asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next be meeting the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).

I and my colleagues have met the Scottish Council on a number of occasions since we came into office. We shall continue to do so as necessary.

Today is St. George's Day, when we send our best wishes to our English cousins. When he next meets the Scottish Council will the Secretary of State apologise to it for the Budget introduced last week by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer —a Budget that will do the Scottish Council no good in its efforts to develop the industrial base in Scotland? It is one of the most vicious Budgets that Scotland has had to suffer for many a long year. Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether he is happy to preside over what will be the longest dole queues in Scotland since the 'thirties, as a result of the Budget?

The answer to the first question is "No". The answer to the second question is that, as usual, the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. I shall take the opportunity to apologise to the council on behalf of the House of Commons for a Member of Parliament misleading us in relation to statements made by the council.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Scottish National Party Member is being less than honest when he omits to praise the efforts of the Secretary of State for Scotland in setting up the Scottish Development Agency and granting £300 million to help the Scotish economy?

We have already had meetings with the Scottish Council. It welcomes, without any criticism at all, what we are doing on this matter. The one thing that the Scottish Nationals had better realise is that we cannot isolate Scotland from the economic effects of what is happening in the whole of the United Kingdom. The sooner they realise that, the sooner some of their policies will make sense, but not while they are guided by the counsels of the hon. Gentleman.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the inability to divorce Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, but does he not agree that it is also impossible to divorce Scotland from Europe? Will he seek an early opportunity to discuss with the Scottish Council the deprivation of up to some 10,000 jobs and over £50 million a year in grants from EEC sources? In particular, will he discuss with the Council the decision by Seagram's, largely because of the Common Market uncertainties, to cancel two projects in Scotland that will lose Scotland about £28 million in investment and 800 new jobs?

No, Sir. If the Scottish Council wants to consult me about anything, it usually does, and it usually states what it wants to speak to me about. It has not asked to speak to me about this matter. On other occasions, we suggest certain things about which it is worth taking the council's views. However, on many of these aspects the hon. Gentleman exaggerates the effect of the Budget. He should not take at face value what is said in the Press about the reasons for this or the reasons for that. I assure him that there is a considerable element of exaggeration in what has been said.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Scottish Council, will he ask where the SNP obtained the figures on which it has based its assertion that Scotland does not have a balance of payments problem? When we faced the Scottish Council with this matter, it said that it had no such evidence and that none could be obtained.

The Scottish Council has made it clear that it entirely disagrees with the statements of its former employee and that it certainly does not agree with many of his remarks about the statistics produced in respect of the balance of payments. Like most things, they come out of his head. His remarks change from week to week, from day to day, and according to who is making the speech.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fatal accidents have occurred during the past five years on the A74.

There were 93, in the five years 1970–74 inclusive.

May I draw the Minister's attention to the degree to which people in Scotland are fed up with the perpetual accidents on this road? It is fair to say that I speak with more authority than any other hon. Member.

Why?

I shall return to the remark of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) shortly. I draw the Minister's attention to an accident that happened two or three weeks ago, when a wagon ploughed into a stationary bus. Until we get at least a hard shoulder on this road, these accidents will continue to happen. May I say how surprised I was at the complacency of the hon. Member for Dumfries—

Order. Not at Question Time.

While any accidents on any road are to be deplored, the accident rate in accidents per million vehicle miles on this road is below average for this type of road. My information about the circumstances of the accident to which my hon. Friend referred is rather different from his.

I thank the Minister for his reply. How much money does he hope to be able to spend in the coming year on minor improvements and the provision of underpass for livestock? I appreciate that in the present economic climate we cannot move to motorway standards, which are ultimately desirable.

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about not being able to move to motorway standards. I should have to have notice of the question concerning the amount of money likely to be spent in the current year, because such matters are not directly my responsibility.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria, other than that of age, he used in deciding to dispense with the services of certain of the existing members of area health boards.

No specific criteria are applied. At each round of appointments some changes are made to enable as many people as possible to contribute to the work of health boards while maintaining a proper balance of members, geographically and by age, sex and experience, on each board.

Does the Minister not agree that his present method of selection leaves a great deal to be desired? Is it not ridiculous that in the Highland Health Board one of the youngest members has been dispensed with, after only two years of service, in which he proved himself one of the most valuable members of the board? Is this not just an example of a sell-out by the Government, in order to try to get their supporters, limited though they may be, on to the various health boards?

Of course I would not agree at all with what the hon. Gentleman says. He will recall that we sent out a document called "The National Health Service and the Community in Scotland", which was widely commented on and discussed, in which we set out the kind of pattern of membership that we were trying to get in the health boards. As far as possible we have tried to get that pattern. It has not been possible in every case. But if we are to move to that pattern, which was widely accepted in Scotland, some people have to come off boards. Many people are disappointed, but unfortunately these things have to take place.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the previous Conservative Secretary of State appointed to an area health board a lady who belongs to Yorkshire and lives in Midlothian, whose only qualification was that she was defeated as a Conservative candidate at the last two General Elections in 1974? Is it not time that my hon. Friend took steps to undo that sort of political discrimination in this matter?

I note my hon. Friend's remarks. There is a later Question on the Order Paper dealing with political affiliation.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the appointments to area health boards in 1975 have been of members of the Labour Party or persons who sit as Labour members of local authorities; and how many of qualified nurses.

On the question of political affiliation, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply to his Question of 11th December 1974.—[Vol. 883, c. 494–6.] Nine of the members appointed from 1st April 1975 are qualified nurses.

Does the Minister accept that he is either being hypocritical or is out of touch with the facts? Does he deny that at least 70 per cent. of the new appointments are of members of the Labour Party? Further, after all the hoo-ha and his criticism of nurses, why has he appointed only nine nurses to area health boards since he came into office?

On the latter point, I remind the hon. Gentleman that he did not appoint any nurses. There are now 15 persons with nursing experience on area health boards, together with a number of other health care staff. We have kept our promise to remove the embargo on serving nurses in the health service being appointed to the boards.

On the first point—the hon. Gentleman has done his homework—if it is true that 70 per cent. of the appointees are members of the Labour Party, I am gratified that my selection has been good.

Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of my constituents in Central Ayrshire and of the people of North Ayrshire on the appointments that he has made to the Ayrshire and Arran Area Health Board? Is he aware that by removing certain Tories who were nominated by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), representing areas like Ayr, Troon and Prestwick, and replacing them with good Labour Party people, representing areas like Central Ayrshire and North Ayrshire, he is due for congratulation? When shall we have another opportunity of removing more Tories—because we are still underrepresented in the Irvine area?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. We have been working towards the pattern of membership laid down in the document "The National Health Service and the Community". The fact that it has caused dissatisfaction in other quarters in conseqence is to be welcomed.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hate raising the matter now, but the Minister has made a contradictory statement on facts about appointments to health boards by the previous Government.

Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now name the site and building for the Scottish Assembly.

No decision has yet been taken on where the Assembly will be located in Edinburgh.

Does the Minister appreciate that his reply will be received with deep suspicion in Scotland? Is he saying that the Government's timetable for devolution is bang on target, whereas last Thursday the Leader of the House indicated that the White Paper might be slipped back as far as the autumn? Will the hon. Gentleman answer a straight question? How long will it take to draft the Assembly Bill? If it takes five or six months, how, in view of his prevarication today, can it be laid before the House in November?

The House and the people of Scotland will be aware that the hon. Gentleman and his friends, through Press comments, do much to lead to deep suspision on this subject or any other subject. I doubt whether I have ever seen in any of the newspapers in Scotland, circulating within or outside his constituency, a factual report of a meeting that the hon. Gentleman has attended or a Question that he has asked in the House.

On this question, the Property Services Agency is carrying out a study of various buildings in Scotland, including the former Royal High School, Donaldson's School and the Church of Scotland Assembly Hall. We expect to receive a report in the very near future, although I cannot possibly say at present when a statement will be made. However, the hon. Gentleman will be deeply disappointed inasmuch as when our proposals are published he and Scotland will see that they form a very comprehensive package which wil be acceptable to the people of Scotland.

Was not that supplementary question of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) rather curious? In a speech in my constituency he expressed his deep desire for us to be part of the EEC. He may want the Scottish Assembly—[Interruption.] It was printed in the Greenock Telegraph. The hon. Gentleman knows that. He may, perhaps, want the Scottish Assembly to be in Brussels.

I understand that a factual account of what happened at the charity dinner was described by the Greenock Telegraph, and that the hon. Gentleman expressed a desire to remain in Europe. This reflects the inconsistency of the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

I should like to take the opportunity of correcting the remarks of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). I made it obvious that at that particular meeting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Does he appreciate that at that meeting I did not make that remark? I said, first, that Scotland should seek a Norwegian-type deal. That was the burden of my remarks.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I try to avoid points of order at Question Time. If an allegation is made against an hon. Member, I do, in my discretion, call him for another supplementary question, which I did in this case.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter affects my honour, since I am reporting accurately and honestly what appeared in my constituency newspaper.

Order. Really, the object of Question Time is to get information from Ministers and not to make allegations against other hon. Members.

Even after the second supplementary question of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirling-shire (Mr. Reid), his question is no clearer than it was after his first.

As well as a site for the Assembly, are the Government aware that Scotland also needs sites for an increased Civil Service and executive staff? Will the Minister assure us that planning is going forward for running down the Civil Service in London and moving staff to Edinburgh? What public participation will there be in the ultimate decision where the Assembly and these other buildings are to be situated?

The right hon. Gentleman will accept that all these matters are matters for consultation between the various staff associations and for discussion and study within the Constitution Unit. This exercise is proceeding, and the House will be made aware of decisions as they are made.

I appreciate fully that the Government must take great care in the formulation of their proposals for the Assembly. However, will the Minister now give the House an assurance that a White Paper will be published in advance of the Bill to implement these proposals, in order that the House and the country as a whole may consider in detail the proposals that the Government are putting forward?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord President and not for me. The Lord President will no doubt take note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the STUC.

I attended the annual conference of the Scottish Trades Union Congress in Aberdeen on Friday 18th April. I shall of course be continuing my normal practice of close and regular contacts with it in the future.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his meeting with the STUC at Aberdeen, at which he was supported by the Secretary of State for Employment and the Prime Minister, resulted in the total rejection by the STUC of the social contract and the election of a Communist as General Secretary of the STUC? In those circumstances, does the Secretary of State agree that the prospect for industrial relations in Scotland does not look at all good? What steps do he and his Government colleagues propose to take to improve this situation?

That was a fairly omnibus and diffuse question. First, I should like to put the hon. Gentleman right. It was not a meeting; it was a conference. Secondly, the Prime Minister was not there. Thirdly, the Secretary of State for Employment and I spoke after the resolution to which the hon. Gentleman refers was discussed. I have not the slightest doubt that had I spoken before that, the resolution would have been very difficult.

As regards Mr. James Milne, his was an appointment; it was not an election. He was appointed not for his political affiliations but for his ability to do the job. No doubt it was the same thing that commended him to his right hon. Friend the previous Tory Secretary of State, when he reaffirmed his appointment to a public body.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the deep concern in the trade union movement and throughout Scotland about unemployment? As the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, indicated that he thought that unemployment would probably rise to 1 million in Great Britain in the next 12 months, will the Secretary of State now come clean and say what is his estimate, within that figure of 1 million, for Scotland?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. I have heard Ministers of the former Tory Government say that it would be wrong to make estimates in relation to unemployment in the United Kingdom. Certainly it is not my intention to do so for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that unemployment in Scotland has not been rising so fast as in England. That fact does not seem to give him very much comfort As regards the Government proposals which have already been put into effect, I should have liked to see a little more co-operation from the Tory Party in helping to get them on the statute book. I also refer to the Scottish Development Agency Bill. The sooner that is on the statute book the better.

Apart from having regular meetings with the Scottish Trades Union Congress, will the Secretary of State convene a special meeting of the STUC and invite to it leaders of the "Save Scottish Steel" campaign and the Secretary of State for Industry so that he can discuss the report in today's Glasgow Herald that orders for 10,000 tons of steel plate for shipbuilding on the Clyde will be transferred by the British Steel Corporation from Clydeside to Scunthorpe.

The hon. Lady misunderstands the position. I do not convene meetings of the STUC; it convenes its own meetings. If it wishes to hold a special meeting on any subject, I have not the slightest doubt that it will write to me about it.

The Secretary of State is not interested. Shame.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Alexander Report on Adult Education.

Professor Alexander and his committee are to be commended for producing a stimulating and thought-provoking report entitled "Adult Education—The Challenge of Change." I have asked education authorities and other interested bodies to let me have their comments by 30th June and decisions on the report's recommendations will be taken in the light of the comments received.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the period of consultations will not be used as a reason for an indefinite delay in implementing the recommendations of the report, as happened with the English Russell Report, which, three years after publication, remains virtually unimplemented? Will he give us some idea of a timetable for carrying out the recommendations which do not involve any expenditure, for setting up Scottish county or community education facilities? Does he accept that even in these straitened economic times £2 million is a modest price to pay to carry out those recommendations and to make education in Scotland a lifelong process?

As regards my hon. Friend's first point, I asked for comments to be submitted by 30th June. I should not have thought that that was an inordinate delay. There is no question of using that as a reason for not implementing the report. We asked education authorities and others interested to consider particularly those recommendations which did not require additional expenditure. As regards overall development, we must take into account the economic situation. We shall study the comments carefully and bring forward our recommendations as soon as possible.

Has the Minister received any communication from the Strathclyde region on the implementation of the Alexander Report? I have forwarded such communications as I have received. Is the Minister aware that in the Strathclyde region there appears to be no intention to implement the recommendations of the Alexander Report?

I have no such information.

Can the allegation be denied?

I have received no such information. Once we have received comments from the different interests concerned we shall call for advice and guidance from education authorities and others on the ways in which the report can be implemented.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the inhibiting effects of continued membership of the EEC on his pursuit of regional policies as outlined in the consultative document on the creation of a Scottish Development Agency.

The Government are satisfied that the establishment of the Scottish Development Agency will not be inhibited by EEC Treaty obligations.

This question was tabled before the publication of the Scottish Development Agency Bill, which was welcomed by almost everyone in Scotland. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will proceed as speedily as the Opposition parties will allow in putting this legislation on the statute book?

We are anxious to proceed with all speed with this Bill. I am sorry that the Conservative Opposition have been unco-operative. However, I dare say that that will change, because I am sure that the Conservatives, like us, want to see this Bill on the statute book at the earliest possible date. Certainly the people in Scotland want that.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the money with which he proposes to take over and run industries, firms and businesses in Scotland might be better used to restore the £60 million cut in school building in Scotland, which will affect education in Scotland for many years to come?

There has been no £60 million cut in school building allocations in Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to debate these matters, perhaps he will be more co-operative about bringing the SDA Bill forward.

As regards the EEC, since the Secretary of State is one of the leaders of disruption, may we know who will proclaim Government policy and the advantages of membership of the EEC to Scotland, and within the country, during the referendum?

That matter has already been dealt with.

Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to ask the Prime Minister to remove the gag which seems to be affecting the Secretary of State? Having voted against membership of the EEC, will he please take the people of Scotland into his confidence? As regards regional policies, does the Minister not agree that albeit that the regional policies of the United Kingdom are inadequate to solve the problems of Scotland, they are a lot better than the paltry efforts of the EEC regional fund?

That seems to raise a number of questions. I had not noticed my right hon. Friend being gagged on anything.

When will the Minister explain?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the top redundancy payment given to a senior local government officer who becomes redundant on 16th May; and if this and other individual amounts will qualify for government financial assistance.

Amounts will vary according to the individual circumstances of each officer and to the provisions for compensation which are applicable to them. Payments by employers in terms of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 are supported by a 50 per cent. Government grant. Other payments by local authorities will rank for assistance by way of rate support grant.

Has my hon. Friend seen the report according to which local government officers are mentioned, a Glasgow official being entitled to receive £76,000 by way of individual payment, while it is intended that a Lancashire official shall receive £27,000 by way of individual payment? Can my hon. Friend say what effect these considerable payments, along with others, are likely to have on the increases in the rates budgets of the people of Scotland? Will he comment on the fact that many people who will pay these increases are themselves redundant but will receive only partial payment?

I shall make two comments on these matters, which refer to the retirement of chief officers. I suppose that giving redundancy or additional payments of this kind is preferable to finding jobs—which would not otherwise exist—specially for them and paying them full salaries for the rest of their working careers, which is one possible alternative.

These payments are made under the Local Government Reorganisation (Retirement of Chief Officers) (Scotland) Regulations 1974, which were subject to a negative resolution in this House. When they were published last year I regret to say that no hon. Member took the slightest interest in them, so they were never debated.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the increased costs of local government in Scotland are the responsibility of the Government, which foisted the system on an unwilling Scots public? Will he therefore take steps to ensure that the increased costs are met from Government funds, especially in view of the reports that rates costs increases have topped 50 per cent.?

I do not accept those reports. The hon. Gentleman's first statement is equally inaccurate.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the level of salaries of certain local government officers, to which the redundancy payments are necessarily related, is a matter of considerable concern in Scotland? Can the Minister hold out any prospect that in future the relativities between local government officers and other public service employees will be corrected.

I am not sure what relativities have to be corrected. These are and always have been matters for negotiation between the employers and the officers concerned, through the various bodies established for these purposes.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had to date regarding the need to increase the attendance allowance payment to members of the new local authorities; and if he will consider introducing a loss-of-work supplement where this is required.

I have received representations from the local authority associations. The level of the allowance is currently under review. I have no plans, meanwhile, to introduce a loss of work supplement.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a lot of nonsense is talked about the probable abuse of the attendance allowance payment to members of new councils? Many councillors are prepared to suffer financial sacrifice to carry on their work. Is my hon. Friend also aware that if only £10 per day is paid where loss of work is involved, it will mean a reduction in the weekly income on which income tax is paid and that that will be a great hardship to many councillors? Is it not possible to give some kind of grant to persons who incur loss of earnings? Would it not have been better, as we suggested two years ago, for a salary scheme to have been adopted?

My hon. Friend is raising rather wider questions. The allowances paid now are in substitution for the old financial loss allowance. They are taxable, so the net amount payable is £6·70 per day, which I should not consider excessive. In fact, the rates are under review by a working party covering England and Wales as well as Scotland. I agree that a great many rather wild charges are made against local councillors. The fact is that many local councillors carry out their public duties in a very public-spirited way and at considerable personal expense. I think that we ought to ameliorate that situation as much as we can.

As certain local councillors have claimed that they will be drawing the attendance allowance every day, would it not be better to give a supplement to their employers for the lack of work which will occur?

The question how often the allowance may be drawn is a matter for local authority arrangement, in terms of the number of meetings which are arranged. Certainly we do not want meetings unnecessarily arranged. There are a number of restrictions in the regulations.

In considering the new authorities, will the Minister take account of the problems facing community councils? Is he happy that community councils have no statutory duties? Is he also happy that community councils may find that their funds are liable to taxation? Moreover, in considering the problem of funding local community councils, is he happy that they may have to spend their energies on raising funds through coffee mornings, and so on, instead of looking after the problems of individuals and overseeing district councils? Lastly—

Order. The hon. Member has asked four questions already.

I shall answer those various questions when we reach Question No. 22; if we are not prevented from reaching it by unnecessary questions at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can now announce the result of his review of grant and loan limits for crofter housing.

I have nothing to add to the reply which was given to the hon. Member on 28th January 1975.

In view of the time that has elapsed since the last reply, I heard today's reply with great regret and concern. Is the Minister not becoming aware of the great dissatisfaction and concern in crofting counties, with the escalating costs of building and the gap betwen the deposit and what a house will cost? Will he deal with that question, which is now overdue for a solution?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, loans are available up to £3,000, and the rate of interest, at 3⅛ per cent., plus a grant of £2,300, is a substantial subsidisation.

My noble Friend the Minister of State is to meet the Western Isles Islands Council later this month and he will be happy to discuss any outstanding problems in the area.

For how much longer must we wait for a Bill to reform the whole business of crofting?

That matter does not relate to the Question that has been asked. If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer, he must put down a Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay a visit to Dundee.

I have no immediate plans to do so.

If the Secretary of State were to make a visit to Dundee now, next week, or in the near future, he would realise that there was a great deal of concern about the revelations in the World in Action programme "Dundee Dossier", which was shown on television last week. That anxiety is shared by many citizens in Dundee, regardless of political affiliation. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the revelations and allegations which have been made suggest that there are problems of principle and practice in the conduct of local affairs in Dundee which require urgent examination? The fact that Dundee Corporation will soon cease to operate and will be replaced by a district council will not, in view of the practices which have been suggested, necessarily dissipate the anxieties which have been caused. Will the right hon. Gentleman immediately set up an inquiry into this whole affair?

The hon. Gentleman talks about "this whole affair". That is rather a vague phrase. He, as a lawyer, will appreciate that the Secretary of State can act only in accordance with his statutory powers. My statutory powers regarding inquiries relate either to formal determinations as required by legislation concerning the statutory powers and functions of local authorities or to the question whether a local authority is in default of its statutory powers. There is no statutory power to order an inquiry into the actions, attitudes, morals, ethics, or anything else, of an individual councillor. If the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, basically it would be wrong of me to give him an answer. Investigations into allegations of crime and criminal proceedings resulting therefrom are not matters for the Secretary of State. I think that he should know that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this programme amounted to trial by television? This type of programme does not contain the normal safeguards that we have for justice in proper court trial procedures. Therefore, my right hon. Friend ought to look at this type of programme to see what can be done to prevent what is an abuse of justice in this form of trial by television.

There is no doubt that this is a dangerous practice, but when people ask me to order an inquiry they should turn their minds back to an earlier Question Time when the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn)—I think it was—objected to the unfairness of an inquiry in which no one was on trial but which seemed, evidently, to be accusing someone of a crime. This House of Commons should be careful about these matters and try to be fair to all concerned. I share my hon. Friend's concern about the nature of this matter, and if anyone—this includes BBC people and anyone else—has any information about this kind of thing, he should not sensationalise it in this way but should send it to the Procurator Fiscal or the police.

When the right hon. Gentleman next visits Dundee will he take the opportunity to support American investment in that city and elsewhere in Scotland, and refute Left Wing the nationalist criticism which will discourage overseas investment in Scotland?

If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about the history of American investment, in Dundee in particular he would realise that it was when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was President of the Board of Trade that the greatest surge forward took place in Dundee and in Scotland in that respect.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises—his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Doig) made it plain—that, regardless of the merits of the programme, this matter has caused considerable concern in the whole of Dundee and the Tayside Region. In view of the need for the new structure of local government to get off to a good start and have the respect and support of ratepayers and others in the area, will he look at the whole matter closely? Apart from any legal aspects in the Crown Office, if a public inquiry is necessary about what may emerge may we have an assurance that he will deal with this very carefully indeed?

I have looked into the matter. The Secretary of State can act only within his statutory powers. The hon. Gentleman should know that. I refer him to the answers given—when the hon. Gentleman was an Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office—by his right hon. Friend who was then Secretary of State for Scotland and who is now in another place. He took up and pointed out this very fact in relation to Dundee.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has of the profitability of the Scottish fishing fleet during the last six months of 1975.

It is too early to estimate the effect of the changes in the fleet which are needed to enable it to adjust to the new costs and earnings situation and the measures taken, or contemplated, for protecting the market against low-cost imports.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome his safe return from the Law of the Sea Conference and hope he will be able to tell the House what estimate he has made of the possibility of this conference ensuring that particularly the herring industry in Scotland can look forward to this summer with some confidence?

I am glad to be back. It is too soon to say what conclusions might be arrived at following the Law of the Sea Conference. It still has two or three weeks to run. The matter of herring quotas is causing us concern because of the scientific advice which has recently been given to us drawing attention to the need to conserve stocks.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a severe deterioration in the economic viability of the Scottish fishing industry since he met fishermen in Aberdeen? Will he consider placing a temporary ban on all imports of fish to try to ameliorate the situation?

Some steps have been taken. I wish the hon. Gentleman would give us credit for what we have done. The fishing industry has not got worse just because I met—[interruption.]

I wish members of the SNP would shut up and listen.

The fishing industry has not got worse just because I met the fishermen in Aberdeen. Steps have already been taken, which the hon. Gentleman would not even recognise or give us credit for, and some of these alarmist statements are not helping to get a return of the confidence that we are entitled to expect following the steps that we have taken to deal with frozen imports.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many evictions from publicly owned houses have taken place in Scotland in each of the past three years.

Housing authorities are not required to provide me with information on evictions. An ad hoc survey, to which most authorities responded. indicated that in 1972 there were about 2,200 evictions by local authorities. The Scottish Special Housing Association evicted 53 tenants in 1972; 41 in 1973: and 39 in 1974.

Will my hon. Friend urge the new local authorities and the SSHA to implement the recommendations of the Morris Report that social work departments should be consulted at an early stage when evictions are being considered, and that if, unfortunately, eviction has to take place as a last resort alternative accommodation must be found for the evicted family? Will my hon. Friend instil a sense of urgency into this matter, in view of the fact that in a few weeks' time housing and social work will be split between the new districts and new regions, respectively?

As my hon. Friend says, there are many good and sound recommendations in the Morris Report, and already it is being studied by all the interested parties. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that if, in the light of discussions, any further guidance is needed by local authorities, I shall not hesitate to give it.

My hon. Friend made the point, and it is worth emphasising, that although the Morris Committee is in favour of a reduction in the number of evictions it does not recommend that this should not be part of the powers of a housing authority.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of these 2,200 were families on long-term benefit? Is he aware of the growing belief in social work departments that if we could have direct payment of rent by these long-term welfare benefit recipients, many of these evictions could be avoided? Will he consider the direct payment of rent as of right?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already taken steps to improve the procedure.

indicated dissent.

I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not shake his head. He is well aware that, in co-operation with the Department of Health and Social Security and local authorities, steps have been taken to improve things. There is now an improved procedure, and this has already resulted in an increase in the number of direct payments.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the fishing industry.

I had a very full meeting with the industry's representatives on Wednesday 2nd April and I am inviting them to meet me again on 12th May in Aberdeen, when I shall certainly inform them of developments.

I very much appreciate the willingness of the Minister to meet the industry. Will he undertake when he is in Aberdeen on the 12th, to give an assurance to the industry that if the Law of the Sea Conference breaks up without any agreement on limits, and if other countries move unilaterally as a result, the Government will protect absolutely the rights of the British fishing industry?

Turning now to another financial burden on the industry, will the hon. Gentleman pass on to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade the high feelings of members of the fishing industry about the unjustifiably high fees which they will have to pay for the Department of Trade surveyors for the purpose of the new safety regulations, of which they approve in principle?

I shall pass on that view It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

One of my outstanding impressions of the Law of the Sea Conference is that many countries—EEC, non-EEC and others—are in a similar position to that of this country. If there is not some kind of tangible agreement, or the possibility of a contention coming out of the conference, many countries will need to consider urgently what changes are required in limits.

We hope that the report in the Financial Times yesterday about the difficulties of the conference is in no way connected with the hon. Gentleman's attendance at it, and that a satisfactory conclusion will emerge from it. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Norwegian Government have already asked to open talks with the Governments of the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and others on an immediate increase in limits to 50 miles? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the appalling cut in the herring quota which his scientists have announced and which will drive many Scottish boats from the sea brings it home that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends should urgently seek an immediate increase to 50 miles in the fishing limits?

There are about four questions involved in what the hon. Gentleman has said. I assure him that the Law of the Sea Conference is moving towards a conclusion, but I am not unduly optimistic about its outcome. It would be wrong to mislead or, perhaps, convey to people outside—I do not think that I have done it, and the hon. Gentleman should not do it—[Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is holding up, but I did not write it. He should not be too optimistic for the fishermen of Scotland about what might come out of the conference.

On the question of what the hon. Gentleman has described as the appalling cut in the herring quota, I know of no Government—whether it be the Norwegian Government, the British Government or any other—which could increase tomorrow the number of herring in the sea. The matter is a bit longer-term than that. It is a matter of genuine concern to all the fishing nations in this part of the world that if we do not do something about conservation there may not be any fish left to catch.

asked the Lord Advocate if he will pay an early official visit to Luxembourg.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he will visit the European Court of Justice.

asked the Lord Advocate if he will pay an official visit to Luxembourg.

I visited Luxembourg in January of this year and on that occasion had very useful discussions with members of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, including Lord Mackenzie Stuart and Advocate General Warner. I have no plans to pay another visit in the immediate future.

In view of the Lord Advocate's success in Luxembourg in making the Court of Justice appreciate the affinity between European law and Scots law, why did he vote against the Common Market?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is inaccurate in his facts. I appreciate, as a result of my visit to Luxembourg, that there is strong understanding of the affinity to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I am sure that if Britain remains in the Community the links can be strengthened.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that if Britain withdraws from the Community Scotland's unique representation at the European Court will come to an end? In view of the historic links between Scots law and the law of the Continent, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether his abstention on the Government's recommendation that Britain should stay in the Community was as a result of a judicial interpretation of his office or, indeed, whether he has any views on the subject?

I certainly have views on the subject and, with the rest of the British people, I shall exercise them when the referendum takes place.

If the Lord Advocate does not go to Luxembourg, in view of his well-known reputation for fairness will he ensure that ten-elevenths of Lord Mackenzie Stuart is returned to Scotland and ten-elevenths of an English judge is sent to Luxembourg, so that Scotland is fairly and proportionately represented—something that the Scottish National Party is anxious to achieve?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is underlining the point already made that Scotland is adequately and well represented in the European Court of Justice.

Is it not a matter for grave concern whenever the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) wants anyone to go anywhere?

Yes, Sir.

In view of the affinities between the Scottish and Continental legal systems to which reference has been made, will the Lord Advocate indicate what attitude his Department is taking to the proposal of the British Council—with, it would appear, the connivance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—to steer European law students who wish to study the Scottish legal system into taking courses in England because of the lack of courses in Scotland?

That matter has concerned me, but if the hon. Gentleman desires a specific answer it is right that he should ask an appropriate question.

asked the Lord Advocate what discussions he has had with the Law Society about the reform of Scottish divorce law.

Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the Minister primarily responsible for divorce legislation, has had any formal discussions with the Law Society of Scotland about divorce law reform.

Is it not a fact that the Law Society has recommended most strongly that Scottish divorce law should be reformed and brought into harmony with English divorce law? Does the Lord Advocate accept this recommendation, and has he had any indication from the Leader of the House that he will provide Government time to debate this matter? If not, how can he explain to the Law Society and other bodies in Scotland that the Government can provide time to debate hare coursing but will not provide time to discuss a matter which is so important to the happiness or misery of so many people in Scotland?

I agree that the Law Society of Scotland is on record as being strongly in favour of divorce law reform in Scotland. I have made no secret of my commitment to the same objective. There are many competing claims for the parliamentary time available, and it is necessary to strike an appropriate balance, having regard to the strong feelings held by different people about different matters of law reform. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he voted against the divorce law reform proposal advanced by one of my hon. Friends in, I think, 1971.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the latest figures show that one marriage in five in Scotland is ending in divorce, and that the Government should put as much emphasis on the preservation of marriages and the stability of family life as on divorce reform?

I accept what my hon. Friend has said, but equally, in fairness, he will accept that there is a strong feeling in Scotland that divorce based on fault is a dated concept, and that it is time that the concept of breakdown was introduced.

Has the Lord Advocate considered with the Law Society the possibility of introducing legislation in another place as a means of getting it started?

The Government constantly have that possibility in mind in this field as in any other.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that not only the Law Society of Scotland but the Scottish Law Commission, the Association of Scottish Law Agents and the Muir Society have indicated their support for reform? Does my right hon. and learned Friend know of any legal organisation in Scotland which does not support divorce law reform? Does he recollect that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) assured the House on 26th March that discussions were taking place on the need for reform? Unfortunately, those discussions were brought to an end two hours after my hon. Friend sat down. Was my right hon. and learned Friend involved in those discussions and, if so, what advice did he offer?

My hon. Friend must know that there are some questions which Ministers do not answer at Question Time. However, on his main point about the attitude of reform bodies in Scotland, so far as I know most of the major law bodies in Scotland are, broadly speaking, in favour of divorce law reform, but I have the impression that a number of bodies are not altogether committed to the proposal which my hon. Friend has put forward in his Bill.

Does the Lord Advocate accept that if a change in the divorce law is necessary it should be made on the merits of the case, and that the question whether or not Scottish law is in or out of harmony with English law is totally irrelevant?

I gladly agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I do not agree with the second part.

Does the Lord Advocate realises that a question of principle is involved in the provision of Government time on the Floor of the House for private Members' legislation? Will he answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat)? Do the Government attach higher priority to giving time on the Floor of the House to discussing hare coursing than to reform of the divorce laws?

That inference can be drawn. Which matters are to be given priority is a matter for balance and judgment.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there is another vehicle in the House for legislation? I hope he will urge the Government to send the question of divorce law reform to the Scottish Grand Committee, so that Scottish Members may decide. I hope that he will persuade the Leader of the Scottish National Party not to object to that, and the leader of the Conservative Party in Scotland not to encourage his Members to object either, as happened on the last occasion.

I take note of what my hon. Friend said and I hope that others in the House will do likewise.

With permission, I wish to make a further statement about the Crown Agents.

The House will recall that just before it rose for the Christmas Recess I explained the immediate problems of the Crown Agents' reserves and liquidity which had been reported to me by the new chairman and board, and announced the Government's agreement to provide immediate support of £85 million and the agreement of the Bank of England to provide standby facilities.

So far the Crown Agents have found no need to draw upon either the £85 million or the standby facility at the Bank of England to meet liquidity problems. We shall all hope that this will continue to be the case. But the support of the Government stands firm and ready. The grant is there to cover prudent writing down of assets as necessary, and to provide a capital base.

I would also like the House to know of the confidence I have in Mr. John Cuckney, the new Chairman of the Crown Agents, and in his board. In the most difficult circumstances, they are overcoming the problems they faced on appointment with considerable success. Since December, overseas principals have increased the scope and scale of their business with the Crown Agents. Confidence has increased, and it is right that this should be so, for the steady and gradual withdrawal from property investments and secondary banking, according to my directive, is restoring a fundamental financial soundness in their operations.

I have now made further appointments to the board. I have appointed Mr. Harry Hoff, Mr. James Jack and, with effect from 1st July, Mrs. Hester Boothroyd to join Mr. Leslie Kirkley and Mr. John Gordon as members of the board. I have also appointed Mr. John Goble, at present a member of the board, as deputy chairman.

I promised to keep the House informed. I can now make an interim report—not yet a final one, for reasons I shall make clear. In doing so, I know the House will understand and appreciate that it concerns not the present but the past.

The chairman has provided me with his board's views on the circumstances which led to the need for financial support, which have been assisted by the investigations carried out by Coopers and Lybrand, the consulting accountants. These are not yet complete. They have had to work on a very large number of transactions made over a long period of time.

The principal factors which the board considers to have contributed to the problems are: first, the operation of a substantial banking business without an adequate capital base; second, over-dependence on the property and secondary banking sectors, and commitment of an unduly large proportion of the total banking resources to a small number of borrowers; third, inadequate controls and procedures for approving and monitoring loans to subsidiary and associated companies, for security for advances, and for the delegation of authority; fourth, lack of outside commercial banking experience among senior staff. These defects of the past are rapidly being remedied.

The Government have reached two major conclusions in the matter. We believe it important and necessary, and the board of the Crown Agents recommends it, to arrange for an independent inquiry into past events and the circumstances giving rise to the need for Government support. Accordingly, I have decided to set up a committee of inquiry with the following terms of reference:

"To inquire into the circumstances which led to the Crown Agents requesting financial assistance from the Government."

The inquiry will be conducted by Judge Fay, sitting with Sir Edmund Compton and an accountant. There will, of course, be complete protection of the confidential interests of the overseas principals.

We also propose to give further consideration to the relationship between the Crown Agents and the Government. I shall present a White Paper to the House at a later stage—I hope during this Session—with my detailed proposals, along with the necessary background information about past custom and practice.

Now that I have presented those two major conclusions, I know that hon. Members will wish to join with me in expressing their confidence and support in the present chairman and his board, and in congratulating them on their very great success in the last few months.

Does the right hon. Lady recall chiding me, in that gentle way she has, with delay in these matters? Does she recognise that she started these investigations in the 1960s and they now look like going into the late 1970s if, indeed, she is still responsible for conducting them?

In the statement in which the right hon. Lady has announced the setting up of the inquiry has she not to a large extent prejudged the findings of the inquiry? Finally, what powers is the committee of inquiry to have? Amongst other things, will Sir Claude Hayes and others closely concerned have full freedom to state their views in accordance with the recommendations of the Salmon Committee?

I confess that I am a little surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's tone. He will recollect, because he has great knowledge of this matter, that I had asked for a study to be made of the constitutional relationship between the Crown Agents and the Government in the last few months of 1970 when I was in my present post, in which the right hon. Gentleman succeeded me. He is right to say that I chided him from time to time in the House, as did one or two of my hon. Friends. We then had the Stevenson Report, which the right hon. Gentleman refused to publish. I think it is fair to say that this Government have done their best to come to grips with a situation in which that was greatly needed.

As for the right hon. Gentleman's second point, the inquiry will be conducted by Judge Fay, Sir Edmund Compton and an accountant yet to he named. I am sorry that I cannot give the name of the accountant today. We have no reason to suppose that any information requested will not be forthcoming. I am certain, though this is a matter for the inquiry itself, that it will wish to have discussions with all those who have been involved in Crown Agents' matters over the past few years.

Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations on the speedy clean-up job she has done over the past 10 months or so? Will she answer these questions? First, while the inquiry is being conducted, and indeed from now on, can we be sure that the annual reports produced by the Crown Agents will give very full information about the holdings they have, whether directly or indirectly, and the companies with which they have commercial association?

Secondly, am I right in assuming that if the Crown Agents draw upon any part of the £85 million standby cover they will be answerable to the Public Accounts Committee but that they will not be answerable to the Public Accounts Committee otherwise?

I confirm that what my hon. Friend said in the last part of his question is indeed so. I hope and believe that it will not prove necessary to draw on the £85 million. Indeed, it is very gratifying to be able to say that this has not needed to be drawn on up to now. I hope that that situation will continue. However, should there be drawings, this would be a matter in which the accounting officer of my Department would hold responsibility and it would be a matter for the Public Accounts Committee.

On my hon. Friend's first point, he will know that as from now—I think I have given this information before, and certainly the Crown Agents have —the annual report of the Crown Agents is now, as distinct from past practice, to be submitted to me so that I may make it available to Parliament, and the accounts will similarly be made available to Parliament. The audited accounts for the last possible year —1972—are already in the Library. I think my hon. Friend will find that they give the kind of information that is needed, but I am certain that if this proves not to be the case the Crown Agents or myself would be very responsive to any discussion about what further information they might include.

May I echo the confidence in Mr. Cuckney and the efforts that he has so far made? With respect to the inquiry which is about to take place, may we take it that the findings in the Coopers and Lybrand report are temporary findings and are liable to the fullest possible justification by the full judicial inquiry which is to take place later?

On that point, will the right hon. Lady not only allow that inquiry to make the fullest inquiries into all the matters which have occurred in the past but allow Sir Claude Hayes, in giving his evidence, to see the findings which that judicial inquiry may make, unlike the practice in the past in Department of Trade investigations, and allow him to comment on any findings that the inquiry makes before those findings are published?

Obviously, the detailed conduct of the inquiry must be a matter for Judge Fay, who will be leading it, and for the other members of the inquiry. It never has been the practice in the past for a Government, having set up an inquiry, to regulate the precise way in which the inquiry is to be conducted, but I am certain that the inquiry will wish to give every opportunity to all concerned fully to be acquainted with the whole situation and to say whatever they want to say. I think that is much the fairest way of conducting it.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that one of the important reasons why it has been her duty to tell the House, not only on this occasion but on others, too, of the scandalous investments and so on within the area of the Crown Agents is that the Crown Agents wanted the highest rate of return, and that usually in this system of ours the highest rate of return can involve investments within the murky and seamy side of life; and the net result was that, like a good many other people who got their fingers burned, they poured their money into property speculation and, indeed, into slum speculation?

Will my right hon. Friend in future insist that investments are of a kind which will not leave her as a Minister to have to come to the House, as the previous Minister did, in order to try to explain away how these investments have been made?

Will my right hon. Friend also see to it that the committee of inquiry will establish quite clearly how much money has been lost as a result of all these investments in these areas of secondary banking, with a particular reference to the amount of money that was lost as a result of the investment in the ill-fated Storehouse venture? All these matters should be investigated by the committee of inquiry.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that today at Question Time, when Scottish Questions were answered, questions which were much shorter in duration than the one which we have just heard were interrupted by your good self as being too long? Can you explain why it is that the hon. Member who has just asked a supplementary question seems to be allowed to ask as long a question as he likes?

I will try to make the position clear. At Question Time the object is to get as many Questions answered as possible. Long supplementary questions cut out other Members' supplementary questions and Questions. After statements, the considerations are not quite the same. It is a matter for my discretion, although I admit I do not often have to complain of excessive brevity on the part of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Perhaps the right hon. Lady will now answer the hon. Gentleman's question.

My hon. Friend is right in pointing to the fact, which I outlined in my earlier statement in December, that it was the over-investment in property companies and secondary banking, in which there had been a considerable decline in the value of assets, which led to the immediate crisis of liquidity in the Crown Agents. I have given a positive directive that this is now to diminish, and the Crown Agents are now very sensibly withdrawing in a phased way—because it is correct to phase it—from both secondary banking and properties. Since October over £59 million has been withdrawn from property and secondary banking by the Crown Agents.

On the second point about London Capital, I think I made it clear a month or two ago that this is a matter for the commercial judgment of the Crown Agents and that they are acting entirely in accordance with their best and most prudent judgment in this matter. It is not strictly a matter in which I would regard it as proper for me to intervene.

Does not the experience of the Crown Agents confirm the folly of any Government or quasi-Government institution using its assets to operate in fields in which it has neither qualifications nor suitability?

What emerges clearly—and I hope we have now corrected the situation—is that if we have a valuable Government institution, which the Crown Agents is—it has the most tremendous ramifications and involvement and an excellent reputation for its procurement policies and all its other activities on behalf of many overseas investments and overseas public corporations—it is of the greatest importance that we have people who are best able to make the right kind of judgments in the operations in which they are involved. I think my own appointments since July have created a board with the expertise and judgment to enable these matters to be correctly administered from now on.

I beg to move.

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for remedies and complaints against the police.

The Bill will amend Section 49 of the Police Act 1964 which deals with complaints against the police. At the moment, as the House will know, complaints against police officers are investigated by officers from another force. This I believe to be totally unsatisfactory.

My Bill seeks to provide for the introduction of an independent element into the procedure for handling complaints against the police. It is my view—and, indeed, it is a view supported by the present Home Secretary—that an effective and independent element able to command the confidence of the public and the police must be brought into operation while a complaint is being investigated.

I would not regard it as satisfactory to institute merely ex post facto investigations, as many individuals and organisations have advocated. able to act only after the event, in a sense as a form of inquest. What is proposed, therefore, is the establishment of independent statutory commissions in each police authority, with members appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who shall be full- or part-time depending upon the experience of the volume of work in their area.

The procedure for handling a complaint is envisaged as follows. A complaint made by a member of the public shall be made in writing through the clerk of the commission in the area in which the subject matter of the allegation first arose. No complaint shall be accepted without the consent of the chairman of the commission if more than six months have elapsed from the date of the incident forming the basis of the complaint.

The clerk to the commission shall refer the complaint to a single member of the commission who shall decide whether it raises matters of a substantial nature. If it does not raise matters of a substantial nature, it will be considered by a single member of the commission. He will be required to give a reasoned decision on the complaint and may recommend to the commission that a complaint be rejected if it is regarded as trivial or malicious.

There shall be no appeal against the decision of the commission. If, however, an individual member of the commission does not so recommend, he shall be required to investigate the complaint, conduct the investigation without a hearing, but, before making an adjudication, provide an opportuniy to the complainant to decide whether or not he is satisfied with the explanation given.

Should either party to the complaint not be satisfied with that adjudication there will be a right of review by the commission, provided that the chairman of the commission grants leave for such a review. If, on the other hand, the individual member whose responsibility in effect is to sieve complaints is satisfied that the complaint raises a matter of a substantial nature, he will refer it as a matter of course to the commission.

The commission shall then be required to furnish the letter of complaint to the police officer complained of and to his chief officer. The commission will be required to determine whether the complaint is substantiated and to give a reasoned decision.

Both the commission and an individual member shall have power to call witnesses and documents and will hold hearings in public. In extraordinary circumstances they may hold them in camera at the request of either party, and subject again to the consent of the chairman of the local commission. Both the complainant and the police officer against whom the complaint is made shall be entitled to legal representation.

Should a complainant reveal prima facie evidence of a criminal act, the commission will not continue its investigation but will refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

This is a somewhat sketchy outline, setting out the guidelines and, more importantly, the principles behind the Bill. Other matters will, I hope, be filled in on Second Reading.

I should make it clear that neither the Bill nor anything that I have said is intended in any way to cast aspersions on the police or upon individual officers. It is no part of my purpose to cast a slur on the integrity of the vast majority of police officers. With the exceptions that exist in any occupation, I believe the police to be generally honest and conscientious.

At the same time, however, a situation such as now exists, in which the police are prosecutor, judge and jury of complaints against themselves, is clearly unsatisfactory. While it is supposed to be the case that police officers do not investigate complaints against other officers who are known to them, this is not always followed in practice. For example, a Sunday Times article of 13th April quoted a police officer in the Metropolitan Police A.10 squad, which is the Anti-Fraud and Serious Crime Squad, as saying

"I worked on a case where I had known the officer in the CID for 20 years. I knew his wife and his kids. Nine of us were on that case and seven knew him well."

That is clearly unsatisfactory. While I do not suggest that justice was not done in that case, it certainly does not inspire confidence in the fairness and in the impartiality of the present complaints procedure. Few of my constituents who have had cause in the past year to complain to me about various activities of the police are satisfied that the procedure as it now exists adequately, impartially and fairly deals with their complaints. I accept, because I have no evidence to the contrary, that justice is done. However, it is manifestly not seen to be done.

It is my conviction that by introducing an independent element into the complaints procedure we shall restore public confidence in the police, rather than weaken it. For this reason I believe that the police would welcome the Bill. It will further eliminate the spread of false and malicious rumours of police malpractice, by providing an acceptable mechanism through which they can be substantiated or quashed.

It will provide an additional means of public scrutiny over police activity and, in so doing, ensure that the police continue to maintain the highest possible standards of conduct. It is accepted that we have complaints procedures in many other areas. We have a Parliamentary Commissioner for complaints against the central Government, local government ombudsmen, and local tribunals for appeals against decisions, malpractice or maladministration of social security officers. Yet, in this one important area, where enormous and widespread power is exerted by a public authority, there is no public accountability for their actions. This is a serious anomaly and should be quickly remedied.

In conclusion, I can only echo in my support the words of the Metropolitan Police Commission, Sir Robert Mark, when he said in an interview reported in the Observer Review on 23rd March:

"I believe that in a free society a small unarmed police force with limited legal powers depends for its effectiveness on public accept- ance. That acceptance depends on integrity, which in turn depends on quality of manpower, supervision and accountability. The more open and accountable the police are, the more likely they are to be respected and supported."

I believe that that sums up the case for the implementation of an independent element for investigating complaints against the police. The reputation of the police force is only likely to be enhanced by the introduction of the Bill. I believe that this proposal will elicit the support of people throughout the country and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision for remedies and complaints against the police: and the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9th May and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 2, line 13, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:

With this amendment we shall take the following amendments:

In the course of the debate yesterday various Ministers repeatedly argued that in conducting the referendum they wished to follow normal election procedure as far as possible.

In moving the amendment I submit that, as the Bill stands at present, to have a national, centralised count is a big departure from normal election procedure which is undesirable, for the following reasons. First, it is an extremly cumbersome procedure. The Lord President has not yet told us how the count will be conducted. I hope that he, or whoever will reply to the series of amendments, will be more forthcoming than hitherto. Presumably arrangements must be made for the ballot boxes to be brought to Earls Court from polling stations throughout the United Kingdom, and for the votes to be piled high and counted. The mind boggles at such an exercise, but no doubt plans have been made for it to be done, and we should like to hear about them. It will be a cumbersome process, and it must be expensive. The Committee is entitled to know how much of the £9 million cost is earmarked for this proposed method of count.

4.0 p.m.

There are two other disadvantages in the national count. One is the inevitable delay of three or four days between the voters going to the poll and the results being announced. That is undesirable, because it creates a period of uncertainty. What plans have the Government to make sure that in a count over such a long period, unprecedented in this country, there will be no leaks of how the count is going? I find it impossible to imagine that leaks can be prevented. All of us who have experience of local government or parliamentary election counts know how difficult it is to prevent a leak from even a local count over a very few hours. Therefore, how shall we prevent speculation on a large scale about the result during the three days and nights of counting?

We have before us a whole series of amendments from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee which propose an alternative to what I regard as an unsatisfactory procedure. My amendment, which is simple, although it is long, is that the count be conducted at a constituency level. I accept that there are differing views on this. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I intend to press the amendment to a Division, but if it is defeated we shall support Amendment No. 49, which the hon. Member for Belner (Mr. MacFarquhar) will no doubt move in due course.

The case for a constituency count is on balance the stronger of the two. First, one is using the normal local expertise in counting, the normal returning officers and the normal machinery, which is fresh in everyone's minds, as it was used twice within the past year.

Secondly, there is an argument which bears on the referendum campaign. I am not the most enthusiastic supporter of the referendum, but, as it is to be held, there is an obligation on us all, on whichever side of the battle, to do everything possible to make sure that there is the largest possible turnout and the greatest amount of enthusiasm in the campaign. Are we more likely to generate that enthusiasm throughout the country if the counting is done on a national basis or if it is done on a local basis? I believe that it will give more people on both sides of the argument more incentive to involve themselves in the campaign if they know that their work will be realisable by their being able to see the result in their own communities. That is a powerful argument for using the normal machinery and having the count on a constituency basis. There should then be a marginally higher turnout and greater interest in the campaign than if everybody's results and efforts are swallowed up in one massive result counted at Earls Court.

Two objections have been raised to what I have proposed. The first is that a constituency count is liable to bring what some people would regard as undue pressure on the Member of Parliament in his constituency. That argument applies whether the Member is pro-Market or anti-Market. It is a constitutional point with which I have some sympathy. But it has been thrown out of the window by the holding of the referendum. Once we have decided to go through with the exercise, it does not hold much water then to say "One thing you must not do is to allow any Member of Parliament to know his constituency's thinking on the subject." There is no logic in that argument.

The second argument against a constituency count is that the referendum might be used by those who want to take advantage of it for separatist purposes within the United Kingdom. We must face up to this. In my view, the referendum will be used for separatist purposes anyway, whether the vote is local or on a United Kingdom basis. I see no reason why different parts of the United Kingdom should not be able to add up their total votes to see, as a matter of genuine public interest, what opinion has been in Scotland or Wales, or, for that matter, London, Yorkshire or any other part of the United Kingdom.

For a long time Wales, for example, returned Labour representation overwhelmingly, with an overwhelming Labour vote, during periods of Conservative Government in the United Kingdom as a whole. That may have created political difficulties for the Government of the day, but it certainly did not create constitutional difficulties. I see no reason why we should not accept that different parts of the United Kingdom, including different cities and towns, may vote in different directions. But we all know that the decision can be taken only on the one basis of British membership of the Community.

Does my hon. Friend also agree that it is better for all of us in all parties to deal with facts rather than myths, which would certainly grow up after a national count?

Yes, Sir. As I have said, the arguments of the separatists will be used during the referendum anyway. I take my hon. Friend's point, that if we try to conceal the differing opinions myths will grow up about people's real reactions. The public opinion polls will assume greater authority than the referendum, which is something to be avoided at all costs.

Some people may be frightened about a possible difference in the result in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. but I am not. It might happen, but so what? If we pass Amendment No. 36 or Amendment No. 49, and have the count on a constituency, county or regional basis, there are bound to be variations within each of those countries as well. For example, Glasgow may vote "No" in total in a local count and Edinburgh "Yes". I take that just as an example, and do not suggest that that will be the outcome. Such a result would not be a strong argument for Scottish self-government.

We should not be frightened. It is a mistake to argue for a United Kingdom count on that kind of basis. As a Parliament, we should face up to the facts and the fullest possible expression of local and community opinion on the matter. To generate as much interest as possible in the referendum, we should amend the Bill so that we have a local count instead of the cumbersome procedure suggested by the Government.

I beg to move Amendments Nos. 106, 107, 108 and 109.

Order. An amendment has already been moved. Only one amendment may be moved at a time, but the amendments in the group may be discussed together.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Thomas.

I support what the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said in moving the amendment, which directs the attention of the Committee towards a constituency count and a constituency declaration.

The referendum is a constitutional innovation which I believe we could well do without. But while we are having such an innovation it is our duty to try to make its execution as simple and straightforward as possible. By its very nature, the referendum is a device which allows the Government to duck the issue and pass the buck because of indecision and political inadequacy within the ranks of the Labour Party. Anyone who has helped to run a golf club or a bingo club will know that it is usually a big mistake to change the rules because of an immediate or specific problem, a temporary situation, as a hasty changing of the rules—

Order. I do not want to change the rules either. I let the hon. Gentleman make his point because I thought he was going to be brief, but he must now discuss how the count is to be undertaken.

The point I was making was that the changing of the rules concerns the way in which the people will be asked to vote and how the system will be applied to the vote, the count and the declaration. The Bill in general and Clause 2 in particular challenge the credibility of parliamentary government. It is necessary to make clear that Parliament alone will decide whether or not Britain remains a member of the EEC, and Parliament alone will decide whether or not to approve legislation which might lead to a British withdrawal from the Community. It is vital that the British public should be aware of those points before they cast their votes in the referendum.

The traditional and unique relationship which exists between hon. Members and their constituents is at stake in the referendum, and it is that relationship which has prompted the amendments which aim at bringing about a constituency count and a constituency declaration. I think that if the Committee accepts the traditional and, from the point of view of our constitution, paramount view that hon. Members owe their constituents their judgment as representatives and not as delegates, it therefore follows that the constituents owe hon. Members their opinion when those opinions are canvassed by a referendum of this kind.

This is an electoral contract which is exclusive to each hon. Member and his or her constituents. No such special relationship exists between the electorate and the Prime Minister or the Government of the day. In other words, if my constituents are to be asked to express their views on Britain's membership of the Common Market I want to know their opinion. I believe that I have a prior right as the Member of Parliament for that constituency to know that opinion before and above anyone else.

Is the hon. Member saying that he will take no notice of the referendum if the result is the opposite to the one he wants?

I thought that I had made the point that a Member of Parliament owes his constituents his judgment—

Answer the question.

—but in so doing there is nothing wrong in the Member knowing the opinion of his constituents before that judgment is exercised. The specific answer to the question is that I would take the views of my constituents into account as any hon. Member would on any subject, but, having taken them into account, I would still exercise my judgment on the issue. It may be that I would not vote in the way that the majority of my constituents would wish, and that is what distinguishes a representative from a delegate. At least, however, I should know the views of my constituents on this matter if the referendum were conducted according to the normal methods of voting and counting votes in Britain.

I believe that any other method of assessing the result will damage further our constitutional propriety. In all the ghastly circumstances surrounding this referendum it is no credit to Parliament that, faced with this ill-conceived constitutional device, hon. Members should decline to know the views of their constituents.

4.15 p.m.

Various methods have been suggested to save hon. Members the embarrassment of knowing what their constituents may think when the result of the referendum is known—

You will be embarrassed.

That would be my problem, not the hon. Member's. I am prepared to face up to my problem, if it is a problem, which is more than can be said for most Labour Members.

I think that the most absurd aspect of the referendum is the national count. There is no precedent for it, and it fills me with horror at the prospect of what might go wrong—from the possibility of a student prank as thousands of ballot boxes trundle towards London, to the prospect of a recount. I am told that the figure being canvassed for those willing to count at Earls Court is about £45 a day. What if there are two or three recounts? [Interruption.] If it is not £45 a day I hope that the Lord President will say how much it will cost to have the votes counted. How many recounts has he allowed for in his calculations in trying to give the Committee some idea of the cost of the operation?

Another possibility is some kind of local authority count, which again ignores Parliament and the relationship between Members of Parliament and their constituents. I cannot see any conceivable ground for this method of counting, which is another way of saving hon. Members embarrassment, which is another dodge and another trick on the constitution as we know it.

Bearing all these points in mind, I am sure that in considering the count and in considering his relationship with his constituents every hon. Member in his heart will want to know the opinion of those who elected him to this House. I am sure that no hon. Member would want to do anything which would damage that unique relationship each of us has with our constituents.

The hon. Members for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) have both devoted some of their remarks to reasons for opposing a central count. On Second Reading all my remarks were along the same lines, indicating why I am also against the proposal.

I shall not deploy again all the arguments used on that occasion, but, briefly, they fall into two general groups. One group deals with all the practical difficulties of a central count, with the very cumbersome operation involved in bringing together 50,000 ballot boxes, with them taking up so much space at the one central location and then having to be returned afterwards to the different parts of the country from which they came. That is an operation which will take time and manpower and will cost an estimated extra £2 million.

A further reason which has since come to my notice and which gives grounds for opposing the central count is that it imposes more rigidity on the timetable of the whole operation. It would appear that Earls Court is to be available on 5th June but not on 12th June. Later on in June there are difficulties again because the people who run Earls Court will be getting it ready for the Royal Tournament, which takes place at the beginning of July. If there are 50,000 ballot boxes lying around at Earls Court for too long they may be blasted to smithereens by the Royal Artillery.

The second group of arguments which counts against the idea of having a central count relates to the fact that in political terms it is quite unnecessary to have such a count. In fact, no other country which holds referenda has a central count. There is no harm in certain areas of the country knowing that they have supported the minority viewpoint. I believe that a central count will take away local interest in the referendum and may discourage many people from voting.

In this debate we are to consider the various alternative methods to the proposal to have a central count. The hon. Members for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles and Edinburgh, North favour the proposition of having counts by parliamentary constituency. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles said, I find that that proposal raises many administrative difficulties. Since local government reorganisation took place in England and Wales last year—similar reorganisation will take place in Scotland during the next month—the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies have in many cases cut across the boundaries of local authorities. If the local administration of the count is to be organised by local registration officers and electoral returning officers for local authorities it will be more difficult in many cases to organise counting on a parliamentary constituency basis.

I put my constituency before the Committee as an example. It is a fact that the Goole parliamentary division now falls in no fewer than four counties. Four electoral registration officers have responsibility for different parts of my constituency. During the General Election last October we found that the mammoth operation of conducting the count and getting all the ballot boxes together in such a far-flung constituency with so many different registration areas imposed additional difficulties.

The hon. Gentleman's constituency may fall within different counties—in fact, my constituency covers three counties—but that is not the main point. Surely he had a satisfactory count in October 1974. Experience has already been gathered in the hon. Gentleman's constituency which has not been gathered nationally.

I could describe at great length some of the difficulties that we encountered in that campaign. I could also describe some of the difficulties which arise because of a parliamentary constituency having so many strange boundaries. Whereas the constituency of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles neatly coincides with three of the old counties of Scotland, my constituency does not coincide with any local government boundaries apart from parish boundaries. In some of the towns even those boundaries are a little curious. Of course, my constituency is by no means unique in this respect. In many different parts of the kingdom there are constituencies which cut across local government boundaries

Will the hon. Gentleman say what would happen if there were to be a by-election in his constituency next month?

A writ would be issued and in due course a campaign would be held. A count would be held in the same way as last October. However, I am now considering the referendum and contemplating whether we can make better arrangements than those I experienced in the constituency which I fought and won last October.

Another reason for a parliamentary constituency-based count presenting difficulties is that the whole purpose of the referendum is to seek the views of the British people outside Parliament, independently of Parliament, without reference to Parliament and in no way connected with the processes of Parliament. If the results are to be made known on the basis of parliamentary constituencies it is inevitable that Parliament and hon. Members will be involved. Some hon. Members may think that that is a good thing. So be it. But it does seem that the whole purpose of having the referendum is to go outside the parliamentary system. We shall not be able to achieve that if we have a parliamentary constituency-based count.

I look for different methods of having a local count. Obviously the units for such counting are now to be found with the new local government areas. In many parts of the country they provide units which are different from parliamentary constituencies. The difficulty which we have to surmount is that of determining which units of local government are the right units to adopt in order to have the most localised count in the referendum, without in any way giving the results in terms of parliamentary constituencies. By that I think it would be wrong for any parliamentary constituency to have the results given in the count. If we had a counting system whereby some hon. Members knew the results in their constituencies and others did not that would be the worst of all possible worlds. It has to be a system which covers all parliamentary constituencies or none at all.

In choosing the right local government units for a local count in the referendum we must first consider those units which now carry the responsibility for electoral registration. For example, there is a chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, one officer for the whole of the Six Counties. In Scotland, after 16th May, the function of electoral registration will rest with the new regional authorities and with the island area authorities. As the regions are much larger than individual constituencies the choice of regions as the units in the referendum count will get round the difficulty of giving the results in terms of parliamentary constituencies.

I agree that there is a difficulty regarding the island areas. If we were to have the count in Scotland by regions and islands we would give the results for two parliamentary constituencies in Scotland —namely, the constituencies of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). In the amendment with which my name is associated those two island areas are coupled with the Highland area.

I now turn to England and Wales. The function of electoral registration rests with the new districts. If we were to have counting by district in England and Wales we would be able to deduce the results for no fewer than 74 English parliamentary constituencies, including the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office, the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Price), and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel). Similarly, in Wales there would be five constituencies where the results would be given if we had a count at district level.

4.30 p.m.

For England and Wales the natural unit to choose for local counting is the county. There is only one difficulty, which is that the Isle of Wight, which is a county, is also a parliamentary constituency. In the group of amendments which I support the Isle of Wight is deliberately grouped with the county of Hampshire for counting purposes. There are two sets of amendments on the Order Paper which choose the county as the basic unit for a count. The first set comprises Amendments Nos. 43, 44, 110, 111, 51, 52 and 98. Amendment No. 98 is a new schedule which gives the 63 basic areas throughout the country. Amendment No. 49 puts forward an alternative solution. All these amendments choose the same basic units as I have described.

There are, however, important differences. In the first place there is difficulty about the islands I have mentioned. Amendment No. 49 would give the results in terms of the three island constituencies to which reference has been made. It would allow the possibility, in practical terms of all the votes—although the results would be made known for local areas—being counted centrally. I suspect that if Amendment No. 49 is the one that is carried, the way in which it will be implemented will be by having all the votes brought to one central place but having the results declared separately for the areas mentioned in the amendment. This would involve all the expense and absurd inconvenience of the central count but there would still be local results.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is another complication which arises in my constituency, which is the only one in England that crosses county boundaries? I am in two counties. One part of my constituency might contribute to a "No" vote while the other part might contribute to a "Yes" vote.

The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Committee. If he had been here earlier he would have heard me say that my constituency overlaps four counties, so that it is twice as good as his in that respect.

The other difference between Amendment No. 49 and those to which I have attached my name is that the latter have built into them a further refinement depending on local cicumstances. This can be seen by looking carefully at Amendment No. 98, which specifies the 63 basic county areas. The clause which would give rise to that amendment has the wording now shown in Amendment No. 110, which would enable the counting officers for the areas shown in the new schedule at their discretion to split up their areas for the purposes of the count but to do so in such a way that no sub-divided unit would have an electorate of fewer than 200,000. There would not be the possibility of the results being known in terms of parliamentary constituencies.

This provision for sub-division of the county areas would be particularly applicable in the more heavily populated areas and would overcome some of the practical difficulties of having counts involving 500,000 votes or more. I think particularly of Greater London and the metropolitan counties of England, the Strathclyde Region of Scotland and also perhaps Northern Ireland.

If we take the electorate for each of the areas specified in the new schedule it is interesting to see how the possibility of sub-division with the individual units having electorates of not fewer than 200,000 can be worked out in practice. The amendments I support are considerably different from Amendment No. 49. Those amendments which have my support are the best solution to the problem of finding the right local counting areas.

My difficulty is that in your wisdom, Mr. Thomas, you have decided not to have a separate Division on Amendment No. 43. In that situation I am forced to fall back on a second-best solution. If the Committee does not accept the amendments which I have tabled I shall support Amendment No. 49.

Amidst all the welter of argument and counter-argument about the appropriate counting unit for the referendum there is one consideration which in my mind stands out above all the others. It is that whether we like it or not every effort will be made to ascertain what was the result of the referendum locally as well as generally. I deliberately use the word "locally" as the most general term because presently one has to consider what is the most convenient local sub-division for the purpose. But that there will be widespread and justified curiosity to know what is the distribution within the United Kingdom as a whole of opinion on this subject cannot be denied.

Any attempt to prevent that distribution from becoming known would be frustrated. The result of that, if it were done by counts at various polling stations, if it were done by public opinion polls or would certainly be to create a confusion of assertion and counter-assertion and to discredit in part the machinery which, however reluctantly, this Committee is setting up. On behalf of myself and my colleagues I would rule out as the least eligible alternative one national count accompanied by a sturdy refusal to supply any other information.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that of all opinion counts the ones which of recent years have been shown to be most erroneous and are, therefore, the most discredited are those which consist of asking people after they have voted how they have voted?

Whether that is true or not, and certainly some very weird results are obtained at General Elections from opinion polls, even those in close proximity to the voting, what the hon. Member has pointed out strengthens my objections to a system whereby we would suffer the bombardment of assertions which no one could afterwards check. If we are setting up a machinery, let it be such as will provide the public with the information which, whether we like it or not, it will want.

Having excluded that possibility, I come to consider which of the lesser areas of counting is most eligible. My colleagues and I would wish to reject the proposition of counting by the countries, or whatever name is chosen, of the United Kingdom. There may be some hon. Members who would wish to see those parts of the United Kingdom as separately treated as possible. That is not the case with my colleagues and me, who represent a part of the United Kingdom which is passionately determined to remain what it officially is at the moment, an integral part of the United Kingdom. Nor do I believe that it would be satisfactory if England was treated as a single unit for the purpose of the count, for many of the considerations which would lead the public to wish to have more information about local variations would not be satisfied by a figure which applied to England as a whole.

We are left with the alternative between a constituency count on the one hand and, on the other hand, a count in larger areas than constituencies but still areas which are smaller than the component parts of the United Kingdom.

I take seriously the objections to a count by constituencies. I see no point in denying that there is a certain contradiction between the device of the referendum and the normal responsibilities of a Member of Parliament. However, whatever contradiction there is between a referendum and the responsibilities of hon. Members of the House of Commons as a whole, that contradiction is rendered most painful and most obtrusive if the count is conducted by constituencies, for then we deliberately focus attention upon the local balance of opinion in a constituency on this subject and the manner in which, in his own judgment, or for whatever other reasons, the hon. Member representing it has conducted himself. Therefore, it would be a mistake for Parliament to settle, in this context, for counting by constituency.

I cannot follow the argument, although I accept the principle in general, and indeed, reinforced it in yesterday's debate, that we should, so far as possible, use normal electoral machinery, that that principle applies to the decision whether the count should be by constituencies or by some combination of constituencies or electoral areas. I am, therefore, brought to the conclusion that the most eligible choice is to count by areas which are substantially larger than the normal constituency and which, although they will give a reasonable picture of the local spread and balance of opinion on this subject, will avoid pushing to the extreme the conflict between parliamentary representation and the sounding of opinion by referendum.

That is why my hon. Friends and I will vote against the amendment which is before the Committee at present, but will support that which will, in due course, be moved by the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar).

There is, however, one observation which I want to make with special reference to Northern Ireland upon the form of that amendment. Subparagraph (c) of that amendment proposes Northern Ireland as a whole as a counting area. I have already mentioned the reasons why that is regarded as objectionable and undesirable by the majority of those whom my colleagues and I represent.

Therefore, the question arises in Northern Ireland what would be the nearest approximation to what the hon. Member proposes for the rest of the United Kingdom? Unfortunately, given the layout of local government and electoral areas in Northern Ireland, the county is not suitable for that purpose. After careful consideration, my colleagues and I have come to the conclusion that, exceptionally, in Northern Ireland the most appropriate area is nevertheless—there, and there only—the parliamentary constituency.—[Interruption.] If any hon. Member with knowledge of the circumstances and layout of Northern Ireland can propose a more convenient sub-division for the purpose in Northern Ire. land, I am sure we should be interested to hear it.

However, it so happens that in Northern Ireland the embarrassment and the conflict to which I have referred do not exist, for, to the best of my knowledge, on the one hand there is no hon. Member representing a constituency in Northern Ireland who is not opposed to British membership of the EEC and, on the other hand, on all indications there is no part of Northern Ireland where there is not a substantial majority of the public who are also opposed to British membership of the EEC.

Why bother?

The referendum is for the United Kingdom. Therefore, I shall support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Belper, but I shall propose that in respect of Northern Ireland, for electoral convenience applying in the special circumstances there, it should be amended in the manner I have proposed.

I should like to speak to this amendment and to the amendment in my name which has been selected for separate Division, if requested. I shall be brief because many hon. Members have already spoken in this debate and on Second Reading and much has been covered already.

In the light of the fate of my two amendments last night, the Government may be alarmed to know that on the issue of the national count I agree with them in principle. This is a national issue and, theoretically, it would be a good idea to have a national count. I sympathise with the Government's desire to enhance national unity by avoiding publicising regional differences. Unfortunately like the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I believe that a national count will have precisely the opposite effect. It will exacerbate tensions within the country rather than relieve them. The reason is simple and well known. If there is a national count the Scottish National Party will for ever after claim that Scotland has been cheated, that Scotland is not being allowed to know that its people voted against staying in the Common Market. There will be rumours, suspicion, and, above all, precisely the bitterness that we want to avoid in the aftermath of the referendum.

Honesty is the best policy, and if the Scots, by a majority, vote that they want to leave the Common Market, let us not be afraid to face that fact. Let us face it squarely, whatever the implications may be for the politics of this country. My guess, which is admittedly only that of an emigré Scot, is that the Scots will show a majority in favour of staying in the Common Market. If they do, I hope that the SNP will digest that fact and face it squarely also.

Even if I am wrong, it is essential for us to face the implications of the Scottish vote. That is why I am proposing that the results of the count should be declared by regions and counted in the regions. However, in an attempt to strengthen the concept of national unity and the idea that this is ultimately a national count, I would suggest as a palliative that on referendum day, although the counting might be done regionally, all the results should be announced from London.

I cannot support the Liberal amendment for constituency declarations. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), who moved that amendment, stated that he believed that this was the natural way to do it and he dismissed the arguments against it. He dismissed the argument that hon. Members would be felt to be bound to the knowledge of the result in their constituencies, because he said that this was a referendum and so the normal rules regarding binding do not apply. He had failed to take into account a situation which could arise, which I and some other hon. Members mentioned on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) also raised it at Question Time. It is the situation where there is a small turnout with a majority of, say, 21 per cent. over 19 per cent. I have suggested that in such a situation the Government should at least consider whether or not they could be bound by a referendum result of that kind. Even if the Government felt that they had to be bound by that smaller turnout and narrower result, many individual Members of Parliament may not feel that they would want to be bound by such a result.

The hon. Gentleman has not put correctly the point that I made. I simply said that the argument that Members of Parliament come under pressure has been given away by the holding of a referendum at all. Everything the hon. Gentleman has said about the possible marginality of votes applies nationally and locally in precisely the same way.

My position is that I should like the referendum to be binding in the sense that there would be no need for a subsequent parliamentary vote. That will not and cannot be the case. In those circumstances, if we are faced with a very low poll many individual Members of Parliament may feel that they will have to exercise their individual judgment. In that case it would be better to be unfettered than fettered.

I accept that it is rather moving away from the central point, but I ask my hon. Friend to reflect on this continual repetition of the suggestion that the poll will be low. This is helping to bring about the very result which he claims to fear. It is the function of everyone here to accept that we are committed here to the referendum and, secondly, to do what we can to maximise the vote in that referendum.

I am sure that if my hon. Friend were to come again to my constituency, as he has done in the past, he would have no doubts about the efforts that I and others will be making to ensure a 100 per cent. turnout in the Belper division—and a 100 per cent. vote in favour of the Government's recommendation for staying in the Common Market. I certainly intend to try to ensure a high turnout. I agree with my hon. Friend in that I think that there will be a high turnout. I certainly hope so. However, we are here framing legislation and we must take account of possibilities in what the Government admitted last night was in many respects a leap in the dark. My hon. Friend does not support a count at constituency level anyway. He supports the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) and is not in favour of a constituency count. He is disagreeing, therefore, on something totally irrelevant to the amendment.

I would also argue against the Liberal amendment that by having a constituency count one could quite easily have a situation in a low poll where one would have what in effect would be a referendum by constituencies rather than by the country as a whole.

The right hon. Member for Down, South, with whom I agreed earlier on one point, suggested an amendment in the case of Ulster based on the problems of having a count on the basis of counties. I am certainly in no position to argue with him about the practicability of declaring or counting by counties in Northern Ireland. I should have thought that this might have been a minor administrative difficulty among all the major difficulties we face in the whole business of this referendum. But, for the sake of argument, I am prepared to accept that the right hon. Gentleman is correct. He uses logic with equal brilliance on many sides of the argument. That logic could easily have been used equally to justify a count on the basis of Northern Ireland as a whole as it was on the basis of constituencies. It seems to me that he rejected very well the argument for having a constituency count elsewhere. I found that argument far more convincing than his subsequent argument to justify a constituency count in Northern Ireland only. It would be far better to face up to the facts—as the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do in the case of Scotland—in the case of Northern Ireland and to have the count by region.

The administrative arguments on the national count were perfectly well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole on Second Reading. Frankly, I believe that the Lord President could overcome the administrative difficulties. They are clearly administrative difficulties. That came through from our debates yesterday. They played a great part in my right hon. Friend's decision on how to run this referendum. If he thinks that he can overcome these administrative difficulties, he probably can overcome them. However, on the ground of political prudence, it would be better to reject a national count and to have it on a regional basis.