr. Luce: Perhaps I should immediately respond by saying to my right hon. and learned Friend that I am not a lawyer. It would not be wise for me to embark on a disputation with him on the remarks he has just made, save to say that I have just stated the British Government's position and I should like to stick to that.
  Whilst we are on the important subject of Quebec, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), who was until recently a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and, therefore, has studied this whole question very carefully, talked about the grievance of the people of Quebec. The anxieties of the people of Quebec have been expressed on their behalf by many hon. Members today, but if we failed to pass the Bill what would be the sense of grievance felt not only by the Federal Government but by the Federal Parliament and nine out of the 10 provinces? Apart from our feelings of obligation under the Statute of Westminster, that is a matter that it is our duty to weigh up and consider very carefully.
  A number of hon. Members spoke about the court cases. The Government have been asked why we did not wait for the completion of the two court cases which have been the main strand of the debate on that matter—the Quebec case and the Indian case here, which went up to the Court of Appeal. Perhaps the reason why I am standing here, and not someone else, is that we believe that it is a political judgment that we must make at the end of the day. It is true that as regards Quebec the Canadian Government
  370
  waited for the Supreme Court to express its views before putting their proposals to Parliament, and Quebec put its case in those proceedings. But the subsequent case, which is before the Quebec court, went there after the Canadian Parliament had decided to put its request to us.
  In addition, as my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said, as regards the Indians, we waited until the Court of Appeal had expressed its views. It has unanimously made it clear that the obligations towards the Indians lie in the hands of the Crown in the right of Canada as opposed to the Crown in the right of the United Kingdom.
  Apart from the consideration of the possible length of the proceedings, the most important judgment is political. We must be responsive to the request of the Canadian Parliament and Government. I again refer to the Statute of Westminster. We attach great importance to our relations with Canada. We have not rushed into the Bill, as the request was received on 9 December. Our balanced judgment is that it is our duty to respond with reasonable speed, and that is precisely what we are doing.
  I have tried to answer the main points in the debate. The British Parliament has received a duly presented request for enactment of a Bill concerning the Canadian constitution. It is in accordance with longstanding convention that we respond to that request, in accordance also with the traditional pattern of our relations with Canada, which is a close Commonwealth friend.
  The particular request before us is a very special one. The Bill is of special importance because it envisages the final transfer to Canada of the right to amend the Canadian constitution, and will provide Canada with a new constitution. Hon. Members will be aware of the intensive discussions and negotiations in Canada which led up to the presentation of the request for the Bill. I do not need to remind the House that the Canadian people will be paying the greatest attention to the debate and will be aware of its great significance.
  The main consideration is that we have received a request and that we are asked to act on it. I must ask hon. Members to consider the position that would arise if we did not respond by passing the Bill. That could give many Canadians the impression that we think we know better than they what is good for Canada. I am sure that hon. Members will weigh those considerations very carefully. I therefore invite hon. Members to support the Bill and so finally remove an anachronism from our relationship with the friendly country of Canada.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 334, Noes 44.

  Division No. 70]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Beith, A. J.

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Alexander, Richard

  Bendall, Vivian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Alton, David

  Benyon, W.(Buckingham)

  Ancram, Michael

  Best, Keith

  Anderson, Donald

  Biggs-Davison. Sir John

  Arnold. Tom

  Blackburn, John

  Aspinwall. Jack

  Blaker, Peter

  Atkins, RtHonH.(S'thorne)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Atkinson, David(B 'm 'th, E)

  Boscawen, HonRobert

  Atkinson, N(H. 'gey,)

  Bottomley, Peter(W'wichW)

  Baker, Kenneth(St. M'bone)

  Boyson. DrRhodes

  Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)

  Bright, Graham

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Brinton, Tim

  371

  Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

  Grieve, Percy

  Brocklebank-Fowler. C.

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N);

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Grylls, Michael

  Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)

  Gummer. John Selwyn

  Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Bruce-Gardyne. John

  Hamilton, James(Bothwell)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hamilton, W. W.(C'tralFife)

  Buck, Antony

  Hannam, John

  Budgen, Nick

  Harrison, RtHonWalter

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Butcher, John

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Hawkins. Paul

  Callaghan. RtHonJ.

  Hawksley, Warren

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Carlisle, John(Luton West)

  Haynes, Frank

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M.(R'c'n)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cartwright, John

  Heath, RtHon Edward

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Heddle. John

  Clark, Hon A.(Plym'th. S'n)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Clark, Dr David(S Shields)

  Henderson, Barry

  Clarke, Kennelh(Rushcliffe)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stolS)

  Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)

  Cope, John

  Hogg, N.(EDunb't'nshire)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Holland, Philip(Carlton)

  Costain. SirAlbert

  HomeRobertson, John

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Homewood, William

  Critchley, Julian

  Hooley, Frank

  Cryer, Bob

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cunningham, G.(lslingtonS)

  Howell, RtHon D. (G'ldf'd)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Howell, Ralph(NNorfolk)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Howells, Geraint

  Davis, Clinton(Hackney C)

  Hunt, David(Wirral)

  Davis, Terry(B'ham, Stechf'd)

  Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

  Deakins, Eric

  Hurd, HonDouglas

  Dean, Joseph(Leeds West)

  Janner. HonGreville

  Dean, Paul(NorthSomerset)

  Jenkin, RtHon Patrick

  Dormand. Jack

  John. Brynmor

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Johnson, James(Hull West)

  Douglas, Dick

  JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

  Johnston, HusseW(lnverness)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Jopling. RtHonMichael

  Dubs, Alfred

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Dunn, James A.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

  Kershaw. SirAnthony

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Kilfedder. JamesA.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kimball. SirMarcus

  Edwards, RtHon N.(P'broke)

  King, RtHon Tom

  Eggar. Tim

  Kitson. SirTimothy

  Ellis, Tom(Wrexham)

  Knight, MrsJill

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lamont, Norman

  English, Michael

  Lang, Ian

  Evans, loan(Aberdare)

  Latham, Michael

  Evans, John(Newton)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Ewing, Harry

  Lee, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  LeMarchant, Spencer

  Fairgrieve. SirRussell

  Lennox-Boyd. HonMark

  Faith, MrsSheila

  Lester, Jim(Beeston)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland)

  Finsberg. Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Ian(HavantS W'loo)

  Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)

  Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Loveridge. John

  Foot, RtHon Michael

  Luce, Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Foulkes, George

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Macfarlane. Neil

  Fraser, Peter(South Angus)

  MacGregor. John

  Freeson, RtHon Reginald

  MacKay, John(Argyll)

  Gardiner. George(Reigate)

  MacKenzie. RtHonGregor

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Macmillan. RtHonM.

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Ginsburg, David

  McNally, Thomas

  Goodhart. SirPhilip

  McNamara, Kevin

  Goodlad. Alastair

  Major. John

  Gorst. John

  Marland. Paul

  Gow, Ian

  Marshall, DrEdmund(Goole)

  Grant, George(Morpeth)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Grant, John(IslingtonC)

  Martin, M(G'gowS'burn)

  Gray. Hamish

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Greenway, Harry

  Mates, Michael

  372

  Mawby, Ray

  Skeet, T, H. H.

  Mawhinney. Dr Brian

  Skinner. Dennis

  Maxton. John

  Smith, Cyril(Rochdale)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Smith, Rt Hon J.(N Lanark)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Snape, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Soley. Clive

  Millan. Rt Hon Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  Speed, Keith

  Miller, Dr. M. S.(EKilbride)

  Speller. Tony

  Mills, Iain(Meriden)

  Spicer, Jim(WestDorset)

  Mills, Peter(West Devon)

  Spicer, Michael(S Worcs)

  Mitchell, R. C.(Soton Itchen)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Moate, Roger

  Sproat. lain

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stainton, Keith

  Morris, Rt Hon A.(W'shawe)

  Stanbrook. lvor

  Morris, Rt Hon C.(O'shaw)

  Stanley, John

  Morris, M.(N'hamptonS)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Morrison, HonC.(Devizes)

  Steen. Anthony

  Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)

  Stevens. Martin

  Morton, George

  Stewart, A.. (ERenfrewshire)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)

  Mudd, David

  Stott. Roger

  Murphy, Christopher

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Myles, David

  Tapsell, Peter

  Neale. Gerrard

  Taylor, Teddy(S'end E)

  Needham, Richard

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Nelson, Anthony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Newens, Stanley

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Newton, Tony

  Thompson, Donald

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Thorne, Neil(llfordSoufh)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Thornton, Malcolm

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tilley. John

  Onslow. Cranley

  Tinn, James

  Osborn. John

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Page, John(Harrow, West)

  Townsend, CyrilD, (B 'heath)

  Palmer. Arthur

  Trippier, David

  Park, George

  Trotter. Neville

  Parker. John

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Patten, John(Oxford)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Vaughan. DrGerard

  Pawsey, James

  Viggers, Peter

  Penhaligon, David

  Waddington, David

  Percival. Sirlan

  Wainwright. R(ColneV)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Wakeham. John

  Prescott. John

  Waldegrave. HonWilliam

  Price, SirDavid(Eastleigh)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Wall. SirPatrick

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Waller, Gary

  Radice, Giles

  Ward, John

  Raison. Timothy

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rees, Rt Hon M(Leeds S)

  Watkins, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Watson. John

  Ridley, HonNicholas

  Weetch, Ken

  Ridsdale. SirJulian

  Wells, Bowen

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Wells. John(Maidstone)

  Roberts, M.(CardiffNW)

  Wheeler. John

  Roberts, Wyn(Conway)

  Whitehead. Phillip

  Robinson, G.(CoventryNW)

  Whitelaw. RtHonWilliam

  Rooker, J. W.

  Whitney, Raymond

  Roper. John

  Wickenden, Keith

  Ross, Ernest(Dundee West)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Ross, Stephen(Isle of Wight)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rossi, Hugh

  Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

  Sainsbu ry, HonTimothy

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Winnick, David

  Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)

  Woolmer. Kenneth

  Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

  Young, SirGeorge(Acton,)

  Shelton. William(Streatham)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C.(Dulwich)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Silvester. Fred

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. Carol Mather.

  NOES

  Ashton. Joe

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Cowans, Harry

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cox. T.(W'dsw'th, Tootg)

  Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n&P)

  Crowther, Stan

  373

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(L'lli)

  Parry, Robert

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E.(SDown)

  Dunlop. John

  Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)

  Eastham, Ken

  Price, C.(Lewisham W)

  Edwards, R.(W'hampt'n S E)

  Ross, Wm.(Londonderry)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Sever, John

  Forrester. John

  Stewart, Rt Hon D.(W Isles)

  Garrett, John (NorwichS)

  Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)

  George, Bruce

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  White, Frank R.

  Hardy, Peter

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Holland. S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

  Wilson, Gordon(DundeeE)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Kerr, Russell

  Woodall. Alec

  Lamond, James

  Young, David(BoltonE)

  Lewis, Ron(Carlisle)

  McKelvey. William

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McWilliam. John

  Mr. David Stoddart and

  Molyneaux, james

  Mr. David Marshall.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Thompson.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
  Ordered,
  That the Standing Order of 26 June 1979 relating to the nomination of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments be amended, by adding Mr. Richard Alexander. —[Mr. Thompson.]

Petition

  Dundee (Anti-Semitism)
  10. 14 pm
  Mr. Greville Janner: I have the honour to present to the House the Dundee petition sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas), the hon. Members for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) and Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and myself and signed by 5, 000 citizens, including 150 Members in the House and in the other place. It reads as follows:
  "The Humble Petition of citizens and leaders of political, religious and civic life in the United Kingdom and especially in the City of Dundee, together with the Honorary Officers and Member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and other leaders of the Jewish community sheweth that the twinning of the City of Dundee with the town of Nablus and the hanging of the flag of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in the entrance to the Dundee council chamber is an act which has caused grievous anguish to the loyal Jewish citizens of Dundee as well as to men and women of good will and of all faiths who deplore this association with a body which is openly and consistently, by its covenant and by its actions, devoted to the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel and to employing methods of terror for its purposes; which actions led to the first anti-semitic outrages in the long, happy and tolerant history of the City of Dundee and in particular to fascist daubings"—
  observed by hon. Members—
  "including the desecration of the Dundee Synagogue; wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House persuade the Dundee district council to revoke the said twinning with the town of Nablus and do remove the said flag of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation."
  The observing of that desecration was after it happened and not at the time.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Weather Damage (North Devon)
  10. 17 pm
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. David Hunt.]
  Mr. Tony Speller: Tonight we have debated the Canadian constitution and we have sought to pass residual responsibility to that great Commonwealth partner. I now seek help for North Devon, a relatively far flung part of our country where responsibility for the future still lies at Westminster.
  We have three great natural advantages—the sea on our doorstep, Exmoor beyond our back garden and some of the best sand and surf in Europe. It is a lovely place in which to live and work. North Devon has had good industrial development, because that natural beauty is complemented by a hard-working and industrial-strike-free work force on modern estates that complement rather than conflict with the existing industries of agriculture and tourism.
  In The Irish Times of today it is stated that farmers of, for example, Waterford, Wexford and Wicklow are invited to notify farm losses caused by snow storms in January 1982 so that they may apply for emergency EEC aid. I cannot understand why farmers in places such as West Down and Westleigh in North Devon cannot make the same appeal. We were given to understand that there was no aid for our farmers in the United Kingdom, but the Government of Eire, through their Department of Agriculture, are inviting applications for aid. Many farmers are happy to claim damages when such invitations are issued. There was a considerable amount of damage, particularly to breeding ewes.
  The adverse weather of this winter has revealed cruelly how thin is the veneer of successful and competitive production. In December there was snow and high winds and the national grid failed. In Devon and Cornwall we have only one low-output coal-fired power station, at East Yelland, so that when Hinkley Point flooded and failed, so did our electricity. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will consider advising the Central Electricity Generating Board to refurbish East Yelland, where there is seaborne access for the coal, no planning problems and a skilled work force.
  A month later, in January, many areas lost a working week, with no power, no telephone, neither local radio nor television because of damage to relay stations, no public transport and only four-wheel drive vehicles operating outside towns. The problem this time was blizzards. In Barnstaple, although the power did not fail, there was extensive flooding. As a result, one of the largest employers there, the excellent firm of Shapland and Petter, much of whose output is exported, was flooded at great cost both in lost production and in making good its premises. Once soaked, premises are not easily workable again.
  On behalf of my constituents I pay generous tribute to the work carried out, often under extreme and genuinely dangerous conditions, by members of the public utilities and local government organisations, who strove unceasingly to restore power, water supplies and, sometimes most important of all, local communications. Many lessons have been learnt. I also congratulate the parishes and councils which are now getting together to prepare for our next "once in a lifetime" emergency, which is probably due next winter. The severe winter of 1978–79
  376
  cost the county of Devon a net £2. 2 million in snow clearance and frost damage alone. This winter will cost even more.
  I also pay tribute to Mr. Kenneth Whittle, chairman of the South Western Electricity Board, who has been helpful in every way to me and to other hon. Members from the South-West. I pay tribute also to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has special responsibility for electricity matters.
  The working party set up by the Department of Energy to examine whether existing standards of power line installations are adequate will, we hope, help to prevent the breaks in supply which really bad weather always brings. Underground cables have caused few problems, but overhead power lines in areas such as Hartland Cliffs and Exmoor have to survive weather conditions unknown on Millbank.
  The thrust of my comments tonight relates to the economic problems of North Devon. The Government have got on with the job of getting the North Devon link road started, the Barnstaple relief road under way and the Bideford bypass scheme to inquiry stage, after 20 years of major talks, but, alas, only minor works. British Rail has done its best to make our single line to Exeter mote attractive, and the RAF at Chivenor is now able and willing to handle civil aviation of the air taxi kind. We are full of potential and ready to grow, but we have major problems.
  The Ilfracombe area, for example, has massive unemployment—more than 28 per cent. in January this year, compared with 21 per cent. this time last year and 17 per cent. the year before. It has full development area status, but this is of little avail in attracting or holding industry if the onset of extraordinary weather, by English standards, removes the electricity supply, most of the telephone service and all use of the road system.
  At Mullacott Cross in December there were high winds and some snow. Power was lost from Monday 13 to Wednesday 15 December inclusive—three days out of a five-day week. In January there was a blizzard, with heavy freezing, and power was lost again, this time from the morning of Friday 8 until the late afternoon of Wednesday 13 January—virtually a full working week.
  I refer specifically to the industrial estate at Mullacott Cross, Ilfracombe, as this is the principal site for factory development and one which Devon county, in liaison with the North Devon district council, intends to expand. Letters came to me from industry, agriculture, tourism and commercial interests right across the community, but the cross-section of extracts that I now give are all from firms at Mullacott Cross which have been induced to come and work among us in modern conditions but do not have I he modern facilities.
  The divisional director of Selkirk Metalbestos, an American firm with a branch in North Devon, writes:
  "My company is a major employer in North Devon. As a part of a large American Group, we have been extremely fortunate in that our business has continued to expand against the general economic climate. We have been successful in obtaining monies for investment of a significant nature.
  I refer particularly to our Mullacott Cross factory, which is currently some 40, 000 sq ft and is intended to extend to 60, 000 sq ft, and has provided additional employment in the Ilfracombe area, which, you will be well aware, is an extremely high unemployment area.
  This new site has already suffered some 6 days' loss of production due to lack of electricity supply. Continued investment by my Company

  377
  will be dependent on security of power supply and I have been forced to contact the Water Authority to clarify the matter of poor supply to the site."
  That is a reasonable letter seeking assurances for an American firm which has located itself in an area in which the British Government encouraged firms to become established and in which firms are entitled to expect the basic facilities of any industrial estate anywhere in our nation.
  JBD Plastics Ltd. is a much smaller, privately owned firm. John Davies, co-owner and founder, wrote on 11 January:
  "For the second time in four weeks our electricity supply at Mullacott has been lost. In December we were without power for 48 hours and at the time of writing have been off for 72 hours with little chance of being reconnected to-day.
  As a company which produces around the clock 24 hours per day we lost £2, 400 recovery of costs in December and what would appear to be a further £3, 500 during our current shut down.
  Surely some action could and should be taken to ensure that adverse weather conditions do not bring industry to a complete and costly halt."
  In fact, the second stoppage totalled 110 hours and the eventual loss to Mr. Davies's firm was £4, 500—a great deal of money for a business rightly described by its owner as
  "a small developing company born at a time when small businesses are the flavour of the year and quite rightly so. I feel sure that the smaller companies are going to be the key to greater efficiency of human and other company resources in the years ahead."
  As a small business man myself, my agreement with Mr. Davies is total.
  My final quotation is from Venners Bakery, a local firm that has expanded into modern premises at Mullacott. Mr. Venner writes:
  "Could you try to persuade the South Western Electricity Board and Devon County Council to lay an underground cable to supply Mullacot Cross with electric power. We have lost power on three separate occasions and it is proving impossible to continue trading under these conditions. Our competitors can produce goods and customers tend to stay with people who can supply them at difficult times. One direct result of this will be redundancies to help alleviate our losses."
  They are redundancies not through lack of business, but through the lack of provision to cope with weather which, although extreme by our standards, would be all in a day's work in, say, Canada or West Germany.
  Those are three manufacturers. One makes asbestos pipes, another plastics and the other bread. In its letter to me, each firm specifically congratulates the public service workers, particularly the electricity board, on their efforts to get things moving again. These are not bitter men, but they are practical and intelligent people who must keep machines and men working or lose their livelihood and business.
  They are typical of the mix of international, national and local firms that work hard, enjoy the life in beautiful North Devon and have an excellent relationship with staff at all levels. They are the sort of people who acknowledge recession as a challenge and a threat but never as an excuse for failure.
  Given proper aid and economic infrastructure, they will prosper, and North Devon along with them. In the excellent North Devon Manufacturers' Association and the Confederation of Business Organisations we have all the seedlings of success exempt from the despair of older erstwhile industrial areas. Without hesitation I invite any
  378
  firm looking for a green field site to come to North Devon, although in years to come they will find it hard to get staff to leave us, except perhaps on promotion, when they must move away from our good schools, helpful shops and superb environment.
  I invite them to specify North Devon when they get in touch with Mr. Andrew Smy of Devon county council at Exeter, but I must first ask the Government to consider the development area status that puts the icing on the cake of industrial incentive.
  I have said that Ilfracombe has 28 per cent. unemployment and is a development area. Barnstaple, with 11. 8 per cent. unemployment, and Bideford, with 14. 5 per cent., have assisted area status—a long name but with little actual aid or incentive to invest within the assisted area.
  Our friends at Plymouth in South Devon have 15 per cent. unemployment—about the same as Bideford—and that is also a development area. It should be noted that Plymouth is a development area, whereas we are an assisted area. Falmouth, with 21. 9 per cent. unemployment, is a special development area, with more incentives than Ilfracombe and vastly better roads and communications.
  Falmouth, with 21. 9 per cent. unemployment, is a special development area, whereas Ilfracombe, with 28 per cent. unemployment, is an ordinary development area. Plymouth is on the inter-city rail network, as is most of Cornwall. It has motorway and dual carriageway roads from London or Birmingham as well as a civil airport. It has a busy dockyard and ferry service to Europe. On the other hand, North Devon has a single track rail link to Exeter—a danger all the time, perhaps especially now.
  There is just one mile of dual carriageway in my constituency, stretching from Brendon on the Somerset border to Hartland on the Cornish border. The same one mile has to cope with the north to south area. We have some summer steamers at Ilfracombe, and sometimes at Bideford, that go to Lundy Island, but they do little for our industrial potential. However, Plymouth is a development area—good luck to it, it is a fine city. It seems unreasonable that North Devon, with fewer facilities, has lesser status for Government investment. North Devon lost development area status in 1980 because unemployment, except in Ilfracombe, was below the national average. The Government must now reconsider the position and offer development area status to the whole area, with special status for Ilfracombe.
  I am talking about an area with great potential. All that it needs is decent roads and investment in power and water supplies. When those facilities are provided the Government may take development area status away from the area and keep it, because it will not want it, but until then the Government should remove everyone else outside the metropolitan areas from development status or give North Devon as fair a crack of the whip as our better placed and better favoured cousins elsewhere in the West Country.
  I plead with the Government to stop the nonsensical belief that Bristol is the capital of South-West England and to stop placing all the regional offices there. Bristol is a super place, but it is nearer London or Birmingham in travel time and philosophy than to Bideford, let alone Penzance. The prosperity of Bristol, when joined with the relative poverty of Devon and Cornwall, sucks up the statistics to a level that may cost us grant from Europe in

  379
  time to come. Its relative prosperity hides from ministerial view the greater economic problems of areas such as North Devon.
  I took great pleasure recently in escorting my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to meet the industrial and commercial interests of North Devon. He is now famous in the area as the only Minister ever to be pictured with a rabbit on his head following a visit to a factory that specialises in magic. We refer to him as the magic Minister. I do not know what rabbits he will produce this evening, but at least he has got the debate off the ground a great deal earlier than I expected at the beginning of the day. I noted that he liked what he saw and we liked him and his constructive attitude to the problems of small business. In my area small business is big business. Development area status would make it bigger and better at negligible cost to the Exchequer and would bring great benefit to our people.
  10. 33 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) on his admirable speech. He could have chosen Ministers from several Departments to reply to the debate and I am pleased that he has asked me to do so. I have long had a special affection for North Devon. My family and I had many happy family holidays there while based at Ilfracombe. I recall with pleasure the visit that I made last year with him, which filled me with nostalgia for those holidays, the lovely countryside and the rugged terrain. Therein lies part of the problem to which he has referred.
  I was filled with admiration for the quality of the people of the area, to which my hon. Friend has referred and which he so well typifies and represents. It is characteristic of him that he should have been so quick to seek an occasion to bring to the attention of the House the problems that the terrible storms brought to his constituency. It is typical of the assiduous way in which he pursues his constituents' interests that he should link this debate to the many causes that he has championed on their behalf, with increasing success in terms of practical action.
  I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks on the subjects that are primarily for other Departments are passed on to my right hon. and hon. Friends, especially the issues that he raised about Irish emergency aid, which I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As my hon. Friend knows, money is to be made available from the European Commission disaster fund for agricultural and domestic losses. The South-West, Yorkshire and Humberside are to benefit. About £725, 000 was expected to be made available. The money has not yet been allocated following discussions between the local authorities, but the Department of the Environment's notification is expected to be dispatched within the next few days.
  The severity of the weather, which affected large areas of the West of England and Wales in December 1981 and January 1982, was considered by many to be the worst in living memory. Wind speeds gusting to 85 mph were recorded in Devon and Cornwall and 94 mph on the Gower peninsula—the highest since records began in 1945.
  The South-West Electricity Board had to deal with 150 incidents where 11 kilovolt power lines had been brought down and five involving 33 kilovolt lines which had
  380
  collapsed with the weight of the ice on cables, pylons and poles. In some areas, power was restored within 12 hours and in the worst cases the delay was six days. It is not easy to assess the cost to industry of the power failures. However, the loss of power to the important Pottington industrial estate in Barnstaple on Friday 8 January 1982 had been remedied in time for the return to work after the weekend.
  I accept that North Devon was much worse affected than other parts of the South-West Electricity Board area by the snow which fell from 8 to 11 January. The snowfalls in December had a much wider impact. In January, power failures affected all parts of Torridge and North Devon district. On 8 January, 16, 000 consumers in the area were off supply, but within 24 hours that total had been reduced to 9, 000 and by 12 January to 1, 500. All supplies had been restored by 14 January. It is important to note that the board considers that the conditions were among the most severe with which it has had to cope. Fallen lines were frozen into the snow and had to be hewn out with pick axes.
  Two points arise. First, like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to all those who did such heroic work in coping with the crisis and in restoring normality as quickly as possible. Secondly, I recognise that the conditions were quite exceptional. My hon. Friend said that this was all in a day's work in Canada and West Germany. It is not all in a day's work in Britain and we cannot gear all our public and emergency services on a clay-to-day basis to meet such particular conditions.
  The 400 and 275 kilovolt supergrid system, owned and operated by the Central Electricity Generating Board in the South-West, was affected mainly by the "galloping" of conductors, a phenomenon that can occur under unusual conditions of wind velocity and low temperatures and associated problems in some of the substations. However, the loss of supergrid supplies in December lasted only for just over four hours. The CEGB is and has been actively investigating various sites in the South-West with a view to providing further generation capacity in that part of the country, but even had such generation been available, the overall loss of supplies to consumers would not necessarily have been significantly alleviated, since the cause of the vast majority of supply failures was damage to the distribution system over a very wide area.
  My hon. Friend referred especially to Ilfracombe and to the rurally situated industrial estate at Mullacott Cross in particular which I know and recall well. It has some particularly difficult terrain. The whole area is supplied by means of overhead lines from far afield; hence an underground cable between Ilfracombe and Mullacott Cross would not have helped in the situation which arose. I assure my hon. Friend that the South-West Electricity Board is and has been investigating schemes to improve the security of supplies in that area.
  Following the December storms, the Secretary of State for Energy asked the chairman of the Electricity Council to report on the effect of difficult weather conditions on electricity supplies. That report is being studied. At the same time, the Department's chief engineering inspector was instructed to review the technical standards under which overhead electricity lines are designed and constructed and work on that review is currently in hand.
  All overhead electricity lines are designed to allow for the effect of bad weather conditions and factors of safety are included in such designs. However, the severity of the

  381
  storms experienced on these occasions meant that the wind and ice loading on many overhead lines far exceeded their design criteria and it was for that reason that there were many failures—another sign of the quite exceptional situation.
  My hon. Friend also referred to water supplies. The Department of the Environment acknowledges the problem in this area. As a result of a survey that the South-West Water Authority has been conducting, it is pursuing ways of improving supply, which it hopes to implement later this year.
  My hon. Friend rightly stressed the importance of communications to North Devon. I am sure that he would distinguish between the exceptional blizzard conditions and the need for better communications in more normal circumstances to gain better access for industrialists to the major markets. I well recall in the 1960s the slow journeys for my family in getting to Devon as a whole. As he emphasised, the main routes have been vastly improved. Indeed, I saw that last October.
  There remains the improvement in the chain's final link to North Devon, where there is now a good story to tell. As my hon. Friend rightly stressed, under this Government and with his energetic prodding, North Devon is now getting action. The Government fully accept the importance of major road improvements to the economy of North Devon. Therefore, they are committed to a number of schemes during the next decade which should fundamentally ease the constraints on industrial and commercial development. Barnstaple, Bideford and other towns will be relieved, to a substantial extent, from traffic congestion, especially that suffered during the summer months.
  As my hon. Friend knows, the Department of Industry enthusiastically supported the views of local industrialists on the need for the North Devon link road at the public inquiry in 1979. Work on the first stage of that road, from junction 27 on the M5 at Stampford Peverell to Tivertort will commence in a fortnight. That 6. 3 mile road, with two-lane dual carriageways, should be completed in two years at a cost of about £12 million.
  The preferred route for the scheme's second stage was announced on 20 February 1981. I know that there is some disappointment that the road is to be single carriageway, although it will have various overtaking points because of the gradients. I well understand the point about single carriageways. I make similar points in my constituency. My hon. Friend referred to a one-mile length of dual carriageway in his constituency. In the whole of my county, dual carriageway amounts to little more than that figure.
  However, the road will be built to a high standard and is expected to bring relief to the existing A361 and meet traffic needs to the level anticipated at the end of the century. The scheme's second stage is estimated to cost £50 million and we hope to publish detailed orders later this year. Work on that 27-mile section is expected to start in 1986.
  Consulting engineers have recently been appointed to carry out the detailed design on the nine-mile Barnstaple bypass scheme. Proposals in the form of draft orders under the Highways Act 1980 are expected to be published at about he end of 1982.
  382
  A further major scheme proposed for the area is the five-mile Bideford bypass intended to reduce the use of the town's famous Long Bridge. A public inquiry into that scheme is due to begin next month. Subject to the result of that, construction might start by the summer of 1984.
  It is clear, as my hon. Friend said, that words are now being translated into action, which is under way on each scheme. We are pressing ahead with the planning and design, which is inevitably very lengthy in these cases. My hon. Friend will, I know, welcome the restatement in today's White Paper on roads that all the schemes are firmly in the programme. I know that he will support the high priority the Government attach to the provision of bypasses, both to relieve the pressure on communities affected by heavy lorries and to assist the free flow of commercial traffic.
  My hon. Friend suggested that we might remove the assisted area status at some stage from all metropolitan areas. He knows that the Government are concentrating on the areas of greatest need. Proposals that we first introduced in 1979 will be fully implemented later this year and the areas receiving assisted area status will be reduced from 44 to 26. That will undoubtedly be of considerable benefit to areas such as Ilfracombe which retain development area status.
  We have frequently said that we were prepared to consider evidence of substantial long-term structural change in an area's employment potential, relative to other areas, to see whether any change in assisted area status was justified. That assurance remains and I shall obviously continue to consider Ilfracombe's position in that light.
  But we must look at broader considerations, too. I am deeply concerned at the current levels of unemployment in Ilfracombe, but I must consider, first, seasonal factors, although I recognise that Ilfracombe needs the expansion of stable all-year-round employment. Secondly, given the small area for industrial development, I have to consider whether the change from development area to special development area status—which is not all that significant—would make a major difference, bearing in mind the chain reaction effect on other areas that have similar claims but possibly much higher unemployment figures. The chain reaction may adversely affect Ilfracombe's relative position.
  The area is already a development area, within the intermediate areas of Barnstaple and Bideford. The two intermediate areas are by no means out of line as intermediate areas. Within North Devon as a whole, we have to take account also of the fact that Barnstaple is a natural centre for development to provide employment for a wider area. Section 7 selective financial assistance is available to all three travel-to-work areas, and considerable aid has been given since 1979. I should be happy to give my hon. Friend the figures.
  My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the attraction of industry from elsewhere. Above all, the problem is that we do not have that many footloose industries, nationally or internationally.
  Ilfracombe has considerable environmental advantages. My hon. Friend also drew attention to the excellent qualities of its work force. As the communications come right, that will be an increasingly attractive factor. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the North Devon Manufacturers Association, members of whom I met and who so well exemplify the ideals of self-help, will undoubtedly assist, too, to attract industry to the area.

  383
  North Devon is an area of small businesses. My hon. Friend is a small business man. We share a mutual interest. The Government have taken many steps to help small businesses. The English Industrial Estates Corporation development at the Mullacott Cross estate of small workshop units is in hand and scheduled for completion in August 1982.
  384
  All those factors, I hope, will increasingly help North Devon. I make a final allusion, which my hon. Friend will understand. We cannot conjure immediate rabbits out of the hat in Government policies—
  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 accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eleven o' clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Committee of Selection
  Committee of Selection
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Judicial Appointments
  Judicial Appointments
TRADE
  Bargain Offers Order
  Bargain Offers Order
  Low-cost Imports
  Low-cost Imports
  Laker Airways
  Laker Airways
  Air Fares
  Air Fares
  South African Workers
  South African Workers
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Herring Fishing
  Herring Fishing
  Rabbit Meat
  Rabbit Meat
  Agriculture (Annual Review)
  Agriculture (Annual Review)
ENERGY
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
  Amersham International Ltd.
  Amersham International Ltd.
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Borstal Committals
  Borstal Committals
  Violent Crime
  Violent Crime
  Manchester Prison (Facilities)
  Manchester Prison (Facilities)
  Sexual Crimes (Policing)
  Sexual Crimes (Policing)
  Wormwood Scrubs (Facilities)
  Wormwood Scrubs (Facilities)
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Immigration Act 1971 (Deportations)
  Immigration Act 1971 (Deportations)
  European Community Citizens (Deportations)
  European Community Citizens (Deportations)
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Illegal Immigrants (Detention)
  Illegal Immigrants (Detention)
  Prisoners (Earnings)
  Prisoners (Earnings)
  Prisoners (Deportation)
  Prisoners (Deportation)
  Immigration Act Powers
  Immigration Act Powers
  Deportation (Medical Escort)
  Deportation (Medical Escort)
  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Offences)
  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Offences)
  Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980
  Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980
  European Community (Terrorists)
  European Community (Terrorists)
  Sexual Offences
  Sexual Offences
  Data Protection
  Data Protection
  Birmingham Prison (Facilities)
  Birmingham Prison (Facilities)
  Laurence Scott
  Laurence Scott
  Rape
  Rape
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Robbery Statistics
  Robbery Statistics
PRIME MINISTER
  Merchant Banks
  Merchant Banks
INDUSTRY
  Steel Prices
  Steel Prices
  Teesside (Regional Development Status)
  Teesside (Regional Development Status)
  Shipbuilding (European Community Assistance)
  Shipbuilding (European Community Assistance)
  Invest in Britain Bureau
  Invest in Britain Bureau
WALES
  Sick Persons (Removal from Home)
  Sick Persons (Removal from Home)
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Heath Hospital, Cardiff (Consultants)
  Heath Hospital, Cardiff (Consultants)
  Agricultural Land (Value)
  Agricultural Land (Value)
  Traumatic and Orthopaedic Specialty
  Traumatic and Orthopaedic Specialty
  Skilled Workers (Vacancies)
  Skilled Workers (Vacancies)
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Gas Tanker (Solent)
  Gas Tanker (Solent)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Lead
  Lead
  Smoking and Drinking (Legislation)
  Smoking and Drinking (Legislation)
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Social Security Statistics
  Social Security Statistics
  Fuel Bills (Assistance)
  Fuel Bills (Assistance)
  Younger Chronic Sick and Disabled
  Younger Chronic Sick and Disabled
  Child Care Costs
  Child Care Costs
  Residential Homes (Registration)
  Residential Homes (Registration)
DEFENCE
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Trident
  Trident
TRANSPORT
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  Lead Additives
  Lead Additives
  Hand Signals
  Hand Signals
  Heavy Lorries (Bypasses)
  Heavy Lorries (Bypasses)
  Freight Depots (Relocation)
  Freight Depots (Relocation)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  New Factories
  New Factories
  Industrial Development Board Order
  Industrial Development Board Order
  Jobs
  Jobs
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Outside Contractors
  Outside Contractors
  Inland Revenue (School Fees)
  Inland Revenue (School Fees)
  OECD Countries (Gross Domestic Product)
  OECD Countries (Gross Domestic Product)
  Motability
  Motability
  Civil Service (Manpower)
  Civil Service (Manpower)
  Child Care Costs (Taxation Relief)
  Child Care Costs (Taxation Relief)
  Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt
  Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Tax Changes
  Tax Changes
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Allowances
  Personal Allowances
  Blind Persons (Allowance)
  Blind Persons (Allowance)
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
  Consumer Prices
  Consumer Prices
  Wine (Revenue)
  Wine (Revenue)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Official Envelopes
  Official Envelopes
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Education Staffs
  Education Staffs
  Mentally Handicapped Pupils
  Mentally Handicapped Pupils
  Lead (Toxic Effects)
  Lead (Toxic Effects)
  University Expenditure
  University Expenditure
  Bogus Degrees
  Bogus Degrees
  Part-time Students (Supplementary Benefit)
  Part-time Students (Supplementary Benefit)
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Government Audit Commission
  Local Government Audit Commission
  Commission for the New Towns
  Commission for the New Towns
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  Wildlife and Countryside Act
  Wildlife and Countryside Act
  Local Authorities (Efficiency)
  Local Authorities (Efficiency)
  Home Improvement Grants
  Home Improvement Grants
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Partnership Authorities
  Partnership Authorities
  Local Authority Services
  Local Authority Services
  World Cup
  World Cup
  Council House Building
  Council House Building
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Building Research Establishment
  Building Research Establishment
  House Building
  House Building
  Rates
  Rates
  Water Mains
  Water Mains
  Water Byelaws
  Water Byelaws
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Local and Central Government
  Local and Central Government
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  Space Policy
  Space Policy
  Rates Revenue
  Rates Revenue
  Ryecroft Farm, Sheffield
  Ryecroft Farm, Sheffield
  Liverpool City Council
  Liverpool City Council
  Waste Paper and Board
  Waste Paper and Board
  Garden Centre (Toxteth)
  Garden Centre (Toxteth)
  Vandalism
  Vandalism
  Ancient Monuments
  Ancient Monuments
  Hyde Park (Violent Crimes)
  Hyde Park (Violent Crimes)
  Direct Labour Organisations
  Direct Labour Organisations
  Option Mortgage Scheme
  Option Mortgage Scheme
  Glasgow (Dietary Lead Intakes)
  Glasgow (Dietary Lead Intakes)
SCOTLAND
  Aluminium Smelter, Invergordon (Power Supply)
  Aluminium Smelter, Invergordon (Power Supply)
  Departmental Administrative Costs
  Departmental Administrative Costs
  Regional and Islands Councils
  Regional and Islands Councils
  National Health Service (Costs)
  National Health Service (Costs)
  Traumatic and Orthopaedic Specialty (Waiting Time)
  Traumatic and Orthopaedic Specialty (Waiting Time)
  Water Lead Levels (Glasgow)
  Water Lead Levels (Glasgow)

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

The Lord Bishop of Coventry
John, Lord Bishop of Coventry—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Bristol and the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Work Training Schemes: MSC Rent Allowances
2.41 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what advice can be given to a local voluntary committee willing to run a work training scheme for the young unemployed which is approved by the Manpower Services Commission when both the rent asked for by the local authority and the commercial rent are beyond the allowance made by the commission.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the grants which are available from the Manpower Services Commission for schemes under the Youth Opportunities Programme have generally proved sufficient for sponsors to obtain suitable premises. In cases of difficulty, the commission's local area offices are available to advise about where to look for alternative premises or possible sources of additional funding.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply, is he satisfied that the very imaginative training schemes for the young unemployed are, in fact, working efficiently? Is there a clear understanding of the roles of local authorities, voluntary committees and the Manpower Services Commission in relation to salaries, the setting up of schemes and rents?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Manpower Services Commission's procedure for approving this kind of scheme has to be thorough because of the need to safeguard substantial public funds which may be involved. The commission's operating experience is that hasty approval of schemes may lead to difficulties which cannot afterwards be rectified. The commission is anxious to establish good training schemes as quickly as possible, and it will certainly give all the help it can to doing this.

Disarmament: UN Second Special Session
2.44 p.m.
Lord Brockway: 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 progress has been made by the Geneva Committee set up by the United Nations Special Assembly to implement the recommendations for world disarmament to be reported to the renewed Assembly in May and June this year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Committee on Disarmament meeting in Geneva has been considering a comprehensive programme of disarmament to put before the United Nations Second Special Session on Disarmament, which meets in June this year. Much remains to be done if differences of viewpoints are to be resolved before the Special Session. As a contribution to the work of the committee, the Government, with four other Governments, tabled a draft programme of comprehensive disarmament. We shall do our best, in the committee and elsewhere, to enable the Second Special Session to act successfully as a spur and stimulus to negotiations on arms control and disarmament.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while giving a reasonable welcome to the less rigid attitude of the British representation on the committee, may I ask whether the Government will take into account the fact that the Committee of 21 Unaligned Nations have now applied the principle of the proposal submitted by the World Disarmament Campaign and have tabled a four-stage plan for comprehensive disarmament? Is the noble Lord aware that the Soviet Union and the East European nations have now accepted the basis of this plan, thus providing a large majority on the committee? In view of this, will the Government seek a consensus of opinion within the framework of that plan?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised if I tell him that we prefer the plan to which we ourselves subscribed, which lays down, or suggests, a more step-by-step approach to comprehensive disarmament than the one proposed by the Group of 21 to which the noble Lord also referred. It is perhaps worth repeating that the Government view—a view to which successive British Governments have subscribed—is that a comprehensive, total, all-embracing plan for world disarmament is perhaps unduly optimistic in the present climate of international affairs generally, and a more step-by-step approach by which we try to solve the problems one by one is more likely to achieve success in the long run.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the noble Lord seen reports appearing in this morning's papers of the use of chemical weapons by the Ethiopians, backed by the Soviet Union, in Eritrea, the warnings of which have been given to the Foreign Office over the past 18

559
months? Could not steps be taken to raise this matter immediately within the United Nations, and within the framework of the World Disarmament Conference, as a violation of the rules of war to which every civilised nation subscribes?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, there is a working party concerned with the use of chemical weapons, under the auspices of the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva, and we have indeed made important contributions to the working of that particular discussion group. We certainly share the general world abhorrence towards these weapons, but we have to have regard to the fact that some of our potential opponents possess these weapons and we must organise our affairs accordingly.
Lord Peart: My Lords, will the noble Lord say what progress has been made regarding the SALT talks, which are important and indeed on which the Government said that they would keep the House informed? What is the position?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the position is that we hope that the START talks, as they are now called—the noble Lord will know that they have been rechristened in recent months, and I think rightly so—are likely to recommence during the course of the next few months, but a date has not yet been set.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, reverting to Geneva, will the Government see whether it is possible to obtain some compromise position between the plan which they support and that proposed by the 21 nations, so that the talks do not bog down in an irreconcilable position between the two groups?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the British Government will certainly always be willing to listen to proposals which are designed to lead to a consensus view on these matters, but in the end we have to have regard to the necessary fact that we must not allow our position to be degraded in terms of world security generally.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask another question about what is happening at Geneva? What is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the proposal for a comprehensive test ban in view of the fact that the United States has recently denied the value of negotiations on an underground nuclear test?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I did not quite hear the last part of the noble Lord's supplementary, but the Government will certainly continue to seek progress on test ban issues. The Americans have said that the trilateral comprehensive test ban negotiations are unlikely to resume. The Government understand the reasons for the United States decision, but we shall certainly continue to seek ways of moving things forward.

Political Groups: House of Lords Facilities
2.50 p.m.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Leader of the House whether the facilities available to the political groups in this House can be claimed by other Peers in the event of another group being formed.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Young): My Lords, it is not for me as Leader of the House to say when a group can call itself a political group. With respect, the noble Lord's Question is a hypothetical one, but I am delighted, though in no way surprised, to hear that the noble Lord is considering forming his own party in your Lordships' House.
Lord Shinwell: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply, my Lords, although it does not satisfy me. Is she aware that my purpose in framing the Question was not to complain about any other group forming a group if they so desire? What I wanted to know was this: If I wanted to form a group—perhaps not a Gang of Four but a Gang of Two, for example to revive the Independent Labour Party of old times, how would I go about it? To whom would I apply? Would I apply to the noble Baroness or to the Government? And if I were to apply, what would be the likely response? Would the noble Baroness tell me what facilities would be available to me? If facilities are to be conceded to some of my colleagues in the House, wherever they may sit—behind me, in front of me or to my left or right—surely I, as a Member of your Lordships' House, am entitled to equality (this being a House of democracy and equality)? So would the noble Baroness agree that what is available to other noble Lords should be available to me?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that I should always be delighted to have a talk with him on any subject, but he is far too clever a man to need my advice on how to form a party.
Lord Shinwell: I am really confounded, my Lords, and I hardly know how to respond to that. May I ask the noble Baroness at least to tell me this: Should I have the idea, the notion, the concept, of forming a group, along with other Members of your Lordships' House, from wherever they may come, how do I go about it? There is nothing hypothetical about that; I really want the information.
Baroness Young: I should have thought the noble Lord had already made a very good start, my Lords.
Lord Shinwell: Really?

Farm Output and Balance of Payments
2.53 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: 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 has been the contribution to the balance of payments of increased output from British farms.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the increased volume of output from British farms in 1980 was worth about £300 million to the food and feed component of the balance of payments in that year, the latest for which figures are available.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. May I ask him whether, first, that confirms the importance of maintained and increased agricultural output to our balance of payments? But are there not grave doubts in the industry whether the EEC Commission price proposals, which represent an increase of something under 9 per cent., will be sufficient to maintain the productive base of our industry in the United Kingdom, or to increase the very low current level of profitability? Will the Minister therefore endeavour, if possible, to obtain something rather better than the proposals, and something certainly no worse?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right in that he has underlined the importance of British agriculture to the economy. It may interest him to know that from the beginning to the end of the 1970s there was a drop from 40 per cent. to 30 per cent. in net imports of the types of food which can be grown here, and in 1980 there was a further fall to 25 per cent.; and during the lifetime of this Government, between May 1979 and December 1981, in round figures the retail price index went up by 43 per cent., the price of food went up by 29 per cent. and farm gate prices went up by 19 per cent. That is a measure of the very major contribution which agriculture is making to the economy, and we hope to see that that continues.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the efforts being made by Her Majesty's Government in trying to get a rational approach to Britain's contribution to the EEC are applauded everywhere? Because of the tremendous importance of this issue and of the fact that it would appear that Britain is being ganged up against and our Government are standing almost alone in trying to get fair play, would he agree that the time has come for us to have a full-scale debate in both Chambers of the British Parliament to show our partners in Europe that we will not any longer take the vile discrimination which is operating against this nation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his approval of what the Government are doing, and I would only remark that his last few words were hardly in a Community spirit. Whether
562
your Lordships decide to debate the matter is of course for the procedures of the House. However, I assure the noble Lord that we have a very sincere interest in the success of Europe, both from a budget and an agricultural point of view, and when there are difficulties confronting all member states over both of those matters, it is the duty of all of us to try to achieve success and agreement.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, would the Minister agree that it would be fair to throw into the balance of all the figures that are being produced the extent of the real increase in farmers' income since the present Government came to office?
Earl Ferrers: I do not know whether it would be fair, my Lords, but if the noble Marquess wishes to do so, I should be delighted to hear it.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, in view of the splendid contribution which British agriculture makes to the balance of payments, may I ask my noble friend to assure us that the Government will not support the devaluation of the green pound, which has halved the sterling value of the increases?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, a revaluation of the green pound in the light of the Commission's price proposals is totally unacceptable to the Government because it would give British farmers only half the increase which has been permitted under the proposals for other member states.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the commendable result which is attributed to the balance of payments is got from an industry with only 2·7 per cent. of the working population and which has very high productivity records? Will he reflect that the help, generosity and partnership which the Government rightly show to agriculture, if extended to other sectors, public and private, might produce similarly commendable results?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, is entirely correct to draw attention to that fact; this achievement has been carried out by a very small percentage of the population, and I go along with him and say that if every other industry had been as successful as agriculture, we should not be in quite the difficulties we are at the moment.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the mining industry has increased its production in the past few years greatly in excess of that of the farming industry? Would he agree that there should be rewards for people who increase their productivity per man year and per person employed in such an industry?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I admire the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, in bringing the mining industry into a Question on agriculture. Certainly any industry which increases its productivity in the way agriculture has deserves a similar commendation.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the near doubling of bank borrowing by

563
farmers in the last four years is an indication of a very serious state of affairs in the industry?
Earl Ferrers: It is a very serious state of affairs, my Lords, and one about which the Government are acutely concerned. It does not, however, refer solely to agriculture; it happens in other industries as well. There is a sign of an upturn, and we hope to see that being continued. I assure my noble friend that we consider it a matter of great concern.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that there has been a great fall-off in investment in agricultural buildings and machinery, that much of the machinery is now getting old and that that will affect output within a year or two?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the question of investment, whether in machinery or buildings, is a total one, and, as I explained in answer to the last question, it is a matter that is causing great concern. I would merely underline my reply to my noble friend by saying, in regard to the drop in the level of investment, that the contribution which agriculture has made by accepting lower price increases than almost any other industry—and that was the figure to which I earlier referred—is one of the reasons why possibly the investment has not been forthcoming, since the funds have not been there to undertake it.
Lord Morris: My Lords, arising from the previous supplementary question of my noble friend, if the funds that are being borrowed are not being used for investment in capital equipment and capital construction, may I ask for what in the main they are being borrowed?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, one cannot possibly generalise on individual borrowings, but quite clearly borrowings are for all kinds of different purposes, some of which may be in order to keep businesses going.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he can comment upon the recent growth of national aids within the common agricultural policy membership and say whether these will not provide our own agriculture with unfair competition if they go unchecked?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, certain national aids are permitted under the European Community regulations, and these we of course approve. Where countries give vast national aids and so produce the structural surpluses which other countries have to pay for, we consider this to be totally outside the Community spirit and a course which we deplore. This has happened in some countries, and it is a matter which my right honourable friend takes up very forcefully with the Commission.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not also true that that has happened in this country, and that farmers are exempt from the payment of large sums of local rates?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, national aids are permitted to be given by various countries to their agriculture with the approval and the agreement of the Commission. Where that is done there is no trouble. There are countries that are doing it on a scale which undermines the concept of the common agricultural policy, and that is what we disapprove of. The points which the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, makes are in fact agreed.

Dissemination of Pornography Bill [H.L.]
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to restrict the dissemination of pornography. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Education
3.3 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley rose to call attention to the urgent need for a better educated working population, the dangers posed by the present cuts in higher and further education and the necessity for increased aid for part-time and other adult education; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. On behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I should like to thank those noble Lords who have put down their names to speak. We have perhaps not quite so long a speakers' list as there have been for one or two Wednesday debates over the past few months, but it is a highly distinguished list and I feel sure that for that reason we shall have a particularly interesting and rewarding debate. We have two ex-Secretaries of State for Education, we have the immediate ex-vice chancellors of the Open University and the Independent University, and of at least one other university. We have speaking from these Benches at least two pro-chancellors, and in Viscount Combermere we have a noble Lord who at the moment is a working lecturer in higher education.
I am only sorry that, despite the serried rows of Bishops opposite, we do not have a right reverend Prelate due to speak. I say that in no tone of blame because I know that the Bishops have major problems in fitting themselves in to our debates. The rest of us will have to do the best we can, but it would have been nice to have heard from the Bishops' Bench, and perhaps, if a right reverend Prelate intends to stay, we shall have an extra speaker.
I open the debate against a background in which I think it is genuinely and generally acknowledged that the whole of the West, if not the whole of the world, is in economic recession, and I think it is also fairly w el established that the United Kingdom, if not actually leading the recession, is well in the van. So much is common agreement. Beyond that, no one knows quite how long the recession will last or how deep it will go, but no one now seems in any doubt that it is

565
certainly the worst recession since the war. Prognoses vary: the minimum forecast regarding unemployment seems to be that it will go on at the present kind of rate for several years, and there are some forecasters who say that it will become considerably worse. What the future after that will be is also a matter of doubt. It may be that, as in other recessions, we are going through a phase into a better world of bright, new, shining technology. On the other hand, it may be that we are going into a spiralling recession similar to that of the 1930s. It may be that there will be a combination of the two—that there will be a bright, shining technology but that, for various reasons, we shall have to adapt to a less expensive, throw-away kind of life.
But, whatever the outlook, whatever one of those forecasts noble Lords happen to believe in, or for that matter any other kind of forecast that I have not mentioned, there seems to be no doubt whatsoever that, for us as a nation to be able to cope with what is happening, it will be essential to have enough training and enough education for the task. We can probably do without a lot that we have had over the last 50 or 60, on the whole fairly affluent, years. There is probably plenty that we can discard. God knows! much of the world has to do without it.
But what we surely cannot discard are our skills. If we are going to export, if that is the way forward, we need skills to make the goods to export, and the skills to do the actual exporting. If we are going to keep up our end with the new technology, we need the skills to cope with that. If we are going to adapt to a different kind of society altogether—and we probably are going to have to adapt to a different kind of society, whatever new kind it may be—we need the skills to make ourselves as citizens and workers adaptable in that new society.
We may no longer feel entirely confident, as perhaps we once did, that our education is the best in the world, but we can take considerable pride in our educational traditions and institutions at the level of higher education, with which today's debate is mainly concerned, and at lower levels, too. We already have a tradition on which to build in learning the skills to face this new world.
We can feel reasonably sure that until now our education, if not as good as we should like, nevertheless has been improving the whole time. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, in talking about the cuts, has recently said that this is a record year for ability, that the extra pupils who will be trying to get into the universities and polytechnics have higher ability than ever before. It is at this moment, with a world recession taking place, with the newly-industrialised countries of the Far East in full competitive cry, with the challenge of new technology and the possible crisis of a realisation of finite resources, that the Government choose to make the first serious cuts in education since the Geddes axe was swung before the war.
These cuts are not only heavy but, unfortunately, unselective, and they are falling in so many of the wrong places. They are falling on the technological universities of Aston and Salford; and they are falling in places where no one thought that they would or should fall. To a certain degree this is not entirely the fault of the Government, and I am quite certain
566
that the noble Lord the Minister who is to answer will make the point that to a certain extent this is the price we have to pay for a free system in higher education. Nevertheless, this crisis has not been entirely unforeseen. The whole area of higher education is a Government responsibility to a very large extent, and, these days, no Government, whatever their philosophy, are able to shed that responsibility.
My Lords, the purpose of this debate is not just to make a vulgar attack on the Government, although by the time some of the speakers have finished I have no doubt it may occasionally have sounded like it. But I for one—and I am sure other noble Lords who are involved in this field—have a lot of sympathy for the Government and the dilemma in which they have found themselves. The economic situation is unprecedented; the economic panaceas of the past do not fit into the present situation, or certainly not exactly; it is a whole new situation, a whole new ball game. Economies in many fields have been essential, and the proponents in each field, as soon as the economies have been mentioned, have squealed like stuck pigs. There are economies to be made everywhere, and if there is any fat in the land there is no doubt that some of it is to be found in the field of higher education as well as elsewhere. So I am not going to argue this afternoon for the protection of tenure, for the value to students of going to study far from their homes. I am merely arguing that, rather than cut down on the production of skills, the only sensible thing to do is to increase them, and that there are ways of doing this without great extravagance.
My Lords, we must increase these skills because, as I have already said, we must be adaptable. We have got to increase them because in a democracy we cannot leave behind part of our society. I think that in some people's minds—and, maybe, it is even in the minds of the Ministers who are responsible—there is the idea that, somehow, in bad times we continue to educate an elite which will carry us through the economic blizzards, and that the rest of us may have to fall behind for a time; that we are expendable, not because they want us to be expendable but because it just has to be.
There are two things to be said about that. First, you cannot fall behind for a time. If you fall behind at all, it is a whole generation that falls behind; and the vice-chancellors have already pointed out the inevitability of this with, already, the present cuts. The second thing to be said is that there is a real danger to democracy, not only from unemployment but from too big a gap between whatever élite there may be and the rest of the population. Democracy is a seamless web. It may stretch a long way, but unless it holds together, unless every part of it feels that it belongs to every other part, you are in danger of the kind of rending that resulted in the Weimar Republic. We need more education, not only so that we may have able people to produce and to export, but so that the whole of society can keep in touch while dealing with the problems which the whole of society has to face.
My Lords, in introducing this debate I clearly cannot touch overmuch on individual points. There are many noble Lords with so much practical experience of higher education that it would be impertinent for me to trespass in their fields; but there is one topic on which I must touch. Your Lordships will be aware

567
that for some time I had down on the Order Paper an Unstarred Question on part-time education, in which debate I intended to touch on the problems of the students of the Open University, of Birkbeck, of Goldsmith's College and similar institutions. That debate has been incorporated into this one, not only because it was obviously along the same lines and a sensible thing to do but because it is at the very heart of the debate. The plight of the Open University is a key point as to our attitudes to education, and if we are able to use the Open University and institutions like it we shall be able to continue the level of our education both in quantity and in quality.
In a recent debate on this subject in another place Mr. Van Straubenzee revealed that when the present Prime Minister was Secretary of State for Education she saved the Open University. It was a remark which sent shivers down my spine when I read it. It is of course very much to the lady's credit that she did so; but that anyone should need to save the Open University is particularly horrifying, especially in a Conservative Administration, which has always taken pride in respecting value for money. It may be that in the present academic climate we have too many universities. I am not going to say that we have or that we have not; but I would accept that one can have an argument about that. But what is clear is that we do not have too many students. We do not have enough students, and it is institutes like the Open University and Birkbeck which can solve that paradox: that maybe we have to cut back to a certain extent on institutions, but that we must never cut back on what is taught and what is learned.
My Lords, perhaps I may move to just a few details about the kind of things which are needed if the Open University and other institutions like it are to play their part, if we are to shift the burden of education to a certain extent from the more expensive and more traditional forms of institution to where education can be produced with the minimum of resources and the maximum of effect. I think that, for the Open University, one step that must be taken is to give discretionary grants to students. What is happening at the moment is that there are disincentives to students to study there: a disincentive against using this extremely cheap form of education, and a disincentive away from the technological courses. When students do not get their summer school fees paid they tend not to choose the courses which have compulsory summer schools, and often it is the technological courses which fall into that situation.
The Open University certainly needs help, because it has the resources to meet the demands which are going to fall on it in the forthcoming year. We are indeed grateful to the Government for the grant they have recently given for studies for the unemployed. This is very necessary and very welcome; but it is a pity that at the same time there appears to be a clamping down on the 21-hour rule for people who are out of work. Noble Lords may know that the unemployed can undertake study if they can keep the time for which they are studying below 21 hours. They can do that without losing the benefit they get for being unemployed. Surely, this is what we would want.
568
But at the moment there appears to be a clamp down, which I think is not the responsibility of the noble Lord's department but is nevertheless the responsibility of Government. It is contended that those 21 hours include hours used for travel and hours used for meals, and it is really a clamp down on the work being done by the unemployed. That is something we want to reverse.
There are also the problems of places like Birkbeck and Goldsmith. Birkbeck, as your Lordships will know, has evening classes in degree courses. It is a college of the University of London and has brilliant teachers and brilliant courses. It finds itself cut back as much as the other universities, although I suppose that to a certain extent it is lucky because if it was in the public sector, if it was in the sector which embraces the polytechnics, it would be cut even more. The method of counting the number of teachers who are considered necessary, and therefore the number who have to be cut if economies are to be made, is bringing us to the stage where, according to Mr. Eric Robinson's computation, the part-time student-staff ratio in some places is 1 to 70. That also is a ridiculous waste of resources.
I will not go on itemising the number of points at which this preservation of part-time education needs the Government's immediate attention and where we can invest with the minimum of cost and the maximum of results. There are plenty of others. There are sandwich courses which will be very badly hit by the part-time scale that the Government allow for the universities to deal with their cuts. There is the question of the polytechnics re-planning their courses from a situation where the courses are undoubtedly very unequal in their costs and effectiveness to a position where all their courses will be the same. I do not think that that is necessarily the way in which it should be done. There must be more planning and more time for planning.
Then there is adult education. There is the problem of adult education which there is absolutely no statutory need for the local authorities to provide but which they always have provided but which many of them now will not be providing because of the cuts which are being imposed. All these aspects add up to a situation where part-time education, and education which is done at a level and on a basis which is rewarding and which is saving money, is being hit as much as full-time and more expensive education. That is the basis of what I am asking the Government to do something about and to which I hope they will reply this evening.
I started by admitting that the Government had serious problems. It may be that some major cuts in the educational field are inevitable. It may be that, having cut capital expenditure, having indirectly cut tenure, the next thing to suffer will be salaries. In a House full of academics I merely say maybe, for I am not brave enough to go further than that. But whatever is cut—and there cannot be anyone in this House who does not know that there is a real need for some kind of cuts—it must not be education itself. If we cut education itself then we cut not only our economic future—and we certainly cut that—but our democratic future as well. I should like to close

569
with a quotation from the philosopher Alfred Whitehead:
"In the conditions of modern life the rule is absolute, the race which does not value trained intelligence is doomed. Not all your heroism, not all your social charm, not all your victories on land and sea can move back the finger of fate ".
I beg to move for Papers, my Lords.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I think we are much in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for having instituted this debate, It is a subject of very great importance and I think he has succeeded both in the wording of the Motion and in what he has said in directing our attention to what are at the moment some of the most pressing aspects of the problem of providing the country with an adequate educational system. The Motion speaks of calling,
"attention to the urgent need for a better educated working population".
Some might argue that the Motion could have been amended by omitting the word "better" and omitting the word "working" and that what we require is an educated population. That is true, but at the present time we are especially concerned with ensuring that the part of the population who immediately and directly contributes to the production of wealth is provided with a better education than has been within the reach of many of them for some time.
The argument can go on for ever. How much ought one to regard education as a kind of economic investment improving the productive power of the individuals who receive it? How far ought one to regard it as something enhancing and glorifying the personality of those who receive it? Is it to be regarded as strictly utilitarian or partly for a better quality of life? One can argue that indefinitely. I am concerned at this moment in this debate with its relationship to the increased production of wealth; and that does not make it any less worthy than if one took a more exalted view of education, because to enable a man to contribute more skilfully and with a greater use of his faculties to the production of wealth not only benefits the society in which he lives; it extends, improves and enhances his own personality.
That there is a direct relationship between some aspects of education and economic advance has been overwhelmingly proved in regard to the past, the present and the future. It was notable in the last century that the great leap forward of imperial Germany to become the great industrial power that it did was linked to the fact that at the outset of that determination so to transform itself was a decision to have a competent system of technical education for as large a proportion of the population as could be managed. It was one of the most remarkable events of that century.
In our own time today we are finding that, although we are worried about low output and about unemployment, we continue to live in a more complex and more elaborate society in which the methods of producing wealth are ever becoming more complicated and, if we discover how to fit them into our society, more efficient. That means that we require people capable of grasping concepts and handling machinery at a
570
greater level of skill than was true in past generations. It is not only that. Our society is made complex partly by the way in which different nations are brought into closer contact with one another.
At Question Time today there were arguments about the advantages and disadvantages of our membership of the European Economic Community. Nobody could dispute that if the number of people in this country who could discuss that problem in a reasonable, well informed manner was increased, that would be to the public advantage. If we all had a greater understanding of the facts of history and geography and of what has put our country into its position in the world, there might be greater willingness among people of different races and backgrounds in this country to understand and tolerate one another. What is certain is that we cannot go on constantly making our society more complicated, both in its industries and in its personal relations, and still behave as if no improvement of the educational system to take account of that were required.
I spoke also of the future. We were hoping—we were hoping a little more brightly until a recent report about industrial output—that we were at last approaching industrial recovery. One of the clouds on the horizon is that, if the process of industrial recovery does begin in this country, it will be in danger before long of being pulled up short by a lack of a sufficient number of skilled people in industry. It is always true at any point in history that one must have some more and some less skilled people in the industrial process, and that unless the proportion of skilled is sufficiently great, the labour of the rest cannot be effectively employed.
We ought therefore at the present time, when we are still hoping for recovery, to be taking steps to see that the number of people with skills is going to be sufficient so that when recovery does come we can proceed with it steadily and not be pulled up short. Out of the whole process of trying to provide ourselves with a better educated working population, I share the point of view with the noble Lord who started this debate in laying particular stress on part-time education. Here at least is one part of the educational system where nobody can say that there is a great deal of fat which one can cheerfully cut with no prospect of doing harm to the educational system.
The person who gets his education part-time, who is a worker in industry or commerce during the day or for some days of the week and devotes the rest of his waking time to learning, is one of the most economical practitioners of education one can find. He is exactly the kind of person who, in times when one is generally hard up, one ought to be anxious to assist and encourage. Part-time education in effect means adult education. Something else we ought to have learned long ago but have been learning all the more emphatically recently is the necessity for education to be a continuous process throughout life. I used to think it went on until one retired, but when I came here I found that my education was lacking in a great many respects and there was much more that I had to learn.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the story of the small girl who went to school on her first day, having attained the age of five. At the end of the day, when she was asked by her mother how she had got on, she

571
replied that she did not think that she had got on very well. When the mother asked why not, she said, "Well, they tell me that I have to come again tomorrow"! All of us in the end learn this lesson. Whenever we think that we have completed the educational process, new things keep turning up in the world and we have, as it were, if not to go back to school, still to be in the learning frame of mind.
At the simplest level, it is that machinery becomes more complicated and you have to be ready to acquaint yourself with new ideas. To how many of us, I wonder, is the concept of the computer and the binary system of numeration second nature? Before long it has to be so for everybody. This is but one example of many. That is why our education system must contain not only the school and the university for the child and the adolescent, but also opportunities for adult education which, since people have to earn their living, have for most of them to be part-time.
We have a considerable tradition in this country of part-time education promoted partly by the extramural departments of universities, partly directly by local authorities and partly by—I was going to say such bodies as the Workers' Educational Association, but I am not sure that there is another body such as the Workers' Educational Association. Its contribution to the life of this country has been unique and considerable. Of course, it has drawn on local authorities and universities, and on the pockets of its diligent students, for its funds. All those agencies have helped to provide us with a vigorous tradition of part-time education, one which is free of any suspicion of being controlled or directed by the state or being any kind o propagandist institution. If we are concerned for our educational needs, we must give special thought to part-time adult education and these agencies through which it has been provided.
It is at this stage that it is almost impossible to avoid criticism of the Government. Mindful of Lord Beaumont's caution, I will endeavour to make it as little vulgar as the deficiencies of my own nature make possible. When one looks round one cannot dodge the fact that the cuts are there. Usually in almost every other field—social services, housing and so on—the Government's first reaction to any accusation that they are cutting anything is simply to maintain that they are not. It is rather like conducting diplomacy with the Russians, where their first reaction when you point out that they have done something unsatisfactory is to say flatly that no such thing has occurred. After that you can begin to get gradually on to the business.
In this case I am afraid that it cannot be denied that there have been cuts. We find London University proposing at one stage to cut expenditure on its extramural department by 50 per cent. After considerable protest and struggle, that was changed to a reduction by 50 per cent. spread over a period of three years. That is a reduction; there is no way of getting round that.
Local authorities are cutting everywhere. That will not be denied. Alas, the field of adult and part-time education is generally the field in which it is easiest to cut. Authorities are not obliged statutorily to make grants for part-time education. The part-time student has to rely on discretionary grants. This I hope is
572
one of the things that the Government will look at: whether it ought not to be brought 5within the field of mandatory grants. The Government, I am sure, will hardly have the face to say that they would not want to do that because they believe so strongly in the liberty of local authorities and do not want too much mandating about it. In view of some of the legislation that they have been introducing, it is really not open to them to say that at this time.
Regarding the Open University, its fees in the past two or three years have risen by about 80 per cent. This of course is the result of decisions by Government regarding how much money it can have. Meanwhile, the number of local authorities who give any help to students using the Open University has been steadily declining. Now, I believe, rather fewer than one in 10 local authorities assist students going to the Open University.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, raised the question of the £500,000 that will be available for students who are unemployed. I should like to ask about that. That, I understand, is for the year 1982. If it is not all used up in 1982, will it carry on to 1983; or, if it is all used up in 1982, will there be another £500,000 in 1983 and in subsequent years?—that is, of course, unless unemployment has disappeared by that time. If that happens, we should naturally all be delighted. Also will this be available only to those at the Open University? Will it benefit, for example, those at Birkbeck or at Goldsmith's?
I mentioned that the part-time student is at a continuing disadvantage because he can get only a discretionary grant, and that the college supplying part-time education is under the handicap that, in determining what grant it may be entitled to, an underestimate is made of how expensive it is for it to provide part-time education. So there is discrimination against both the part-time student and the institution that ministers to his needs.
In general over the whole field of colleges providing further education, whether part-time or full-time, there has been the effect of the severe limiting of the advanced further education pool which began in 1979. To illustrate the kind of effect of this, I should like to quote a comment from one college of arts and technology:
"When we started the part-time B.Sc. Degree in Electronics in 1978 we applied the same part-time fee as for the Arts Degree but it was subsequently argued that as there was no full-time parallel these students have no opportunities whatsoever of assistance from public funds and we therefore reduced the fee in 1979–80 to £57. However, the local authority has insisted that this fee should be increased, with the effect that in 1980–81 it was £90 and in 1981–82 it is £137—an increase of 140 per cent".
The income of potential students has not gone up by figures of that kind, and those increases in fees are due to the fact that the local authority requires them, and the local authority requires them because of the pressure on its own funds from the Government. You have a very sharp pressure, then, on the part-time students—on the one section of the whole education scheme which one would have thought least deserved and could least afford a cut of that kind.
What is it we are asking from the Government? We know it is no good asking for massive injections of public money for any purpose whatever, but I wonder whether the Government would consider something of

573
a change of heart that would result in a modest increase in expenditure. The Government always seem to think that if money is spent through a public channel that is something of an extravagance or a luxury, whereas the whole private part of the economy is wealth producing. Yesterday we spent some time debating sex shops. It is not a part of our economy to which I have previously devoted much attention, but, as the debate proceeded, it occurred to me that it was an example of exactly that section of the economy which the Government are always asking us to admire. It is purely private; it makes no demands on public funds; the people who run the shops, if they have a proper regard for market forces, will make profits and pay taxes. That is what the Government call the wealth-producing part of the economy. By comparison with them, a miserable professor helping people to take degrees in electronics is a public parasite.
That is the trouble: so, before they are in a position to make a lot of money, could the Government have a change of heart and consider that money spent at any rate on certain types of education which in particular benefit the part-time student, does not detract from the public wealth and is not a luxury we could occasionally, but not now, afford, but is an actual contribution to the wealth-producing process? The Government's tendency to equate the private sector with wealth producing and the public sector with wealth devouring is a fundamental error. It would be true in some cases but it is not by any law of nature bound to be true, and in this case it is overwhelmingly not so. Therefore, we would ask the Government to grasp the nature of the education process and its connection with the production of wealth.
There is a long argument as to whether we are ultimately saved by works or by faith. I am not asking the Government for a lot of works as yet; I am merely asking them to express a little faith in the value of education and to show that by a reversal of policy and a gradual—because we know quite well it will be gradual—increase in the provision made. Will they try as soon as they can to get back to the position regarding part-time students that they were in two years ago? That would be a very modest start, but, if it were made, it would show that the Government had at last grasped the need for a better-educated working population.
3.46 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on his Motion, which he introduced so well and which I expect to lead to a very good debate.
I do not think the first part of the Motion is quite right. It really does not make educational sense to talk about education for the working population and not the others. We all need education and we all need better education, whether or not we are in work, willingly or unwillingly.
The second part refers to the cuts in higher education. On that, I must say I am solidly behind the Secretary of State. I am sure that stricter financial discipline is required in our universities following the years of rapid expansion after the Robbins Report. I do not know that things are quite so bad here as
574
they appear to be in America. I do not know whether any of your Lordships saw an article in The Times this morning by Mr. Henry Fairlie, in which he said:
"… many teachers who ought not to be teaching are able to live comfortably off the aid given to many students who do not deserve to be taught".
Perhaps your Lordships would not think that is occurring in this country, but as a matter of fact there is a whiff of it in quite a number of universities, and I think the vice-chancellors will be grateful to have the chance to tighten up their admissions systems.
The third part of the Motion calls for more resources for adult education, and I found it very interesting that both noble Lords who have so far spoken have concentrated on that part of the Motion. I wish to do so too. It is very difficult to tackle this problem of adult education, because the structure of our system has not been designed to provide balanced opportunities for study throughout life. British education has always been unfair to some people and to some stages in life. I would say that the twin aims of modern society should be to teach the young and old how to raise the material standards, the wealth of the country, and to open their hearts and minds to the values which alone can hold a free society together. We are now a pluralist and multiracial democracy and so far we have failed to develop a culture adequate for such a society—I mean a culture for everybody, not one way of talking and acting for the highly educated and another way for all the rest; not one way of behaving in the private sector and another way of behaving in the public sector.
The present system of education does not meet these two pressing modern needs. It is both uneven and unfair. The fashion is to say—and both noble Lords who have spoken have said it—that the area of greater deficiency is in training in subjects like mathematics, science or technology. I cannot agree. Far more serious and harmful is the absence of common moral standards; for instance, the lack of agreement on the extent of our obligations to each other.
Take the nationalised industries as an example—their internal troubles, the waste of money and manpower and the attitudes of managers and trade union officials to the public interest. Could any of those weaknesses be cured if the total number of their employees who now hold an O-level in maths, or a degree in engineering, were doubled? It would not touch the industrial troubles in British Rail. Of course, it might help—I think it would help-productivity. But far greater damage is being done to the industries concerned by the lack of what I call a common culture. We are not born with common standards of what is right and what is wrong. They have to be taught, and they are not being taught sufficiently today.
I do not know the exact sum, but we are spending something over £10 billion a year on three, more or less, separate blocks of teaching—full-time education in the schools, the universities at the other end and, in between, all post-school education outside the universities. Let us suppose that we could start afresh with a clean slate. How would we lay out the £10 billion to meet the changes and challenges of the rest of this century? Surely, we should want to set up a single continuous system available throughout

575
life, from nursery schools to hobby courses for old age pensioners, and we would try to give what we are not giving now—fair treatment to each stage in life of every person. That would be a big change. We still treat education as a series of packages to be offered to different people in different amounts, and at different times in their lives. There is now no design for continuity in British education.
Some of your Lordships will recall that, at the time of the 1944 Education Act, it was taken for granted by most of those concerned that, for a majority of children, a primary school from 5 to 11 and a secondary school from 11 to 16 was all the education they required for the whole of their lives. The part of the Act calling for county colleges was never implemented. I never found anybody who thought it had the slightest relevance to the times we were living in. In fact, as recently as the mid-1950s, the highest priority at the Ministry of Education had to be to find a secondary school place for every child. Thousands were still in all-age schools. The second priority was to do something about our technical education which, as the noble Lord said, was far behind that of the German, the Russian and the American. In fact, I was able to persuade Sir Winston Churchill to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the money only by telling him that the Russians were in advance of us. He said "Oh! If that's so, you can have what you want."
At that time—I have to say this—the universities, whom God preserve!, took not the slightest interest in the maintained schools. I went to them for help on several occasions. All but a tiny minority turned me down flat. Financed by the Treasury, they were living in a world of their own and they thought it beneath their dignity to have any kind of dealings with the Ministry of Education. That is a very good example of what happens when you do not have a system of education which is designed for continuity through life. In the same period, adult education was starved of funds. I am largely to blame for that and I greatly regret it. No one was then interested in catering for all the stages of life in a fair and balanced way.
Very well, my Lords. If we could start again, which would be the areas calling for major change? I am not sure whether education for the under-fives would be among the highest priorities, but I am sure that a most serious gap exists in the age group between 16 and 19. It is in those years immediately following school that training in the skills which both noble Lords want so much, and, I would add, in the pursuit of a culture of worthwhile depth, is so conspicuously lacking. Secondly, as the noble Lord pointed out, adult education is neglected and much greater provision is needed there, both for the retraining for new jobs and for the development of a common culture. Both those operations should be under the DES. No part of them should be under the Department of Employment. It must be right to make all sides of education into one balanced whole, and that means one Minister responsible.
Such a restructuring of our education would require vastly increased resources and, so long as inflation remains unconquered, Sir Keith Joseph is right to insist that these resources cannot be made available. Therefore, a start in restructuring could begin only by a
576
transfer of resources within the existing budget, and that we should do right away, without delay, aiming at a better balance between full-time schooling and the 16 to 19 year-olds, and a better balance between universities and adult education. Both these things would require hard political decisions, but I hope my right honourable friends will at least say that these are directions in which they wish to move as soon as it is possible.
In previous debates, my noble friend Lord Alexander of Potterhill told us how to provide for the 16 to 19 year-olds. I agree broadly with his proposal and will not enlarge upon it this afternoon. Adult education is a more difficult problem, one that we must tackle with courage and soon, because it is in this area, rather than in the schools or in the universities, that we shall succeed or fail in developing a culture which is adequate to our modern society. We have to persuade a growing proportion of the adult population to participate in activities that illustrate and sustain the values which, by long experience, men have found necessary to keep a free society together.
The most powerful educational instruments we have are television and radio. The standards which they set must have an immense influence all through life. Certainly the co-operation of the media is vital but alone cannot be sufficient, for the values I am talking about are not to be learned at second hand by spectators. They must be explained, discussed and practised at first hand. Do your Lordships think that England would have become a Christian country if there had not been a church or a chapel in every village or community? The people had to practise their religion. The same is true of adult education. It has to be diffused on a similar scale, through community centres, art workshops, public libraries and so on. I am confident that if the Government and local authorities were to make the premises available and pay towards the cost of administration, men and women would come forward who would manage successfully a widely distributed network of adult education. They would by supplementing, not supplanting, the good work done by the Churches and other voluntary bodies.
Finally, if we were a communist country, only the state would develop a common culture, and it would make use of censorship and compulsion. In our pluralist and multiracial democracy, developing a common culture is everybody's business, and we are rather good at that sort of mixed enterprise. I conclude my remarks, encouraged by what both of the previous speakers have said, by asking your Lordships to agree that adult education on a scale not yet envisaged is an area to which substantial resources should now be transferred without waiting for additional funds to become available.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for choosing this subject for debate. The Motion before the House draws attention to three different issues, all of them of the greatest importance. That there is an urgent need for a better educated working population, and indeed for an educated population as a whole, is, I imagine, a claim to which all of your Lordships would subscribe.

577
We are all aware that modern technology, as it is applied to industry, commerce and the social services, both decreases the number of people needed to do the job and increases the complexity of doing it and, consequently, increases the skills required of the workers. There can be little argument about that. Nor is there much room for argument that in the United Kingdom we have been less efficient than many other developed countries in providing the sort of education that is required to deal with this new situation. There is no need for me to labour this point. It has been made. We are going to be faced with a shortage of skilled workers if there is an industrial upturn. We have an immense task before us if we are to catch up. It will require not only changes in the initial education of the young and the 16 to 19 year-olds but also, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has just said, a new level of concentration upon educating those already in work.
Adult education in this country has tended to concentrate on courses in leisure activities rather than on updating or refreshment in vocational subjects. What we now need has come to be called instead "continuing education", in order to differentiate it from the old established and very necessary adult education. One is very glad to welcome the efforts of the present Government, through the Manpower Services Commission, or the Department of Education and Science, to do something positive; and to hope that the Open Tech takes shape and fulfils the hopes that rest upon it. But there is a very, very long way to go and very little money. We know that initial education is no longer adequate to a lifetime career. We pay lip-service to the need for continuing education, but we do not pay for it—as, indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has just said. We go on spending almost all we can afford on initial education. Our proportions are all wrong and the emphasis must change —and must change now.
Furthermore, a better educated working population does not just mean a working population with the skills necessary to cope with modern technology. If that were all that we were to aim at and to achieve, we would run serious risks of ending up with a bitterly frustrated population. People embark upon education for two main purposes: first, broadly vocational ones, to improve their chances of earning a living, or getting promotion, or a more interesting job; and, second, for self-fulfilment: to learn how to do or to understand things that they enjoy, or simply to prove something to themselves about their own abilities. Vocational education alone will not be enough when jobs remain scarce and leisure time increases. While vocationally orientated education and training must be our first priority, it must not exclude the non-vocational. People, to be efficient, must be content. Unemployment when it occurs must be made as tolerable as is humanly possible. Education for self-fulfilment can play a very large part in engendering contentment, and we must not neglect it.
The second part of the Motion calls attention to the dangers posed by the present cuts in higher and further education. The universities have been making cuts in the fat that undoubtedly existed for several years. The cuts now are putting the universities really in a mess. If there were a change of heart now and an immediate restoration of what has been cut, it is
578
possible that they might be healed. But by the time this Government have run their full course they will be damaged beyond repair and several cohorts of our young people will have suffered considerable deprivation before any sort of order can be reimposed.
These cuts have already received a great deal of publicity and the damage that they are doing, and will do, has been very fully described. I will not expand upon it. Instead I will dwell a little on the third element of the Motion; namely, the necessity for increased aid for part-time and other adult education. Can I take, for instance, the problems of part-time students studying for degrees. They are, I believe, perhaps the most vital of all part-time students. They are a very serious, motivated group of students, and there are about 77,000 of them. Many are mature people in full employment. It is at least arguable, as many teachers who dealt with ex-service students after the war have testified, that mature students are keener, harder working and just as able as are school-leavers. But when these part-time students have embarked on quite the most difficult way of getting a degree yet devised by the wit of man, we do nothing to make it easy for them. What we do—to be fair to Governments of all descriptions, I think we do it often by accident rather than by design—is to make it as difficult as possible. We discriminate positively against them. They are not eligible for mandatory grants for fees or for maintenance, as are full-time students. They must therefore bear the full cost of fees and expenses for their education out of their own pockets, unless they can get help from other sources.
What is that full cost, and what are the sources of help? Of the 77,000 part-time degree students, no fewer than 60,000 are studying at the Open University: some 13,000 are seeking CNAA degrees (mostly in the polytechnics); and 4,500 arc studying in the conventional universities—many at Birkbeck College. The maximum fee for a part-time honours degree at a conventional university is £675. For a CNAA honours degree, fees range from £500 to £700.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, spell out what he means by the initials CNAA?
Lord Perry of Walton: Yes, my Lords: those initials stand for Council for National Academic Awards. At the Open University, the minimum cost of an honours degree is £1,114, and over the past two years this has been increased by Government forces by 79 per cent. The maximum fee for an honours degree in science and technology is no less than £1,800.
in addition to these fees, part-time students must buy their own books, must travel to meet tutors, and must meet postage costs, which are no longer negligible. On top of that, they may have to accept a reduction in income by forgoing overtime to make extra time for study, or they may have to pay for help in the home for the same reasons. Full-time students are currently charged fees of £2,700 for an honours degree but they get—if they are citizens—mandatory grants that cover all fees and, on a means-tested basis, they also get money to provide for travel costs, books and maintenance. The part-time student gets nothing at all as of right.

579
The part-time student can look for help, often vainly, to the local education authority, by requesting a discretionary grant. These have always been very difficult to get, but since the very serious financial plight of the local authorities has taken effect this source has dried up, although perhaps not so much as has been suggested. It is true that now 25 per cent. of local authorities give no discretionary grants whatsoever to Open University students. The part-time student might think in terms of his employers. Some employers are very generous, but most will pay only in respect of courses of obvious benefit to the work of the employee. Help is almost never available to manual workers, and things are getting progressively worse as industry itself comes under increasing financial pressure. Then, there are the very welcome special hardship funds, such as those provided by the Government to the Open University. However, the amount available is very limited and only about 5 per cent. of students have been helped, on a very severe means-test basis.
The additional £½ million Government grant for unemployed students, which I believe is restricted to students of the Open University, was of course very welcome, but it may yet turn out to be more apparent than real. It seems that unemployed students who are receiving supplementary benefit may find that a waiver of the fees is assessed as income; and the problems of studying more than 20 hours a week have already been mentioned. It is a fairly ludicrous situation in which students may work as many hours as they wish studying tiddly-winks but if they study something serious that will improve their employability they will lose their supplementary benefit. This is based on the argument that supplementary benefit was not intended to be an educational maintenance allowance. I am very glad to see that the Minister is to look at this anomaly.
There are no other sources of help for part-time degree students. Nowadays most of them pay their own way, and it is an expensive way. Is it not unjust that a man or woman who at the age of, say, 30 decides that more education is vital; who, despite the demands of work, home and family is sufficiently determined to embark on part-time study; and who, typically is in employment and is contributing to the gross national product should have no help from society while school-leavers in full-time education should be wholly supported? It is not only unjust; at the moment it is also very short-sighted. One result of the increases in fees and the reduction of discretionary grants is that access to part-time degree courses at the Open University or at Birkbeck College, and no doubt at the others, is more and more restricted to those who are better off and better able to pay. This is happening just when the efforts of the past few years to make access available to all have begun to reap reward, just when the number of entrants from the most disadvantaged groups in the community was beginning to go up.
I have said little about the problems of adult education apart from the difficulties facing part-time degree students, because I know much less about them. But in the past two days I have been assured by many who are deeply involved in adult education that they face precisely the same difficulties and problems as
580
do those who are involved in part-time higher education. The situation is bad and it is getting worse. I hope, with others, that the Government will give us some indication of whether they propose to take any steps to deal with the situation, and, if so, what those steps will be.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Robbins: My Lords, like others, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for propounding this Motion. We have already heard most stimulating speeches from both sides of your Lordships' House. In my remarks, I shall confine myself to a comparatively narrow subject of cuts in the universities; a subject with which I have a more intimate acquaintance than cuts elsewhere.
Let me say at once that it will not be my contention that in the present financial crisis the universities of this country should be immune from cuts. After all, the present excess of aggregate expenditure over the output of goods and services at constant prices is still landing us with inflation in double figures. Who is to say that there is no expenditure in the universities which can be cut without the danger of complete educational catastrophe? I believe that the talk of complete educational catastrophe has been somewhat overdone.
No doubt it is irksome and difficult to see the staff/ student ratio rising, but the staff/student ratio in the past in most universities in this country has been very considerably lower than the staff/student ratio in other civilised countries of the world. It is not true that other civilised countries of the world, whatever the defects of their educational systems—and I could expatiate for some time on those—fail to produce competent and cultivated graduates. The point I wish to make—and this will be my chief contribution—is some complaint about the way in which the cuts have been imposed by the Department of Education and Science and the UGC. This I find deeply disturbing. The minute prescription of numbers to each institution completely changes the relationship which has existed hitherto between the UGC and the universities, a relationship which has been the envy of universities in other countries, but which, alas, in my judgment, is no longer deserving of it. The minute prescription of limitations on numbers reminds me of no less than what I witnessed in the universities or Leningrad and Moscow.
My Lords, please do not misunderstand me in this connection. Obviously, the UGC must make estimates of probable global numbers coming forward. It must make them for its representations—let us hope it still makes representations—to the DES and the Treasury. But global estimates are one thing, detailed prescriptions to each individual institution, sometimes down to the last digit, are another thing. In the past it has been a conspicous feature of our education system that each university set its own standards and numbers of admissions, and, while there certainly was a substantial margin of error at the bottom of the admissions, and sometimes higher up, the removal of this freedom is a very serious thing indeed.
I do not wish to be wholly negative, but I suggest that it would have been much better for the UGC in these circumstances to have negotiated a global sum

581
with the DES and the Treasury. Then the next thing for them to have done would have been to set aside a contingency fund for those prestigious institutions injured by other follies, by the folly of the tremendous discrimination regarding the fees of overseas students. Then, having set aside that contingency fund, the UGC should, in my judgment, have gone to the universities saying, "This is a most exceptional occasion caused by financial circumstances largely outside your control, and for this reason we propose an all-round cut on each of you of a uniform percentage, leaving it to the governing bodies and the academics to settle how it is to affect your arrangements".
I have heard it said, and I have talked about this a good deal, that that would be an abdication of the role of the UGC. But can there be any doubt that in the exceptional circumstances it would have caused less resentment, and probably produced much superior academic arrangements in the individual institutions concerned; that it would have been better than this crude prescription from outside? I doubt if it is within the power of the University Grants Committee as at present constituted, and as conceivably constituted, to discriminate between the varying circumstances, the varying problems of each university in the university system as a whole.
But, be that as it may—and I stand open to correction—it is clear that the principle that places shall be found for all those young people able and willing to benefit from higher education—I am quoting from a committee with which I had some association!—has been completely thrown overboard, and I think that is a pity. I think it is a pity for the people now excluded. I will not make an estimate of the people, at the bottom of the applications, so to speak, who will be excluded. I have seen some disquieting figures, but I do not very much trust the people who put them forward. I certainly do not believe that at the A-level stage it is possible to gauge without a wide margin of error who is going to do well hereafter and who is going to fizzle out. That is the deficiency of the system which is past. Now the prescription of numbers from outside has increased the deficiency.
I still believe in the principle which I have mentioned, the principle that young people able and willing to benefit should be found places in the institutions for which they are suited. In my view, this principle is part of a larger principle which I hope your Lordships on both sides of the House uniformly accept, the principle of equality of opportunity.
I shall now advance speculations which will be less universally accepted. It may be said that the numbers of university graduates who in the past have been thus privileged—leaving aside those who in some way or other have provided their own finance or had the aid of their parents—have some presumption of obtaining, in many cases, a higher income than those who have not been so previleged. After all, the argument for state assistance to undergraduates and graduates, if they are lucky enough to be admitted to a graduate school, is based upon the recognised inadequacy of capital resources on the part of all the people concerned. Is it not also arguable that, without some obligation eventually to repay, the principle involves a subsidy from the non-privileged
582
to the privileged? I do not think that this argument can be dismissed lightly.
Probably in a great many cases those who have received a university education have the prospect of thereafter receiving a higher income than many of those who have not been so privileged. I ask myself: Is there not some way in which this defect can be removed? It may be said by some that greater facilities for ordinary loans is the answer; but it would not be said by me. I could repeat all the arguments against ordinary loans in my sleep, and most of the arguments are valid. Loans of this sort are difficult to repay. If the income gained after graduation is not proportionately higher than the capital and the interest involved, there is real hardship in the obligation to repay affecting, for instance, one sex much more than the other, and some people who have gone into estimable occupations not carrying with them a higher income in addition. 1 think that experience anywhere where ordinary loans have been involved vindicates this conclusion.
But such objections do not arise if the monies advanced are not repayable until an income is available which allows the monies advanced to be amortised without hardship. If this principle, which is not my idea but one advanced by Professor Alan Prest, who is one of the leading international authorities on public finance, were adopted, the collection of the amounts involved could reasonably be added to the duties of the Inland Revenue. The amounts advanced would be recorded, but they would not be claimed until the income concerned had exceeded a certain figure.
I hasten to say in conclusion that, if such a system were adopted, the easement of the burden involved would for very obvious reasons be a small one: it would not solve our present financial difficulties, but in the end, in 10 years' time, it might be very considerable. And, if it were adopted, the last valid objection to the important principle of making capital available to those willing and able to enjoy the benefits of higher education would be eliminated.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Mais: My Lords, I must begin by declaring an interest in that I have been a chancellor and am now pro-chancellor of a university, and thus I have been on the receiving end of the measures which the Government have imposed upon those universities. And so it is to the financial implications that I propose to direct most of my remarks. I would say at the outset that I accept entirely that, having regard to the present economic situation in this country, the Government are faced with having to make cuts, and in some cases drastic cuts. It is not unreasonable that universities should to some extent be involved in those cuts. Having said that, what I find thoroughly unreasonable is the manner in which they have been carried out: the magnitude of the cuts; the period over which those cuts were to be effected, and the lack of adequate notice. I shall deal with those points in greater detail in a moment, and the effect that they have on one university in particular.
If I confine my remarks probably more to one university than to universities as a whole, it is because I have personal knowledge of one and I am satisfied that

583
the problems that we face are faced to a greater or lesser extent by all other universities in this country. As a result of Government policy, universities are faced with major reductions in Government grants in the financial year beginning August 1981 and continuing in subsequent years. But universities were not advised of the extent of the reduction in grants until July 1981—one month before the financial year of the universities was about to start. How could any organisation—not even the best organised commercial company—have completely redrafted its financial plan with one month's notice? Commitments had already been made; students had already been enrolled. To meet these cuts, drastic reductions in academic and non-academic staff were necessary. This could not be done in the short time that was available and at that time the University Grants Committee could not indicate to the universities whether the Government would or would not meet the cost of those redundancies.
It was not until six months later that the universities were informed that Her Majesty's Government would meet the redundancy costs for academic staff only. No indication was given at all as to what would be the result, or the case, for non-academic staff. Quite obviously, non-academic staff must be looked at even more closely than the academic staff in these reductions.
I imagine that all universities reacted in the same way as the university with which I am connected—namely, the City University. We immediately set up a working party to produce a plan based on the reduced grants, which would, we hoped, enable us to survive in one form or another. Very early the outcome was quite clear. The cost of the redundancies of staff could not possibly be met from university funds. As I have said, six months elapsed before we were told that, as regards academic staff, the Government would shoulder the cost. But we still await a decision regarding the non-academic staff, and we shall not be able to produce the savings which are essential and which have been forced upon us until we have that answer.
Another problem, which has already been referred to by one noble Lord—and I apologise that I did not make a note of his name at the time—is the increase in the charges to overseas students. Overseas students pay what is known as "a whole cost fee". If the charges to overseas students are increased, it follows that there will be a reduction in numbers; and, in turn, it follows that there will be fewer overseas students in universities. That also means a further reduction in the universities' income.
I cannot speak for other universities, but I shall give noble Lords an idea of the magnitude of the problem facing the City University. As I have said, because we did not know until 1st July the extent of the cuts which would become effective one month later, staff contracts could not be terminated nor other measures taken to deal with our reduced income. The result of this lack of advance warning is that by 31st July 1982 the university will have a £1 million overdraft. Senate and council have approved a plan for redundancies and for other savings, but by August 1983 our estimate is that that overdraft will have risen to £1·5 million. Because university buildings are, in the main, vested in the University Grants Committee, they cannot be used as collateral in support of those overdrafts. Nor can the buildings be sold, if that were
584
possible, to reduce the overdraft. So financially the university's hands are tied. The options open to us are limited.
On perhaps a lighter note, having regard to some of the adverse comments that are made from time to time about bankers, we went to our bankers and explained the situation. We told them of our estimated required overdraft facilities. It is to their credit that we have those overdraft facilities completely unsecured, but it is not very comforting or the best of climates in which to try to run a university—knowing that you have that debt to be settled sooner or later.
I make no apologies for dwelling principally upon one university, because I know that my comments apply equally—or, if not equally, to a lesser or greater extent—to every other university in this country. Because I know only too well the expertise and knowledge which exists in your Lorsdhips' House, it is better to speak from experience than from hearsay or a brief.
In conclusion, I thought, "What could I ask of Her Majesty's Government or suggest to them might be done? "Having regard to the present economic situation, it is a difficult problem to which to find any solution. But basically what has done the damage is the time factor. If universities had been given a longer period in which to consider what cuts could be made, the situation might have been easier. I realise that to ask Her Majesty's Government to think again about doing away with the cuts altogether is an impossibility. To suggest that they be postponed until 1982–83 would be a little help—a temporary help—but it would be no lasting solution to the problem.
May I suggest that a more effective way would be to spread these cuts over a much longer period and for the first reductions not to become effective until the financial year 1982–83? That would give the universities time to do whatever is within their own power to do. Let us hope that a compromise can be found, because this does not affect one university only. It affects universities throughout the whole of the country. But it goes deeper still. It will affect the future of quite a number of graduates already at university and the future of thousands to come over the next few years. It is upon those graduates that the future of this country may largely depend, and, with our present measures, we are putting the future of young people and, in my view, the country in jeopardy. As the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, so rightly said, the damage being done now to our universities will take a long time to heal. In my view, some may never recover.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I was a little disappointed that the debate we were to have had a week or two ago has been extended and made more general. It could now cover the whole range of education and the problems imposed upon it by the Government's economies. What we need, surely, is a series of narrowly focused debates on particular aspects of the educational services. We had a broad-ranging debate a few months ago, and this followed a great debate last year in which all the participants but one were people of high academic position, and each speech in that famous debate had the high style and gravity of an inaugural lecture if not,

585
or not quite, its length. This debate today has happily proved to be rather more closely focused than I feared. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, took part-time adult education right as the centre of his speech, and there have been a number of people following him, as I intend to do.
In this great debate about our educational system, expert seems to be divided from expert and there is not even agreement on the figures. But I see some kind of consensus dimly emerging; say that staff-student ratios are not sacred, and that the idea of tenure might be narrowed a little. Then there is, perhaps strongest of all, the feeling that the Government were right to rationalise expenditure in view of the diminishing population of school and university age. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Mais, has just said, they have done too much, too soon.
As one tries to follow this debate one realises that our educational system has become impossibly complex, laden with jargon, sprinkled with initials; in fact, beyond the comprehension of even the involved layman. When I turned to query the noble Lord, Lord Perry, about the meaning of the letters CNAA I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, gave me a look of indulgent scepticism at my ignorance which he must have used on thousands of undergraduates in his day. But may I assure him that just before this debate I asked one noble Lord who is expert on these matters and he had not a clue what they meant. He thought they might have something to do with the European Community.
My friends in universities have showered on me books, blue books, reports, and newspaper clippings, with merciless generosity. If I were to get to grips with them I should have to ask the Chief Whip to give me a sabbatical, and this would have to start with a refresher course in elementary statistics. All this on a subject which ought to be of universal concern; a subject on which, I think Disraeli said, the future of the nation depends.
What I am concerned about today is the subject upon which the noble Lord, Lord Perry, spoke out of his great wisdom and experience. That is, the problem of those people whose full-time education is over but who are adding to their vocational qualifications, or enriching their personal culture, in a systematic way. There are many such people. They comprise about 14 per cent. of the post-school generations, according to the National Institute of Adult Education. About half of these are receiving their education in the public sector. That is, they are undergoing part-time education at adult education centres, at further education colleges, or through university extra-mural departments or the WEA. The vast majority of these attend the adult education centres.
I wonder whether the Government can give us today some concrete information about how they have been affected by the cuts. Have the Government any national figures, or if these have not been collated, have they any information about particular regions or sectors? I am particularly concerned about those people who are trying to qualify for a degree while engaged on a full-time occupation. There was a time when I had such aspirations. I cannot pretend to have been educationally deprived. At the age of 18 I had a free choice, but Withy Grove, the heart of
586
the Kemsley empire, called more seductively than the Grove of Academe, and I went straight into journalism.
Later on I began to realise what I was missing, and I had faint aspirations to take a degree in my spare time, but unlike my noble friend Lady Jeger I did not have the moral stamina, the energy, the commitment to spend almost every leisure hour for four years in pursuit of that high goal. But her college of Birkbeck did accept me as an occasional student to pursue two courses at degree level, which were of great value to me as a journalist, coming as they did after some enrichment provided by the Workers' Educational Association. To both Birkbeck and the WEA, I owe a great debt of gratitude.
Birkbeck, apart from the Open University, is the only college which specialises in graduate and postgraduate courses for part-time students, and it has a famous and splendid history. I am glad to hear that the new fees for undergraduates there of £180 a year are not proving a deterrent. Of course, people who have done a year or two's studying would hang on at almost any cost. Even so, these fees are paid out of taxed income by the student, and he has of course other costs: those of meals, books and travel. It is very difficult for anybody who lives in London, particularly, to estimate what travel costs arc going to be over the next three or four years. They could be a deterrent if the increase in travel costs is the one predicted. There are other discouragements arising out of our troubled times. There is now found to be a reluctance on the part of women to move about some parts of London in the late evening, and this is affecting their part-time education.
However, to come back to costs, I think it is true both of the Open University and of other places that many promising students are kept back because they cannot afford to pay the fees and the other expenses around them. Has not the time come when local authorities should be empowered, encouraged, perhaps told, to operate a simple earning-related scheme of rewards for part-time students? I am not suggesting that public authorities should pay the whole lot, but that they should make some contribution. Could they not be given help with the cost of fees, books and travel with perhaps a 90 per cent. remission, or certainly a very heavy remission, for registered unemployed, who should find no bar to continuing their studies while they are unemployed.
But even though undergraduate fees are not currently unreasonable to the point of discouragement, the figure for post-graduate work of £330 a year is rather high, perhaps even higher than the marginal costs, for those who have to be provided with only occasional supervisory guidance. I have just had a preview of a document shortly to be published which has been produced for a distinguished steering committee which bears some well-known names. The study was conceived in 1980 before the present cuts were ordained, and was concerned with both the current and the prospective provisions of part-time education for mature students.
The committee has found that the opportunities at degree level are both limited and patchy. The Open University of course provides its range of opportunities, but this style of education at a distance is not suited to every studious temperament, and sometimes

587
there are difficulties, particularly for married women, to attend the compulsory summer schools. Then there are the extra mural departments which offer short part-time courses and some longer, award-bearing courses, and there are the polytechnics, which give a range of vocationally-oriented first-degree courses.
These patterns of provision are poorly co-ordinated. Few universities make significant part-time undergraduate provision, and Birkbeck is the only one to concentrate entirely on face to face tuition. In London, however, for both day and evening part-timers, the provision is not bad, particularly with the help of Goldsmith's College and the North London Polytechnic. But elsewhere in Britain the potential part-timer is poorly catered for—I am talking about the degree level—and the institutions of higher education have, of course, concentrated on full-time students who have just left school.
A number of questions arise. Should not the institutions of higher education be encouraged to make more of their full-time courses available for part-time students? Could some of them outside London develop a range of evening courses for part-time undergraduates? Could there be more links between face-to-face and distant tuition, as there are at Aberystwyth? Should there not always be room for the serious occasional student who for good reasons cannot take a full degree course? Should there not be more fresh start courses for mature students with poor educational backgrounds, such as are provided at the City Lit? The answers to some of those questions were given 18 months ago by the Education, Science and Arts Committee of another place. They said that too often the assumption existed in Britain that if by the age of 18 the desire and qualifications for higher education had not manifested themselves, they never would. They said:
"We believe that these habits of mind are not only responsible for Britain's low participation rate but also in part for its economic performance".
The committee stressed the need to offer to students neighbourhood co-ordination of conveniently-timed courses.
The Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education has also urged that there should be a phased transition to a system which would provide continuing education that would cater for emerging needs throughout life. What is proposed is more likely to demand a stretching or a re-allocation of resources rather than their increase. I hope, therefore, that the Government are looking sympathetically towards such developments.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Noel-Baker: My Lords, with other noble Lords I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for his Motion and his speech. I wish to deal primarily with the opening words of the Motion, the "need for a better educated working population", which will, I hope, justify me in speaking of what I regard as the major defects of our general educational system. Perhaps I should begin by declaring an interest, although it is in the past. I have spent a large part of my life in education, much of it in universities in Britain, the United States, France and Germany, with spasmodic expedi-
588
tions to Canada and other countries, which have enabled me to observe and understand the university systems of those countries. I was a fellow of my college, Kings in Cambridge; I held a chair in the University of London; and I was vice-principal of Ruskin College, Oxford, where my pupils taught me a great deal more than I taught them, it being a trade union college.
I have such an interest in education that I cannot speak of it with detachment or proper objectivity. Yet I think I can say objectively that our British ambitions in education are abysmally low. We seem content to turn out a great number of our young people, a very large proportion in their middle 'teens, with a smattering of letters which enables them to read sex and crime in the gutter press, and with a smattering of mathematics which enables them to acid up their wages at the end of the week if they are lucky enough to have a job. But general education for very many of our young people is lamentably poor.
I believe that is partly because we have too few schools, and I will explain what I mean. I am strongly in favour of the principle of comprehensive education, and I have spoken largely for it inside and outside Parliament. But I lament the application of the principle which leads to the creation of schools of 1,000, 1,200 and even 2,000 pupils; I believe that 500 to 600 is the maximum size for a good school. Beyond that, not even the members of staff know each other, and the pupils, poor little brats, lose all identity and self-confidence in a most distressing way.
I believe we should have more schools and we should have more teachers, and I lament the recent diminution in the number of teachers owing to the dismissals which have happened and are still taking place. In one recent year, 15,000 teachers came out of the training colleges ready to take their jobs, but there was not a single job for any of them to take. An earlier Government had believed they would be needed, had planned to put them into work and had given them an expensive training; yet a later Government had just said, "No, you are not wanted; we do not want so many teachers now".
The result, the very sad and much discussed result, has been that classes are a great deal too big. In recent years the Government had a chance to reduce class sizes, but instead they chose to reduce the number of teachers, and today there are not 15,000 but more nearly 50,000, many tens of thousands, of teachers, including many married women admirably qualified for teaching, dedicated to the task if only they could do it, who do not even apply to get a job because they know it is hopeless before they start. We should bear in mind the urgent necessity that this Government, if they will, but the next Government at any cost, must aim at increasing the number of teachers, reducing the sizes of classes and improving the standard of work.
Of course the dismissal of teachers has gone with cutting out subjects from the curricula. I regret to say, music, German and physical education are being cut out of the programmes of many schools. I think that that is nothing less than tragic, because of all the means of education, of developing the mind, the spirit, the education of the pupil, I believe, as the ancient Greeks believed, that music and gymnastics

589
come first, music and sport, music and physical education. I could talk for a long time about the educational advantages of both; I spare your Lordships. But I think it nothing less than tragic that German should be dropped, but still more that music and physical education should disappear from any schools.
I believe that the programme of our schools has in the past been rather gravely deficient in a matter on which I wish to speak at greater length. I mean education for citizenship, education in what is called civics, education in government. In every school there should be teaching of the elements of our political system, starting with the political parties, their machinery, the way they work, their philosophies. It can be done quite objectively, and with great advantage to the pupil. There should be education in the machinery of government from the parish council and the county borough up to the Houses of Parliament and, let me add, to the international organs of government that have been created: the General Assembly, the Security and other councils of the United Nations, the Secretariat, the specialised agencies, the ILO, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, UNESCO in Paris, and half a dozen more.
The United Nations has been a disappointment in its handling of the problem of war, because Governments do not fulfil the obligations which they have undertaken. No Government, including our own, have really fulfilled the obligation to take international disputes to either the Security Council or the International Court of Justice. The Governments have not fulfilled the law, but the law is there, the institutions are there, and with the specialised agencies they provide a very big contribution to the international life of the nations of the world.
The pupils in all our schools should, above all, understand government in our own country. I believe that the communists have an immense advantage over us in that they teach the communist system to every child who goes into their educational institutions. I believe that we should do at least as well as they do, and I should hope a great deal better. Our citizens are not educated to exercise their functions which are of decisive national and international importance; they are not educated to exercise their functions as citizens of this country and of the world.
In international affairs there are two aspects in particular which I believe should be the subject of systematic and perhaps elaborate courses in every school, and I add, in every university. The first is what is now perhaps the outstanding fact of international life—the interdependence of nations, the fact that they arc bound together by common interests and common relationships, of which they might be unaware, which they might not desire to have, but which none the less are vitally important.
You can start teaching a boy or girl about his or her interdependence with other nations by asking how he or she gets breakfast. His tea might come from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, China, Japan, or other countries. His coffee might come from Brazil, or Kenya, or if he is lucky, the Hejaz. His butter might come from Wiltshire, or from Denmark or East Germany. East Germany's dairy industry is a marvel. It exports many thousands of tonnes of butter to Denmark and also to us. The interdependence of
590
every man, woman and child for their meals, food, clothes, education, culture, and nowadays their sport is a fact of prime importance which should be brought home in all its great significance to the pupils of every school and every university.
Even more important is the second principle, which I believe should be the theme of elaborate courses of instruction. We spend vast sums of money on what we call defence, and we get marvellously little defence as a result. There is no defence against most of the modern weapons, including the weapons which we call conventionals. But we spend these vast sums because we accept legends, shibboleths that come front a world that has long passed away. The philosophy of those who support the arms race is a shoddy, schoolboy affair, founded mainly on ancient Roman slogans which never had any validity, or which have been perverted:
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"—
If you want peace, prepare for war;
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"—
Sweet and honourable is it to die for your country. Of course, war calls for the greatest and noblest sentiments of a man; but it wastes, it kills a man, and nothing comes of his life and work. What the Romans should have said was:
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria vivere".
It is sweet and honourable to live for your country, to work for it, to have the same dedication that you would have for war, towards ensuring its social progress. What they should have said was:
"Si vis pacem, para pacem".
if you want peace, prepare for peace, create the institutions, the laws, and the habits of co-operation from which peace will come.
But all that false philosophy is founded on the basic proposition that the vital interests of nations are in conflict, and that, in my profound submission, is utterly untrue. When people talk of vital interests they often think of an oil concession, of a naval base, of an airfield on some foreign soil, of a rubber plantation or of some other economic or military institution of some kind. But the true vital interests of the nation are not such things. Of course an oil concession may be a vital interest; but what is a truly vital interest of our nation and of every nation is that all should be able to get their oil supplies with absolute certainty at a fair and equal price, without discrimination, from those who have the oil in their native lands.
What is a vital interest is that everybody should be able to trade with every other nation on fair and equal terms. What is a vital interest is that there should be peace; that we should not be engaged in armed conflict, or near-armed conflict, or economic aggression. These are the vital interests that I believe should be taught in our schools, so that our working population come out with a true conception of their place in the world of men, of their part in the great society of states to which Britain can make so great a contribution of leadership, knowledge and experience.
My Lords, what I have said means a very great addition to our expenditure on education, and I live in the hope and the belief that a Government will be elected to power in the early future which will make that great increase. What is needed in education is

591
not the addition of a few tens of thousands of pounds here, a few hundreds of thousands a year there to the educational bill. What is needed is a larger percentage of the gross national product for more schools, for more teachers, for much better salaries for teachers. Teachers do the most important work in the world. I do not denigrate what other professions do—lawyers, architects, engineers, doctors. Theirs are vital services; but nothing is equal in importance and in its lasting result to the profession of teaching.
We should make a larger percentage allocation of our GNP to improving our educational system in order that we may have a better educated working population, in order that we may be able to help our schools and our universities. As a university man, I, with deference, express my complete agreement with every word spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and by the noble Lord who has just sat down, about the needs of students. I believe we should do more for our universities as we should do more for our schools. I believe a larger percentage allocation of our GNP would be a thousand times justified. It would mean that in 20 years from now our nation would hold a greater place in world affairs, because education is in fact the shaping of the future of our nation and of the nations of mankind.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in joining in the thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for introducing this important subject before us, I should perhaps follow the example of my immediate predecessor in this debate by declaring an interest. My interest in that part of the subject which relates to cuts in higher education, which is the only part to which I wish to address myself, is the interest that Cassandra had in the fall of Troy, as it is many years since it was borne in upon me, as the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, will remember, that the system of finance which we had fallen into for higher education in this country was bound in a time of recession to have some highly undesirable consequences.
I believe that, even before the recession—and one must remember how recent is this total dependence of universities upon the central Exchequer—and while we were still undergoing a period of expansion, the system had very deleterious effects upon higher education, some of which are closely related to the cause that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Lord, Lord Perry, have at heart—part-time, continuing, and adult education.
There are two reasons why I make this claim. In the first place, I think that it put at the head of nearly all our universities (there are a few exceptions) people who were chosen as vice-chancellors not for originality or for strength of character but because of their ability to deal on friendly terms with the providers of state money. Therefore, inevitably, a system of bargaining grew up in which universities were vying for contributions from the central Exchequer and there was a corresponding neglect of what they were doing with the money when they got it.
It was said, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Perry—I believe it was he—that the cuts had now gone beyond cutting off the fat. This, as he well knows and as we
592
all know, is not altogether true. There is still a good deal of expenditure which it is very hard to justify at any time, and particularly hard to justify when there are serious cuts in the provision of the primary academic purposes of universities. During Question Time a couple of weeks ago, I elicited from the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply the information that £1 million of public money goes to maintaining the central organisation and paying for the activities of the National Union of Students—a body which does not, to my knowledge, contribute to the central purposes of a university education.
But that is only the top of the pyramid. There is something like £20 million of public money which goes into student unions in individual universities and polytechnics. Some of that provides necessary facilities which one would not like to see young people without, although I think it provides them at an extraordinarily costly rate, because the universities could do the job far better themselves. But quite a lot of it goes on abuses which have grown up in recent years and which are quite without relation to the universities' primary responsibility.
There are in universities and polytechnics 250 so-called sabbatical officers; that is to say, students who are receiving a full grant and, subject to means test, full maintenance, not for studying but for carrying on so-called representational activities. I do not believe that the taxpayer or ratepayer believes that any student should be subsidised by the public purse unless the bulk of his time is going on the studies by which society is ultimately (as the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, reminded us) to benefit. This is an abuse that has grown up. It is more serious in some places than in others and perhaps more serious in some polytechnics than the universities, but it is an extravagance.
However, extravagance—and one could point in other directions perhaps—is a minor feature of the difficulties that we have undergone through this particular system of public financing. There is also the fact that the universities and their leaders have over this period sadly lacked originality in what they thought their role was to be. They have on the whole been content, and particularly so in the new universities, to model themselves as precisely as possible upon what was already being done elsewhere. Therefore, we have a great number of universities which are in many respects almost interchangeable, whereas we lack totally the great institutions devoted to technological education and to higher scientific education which are the glory of the United States and of many of our Continental neighbours.
Again, one would have liked to see—and I think that this is closely related to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said about Birkbeck College—some universities in great cities (and it is in the great cities that further and adult education can most easily and economically be pursued) devoting a higher proportion of their resources to this particular aspect of education. But, since they are comparing themselves on the number of honours graduates or the number of PhDs, there has been no incentive in the inter-university honours race to concentrate on that particular aspect of our needs.
Furthermore, even in the provision of their actual courses, and, particularly undergraduate courses, there has been an extraordinary unwillingness to reconsider

593
the traditional patterns of the universities, the traditional ways of proceeding to a degree, most of which date from the later Middle Ages and the remainder from the heyday of Victorianism. Let me take an undergraduate coming to a university to read for a degree in one of the natural sciences. I do this with deference to those who have a closer acquaintance with the process; but I am informed that, at any rate in some of the natural sciences, a quite high proportion of these young people are not going to proceed to scientific careers but intend to get a degree and possibly to go into another profession, or commerce or one of a variety of other occupations. Yet the three-year or four-year honours degree which is prescribed for them is designed primarily for the benefit of that minority among them who are likely to proceed to a scientific career, either in an academy or in the service of Government or industry.
No university has yet thought fit to break this up and to offer a two-year degree in science, after which students could have their BSc, with those—the smaller number—who wished to proceed going on to an MSc or a similar equivalent. Similarly, the experiment—and this is the only reference that I shall make to the University College at Buckingham—that we made, to see whether you could not use the year better by having 40 weeks of study, has not been followed in other universities, although our external examiners in the subjects that we teach assure us that it is perfectly possible for students and more economical for many of them to reach the same level in this particular form of organisation.
It seems to me that your Lordships may feel that this does not relate directly to the way in which our universities are financed; but I think it does and it does so in another way. We have heard a good deal in this debate and in the debates preceding it about the importance of the universities in providing manpower at various levels of specialisation for industry. In the United States, there has developed between universities and industry (and particularly between some of the privately-endowed universities and industry) a close symbiotic relationship by which industry endows the university with appropriate laboratories and other plant and, in return, gets back a flow of graduates.
A recently-appointed vice-chancellor in this country, coming back after a long period in the USA, was horrified to find how little progress had been made in the direction of interesting industry in the development of this kind of symbiotic relationship with universities, although one or two—the University of Manchester, through its research consultancy and the University of Aston, through its proposed Park of Science and Industry—are moving in that direction. But they are discouraged from so doing by the fact that public money, when available, is easily available, while private money is to some extent much more difficult to collect because of the difference in our tax laws. If Her Majesty's Government were to find themselves with more money to spend on higher education, I would rather that they did it by making gifts from industry to great industrial universities or great scientific and technological universities easier through a change in tax, than by simply putting up the level of grants.
There is yet a final reason: which is the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, devoted most of his
594
attention. That is the way in which the UGC and the universities, in coping with the cuts and with the general question of finance, affect what I think he would be willing to allow me to call "the Robbins principle"—that is to say, how the maximum provision is to be made for young people who are able and willing to enter upon a course of university study. I have always felt that this is more of an ideal than a principle of action because there are two unknown variables. As the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has said, it is difficult by any means of selection to forecast whether someone is able and willing to follow a course of university study. The most that you can do through examinations is to find whether he has the basic information which would, if he wished, allow him to go to the next stage. Nevertheless—and I think that this explains many of the troubles in university—we clearly allow to slip through this net a number of students who, whatever their natural ability, are, at that age, wholly unsuited to a university environment. What we have done, particularly by the changes in the university statutes and regulations in recent years, has been to make it quite difficult to get in but extremely difficult to be removed if the university has made a mistake. Similarly, at the other end of the scale, it is clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said, that there are always going to be a number of people who at some stage certainly should go to university and are liable to be excluded unless we open the gates wider than really would be appropriate for the maintenance of standards.
There are real difficulties here. My difference with the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, is that, while agreeing with him that the arbitrary imposition of numbers upon universities is a curtailment of their freedom and perhaps an unnecessary one, I am not as convinced as he is that there is not something to be said for public policy coming into deciding from time to time and in very broad categories those branches of university study, and consequently those universities, that demand greater encouragement. I should have thought that there was fairly general agreement that it would be a pity if this round of cuts left us with fewer technologists and more sociologists. There are other comparable examples that one can give.
Where I obviously agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, is about the University Grants Committee, as at present constituted—he said, "as ever it could be constituted"—as a suitable body to make decisions of this kind. The Government were unfortunate in inheriting a machine which goes back almost unchanged to a period in which the public purse—that is to say, central Government—provided a relatively small part of the income of most universities, where there was greater income from fees, from the contributions from local authorities, local philanthropy, and so on. That body is composed almost exclusively of professors, and professors who go on public bodies are in part obviously men of great public spirit and in part those who prefer sitting on committees to facing the pain of original thought.
What is clearly needed is not exclusively professors of either category; what is needed in a committee which has so great a responsibility for deciding in what directions we teach the next generation is surely a much greater degree of lay representation. There is at

595
present one industrialist on the UGC, who can hardly, however eminent, be able to survey the whole of industry. There is a vacancy I believe for one more.
If we are to continue with a system in which so much responsibility is placed on the UGC, it is necessary that we should give a great deal more thought to the people who are going to make these decisions. If one came up with more effective machinery then some of the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, to any departure from equality of sacrifice with the exceptions that he made might be reduced. It is not to be believed—and I hardly believe that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, believes it—that the exact distribution of income between our 46-odd universities is one to be maintained for all time; that none should grow; that none should diminish.
Yet, unless these decisions are made in the light of the national interest as a whole—and I come back and include in the national interest the proper provision for adult education, for further education and for continued education—then it seems to me that we shall not have what we need. There lies a possibility of reform which does not, unlike most of the other improvements urged by noble Lords, demand more public money.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly on that part of the Motion which calls attention to the need for a better educated working population. In doing so I shall cover ground which has not so far been covered in the debate. I hope what I have to say will not be thought irrelevant—at least it may have the merit of bringing a change of air, so to speak, into the House for a short time.
We require a better educated workforce, first because it is on industry, and particularly on the wealth-creating sector of manufacturing industry, that we all depend for the provision of social services, of hospitals and of the schools, colleges and universities which are the subject of this debate. Secondly, we need such a workforce, because we are a trading nation dependent for our standard of living on competing successfully with other industrialised countries.
It follows that our educational system should be such as will enable a significant proportion of our most able students to enter industry because they think it to be a worthwhile career to pursue. In the last analysis I think that the question comes down to a matter of how industry is regarded by the community at large. It is now almost exactly five years ago since I had the privilege of introducing in your Lordships' House a debate on the need for agreed action aimed at increasing the esteem in which industry is held in society, particularly among students. I believe that that problem is still with us. I shall not now go into the many and varied reasons why industry continues, in my view, to be held in relatively low esteem in society. All I shall say is that practically everybody—Government, employers, trade unions, educationists, parents and the media—bears a measure of responsibility for the predicament in which we still find ourselves, and there are measures that we all need to take to help get ourselves out of it.
596
We most need to avoid a situation in which particular groups of people who are involved simply go on the defensive and place the blame for our difficulties on anybody but themselves. It is surely much more profitable for all the elements in society having a stake in the problem to consider what they themselves can do to improve the situation.
As a former industrialist who in recent years has also had some involvement in higher education, believe that our basic aim should be to develop people at work whose education equips them to make an improved contribution to the efficient production of the goods and services that are needed by the community. This means that students generally need to have a much closer and clearer conception of what actually goes on in industry, the attractions it has to offer to talented young people and the great service that can be rendered in it to the community. Here I should like to pay tribute to what has been done in recent years in that direction by organisations such as the CBI, the Industrial Society, and by a number of large firms and local education authorities.
In a debate such as this it is not possible to do anything, but only to talk. However, perhaps the next best thing to action is to pass on relevant information about what others are doing. I should like, therefore, to spend just a few minutes in outlining what is going on in Cheshire, where I live, thanks to the far-sightedness of its local education authority and of certain enlightened employers in the county. The Cheshire Education Industry project was started nearly 18 months ago as a joint venture funded by local employers, by the Department of Industry and by the County Education Authority. It is controlled by an executive committee composed of representatives of the LEA, schools and industrial subscribers. Its activities are managed by a teacher, seconded to industry for a period of two years, who acts as a liaison officer between schools and employers. The project has sub-groups in various districts of the county and forms part of a wider national initiative sponsored by the Schools Council.
The key area of the project's operation is curriculum development. This has involved the publication of a book which is used as a resource by teachers of any subject and provides information as to why industry exists and how it works. The objective is that students should see industry as an integral part of their environment by encountering its influence in their everyday learning. As an example of how manufacture is organised, the resource book takes the case of a gas fire. It deals with the functions of research and development, of design, of the purchase of raw materials and the maintenance and selling of that product. But for me its main value lies in the way in which it brings the whole subject to life by obliging students to learn about manufacturing industry in practical problem-solving ways which evoke their interest.
In the same part of the country a further imaginative venture is being undertaken by a large company, which shall be nameless but whose identity your Lordships may guess. It consists of a mobile display of the chemical industry, which is contained in a caravan that goes from school to school. It shows what that industry does and how it meets the needs of consumers, not shirking the problems which have

597
to be faced, for example, in transport, the treatment of effluent and so on.
If the objective of developing a better educated working population is to be achieved, I think we first have to recognise the interdependence of the various elements in society which have a stake in the problem —national and local government, education at a number of levels, and industry. I conclude that if the need is to be met the most relevant question to ask is: how can we help each other?
5.54 p.m.
Lord Bowden: My Lords, the hour is late and so much has been said that I must confine myself to one or two points only and not attempt to cover the subject as a whole. First, I should like, if I may, to follow up a point which was made about the City University; namely, the great and unknown cost of paying off those staff who are to be made redundant. I should like to ask a specific question of the Minister who is to reply. The cost has always been wrapped in mystery, and when the noble Baroness who was sitting on the Front Bench opposite a moment ago replied for the Government on a previous occasion she said it could not be disclosed until the courts had decided in more detail how much would be available and how much would be needed.
The question I would ask is this. At the end of this year and at the end of next year economies will have been made by closing down departments in universities and by making staff redundant. How much will the Government have actually saved by the end of the first year and by the end of the second year? I think that is an extremely important question to ask and I doubt whether the Government are in a position to give a firm answer. However, they must have a fairly shrewd idea and when we hear it we may feel dismayed at the enormous damage that is being done for so small a return. That is my first question.
However, I should like to change the whole tone of the debate and talk not about the tragedies of students, with which I am only too familiar, nor about the enormous harm being done to university departments, with which too I am appallingly familiar, but with two aspects of the subject which might appeal more directly perhaps to what I have come to regard as the flinty hearts of those who sit on the Front Bench opposite. I am going to speak of what for many years has been called "the knowledge industry". It is a phrase which has been very familiar in the United States for years but which never really became well known over here. I remember going to the United States and being told that in the early part of the 19th century it was the opening of the railways that was the most important event and the most important industry in the United States. Then the motor-car and the aeroplane succeeded the railways and became dominant. Now they say the most important of all the wealth creating and wealth consuming industries is the knowledge industry.
This is an aspect which I think really must make an impact on those opposite. We must have a knowledge industry, and that industry involves the creation and dissemination of knowledge at all levels and throughout the whole of our society. The Americans founded their great land grant colleges in 1861 and gave them three
598
tasks to perform. Those tasks have always rated since as being of equal importance and are frequently described in commencement orations by university presidents as the three legs of a three-legged stool. First, there is the creation of knowledge, and, secondly, the imparting of knowledge to all outside the university system as well as inside it who are capable of appreciating it. The third is the teaching of undergraduates. We tend in this country to regard the teaching of undergraduates as all-important and to see the others as mere luxuries which may or may not be able to be afforded as the times indicate. But I would say to your Lordships that the knowledge industry is the biggest, the most important and the greatest creator of wealth in the world today.
When we consider the way in which other countries are preparing themselves for it and when we realise that, for example, in Germany a 16 or 18 year-old boy is certain to be receiving education somewhere, although he may be an apprentice in industry, whereas in this country the chances are about 10 to one that he will not be; when we realise similarly that in Japan everybody is being educated while at school, when they have left school, when they have gone into their firms and throughout their lives as members of those firms, we should understand that these are tasks which are undertaken not entirely out of altruism nor out of a belief that knowledge is of itself a desirable commodity for the individual and for the greater insight he gains into himself, but because of their importance as creators of wealth. I am going to talk about that because, as I said, it is one aspect of the subject which is more likely than most to appeal to Members opposite.
I should like to draw what your Lordships may think is a very crude analogy with the civil engineering industry. We are, at this moment, in the interests—so we are told—of the public sector borrowing requirement, allowing the infrastructure of this great nation of ours to fall into decay. I have many times bored your Lordships with stories of catastrophe in Manchester, as the roads fall in and the sewers wash away the subsoil. Your Lordships may even have heard that a new theatre has been opened in Manchester, where the Covent Garden Opera people are to sing. You may be interested to know that it would never have been finished in time had it not been for the fact that a sewer fell in outside it, the road was blocked and they were able to use the whole of the road as a builders' yard. That was an uncovenanted blessing, which I do not suppose we should count in favour of the general neglect of the infrastructure of the community, which is persisting to this day.
Our real problem is to get into perspective the relevant importance of the sums which we do at the end of the day, to count up how much things have cost us on a very curious and arbitrary system of accounting, as compared with the value of the work which is done. There may be records of nations surviving inflation. I do not believe there is any record in history of a nation which survived by keeping its workforce in idleness and its people illiterate.
There may, in fact, be a sort of insane logic in the policy which the Government are pursuing. After all, if industry is to disappear, if the infrastructure of the great cities is to collapse, what need is there for edu-

599
cated men to run whatever is left? It is this side of the matter which must be studied in much more detail than it has been so far. The cost of neglecting the infrastructure of the community, allowing the roads, the railways, the hospitals, the schools, the sewers, the water supply and the electricity supply to fall into decay and to collapse on us, will, in the end, destroy this nation, whatever happens to the public sector borrowing requirement. I take that as a very much simpler version of what is likely to happen to us if we similarly neglect the cultivation of what is, after all, the most important single resource we have; namely, the young people upon whom, in the end, our futures will depend. I am myself—I make no secret of this—drawing a pension from the state. I am most anxious that the next generation should be properly educated; otherwise, who is going to pay it?
I believe that our national anxiety to balance books is leading us into the very gravest errors, if only because the books themselves are balanced in an essentially arbitrary way, without paying due regard to the work which might have been done had people not been put on the dole. Again, I take the simple case of a sewage plant which might be built but is not being built, and if not built the possible result will be closure of a factory which cannot dispose of its industrial effluent. This is a simple case where the public sector borrowing requirement may in some way benefit, at the ultimate cost and the ultimate collapse of a local community which can no longer accept new factories because it cannot dispose of their waste. I shall not mention the name, but I know that this case is true. In part of Lancashire, factories cannot be installed, simply because the infrastructure is not capable of accepting them.
This is not the sort of calculation which ever gets put into the national books. Nobody ever writes down, under the cost of reducing the public sector borrowing requirement, a very large item; namely, the cost of not installing a factory because we could not dispose of its industrial waste. It is this kind of thing which one can understand easily when applied to civil engineering. But one cannot, by any means, understand it so easily when it is applied to the neglect of those people upon whom, in the end, everything, and not merely the civil engineering, will depend.
It is worth reminding ourselves that Rome had an inflation of roughly 12 per cent. per annum for about 100 years—slightly less than we are having, but for much longer. As a result of that, the price of corn rose 300,000 times. It is a very remarkable compound interest sum. As a result of that, it became impossible to levy taxes. As a result of that, the main sewer, Glaucus Maximus, was neglected, its outfall was blocked, the Pontine Marshes were flooded, there was an enormous outburst of mosquitoes, the population was decimated by malaria, they could not pay the army, the Barbarians came in and that was the end of the empire of the West. But it may well have been that, by doing that, they kept the public sector borrowing requirement under control.
We must realise that there are some things which we cannot neglect. When I was a young man I was always brought up on the importance of what we used to call preventive maintenance—the sort of enter-
600
prise which, had it been applied to this roof, would have made the work presently being done on it unnecessary. It is by neglecting preventive maintenance that a country decays and its buildings decay. I hate to use this analogy but I believe it is the only way that I can drive the point home. There is a very close analogy between the effect of preventive maintenance of buildings and the effect of the adequate cultivation of the minds of our young people, the point being that, in either case, if the work is neglected it cannot necessarily be done later on without much greater expense, and the effect on the community can be absolutely disastrous. Japan knows this, the Americans know it, the Canadians know it and the Germans know it, but we never seem to have learned it.
I have said before in this House that, when my own institution was founded, it was in an attempt to produce technical education of the highest quality for those whose efforts made Lancashire prosperous, and effectively made it possible for England to resist Napoleon. Your Lordships may not know that Napoleon's army marched to Moscow wearing cloth made in England, and woven in Yorkshire and Lancashire. This is not particularly relevant, but it is interesting. The point I make is that we provided the world with an enormously important number of goods, and we were able to do so by the native genius of our workforce.
In those days the workmen of Lancashire were to an extraordinary degree illiterate, and the men who signed the marriage register with a cross numbered nearly half the total working population. That gave the establishment, the inhabitants of Westminster, if I may so describe them, the impression that it is sufficient for a country to be illiterate to make sure that it is wealthy. That was not true then, and it is not true now. There are records of 1,000 men or more, even in those days, attending lectures on the chemistry of dyestuffs. Nevertheless, it was the Germans' efforts to introduce organic chemistry to their universities which made it possible for Germany to take away the whole of the dyestuffs industry from this country before the First World War.
It is the knowledge industry—which was important then—which is dominant today. We cannot neglect it. We cannot neglect to maintain our civil works. This is clear. But we cannot afford, either, to neglect the responsibility for making certain that our people at all ages, from the day they first go to school almost to the day they retire, have opportunities to study as they should have—and as they do have in almost every other civilised industrial country in the world today.
6.10 p.m.
Viscount Combermere: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for initiating this very important debate. Secondly, I should like to explain, as is customary, my own interest in it. I am employed as a full-time staff lecturer at the Extra-Mural Department of London University. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has indicated in his Motion several areas of concern in connection with the recent Government cuts in education. I propose to comment on two of those areas: higher education and adult education.
First, there is the question of the damaging effects

601
of the cuts on higher education. The nature of these cuts, administered by the University Grants Committee in terms of direct grant funding, is of course well known. Secondly, a limit has been placed by the UGC on overall student numbers, to be strictly enforced by the use of financial penalties against those institutions which exceed their quota. Thirdly, the number of overseas students, particularly from underdeveloped countries, has declined as a direct result of substantial increases in fees.
I believe that nobody would wish to see the universities totally immune from every adverse change in the economic climate, but this attack on the universities from these various directions must be seen to be gravely damaging and to result in a contraction not paralleled before. To quote the vice-chancellor of London University, Dr. Quirk, writing in a recent article in The Times:
"About one-sixth of the provision is to be lost in the next two years".
In fact, the immediate effects of these cuts are already taking effect.
One could give innumerable examples, right across the academic spectrum, of the very real threat of closure of whole faculties and departments—from science to engineering, from medicine to the arts. These have been clearly and forcefully underlined to the Government by academic colleagues. I feel that I could add little to this flood of protest, except to say that graduates in medicine, science and engineering, and in all the disciplines which one associates with university life, are the seed-corn of this country's future. That seed-corn will not be forthcoming to the degree that must be necessary if we are to compete in a world which does not owe us a living.
Examples of closure and threats of closure have been, and no doubt will be, given by others, but my own interest being in the area of religious studies, I propose to single out this area just as an example of what could happen when a subject, for which there is little provision in this country, is threatened with the axe. My comments in this area are not in any way intended to diminish the seriousness of what is happening in other faculties but, rather, the reverse: to underline it and, indeed, to indicate that in what are traditionally arts faculties, the implications of drastic cuts can reach well beyond the curtailment of that cultural richness which our people are entitled to enjoy and benefit from and, in fact, extend into the area of politics and economics. However, religious studies, as opposed to traditional courses in theology and biblical studies, is concerned with the modern study of religion, and in particular with the meaning and social relevance of Christianity and other world religions in the world today.
There are very few faculties of religious studies in the universities of this country, yet two of these faculties—at Leicester and Sussex—are threatened with closure. Leicester is only a small department, yet it is the only department that I know of in this country which gives highest place to the study of modern world religions in their social and cultural context. This department's concern is of real social importance, yet it is faced with closure.
The study of world religions in their social and cultural context is ot the exclusive concern of a tiny
602
band of academics working in their ivory towers, if such an imaginary group has ever existed, but it is the concern of every thinking person. The biggest damage, however, to this and, indeed, to every subject and faculty on the receiving end of these cuts is to be seen more in the way in which posts are not filled, following early or normal retirement. The effect of this policy of freezing posts is of course quite arbitrary. I will give an example, again from the area of study with which I am most familiar—in other words, religious studies.
At Leeds University, for example, there are three lecturers in each of three major world religions: Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam. If one of those lecturers retired early and was not replaced, one-third of the provision for religious studies in that faculty would have gone. To give one more example, there are only a handful of lecturers in Islam in faculties of religious study in this country. If, by an unusual combination of circumstances, all these posts became vacant, there would be no provision for the teaching of Islam in faculties of religious study in this country. One needs, for example, only to refer to Shi'a militancy in Iran or to the Moslem Brotherhood's particular brand of Sunni fundamentalism in Egypt and Syria, in order to underline the necessity for a proper understanding and appreciation of events taking place there. Indeed, one need not look further than our own country and note its increasingly multi-cultural complexion in order to draw attention to the necessity for understanding cultures and religions different from those which we traditionally associate with this country.
To look at this from another angle, the all-party Commons Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts have recommended the approach adopted by Norfolk in its agreed syllabus, which places Christianity at the centre but which also introduces pupils to other religions. How can children be introduced to other religions if there are no teachers qualified in the subject to teach them? For the training of qualified teachers depends on flourishing faculties of theology and religious studies and on PGCE training. So far as the latter is concerned, I am told by the Assistant Principal of the West London Institute of Higher Education that there is a shortage of trainee teachers in religious education and that this shortage is worse in religious education than in mathematics. But instead of matching this shortage, there will be a reduction in both primary and secondary intakes, particularly in PGCE. This is about to happen, in spite of Recommendation 17 by the all-party Commons Select Committee, which has come out clearly in favour of more, not less, qualified teachers and inspectors in religious education being appointed.
Finally, turning to more general issues on the question of higher education, I should like to question the whole rationale behind these cuts. Following the great expansion of university education in the 1960s, in the light of the Robbins Report, I believe that the view has already taken hold that the university sector has been the subject of uncontrolled growth and that this luxuriant expansion must be severely cut back. But Professor Marris, in a recent article in The Times, has very forcefully argued that the real cost of producing a British graduate is well below the European

603
average. In addition, the professor has indicated that of 13 European countries, together with Japan and the United States of America, the number of British first degree students, at seven per 1,000 of the population, is lower than in any of these countries, and less than half the average. To quote from his article:
"If this country is to recover her confidence and prosperity, she needs more graduates, not fewer".
But, secondly, given the very serious economic situation, which appears to make some cuts unavoidable, I believe that it is unnecessarily damaging to introduce these over a three-year period instead of over a period of five years. Modest retrenchment could be planned over this longer period, as the noble Lord, Lord Mais, implied. It cannot make sense to prevent arbitrarily a significant proportion of able and qualified school-leavers from entering university and hence from making their contribution to the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of our country.
If I may now turn to adult education, I should like to refer to three areas of provision. I was delighted to hear if the unstinted support for this area by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. First, there are the extra mural departments of the universities of this country, where higher education reaches out to join hands with the WEA and local authorities. The University Grants Committee has come out clearly in their favour, stating that their work must be maintained at its present level. In spite of this very clear support we find that while central Government funding, via the DES, has not been cut, very substantial cuts have been made by way of university contributions to their own extramural departments. My own university has already cut its contribution by 18 per cent. this year, after initially proposing a 50 per cent. cut. Further cuts are now planned, roughly on a 50 per cent. level spread over a three-year period. This is happening in spite of a very clear statement by the University Grants Committee that this work must be maintained at its present level.
However, London is not an exception and there is evidence that one or two extramural departments at other universities are being hit even harder. This is particularly serious, as these cuts come at a time when public interest demands that university links with the outside world be strengthened and not diminished. Yet cuts of this nature seriously damage the partnerships between the universities, local authorities, and the WEA. In my view, and this is a view that commands a lot of support among my colleagues, the contribution made by universities to their extramural departments should come from a special fund received direct from the UGC and earmarked specifically for that purpose. It seems to me that only in this way can UGC policy vis-à-vis extramural departments be actually carried out. Secondly, there is the question of the WEA provisions. While their DES grant has been maintained, like everybody else they are affected by LEA cuts. The work of the WEA at a time of enforced leisure through unemployment is particularly important and must be reinforced.
Finally, I should like to turn to local authority adult education provisions, which in my view have been hit hardest of all. Cuts in this area have come, of course, by way of local authority finance in response to the
604
Heseltine proposals regarding rates and local authority expenditure. This is a tangled question which I should not like to introduce into this debate, except to say that as a ratepayer I have no wish to experience again annual rate increases of the order of 50 per cent. plus. Secondly, in the light of this there seems to me to be a clear-cut case for local authority expenditure on adult education to be taken right outside the Government's block grant to local authorities and a provision made for central Government funding, earmarked specifically for adult education at, say, a minimum of 1 per cent. of local authority spending on education as a whole. I was very glad to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, as I understood him, say that he supported this idea in principle.
I have in fact written to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who will be replying to this debate, giving him prior notice of this suggestion. I hope that he will be able to make a positive response, pending the strengthening of current legislation. At any rate, provision for adult education should be a statutory obligation, rather than, as at present, an encouragement to develop it.
I have suggested that at least 1 per cent. of the local authority education budget be earmarked for adult education. This is a tiny percentage of their budget and minuscule in overall terms. It is in fact the average figure that was spent on adult education at the time of the Russell Report, which I well remember was debated in your Lordships' House some eight years ago. Your Lordships will no doubt remember that the Russell Report suggested then that 2 per cent. of total local authority budgets be allocated to adult education. This has not happened. The reverse has happened. And rather than doubling their expenditure on adult education, local authorities have halved it—for the total now spent is approximately half of 1 per cent. I am not therefore making any radical proposals when I say that if local authorities cannot maintain the proportion of their budget for adult education at a level comparable with that of eight years ago, then that level must be maintained through statutory provision at least, if not through direct central Government funding.
To turn now to the actual evidence for this crisis, it is difficult in a short time to give even an impression of the overall picture. I propose to confine myself to three areas of concern, which are drawn from personal experience and from contact with principals of colleges of adult education. First, I should like to turn to Manchester, where a devastating situation has just arisen. As a direct result of current Government policy of reducing grant to authorities that overspend, and in order consequently to save up to £20 million, the director of education at Manchester has given advance information that Manchester College of Adult Education is to close and that all adult education centres throughout the City of Manchester are to close as well. This is particularly ironic as Manchester was the first authority to have had its scheme of adult education approved by the Ministry. But, irony aside, it is appalling that a great authority such as Manchester, with all its social problems, should find itself in the position of being unable to offer any courses to adults if this plan is carried through.
Manchester College of Adult Education has a student

605
enrolment of 6,000, one-sixth of whom are unemployed. These enrolments represent a 30 to 40 per cent. increase over the average number of students last year. One need make no further comment other than to add that Manchester College of Adult Education is within a stone's throw of Moss Side, where unemployment is substantially above the national average.
This is merely an example, for centres in many parts of the country have been closed, merged or threatened with closure, loss of staff or premises. This case in particular and these general references merely serve to underline the necessity for making a radical revision of the whole philosophy that lies behind current practices of funding local authority finance. The Government may say that extra cash has been given to LEAs for adult education but in fact it has disappeared into a variety of other projects for which LEAs are responsible.
The second area of concern to which I wish to refer involves short-term residential colleges. I am told by the chairman of the Residential Colleges Committee that seven short-term residential colleges have closed, while one has changed its use. Eight of these colleges, therefore, have been taken right out of adult education; colleges that adult education can ill-afford to lose. Having myself taught periodically over a 10-year period at two such colleges, I know from first-hand personal experience that for many people a weekend course at a short-term residential college of adult education is the only adult education course which they are able to attend because of practical considerations. However, in addition to these closures, the costs in other colleges are now so high that in any case many people cannot afford to enrol.
The third area of concern involves the students themselves and the fees they pay. The overall increase this year is 25 per cent., although very unevenly distributed, more than double the current rate of inflation, and further increases are already being discussed. How can these increases possibly be justified when paragraph 83 of the Russell Report itself states:
"It is firmly believed by many closely associated with adult education that increased fees cause a further decline in the proportionate representation of the lower socio-economic groups"?
That statement, made eight years ago, is just as true today.
These then are examples only of areas of very grave concern in adult education. Everybody pays lip-service in saying that adult education must be preserved; yet successive Governments and local authorities stand by and watch a remorseless decline. One per cent. of local authority funding for adult education in 1973 has declined to one-half of 1 per cent. in 1982. What level shall we see in 1992?
We are today faced with grave social and moral issues, issues that deserve to be aired by an informed and educated public. We are faced also with over 3 million unemployed. Unemployment need not be regarded as a total disaster, however, but rather it could be seen to be taken as an opportunity to develop talents and interests that might not otherwise have been possible. In this respect I suggest that sympathetic consideration to be given to extending the principle of no fees for the unemployed. It may well be that full employment is a thing of the past, and if current
606
predictions are accurate about future trends of rising unemployment, this merely serves to underline the necessity for a fundamental rethinking of attitudes to adult education.
We have also an ever-increasing number of retired people. They deserve to be enriched and to enjoy the fruits that both education and leisure can bring. Perhaps one could end on this note, and by quoting from a letter just written to me by the Principal of Richmond Adult College:
"Leisure, like fire, is one of the great civilising forces of society, but like fire can be the most destructive, wrongly used".
But leisure need not be wrongly used. We have one of the finest systems of adult education anywhere in the world. Let us not sit back complacently and watch its slow and progressive destruction. My Lords, it is time for those who really care about it to stand up and be counted.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, may I say how pleased I am to be following the noble Viscount with whose speech I find myself in such great agreement? I must congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on introducing this debate, but I have to apologise to him for the fact that I was not here to hear his opening speech; I will, however, read it with great interest in Hansard.
Frankly, my Lords I enter this debate specifically to ask the Government to explain their strategy. I have tried to follow it. Admittedly, we were in a position where we could have reduced classes in primary and secondary schools. We have foregone that. There may well be an argument for that; we may say, "Well, we will postpone that; we cannot afford it today, and we will meet it tomorrow". There must, therefore, be a plan for tomorrow. This is where I find myself in difficulty in following the Government's policies.
I should have thought that at this time those who are able because of their educational attainments to go to the universities would be given an opportunity to do so. Therefore, I find the decision to cut university education difficult to understand. But, even if one accepts the need to cut, I find it more difficult to understand the manner in which the cuts are being made. I agree with those who have spoken and I accept the point they have made that in fact, from all the evidence, it would have been easier for everyone if a five-year period rather than a three-year period had been selected for the cuts. I hope it is not too late for the Government to think of doing that.
Then I look at the areas where cuts are made and the universities that have suffered the most cuts, and that is the part I find most difficult to understand. I find that Salford, Bradford and Aston—which are three universities with technological bias, with connections with business, with, certainly in the case of Bradford, which I know, courses that are sandwiched—are the universities selected for the biggest cuts. That I find difficult to understand. For example, Bradford has had as a consequence to close completely 10 courses and 15 sandwich courses. Since I would have thought that, policy-wise in terms of our present situation, the existence of such sandwich courses and the existence of those areas that are specialising in technological development would have been the thing most acceptable

607
to the Government, I find the way in which these cuts have been made difficult to understand.
What I am asking the Government for is an explanation of their strategy; why, for example, in the first instance have they decided that we should not take advantage of the opportunity presented to us to cut the size of classes? I think perhaps I may find it not too difficult to accept their explanation of that. Then I want them to explain to me the reason for the university cuts and the reason why the cuts have been made as they have. For example, it may well be that the reason for these severe cuts in universities like Salford and Bradford and Aston is that, because of their business connections, the Government hope they will establish the sort of relationship that has been established elsewhere with business, and that business will provide the additional finance. It may well be that that is how the Government see it. If that is so, they ought to say so, and they ought to do what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggested and make it easier for business to make these contributions. But in any case it is necessary for those who, like myself, merely read the results of the Government's decisions to understand what lies behind those decisions.
Again, I should have thought that, having decided to postpone the opportunity for improving primary and secondary education, there would be a plan for making it more possible for people to have a second chance. There is no evidence of that. It seems to me that the approach is a cut right across the board without any plan as to picking up the pieces after we have caused the injury. It is often true that people go through their school life without attaining their full objective, without achieving the maximum that they can achieve. But if they were given a second chance they would pick it up and they would make it. Therefore, one might have thought that one would see some evidence of the Government planning for that purpose. Frankly, I have not seen any evidence of that, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some information.
As things are at present, we have cuts in primary and secondary education and cuts in higher education. The local authorities are squeezed to such an extent that there is a cut in further education. Again, because of that squeeze, there is a cut in adult education. That is what is happening and it is happening at a time when, as has been mentioned, we have 3 million unemployed, but what is much more important is that a large percentage of all 16- to 19-year olds are among those unemployed.
Therefore, one would have thought that provisions would be made and the strategy would be such that the period when they are unemployed could be used to train, to equip and to educate them so that, when the recovery comes—and we are told that the Government's policy is to cut inflation with the hope that subsequently we shall have an export-led boom as a result of becoming more competitive—we shall have a better educated and a better equipped workforce. Therefore, I think that the period during which these people are forced to be out of work should be used to educate and equip them so that when the times comes for the "jump off" we shall be in a position, because we have a well-educated, well-equipped and well-trained work-
608
force, to take full advantage of it. I have, in effect, indicated what would be my strategy, but I should like to hear from the Minister what the Government's strategy is, because I find that the Government's approach to this particular subject difficult to understand.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, as the first to speak below the line, as it were, in this fascinating debate, so admirably introduced by my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley, it is clearly my duty to attempt, so far as I can, to draw together the threads of the many arguments already advanced and, where necessary —and, frankly, it has not really proved to be necessary having listened to all the speeches—to try to rebut any arguments which have been put forward in a spirit contrary to those of the Motion.
Therefore, I acknowledge that speaking, below the line, as it were, is neither the time nor the place at which to introduce new themes. Nevertheless, I intend to begin by saying again things which I have said to noble Lords in your Lordships' House many times, and if noble Lords heard me say these things before, then all that I can say is, "hard luck". Noble Lords will hear me say them again and again until such time as I believe that they have been finally taken on board.
I am wholly convinced that we now live in a society in western Europe, and in Britain in particular, of permanently, vastly increased leisure. I am not merely referring to the compulsory leisure which arises from unemployment or to the, perhaps, voluntary leisure which arises from strikes, go-slows or whatever. I am referring to the whole change in the work pattern which I believe has come about permanently and irreversibly so that we shall have earlier retirement, perhaps a shorter working week, more holidays and shorter working hours. We have a population which from now, and for all time in my view, with certain very narrow individual exceptions, will have a vastly increased amount of leisure.
In addition to that trend of an increasing amount of leisure, I believe that we are also in our society facing two other related and paralled trends. The first is an increasing rate of depletion of the basic resources upon which we depend for our very existence. The second, which is related, is an increasing rate of contamination of the environment in which we live. I do not need to give examples of either of those matters to a highly-informed gathering such as your Lordships' House. So far as the depletion of resources is concerned, all I need quote is the whole question of our energy resources. I do not want to enter into specious arguments about how long our various forms of our energy will last. All I need say is that our resources are finite, and that means that sooner or later they will run out, which means that the longer we give ourselves to pioneer alternatives, the better.
In the face of that trend it does perhaps seem rather odd that all the political parties should appear to be wedded to growth as the solution to all our problems. It seems to me rather strange that we should seek salvation in our present difficulties by persuading people o consume more and more of things of which we have got less and less, while at the same time we have an

609
advertising industry bent on persuading each and every one of us that we cannot do without today what we had never heard of yesterday.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, referred to the question of growth. Let me make my position clear. I am not opposed to growth at all. I am wholly in favour of growth provided that growth is in areas which are socially and economically desirable, and provided that the fruits of growth are used for socially and economically desirable purposes. But I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, when he said that the growth in the number of sex shops or the growth in the number of bingo halls or whatever, does not in itself add to the nation's wealth. We must look for other forms of growth.
With regard to contamination, again I do not think that I need to quote examples, save to say that man has already proved beyond all possible contradiction that he excels all other animals in his ability to foul his own nest. Therefore, I have referred to the three trends: an increasing amount of leisure; an increasing rate of depletion of the basic resources upon which we depend for our very existence; and an increasing rate of contamination of the environment in which we live.
In the face of those three trends, I believe that one of the most compelling problems facing us at present is that of the provision of opportunities for the constructive and fulfilling use of leisure in ways which are not consumptive of resources or destructive of the environment. I believe that adult and part-time education does precisely that—it is a means of providing constructive and fulfilling opportunities for the use of leisure in ways which do not consume our scarce resources and do not, perhaps, contaminate our society.
I think perhaps that in a privileged gathering such as your Lordships' House, we must be a little careful when we give that kind of advice. We must recognise that what the young people in Moss Side, Toxteth and Brixton want is jobs. They do not necessarily want people like us to tell them how they should be spending their leisure. So let us not forget about the real need. But there is also this parallel need for the proper use of leisure. That leads me to say that in the face of the kind of constraints under which we are now acting, there is a tendency more and more for those engaged in the provision of education, particularly education in the leisure field, to concentrate more and more on the pursuit of excellence.
I am all for excellence. I am all for producing people of great ability of one kind or another. I tend to think that we do not actually produce an Einstein by special coaching or even intuition, and I do not think that we produce a Georgie Best by special coaching methods. I say that if we provide the widest possible range of opportunities to the largest possible number of people, excellence will take care of itself.
The noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, spoke about what has been happening in part-time education and other education in the Leicester area. I should like to refer to that for a moment. The education authority in Leicester has done some remarkable work in terms of its artistic effects, bringing music into all sorts of homes which knew nothing about music. I know that it is operating under great difficulties, and at one time
610
there were bus loads of children being brought into Leicester from all points of the compass to have special tuition in playing musical instruments and in rehearsing with orchestras and so on. They would not all be geniuses, but they would all achieve an ability which would give them immense pleasure; and by achieving that kind of ability we were affecting the whole nature of the life from which those children came.
If a child from an underprivileged home learns to play the oboe or the violin, in the end that has an impact on the whole family; the family goes along to concerts, the family takes an interest in music in a way which it did not before. I believe that if activities of that kind, which frankly are not utilitarian, but which can do so much for the profitable use of leisure by our people, have, in the face of the present cuts, to be reduced, that would be an absolute disaster.
In the course of the debate much reference has been made to local authority evening classes, vocational classes, non-vocational classes, and so on. The noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, said that the provision of those classes should be made mandatory. Section 41 of the 1944 Act—to which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred earlier—says:
"… it shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure the provision for their area of adequate facilities for further education, that is to say: (b) leisure-time occupation, in such organized cultural training and recreative activities as are suited to their requirements, for any persons over compulsory school age who are able and willing to profit by the facilities provided for that purpose".
That is not a mandatory provision, but it is a desperately important provision.
The interesting thing about evening classes and non-vocational classes run by local authorities, which I have studied very closely, is the change in the kind of recruitment and personnel—the change in the people from whom the classes are drawn. There was a time when, in the main, it was the professional classes who went along to learn a language or who went along to learn about ceramics, music, architecture or whatever. We now find that it is the professional classes who have no spare time at all and it is other classes that now go along to learn about music, history or any of these other activities. As a result I think that their lives are immeasurably enriched.
I would also say that many of the people who have benefited from evening classes of this kind have often been people who have had almost nothing out of our educational system in the past—elderly people who left school at the age of 14 and who went straight to work, who never had any further education or university education until they came to retirement and then, at long last, an avenue is open to them. I think that they have pursued that avenue with immense benefit to themselves and the society in which they live. If, in the face of the kind of cuts we now have, activities of that kind close down, it would be a tragedy.
The noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, referred to what has happened in Manchester—the disaster there. I remember the time when evening classes were dotted about all over the area, and when there was the possibility for people, quite happily, to cross education authority boundaries; to look through a shopping list to see what kind of courses were available in one area or another. Equalising payments were made as

611
between one education authority area and another so that people could more or less choose from a wide area.
We now have a situation in which, under the present pressures of cuts, these things are closing more and more, until the opportunities almost do not exist. Earlier the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said that provided the Government made absolutely certain that they provided the premises, he felt—and I think that he is right—that sooner or later agencies of one kind or another would arrive which would make effective use of those premises. I think it is right that tribute has been paid, not once but over and over again in this debate, to the work of organisations, such as the WEA. There are other agencies which have done, and are still doing, admirable work in providing classes of part-time education in one form or another. Cuts are, of course, nothing new. I well recollect that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred to his, not difficulties, but negotiations with Sir Winston Churchill in order to get funds. He may perhaps be interested to hear the contents of a letter which Sir Winston Churchill wrote many years ago to Sir Vincent Tewson when Sir Vincent was the General Secretary of the TUC. Sir Winston said this:
"There is, perhaps, no branch of our vast educational system which should more attract within its particular sphere the aid and encouragement of the state than adult education".
How right he was! He said that that form of education:
"demands the highest measures which our hard-pressed finances can sustain".
Finances are always hard pressed. I remember the cuts which took place in education away back in January 1968, when the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, was a member of the Government. At that time it was said that the cut of £100 million was not really a cut but a planned reduction in the rate of growth. From time to time we are told that the present cuts are not really cuts; that they arc planned reductions in the rate of growth. To a person who is now denied an opportunity from which he would formerly have benefited, they are cuts, and they are cuts which could, indeed, have very serious consequences.
I do not want to say very much more. I have said little about the whole matter of university education; it has been dealt with so admirably by so many other speakers. But I should like to underline the almost electrifying words of the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, who spoke rather like the geese that woke up the capital, when he reminded us of Rome, and how right he was; that some day we shall emerge from the recession. Perhaps by the time we emerge from that recession we shall also have reached the time when our resources, in terms of North Sea oil, may have disappeared; in which time we shall have become doubly dependent on the skill, knowledge and ingenuity of our people. That being the case, any shortfall or any cuts in the investment in the education of our people at the moment would indeed be a disaster.
I know that it is not always possible to make sure that our education today provides the right people in the future. Indeed, I was much interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said about methods of selecting students at a time when we have cuts, and that one cannot necessarily guarantee that the person who
612
gets the best A-level results, ultimately makes the most useful graduate at the end of the day. But these are the kinds of problem which must be faced when, in point of fact, one is faced with cuts.
It was some time ago in another debate that the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, reminded your Lordships' House of a kind of inevitable rule within society, whereby somehow we never produce the kind of graduates we actually need. As the noble Lord said at that time, once mathematics becomes very important to society—as it now is very important to society—all the mathematicians leave the schools and the colleges and go into industry. So, in a sense, we then fail to turn out graduates of the precise kind actually needed. However, I do not think that it is necessary for me to underline any of the remarks which have been made by noble Lords, with such vast experience in this field, about the importance of preserving our investment in knowledge, so that that knowledge will be there at such time as the nation will become almost totally dependent upon it.
I want to say little more, save to say that during the six years that I have had the great privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House, like so many other noble Lords who have also had the honour and pleasure of being Members of another place, I am often asked by people how I compare the two. I always say that your Lordships' House has the outstanding advantage over the other place that one does not actually have to turn up unless one wants to. It has the further advantage in that your Lordships do not have constituents; it has perhaps an even greater advantage in that we do not have elections. But what I have said over and over again is that it has been my view that the quality of debate, particularly on subjects like education —and I have quoted that often—is immeasurably higher.
I do not say this critically, but so often the speeches in another place are made for the benefit of the Rochdale Observer or the Oldham Chronicle, or whatever you like, whereas if a noble Lord in your Lordships' House chooses to speak the presumption is that he probably has something to say. As I have said in the past, if we have a debate about education we will find that most of the speeches made in that debate will be made by people who have spent a lifetime in education, who have carried great responsibility in education, who have had to take crucial decisions. So those debates have been of a high quality. But, when asked, I have said when I have come out of a debate such as this: "Well, that was splendid and immensely interesting. But so what? Who is listening?"
This has been a most important debate. In the course of it we have had speeches from noble Lords of immense experience and wisdom. Everything they have said is something which has to be listened to. The debate was admirably opened by my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and since then noble Lords, one after another, have followed the same theme and underlined the theme. I repeat what I have said to others: an excellent debate, but who is listening? I hope that on this occasion Her Majesty's Government have been listening and that a truly excellent debate, to which I have listened with immense interest and pleasure, has not merely been a waste of time. I hope that in the fullness of time it will perhaps bear and bring results.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I think this has been a splendid debate. I have also had the pleasure of listening to every one of the speeches. I have listened to every speech, and I found that every speech had something constructive to say. But I was particularly interested—I do not know about the order of my picking up points—in the noble Viscount's speech on the WEA. As an old warrior in the front trenches of the WEA in the 1930s, I worked in a village where 98 per cent. of the people were out of work. I have seen slump after slump in Wales in my day. In that village we saved—I am using the word "souls" —the souls of those people by running numbers of WEA classes. Sometimes we scored aces. I can think of three students we got to Balliol. The Master, Lindsay, at one time had the oil painting of one of these great old unemployed workers in that area in his room.
The WEA was not trying to make a person ooze with intellectuality. One can easily ooze with intellectuality and lack all wisdom. As I have said many times in this House, Solomon did not ask for cleverness or intellectuality. He asked the good God to give him wisdom. Fortunately we have heard a lot of it tonight in the speeches that have been made from both sides of the House, because all the speeches were built on a lifetime of experience.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. He has gone, has he?
A noble Lord: He is coming back.
Lord Davies of Leek: He is coming back, my Lords. I am grateful to him for having raised this issue. It will be of value, and I am quite sure, that the answer to the question asked by the last speaker, "who is listening?" is that the Government are listening. But the world is listening, too, because something is happening to this lovely little old country of ours.
Tawney asked a wonderful question. I knew Tawney, and had the joy of sitting at his feet. I will not pass any remarks about the SDP. Do not let me get involved in that, but they have elected to call their society, the Tawney Society. This was the 64,000 dollar question, and Tawney, in his wisdom, said: "They talk as though man existed for industry, instead of industry existing for man". That was in his famous booklet and series of lectures known as The Sickness of an Acquisitive Society.
I know that every speaker today on both sides of this House believes that industry exists for man, and we all want to find a formula by means of which man can live a full life. We do not want to see what Tawney had to reply to in 1936, bless him, when they were going to raise the school-leaving age to 15. There was talk about exemptions in the other place. Her Grace the Duchess of Atholl spoke on 26th May 1936. The dear lady said:
"There are many cases where small hands are necessary for industry. In the Yorkshire textile industry many machines are at present standing idle for the want of these small fingers to work them".
I do not blame the Duchess. It was the environment in which she lived. It was the environment in which they were brought up. The drabness of the underprivileged was something you could excuse them,
614
because they knew nothing about it. That point of view is the exact one that Tawney was protesting about when he said that some people like that thought that man existed for industry.
A sad sight to me this week which has seen a call for a better educated population—and you are looking at somebody who got eight draws up on a football coupon, by the way, and who got £53, though I do not bet and I did not know I had done it; my wife filled the form up years ago—was to see thousands standing outside the Daily Mail office and even the wife of a Member of another place waking him up at seven in the morning to say, "We are rich. You need not fight another general election". It makes me wonder how daft Britain is going. Everybody was running with a No. 26 to the Daily Mail and saying, "I have won, and we are going to be rich for life!".
This is pathetic. It is a pathetic indictment of the system of society in which we are living. I have learnt the tough way that you are lucky to have a new suit unless you work hard for it. I had to learn the rough way about that as the son of Welsh miners and Welsh farmers years and years ago. There was nothing wrong in learning that lesson. We are now destroying the instrument which will teach that lesson to people.
When Milton wrote his famous pamphlet Areopagitica in defence of journalism, he never thought in asking for the freedom of the press that one day they would try to increase their circulation by running bingo. When he wrote his famous pamphlet on education—that is another one of Milton's—he never thought we would have a system of society that was limiting students, because in his day some of them were getting to Oxford at 12 years of age. Those old universities were open to the children of the poor. I want to see that again. But they will never get there, and they are really the seed corn—that expression has been used—of the society in which we live.
I find it particularly sad that 13,000 teaching jobs are ultimately to go. Along with that, there is a bit of teacher bashing going on now. The Minister of Education has said that we must root out those who are hopeless. Certainly, and a good headmaster can do that; that can be left to the man who knows how to run a school or the local authority which knows the locality, and so on. We do not need the peak of the pyramid in Whitehall coming down with a big stick. Many people have gone into medicine, one of whom messed me about to the point where, if I had not been strong, I would not now be living, but we do not go doctor bashing simply because they mix their drugs occasionally. I see a few doctors sitting nearby, so I had better not take that path too far. The members of the teaching profession are an easy target for attack. Bad teachers are a menace to children and we must find the answer, but we must go carefully and not go berserk over the problem.
The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee looked at the problem in 1954 and at that time they deplored:
"the maintenance of the outworn tradition in so many of our grammar and public schools that the proper goal for all bright boys"—
they did not mention girls, by the way—
"is a classical education; an Arts course at the university and the avoidance of anything to do with industry and factories. It is extremely difficult to get scholarship boys to go into applied science".

615
Many noble Lords from both sides of the House, some with illustrious Peerages, have had the wonderful opportunity—nobody objects to it and many of us might have wished for it ourselves—of a private education, even if it has given them an education fit for a schoolman of the 12th century, learned in Greek and Latin but possibly unable to solve a simple quadratic equation. I recall meeting a man who went to Gordonstoun in Scotland, a marvellous individual, who told me they did not bother with that type of training there, either.
In my view, a publication out this week on mathematics is serving a purpose. I promise not to speak for more than about 15 minutes, so I will not go into it in depth. I do not believe mathematics is all that difficult, if it can be inculcated into the child properly at the beginning. As I say, I will not quote from the Cockcroft Report on maths because the hour is late and we want to give the Minister plenty of time to reply to the points made in the debate. I urge noble Lords to obtain a copy of that report. I say that because in the sort of world which is developing, that of the microelectronic processor, it is absolutely necessary for us not to be afraid of mathematics any more. It is a subject which the nation must take in its stride.
There are many Stephensons and Brindleys. Brindley could hardly read and write, yet he became one of the greatest canal builders, as well as doing work on roads, of those days. In other words, he was a typical example of common man over-vaulting his limitations through the miracle of application, thus enabling him to find the answers he needed, for example how to construct a lock in a canal so as to bring water uphill. That is the type of person we need. By the way, we found hundreds of them in the WEA movement. A farmer wrote me an essay on society and said, "I do not know much about society but I breed bees", and then he wrote 30 pages of foolscap on the community of bees. It was an example of work that brought joy to the lecturer, the farmer in question and to those attending that educational movement. In our modern society, our universities and polytechnics need more than ever to get their grants so that they may move into the modern scientific and electronic world.
Lloyds Bank Review asked the question, "What is education for?" and Angus Maddison, a member of the Secretariat of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, wrote in that publication about five major goals of education, and I think it right that I should mention them. The first goal was education as a means of personal fulfilment, and that we can all agree. The second was as an instrument for social continuity and cohesion. That is absolutely vital; if we can get that across we shall break any silly class consciousness. The third was as a mechanism for social mobility. That really means that every Tom, Dick and Harry should be able to talk without having to put his hands in his pockets, trembling all the time for fear that you have a little higher status than he has; education knows no class barriers if it is proper education. The fourth was as a means to promote social equality. And the fifth—it brings us to the purpose which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has in mind—was as an economic investment for the individual and society. In other words, spending money on our
616
universities, polytechnics, WEAs and adult schools is not money thrown away but money giving substance and a good standard to the nation.
There is so much more I could have said; indeed, I have cut my speech in half to please the noble Lord, Lord Elton.—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Elton): To please me?
Lord Davies of Leek:—but mostly to please myself because I am hoping for some good answers from the Minister.
I must mention the Open University. I wish my noble friend Lady Lee were here tonight, and I also wish to pay tribute to former Prime Minister Wilson, because, as a result of their efforts, the Open University was started and it has done a good job; 50,000 graduates in 10 years, 5,000 of them having taken engineering degrees. In other words, it has enabled people who can use a slide rule and can do calculus and trigonometry to expand their outlook. As I say, 5,000 engineers took their degrees there. We want more to have that opportunity. We must get rid of the snobbish intellectualism which suggests that there are big differences between the engineer, lawyer, administrator and doctor. Let us rub that away. Noble Lords can see me discarding pages of notes; it is such a pity, but we must give the Minister plenty of time to reply and I must not delay the House.
Noble Lords: Go on!
Lord Davies of Leek: It is nice of noble Lords to tell me to go on, but perhaps they do not know what they are asking for. I must, however, mention something I cannot understand. I am a regular reader of The Times Educational Supplement. The other day I was looking at it in the Library. I read something and thought, "I shall have to read that again". It said:
"Shelve new courses, orders Sir Keith".
At the very moment when Sir Keith Joseph is making that sort of statement, we are told that he is saying he is cutting all subjects except engineering. The article continued:
"This was imposed this week by Sir Keith Joseph, Secretary of State for Education, in a circular to local authorities".
It was left there, although here comes the 64,000-dollar question: how can one teach engineering in polytechnics or anywhere else if other, adjacent courses are cut? It is impossible to do engineering without a knowledge of technical drawing. You cannot make sections of, for example, a motor-car cylinder and understand it without being able to read the technical drawings that go with it. People who make statements of that kind should be advised by the universities, by the professors of the subjects concerned, before rushing into print; they should listen not just to their advisers in Whitehall but to the men doing the job, so they may find out exactly what it is that should be done.
The Minister will be aware that I sent him two questions about part-time study, and at least one of them was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in his speech. I also sent relevant copies of The Times

617
Educational Supplement to the noble Lord, and he will have been interested in a cutting from the Guardian which read:
"Until now unemployed teenagers were entitled to attend part-time courses while claiming supplementary benefit, provided these courses didn't exceed 21 hours per week and provided they were prepared to take a job as soon as one became available. Henceforth, by including lunch breaks and private study in the 21 hours, the DHSS will effectively exclude the vast majority…".
Both articles referred to that point, and I hope that the Minister will reply to it.
My little, old study is loaded with books, including, for instance, the Russell Report. We have turned them out in their hundreds during my 40-odd years of knocking around Parliament. What are we going to do about them? How can I finish my speech in a better way than by quoting the poor old Shropshire Lad:
"When first my way to fair I took,
Few pence in purse had I,
And long I used to stand and look
At things I could not buy.
Now times are altered,
If I care to buy a thing, I can.
The pence are here, and there's the fair,
But where's the lost young man?
To think that two and two are four,
And neither five nor three.
The heart of man has long been sore …".
Of those of us who have given our lives to education, our hearts are very sore that any British Government should make such swingeing cuts to the seed-corn of Britain's destiny as this Government have done today.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he not going to remind the House that Housman wrote the whole of his poem in monosyllables, which was a shining example to anyone who ever has to write anything in the English language?
Lord Davies of Leek: Lovely, my Lords; I am grateful.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I can hardly think of a more difficult introduction to the reply to a debate than the magnificent recollections of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. I am sure that all your Lordships will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has done a service to the House in introducing this subject and calling forth such an impressive array of speakers.
We have been discussing a subject which, if anything, is rather like a ship, and we all have different connections with it. Some of us work in it, some of us have contributed to building it. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, was certainly busy in the drawing office at various times. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has commanded it. My noble friend Lord Eccles has commanded it, too, and has then, I think, gone on to naval architecture and suggested adjustments to the superstructure and upper decks. I was a humble steward, and, judging from what he says, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, was an extremely vocal (I do not doubt) junior officer.
I am in the classic difficulty of replying to a debate in which a mass of questions have been asked—to a
618
number of which I have answers—which I think should not be brushed aside. If I do not answer all of them, I shall write to noble Lords. I am trying, and I have tried throughout the debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, did with heroic self-denial, to discard pages of prepared text, but not all of it can be omitted, and I regret therefore that your Lordships may have to bear with me a little longer than you would wish.
In looking at this great vessel we must—if I may continue the analogy—realise that it is sailing upon a sea. Very often we tend to ignore the parameters within which the problem that we are studying exists, and I have to take as the basis of this discussion the fact that the nation is very short of funds and, if it does not recognise the fact, regardless of what happened to ancient Rome, we shall be in very deep trouble indeed. So, when the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, asks why did we not take the opportunity to cut the size of classes, I would say that the opportunity did not exist.
If we are to survive, we cannot ignore our economic circumstances. We have to cut our coat according to the cloth (if I may vary the imagery) and the opportunity to do something because the number of children being enrolled in schools declines does not, unfortunately, depend only on the number of children; it depends also on the amount of finance available in the nation as a whole for everything, not just education, but also defence, health and social security, roads and electricity—I could go on for ever. It has to be part of a priority, it is not an absolute priority in itself. I would say at this stage that noble Lords were good enough to recognise that, and I think will recognise also that if we do not solve that problem, then we shall indeed be teaching children for jobs which do not exist. It would be a pity to resign ourselves at this stage simply to educating the entire nation for leisure.
There emerged at various stages during the debate a sort of divide, I would almost call it the Stewart/Robbins divide, in the philosophic position from which one looks at what Government ought to be doing. A number of noble Lords—and the noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, was kind enough to warn me of this—have suggested (I think that this is in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Stewart) that the Government ought to say more precisely on what local authorities ought to spend their money, indeed should say very precisely on what the money should be spent, and how much should be spent, in an increasing area of responsibility.
On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, applying himself to a different area of expenditure, though also of education, chided us on giving the responsibility to the University Grants Committee and allowing it to be steered in that direction. I shall return to that point in a few moments.
With regard to the local authorities and the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, that there was a weakness in the system because of a lack of a statutory basis for further education, I would say that this question was considered by a group of officials of the education departments and the local authority associations, and their report, The Legal Basis of Further Education, was published last year, and comments were then invited. The group was itself divided on

619
the question of whether there should be a statutory duty on local education authorities to provide education for those over 19 years old, or whether there should merely be the power to do it. Responses to the report have been received, and from the adult education sector they appear to favour the view that there should be a statutory duty to provide education for the over 19s. However, there are of course other opinions to be taken into consideration, and I would not be able to comment before that process has been completed.
With regard to the University Grants Committee, I think I ought to say that, while I much admire the innovatory skill and reputation of my noble friend Lord Beloff, I do not think that we were unfortunate to have the UGC at this juncture of history. After all, the committee consists of a distinguished body of members with no interest other than the future of the university system, and who have courageously grasped the nettle of making a rational distribution of reduced resources. Only the chairman is full time. There are 20 members of the main committee, including 14 academics and two industrialists, with a further industrialist to be appointed soon. The main committee is supported by 15 sub-committees, with a total membership of 140. This involves many more academics than some sections of the popular press would lead us to believe in a unique system of peer review. The Government are very fortunate indeed to have the UGC to advise them on university matters.
I should now like to say—and I am trying to return to the main drift of your Lordships' debate—that the Government are not complacent about the provision of vocational education. We need to do more to fit our young people, in particular our school-leavers, for their working lives. The view that educated youth is an investment for the future of the country is one which the Government wholeheartedly share and to which they are already giving positive response. We are already taking steps to make the school curriculum for those aged 14 and upwards—boys and girls—both more practical and more relevant to the working environment. The additional provision being made in the Government's plans for higher and further education is a logical extension of that initiative.
Schools and colleges of further education are experiencing a significant increase in demand for full-time education for 16- to 19-year-olds. Although the unemployment situation will of course have contributed to this—and the 16 to 19 population has still to reach its peak in numbers—nevertheless it is gratifying that more and more young people are recognising the benefits of staying on in education after the compulsory school age. Adding to their education in this way and achieving qualifications will be to their advantage and to the advantage of the community at large, as many noble Lords have pointed out.
I do not deny that in this area authorities have had difficulty in coping with their financial constraints. We shall have to take account of the economies of scale and opportunities for rationalisation which this expansion permits, and we must show the flexibility of approach which is such a valuable tradition of education in this country. Given these, we believe that proper provision can continue to be made for the educational needs of the 16- to 19-year-olds in schools and colleges.
620
I do not doubt that my right honourable friend will read this debate—and I shall ensure that he does—and pay particular attention to the fascinating critique of this proposition set out by my noble friend Lord Eccles.
I would reassure my noble friend in one respect, although he was speaking as an architect and I am speaking (as it were) as an engineer. The two Secretaries of State were co-signatories of the recent White Paper, A New Training Initiative—a Programme for Action. My noble friend was looking for one department of state with responsibility in this field. There is a very close level of co-operation there already. I will not elaborate, although I might write to my noble friend at a later stage.
The Government are also aware that a lot of talent may be slipping away because we tend to provide education only to traditional categories of people and in traditional ways. This, again, echoes the sentiments of many noble Lords. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is actively engaged in the encouragement of new courses for those who, at 16-plus, are not seeking either traditional/academic or specific craft or technician qualifications. He expects to make an announcement shortly about the proposed certificate of pre-vocational education which can be taken at 17-plus in both schools and colleges of further education.
Before I leave schools, may I take the opportunity to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, on the question of the proportion of teachers to pupils? It is in fact this year, as it was last, at the very best level we ever have had. I will not follow the noble Lord further except to observe that I recognise the Aristotelian origins of his philosophy of education. I cannot say that I believe that music and gymnastics are any longer the most important subjects to be taught, and I am not aware of a great flight from either subject at present.
On the subject of social history, these days the name of the great social historian Tawney seems to be on everybody's lips, including those of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. All I know about him is that he taught when poor students and a vestigial public transport system meant that researchers had to get about on foot if their money was to last out. When an eager pupil asked him at the end of a tutorial, "Tell me, sir, what is the greatest requisite for a good historical researcher?", he was told, "Thicker boots". How interesting, my Lords, that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, sat, as he told us, at his feet, and was able to observe them.
Perhaps I may turn to higher education. My right honourable friend proposes, subject to parliamentary approval, that the total of the universities' grant for the 1981–82 academic year should be increased from the £979 million previously announced to £995 million. The universities' recurrent grant for the academic year 1982–83 will be £1,137 million. That will include over £100 million to compensate them for reduced tuition fee income.
Your Lordships have shown considerable anxieties about the cost implications of university reorganisation following the UGC announcement of allocations, and some of your Lordships, both this evening and formerly, have drawn attention to the degree of difficulty

621
being to some extent proportionate to the period of time over which the change was required. The Government have taken that point on board. A sum of £50 million is being allocated over and above the recurrent grant in the financial year 1982–83 to be used by the University Grants Committee specifically for restructuring and the cost of redundancies. A case for a wider relaxation of the timetable has not, in our view, been adequately made.
Noble Lords have accepted the need for some reduction. I was glad, in particular, for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, in this, and of that of the noble Lord, Lord Mais, and even of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. In fact, everybody, I think, is aware that we have to do something. The question is: What and how?
I have already addressed myself to the question whether or not it was right to entrust the disposal of the global sum to the UGC, and I stand upon that. As to student number targets, the primary concern of the UGC in deciding their distribution was with the national rather than the local provision of places. I think that that is in tune with what noble Lords were saying. In each subject or subject area the UGC tried to use the resources available in the whole country to the best advantage, taking due note of the desirability of variety of approach to individual disciplines. This process necessarily involved some universities being asked to make greater reductions than others. In order to protect academic standards within their pattern of distribution and to give a guide to universities in making their reductions, the UGC gave each university, as part of its advice to them, target total student numbers in science, arts and medicine to be achieved by 1983–84.
My Lords, the UGC set these targets because they decided that in general terms there should be no further diminution of the unit of resource in the university system, in order, in particular, to protect the research capacity. The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, referred in terms to the effects of a lack of scientific research, if I take him rightly, in dealing with the dyestuffs industry in the latter part of the last century. It was dependent on research as well as on education.
If I may return to what I was saying about the UGC, the possibility of small adjustments in student number targets where the circumstances of individual universities justify this is within the scope of the UGC's current bilateral discussions with the universities about their proposals for adjusting to new levels of funding. I doubt if they are doing as much in Leningrad and Moscow, as was suggested earlier on, but I can tell my noble friend Lord Beloff that the aim is a 2 per cent. shift towards the sciences.
As for non-academic staff redundancy, it is of course hoped that as much as possible of the total non-academic staff reduction that proves necessary can be achieved by early retirement or redeployment. Many staff already belong to pension schemes and premature retirement compensation arrangements akin to those of the universities' superannuation scheme. The University Grants Committee have indicated to universities that they are willing to reimburse them for payments under any such arrangements that were in operation before 1st August 1981. My right
622
honourable friend is currently considering, in the light of the views of the vice-chancellors and the UGC, whether any further arrangements for compensation beyond the statutory minimum terms would be appropriate.
Since we are on the area of funding, the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, made a point about student loans. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has said that he is looking again at his predecessor's assessment of the question of student loans. I will make certain that, in doing so, he is made aware of the very interesting suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, in a wittily apocalyptic speech, which was mainly about municipal and industrial policy in two civilisations—and which would have been of equal interest to Chadwick and Macaulay —asked me to quantify the savings made from the Government's university policy. Your Lordships will realise that I cannot get the answer right. If it is so huge, I shall be told that it is criminal to take it from education and, if derisory, I shall be told that the damage is out of all proportion. It is in nobody's interest but my own to see that the figures equate with the results. I can say that the Government estimate that by the end of the financial year 1983–84 cumulative savings in expenditure on universities will be over £200 million and the savings thereafter will be of the order of £150 million a year. I think I have dealt with the dyestuffs question already.
May I turn to a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, about religious education disappearing and other subjects disappearing. I must not follow him into too much detail. I am concerned by what he says, but I should say that the UGC has made it clear that it will be concerned if unplanned and undersirable losses of subject specialties appear likely to occur because of the accumulation of individual decisions taken by universities throughout the country. The noble Lord may be a little comforted by my earlier mention of the bilateral discussions.
I think I should say a good deal of what I planned to say about post-experience vocational education, because it is central to the theme of the debate. The Motion of noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, refers to the urgent need for a better educated working population. It does so in terms which emphasise the role of further and adult education. In most trades, in most crafts and in most professions, the days are gone in which you could simply close the classroom door at 14, 15, 16 or 18 years of age or leave your college or university at 17, 18, 19 or 21 and say goodbye to education for the rest of your life. It was always a risky thing to do at the best of times, but the world has changed even since those days and since most of your Lordships and myself were young.
My noble friend Lord Eccles drew this picture of the need for a continuing concept of education if not from the cradle to the grave at least from the nursery to the front parlour. The rate at which mankind is acquiring knowledge, the rate at which man is reordering knowledge, the rate at which man is applying knowledge, has now increased to the point that skills acquired at the outset of a career can simply not any longer be expected to suffice to the end of a lifetime. Education used to precede work and before many more

623
years it will have to alternate with work. I think the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, put this to your Lordships as well.
Institutions that are able to provide education in mid-career—post-experience vocational education is, I think, the jargon term—will, with little doubt, become steadily more important to the wellbeing of our society. It was a recognition of this important principle that lay behind the issue in October 1980 of the Government's discussion paper, Continuing Education Post-Experience Vocational Providios for those in Employment. That paper drew attention to the importance of mid-career courses of vocational education for those at work and suggested ways in which educational institutions could be helped and encouraged to meet employers' needs for such provision. It elicited a widespread and largely favourable response and the Government have been pursuing action along the lines suggested. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be making an announcement in the Spring about what we have been doing and (which is of greater interest to your Lordships) what we intend to do in the future. For the present, therefore, I must simply stress that we recognise the need for education and industry to work closely together in provisions. It is a pet subject of mine and I am doing an act of self-negation much like that of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in turning over two pages in front of me.
Vocational education at any level requires a corresponding level of general education. We are not only concerned with universities and the higher learning. Certain skills, notably literacy and numeracy, are basic to all training and retraining. Indeed, they are essential to survival in a modern industrial society that is becoming increasingly complex.
I am sure that noble Lords are well aware of the initiatives taken by successive Governments in the field of adult literacy. They started in 1975 when the Adult Literacy Resource Agency was established as a short-term, pump-priming exercise to get local provision firmly established. I think they coincided with revelations by the United Nations about the level of adult functional literacy in this country. The Adult Literacy Unit was established in 1978 with a two-year remit and a grant of about £333,000 to act as a continuing focus and stimulus to adult literacy.
The Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education was given the specific task of advising on the best way of building on the adult literacy campaign. The aim was to implement a coherent strategy for the basic education of adults, including continuing provision for adult literacy. The council's report, A Strategy for the Basic Education of Adults, identified a need for basic education for different groups, for different stages of life and for different purposes—chiming in again with my noble friend's theme.
Government support was concentrated on the priority areas of literacy and numeracy and on those communication and coping skills without which it is difficult even to seek employment. The Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit was set up in 1980, as a third initiative, for an initial period of three years—longer than that of any of its predecessors—with funds of over half a million pounds for the first year. The unit
624
acts as a national focus and stimulator, sponsors development projects, both in the maintained and voluntary sectors, and provides an advisory and training service. In its second year the level of funding was more than doubled and it is currently over a million pounds.
The Government fully recognise the valuable role that adult education has played in the past and appreciate the increasingly significant contribution it can make in the future to increasing the general level of education among adults. It can do this by helping individuals to develop their own potential, whether in personal or in vocational terms. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education has underlined this in recent debates in another place on several occasions. I would draw your attention to the fact that the Government's expenditure plans for 1982–83 provide for a cash figure of £52·3 million for adult education. That is less than the net expenditure of authorities for 1980–81, but it represents a considerable easing over the Government's previous targets—and this is what noble Lords round the House have been asking us to do.
Part-time education, whether for young apprentices or for the older worker seeking to retrain or improve himself, undoubtedly provides particular opportunities to relate theory to practice whether the student is a motor mechanic or a senior manager. It takes a lot of determination to obtain qualifications from part-time study. Those who embark on it should not be impeded by unnecessary obstacles and that is why we give our support at the level we do to the Open University—dear to many of your Lordships' hearts.
The Open University has an essential role. It provides opportunities for those who wish to study part-time. It is a key second-chance institution for those who missed the opportunity of higher education earlier in life. Most of its undergraduates are, in fact, in this category. One-third of them had finished their full-time education by the time they reached the age of 16. Some of them finished even earlier in the pre-Rosla days whe it was legal to leave school younger.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred in one of his less restrained passages—and it was a restrained speech—to a whole generation falling behind as a result of economic decisions. I do not think that that really does bear examiation. Later he put in a moving plea that the Open University and other unconventional institutions should be protected, even at the cost of the traditional. He will, therefore, acknowledge gladly that the Government grant to the Open University for 1982 will total almost £55 million. I should point out to the House that the figures that somebody quoted as to the cost of degree courses were, I should emphasise, not the annual but the total cost. This puts them in a very different perspective when one makes a comparison. The annual cost would, I understand, typically be between one-fifth and one-sixth of the totals he mentioned.
This grant of £55 million will enable more than 60,000 students to begin or continue their undergraduate courses. They are drawn from all ages and all occupational groups. A further 44,000 or so are expected to study with the university on courses outside its undergraduate programme; on courses of community interest and, most important, on an expanding pro-

625
gramme of continuing education particularly in the field of professional, scientific and technical updating. I should like to say more about the Open University, but I feel I shall trespass on your Lordships' patience if I do not get through rather faster in my speech and also on your forbearance if I do not answer the questions that have been asked.
There was a striking figure which was given about the staff/student ratios at Birkbeck and Goldsmith's Colleges. I am not sure which of your Lordships gave it but there was mention of something like one to 70 at Goldsmith's and Birkbeck. I should make it clear that the number of students to be admitted annually to these places in the case of Goldsmith's is agreed between Goldsmith's and the DES and that the staff/student ratios there on the usual basis of full-time equivalents were 9·6 to one and not 70 to one, on 1st October last year. They were 10·6 to one and not 70 to one in October 1981 at Birkbeck College.
I feel disinclined to read the whole of my speech—though I may be in trouble for not delivering what I planned. But I should like to reply to a particular point of the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Beaumont, about the 21-hour rule. This is the provision in the supplementary benefit regulations under which unemployed young people may in certain circumstances study for up to 21 hours per week without losing benefit. This is a useful arrangement. It encourages young people with time on their hands to put it to worthwhile use and perhaps to improve their employability. The concession is not however intended to provide support for normal education. The young person has to be prepared to leave the course if work becomes available. A recent ruling by the chief supplementary benefits officer whose function it is to interpret the regulations as they stand has attracted publicity in the press and representations to the DHSS. It is argued that this ruling will restrict the opportunities for study under this arrangement because time spent on private study, lunch breaks and the like will count towards the weekly limit of 21 hours—those were the noble Lord's words.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Services made it clear in another place the other day that the provisions of these regulations arc being kept under review. Representations which have been received on the ruling are being considered by the department in consultation with the DES and those concerned will receive an answer as soon as possible. In those circumstances, I do not think that I can usefully say more on this point today but I do reassure both noble Lords that what they have said will be taken fully into account.
There is much more I could say; much of it will come to your Lordships through your letterboxes. In summary, it is very easy at this type of juncture to cry woe; to cry havoc; to say that all is lost, because we are doing less of what is good. I tried to explain to your Lordships that we cannot look at education outside the economic context in this nation. I tried to demonstrate to your Lordships that we are flexible in our approach; that we are developing policies that match our changing societies, and I have defended to your Lordships with conviction our present stance, on the level both of autonomy of local authorities and of the great wisdom of entrusting the future of
626
university provision to the University Grants Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has done a service to the House in bringing this matter to your Lordships' attention. The debate will be read widely, not only outside this House but in the department and perhaps outside the country. I am grateful to your Lordships for your great forbearance. I did warn that I would be long; I had hoped not to be so long.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I should like to thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. There is no doubt at all that it has been an extremely good debate and that the record of it in Hansard will help us and a lot of other people to wrestle with these problems. This is not the moment to pick out any individual speaker's contribution, except to say that the gremlin in the Whips' Office who put together the two extremes of the noble Lords, Lord Noel-Baker and Lord Beloff, in quick juxtaposition most have had fun!
We are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for the very full reply by the Government. It is always a pleasure for this House—and certainly to its benefit—that the noble Lord has practical experience in the educational field. We feel that talking to us is someone who knows and cares about the subject. When we come to look at what he actually had to say, one may have to dredge his reply to try and gain any hope. But we shall examine the figures—we have not really had time to take them in—and we look forward to receiving his letter. I hope that he will scatter copies of them fairly widely to the people interested in the subjects. There are times when I wish that we had the Senate's habit of being able to write into the record the parts that the noble Lord was not able to deliver. If we receive them by post that will he something.
I am slightly sad, for I do not think that the Government have yet really taken on board the fact that by devoting a little more time and a little more trouble—and not thinking they have to get everything through immediately or else the vice-chancellors will get away with murder—on thinking how the money can be spent, they can keep the quality of education and the amount of education without spending any more money than it is intended to spend at the moment.
There is a deep fallacy at the base of the Government's ideas about economy. The Government want to save money—and we understand their want. But, to paraphrase one noble Lord, no country ever fought its way to solvency by laying off its workforce or failing to educate its people. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Salmon Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
7.57 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a modest Bill, confined only to Scotland. I hope that it is a non-contentious Bill which will commend

627
itself to all sides of the House. The draftsmen of the Bill have been to some pains to keep it as short and as simple as possible, which I am sure will be a great relief to all Members of this House.
I should make it very plain that I am no expert in this matter. The number of salmon that I have caught in my lifetime could be counted on the fingers of one hand—and not all of them have been in Scotland. I have the privilege of being on the Court of the Fishmongers Company. Unlike some companies, it still exercises some of its ancient privileges and responsibilities in regulating the marketing of fish in this country. Whether it should be a declared interest, I do not know.
It is generally agreed that in recent years certain abuses have grown up which are calling for legislative action. The promoters of this Bill have consulted very widely with a large number of bodies—a dozen or so—which seem to be relevant, and nobody has expressed any dissent with the Bill in its present form. Lying behind that is a feeling that there is in the long run a need for an all-embracing and comprehensive review of the legislation concerning salmon fishing in Scotland. I would not want to take shelter behind that need because I think it is generally agreed that it will take some time for comprehensive legislation of that sort to be brought forward and it would essentially need to be a Government initiative; so I believe this is a case where the best could be the enemy of the good.
What we are trying to do in this Bill is to nibble away at the problem; and it is a constantly shifting target. Indeed, my interpretation of the situation relating to salmon fishing activities is that, on a tiny scale, it is a little bit like the running battle between the drafters of revenue legislation and the accountants who are constantly trying to find ways around it. We are dealing here with a continuous process of revision of the law against an expanding horizon of technical possibility and the ever-increasing sophistication of what I might call the "wide boys" of the business who are intent upon cashing in on the high price of salmon in the markets. The experience of the last two or three years has emphasised the need to close some of the loopholes in the law which are being exploited by people of this sort.
In drafting this legislation it has been recognised that it needs not only to be simple but also intelligible, legally binding and enforceable. These objectives, I believe, have been achieved in this Bill. Essentially what the Bill does is to ban the use of gill nets for catching salmon in Scotland; and I will mention later the definition of gill nets. There are several reasons why this is desirable. First, the quality of fish caught by a gill net is diminished because the fish is damaged while it struggles and dies from drowning, and hence you get an inferior quality product in the market. Secondly, there is a fear that the effectiveness of the gill net could lead to the danger of over-fishing. That, set alongside a number of other dangers which have been mentioned in this House and the depredations which have been made upon the species of salmon, would make for an undesirable situation.
In banning the use of the gill net, the Bill removes an escape clause which has been used by those who are
628
trying to get round the law. They have been saying: "This net was not set from a boat"—which is currently precluded under the law—" but it was set from the shore". Indeed, these people will sometimes claim that it has been set from a buoy, and it is a nice question as to who set the buoy in the first place. And I have been told of people who have climbed out of a boat to set such a net—I presume they would be wise enough to wear a wet suit—and have claimed that they have actually set the net not from a boat but from the water. Certainly there have been cases of hardy individuals such as we breed North of the Border who have been known to swim out and set nets in this way, which is not caught by existing legislation.
There is yet another defence which they can deploy. Those who use the legitimate devices for catching fish from the shore which are rather charmingly described as "engines" in the traditional legislation, are legitimately allowed to market their fish. I am told that the amount of fish some of these engines catch is quite surprising, and indeed out of all proportion to what might be expected. The suggestion is that some fish not caught legitimately is being sold through the mechanism of those who are operating legitimate engines.
The Bill further precludes the use of a gill net as a leader. Indeed it seems to me, as a layman in these matters, that to use a gill net as a leader is somewhat of a contradiction in terms as, by definition, the concept of a leader is that it should guide the fish into the bag-net at the end, whereas the gill net is designed to catch them and strangle them on the way in.
This raises the question of the actual description of a leader net, where it is pointed out that the definition of a leader net is that it should be seen so that it guides the fish rather than catching them on the way in. That brings in the word "monofilament"—the point being that modern nets can be made strong enough and yet fine enough to be virtually invisible. I did a little checking to discover whether there was a parliamentary definition of "monofilament" and I have to tell the House that this was attempted in Irish legislation by a gentleman called Murphy in 1976. So I dare say that we should treat it with reserve since "Murphy's law" is perhaps not one of the more reliable ones for us to call into account.
The definition in Clause 1—"(howsoever that term may be defined)"—is not a nice piece of draftsman's gobbledygook. It is used in order to catch up the definitions which have been used in previous legislation so that we do not invalidate previous legislation in bringing in this legislation. Clause 2 of the Bill contains what might be called a secondary objective it gives the Secretary of State power to vary the sizes of the nets which he might specify for different parts of the country. I understand this is a power which the Department of Agriculture feels would be useful to them.
Clause 3, which may look somewhat draconian unless one is familiar with it, sweeps in all accessories as being jointly responsible, and I understand this is a clause which has been lifted from previous legislation—the 1951 Act. Clause 4 is a piece of what I might call legal tidying up; and Clause 5 exempts the fish farmers, who clearly have to be free to use nets if they find it necessary. Then we get on to the definition

629
clause, Clause 6. A good deal of trouble has been taken over the definition of the gill net, and I have already referred to one previous attempt to define nets of that kind.
Clauses 8 and 9 are the geographical clauses, which I understand to be the normal form of legislation of this kind, and which, again, have been lifted from previous Acts. I have not attempted to explain in detail the phraseology of the Bill. I hope I have established that a Bill is desirable and that it is desirable now, rather than waiting for more comprehensive legislation. I believe that the Bill will be effective in achieving desirable ends, and I commend it to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
8.1 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, for the way in which he has introduced his Bill. He did not disguise from the House the fact that it is a limited Bill, the purpose of which is to help deal in part with a problem that has been with us for some time. It might well be suggested that the abuses are not exactly abuses of recent years. For instance, attempts were made in 1951 to deal with poaching. I remember that very clearly, because a Bill was introduced under a Labour Government, by the Secretary of State—not myself—Hector McNeil. I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary, so I have some appreciation of what went on at that time.
To generalise, salmon fishing then was something not for ordinary people. It was a matter of concern to those who owned the fishings. It was a case of doing something to help the landed proprietor, the riparian owner. I can remember the feeling in some sections of the Labour Party at that time, that that should not be done: Why should we, in 1951, with a majority of little or nothing, deal with a Bill of this kind?
I nearly said that, at that time, poaching was of a very explosive character. The kind of fish that were being taken, and the state of the rivers after the poachers had finished, was incredible to see. As the noble Lord said, the poachers have now become much more sophisticated. They even have their intercommunication, one with the other, and they are probably much more concerned about where the various bailiffs are. Furthermore, the cost of salmon at the present time means that there is a very ready market for it. So that the noble Lord was probably quite right in asking whether we should wait for all-embracing legislation.
We had a very interesting debate four months ago, prompted, I think, by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and someone asked when we might be able to get legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, told us that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State was hoping shortly to conclude the review which he had put in hand for changes in legislation and in the administration of salmon and freshwater fisheries. That review was started in December 1979 and anyone who knew what had happened realised that it was, more or less, a rehash of what a different Government of the same party had said in 1971 should be done about the
630
Hunter Report. So there we were with that reissue in 1979, and here we are in 1982, still waiting.
It was just the other day, on 8th February, that a Question for Written Answer was asked in another place. It is not often that a Conservative Government Whip in another place asks a Question, and when we get the Answer we should look at it closely. The Secretary of State replied:
"The Government are at present carrying out a wide-ranging review of the administration of and legislation on salmon and freshwater fisheries in Scotland. This review is not yet complete". (Official Report, Commons, 8/2/82; col. 240.)
There were complaints about the time that the Hunter Committee took in dealing with many of the abuses which the noble Lord raised tonight. That committee began its task in 1962 and reported in 1965. Yet here are the Government, with all that background and with all that time going back 20 years, saying that the review is not yet complete.
This Bill is not a Government measure. I had my doubts about the Deer Bill which we had last week. I was convinced that it was a Government measure and I have not yet been unconvinced. But only one reading of the noble Lord's Bill shows that it is not a Government measure. It may well be that the Government will tell us that it is too early to deal with anything like that. But in a restricted way it is worth while, especially as explained by the noble Lord. I am not sure about the drafting or about the powers, and I want to ask a question of the noble Earl the Minister who will speak later. I have a feeling that the Government should speak early on a private Member's Bill and should say how they feel about it. It is the usual thing in another place that the Government, before the end of the debate and not at the end of the debate, say how they feel about a Bill, so as to put Members in the picture right away.
While the Government will bless and damn this small measure at the same time, I want to ask the noble Earl whether the Government are prepared to use this measure, because there is nothing to prevent them from introducing into it other aspects that have been considered important, which the Government themselves say are important and which, in their consultation paper, they more or less decided about. What about the question of salmon dealers? That is the only way, eventually of, restricting the activities of the poachers. I know it is difficult, but we should know exactly where the Government stand. What about the question of licensing? Everyone seems to be quite happy about licensing the rod anglers; but what about licensing those who use nets? That is another aspect which the Government could take up and put in here, as a limited approach to the problem.
I made the mistake of speaking in the last debate on this subject, and I remember someone saying that the reason why we had no legislation was that the salmon had no votes. I pointed out that the anglers had votes. Since that time, everywhere I go I meet anglers. I went to the CBI in Ayr last week, along with the Secretary of State. Whom did I meet, but the leading angler in the whole of Ayrshire and he was prepared to tell me what he is doing. I went to a Burns Supper in Alloway, and every second person I met there seemed to be a member of the River Doon Angling Improvement Association. They are in no doubt about what they want, and one of the things they want is in this Bill—

631
but only one. I do not think they will be satisfied. One of the difficulties about trying to do something is not doing enough. Then there was delivered to my door a great brief, also from the River Doon Angling Improvement Association. I discovered that a near neighbour of mine is more interested in the River Doon and what should be done there than in anything else. This will not meet all of his demands, but if we can meet some of them by including them in the Bill, it will be worth while.
Nobody talks about the poor salmon except, probably, the noble Earl. I read the other day about the signing of a North Atlantic salmon conservation agreement. An organisation has been set up, the headquarters of which are to be in Edinburgh. This should be relatively good news to most people. But the agreement has to be ratified by all the people involved. The people involved at this meeting in Iceland were Iceland, Canada, Denmark (with their interest in the Faroes), Norway, Sweden and the United States. The suggestion is that the agreement should be ratified in the latter part of 1983 and that it should deal with management, conservation and maritime fishing quotas, something which we have been asking for and hoping to get for a long time. Could the Government tell us how far this agreement will overcome some of the drift net fishing problems? We do not have drift net fishing in Scotland, but it takes place off the Yorkshire and Northumbrian coasts and also in Greenland and the Faroes. It may well be that there is some hope.
However, once the salmon gets over this hurdle, there is the problem of coastal and estuarial netting. I want to find out how the Bill will affect coastal and estuarial netting. Will there be some improvement? At the moment I believe that 80 per cent. (and in some cases an even higher percentage) of the fish removed from the sea are removed at this stage.
It is no wonder that fishing proprietors, angling clubs and rod anglers, feel that nobody has been speaking for them. They are of growing importance in Scotland from both the tourist and the recreational point of view. It is not just a question of those with the rod and line. It is a question of families staying in hotels and of people buying very expensive gear in shops. This matter is very important from the point of view of the shops in these areas. Let us not underestimate the importance of this matter. Let us give it a properly balanced place when we are looking at all the interests involved in the taking of salmon. There is a feeling that those who have got the most say and who dominate the fishery boards are the netting people rather than those adopting a properly balanced point of view.
Another aspect of the matter is administration. We have long been waiting for an improvement in the administration. I think it was the noble Earl who pointed out that, certainly on the West Coast of Scotland and beyond, where no fishery hoards are active, there is a complete lack of even the kind of protection which we may put into a Bill like this. Therefore I should like the Government to indicate whether there will he legislation soon. If legislation is a long way away, may I ask the Government to use this Bill, expand the one good thing that is in it and get on with it?
To turn to the Bill, with due respect I do not agree
632
with the drafting. I do not think it is good enough to insert "gill net (howsoever that term may be defined)" and then to proceed to define it in another clause. One has to insert "as defined in Clause 6". I agree entirely with what the noble Lord has said about the gill net and the damage which it can cause, and that it is not really leading; it is catching. Indeed, it is catching far too many fish, to the detriment of those whose interests lie up the river and, indeed, to the detriment of the salmon. It was said a year or so ago by somebody that drift netting would drift salmon to the point of extinction. We could do the same thing on the coasts and in the estuaries. There has to be an escape route to enable salmon to get up the river, otherwise there will be no salmon.
May I next ask when this is to come into force? We are told that the provisions of Clauses 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 will come into force on such day as the Secretary of State decides. But what about Clause 2? Clause 2(1) is a very important power. It states:
"The Secretary of State may by order, either generally or with respect to particular areas of Scotland, specify the mesh sizes, materials and dimensions of nets which may lawfully be used in the course of fishing for salmon".
Will that power come into force right away? That ought to be made clear in the Bill. The customary formula is one month after the passing of the Bill.
Clause 4, which deals with enforcement, is important. Let us not deceive ourselves about how easy it is to improve enforcement, taking into account the nature of what is involved and the industry of many of the people concerned.
Section 10 of the 1951 Act deals with the powers of water bailiffs. They will carry out the enforcement, with the help of the police. Clause 4 says that Section 10 shall apply and have effect, except paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1). What are paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1)? Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) is the power to examine any dam, fixed engine or obstruction, or any lade, and for the purpose to enter on any land—some of the very things which the noble Earl said that he wanted to deal with. Paragraph (b), which is also excluded from the Bill, relates to the power to stop and search any boat which is used in fishing, or any boat which there is reasonable cause to suspect of containing salmon or trout. I should have thought that this was an essential power if one was effectively to deter in this way. Paragraph (c) relates to the power to search and examine nets or other instruments used in fishing, or any basket, pocket or other receptacle capable of carrying fish which there is reasonable cause to suspect of containing salmon or trout illegally taken. And they would be illegally taken as soon as Clause 1 came into force. I suggest that the noble Earl is weakening considerably the force of what he wants to achieve by this exception in Clause 4 of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in subsection (1) of Section 10 of the 1951 Act.
The Bill is well-intentioned but it lacks the wider improvements which we seek and ask for. It is too far weakened because of the way in which it has been drafted and by the exceptions which have been introduced. Apart from that, if there is any comfort for the noble Earl in my saying so, I shall certainly not oppose the Bill.
8.29 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am sure I have bored your Lordships on more than one occasion with a recitation of my interest in salmon and salmon fisheries and I will, if noble Lords permit me, spare them further recitation of these. I welcome this modest measure, because modest measure it is. It does not seek to put right the whole law of salmon fishing in the sea, or otherwise. It seeks solely to deal with one abuse which has crept in in recent years, due to modern technology. I welcome this approach because I feel that the reason we have not been able to have legislation, and why it has been so difficult to have legislation to deal with the problems of salmon fishing in the sea and rivers, is that we have always had to face the extraordinary shibboleth posed by Hunter before we could do anything else. The fact is that the all-embracing nature of the Hunter Committee's report has been the greatest single factor in putting back legislation on things to do with salmon over the past 20 years. The work done by the Hunter Committee was tremendous. It was voluminous and covered every aspect of salmon fishing, but the report itself was too compendious. The only way around this problem is to deal with matters not just piecemeal but certainly section by section, because it would be awfully difficult to get together a Bill big enough to bring the whole of salmon fishing up to date from the middle of the 19th century to today in one fell swoop. Therefore, I welcome the fact that this Bill is a modest measure.
I am not sure how successful the Bill will be. Certainly I do not believe that it would be totally successful if passed exactly as drafted, and I look forward with interest to see what improvements in drafting may be brought forward at Committee stage. However, the Bill does have in it one or two very ingenious elements. The element which appeals to me most is Clause 2, concerning the regulation of nets and the fact that the Secretary of State may by order specify net sizes, materials and so forth. This could have far-reaching effects. It is perfectly possible that, as time goes by, people will invent new, destructive and undesirable kinds of nets and methods of setting them. This clause will give power to any future Secretary of State to deal with situations as they arise and bring things back to a state that is acceptable in general to the salmon fishing industry.
The whole problem here is that this has nothing to do with owners; the problem is caused by the falling price of salmon and not the rising price of salmon. It is caused by the fact that people are trying to catch more salmon and trying to get an advantage over the next netsman. This is a matter relating solely to commercial netting interests—the people who put the salmon on your table and who supply the salmon smoking industry. These are the sort of people who are being dealt with in this Bill. I believe this Bill is trying to deal with the fears that people have that netsmen are trying to gain an advantage over each other, or over other users of salmon, by using more modern and destructive methods of fishing which do not allow the proper escape of stock into the rivers and the proper escape of fish for the anglers to run up the river.
Whether this Bill will achieve this object all sublime we shall have to discuss in greater detail at Committee stage. Whether the description of a gill net is good
634
enough or not I am sure will be a matter for debate at Committee stage. The fact is that at the moment, it is illegal to enmesh a fish. It is illegal to take a fish that has been enmeshed even by accident in the bag of a bag net. But that is extraordinarily difficult to enforce. It is necessary to sit in pairs on the braehead and watch the chap actually doing it; you have to be absolutely certain that you have seen him extricate this fish and then put it into his boat for taking home. This is the only way one can take a case.
What we are trying to do here is to simplify the way in which the law is being broken at present by making it clear that the net must be set in that way to start with. People will tell you that they have set a monofilament leader; that it is set as a leader; that it will lead fish; that it is the only way in which an old man can handle the weight of net required to lead the fish into his bag, and so forth. They will claim that the fish see the monofilament because they can see the weed on it and that it is all perfectly visible. At the moment the only thing one can do to stop people using this net, if one thinks it is doing damage, is to catch the person actually removing enmeshed fish from the net and taking them.
This Bill seeks to make clear that, if the person is using an engine that is properly designed and properly set, he is within the law; and that, if he is using an engine that is not properly designed and is not properly set, he is outwith the law. In that sense, I welcome the Bill and what it hopes to do. Certainly I will be doing my best during the Committee stage and other stages of the Bill to help tidy up any of the drafting which may need tidying up. I hope that will be the aim of the Government also, who I am sure ought to be welcoming this Bill as a contribution to salmon legislation—a contribution that will be useful and will save the Government bringing in legislation at a later stage to cover this specific aspect of salmon fishing.
This Bill will be no better than the present legislation if the position of the people who have to enforce the law is not strengthened. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has pointed out, the whole west coast of Scotland is without district fishery boards and without the necessary district inspectors and bailiffs to police this kind of regulation. It is a very important thing, which I hope the Government will soon be able to tackle, to bring the legislation on Scottish salmon fisheries far enough up to date to allow district fishery boards to become viable throughout areas where they have fallen into abeyance because they have been unable to raise the funds and where lack of finance has driven them out completely.
It is a very expensive thing, to enforce the law. I know for instance that the fisheries inspector on the Thurso drives literally thousands of miles every year simply inspecting the nets to ensure they are slack during the close times and inspecting the coast to see that no illegal nets are being set. He sails scores of miles along the coast to check up on this. I am sure that that is true of many district fishery boards and I am sure it should be much more widely done up and down the coasts of Scotland to ensure that the law is being upheld and enforced. I do urge upon the Government the need for legislation quite soon to help the re-establishment of fishery boards on all the rivers which do not have them and, possibly at some later

635
stage, enabling legislation to allow these district fishery boards to amalgamate into viable units which can finance themselves and carry out the work which we want them to do.
In the meantime, I feel that we should welcome this genuine attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, to bring one aspect of Scottish fishery law up to date. I am sure that anglers will welcome this Bill; honest netsmen will welcome this Bill; and fishery managers will welcome this Bill. Our job should be to help the noble Lord to get his drafting right and help the Bill on its way to another place where, let us hope, they will look at it in the same light.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships only a very few moments, but I cannot resist giving a welcome to this Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal. As other noble Lords have said, this Bill is a modest measure but nevertheless it must be a welcome one to those who are striving to preserve the Atlantic salmon species. I think it will be particularly welcome to the poor salmon themselves, who, after all, cannot speak, cannot bark, cannot squeak, but must look to we humans for safeguarding their lives. It is indeed a modest measure, but the noble Lord, Lord Ross, stressed the fact that salmon legislation of a comprehensive nature was well overdue, a matter which is not confined to one side of the House at all. In fact, I can remember the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, answering me in a debate on this particular subject and saying, "Well, a large study is being made"; but beyond that nothing has ever been promised, and I am very fearful about when we are ever going to see actual legislation brought forward.
Nevertheless, this is a good, small measure. With, I regret, no comprehensive salmon legislation in prospect, I am reminded of how the late Lord Chandos, Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, in another place, defended a very small measure, comparable to this one, in relation to a large problem. His answer to the House was this:
"There are two ways to empty a small pond. One is to bring in all the machinery, the piping, the paraphernalia of water engineering; and the other is, whenever you pass the small pond to throw in a rock, and if everybody does that long enough the pond will be emptied".
My Lords, this is one rock towards what I hope will be the emptying of a pond of danger to the Atlantic salmon.
8.44 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I must first congratulate my noble friend, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, both on his initiative in introducing this Bill and also on his speech which so clearly explained the background to it and its purposes.
As your Lordships have heard in effect on more than one occasion, the Scottish law on salmon fisheries is not in its first flush of youth, and a number of interests wish to see it amended. But I have to say that it is a matter of some personal regret that, as my noble friend Lord Lyell explained in answer to a debate initiated a few
636
months ago by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, the Government's initiative in putting in hand a review of the existing law and the administration of salmon and freshwater fisheries in Scotland should have had such a disappointing response. I do not want to go over the ground again, but the strength of the opposition, particularly from the freshwater interests, to proposals which were based on a principle enunciated as long ago as 1965 was very striking. Indeed, the range of views even among those who accepted the need for change was wide, and some might fear unbridgeable. I am quite sure if the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has really been talking to a number of anglers he will have found a great many diverging views.
However, our review is not finished. Representative salmon fishery interests already wonder whether the idea of boards with responsibility for trout and salmon is a runner at all, at least for the moment. They have, therefore, put to me, at my suggestion, proposals for changes they would like to see which are designed to modernise the present legislation on district salmon fishery boards, to provide where appropriate for their amalgamation and enlargement, to broaden their base of representation, to strengthen their powers and to provide an additional source of income such as some form of salmon rod licensing to help boards with particular financial difficulties. Their proposals would not rule out an involvement of freshwater fishery interests on the boards by voluntary agreement with such interests and subject to some satisfactory financial agreement. I gather that such a package would have broad support from the salmon interests and anglers, and I will certainly look at it, and in particular how rod licensing could work. But I am bound to say that I cannot at this stage say when a legislative opportunity might present itself.
While I think some of your Lordships have been mildly critical in this debate of the Government for the delay in bringing forward their own legislation with much more comprehensive measures, my main purpose in mentioning these difficulties today is to underline that this Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Strathcona is concerned with only one of the many matters raised in the discussion document which I issued at the end of 1979. I think that the answer to Lord Ross's point—why should we not have other desirable features tacked on to this Bill?—is that the Bill would become contentious and much less likely to succeed if other details and possibly reforms, desirable reforms, were put into it.
My noble friend's Bill seeks to change the law in Scotland in relation to gill netting for salmon. Of course, his Bill is narrow in its objective. That is not to say that the question of drift netting, which is another term which implies that the fish are enmeshed rather than trapped, is without its controversial aspects. Successive Secretaries of State have for some 20 years banned the fishing for salmon in Scottish waters by drift nets set from a boat. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, in the last debate in October last claimed, quite rightly, credit for his involvement in such measures.
This method of fishing is not, as your Lordships know, banned in waters south of the Border, and the licensed drift net fisheries there, particularly that off the North-East coast of England, come in for a good deal of criticism from Scottish salmon interests as a result, as

637
well as attracting support from those engaged in the netting. All I need say on this score is that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is looking closely at the arrangements for these fisheries including possible ways of tightening control of them. I know that Scottish salmon interests will take full advantage of the opportunity my right honourable friend has made available for putting their own point of view.
The present Bill is not concerned with these drift net fisheries. Instead it proposes two changes in the law applying in Scottish waters. The first is to ban the taking of or fishing for salmon by means of a gill net. That is to say, in order to prove an offence there would no longer be a need to establish that the net in question was set from a boat. Indeed, there are those who regard the fact that the orders made under the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967 are concerned only with fishing from boats as unfortunate. Secondly, the Bill would ban the use of the gill net as a leader net; that is to say, it is intended that a leader net set in relation to a fixed engine should indeed lead the fish into the trap represented by the fixed engine rather than enmesh them. I do not myself know of any firm evidence of the extent to which these two methods of gill netting occur, nor what their share of the salmon catch might be. However, I think it is generally accepted that fishing by these techniques does take place and that these practices may well be increasing.
It would be possible, therefore, to argue that the Bill's broad purpose is to maintain the traditional limit on the efficiency of methods of catching salmon. This is an integral part of the Scottish regulatory regime and permits essential spawning escapement to provide natural regeneration of the rivers, while at the same time sustaining the sport of salmon angling. This, indeed, is the kind of consideration which led us in the 1979 discussion document to propose a ban in Scottish waters on all gill netting for salmon, however set. So the Government can, therefore, offer broad support for the principles underlying Clause 1 of the Bill. We may, however, want to invite my noble friend to look again at the level of fine which he proposes for the offences it creates.
Clause 2 of the Bill would give the Secretary of State an order-making power to specify the mesh sizes, materials and dimension of nets, with provision for different specifications for different parts of the country in order no doubt to cope with differing local practices. I recognise, of course, the wish of some to see an opportunity for some statutory definition of nets which may lawfully be used, and I am not unhappy with the principle of the clause. I am bound to say, however, that behind this apparently simple provision may well lurk difficulties in identifying the particular controls to be imposed, and in their policing. The implementation of this power may therefore have to be considered with some care.
The principle of the remaining provisions of the Bill do not cause me any serious difficulty. I should perhaps say to my noble friend at this stage that while I understand that the Bill was prepared by his advisers in the light of some informal discussions which they had with officials of my department, it is of course his Bill. But I hope he will forgive me if I say that, on the basis of a preliminary scrutiny of the Bill, I
638
think that we may want to suggest to him what might be described as some minor or drafting amendments with the object of tidying up the Bill in a technical sense. So I hope that we shall be able to help my noble friend in this matter and, of course, I shall be in touch with him about these points with a view to seeing that any necessary amendments are put down in good time.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, asked me a number of questions. The first matter he raised was estuarial netting. This Bill is quite silent on that subject. If it requires clarification, that is a matter for the proposers. But I would assume that the intention is that the Bill will extend to territorial waters. Under existing law there is no lawful netting above estuarial limits because that is banned by Section 2 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951. So the Bill is silent on that point. Of course, it does not extend to England and, therefore, English drift netting off the coast of Northumberland will not be affected.
The noble Lord then asked me a question which may be slightly wide of the Bill. Nevertheless, he asked me about it and I shall attempt to answer it. The noble Lord asked really two questions. The first concerned international intercepting fisheries, which is a very important matter. Secondly, he asked about the recent North Atlantic Salmon Convention.
Perhaps I should mention the Government's approach to the question of controlling those fisheries which intercept salmon in maritime waters on their migratory routes to and from Scotland. The two main interception areas relevant to the United Kingdom salmon, as the noble Lord quite rightly said, are off Greenland and in the waters of the Faroe Islands. In respect of both these fisheries we and our partners in the European Community have participated in talks designed through bilateral negotiations to achieve restrictions in these salmon fisheries. The Greenland Fishery will be subject to the quotas in the European Community Canada Agreement—that is to say, 1,190 to 1,270 tonnes depending on the opening dates of the fishery. Agreement has also now been reached with the Faroes on reciprocal fisheries matters for 1982, and associated with that agreement is an exchange of letters which binds the Faroes to limiting their salmon catches to 750 tonnes for the season ending 31st May 1982, and 625 tonnes for the season 1st October 1982 to 31st May 1983. These figures may prove to be higher than some Scottish salmon interests would have liked. Nevertheless, they represent in my view a significant achievement, particularly in the case of the Faroes Fishery, where the increase in their salmon catch had risen dramatically and was expected to continue to do so.
In the longer term the recent agreement on the text of a North Atlantic Salmon Convention represents a major step forward in providing for the regulation of intercepting fisheries. I—and I am sure the Scottish salmon interests—welcome the decision that the headquarters of this convention will be in Edinburgh.
The noble Lord also asked about the powers which are in Section 10 of the 1951 Act. That, I believe, might be a drafting matter which I do not consider to be very suitable for a Second Reading debate. Suffice it to say that the noble Lord's eagle eye on these matters is, I think, slightly off target for once.

639
My Lords, I can conclude by saying that I must reiterate that the Government see a good deal of merit in my noble friend's Bill and what he is seeking to do. But this Bill should not be regarded as in any sense pre-empting or in substitution for a more widely based Bill of the kind that we are considering. But, as I hope I have made clear, this does not mean that we will not want to facilitate further detailed consideration of the Bill. However, as I said in response to a Private Member's Bill last week, its progress beyond this House depends on a number of indeterminable factors.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Mansfield for the welcome he has given on behalf of the Government to this Bill, and even more grateful for the additional help which he has proffered to us in tidying up any improvements which are needed to the drafting. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was quite right: this is not a Government Bill, but as my noble friend Lord Mansfield said, we have done our best to make sure that the general objectives of the Bill are likely to be acceptable to the Government, and I am very glad to have that confirmed.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, not, if I may say so, totally unpredictably, raised a number of expert points on the Bill and I was very glad that my noble friend the Minister was able to give him a good many answers which I can assure him I would have had grave difficulty with myself. I shall attempt to answer a number of the other points he made at a suitable time. I feel that it is rather late for us to go into the matter now. When I said that I was not surprised that the noble Lord is such an expert, that was because I found his signature at the bottom of an order which was made in 1965 which, among other things, did in fact give a definition of a gill net. So I take note that in later stages of the Bill I shall have to be very careful about anything that say to the noble Lord, who clearly is not only well briefed, but also has a good memory.
I must apologise to my noble friend, however, if, in introducing this Bill I have given the noble Lord, Lord Ross, a stick with which to berate the Government for their lethargy, as he sees it, in not getting on with the major job that needs to be done. I can assure the Government that that was not our intention. I have also to say to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that I am a little nervous about attempting to turn what seems to me to be a fairly modest bicycle into something in the nature of an omnibus, for reasons that have been explained by my noble friend Lord Mansfield.
It remains for me only to thank the noble Viscount and the other noble Lord—both acknowledged experts —for their support, which is greatly appreciated. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, that I hope this small stone will generate some benevolent ripples during the course of its passage, and I assure him that later on I shall do my best not to drop any bricks.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Procedure of the House
Second Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
  EL SALVADOR: ELECTION OBSERVERS
  EL SALVADOR: ELECTION OBSERVERS
  LONDON WC CISTERN CONVERSION COSTS
  LONDON WC CISTERN CONVERSION COSTS
  EEC SHEEPMEAT REGIME: BENEFIT TO FARMERS
  EEC SHEEPMEAT REGIME: BENEFIT TO FARMERS
  DEFENCE SALES ORGANISATION: STAFF AND SALES POLICY
  DEFENCE SALES ORGANISATION: STAFF AND SALES POLICY