House Of Commons
Tuesday 6th December 1977
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
Prayers
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Private Business
University Of London Bill Lords
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.
Oral Answers To Questions
Oral Answers To Questions
I remind the House that shorter supplementary questions and much briefer ministerial replies have been a great help to us in recent days.
Defence
Harrier Aircraft
1.
asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum offensive operational range of the Harrier; and if there is any strategic, as opposed to political, reason why Her Majesty's Government should not do their best to sell the aircraft to the Government of the People's Republic of China.
6.
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he discussed the sale of Harrier aircraft to China during the Chinese Trade Minister's visit to London; and if he will make a statement.
My right hon. Friend did not discuss the sale of Harrier aircraft to China during the Chinese Trade Minister's visit to London. As my right hon. Friend said on 10th November, any request for the sale of Harrier aircraft to China would be carefully considered in the light of our international obligations and policies. It is not our practice to disclose information such as the maximum offensive operational range of aircraft.
Will the Minister accept that the initiative in this business must come from the British Government? Does he accept the validity of Mao Tse Tung's doctrine that "My enemy's enemy is my friend"? If so, are there not overwhelming strategic, economic and employment advantages to the United Kingdom for us to take the initiative and get on with this?
I think that in matters of this nature it would be best to await a formal approach from the Government of the People's Republic of China. When that approach comes, if it comes, it will be properly considered under the normal arrangements. Our response to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that our main concern is to maintain the North Atlantic Alliance and our contribution to it.
In spite of what my hon. Friend has just said about not disclosing information, will he recognise that last night the House of Commons indicated its own desire to have most things done openly? Will he, in the light of that decision, categorically tell the House whether the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and the former Foreign Secretary—the present Prime Minister—did or did not undertake to the Soviet Union in 1975, or at any other time, orally or in writing, that they would not sell Harriers to China?
I am fully in favour of the maximum possible open government, and my hon. Friend has ample opportunities, if he so wishes, to seek a debate in the House on this matter. When and if we receive an application from the Government of the People's Republic of China we shall consider all the factors, including the economic and political ones. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I am not aware of any such undertaking or deal.
Can the Minister say to what extent it would be necessary to discuss such a deal with McDonnell Douglas, as that company is already involved with the Harrier in America? Can he also say what percentage of the aircraft is still classified?
If we receive such an application—it is purely a hypothetical matter at the moment, because no such application has been received—from the Government of the People's Republic of China we shall adopt the normal procedure of going through COCOM and then coming to a decision.
Will my hon. Friend look very carefully into the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) and make sure that there was no agreement with the Soviet Government that the trade agreement that was reached in Moscow was conditional on there being no sale of Harriers to China?
I can tell my hon. Friend that if he wishes to press for information on trade agreements the appropriate Minister to ask is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, and that if he wishes to have information about conversations that the present or the previous Prime Minister has conducted he should ask the Prime Minister.
Industrial Disputes
2.
asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the Armed Forces are being trained to undertake civilian jobs in the event of industrial disputes.
Before I answer this Questtion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey to the House the regret of my right hon. Friend that he is unable to be present because he is attending an important NATO ministerial meeting. Apart from the elementary training which they have recently received in fire fighting, the Armed Forces are receiving no specific training to undertake civilian jobs in the event of industrial disputes, although the nature of Service training is such as to provide a number of Service men with useful skills of more general application.
In the light of that reply, is not the professional skill at present being shown by young Service men in the unaccustomed duty of fire fighting of the most praiseworthy, and is the Minster prepared so to say, particularly as it involves, as he knows, to the sadness of the whole House, loss of life? Will he, as a defence Minister, now press relentlessly the argument that these young men should have access to the most sophisticated equipment for their job—equipment which is at present lying unused because of strike action?
I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his first remarks, and of course I endorse them totally. In fact, on a recent visit that I paid to a "green goddess" operation in Essex a senior fire officer told me that he was so impressed with the skill of the troops that he would be happy for them to go out unsupervised on certain types of fire. I think that that is a great tribute to them.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, it would be helpful if I cleared up a general misapprehension. Even before the strike we considered the possibility of training troops in the use of special breathing apparatus. We received repeated advice from senior fire officers that to do this would be extremely dangerous. First, it would give a man a false sense of confidence in the use of the apparatus. It takes some time to train a man in its use. But, more dangerous still, if one uses it and goes into a smoke-filled room, however one may be trained in using the apparatus, it takes many months of experience before one can tell whether a ceiling is likely to collapse, or, if one scales a ladder, whether a factory wall is likely to collapse. It is for reasons of that sort that we have deliberately not used this sort of apparatus when the troops are working.Does my hon. Friend agree that it is axiomatic throughout the Labour movement that troops should never be trained to be used as strike breakers?
Disgraceful.
Does my hon. Friend accept that the Conservative Party would not understand that? Is it not a fact, however, that only in the most exceptional circumstances would troops be used?
I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend said. These troops are not being employed as strike breakers; they are merely being used to save life and protect property.
Will the Minister say whether he would now consider calling out the TAVR and other reserve forces to help the fire-fighting troops, with particular reference to weekends? The troops are already stretched—some of them are a little tired—and the TA would be willing, to a man, to help out.
I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. I would certainly want to pay tribute to the help that the TAVR has already given to the Services, particularly in the provision of accommodation and all sorts of recreational offers that it has made to the troops. At the moment, we do not think that we need any more reinforcements.
Will my hon. Friend say whether he intends to use these opportunities on Questions Nos. 2 or 3 or on later Questions, Nos. 17, 18 and 26, to make a clear statement about the loss of life of soldiers on fire-fighting duties in the North today?
I am obliged to my hon. Friend for asking that. I had intended to make a statement at the appropriate moment, if he will let me leave it until then.
Will the Minister say whether the report in the Daily Telegraph yesterday that the training of Service fire fighters at RAF Manston has been banned is a true report? If so, how does he justify this hazarding of Service men's and other people's lives?
I am not aware of any banning of training in any establishment, but I shall look into the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman. At the moment, however, we have an adequate number of troops being trained, already in place, and also for relief purposes.
3.
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will define the criteria upon which Her Majesty's Government will use troops for special duties during industrial disputes.
Her Majesty's Government would consider using Service men for special duties during an industrial dispute only when it threatened the cessation of an essential public service.
Does the Minister agree that the service being provided by the Armed Forces now is something for which the whole country is deeply indebted? Does not that impose two obligations on the Government—first, to make sure that the Armed Forces themselves are paid properly and, secondly, to ensure—as I do not think is the case at present—that those undertaking these special duties should be properly trained and allowed to use the most up-to-date equipment?
With respect to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I endorse again what he said by way of tribute to all the Services—the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the Royal Air Force and the Army—for what they are doing in this dispute. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the question of the review of the pay of the forces will come up under the normal operations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Board.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I thought that I had given an adequate answer in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee).Trade Unions
4.
asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the TUC and other interested unions concerning the establishment of trade unions for the Armed Services.
13.
asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had about the principle of trade union representation for the Armed Forces.
My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to break the caste system in the Armed Forces and to improve pay and conditions is to get these people to join trade unions? That will bring them into line with other countries of Western Europe. Therefore, is it not important that we should have early discussions with the TUC and interested trade unions?
As no doubt my hon. Friend knows, membership of a trade union is already permitted to members of the Armed Forces. If the trade unions wish to take up my right hon. Friend's remarks in a more general sense, no doubt they will do so.
Does the Minister of State realise that the Secretary of State's rash statement on trade union membership in the Services has taken the lid off a hornets' nest? If the Government must be stung into acknowledging the justified claims of Service men for better pay and conditions, why does the Minister of State not listen to what the Service men themselves and the Service chiefs are saying?
The answer is that my right hon. Friend and my ministerial colleagues do listen to what Service men and Service chiefs say.
Is my hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and will do our best to protect him from the stings of the hornets opposite? It is not simply a question of membership of a trade union but also of ensuring that there is effective collective bargaining and machinery within the Armed Forces, so that the views of the ordinary "squaddie" can be represented and his problems dealt with without all sorts of threats of one kind or another.
I shall certainly take note of what my hon. Friend says, but up to now we have not received any indication from members of the Armed Forces that they want trade unionism.
Is collective representation through trade union organisations in the Services compatible with discipline?
I believe that it has been found to be so in other countries.
In view of the Minister of State's reply that the Government do take account of Service chiefs' views, can he say whether the Service chiefs endorse the Secretary of State's statement as to the desirability of trade unions representing the Armed Forces?
I think that I ought to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the precise remarks of my right hon. Friend, which were that he would have no objection in principle but that any such questions would raise serious matters, which would need careful discussion.
Hms "Warrior"
5.
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take action to preserve the hull of HMS "Warrior". Great Britain's first iron warship, until she can be reclaimed and refitted in a similar manner to other historic ships.
My Department will not dispose of this historic ship until the possibility of preserving her has been fully explored, although there will be no defence requirement for the vessel, which is currently used as a floating jetty, after next April. I am, of course, aware of the strong public interest in preserving HMS "Warrior".
I am grateful for the Minister's reply. Does he recall that this vessel was the first of the Royal Navy's ironclads and therefore a progenitor of all modern warships? Will he do his best to try to persuade some society to take over the job, as was done in the case of "The Great Western" or the "Cutty Sark"?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the Ministry of Defence's normal practice of not contributing to the preservation of historic ships, HMS "Victory" apart, but we share his concern. Happily, the country has been much assisted in recent years by the form of voluntary assistance to which he refers, and I shall certainly do what he asks.
Sas Training Establishment, Hereford
7.
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will pay a visit to the SAS training establishment at Hereford in the near future.
My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to visit that establishment.
Will the Minister make some effort to allay the disquiet felt by Labour Members about the fact that the facilities available at Hereford are apparently available to members of the Indonesian Armed Forces? Can he reassure the House that this is not so?
There have been no such facilities for training with the SAS at Hereford.
Will the Minister take this opportunity of paying tribute to the unstinting service given by the members of the SAS, serving in no fewer than 32 different theatres of war over the 30 years since the end of the Second World War? Will he take this opportunity to make such a tribute unstintingly and in public?
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I give without qualification unstinting praise for the service that the SAS gives to this country.
Royal Marines And Royal Netherlands Marines
8.
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the arrangements for joint field exercises between Her Majesty's Royal Marines and the Royal Netherlands Marines.
Yes, Sir. The continuing close co-operation between the two marine corps is of a very high order.
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that I visited such a joint exercise in Norway last February? Have any such joint exercises been held since, and will there be a similar exercise in Norway in the new year? Finally, is my hon. Friend aware of the very high reputation for efficiency which Her Majesty's Royal Marines have built with their NATO comrades?
Yes, Sir, I was aware of my hon. Friend's visit and equally aware of how much it was appreciated. I know also of the companionship of the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) which he enjoyed on that occasion. I am glad to be able to say that there have been such joint exercises since, notably on Salisbury Plain, in November. The Royal Marines Reserve trained with the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps in Holland in November. I was glad to be able to observe part of the exercise myself, and, like my hon. Friend, I was most impressed by the very close co-operation that existed between the two forces and the very high standard that, as always, they achieved.
Does the Minister agree that this very close co-operation between the two marine corps is an example to the rest of NATO, and will he try to see that it is extended?
Indeed, I see it as a model for NATO. I hope that it will be broadened, built upon and made to grow and develop in the years to come.
Forces' Pay
9.
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will request the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to publish a table to illustrate the comparability of Service pay with other groups over the past five years.
19.
asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will invite the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to include a table illustrating the levels of Forces' pay set against comparable civilian grades for the past five years.
I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on 15th November.
But is the Minister not aware that the present Government have provoked the first ever strikes of firemen and the air traffic control services and have only just avoided a strike of policemen? Does he think that this matter of pay can be allowed to drift on until the Armed Forces are demoralised to the extent that would please the trade union hacks opposite and allow the Services to be subjected to the dangers of mutiny?
Instead of making provocative remarks like that, the hon. Gentleman would be more helpful if he made clear whether he supports the pay policy.
Does the Minister agree that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body will have no credibility left unless it publishes a table showing the decline in comparability and, moreover, unless it makes its own recommendation on the appropriate level of Service pay and does not attempt to second-guess what the Government would allow?
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, these are all matters for the pay review body, which is an independent body whose status has not changed under this Government as compared in its status under their predecessors.
Does the Minister appreciate that those of us who want arms cuts do not want them at the expense of Service men's pay? Instead of using Service men as cheap sweated labour—we are on their side—would it not be better to cut the £900 million a year spent on military R and D? Would not a trade union help Service men to secure their rights?
My hon. Friend has posed many questions, but I welcome his support for proper pay for members of the Armed Forces.
Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the only proper and sensible answer to the original question is a simple "Yes"? Does he further realise that there is now a serious situation over pay in the Armed Forces and that it will be intolerable if the Government try to hide behind the Armed Forces Pay Review Body next April? Is it not imperative that the full facts be made known by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and that full tables of comparability should be published?
I rather think that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants us to accomplish the destruction of the independence of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, and that is something that we have no intention whatever of doing.
Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that answer is complete nonsense? Is he aware that the Secretary of State wrote to me a fortnight ago saying that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body was a completely indipendent body, and second, that the Government always expected it to do what it was told?
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would produce the document from which he purports to quote, because I am sure that that is a total distortion of what my right hon. Friend said.
Policy
10.
asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether British and NATO defence policy in Western Europe still relies on the doctrine of flexible response.
Yes, Sir.
Do not the inadequate arrangements for reinforcing our troops on the Continent, as shown by the reports of the Expenditure Sub-Committee and the Ministry's observations on those reports, mean that we should have to resort to nuclear weapons at an unnecessarily early stage in any future conflict? Is not that situation the result of the Governments' five defence cuts?
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that our flexible response continues to rely on the three elements—strategic and theatre nuclear weapons, and conventional forces. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that our robust frontline conventional forces now committed to NATO are a much more substantial contribution than the earlier "tripwire" strategy which was embarked upon by his colleagues.
Can my hon. Friend tell us a bit more about our geriatric nuclear forces? Will he assure the House that our nuclear strategic forces will be viable into the 1980s?
Our present nuclear capability is fully committed to NATO and will continue to be so committed so long as it has a useful life.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Select Committee's report highlighted the immense problems of relying upon a long period of warning in order to get the right reinforcements over to the central front? Will the hon. Gentleman think again whether it really is right that we can rely upon the present policy without doing something to improve the reinforcement capability?
Our reinforcement capability is subject to tests from time to time by the use of military exercises, and we are reasonably satisfied that it can meet the obligations that have been placed upon it.
In terms of the NATO commitment, can my hon. Friend give some indication of the cost, across the balance of payments, of our commitment—certainly, in Western Germany—as part of the almost £1,000 million per-year that we now spend on overseas military commitments?
I cannot give detailed figures without notice, but I can tell my hon. Friend that our forces committed to NATO are there for the prime purpose of defending the freedom of this country and, in so doing, defending the freedom of the Western world.
Is the Minister aware that this Government, by their policy of cutting more than 12,500 troops from the front line and by their postponement of the deployment of Milan, Blowpipe and other absolutely essential pieces of equipment, are guilty of lowering the nuclear threshold and going back to the old policy of "tripwire"?
Does not the hon. Gentleman take the point that his continued sniping at the military capabilities of this country does nothing to enhance the morale of our Armed Forces or the efforts of this Government to overcome grave economic problems—efforts that are aimed at re-establishing our ability to deal with our domestic economic situation and our requirement to defend ourselves?
The hon. Gentleman will have seen Dr. Luns' recent letter which expressed criticisms of Her Majesty's Government rather more strident than those uttered by my hon. Friend. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that Dr. Luns was sniping at Her Majesty's Government?
No, not at all. The right hon. Gentleman is putting an incorrect interpretation upon the remarks of Dr. Luns. We welcome the frank and constuctive comments that have been made by our NATO allies and we have taken note of them.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have said to his hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill)—I almost described him as his "side-kick", but I should not like to dignify the hon. Gentleman with that description—that if the Opposition were to be more forthcoming in their support of the Government's general economic strategy this country's economic recovery would move forward at a much more rapid pace and we should be able to do many more things that we want to see done.Ministry Staff (Dispersal)
11.
asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest costing of the proposed move of Ministry of Defence staff from London to Cardiff.
The provisional estimate of the gross cost to Her Majesty's Government of Ministry of Defence dispersal to Cardiff is between £70 million and £80 million at current prices over the period up to 1987–88.
Has the Minister any idea when the move to the Principality will take place, and has a liaison committee been set up with the local authorities to facilitate that move?
The move to Cardiff is due to take place in 1983–84. I cannot give the hon. and learned Gentleman a precise answer on the other point that he raises, but I should be quite happy to write to him.
Is the Minister aware that the prospective move of 5,000 defence civil servants to Glasgow will be even more costly and far more disruptive, and will gravely impair the efficiency of the Ministry? Why not scrap the whole expensive scheme?
I am aware of the disruption that the dispersal will cause to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and, to a degree, to my own constituents, but the Government believe that it is right to continue the policy of dispersal, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal on 29th July this year, when he went into great detail on the cost and timing of the whole dispersal programme.
Industrial Capability
12.
asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he last discussed the country's industrial capability for defence with the various trade associations representing defence industries.
As part of the continuing dialogue with industry on matters of this kind, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence chaired a meeting of the National Defence Industries Council on 24th November.
Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will take some action on the representations made at that meeting with regard not only to the placing of orders to maintain existing equipment but to the replacement of vital plant or the installation of new plant?
It was a very constructive meeting and I was not aware of any dissent between the two sides of the table. Let me refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory by telling him that 70 per cent. of our procurement is wholly from United Kingdom sources and another 20 per cent. is in collaborative projects.
What discussions have the Government had with the engineering and other unions about the Government's job destruction programme, about which the hon. Gentleman answered a Question of mine earlier this year, involving no fewer than 218,000 job losses in the Services and defence industries by 1979?
As I told the hon. Gentleman then—he seems to have forgotten—the purpose of defence expenditure is not to create jobs but to provide for the defence of the country.
Expenditure
14.
asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement about the implementation of defence cuts.
Our NATO allies have commented on the provisional list of savings measures for 1978–79 which we put to them in the summer and have not suggested any variations. We shall shortly be reviewing the list in the light of the most up-to-date assessment of spending patterns next year as this emerges from the preparation of detailed Estimates.
If the Minister really believes that the letter from the Secretary-General of NATO was constructive, will the Secretary of State in Brussels this afternoon be repudiating the defence cuts and responding to the savage criticism that Dr. Luns made of the Government? As the country's financial situation and the reserves have improved quite dramatically since these cuts were made, surely the Government should now review them with a view to reducing unemployment in the defence industries?
I say again that we welcome the frank and constructive approach that NATO, and Dr. Luns in particular, has displayed towards the propositions that we put forward. Naturally, NATO is concerned, in the face of the serious build-up of the Warsaw Pact forces, about the whole capability of Western defence. But NATO also recognises, as does Dr. Luns, that even with the planned reductions being put into effect by the United Kingdom we are still spending 5 per cent. of our national income on defence. The declaration by Ministers at the May meeting of the Defence Ministers recognised that because of their current economic situation some countries would have difficulty in meeting certain obligations which had been agreed.
Despite what was said a few moments ago, will my hon. Friend tell the House whether he has an assessment of what unemployment will be in the defence industries as a result of the present cuts? Will he also give joy to some of my colleagues by saying what cuts in employment are likely to take place if the anti-defence programme outlined by some of his hon. Friends were put into effect?
There can be no doubt that reductions in defence expenditure have led, and will lead, to a reduction in job opportunities in the defence industries. So far, there has been a significant contribution to the unemployment figures due to reductions in defence expenditure, and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that if we were to embark upon defence expenditure reductions in excess of £1,000 million from the existing target the effects on employment would be very grave indeed.
In view of Government policy in regard to defence industries, is it not a pity that the expense of moving parts of the defence establishment to Cardiff and Glasgow, which has absolutely nothing to do with defence, should fall upon the defence budget?
That part of the expense of dispersal that falls upon the Ministry of Defence is related to its personnel, and it could be argued—indeed, it is argued—that it is appropriate that it falls on the defence budget. Over the years there will be considerable savings resulting from the dispersal policy.
Will my hon. Friend make clear once more to Opposition Members opposite that a country that is relatively economically and industrially weak cannot in any circumstances be militarily strong? Is it not, therefore, necessary that we maintain our priorities and are not misled by the Opposition, because for every Service man who has lost his job as a result of cuts there are five people in other spheres who have likewise lost their jobs?
I do not dissent from the general thesis that my right hon. Friend has put forward. I believe that it would be in the interests of the country, and particularly of the Armed Forces, if the Opposition took a more constructive and useful attitude towards Government policy, which is succeeding in getting this country back on to its economic feet.
Fire Fighting
17.
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the fire-fighting capabilities of Her Majesty's Forces.
18.
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the participation of the Armed Services in fire fighting during the firemen's strike.
26.
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of troops during the firemen's strike.
Men from all three Services who are providing emergency fire cover, supported by the specialist firefighting teams from the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force, are performing these duties with conspicuous skill and courage and have succeeded in preventing much loss of life and damage to property throughout the country. They have done all that, indeed more than, could reasonably have been expected or asked of them.
I am sure that the House will have heard with deep regret of the death of two young soldiers of the 1st Royal Irish early today, one a single man, the other married with two children, and will wish to join me in expressing deep sympathy to their next of kin and to other members of their families.I should like to associate myself with the Minister's remarks about the way in which Armed Forces have conducted themselves in fire fighting and in his sympathy for the two members of the Service who were killed today. Will he tell the House how much longer he expects the Government to be bailed out by the Armed Forces, particularly as they are paid considerably less than the striking firemen? Will he tell the House when the Government expect to implement the hope expressed by his right hon. Friend in the House two weeks ago that it is the Government's aim to restore parity of Service pay as quickly as possible?
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks.
It would be a rash man who made predictions about the duration of the strike. I am sure that the Services will continue, for as long as is necessary, to do their duty as they have done. There is nothing that I can add to what my right hon. Friend said about the restoration of comparability of military pay.Is the Minister satisfied that the living and working conditions of the troops have been improved, in view of the horrific stories that we have heard?
I am obliged to the hon. Lady. I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have visited troops' accommodation throughout the country since the strike began. By and large, the troops' morale is extremely good. There have been cases of sub-standard accommodation, which was inevitable in an emergency operation of this sort. Some of the cases reported in the Press have been grossly exaggerated. I spoke to the commanding officer of what was supposed to be the "Cockroach Hilton". He was extremely indignant about the story and said that there was not a cockroach in the place. The BBC sent a "Nationwide" team which spent an hour there trying to find a cockroach to film, but went away unsuccessful.
As the firemen's strike could well last a long time, will the Minister reconsider the Government's policy not to allow troops to have access to sophisticated fire-fighting equipment? Is he aware that the argument that only men who are suitably trained can have access to that sophisticated equipment gets less and less valid as the strike lasts longer and longer, becaue it is obvious that in the time that has so far passed the troops could have been taught to use that good equipment?
This is the third time today that I have been invited to answer that question. The answer remains exactly the same. The best advice—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman who said that is wrong. The advice that we continue to get from senior and experienced fire officers is that it would be unsafe for men just to be trained in the use of breathing apparatus because it needs months of experience, when one goes into a smoke filled room. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about ladders?"] It is precisely the same with ladders, as the hon. Gentleman would know if he had been here earlier. That is the advice of senior experienced fire officers, who know a lot more about these matters than he does. They tell us that it would be very unsafe to send Service men up high-rise ladders when they do not have the skill and experience to know, for example, when a factory wall might fall out, with great danger to themselves.
Does my hon. Friend agree that an increasingly large section of the British public is satisfied with the fire-fighting capabilities of the firemen and wish that the Government would come to an accommodation with them in order not to have to employ soldiers at all?
I think that everybody would endorse my hon. Friend's view.
In view of the hon. Gentleman's excessively complacent remarks about the accommodation of the troops who are fire fighting, can he assure the House that they are no longer living in the conditions that my right hon. Friend and I saw a fortnight ago in the Honourable Artillery Company's headquarters?
We have been at pains to investigate any allegations of substandard accommodation where the troops are complaining about the quality of their accommodation. It has been difficult to find more than one or two examples throughout the country. When the troops have been in what is admittedly substandard accommodation they have been reluctant to move out because they have made themselves comfortable and prefer to be where they started. The hon. Gentleman should know enough about these matters not to go stirring up trouble where he knows none exists.
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the tragic loss of life in the North-West today. Many hon. Members will think that an award for gallantry would be appropriate in the circumstances. Will the Minister ask the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to see the leaders of the Fire Brigades Union again to try to persuade them that they can return to their normal duties with honour, not for their sakes but to prevent the loss of any more Service men who are trying to do the job in respect of which others have more skill, more knowledge and more experience?
I am sure that my right hon. Friends will have taken note of my hon. Friend's remarks.
It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying, whenever we criticise him, that we are stirring up trouble. It is the policies, or non-policies, of the Government that have stirred up trouble. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I saw troops living in disgraceful conditions in the HAC headquarters. Will the hon. Gentleman now answer my question whether they are still living in those conditions?
I have already said that we have had virtually no complaints from the troops. We have invited them to say whether they want to be moved, and in a few cases they have been moved. By and large, they are content with their accommodation. That is so in many establishments throughout the country—far more than the right hon. Gentleman has visited. Instructions have been sent out to all commands that if anything extra can be done for the troops by way of Christmas benefits they have only to let us know and we shall see what we can do to help them.
As the whole House is keen to ensure that the strike comes to an end and believes that the troops do not need to participate in this highly dangerous activity, is it not time to consider again a solution within the 10 per cent. limit? That would mean the 10 per cent., plus the rent allowance that is payable to the police, plus a look at the question of minimum hours, which is negotiable.
I can only tell the hon. Lady that I hope as much as she does that negotiations will be resumed.
Will the Minister say how many Service men are doing the jobs of how many firemen?
A total of over 18,000 Service men are involved in all capacities.
Prime Minister (Engagements)
Q1.
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 6th December.
In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Brussels, I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is today attending the meeting of the European Council.Has the Lord President had time to consult the Prime Minister about the events of yesterday and the vote on the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson)? Can he now make a clear statement to the House about the Government's intentions?
I have not yet had the opportunity to consult the Prime Minister on yesterday's events. The House reached an important conclusion and the Government are giving urgent and careful attention to both the debate and the vote.
The Lord President said that the House reached an important conclusion. Is he aware that the conclusion was for the House to adjourn? What inference does the Lord President draw from that? Will the Government do as the House clearly wished, and hold the inquiry in public?
As the hon. Gentleman and, I think, the rest of the House knows, even though the motion is on the Adjournment, the House can reach important conclusions. Such conclusions have been reached on previous Adjournment debates. The Government do not underrate the significance of the debate and the vote and we shall announce at a very early date how we intend to proceed.
Will my right hon. Friend contact the Prime Minister today and ask him to reaffirm to his European colleagues the continuing stance that we have adopted at the near-completion of the textile renegotiations? Will the Prime Minister particularly ask them to reaffirm their commitment to a unilateral declaration that we will go it alone if GATT pushes down the road to greater free trade in this matter?
I am sure that all those considerations are well known to my right hon. Friend in his discussions at Brussels, and that he needs no incitement from me to use the opportunity to stand up for British interests.
When the right hon. Gentleman discusses with the Prime Minister the decision of the House of Commons in favour of more open government—that, I take it, is what the decision meant in the case of the Crown Agents—will he also inform him of a growing suspicion that there is something to hide over the Polish ships deal and that there is, therefore, a need for an urgent Government statement?
On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the proposition which the Government put to the House yesterday, and which was not found acceptable, was not designed to avoid open government in any sense. It was designed to have the matter further and speedily considered.
Of course, we take into account the different view which was expressed by the House in the debate and at the end of it. I do not believe that there is any comparison whatsoever with the Polish ships deal; and I do not believe there is anything to hide in the deal. Indeed, many months ago, it was made plain by the Government that we were prepared to enter into negotiations and to make subsidies available in that deal. I believe that the House accepted that. If it had not been accepted, many more people would have been thrown out of work.Q2.
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6th December 1977.
I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas).As part of his duties on behalf of the Prime Minister today, will the Lord President clarify a point that concerns firemen and others? What is voluntary about the present pay code?
It is voluntary by comparison with previous codes. The code that was initiated by our predecessors in office entailed statutory provisions, and the evasion of those provisions could have involved a criminal offence. That is not the case under the present policy.
Reverting to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble), the Lord President will know of the extreme interest and concern of the British textile industry in the bilateral talks which are taking place between the EEC Commission and exporting nations. Therefore, will he have a word with the Secretary of State for Trade to arrange for an early statement in order that we may have the details of these important talks?
I am not sure whether we are trespassing on Thursday's business, but I shall certainly have a discussion with my right hon. Friend about the possibility of a statement on the subject being made to the House before the House rises, if it is necessary. I shall raise with him the questions put by my hon. Friend and by my other hon. Friend, the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble).
Will the Leader of the House be more forthcoming about the Polish ships deal? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Industry to tell us what is happening over this contract, and about the company being formed in Poland—Polsko Brytyjskie Przediewziecie Zeglugowe Sp. Z.Oo Szczecin? Can he tell us how many British seamen will be building up the COMECON merchant fleet?
In reply to the last part of the supplementary question, no British workers will be put out of jobs by these proposals, and no British sailors will be put out of jobs. Indeed, British shipowners have available to them similar assistance. I think that the hon. Gentleman must look at those aspects of the matter much more carefully. However, I hope that the whole House is in favour of a successful conclusion to these negotiations, as the jobs of many of the people represented in the House depend upon it.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if these orders had been placed abroad, as they might well have been, a great number of workers in this country would certainly have lost their jobs, and the position of British shipowners would have been no better?
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The Government will not be deterred from their efforts to try to secure jobs for British workers by the catcalls of Opposition Members.
Will the Leader of the House now come back to the central point of the question about the Polish shipbuilding deal? Does he recollect that it is two months since the Prime Minister announced that the contract was about to be concluded and six months since one of his noble Friends told another place that details of the financial arrangements would be made known as soon as they were completed? Will he give the House an assurance that details of those arrangements will be made public—as to the subsidy involved and as to the penalty clauses involved—as soon as possible? Can he tell us when those details will be forthcoming?
I shall certainly look into the question when, in fact, would be the most appropriate time for a statement to be made to the House on all the questions that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised. But I should have thought that in view of the two months and the even longer period that he and his hon. Friends have had in which to discuss those matters, they might be favourably disposed to those who are fighting to get jobs for British workers.
Secretary Of State For Foreign And Commonwealth Affairs
Q3.
asked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), on 24th November.On the subject of Rhodesia, is the Lord President aware that the Foreign Secretary is in danger of alienating not only Mr. Smith but also the Patriotic Front, which yesterday described the Foreign Secretary, somewhat alarmingly, as both Machiavellian and bloodthirsty? Does he agree that the most encouraging signs in this dreadful crisis are the efforts being made within Rhodesia to effect an internal settlement?
I do not accept any of the strictures that the hon. Gentleman, if he is purveying—or purporting to purvey—the views of others, is seeking to cast on my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I believe that the proposals that he has put forward are still being considered by all the parties concerned. Certainly we are not withdrawing those proposals, and I think that while they are there it would be very unwise for hon. Members to comment upon them in the manner in which the hon. Gentleman has done.
Can the Lord President shed any light on a suggestion made by the Foreign Secretary in a speech to Scotland, in Edinburgh, on Friday, 25th November, that somehow or other a Scottish Assembly would be consulted in an institutional way on British policy towards the European Common Market?
I know that my hon. Friend studies these matters and follows them with the greatest care. We have had discussions in the House already on that aspect of the Scotland Bill. There are still to be discussed clauses in the Bill which will refer to this matter, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will raise the matter then.
While the future of the Foreign Secretary is under discussion, has the Leader of the House drawn the attention of the Prime Minister to this country's treaty obligation to its EEC partners to modify our exchange control regulations by the end of this year to ensure that our firms are free to undertake direct investment in Community countries, and are these obligations going to be honoured?
Since the hon. Gentleman's premise is false, the rest of his question does not really arise. But there is plenty of time to discuss that whole question. Many months lie ahead before decisions have to be made upon it.
Three weeks.
Is it not becoming increasingly and tragically obvious that the people of Zimbabwe will achieve their freedom only by fighting for it? Is it not important, therefore, that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary should have consultations to see how we might best financially and materially assist the liberation movements which are fighting for their freedom?
The British Government have had consultations with all the parties concerned, both in Zimbabwe and outside. We still hope for, and are trying to secure, a peaceful solution in the interests of all the peoples in the whole of Southern Africa.
I welcome the reproof of the Leader of the House to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth (Mr. Grocott) for his really dangerous assertion that this matter can be settled only by warfare, but may I return to the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris)? Can he assure the House that if the Foreign Secretary sees Mr. Nkomo he will press upon him the need to take an active part in the discussions, in which Muzorewa, Sithole and Chirau have all now joined, with the Rhodesian Front Government, with a view to a peaceful settlement in Rhodesia?
Since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs took the initiative with all the different parties in seeking to open up the discussions that could lead to that settlement, I do not think that it is necessary for me to give him that incitement. Of course, in his discussions with all parties, he is seeking to guide them towards a peaceful solution.
National Economic Development Council
Q4.
asked the Prime Minister what subjects he proposes to discuss with the National Economic Development Council when he next takes the chair at its meeting.
I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend hopes to take the chair at NEDC from time to time, but has no specific date or subject in mind at present.Does the Lord President see anything to please the British taxpayer in £20 million of the taxpayers' money being invested in the Fairey Engineering Group, when there was a valid bid for these enterprises from the private sector? Will he ask the Prime Minister to discuss at NEDO this unacceptable extension of the business empire of civil servants and politicians?
I do not think that there is anything unacceptable about it. It has always been made clear that the National Enterprise Board would be willing, in suitable circumstances, to invest in profitable industry and to intervene in such a way. Therefore, this case is no departure from the principles previously laid down. I know that some objections have been raised by, I think, Mr. Victor Matthews of Trafalgar House. I wish only that Mr. Victor Matthews would spend more time trying to save the quarry which he owns in my constituency, rather than trying to buy up something else.
In view of my right hon. Friend's well-known opposition to a statutory policy on wages—although it has been having a rough time lately, as we all appreciate—how does he look forward to the ideas expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this morning of statutory pay policy phases 9, 10 and 11?
I repudiate any suggestion not merely that my right hon. Friend made any reference to statutory pay policy phases 9, 10 or 11 but that he referred to any statutory pay policy phases 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or any intervening number, either. Let my hon. Friend not have any misapprehension on the subject. I am still opposed to any statutory policy of that nature. I think it would be absolutely wrong. It was the insistence on such a statutory policy, with all the apparatus of penal clauses and penal offences, which led to the three-day working week and the catastrophe then. I certainly do not want any repetition of that, nor does any other member of the Government.
Reverting to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), is the Leader of the House aware that many private enterprise companies wishing to bid for parts of the Fairey empire were denied access to the accounts by the receiver, apparently because the National Enterprise Board was putting in a bid? How can it be right for taxpayers' money to be spent in this way before all the bids from other companies have been considered?
It has been made clear from the start that the National Enterprise Board was not set up solely for the purpose of assisting in dealing with industries that might be in difficulties. The Board was given a greater freedom than that, and we believe that to be absolutely right in the interests of the nation as a whole. It was on that basis that the Act was passed, and the hon. Gentleman should understand that, too.
Disabled Persons (Mobility)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about mobility for the disabled.
The House will be aware that the mobility allowance for the disabled went up substantially last month, from £5 to £7 a week—an increase of 40 per cent. The Government are convinced that a cash benefit is generally the most appropriate way of helping severely disabled people with their mobility. First, cash provides flexibility. It allows disabled people to make their own decisions in ways that fit their individual needs. Secondly, a cash allowance does not discriminate unfairly against those who are too severely disabled to drive. The mobility allowance is paid to drivers and non-drivers alike. It has already brought mobility help to about 60,000 people who would have received no assistance whatever under the old scheme. I am pleased to be able to inform the House today that, with effect from July 1978, the rate will be £10 per week, and will thus have doubled in less than a year. I know that this major boost in help for the disabled will be warmly welcomed, not only on both sides of the House but also by the roughly 100,000 people expected to receive the allowance when fully phased in. The Government have also decided that the new and higher level of mobility allowance should, in future, be protected against inflation. There will, therefore, be an annual uprating starting in November 1979. The allowance will of course continue to be taxable, which ensures that it gives the most help to those in greatest need. No Government can be expected to meet all the mobility needs of the disabled. It is reasonable for the disabled, like other people, to contribute to the cost of their own mobility. Any help which can be given to assist disabled people to make the best use of their resources is clearly very much to be welcomed. The House will recall that with this in mind I and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the disabled have been engaged in discussions with a number of organisations and individuals over recent months. I am pleased to say that these discussions have now borne fruit. At our suggestion, a group of prominent people drawn from the professions, from finance and industry, from voluntary bodies and from the trade unions, and chaired by Lord Goodman, has now set up a voluntary organisation for the United Kingdom, working in collaboration with the Government, to ensure that disabled people, both drivers and passengers, who want to use their mobility allowance to obtain a vehicle will get maximum value for their money in doing so. This new charitable body, to be known as Motability, is announcing today its composition and aims, and a copy of Lord Goodman's statement is being placed in the Library of the House. Motability will be an independent organisation. Under a council the organisation will have an executive committee headed by Mr. Jeffrey Sterling, Motability's vice-chairman. The organisation will work in conjunction with the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and the corresponding organisations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It will decide itself how to fulfil its aims, and what its priorities should be, with the advice of the disabled and their spokesmen. Motability will have a number of objectives. It will give guidance and advice to disabled people on vehicles and adaptations and will negotiate discounts and other special arrangements for disabled people. Motability also aims to enable disabled people to have the personal use of a car by means of a leasing scheme. Detailed discussions about such a scheme are well advanced. It is expected that the clearing banks will make substantial loan funds available, and that the scheme will get under way by next summer. In addition, Motability plans to raise funds. These could be used, for example, to assist in certain cases with the cost of adaptations or, exceptionally, the running costs of a vehicle. While Motability has already opened an office, the organisation is not yet ready to receive detailed inquiries or applications for help, and disabled people should therefore await a further announcement.On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot remember an occasion when a member of the Front Bench has advertised a private organisation in this way.
I am referring to a charitable organisation.
The large increases in mobility allowance last month and next July, together with the formation of the new Motability organisation, mark a major advance in the provision of mobility for the disabled, drivers and non-drivers alike. This is a field in which both the voluntary sector and the Government have a rôle. The Government will continue to fulfil their responsibility. I am sure the House will wish to join me in welcoming the initiative of Lord Goodman and his colleagues and in wishing their venture every success.Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition are indeed grateful to have been kept informed of these negotiations with Lord Goodman and his colleagues? Is he aware that we warmly welcome both the increase in the mobility allowance and the formation of Motability? Is he aware that the House will applaud the public-spirited initiative of the banks and other private sector companies in making this generous new contribution to mobility for the disabled?
May I put three questions to the Secretary of State? Although he described Motability as an independent organisation, is it not the case that his Department will provide administrative support? If that is so, how far will he, as Secretary of State, be accountable to the House for the actions and decisions of the organisation? Secondly, can he confirm that we are talking about very big money indeed, because Lord Goodman's statement speaks of sums of up to £100 million being made available by the clearing banks on very favourable terms? Will the scheme help disabled people who may not qualify for mobility allowance—for instance, because of age—but who nevertheless need help to provide a vehicle? Thirdly, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect the new scheme to become operative? He will be aware of the great anxiety of disabled people following his statement of July 1976—particularly the young and newly disabled—who have not been able to have a vehicle provided for them. How much longer will they have to wait, and will legislation be necessary to allow for the assignment of mobility allowance to Motability as part of the proposed leasing arrangements? May I end by wishing Lord Goodman, Mr. Jeffrey Sterling and their colleagues well and say that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I are looking forward to becoming patrons of Motability.I think it is right that an initiative on behalf of disabled people in all parts of the country should be supported without regard to politics. It is right in these circumstances, with the very significant help given by the Government and announced by me today, that there should be a partnership between Government and voluntary sector in doing everything we can to meet the needs of disabled people, and I therefore very much appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's introductory welcome.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, Motability is an independent and non-Government organisation. The right hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that the Government will give assistance under Section 64 of the Health Service and Public Health Act 1968. That will be a grant towards administration costs. The only accountability to the Government will be for the expenditure that we make under Section 64, otherwise it will be responsible only to the general public. In answer to the second question, it is true that we are dealing with large sums. The clearing banks have agreed to make available a sum of up to £100 million on terms that are appreciably more favourable than could be procured by any individual disabled person. This should enable Motability to work out a scheme for leasing cars at minimum cost and in certain circumstances to enable a disabled person to purchase a car. Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether it would help people who are beyond retirement age. I cannot answer for Motability, but I am quite certain that in its initial phases it will want to concentrate on certain priority groups. My own hope and expectation is that one of the first groups to which it would give attention includes those young people who in other circumstances might have been able to obtain a three-wheeled vehicle but who now would like simply to have a vehicle of some sort. But it is for Motability to decide. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked when the arrangement would come into operation. I said in my statement that it would come into operation by the summer. I have no doubt that early next year Motability will make a further announcement. It may be that it will be able to take applications earlier than seems likely. I know that there is an early meeting of its executive committee, and I have little doubt that it will make known to the country the arrangements that it will be able to offer to disabled people.rose—
Order. May I appeal to the House for brevity in questions and replies as far as possible because, although I hope to call a reasonable number of hon. and right hon. Members, we shall be taking the time that is covered by a timetable motion later today.
Would my right hon. Friend consider getting in touch with the leaders of the various organisations for the disabled to ask them how best he can help them to inform their members of the two elements which he has described to the House today so that their members, who will be the ultimate recipients, are given as much information as quickly as possible?
May I say, first, that representatives of several of the organisations representing disabled people are on the Council of Motability. May I also add that my hon. Friend is holding a meeting early this afternoon bringing together many of the organisations to acquaint them precisely with the details.
May I ask the Secretary of State whether his increase in mobility allowances and Motability will apply equally to those who are unable to walk as a result of mental handicaps but who would obtain benefit from mobility, as well as those physically handicapped? Secondly, in those rare cases where he decides to object to the decision of a medical tribunal that has granted a mobility allowance, will legal aid be provided for handicapped persons who fight and appeal?
The increased figure will of course apply to all those who are entitled to mobility allowance whatever their age—provided, of course, that they are of an age that has already been phased in. I am already in correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman about the last part of his question and, as he knows, he has an Adjournment debate tomorrow evening.
Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask him to convey our congratulations to the Minister with responsibility for the disabled for the work he has done in this field and all those outside who have given assistance in getting this scheme off the ground?
In the light of the problems Members of Parliament face, will my right hon. Friend please make sure on this occasion of this also? A new scheme is bound to have snags. There will be hardship and there will be anomalies. May we please ask him this time for speedy and sympathetic treatment of the anomalies and hardships?I certainly want to pay the warmest tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the disabled, who has been battling constantly on behalf of disabled people and who has played a very important part in bringing about the announcement that I have been able to make today. He is frequently in touch with the organisations of disabled people, which have been especially helpful. I pay my tribute to RADAR, with which we have been in discussion over many months. But I also add those organisations that have been involved, particularly in recent weeks, in the finalisation of the establishment of Motability. Certainly I will do my best, if there are particular problems, to deal with them quickly. Those, of course are the problems which I am very ready to discuss with Motability when it gets under way.
Obviously we welcome the statement and recognise that this will undo some of the difficulties that were created by the abolition of the trike. But would the Minister agree that what is required is a specially designed four-wheeled vehicle for this category? If he agrees with that, could be let us know what progress has been made towards this objective?
I certainly cannot say that everyone needs to have a specialised vehicle. But it is likely that some will have that need. My Department and the Department of Transport have prepared a research study of the needs of disabled people and passengers, and the extent to which it is practicable for those needs to be met by the adaptation of production cars and the requirement for a specialised vehicle. Discussions about the project with the Motor Industry's Research Association are already at an advanced stage.
I welcome the additional resources being given to the disabled, but is the Secretary of State aware of the considerable dismay of those aged 63 and above who can see the mobility allowance fading before their eyes, in that it will not come in until they are over 65? Does he not think that, in those circumstances, any additional resources should be used to speed up the bringing of these people into any such scheme?
It is important to get the mobility allowance at its new level properly under way. I have given an assurance that all the categories up to retirement age will have been phased in by the end of 1979. The latest groups to be phased in were those aged 53 and 54. The problem of pensioners will have to follow. We shall see how, with all the demands on resources, we can build on the substantial scheme that I have announced today.
Is my right hon Friend aware that we on this side of the House warmly congratulate him and the Minister who has responsibility for the disabled on this important new development in mobility for the disabled? But is he also aware that the Government's welcome decision to index the mobility allowance means that the only important social security benefit remaining unindexed and not uprated annually is child benefit?
The issue raised by my right hon. Friend at the tail end of her very warm and congratulatory supplementary question is now under consideration.
Is the Minister aware that his welcome statement this afternoon leaves one gap? It concerns those who will be receiving the mobility allowance but who are unable to collect it themselves. Will he make sure that those who continue to receive cash will have it posted to them in the way that other benefits are sent?
That is a question that my hon. Friend already has under review. No doubt he will give an answer to this issue when a Question is asked. I have been asked whether the mobility allowance had to be paid directly, or whether it could be assigned, and I did not answer that question. My Department pays benefit to approved agents appointed by beneficiaries and it will pay the allowance to the leasing organisation as long as the beneficiary wishes us to do so.
May I add the congratulations of the Scottish National Party for the work done by the Secretary of State and the Minister with responsibility for the disabled and welcome this new up-rating? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, however, how he intends to define the priorities within this system? Does it mean that those who already have vehicles will come down the list, as indicated in Lord Goodman's report?
The question of priorities, not only under the leasing scheme, but under funds raised by Motability, is entirely for Motability to decide for itself. I should add that I agree with the hon. Lady: this is a great step forward, particularly the decision that there can be a leasing scheme. Many disabled people cannot afford to buy a car. They cannot afford to put down the money for a deposit for a car. The leasing scheme will deal with that problem, and the mobility allowance will be used to pay back the loan over several years.
I welcome this important advance, and I congratulate the Government in general, the Minister with responsibility for the disabled in particular, and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), who was fighting this cause many years before it became popular to do so. May I ask my right hon. Friend how many cars he expects to be leased when the whole scheme becomes fully operational?
It is difficult to answer that. I, too, should like to add my tribute to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). I think that Members on both sides of the House, through the All-party Disablement Group, have made a great contribution to ensuring not only that the House is constantly aware of these problems but that the Government are pushed from all sides to do the best they can—and that is what we have done today.
It is difficult to make a reliable estimate of the number of cars. "Guestimates" suggest that about 40,000 people upwards will take advantage of these new opportunities and obtain vehicles which they can either drive themselves or which can be available for them.I welcome this announcement, but may I ask the Secretary of State to pay particular attention to the point raised about the old-age pensioner, or the pensioner who finds himself suddenly deprived of the mobility allowance? Will he exert maximum pressure upon this new organisation to try to ensure that these people are eligible for this commutation scheme?
I have no doubt that Motability itself will keep the hon. Gentleman's views in mind. But if we were to say that the whole scheme could apply to all those who have retired, we would add roughly £260 million to the scheme on the £10 basis, because it would apply to so many elderly people, and the more elderly they get the more disabled they are. It would be a monumental burden to bring in them all. Any Government must weigh this up with other priorities. Child benefit is one, although there are many others that the House would want to bring forward.
In order that there shall be no dubiety, will my right hon. Friend confirm that this scheme will apply to Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he also indicate what help the Government intend to give this new organisation that is to be set up?
I can confirm that the scheme applies to Scotland and Wales. It is a United Kingdom project. With regard to assistance, we shall be making a grant to Motability for its administration costs, although not for the costs of its leasing scheme, which Motability itself must bear. We have also put at the disposal of the organisation at least one officer from my Department and have made it clear that, as far as we can, we shall assist with advice and in any other way possible to enable the new organisation to get off to a good start.
I welcome the considerable advance which has been announced today and which all sides of the House have been wanting for a long time. But in view of the increasing demand for the car and decreasing demand for the trike, will the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the future of the production of the trike? It is a matter which will be of great concern to many people who cannot use any other type of vehicle.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked about that. Last July I assured trike drivers that I fully expected to be able to go on maintaining trikes until 1981. I can now tell the House that it looks as though we shall be able to keep them going until 1982 or 1983. Apart from that, I have said that no one who has a trike issued under the old scheme will be made immobile by the phasing out of trikes. I want to confirm that that pledge still stands.
Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has discussed with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether anything given for conversions will be subject to VAT, as at present? This has caused a great sense of grievance.
We must recognise that in making this great step forward, with the additional public expenditure involved at a time when public expenditure is tight, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made a substantial contribution to this project. Therefore, I have not discussed with him whether he can make any further concessions at this time.
Does the Secretary of State appreciate that he did not answer properly the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen)? Will he make quite clear the position about people who have tricycles now, particularly when they are nearing retirement? It is dreadful to have to tell a person who is about to retire and who has become immobile that he is stuck in his own home. What is the position?
We do not take away the trike after the age of retirement. It is not suddenly removed by the bailiff when a person's retirement date is reached. If any hon. Member has any particular cases that are worrying him, I should be most grateful if he would get in touch with me or my hon. Friend.
I thank my right hon. Friend and the Minister for bringing forward these proposals, which I am sure will be greatly appreciated by the majority of organisations for the disabled. But what action will the Government take to give the maximum publicity to the mobility allowance, because there are some people today who are not claiming althought they are entitled to it? I hope, therefore, that the maximum publicity will be given.
With regard to Motability, what discussions will be held with the British motor industry to ensure that it can provide the type of vehicle that will be required, because this will also provide jobs in the car industry in this country?On the last question, my hon. Friend has been very closely in touch with the motor car industry. I know that Motability will be negotiating with the manufacturers as well as with insurance interests and others to ensure that we can make the best use of the facilities that they are able to offer. As for production. I gave some indication of the research being undertaken, and conversion is a matter very central to Motability. On the first part of the question, on publicity, now that this decision has been announced and Motability has come into operation with the support of the organisations for the disabled, we shall do everything possible to maximise the publicity in order that no one who is entitled to this allowance does not make claim.
Will my right hon. Friend agree that the parents of disabled children have benefited from the mobility scheme to an enormous extent, even though they received very little from the old vehicle supply scheme? Will he confirm that Motability, set up for the leasing of cars, will apply to the parents of disabled children?
Yes. It will apply to all. I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the great factors about mobility allowance is not just that it has gone to adult people who are so disabled that they cannot drive but that it has helped the families with disabled children, who have been under very great hardship until this time. The new level of the allowance will make a great deal of difference to the enjoyment of life, both for the families and for the children.
rose—
I propose to call three more hon. Members from each side.
May I thank the Minister for his kind remarks, which in fact are due to the Minister with responsibility for the disabled? Will he say something about the insurance of these vehicles?
I understand that Motability, from the discussions that I have had, will be negotiating not only with the motor manufacturers but with the insurance interests. We must await any announcement that Motability can make.
It is quite proper—I am thinking of the observation by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English)—that these matters, which involve negotiating with finance houses, banks, manufacturers and insurance interests, should be carried out by a non-Government organisation. That is much more appropriate than for the Government to do it.What efforts are being made to speed the phasing-in of the mobility allowance?
This is partly a matter of medical manpower and administration. It is a major operation to phase it in. Mobility allowance also, in its early days, involved a large public expenditure and it was difficult to bring in everything all at once. But if it is possible before the end of 1979 to phase in all those who are entitled under the Act, I shall certainly do so.
Further to the question posed by my hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), why cannot the three-wheeled Invacar continue to be made available through the Motability scheme?
In looking at the question of vehicles, it may be decided at some stage that a specialised vehicle would be appropriate. Under leasing arrangements, there may be a demand for a very large number of vehicles, as I hinted to the House earlier. I do not think that Motability necessarily excludes the possibility of a leasing scheme being linked to a specialised vehicle. Whether we are talking about the existing vehicle or about another vehicle is another matter. I should have thought that it would not be the existing one, for the precise safety reason which explained why my hon. Friend and I felt it was quite proper to phase out the vehicle.
While congratulating the Minister on his splendid announcement, may I ask him to tell us whether the new organisation will be able to assist disabled persons with the cost of major motor overhauls, if they are already using most of their allowance to lease vehicles from the new organisation? Secondly, am I right in thinking that no one will have a new vehicle leased to him until the rate has gone up to £10 weekly?
I am sure that the officers and committee members of the new organisation will listen to what my hon. Friend has said and to what has been said from both sides of the House. I think it would be very unwise of me to seek to commit, or to hint at commitments for, an organisation which is just coming into existence. It will have very heavy demands made upon it, and I think that it must get moving at a steady rate and not be expected to do everything all at once. I am certain that it will take note of the points made by my hon. Friend.
While joining in the general welcome, may I ask the Secretary of State to come back to this question of pensions that concerns many of us on both sides of the House? In the figure of £260 million that he quoted, does he not seem to lump together all pensioners? Will he try to see whether there are ways of highlighting the particular needs of the pensioner who lives alone and is virtually a prisoner in his own home? Will he encourage Motability to look at the possibility of pooled transport or some local arrangement that will give relief to many who are, literally, prisoners in their own homes?
I do not think that I should go beyond what I have already said. We are under a commitment to bring into mobility allowance all those under pensionable age. I have made clear to the House on previous occasions, and today, that, if resources permit, when we have done this phasing in, or it may be before, we shall see what we can do. We are talking about large sums of public money and recognising that here and now we are putting more public money into mobility than ever before, and it would be most unfair to hold out optimistic hopes to people.
I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for the work they have done in bringing about the extension of the allowances, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern expressed by disabled people about the phasing-out of the trike in that beginners would like a simpler machine, similar to the trike? The young disabled are most concerned about their future. Is my right hon. Friend aware also that many worthy applicants fail to met the harsh criteria for mobility allowance? Has he any views on extending the mobility allowance in this way?
I do not think that I should make any suggestion of extending the mobility allowance beyond the level to which it already has been extended. One question which might arise is that of the category 3 cases. Several people have written to me, and there have been Questions in the House, about whether category 3 cases—those under the old scheme—were being left out of mobility allowance. My hon. Friend and I have gone into this very carefully and we now believe that the fear that they would be excluded was quite unfounded. We have been unable to find anyone who would be entitled to category 3 who has not already qualified for the mobility allowance.
Certainly I know about the problem raised by my hon. Friend from some of the disabled organisations, but I cannot offer to go beyond the announcement I made today.On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon the House has had removed from it an important function—that of the ability, in future, to ask Questions and make a Minister responsible at that Dispatch Box for this mobility aspect of the disabled, simply because the NHS has had hived off from it a function which was normally a Government function. That point had not been raised and, although not wishing to delay the House by cheating and asking a further question, I thought someone should put that fact on the record.
The hon. Gentleman has done it.
Business Of The House
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 4 (Statutory Instruments, &c. (Procedure)), the Motion relating to Sheriff Court (Scotland) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock or for two hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Tinn.]
Statutory Instruments, &C
Ordered,
That the draft Water Charges Equalisation Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Tinn.]
Orders Of The Day
Scotland Bill
[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Considered in Committee [Progress, 30th November].
[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]
4.5 p.m.
On a point of order, Mr. Murton, about which I have given you notice. When we come to the complex financial provisions, possibly next week, could you give some idea, possibly the evening before—I am not implying any criticism of the Chair—as to which amendments you are likely to call? There is a huge number of amendments to the financial provisions on the Amendment Paper and it would be helpful for the Committee to know which you might choose.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for having given me notice of his point of order. I do not think it would be at all helpful to the Committee—it might, indeed, be harmful to the interests of individual Members—if I were to form any judgment about selection until such time as I am aware of all the amendments to be offered to the relevant parts of the Bill, excluding those starred, on the actual day of discussion.
It is the normal practice of the Chair not to make a selection until the morning of the day upon which a Bill is to be taken. I hope that by advancing the process to the previous day in respect of this Bill I have been helpful to the Committee. Further than that I cannot go.Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton, I wish to ask questions about possible amendments and, through you, whether the Government intend to table amendments, first, on health and, secondly, on civil aviation. It will be known to you that over the weekend Mr. James Kyle, the Chairman of the Scottish Committee for Hospital Medical Services and Chairman of the Devolution Group of the Scottish Council of the British Medical Association, said that devolution would not be to the advantage of medicine in Scotland. He also said:
"Scottish doctors do not think the Bill will bring any improvement to the health care of the people of Scotland. Over the years the profession has had an amicable working relationship with the Scottish Home and Health Department and there does not appear to be any need for further devolution on health matters.
Mr. Kyle is reported as saying that:Moreover, the intervention of a Scottish Assembly could well delay progress in the health field.…We have now discussed the Scotland Bill. An amendment has been tabled with a view to maintaining the status quo regarding the present situation of determining terms and conditions of service for doctors on a UK basis."
My point of order is this: have you, Mr. Murton, received any amendment from the Government in the light of Mr. Kyle's remarks? Further, in relation to Clause 66, Mr. Norman Ashton Hill, Chairman of the Air Transport Committee of the Association of the British Chamber of Commerce, said in his letter to the Secretary of State for Trade:"the doctors would watch the progress of the Bill carefully. It was hoped another amendment would be tabled which would have the effect that matters of health—prevention, treatment and alleviation of disease or illness, including injury, disability and mental disorder, family planning and abortion—would continue to be funded as at present on a UK basis."
"It would be intolerable for licensing arrangements for civil aviation to be treated in the cavalier fashion Clause 66 lays down
As the Scotland Bill stands at present, a Minister may, by order, make provisions for the apportionment of any assets or liabilities of the British Airports Authority and may alter the financial limits under which the BAA operate.
The Bill thus proposes to enable the breakup of the BAA in any manner which this or any successor Government may determine. Parliament is being invited to sign a blank cheque.
Mr. Hill went on to say:The association do not believe that the future of the South East airports and the Scottish airports should, in effect, be removed from the supervision of Parliament."
"This is surely a matter which should be retained by the United Kingdom Government, as it could be used to prevent certain aircraft landing at airports. In any dispute between the Scottish Executive and the Department of Trade this devolution would be a highly effective method of reducing civil aviation to a shambles".
On a point of order—
I am on a point of order.
This is an abuse of a point of order.
If civil aviation were to be in a shambles, my hon. Friend, like myself, would find it difficult to get here. It goes on:
In conclusion, Mr. Hill said:"and we would be appalled at a more extensive division of licensing power."
"We believe that the Scotland Bill opens the door to all manner of changes in the arrangements for civil aviation and airports throughout the United Kingdom"—
On a point of order—
Order. I was going to make a comment when the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) had finished his point of order.
He has said too much already.
That is as may be. What I was going to say, first, was very much along the lines already suggested, with which I agree—that it is an abuse of the rules when raising points of order to go on at length. My answer to the second point will be, unlike the hon. Member for West Lothian's submission, very brief. Like all other members of the Committee, I do not expect to have any knowledge of forthcoming amendments from any quarter until they appear on the Order Paper.
In order to protect ourselves, is there any "Index Expurgatorious" so that we can have remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) expunged from the record because they were not a point of order?
Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. We are in some difficulty on amendments because the truth of the matter is that the more the various technical and professional groups get to know about this Bill in Scotland the less they like it.
That is not a matter for the Chair.
Clause 22
Subordinate Instruments
Amendment proposed [30th November]: No. 371, in page 11, leave out lines 11 to 18.—[ Mr. Brittan.]
Question again proposed.
I remind the Committee that we are also discussing Amendment No. 383, in page 11, line 20, leave out 'subsection (6) above' and insert 'this section '.
In the usual terms of expressing the length of a speech in the House, I find that I have been on my feet for nearly six days, which seems to be one way of defeating the guilltoine.
This is an important amendment, but I shall not detain the House for very long in rounding off what I was saying on the last occasion. The amendment to which I want to address my remarks is No. 371, although we have also been discussing Amendment No. 383. Amendment No. 371 seeks to remove subsection (6) from Clause 22. It is subsection (6) that seeks to abolish for Scotland the oldest and most established form of subordinate legislation, the Order in Council, which is used up to the present day. For example, in Acts passed in the last Session of this Parlament provision was made for subordinate legislation by Order in Council. The Order in Council is well described in Halsbury's "Laws of England" asIndeed, in a well-known textbook on the subject, Wade and Phillips on "Constitutional Law", Orders in Council are described in this way:"the general medium by which the manifold statutory powers conferred upon the Crown are exercised, though they may also be employed in expressing the wishes of the Crown with regard to matters falling within its discretionary authority by virtue of the prerogative."
Thus an Order in Council is used for two purposes: for the Crown to legislate when it has been given the power to do so by statute, and for the Crown to legislate within the Prerogative. Usually, when there is subordinate legislation, one can point to a statutory authority for it—certainly when a Minister or Secretary of State legislates—but in many cases the Order in Council is used for subordinate legislation, which is by the Prerogative and not authorised by statute. 4.15 p.m. Under this subsection of Clause 22, we are dealing only with powers given to the Crown by statute and not the use of the Order in Council where the Crown is acting purely on the Prerogative. There will, therefore, be this anomaly. The Order in Council used in Prerogative matters will still remain to be recommended by the Secretary of Sate in our Parliament here. In the several groups of devolved matters in Schedule 10, there may well be some matters which are subject to Order in Council not under any statute but under the Prerogative, such as some educational establishments, local government charters, foreshore rights, fisheries, charities, markets and fairs and, in some cases, tribunals and inquiries. If the Order in Council is to be used in those cases, I suppose that we shall have the Secretary of State here recommending to Her Majesty, and in other cases the Scottish Secretary. That gives us one anomaly out of Clause 22(6). The second difficulty concerns the mysterious master order for which provision is made in subsection (6). Her Majesty by Order in Council—in this case it will be by advice of the Secretary of State here, because the order will come before the House of Commons under subsection (7) on an affirmative resolution—may "make provision for securing" that certain other powers at present exercised by Order in Council shall be exercised in future by the Scottish Secretary. What is intended by"By means of Orders made by the Sovereign, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, are exercised the prerogative and statutory powers of the Crown."
Frequently, the interpretation has been that the Secretary of State may delegate to some other person the power to say that this, that or the other order shall be subject to the relevant provisions. The wording in this subsection could have been that the Order in Council should specify the subjects which in future shall be within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Secretary, not may "make provision for securing". By the use of these words, the master Order in Council could give to the Scottish Secretary the power to usurp the powers of the Crown merely by saying "Hey presto, in future I will exercise the powers of the Crown" without specifying them. On any occasion the Scottish Secretary could make the decision. He is not even required to make the decision by any order. If the mysterious master order, as I have called it, said that the Scottish Secretary shall decide on what occasions he shall have the power to exercise the right which is at present in the Crown by Order in Council, that would be making "provision for securing". If this subsection is to stand, those words must be made more definite and firm. The third matter—this is the final point that I wish to make—is that the significance of an Order in Council is that it is made under a power given to the Crown on the advice of the Privy Council, or, rather, on the advice of that Committee of the Privy Council which we know as the Cabinet. The Order in Council is not made on the advice of any particular Minister, although in practice it may be; but the point, as I see it, of providing for an Order in Council to carry out subordinate legislation is that it shall be an act of the Government as a whole. We are well acquainted with the present Government's contempt for the convention in the constitution that there is collective responsibility in the Cabinet. I suppose that we should not be surprised that the Government have taken the responsibility in this Bill to enshrine their view that no longer shall there be collective responsibility of the Cabinet in coming to any decision, at least as far as concerns Scotland. It is an important constitutional point. The choice, which has frequently been used in recent Bills, of an Order in Council is made, I believe, in order to show that the act is of the Government as a whole. When, in this subsection, it is said that in certain cases in future it shall not be an act of the Government as a whole but an act of a very subordinate Minister—the Scottish Secretary—a substantial change is made to the constitution. That change is so vaguely worded in the subsection that one cannot be certain either what change is being made or how it is being carried out. I beg the Government to think again about the subsection and to take it away and redraft it if they are determined to make the constitutional change. But I should prefer to see it not brought back."make provision for securing that"?
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has done the Committee a service by brushing away some of the debris which concealed the nature of subsection (6). That subsection is like a manhole cover. When one lifts it up, one finds a very deep hole underneath. In fact, in a Jules Verne-type of way, it is such a deep hole that, like most other amendments to the Bill which have been put forward, it leads down into the very heart of the matter.
One understands what the subsection is designed to do and why the Government have been forced into the extra ordinary position—its extraordinary nature has been made clear by the right hon. Member for Crosby—of saying that an Order in Council, when it relates to Scotland, shall not be an Order in Council at all but shall be treated as if it were a ministerial order. We then find that it is not a ministerial order but an order of a Scottish Secretary, which is a type of twofold process of degradation. The word is not meant to be opprobrious, so the Minister of State need not take offence. The reason why the Government are in this difficulty is that they do not propose at present to create a Scottish Privy Council. Of course, when Home Rule for Ireland was enacted in 1914, an Irish Privy Council was established. If we had done that for Scotland, in the Bill, no doubt there could have been order by Order in Council as well as order by ministerial order, as proposed in the Bill at present. However, the Government stepped back from the implications of that course and by doing so they brought before the Committee the curious nature of this animal, the Scottish Secretary, who is not a Minister of the Crown but will behave exactly as a Minister of the Crown, using the Secretary of State—and we have explored that on previous amendments—as a sort of channel of the Royal Prerogative at one remove. But when the Government came to Orders in Council, they found that they implied Her Majesty's Ministers, the members of Her Privy Council, advising her to make an Order in Council. Since that was not, at present, what they were going to do in the case of Scotland—I am sure that hon. Members of the Scottish National Party will take an interest in this—they produced this double barrier, as it were, between the Crown and Scottish Ministers, as they really are, so that the true nature of those Ministers should be obscured. This is one of those shams in the Bill which, even if it survives in the measure, will not long survive its implementation. It is an excellent thing that we should be obliged to take note of it at this stage. Indeed, this is exactly the sort of amendment that reminds us how atrocious it is that we should be dealing with these matters of deep constitutional import under the irregularities of a guillotine. I conclude by saying that the Union is not a Union of Crowns. Members of the SNP continually say—I am not impugning their sincerity, which I am sure in this matter is total—that they look forward to their Scotland being a Scotland under the Crown. But it will be a different Crown, of course, because the unity of the kingdom under the Crown is a parliamentary unity, and that unity is also expressed in the Privy Council, which is a Privy Council responsible to the Treasury Bench, to this House representing the whole United Kingdom, and thus to the electorate of the United Kingdom. In this small and apparently technical subsection we find that the Government are doing the splits over a gap between a form of devolution which would not be inconsistent with the unity of the kingdom, the parliamentary unity of the kingdom, and the form of devolution which they have, which will inexorably take them in the opposite direction. It will take them towards the creation of Ministers and the recognition of Ministers as Ministers of the Crown, the creation of a Privy Council for Scotland, and all the appurtenances of a national Parliament and Government, which is what the Prime Minister, introducing this Bill in the previous Session, indicated was the motivation behind the Bill.I should like to hear the right hon. Gentleman's comments—no doubt it has crossed his mind—on the situation that existed between 1603 and 1707 in the United Kingdom.
Yes, indeed, that was a personal union. It was similar to the union between the United Kingdom and Australia. I say that perhaps by closer analogy than the union between the United Kingdom and Hanover, which was carefully entrenched and limited in various ways.
In the Commonwealth today there is a personal union of what are many Crowns, but when we talk of the unity of the United Kingdom, the union which my hon. Friends and I were sent to this House to proclaim as the desire and intention of the people of Northern Ireland, it is a parliamentary union—a union which has subsisted with Scotland from 1707, and with Ireland from 1800. Those two things are entirely different animals, and this amendment and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman are useful reminders of the ambiguities which the Government are incurring by the present state and stage of their Scottish Parliament and Government.4.30 p.m.
I would think that in the hinterland of his consciousness the right hon. Gentleman would recognise the reality of what we are discussing in the clause. May I put it in this way, from the Delphin Classics of the past? The Latin scholars who prepared them did so "In usum Delphini", meaning for the use of the Dauphin. The substance of the clause means "for the use of the Queen".
I wish briefly to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on an extremely important point, which was not really resolved in our earlier debate. I refer to the myth that there is a curious animal called devolution which does not go to the full extent of Home Rule. As we proceed through the Bill, we come up against this point the whole time, which seems to me to remain unresolved.
If the Government are right, and sovereignty is retained by the United Kingdom Parliament, surely, in the case of the subordinate legislation covered by this clause, there is no need for any amending legislation. The Privy Council will act as it does today and can, in making an appropriate order, limit its scope to Scotland. Alternatively, one can work up from the other form of delegated legislation, which is the local authority's ability to make byelaws, and so on. The Government could have built on that, the other way up. But the dilemma in which the Committee finds itself arises from the whole structure of the Bill. As hon. Members know, I am one of those who would be interested to listen to the argument for full Home Rule for Scotland. I am open to be persuaded. But, as I said on Second Reading—as we go through the Bill my reasons become more and more apparent—I am not persuaded by this curious hybrid, which will satisfy nobody and will introduce "aggro" and dissension between the various parts of the realm. This amendment, spoken to so ably by my right hon. Friend, draws further attention to that. Even if the Government are right in their strategic construction of these arrangements, which I continue to oppose, this subsection is unnecessary. The present powers of the Privy Council are perfectly adequate to deal with the situation. If the Government say that those powers are not adequate, they must in the end admit that Mr. Gladstone was right. They have denied it all the way through, and the present Leader of the Liberal Party has denied the necessity of following his distinguished predecessor. I think that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will appreciate my point. Because of the guillotine, we hurry through the Bill and much of it is not adequately discussed, but I ask the Minister of State to comment on this. Subsection (5) of Clause 18 is closely relevant to my argument. There one reads these words:I am no lawyer, but I have enough familiarity with the law to know that that is a most peculiar phrase. An Act of Parliament either is or is not an Act. Are we to take it that under Clause 22(6) this order-making power of the Privy Council should be "judicially noticed"? Are we adopting some such words as "Prisoner at the Bar, the court judicially notices that you hit your old woman over the head"? Where are we? That is the exact parallel, in delegated legislation, to giving the Privy Council the sort of power that is "judicially noticed". We are wasting the time of the Committee. The firemen are on strike and we are doing nothing about it, but here we are, proceeding with this nonsense. If the Government believe that we should have Home Rule for Scotland, let them come forward with it. This subsection and the subsections that we shall discuss later today continue to highlight the fact that this is technical nonsense. I beg the Government to withdraw the Bill. If they want Home Rule, they must do it cleanly. I am sure that the Scottish National Party would support them. I am astonished, because I have great respect for the position of SNP Members, that they are prepared to go along with this nonsense. My right hon. Friend, as he always does, because he is a great tiger for the constitution in these matters, has drawn attention to this, which is not even a Highland wildcat, it is a tabby pussycat."Every Scottish Assembly Act shall be judicially noticed."
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) asked "where are we?" We are dealing with Amendment No. 371, which was moved by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and not by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), but perhaps the hon. Member for Eastleigh was not with us when the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby moved the amendment, I believe in the closing hours of our debate last Wednesday.
The purpose of Clause 22, as I believe the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby accepted when introducing the amendment, is to devolve to the Scottish Administration full powers to make subordinate legislation under existing Acts of Parliament which relate exclusively to a devolved matter. The transfer of these powers would be incomplete if the powers at present exercisable by Her Majesty by Order in Council were not included. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) gave us one way—he touched on this briefly and did not lend his support to the proposition—and mentioned the possibility of a Scottish Privy Council. I think it was last Wednesday that the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby suggested, as an alternative to the arrangements in the Bill, a Governor-General. I believe that the proposals in the Bill are a perfectly satisfactory way of dealing with the matter. The establishment of a Scottish Privy Council or a Governor-General for what is a relatively small problem is taking the matter completely out of scale. The right hon. Member for Down, South has a brilliant talent for dramatic language and the use of the adjective. I should not have thought that this was a manhole cover leading down into the heart of the matter. We find that every time a small provision is debated Opposition Members are anxious to go back to the principle behind the Bill. I take no objection to that. If they want to discuss the principle of the Bill, I am happy to do that from now until we reach the end of the Committee stage, but I have an obligation to the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby, who put forward a much more precise argument when he moved the amendment, to deal with the argument that he presented rather than with the matter of principle to which we keep returning. There are two ways in which we could have dealt with the subordinate legislative powers which are at present exercisable by Her Majesty by Order in Council in the devolved areas. We could continue to have Her Majesty involved, with the associated parliamentary procedure transferred from Parliament to the Assembly. Such a change would mean, for example, that after a draft order had been approved by the Assembly it would have to be submitted to the Secretary of State who in turn would submit it to Her Majesty for approval. The Bill does not provide for a direct link between the Scottish Administration and the Crown, as the right hon. Member for Down, South recognised. We see no need for that. It is clearly understood that the Assembly is a subordinate Assembly. Parliament remains sovereign, and the Scottish Assembly has delegated to it not sovereignty but powers in certain areas which are defined in the Bill. We therefore think it appropriate that dealings with the Crown should be carried through Ministers of the Crown. Taking that view, if we continue to have Her Majesty involved, we shall need to have the Secretary of State as a link submitting the draft order to Her Majesty for approval. The alternative, which we have reached in the Bill, is that Orders in Council can be converted into orders which are made by a Scottish Secretary under his own hand, without reference to Her Majesty. That is the approach adopted in the Bill.Let me be quite clear on this. A person who would be called Prime Minister of Scotland would, when Her Majesty visited Scotland, have no direct relations with her. Is that a proper understanding?
With respect to my hon. Friend, that question, like many of his questions, has nothing to do with what the Committee is discussing. What might happen if Her Majesty visits Scotland is a matter on which I cannot speculate. There is no such creature as the Scottish Prime Minister. Such a position is not provided for in the Bill, and I cannot answer hypothetical questions about imaginary individuals whom we are certainly not proposing to establish. If my hon. Friend continues to make these interventions, it will, on the whole, be more helpful to the Committee if he concentrates on the precise matter that I am obliged to consider in defending the Government's position on amendments moved from any part of the Committee.
It is necessary, if we are converting the Orders in Council into orders made by a Scottish Secretary, to have an Order in Council to transfer the powers. I think it is sensible that the existing Orders in Council—there are not many involved in this—should be converted to orders by the Scottish Secretary. There are very few powers. They involve provisions such as Section 5 of the Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act 1855 and Sections 17 and 18 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969. We are not dealing with a large tract of powers. Most of the powers that are exercisable under devolved areas stem from Acts of Parliament under Statutory Instruments, and we deal with them under other parts of the clause. Therefore, to try to make a major constitutional issue out of this, as the right hon. Member for Down, South gently did—he did not push it too far, but he hinted gently that there was some major constitutional provision here—is, I think, stretching the imagination a little.Will the Minister of State give way concerning this point, which I mentioned when I moved the amendment? If this is merely a question of a few limited powers, why is it that, where Clause 22(1) automatically provides that
shall be exercisable by a Scottish Secretary, the legislation does not simply transfer the powers to the Scottish Secretary under Order in Council provisions? The Bill makes provisions for a further Order in Council to do that. Why cannot the Bill do it directly?"orders, rules, regulations or other subordinate legislation"
I was coming to that, because the hon. Gentleman asked about it when he moved the amendment. We believe that it is more suitable for it to be dealt with by Orders in Council because the powers themselves stem from Orders in Council, and in dealing with this matter it is in line with the established convention to do so by an Order in Council. It does not make much difference, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because the purpose is to transfer the subordinate powers to the Scottish Secretary, but we believe it to be more convenient to deal with it by the Order in Council method.
When I am told that something desperate is involved here—the right hon. Member for Crosby said "Hey presto, the Secretary of State could suddenly change the nature of the constitution"—I feel that the right hon. Gentleman must not have noticed Clause 22(7), which specifies that any Order in Council made under this part of the Bill has to beTherefore, there is full parliamentary protection. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby asked about the use of the word "may" in line 3 of subsection (6). He wondered why the word "shall" was not used instead. We took the view that Her Majesty could not be bound or placed under a mandatory duty and that it was more suitable to use "may". We feel that the proposed arrangements allow Orders in Council transferring Order in Council powers to relate to one or more such powers, as specified in subsection (6). It would be impractical to review the whole of the statute book to identify all the powers to be devolved in a single exercise. Indeed, some such powers might be found to be no longer of any practical value. The provision therefore gives flexibility. The right hon. Member for Crosby talked about a mysterious master order. He is the only person in this Committee who has a conception of a mysterious master order. I can tell the Committee that it would be the intention of the Government to collect a number of these orders and put them in an Order in Council which would be brought before the House so that they might be discussed. It would not be our intention to search the statute book and find all Orders in Council that it would be appropriate to deal with in this way. No doubt from time to time it would be necessary to come back to make further use of the subsection."laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
4.45 p.m.
This is a technical clause about which the Minister, I am sure, knows far more than I do. However, to give a guideline to people like me who do not understand these matters, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman evisages that, for example, consideration of an order such as the Sheriff (Removal from Office) Order, which we are to debate later tonight, would be carried out in the Assembly or in Parliament?
The hon. Gentleman knows that the order which we shall be debating later is not one that stems from an Order in Council provision. It is dealt with under a Statutory Instrument under an Act of Parliament. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the appointment of judges and sheriffs is a reserved matter under the Bill. It is not devolved. It remains a matter for the United Kingdom Government and, therefore, it would be debated in the House of Commons.
I am glad, however, that the hon. Gentleman recognises that this is a rather technical matter. I think he should have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and the right hon. Member for Down, South, who thought that it was a matter of great constitutional significance. They did not approach it as though it were a small technical matter. I was assured by the hon. Member for Eastleigh that it went to the very heart of the Bill, and the right hon. Member for Down, South said much the same thing. On this occasion—it is not often that I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor)—I think I must take his view in preference to that advanced from the Back Benches. He has appreciated, with all the wisdom of a Front Bench spokesman, that it is really a rather technical matter. I think that that is the way in which the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby approached the matter. As the right hon. Member for Crosby said, it is not always clear why we use Statutory Instruments on one occasion and Orders in Council on another. I think he was right in saying that an Order in Council is often used by the Government as it collects together the responsibilities of different Ministers and it is therefore more convenient to use the Order in Council method. But it really would be very foolish for us not to transfer as part of the devolution of legislative responsibility the capacity to make detailed subordinate legislation whether it be by the Statutory Instrument route or the Order in Council route. If the House has agreed in principle for the transfer of legislative responsibility for devolved matters to the Scottish Assembly, if we set out on that road I think that we should do the job propertly and transfer full responsibility within the devolved areas. That is what is intended by Clause 22. It would not make very much sense if the amendment were carried, because it would merely mean that the powers under the Orders in Council would not be capable of being transferred to the Scottish Administration and would remain with the United Kingdom Parliament and Government. I do not think that the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby moved the amendment in anything other than a probing way, as indeed he is entitled to do. We may be in disagreement about the words that might be used in the clause. He may prefer to do it in a slightly different way from what the Government propose. But I should be surprised if he took issue with the purpose behind subsection (6) of the clause because I think it is necessary, if we are to carry through the process of legislative devolution, to do it properly and to do it well. I therefore invite the Committee not to accept the amendment if it is pressed to a Division.Before we leave the clause, may I respond to the rebuke which my hon. Friend the Minister delivered to me just now? I do not object to the rebuke, incidentally, as it was perfectly fair in one sense. But it illustrates the fact that some of us are light years apart, not only on the substance of the Bill but also on the way that it ought to be handled. It is all very well at one level to say "But I have to deal with the strict amendment and you raise another point that does not arise out of it?". I do not know where else in the Bill the issue arises as to what in fact the Queen's relationship would be, when she came to Scotland, with the Chief Executive, First Secretary, Prime Minister or whatever he calls himself. All I say is that there are a lot of other people who will want to know these things.
We are faced, under this guillotine procedure, with the trouble at one level that it is easy and proper for my hon. Friend the Minister of State to say that we must stick strictly to the subsections and clauses, but at another level it is most unsatisfactory for us to discuss these major issues, tied down by an able lawyer to strictly legal points, when a lot of other people will want to know the consequences of this part of the Bill, possibly not arising legally directly out of the clause.These are not strictly legal points. They are points to deal with the constitutional arrangements, and my hon. Friend must not take umbrage if I mention a specific amendment.
No umbrage was taken.
It is not for me to rebuke my hon. Friend. but it is fair to say that my major duty is to answer on behalf of the Government the amendment which was moved. My hon. Friend has the capacity to ask interesting questions from time to time. There is nothing in the Bill to provide for a relationship between the Queen and the First Secretary of the Scottish Administration should she visit Edinburgh. Therefore, I do not think that this matter should trouble my hon. Friend. He is ingenious in the use of points of order and in asking all sorts of questions to put matters on the record. I do not think that if I failed to rise to every fly that he cast before me I would necessarily rob him of the opportunity to use his ingenuity.
I do not want it to be thought that we are satisfied with the Minister's explanation or that we think that this is purely a matter of trivial concern. The truth is that the points are complex and detailed and they have to be dealt with on that basis. At the same time, raw nerves have been exposed in the basic structure, and that is why amendments of this sort have to be tabled and debated. There are other amendments following, however, of even greater substance, and for this reason we do not wish to take up the time of the Committee in dealing further with the amendment now before us. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 23
Powers Exercisable With Consent Or Concurrently
I understand that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) does not intend to move Amendment No. 372.
I propose not to move the amendment in order that we may discuss Clause 23 in the debate on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, and raise all the points that we would wish to raise on that clause in that debate.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
We thought that it would be better to arrange our debate and discuss the clause as a whole rather than discuss Amendment No. 372, because the clause deals with two matters, only one of which could have been covered by the amendment.
The first matter is that of powers exercisable without the consent of a Minister of the Crown. The second concerns powers exercisable by a Minister of the Crown—the Secretary of State for Scotland—and by the Scottish Secretary. These matters are dealt with separately by the clause. First, I come to the powers exercisable without the consent or concurrence of any other Minister of the Crown in the devolved area. In that respect the provision in the clause is that no such consent or concurrence is to be required except in the case of a limited number of enactments. These are listed in Schedule 4. I do not wish to dwell particularly on that aspect; instead, I will turn my attention directly to subsection (3), which provides thatI argue that this provision is a classic case of a provision which appears to be limited in scope, which would no doubt be described by some as trivial, by others as minor, and by others as technical, and yet which goes to the heart of the change in the constitutional arrangements that the Government are seeking to persuade the Committee to embark upon in the Bill. One of the main criticisms of the Government's devolution proposals has been that the form of arrangement proposed by the Government is redolent of conflict and full of uncertainties. To make that criticism does not mean that one is necessarily opposed to the concept of devolution in the more general sense of the word. It does not necessarily mean that one is in any sense hostile to the idea of a greater say in governmental matters being expressed within Scotland by Scots. But it means that one would be failing in one's parliamentary duty if one allowed a scheme which one regarded as riddled with uncertainties and opportunities for conflict to go through unchallenged. The provision in subsection (3) is a classic manifestation of exactly that type of provision which is likely to lead to conflict. If the clause is allowed by the Committee to go through unimpaired and unaltered, it will provide an arrangement whereby, within the sphere of nine Acts of Parliament, as specified in Schedule 5, both the Secretary of State and the Scottish Secretary can exercise the powers conferred by those Acts. It is difficult to understand why that should be so, in view of the Acts of Parliament involved. Plainly, if one is giving to separate Governments—and whatever qualifications are made, that is what is being created by the Bill—the power to exercise powers under the same Act, there is every opportunity for conflict, overlapping, ambiguity and uncertainty. Let us consider some of the Acts of Parliament that provide for powers which, if the clause is unaltered, can be exercised both by the Scottish Secretary and by the Secretary of State. One mentioned in the schedule is the Community Land Act 1975, and Section 18 in particular. That section is entitledNotwithstanding anything in the preceding provisions of this Act, any power under the enactments listed in Schedule 5 to this Act may be exercised both by the Secretary of State and by a Scottish Secretary.
Under it the Secretary of State is allowed by order to"Comprehensive acquisition of development land".
The effect of that is that when he exercises that power all the authorities whose areas include the land to which the order applies must arrange between themselves for all outstanding material interests in land which is needed for the purposes of designated relevant development to be acquired by one of those authorities. In other words, it then becomes the duty of the various authorities to ensure that one of those authorities acquires all the land in question. I do not see how it can be other than a source of conflict to allow a power of that kind to be exercised both by the Secretary of State and by the Scottish Secretary. Suppose that the Scottish Secretary decides to exercise his power in respect of a particular county, and the whole of that county, for the comprehensive acquisition of development land, and suppose that the Secretary of State for Scotland decides that the same procedure should be carried out, but does it in a different way in respect of the county area concerned. What on earth is to happen? Which of the two is to prevail? The Act certainly does not provide an answer to that, and yet I am sure that it is not coincidental that this provision is to be found in Clause 23. That is an example of what happens when there is a non-federal attempt to devolve powers within a unitary State but where one shies back from fully giving the accretion of power, by, in some cases, reserving powers, in others providing that they must be exercised with consent, and in others by providing that the powers can be exercised concurrently by both the authorities concerned—that is, the Secretary of State and the Scottish Secretary. Then, under subsection (3), the power may be exercised by both the Secretary of State and by a Scottish Secretary, and similar potential difficulties arise there. 5.0 p.m. When we consider the Local Employment Act 1972 we find that the relevant section, Section 7, is entitled "Improvement of Basic Services". The effect of that section is that"apply this section to all, or any part, of the area of a county … and … designate the descriptions of relevant development as respects which the order is to apply".
The next subsection states that"Where it appears to the Minister in charge of any government department that adequate provision has not been made for the needs of any development area or intermediate area in respect of a basic service … he may with the consent of the Treasury make grants or loans towards the cost of improving it to such persons and in such manner as appears to him appropriate."
That is a tremendously wide power."basic service' means the provision of facilities for transport (whether by road, rail, water or air) or of power, lighting, heating, water, or sewage, and sewage disposal facilities, or any other service or facility on which the development of the area in question, and in particular of industrial undertakings therein, depends."
The Civil Aviation Authority, now that it is able to see precisely what is being discussed in the Bill, is becoming exceedingly anxious about it So also are various other transport authorities. Schedule 5 lists the Transport Act 1968, Sections 29(5) and 57, and I gather that this is likely to cause anxiety in various directions. It is very difficult for people who are not as conversant with the Bill as we are supposed to be to tumble to precisely what is happening, when everything is being rushed through.
I could not agree more. It is extremely worrying for bodies of that kind. Directly relating to this particular provision for the operation on a concurrent basis of the powers under the Local Employment Act 1972, it is apparent that some of the outside bodies concerned are worried about the fact that the power is to be transferred to the Scottish Secretary, a member of the devolved Executive. They object to that, and they may have good reason for doing so. But even worse is the fact that, although devolved to a Scottish Secretary, the same power can be exercised by a United Kingdom Minister. In those circumstances, how on earth can an undertaking begin to know what will happen to it?
It may well be that the answer from the Minister of State will be that there will be consultation and that the Secretary of State will intervene only if the Scottish Secretary asks him to do so. But it is very difficult to be confident that that will be the case when we recognise that it is not just a hypothetical possibility but quite likely that the two Administrations, in Scotland and the United Kingdom, will be of different political complexion. If that happens, there is absolutely no reason at all to expect that a power that can be exercised by both the Scottish Administration and the United Kingdom Administration will be concerted or operated in a way that makes any sort of logical sense and avoids conflict. There is every reason to fear that if these powers are in the hands of both the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Assembly they will be exercised concurrently and in a way which at best leads to confusion for outside bodies and the people who suffer from this exercise of power and which at worst leads to very serious conflict. It will not do, either, for the Minister of State to say, as is another possibility, that the powers will not be exercised in practice. What on earth is the point of making them concurrent unless the assumption is that the Secretary of State for Scotland as well as the Scottish Secretary will want to exercise them? In the Community Land Act 1975 and the Local Employment Act 1972, therefore, we have two extremely good examples. Another example of where the powers can be exercised concurrently is the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act 1945. It is perhaps a less serious matter. That Act gives power to Ministers to defray the cost of rehabilitation of land in certain circumstances. It is extremely difficult to see why it is necessary that this power should be in the hands of both the United Kingdom Government and a Scottish Secretary. There are, however, instances where one can see why the powers should be exercised concurrently, and one wants to be fair to the Government on this. In the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1949 and in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951, the powers which are exercisable concurrently relate primarily to such matters as the research into causes of delinquency and the treatment of offenders, and the collection of statistics relating to the number of salmon caught in any salmon fishery and matters of that kind. I suppose that it will not really do a great deal of harm if the Secretary of State and the Scottish Secretary go poking around the salmon and investigating the delinquents. The most that can be said is that it is not so much a question of conflict as of overlap and waste. But, even so, that is the best that can be said for this extraordinary arrangement for having powers which are exercisable by two quite separate Administrations which are quite likely to be in conflict with each other. In reading through some of the apparently innocuous provisions in the various statutes in respect of which the powers can be exercised concurrently, I sought to give the Government the benefit of the doubt, but some of them turn out to be not quite so innocuous after all. In this context I come next to the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953, in respect of which certain powers can be exercised concurrently. Section 4 relates toIt is no bad thing—except for the unfortunate people who have to foot the Bill—that both the Secretary of State and the Scottish Executive should have power to give grants of that kind, but the next section of that Act, Section 5, in regard to which power is exercisable concurrently by both the Secretary of State and the Scottish Secretary, is entitled"Grants for preservation of historic buildings, their contents and adjoining land."
The effect of Clause 23(2) of the Bill is that not only can the Minister—the Secretary of State—acquire historic buildings, their contents and adjoining land; unless I have understood it wrongly—I stand ready to be corrected—so can a Scottish Secretary. We therefore have the possibility of a somewhat unedifying scramble for historic buildings, their contents and adjoining land between a United Kingdom Minister and a Member of the Scottish Executive. I cannot imagine that the Government really want that to occur, but under these concurrent provisions it is difficult to imagine that disputes will not arise. That may seem to be looking at the worst side of things, but it illustrates the sort of problem that we get into once there is an arrangement by which powers are exercisable concurrently by two Administrations. The schedule also lists the Agriculture Act 1947. That is not quite as ominous as might be thought, as the provision again relates to statistics. The last Act in the list to which I draw attention is the Transport Act 1968, where, in Section 29, there is provision for"Acquisition by the Minister of historic buildings, their contents and adjoining land."
Under Section 29(5)(a):"The transfer of certain property, rights and liabilities between Railways Board and Bus Company or Scottish Group."
certain property. Under subsection (b):"the Scottish Group and the Railways Board acting jointly may as occasion seems to them to require it make schemese for the transfer from one to another of "—
They can transfer property. This again may sound a comparatively innocuous and minor point, but it illustrates the sort of exercise that we are embarking upon, because the clause refers to the Minister and the Secretary of State "acting jointly". If one substitutes the Scottish Secretary for the Minister in this devolved area it would appear that they have to act jointly to transfer this property. Yet under Clause 23(3):"the Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly may by order make any such provisions".
Here one has a situation in which the powers can be exercised by both, but, if we actually look at the provision concerned, which I presume is to be the one that prevails, they have to be acting jointly. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that Clause 23(3) amends the Transport Act and means that they can act separately or act jointly. I should like a specific answer."any powers under the enactments listed in Schedule 5 may be exercised both by the Secretary of State and by a Scottish Secretary."
Since my constituency party is sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen, I have in recent months come to know something of the difficulties with regard to railway property in Scotland. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this is a Byzantine step and that any more complications will just drive lawyers round the bend?
Again I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Unfortunately, I cannot think of an ancient empire more noted for the complexities of its procedure than Byzantine—otherwise I agree that this is a Byzantine arrangement.
The Government have deliberately gone into the practical areas of administration. Very often, particularly when one is fighting for a high constitutional principle and the effect of arranging for the provisions of statutory instruments or Orders in Council to be transferred, it is easy to lose sight of what these powers are about and what is actually happening. If one looks at the list of Acts of Parliament contained in Schedule 5, one sees the situation that will actually come about if the Bill is passed in its present form. One is therefore entitled to say that in raising these issues on Clause 23—to which we take objection—one is at one and the same time pointing to matters of detail relating to the structure and going to the heart of the whole debate. I suppose we can have a scheme of government that allows having powers exercisable both by the Secretary of State and by the Scottish Secretary, but it is symbolic that the Government's approach to this matter is a sort of devolution at half-cock. They are not prepared to decide whether they want a very limited scheme or, as one of my hon. Friends said earlier, full-scale Home Rule. Instead, they have a series of provisions of this kind, which can be operated concurrently. On going through the practical effect of having that, one sees that grouping two Administrations, often of different political complexions, with powers to do the same thing—the first example of the comprehensive acquisition of development land is perhaps the most vivid—one is creating a structure that will not be able to stand long if it is allowed to come into existence in an unamended form.5.15 p.m.
With some timidity, because I am not a lawyer, I trespass on the Minister of State's home territory. For the sake of time, I wish to read part of the submission from the Faculty of Advocates published in February of this year.
Page 6 of that submission refers to Clause 18, Clause 18(2) and Clause 19 of the old Scotland and Wales Bill. It says:It goes on:"As these provisions stand there is a risk of very considerable confusion and difficulty, arising from conflict or inconsistency between Assembly Acts and Acts of Parliament. Presumably, in view of Clause 18(2), it is envisaged that express provision will be made when an Assembly Act is designed to repeal a provision in an Act of Parliament, and in that case no problem should arise."
That is highly relevant to this Clause."The difficulty will occur in cases where there are provisions dealing with the same subject matter both in an Assembly Act and an Act of Parliament,"
We shall come to that later. I leave it as the view of the Faculty and I shall be interested in my hon. Friend's comments on it. I am conscious that the chopper falls at 6 o'clock, but I want to refer to a Second point relating to the criminal law. The Faculty says:"In the view of the Faculty it is necessary to provide some guidance to the Courts as to how such inconsistencies should be dealt with. The simplest method would be to provide that an Assembly Act shall be presumed not to repeal, amend or derogate from any provision in an Act of Parliament unless it does so expressly. Similar provisions are required to clarify the position in cases of conflicts between an Assembly Act and UK subordinate legislation: between Scottish and UK subordinate legislation: and between Scottish Assembly Acts or subordinate legislation and provisions of the Treaty of Rome or of EEC legislation."
It goes on—this is relevant and important—"It may be suggested that, as with private law, it would be clear and satisfactory simply to describe the devolved subject as ' Criminal law and procedure. Punishment and treatment of offenders'. It is appreciated that it may be necessary to add some particular subjects in order to prevent them from falling within reservation (b) in Group 23—bankruptcy offences are an example. The Group would nevertheless be more clear if the devolved subject was simply 'criminal law', and any necessary additions were made without prejudice to that generality. It may be added that on any view 'criminology' is a branch of knowledge, not a subject of legislation."
"The Bill provides that compensation out of public funds to victims of crime should be one of the matters devolved (Clause 25: Schedule 6: Group 4). The Faculty considers that the present system, by which compensation is administered by a single Board for the United Kingdom is satisfactory and should continue, for the following reasons:(a) The Faculty understands that the Board operates in Scotland, England and Wales in a satisfactory manner. There are four Scottish members in a Board containing thirteen members and this is believed to be a number much higher in proportion than the total number of Scottish applications bears to applications as a whole. This number ensures that there are available sufficient Scottish members to deal with points of difficulty in relation to Scots Law. (b) The Faculty is unaware of any representation from any quarter in favour of this proposal. (c) Although the Faculty has no direct information on this question, it seems likely that the information of a separate Board with its own staff would lead to great administrative expense. (d) Payments made by the Board are an aspect of social security payments. The system of administering social security law is not a devolved matter and there seems no logical reason for making this apparent exception."
Since my hon. Friend is pressed for time, and since this matter comes up under Schedule 10, I suggest that that would be the time to answer these points. If I replied to them now it would be at the expense of other hon. Members.
In view of the Minister of State's remarks, and having said that I want to save time, I shall sit down straight away.
I wish to refer to matters of principle. During the debate on the previous group of amendments I was chided by the Minister for going back to the principle of things. I am unrepentant. This seems an appropriate way to proceed. The Minister will be aware that the greater subsumes the lesser. If the greater is wrong, the lesser is wrong. It is no good getting the lesser right if the greater remains wrong.
I am glad that my right hon. Friends have decided to debate the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, because it enables us to range rather wider than the specific amendments on the Amendment Paper would have done. The key words, I suggest, are "with concurrence" and "concurrently". The administrative power is to be shared in the matters laid down in this clause, and in Schedule 5, between United Kingdom and Scottish Ministers. The question raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in a previous debate is relevant here—the question of the Scottish Prime Minister. Perhaps it could be answered now. The hon. Member for West Lothian spoke about "Byzantine administration" and the labyrinth which he accused Byzantium of creating. I point to the experience of Constantine the Great, where he had the co-dominion of the Eastern and Western Empires running concurrently. This is a cautionary tale when we look at what happened—the demise of the Western empire and the survival of the Eastern empire. Which is the Eastern and which is the Western empire in this case is for hon. Members to decide—Scotland or England? On Clause 23 I seek my authority not from the good Dr. Gibbon, in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", but from "The Adventures of Dr. Dolittle". I believe that this is a "push-me-pull-you" clause. The "push-me" is coming from the Scottish Ministers and the pull-you "from the United Kingdom Ministers. It is divided responsibility. Throughout the proceedings on this Bill the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have denied that it has anything to do with sovereignty. I would point out some important lines from the Act of Union which, as far as I know, the Bill does not seek to amend. The lines are:Therefore, we assume that such is the way in which parliamentary arrangements work that Ministers are uniquely responsible to this House. I cannot see how a subject matter can be one with concurrent responsibility. Presumably the Scottish Executive is responsible to the Scottish Assembly, just as parallel Ministers are responsible to this Parliament. This is a classic case of "divide and rule". Who rules I do not know. Whether it is Parliament or the people, I do not know. In terms of parliamentary responsibility there is a problem, because this House is very sensitive about Ministers being responsible to it to such an extent that we sometimes put those Ministers in an unfair position. We hold them accountable. On the matters covered by Clause 23 who is responsible to whom? Are United Kingdom Ministers responsible to this Parliament and are members of the Scottish Executive—I forbear to call them Ministers I do not know what they are called, Scottish Secretaries, perhaps—responsible to the Scottish Assembly? Indeed, as the hon. Member for West Lothian pointed out with great perspicacity, what happens when, in the United Kingdom, there is a Government of a complexion different from that of the Scottish Assembly? What happens to concurrence then? It will be hard enough for Governments of the same political complexion, but if they are of different complexions a collision course is almost inevitable. I do not apologise for going back to the principle of the Bill. It arises in the very nature of the strategic construction of these arrangements. This is a further reason why the Bill should be withdrawn and re-thought. The fact that it is necessary to have this clause is evidence of the basic nonsense behind the Bill."That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament to be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain".
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) dealt very effectively, and at length, with the concurrence situation, and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) has drawn attention to the difficulties that concurrence is likely to raise in the future.
I ask the Minister of State a few questions about the future. The essence of the clause is that it recognises that concurrence exists. This is very important. Schedule 5 recognises that there will be matters of equal importance both for the Scottish Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament in Westminster. It may be possible for us retroactively in Schedule 5 to state the Bills named in the schedule and to assume that they will be ones to which the concurrent principle applies. But what happens to new Bills that are brought forward in the Scottish Assembly, which the Scottish Assembly decides are not concurrent but the Westminster Parliament decides are concurrent and of interest to both sides? Is the Scottish Assembly allowed to pass such a Bill, or can it be stopped from passing it? Having passed it, is there any power in Westminster to impose concurrence as we are doing retroactively in Schedule 5? Schedule 5 applies to Bills already passed. There is no Schedule 5 for Bills which the Scottish Assembly decides should pass in future and which it may pass, irrespective of the will of Westminster. Is there any way by which, if a Bill is passed by the Scottish Assembly, we at Westminster can decide that it should have concurrent powers? Have we any way of ensuring that these concurrent powers can be exercised if the Scottish Assembly passes a Scottish Bill first, which it does not wish us to be part of?It would be less than courteous if I did not welcome the Lord Advocate to our proceedings. He has been an intermittent attender at our debates, and if he thinks that he is not welcome he has got it quite wrong. We are delighted to see him, and hope that he will stay, because we are constantly in need of expert guidance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) referred to two doctors—Dr. Gibbon and Dr. Dolittle. I refer to a third—Dr. Johannes Witteveen. In an extraordinary way it is he who, in a sense, is at the centre of Clause 23. It is appropriate that we should bring Dr. Witteveen into our debates because Thursday next week is the first anniversary of the famous letter sent to him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Here, in subsection (1)(b) we have enshrined the whole strategy of the Government as outlined in the letter of 15th December 1976. Normally I would have a copy of that letter with me. I do not have it with me today, but I wish to refer to a key phrase that is engraved on my heart and, I am sure, on the heart of the Lord Advocate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote:I invite the Minister of State to deny the proposition that I have advanced that paragraph (b) of the subsection relates to the expenditure of public money and has been written into this Bill. I confer unwonted praise upon the Government Front Bench. I do not want to damage the promising career of the Minister of State by congratulating him upon the wording of the paragraph, but I welcome the fact that there is a further ministerial procedure that has to be gone through before there can be the borrowing of money outside the United Kingdom, or in a currency other than sterling. I welcome that provision, because I believe, with others, that the"It is an essential element of the Government's economic strategy that there should be a continuing and substantial reduction in the share of resources required for the public sector."
is one of the principal causes of our discontent. 5.30 p.m. I want the Minister of State clearly to explain to the Committee, with the expert assistance of his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, in what circumstances the powers that are envisaged in subsecion (1)(b) will be exercised otherwise than in the public sector. Although I praise the Minister of State and the parliamentary draftsmen for including the paragraph, there is the nagging fear at the back of the minds of some of us on the Opposition Benches that the very fact that it has been found necessary to insert it means that the Government have in mind when they go upon a further public spending spree—to use their own words, an expedition that involves the "borrowing of money outside the United Kingdom or in a currency other than sterling"—to qualify their future profligacy by the authority of the paragraph. Yesterday at Question Time the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave the astonishing answer that he could give no assurance that it was still the Government's policy to ensure that the public sector took a smaller share of the country's resources. Can it be that the inclusion of the paragraph is merely a prelude to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster telling the House of Commons, if not the Committee, "Ah, but we gave you notice that we were about to embark upon a further spending spree? To qualify that disreputable programme with a semblance of authority we have provided that there must be the consent of a Scottish Secretary or the consent of a Minister of the Crown". Is that what the Minister of State had in mind when he gave instructions to the parliamentary draftsmen? Why do we have to refer to this paragraph? Is it because the Government envisage a further massive programme of borrowing outside the United Kingdom? Let us consider the whole range of Government borrowing, including their borrowing in a currency other than sterling. Of course, if we borrow in a currency other than sterling when our own rate of inflation is substantially greater than the rates of those from whom we borrow, the cost of repayment will be that much the greater. The policy of borrowing that is envisaged in the Bill is one that should not be merely subject to the consent of a Minister of the Crown; I believe that it should be subject to the approval of the House of Commons. If one thing came out of yesterday's debate it was that there is not nearly enough control by the House of Commons over the Executive. I should like the clause to provide not that there must be reference to a Minister of the Crown, or the consent or approval of another Minister of the Crown before public agencies can borrow from abroad or in a currency other than sterling, but that consent and approval should first be given by the House of Commons. There are many Labour Members as well as Conservative Members who assent to that proposition. If there is one way in which the House of Commons has again and again betrayed its overriding duty to control the Executive it is in the sphere of public expenditure. Although I welcome the fact that we have at least a referral to another Minister for consent and approval, it does not go nearly far enough. No doubt the Minister of State and the Lord Advocate were in their constituencies over the weekend. Their pressing duties in the House of Commons do not weigh upon them then. No doubt they listened with the assiduity that they always display to the views of their constituents about the Crown Agents affair. If they listened to their constituents' views upon that subject, and if they have listened to their views over the past decade and more, they will have found that there is one recurring theme, namely, that there needs to be a reassertion of the control of the House of Commans over the spending of public money. Sadly, the guillotine will fall upon our proceedings, but I hope that some of my hon. Friends will take up the recurring theme in the short time that remains to us. If there was ever a time when we should emphasise again and again the need for a fundamental reform of the procedures of the House of Commons so that it can be an effective brake and an effective scrutineer of the conduct of the Executive, especially on and of the borrowing money from abroad, this is that time. Borrowing is a comparatively painless process when we start upon that road. One of the complaints that I have against this Administration and others that have borrowed money in the past is that they are inflicting upon the next generation a responsibility to take up the price of the profligacy of the present generation. That is what borrowing does. That is what the Government have done on a massive scale. They have imposed a burden not so much upon us but upon the children of the Minister of State and the children of the Lord Advocate. That is why I am saying that in this clause there should be a provision requiring the consent and approval of the House of Commons, and not merely that of a Minister of the Crown, before there is any borrowing either abroad or in a currency other than sterling."borrowing of money outside the United Kingdom or in a currency other than sterling"
One would be forgiven for looking around the Committee and not realising that we are discussing one of the most major constitutional measures to come before the House of Commons for some time. By one of the extraordinary lotteries of the guillotine, whereby we have progressed over one-third of the Bill in two weeks, we have landed on a clause that is of great importance. I beg leave to put forward a point of view that these arrangements, taken against the background of the two Assemblies—the Scottish Assembly and the Westminster Assembly—can work only if the individuals have the capacities of the Archangel Gabriel.. They certainly cannot work against the normal cut and thrust of party politics which may be evisaged in a future composition of both Assemblies.
To emphasise this point, I turn to Schedule 5 and look at the limitation on the requirement of consent against the various measures contained therein. In an earlier debate I put forward the view that the biggest source of friction under the arrangements foreshadowed in the Bill would be the operation of the block grant. I suggest that it wil be an inducement to elements in the Scottish Assembly, if they so wish, to make it extremely difficult for the Westminster Parliament to produce a block grant that will satisfy either the Scottish Assembly or the Westminster Parliament. If one did not wish these arrangements to work, and wanted them to lead to independence for Scotland, one would start with the limitations in Schedule 5. There, straightaway, are objects of conflict which cannot be resolved unless there is give and take and, indeed, political association between the responsible individuals in both Assemblies. Therefore, I again draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the Bill contains causes of friction which cannot be disregarded and swept away, because they will come to the fore again and again if the Bill becomes an Act.rose—
rose—
Mr. Sproat.
I do not want to keep out my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), but I want to take up a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who certainly opened my eyes to one aspect that I confess I had not seen.
My hon. Friend introduced his argument by an elegant three-legged—I cannot think of the right grammatical term. However, he talked about three doctors—Dr. Gibbon and Dr. Doolittle, and therefore brought in Dr. Witteveen. In fact, I do not think that Dr. Gibbon got a doctorate. He left Oxford without getting a degree, so that part of my hon. Friend's argument probably falls. But the failure of that part of his argument brings into sharper relief the excellence of the rest of it which was concerned, as so often we are concerned in this Bill, with money. As I have said before in this Committee—no doubt I shall say it again, because it is very important—one of the main reasons why, at the end of the day, I believe that a referendum in Scotland will throw out this Bill is precisely that the people of Scotland will realise what they are letting themselves in for, in terms of money—endless extra expenses, into which I will not go now, for the extra civil servants, the bureaucracy and all the rest of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne pointed out that tucked away in subsection (1) (b) are the wordsThat assumes that a Scottish Assembly will not be content with the block grant that it gets from the United Kingdom. We are already saying that it will not be content and that it will have to get its money from elsewhere—possibly by borrowing abroad. Again, we come to one of the difficulties which arise at every corner of the Bill. Yesterday, in answer to a question, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) elicited that, if the block grant for Scotland is to be given on all fours with the money that is given to other parts of the United Kingdom, Scotland would be £500 million a year worse off as a result of the Bill and the parity of treatment that it would naturally call forth from other parts of the United Kingdom. If the reason and basis for giving this power to Scotland is not because Scotland needs it vis-à-vis other parts of the United Kingdom, but because Scotland has a national identity, then at once out of the window go all the arguments for saying that Scotland should get extra money on the basis not of geography, but of need. 5.45 p.m. If, on the one hand, we get rid of the argument that Scotland should be considered on the basis of need and accept, as the Government do, that it should be treated on the basis of geography, Scotland will be worse off by the gigantic sum of £500 million a year. On the other hand, we are now assuming that, because Scotland will be worse off, a Scottish Assembly will want to borrow. What will happen when the Scottish Secretary or the Prime Minister of Scotland, or whatever fancy title we may give him—it is certain that he will be called the Prime Minister of Scotland—goes to the Minister to whom he is obliged to go and asks for more money? Incidentally, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne that the power should be vested in the House of Commons. We could hardly have a day more designed to show the benefit of having the House of Commons make the decision than today following yesterday's scandal over the Crown Agents which resulted entirely because Parliament did not exercise enough control. Even assuming that the Minister says "Yes", and the Scottish Assembly is able to borrow more money, who will finance that debt? It will be taxpayers in other parts of the United Kingdom, who will rightly say "Why, having set up this expensive Scottish bureaucracy, should we be called upon to service a debt which this possibly profligate Scottish Assembly has assumed?" I know that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) assumes that financial rectitude and responsibility will be the key words of a Scottish Assembly. I take the opposite view. I think that we would find a Scottish Assembly seeking every possible opportunity to borrow money in this way or harassing the Westminster Government into providing more money through the block grant. We should have a situation in which people in the richer parts of England would have to subsidise people in Scotland, or if the Minister of the Crown who was asked to give his approval said "No, I shall not give my approval", we should be back in the other situation of conflict. There will be borrowing beyond what the Government think is necessary, because they will have decided the block grant, or there will be a refusal. If the Scottish Assembly said "We have decided to keep down rent and rates in Scotland and to do that we shall need to borrow, because we have spent our block grant", and the Minister of the Crown in the Westminster Parliament refused approval for the money, again there would be discord and disputes. All Members on the Scottish National Party Bench in the Scottish Assembly would be jumping up and down and saying "The vicious, wicked Parliament of the United Kingdom is preventing Scotland from having the money that it needs.""the power relates to the borrowing of money outside the United Kingdom or in a currency other than sterling."
Will the hon. Gentleman take his argument further and admit that the Scottish Assembly will have overwhelming powers to ensure that the House of Commons will always bail it out? Indeed, if the Scottish Assembly borrowed large sums, this House and the country as a whole could not afford to have a bankrupt Scotland. The Assembly would have enormous power to borrow money over our heads and we should have to pay for it.
The hon. Gentleman has made a very good point. Not being content with the British Steel Corporation losing £500 million a year and British Leyland having £250 mill ion chucked into it, we should have Scotland as a bottomless drain for money to be thrown into.
Once again, there is a recipe for disaster everywhere we turn in this Bill. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred earlier, in one of his less vivid metaphors, to a manhole cover which, if it were lifted up, would reveal a hole which penetrated down to the very heart of the Bill. Once again we are back in the situation in which, in this simple little clause, we discover a guaranteed recipe for conflict over money. There is nothing that more commonly or more easily gets people worked up than conflict over money.
Will my hon. Friend follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps)? Since, in the last analysis, any indebtedness incurred by the Scottish Executive or approved by the Scottish Assembly will come back to the House of Commons, does not my hon. Friend think that that is another reason for saying that the approval of this borrowing ought to be the approval of the House of Commons?
What my hon. Friend says is quite correct. I think that that is probably what would happen. But there is another option open to a Scottish Assembly, under powers which, unfortunately, were not discussed earlier because of the guillotine. Those are the very important powers concerning the ability of a Scottish Assembly to vary the rate of rates or to superimpose another tax of a nature similar to rates. We were not able to discuss exactly how the Assembly could do it, but I should imagine, for example, that the people of England or this House might say "We shall not bail out this miserable Scottish Assembly which has landed itself with millions of pounds of debts", and the Scottish Asesmbly would be compelled to compel local authorities to vary the rate of rates in order to get the money in Scotland.
(Perth and East Perthshire): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I shall not give way, because only nine minutes remain for this debate.
We have a situation in which the people of Scotland would find that this Scottish Assembly was putting even greater financial burdens on them. I close as I started, by saying that the money involved—the expenditure and the necessary taxation—is the main reason why, at the end of the day, the people of Scotland will throw out the Bill.My hon. Friends have expressed deep concern about various aspects of the clause, not least about the fact that Acts previously passed by this House of Commons, which were allowed time for much more careful and detailed consideration than this Bill is receiving, are being reduced in their effectiveness by a Government so absorbed in their election prospects that they care little about the effects of their actions. However, our purpose is to try to persuade Ministers to think again before they lightly set aside the work of this House of Commons in respect of previous enactments.
I hope that the Minister will agree that the House of Commons must have given serious thought to this matter and that there was good reason for this kind of consent or approval between Ministers of the Crown when previous legislation was passed, and, therefore, clearly we cannot disregard it lightly. I know that the Minister is very worried about the clock, but the guillotine was set by the Government Benches and not by the Opposition.Will the hon. Gentleman make clear whether I am to be allowed to reply to this debate?
It is your guillotine.
I cannot accept the charge of filibustering. We have had about one and half hours for this debate. I know that the Minister thinks that it is a very unimportant clause and matter of technical detail. He certainly thought that about the last clause. We on the Opposition Benches think differently.
I think it is unlikely that Ministers would suggest that the House was overcautious when it considered the previous legislation, so we can hardly dispense with the need for a Minister to seek the consent of another Minister merely because the Government are in a tremendous hurry to force this Bill through the Committee. I am sure that the Government did not intend to set aside this kind of provision when they set out on the devolution trail. It just happened as a consequence of the Government's haste, and obviously it has not been properly thought out. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) dealt specifically with subsection (3) and the exercise of power by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Secretary. He referred to the confusion that would follow this arrangement, for example, in respect of the Community Land Act and the Local Government Act. Schedule 4 lists 23 Acts which contain statutory powers exercisable with the concurrence of a Minister of the Crown. A glance at the schedule reveals that it includes all of the important Scottish legislation passed by the House of Commons during the past decade or so. Therefore, the provisions that these amendments are trying to protect are not something from the past. They are not some piece of old fashioned parliamentary mumbo-jumbo; they are very much a live part of the current parliamentary scene. One small example of this appears in Schedule 4, on page 44. That is the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970. This requires the Secretary of State and the Minister of Technology, as he then was, to act jointly in the construction of appliances for clearing and repairing roads and footways—a function of local authorities and, as such, a devolved matter. Under this clause, a Scottish Secretary would ignore these provisions and act quite independently. This could have a serious effect on matters of great importance, particularly in rural areas. I am sorry that the Minister is so agitated about this, but there are points which must be made. This clause reveals yet another embarrassment for the Government, because a Minister of the Crown in a United Kingdom Department in London could not possibly be seen to act or be allowed to act concurrently with the Scottish Secretary. It would put a Scottish Secretary on a par with a Minister of the Crown. That would not be devolution, and in this Bill appearances are everything. Not knowing what else to do, Ministers have simply dropped yet another important legislative principle. Being a man of an extremely kind disposition and kindly disposed to the rather agitated Minister, I am prepared to bring my remarks to a close now to give him the time that is left to sum up what he has agreed is a very important clause.The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) knows perfectly well that I hesitated before rising, out of courtesy to him. The effect is that it has left me with three minutes to reply to the debate. I am sorry; I should have said the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher). I do not think that the hon. Member for Pentlands would behave in that kind of way.
I was asked detailed questions, and we are operating under a guillotine. It has been quite obvious this afternoon that Opposition Members have strayed far and wide from the amendment, making speeches such as that made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). The point raised on the clause, which was probed by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), who made a relevant, careful speech, to which I listened with care, was about the precise provisions of Schedule 5. I shall, if I have time, come to the precise points that he raised, but the main purpose of the provision is to give both to the Ministers of the Crown and Scottish Secretaries, in so far as Schedule 5 is concerned, concurrent powers. Obviously, where we have split up responsibility, in that there are devolved matters which will be the responsibility of the Scottish Administration and reserved matters which will remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government, there are some Acts of Parliament which are specified in Schedule 5 in which there are powers part of which may deal with reserved matters and part of which may deal with devolved matters, because the statute book up to now has not been designed with devolution in mind. Therefore, we must have a practical working method of dealing with this, and we deal with it in Clause 23. The powers will be operated by the Scottish Secretaries in respect of devolved matters and operated by the United Kingdom Government in respect of reserved matters, using the same powers, but, of course, seeking a different objective. I am told on all hands that this will be a recipe for conflict and division. I do not believe that. I believe that it is perfectly possible for there to be amicable and sensible workmanlike co-operation between the Scottish Administration and the United Kingdom Government, even if they are of different political complexions. I am told that there will always be conflict. I do not accept that. I think that in this country we have the capacity for making our constitution work. I believe that this sensible provision in the Bill will work perfectly well in practice, and all the prophecies of the Cassandras opposite will not convince me otherwise. I think that when we reach the stage of having the Assembly working in practice, we shall see the sense of a lot of these provisions and see the purpose behind the clauses in the Bill. I hope that the Committee will accept this clause, since it is an eminently sensible one, following up the provisions of Clauses 21 and 22 which the Committee has already agreed should stand part of the Bill. I notice that amendments to this clause were tabled by the Opposition Front Bench but that a "stand
Division No. 35]
| AYES
| [6.0 p.m.
|
| Allaun, Frank | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Marks, Kenneth |
| Anderson, Donald | Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Ford, Ben | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Forrester, John | Mikardo, Ian |
| Ashton, Joe | Fraser, John (Lambeth N'w'd) | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | George, Bruce | Molloy, William |
| Atkinson, Norman | Gilbert, Dr John | Moonman, Eric |
| Bagler, Gordon A. T. | Golding, John | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) |
| Bain, Mrs Margaret | Gourlay, Harry | Moyle, Roland |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Grant, George (Morpeth) | Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King |
| Beith, A.J. | Grant, John (Islington C) | Newens, Stanley |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Noble, Mike |
| Bishop, Rt Hon Edward | Grocott, Bruce | O'Halloran, Michael |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Orbach, Maurice |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Hardy, Peter | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Boyden, James (Bish Auck) | Harper, Joseph | Ovenden, John |
| Bradley, Tom | Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Palmer, Arthur |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Hart, Rt Hon Judith | Pardoe, John |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Hatton, Frank | Park, George |
| Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) | Hayman, Mrs Helene | Parker, John |
| Buchan, Norman | Heffer, Eric S | Parry, Robert |
| Buchanan, Richard | Henderson, Douglas | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Horam, John | Penhaligon, David |
| Campbell, Ian | Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) | Perry, Ernest |
| Canavan, Dennis | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Price, William (Rugby) |
| Carmichael, Neil | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Radice, Giles |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Hunter, Adam | Reid, George |
| Cartwright, John | Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) | Richardson, Miss Jo |
| Clemitson, Ivor | Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) | Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) | Roderick, Caerwyn |
| Coleman, Donald | Janner, Greville | Rooker, J. W. |
| Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) | Jay, Rt Hon Douglas | Roper, John |
| Corbett, Robin | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Rose, Paul B. |
| Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | John, Brynmor | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E) | Johnson, James (Hull West) | Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) |
| Craigen, Jim (Maryhill) | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) |
| Crawford, Douglas | Jones, Alec (Rhondda) | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE) |
| Cryer, Bob | Kerr, Russell | Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Sillars, James |
| Davidson, Arthur | Kinnock, Neil | Silverman, Julius |
| Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) | Lamborn, Harry | Skinner, Dennis |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Lamond, James | Small, William |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | Lee, John | Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) |
| Deakins, Eric | Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) | Snape, Peter |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Spearing, Nigel |
| Dempsey, James | Litterick, Tom | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Doig, Peter | Luard, Evan | Stallard, A. W. |
| Dormand, J. D. | Lyon, Alexander (York) | Stewart, Rt Hon Donald |
| Edge, Geoff | Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) | Stoddart, David |
| Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) | Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| English, Michael | McCartney, Hugh | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Ennals, Rt Hon David | MacCormick, Iain | Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) |
| Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) | McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| Ewing, Harry (Stirling) | McElhone, Frank | Thompson, George |
| Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray) | Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon) |
| Faulds, Andrew | Mackintosh, John P. | Tierney, Sydney |
| Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. | Maclennan, Robert | Tinn, James |
| Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) |
| Flannery, Martin |
part" debate was chosen instead. I do not think that any of the points made by the Opposition exposes any central—
It being Six o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [22nd November], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 203 Noes 166.
| Walker, Harold (Doncaster) | Whitehead, Phillip | Woodall, Alec |
| Walker, Terry (Kingswood) | Whitlock, William | Woof, Robert |
| Ward, Michael | Wigley, Dafydd | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Watkinson, John | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Watt, Hamish | Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford) | |
| Weetch, Ken | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Welsh, Andrew | Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E) | Mr. Ted Graham and |
| White, Frank R. (Bury) | Wilson, William (Coventry SE) | Mr. Alf Bates. |
| White, James (Pollok) | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
NOES
| ||
| Adley, Robert | Hampson, Dr Keith | Onslow, Cranley |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) | Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) |
| Alison, Michael | Haselhurst, Alan | Page, Richard (Workington) |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Hawkins, Paul | Pattie, Geoffrey |
| Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East) | Hayhoe, Barney | Percival, Ian |
| Awdry, Daniel | Hicks, Robert | Pink, R. Bonner |
| Banks, Robert | Hodgson, Robin | Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch |
| Bell, Ronald | Holland, Philip | Prentice, Rt Hon Reg |
| Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) | Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Benyon, W. | Howell, David (Guildford) | Prior, Rt Hon James |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Hunt, David (Wirral) | Pym, Rt Hon Francis |
| Biffen, John | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Raison, Timothy |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Hurd, Douglas | Rathbone, Tim |
| Body, Richard | James, David | Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd) | Rhodes James, R. |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) | Ridsdale, Julian |
| Brittan, Leon | Jones, Arthur (Daventry) | Rifkind, Malcolm |
| Brocklebank-Fowler, C. | Jopling, Michael | Ross, William (Londonderry) |
| Brooke, Peter | Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith | Sainsbury, Tim |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Kershaw, Anthony | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Buck, Antony | Kimball, Marcus | Shepherd, Colin |
| Budgen, Nick | King, Evelyn (South Dorset) | Silvester, Fred |
| Bulmer, Esmond | King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Sims, Roger |
| Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | Kitson, Sir Timothy | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Knox, David | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Churchill, W. S. | Lamont, Norman | Smith, Dudley (Warwick) |
| Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Latham, Michael (Melton) | Spence, John |
| Clark, William (Croydon S) | Le Marchant, Spencer | Spicer, Michael (S Worcester) |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Sproat, Iain |
| Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Stainton, Keith |
| Cope, John | Loveridge, John | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Dean, Paul (N Somerset) | Luce, Richard | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
| Dunlop, John | Macfarlane, Neil | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Dykes, Hugh | MacGregor, John | Tapsell, Peter |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | MacKay, Andrew (Stechford) | Taylor, R. (Croydon NW) |
| Emery, Peter | McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) | Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Tebbit, Norman |
| Fairgrieve, Russell | Marten, Neil | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Farr, John | Mather, Carol | Townsend, Cyril D. |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey | Maude, Angus | Trotter, Neville |
| Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) | Mawby, Ray | Vaughan, Dr Gerald |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Viggers, Peter |
| Forman, Nigel | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) |
| Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) | Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
| Fry, Peter | Mills, Peter | Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester) |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Wall, Patrick |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Moate, Roger | Warren, Kenneth |
| Goodhart, Philip | Montgomery, Fergus | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Goodhew, Victor | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Wells, John |
| Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) | Morgan, Geraint | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Younger, Hon George |
| Gray, Hamish | Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) | |
| Grist, Ian | Mudd, David | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Grylls, Michael | Neubert, Michael | Mr. Michael Roberts and |
| Hall, Sir John | Newton, Tony | Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. |
| Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Nott, John | |
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Six o'clock.
Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 24
Crown Interests And Public Records
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
6.15 p.m.
I hope that this is the right time to ask a question about the Crown's consent and the Crown's advisers. It is not merely an academic question. Will the advisers be the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Lord President, the Chief Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who are normally the advisers to the Crown? What relationship does the Scottish Prime Minister or the First Secretary have to the Crown? If he has no relationship, I shall not detain the Committee further.
The advice which will be given to the Crown on these matters will come from Ministers of the Crown and not from the Scottish Secretaries.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6
Provisions In Assembly Bills Requiring Crown's Consent
I beg to move Amendment No. 384, in page 46, leave out line 21.
This is a probing amendment. I do not believe that it is the intention of my right hon. and hon. Friends to press it to a Division unless some new unexpected horror is displayed, as has happened so often in the past. We have often started with the mildest gentleness only to be suddenly confronted with a new monster in our path. Assuming that no such monster lurks in this schedule, we shall not press the amendment. I apologise to the Minister if I have to leave the Chamber before the end of the debate. Our purpose is to discover from the Minister the precise safeguards from interference by a Scottish Assembly with institutions incorporated under Royal Charter. Will the Minister spell out exactly how the Crown's consent will be exercised? We have had one or two interesting debates, which were extremely difficult to follow, in which we sought to discover exactly how the chain of consent will operate. In this case I am not suggesting tacitly or implicitly that there is anything peculiar but I should like the Minister to spell out the situation. Why is it felt necessary to deal with the provision in this particular manner? Why is it not included in Schedule 10(2), for instance, since that schedule deals with referred powers? When one examines the schedule, one cannot help being struck by the remarkable number of bodies in Scotland that are incorporated under Royal Charter and which are opposed to this Bill root and branch. They are opposed to the Government's plans for a Scottish Assembly as set out in the Bill. They are also opposed to any plans for a similar Scottish Assembly. They are particularly keen to know what safeguards there are in the Bill to protect their position. They have made it publicly known that they are opposed to what the Government are doing and they fear that they might incur the wrath of any future Scottish Assembly. Whichever public opinion poll one studies, one sees that there is a falling away of support for a Scottish Assembly. Each poll shows a different level of support. One of the reasons for the diminishing support is that each of the Scottish institutions which studies the Bill comes to the conclusion that it will affect them ill. The opposition to a Scottish Assembly which began in the institutions will spread to individuals. The shift from support for an Assembly will grow. Four vital pillars of Scottish life contain institutions incorporated under Royal Charter. I shall mention only these four, because they have made representations to me and my colleagues at various times and in different ways. The first is medicine. Among the medical institutions incorporated under Royal Charter are the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and the Royal Blind Asylum. Only yesterday there appeared in the Scotsman the following report:we come back to that word again and again—"All branches of the medical profession in Scotland have come out against further devolution in health matters.… This was claimed yesterday by Mr. James Kyle, chairman of the devolution group of the Scottish Council of the BMA, who said the profession believed that administrative devolution would not be to the advantage of medicine.… Scottish doctors did not think the Scotland Rill would bring any improvement to health care in Scotland.… Moreover, the interference "—
Naturally, those incorporaed under Royal Charter are extremely keen to know exactly what safeguards they have against precisely the interference that they fear and that described by Mr. Kyle. The second pillar is education. All four new Scottish universities—Stirling, Heriot Watt, Strathclyde and Dundee—are incorporated under Royal Charter, as are the Educational Institute of Scotland and a number of other bodies, ranging from Dundee High School to the Royal Zoological Society. The Scottish vice-chancellors made clear as long ago as 1974 that they were totally against any devolved powers over university education and against a separate Scottish University Grants Committee. They have reaffirmed that position again and again, as first the Scotland and Wales Bill and now this Bill have wended their weary way through the House. In 1975 the Association of University Teachers also made clear where it stood, making a strong plea for university autonomy, for universities not to be put under the control of a Scottish Assembly. Another pillar is banking, a typical pillar of Scottish life in so far as it sums up and contains so many of the qualities, traditions and characteristics that we are proud to think of as particularly Scottish. The Royal Bank of Scotland, the Institute of Bankers and the Faculty of Actuaries all have Royal charters, and are naturally concerned about exactly what safeguards they will have under the schedule. Although for various political reasons the banks have understandably not come out publicly and jointly as saying they oppose the Bill, I think that it is common knowledge, and would be accepted even on the Government Front Bench, that the banks in Scotland are against a Scottish Assembly. Another very important pillar in the life of Scotland is business and commerce. The CBI is incorporated under Royal Charter. I emphasise that not only is the CBI in the United Kingdom as a whole totally opposed to this Bill and the Wales Bill but the CBI in Scotland is totally opposed to the Bill and any Bill like it. Indeed, the Chairman of the CBI said in a speech the other day that nothing but interference and extra cost could come from the Bill and from any Bill like it. The CBI might be taken to represent only the big battalions of business, but the chambers of commerce are also opposed to the Bill. Every chamber of commerce in Scotland has come out against it. Not all chambers of commerce are under Royal charter, but Leith and Glasgow are, and no doubt there are others. Only last week the President of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce said:"of a Scottish Assembly could well delay progress in the health field."
I hope that the Minister will note these words—"We must view the prospects of a disruptive and divisive directly elected Assembly, which everyone expects as a real prospect, with utmost alarm, both for the sake of our businesses and for the sake of the community as a whole. It is for this and so many other reasons that this Chamber has once again joined with all the other Chambers of Commerce in Scotland and with the CBI in declaring "—
There is no way in which one can indicate one's opposition more strongly than the CBI, the chambers of commerce and the three other pillars of life in Scotland have. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance on the matter and spell out exactly how the position of those bodies that I have mentioned will be protected. Perhaps he could also say whether there are any implications for local government because of the Royal charters of Royal Burghs, or whether that has all been swept aside in the past. I admit that I do not know the implications, but doubts and queries have been expressed. The main point is to assure all the influential and powerful bodies that I have mentioned, particularly those opposed to a separate Scottish Assembly, that their rights would be protected if any such Assembly ever came into being."its unremitting and wholehearted opposition to the enactment of the measure before Parliament."
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) missed out some pillars of Scottish life such as the Church of Scotland, which is not unimportant, and the Scottish TUC, which also is not an unimportant organisation.
They do not have Royal charters.
We all know that, but the hon. Gentleman could have mentioned them in passing, and he neglected to do so.
The hon. Gentleman also neglected to point out that under the Bill the universities are not devolved. Therefore, I wonder exactly what they are complaining about. Later in our consideration of the Bill there will be considerable complaints from hon. Members in various parts of the Committee who wonder why the universities are not devolved. One of the most insulting reasons given by some people in the universities is that they do not believe that the Scots are capable of handling a university system without infringing academic ability or academic freedom. But that is an argument for a later stage. I can well understand the anxiety of the Institute of Bankers and business and commerce generally to prevent the establishment of a Scottish Assembly, which will one day lead to a Scottish Parliament. Through that medium, they will become for the first time ever responsible to the people of Scotland for their day-to-day conduct of our financial, business and commercial affairs The day when Charlotte Square is brought under the scrutiny of a Scottish Parliament is one that a number of folk in business and commerce do not want to see, but it will be welcomed by the ordinary working people of Scotland. Those in the business and commercial sector exhibit the symptoms of an old Scots disease which may be mentioned after 11 p.m. tonight—a lack of self-confidence. Our business men do not believe that if they are stood on their own feet in the Scottish context they will be able to manage as they do now under the patronage and tutelage of people in the Westminster setting. They might be surprised by their own ability at the end of the day. I find what the hon. Gentleman said about Scottish medicine the most interesting thing of all. His quotation did not really lend weight to his argument but simply illustrated total ignorance of the Health Service on the part of the man he quoted, because we already have administrative devolution in the Scottish Health Service and we have had it since the establishment of the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. I would argue with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South or with any member of the British Medical Association that that has been to the considerable advantage of the Scottish community. In passing, I might say that, if the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to reply at the end of this debate, I hope he will say why Scottish members of the BMA feel as strongly as he suggests when they insist on having a Scottish Council of the BMA within the BMA in the United Kingdom.I did not say, and neither did Mr. Kyle, that he was against administrative devolution. He said that he was against further administrative devolution.
6.30 p.m.
There will be no further administrative devolution. It will be further legislative devolution. The future administration of the Scottish Health Service will be determined in Scotland in future as it has been in the past.
Still on the subject of the Scottish Health Service, when the hospital service was established there were quite distinct characteristics north of the border from those in the South. North of the border, because of the historical commitment of the teaching hospitals to the community, we had no such bodies as boards of management for teaching hospitals. The hospitals were part and parcel of the board of management set-up, which redounded to the benefit of the people of Scotland. It meant that the centres of excellence were not elitist centres and were in touch with community medicine. More importantly, community medicine could as of right within the same group call upon their expertise, which meant that relationships were built up between the best consultants and people who regarded themselves as ordinary consultants in the Health Service. That is not the case south of the border, where, because of a different pattern of development, different thoughts and different attitudes, there are teaching hospital boards of management distinctly different from other hospital boards of management. We therefore have evidence before us already that administrative devolution in the Health Service can be to the benefit of the Scottish people, and that will be so in the future as well. If that is the best argument that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South and the Scottish Council of the BMA can put up against devolution, I anticipate the "Yes" vote rising increasingly as more and more representatives of the council appear on television to tell us that they cannot do this and that they cannot do that when they have been doing it for a number of years. On the other hand, if my hon. Friend the Minister of State had come forward on the Bill and said that in the general administrative reshuffle in the United Kingdom the Government were doing away with administrative devolution in Scotland in the Health Service and putting it into the United Kingdom as a whole, there would have been blue murder at every meeting of general practitioners, hospital consultants, hospital boards of management and all the rest. They know that they are on to a good thing. We have a fairly good Health Service at the moment. The great difficulty in it is that it is not accountable in public terms on a day-to-day or year-to-year basis because people are appointed and not elected. It may be that one of the anxieties of some people in the medical profession is that, once a Scottish Assembly is established in Edinburgh, it may think of making the Health Service a democratic organisation in which people who formulate policy may be required to be elected. It may be that the Scottish Assembly would say that the health function should return to the local authorities, as it was before the war, or it might decide to do something different. But that is not a reason for not proceeding. The potential for the democratisation of the Health Service in a Scottish form operating on a policy prescribed by a Scottish Assembly is one of the better reasons for supporting this Part of the Bill.I wish to raise a question concerning the Scottish universities. As I understand it from the title of Schedule 6, it is envisaged that there will be provisions in Assembly Bills which affect the provisions of Royal charters.
It is not my concern to argue whether the universities should be devolved. My own view is that, if we are to have this type of devolution at all, we ought to devolve the universities along with the rest of education. However, we have not done so. As the Committee knows, there are two types of university in Scotland. There are the four universities to which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) referred, established under Royal charter. There are four older ones, each of which was established in different circumstances and in a rather complicated manner. The University of St. Andrews, in the town in which I was born, was originally founded by a charter from the archbishop. That was confirmed by a papal bull but, unfortunately, from the Pope in Avignon, whose powers were disputed. The university was turned upside down in the reformation of the Scottish Parliament, which then virtually abolished the powers of rector somewhat later in that century—in my view, as a former rector, a mistake. It was reformed again in 1689 and eventually, after a prolonged commission of the Scottish universities, it acts largely today under an Act of this Parliament. Unless one goes back to its very first stages of the archiepiscopal charter, it has never had a charter. The other three old Scottish universities are in roughly the same position. Their powers today are due largely to an early nineteenth century Act of Parliament. As I understand it, if a university feels that some provisions in an Assembly Bill go beyond the powers which have been devolved and affect it, it has certain remedies under earlier clauses of the Bill. This schedule clearly envisages that this might happen, and we have discussed what happens if it is considered that the Assembly goes outside its powers. My first question is, what steps does a university take? If it is one of the universities whose powers flow from a charter, who is to deal with the matter? When it says that it requires the Crown's consent, how is that sought and how will it be discharged? As for the older universities, I understand that that line of objection or question to an Assembly Bill is not open to them. They have no charters and, therefore, the provisions of any such Bill could not affect a Royal charter and it would not arise. So they would be left with the earlier provisions in the Bill and would have to rely upon the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think that this may happen. It is fairly clear that what happens in Scottish education generally will also affect the universities. We have also heard mention of medicine in this connection. The development of Scottish medicine might well affect university teaching. One can think of many other areas in which provisions properly devolved to the Scottish Assembly might affect the universities. It appears that the new universities will have two lines on which they may question the powers of the Assembly. The first is when a matter affects their charters. The second is that they may in appropriate cases question whether any proposal is within the powers of the Scottish Assembly. But the older Scottish universities which have no charters will have to rely upon the Secretary of State for Scotland or someone else. They are not devolved—wrongly, in my opinion. Who is to look after them? Who will deal with questions where their teaching could well be affected by changes in Scotland arising from actions of the Scottish Assembly? This seems to be a proper Committee point. I am not disputing the fundamental functions of the Bill. I merely ask for clarification on this point because I think it is important for those who run these institutions that they should be quite clear where they stand.The guillotine window is extremely small, and there are other very important clauses to discuss. So I shall confine myself to two questions.
First, the answer to this debate will be given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland responsible for health matters. It is fair to ask him, in the light of the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Mr. Sproat), and in the light of my point of order at the beginning of our proceedings, precisely what the Government say when Mr. Kyle, a distinguished Aberdeen consultant, speaks on behalf of the Royal charter institutions and says all that he has against devolution. When the doctors come out as strongly as they have done, and when their unease has been known for a long time, the Government cannot shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, it is just them".Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the same type of people came out against the establishment of the NHS, and does he agree that too much weight should not be given to the political views of doctors?
I read the distinguished biography of Aneurin Bevan, Volume 2, by the Lord President of the Council. It shows that Aneurin Bevan went to great lengths and was involved in endless discussions with representatives of the doctors in 1947 and 1948. It was out of those discussions, and not out of a guillotine situation, that the National Health Service emerged. I must tell my hon. Friend that he is not on a very good point there.
My second question concerns universities. It is true that they are not devolved, but can anyone imagine that if an Assembly is set up, the Assemblymen and the Assemblywomen will not want to get their claws on the universities? Within months they will say that to have a coherent Scottish education system they must have control over the universities. I see the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) assenting to that. If he is a member of the Assembly he will lead the campaign for control of the Scotttish universities. Do not let the universities, the vice-chancellor or anybody in the universities delude themselves. If the Assembly is ever established none of the safeguards that we are supposed to be discussing have a hope of coming into operation.I cannot understand the drift of this debate. As far as I can see, the amendment is a procedural one referring to the ability of the Scottish Assembly to alter the conditions affecting institutions that might have a Royal charter. The suggestion is that paragraph 5 of the schedule should be taken out. If there is to be any argument, it should be on the powers of the Assembly and what is to be devolved and what is not in relation to Schedule 10, but not in relation to Schedule 6. We are making a mountain out of a molehill, and for once I agree with the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that there are many more important matters in the Bill than this amendment that require our attention.
I, too, have one or two questions to put to the Minister which I hope he will be able to answer, because, as n-:y hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) said, this is a probing amendment.
Perhaps the Minister can say why we are prescribing the standing orders of the Scottish Assembly. One would have thought that one of the basic things that the Assembly ought to do is to arrange its own standing orders. I conclude that the reason why we are prescribing these standing orders is that we want to keep them out of certain sensitive areas. The sensitive areas are well illustrated in Schedule 6 and include, in paragraph 5,In effect, what we are saying is that in spite of the provisions of Schedule 10, which set out what the Assembly may and may not do, we must go further and prescribe these standing orders in some detail to keep them out of certain "no go" areas which are set out in Schedule 6. One is"Any provision affecting the provision of a Royal Charter."
I am sure that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) will be interested in that one. Then there is the provision affecting laws authorising or requiring the withholding of any document or refusal to answer. There is a reference to property of the Crown. There is a provision about imposing duties on members of the Armed Forces—questions of the fire service strike and so on. In paragraph 5 there is a reference to the provisions of a Royal charter. I hope that the Minister will tell us why, if his view that the Bill will provide the Scottish Assembly with genuine devolved powers is correct, the House of Commons needs to prescribe its Standing Orders. 6.45 p.m. I now turn specifically to paragraph 5 of Schedule 6. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South said that there were four pillars of Scottish life that were covered by Royal charter. I should like to add a fifth, and that is sport. I had some responsibility for this when I was Minister for Sport—whatever that extraordinary title means—in the previous Conservative Administration. I think it is right to recall to the Committee that sport in Scotland, as in England, was set up under a Royal charter which the Government of which I was a member brought in specifically to separate sport from politics. We decided at that time that the situation in which a Minister sat in the chair and ladled out grants, often on political grounds, to individual local authorities—I remember noticing that the money was often provided to rather marginal Labour areas—was wholly wrong. We decided that we should get the Minister out of the chair of the Sports Council and replace him with an independent sporting figure so that the moneys made available by the Government for sport were dispensed by an independent council of sportsmen and sports administrators rather than handled as a sort of political slush fund by political Ministers. I think that that was a good decision, and it has been welcomed in the sporting community. Above all, it has been welcomed in Scotland, and there are few nations in the world—here I pay my tribute to Scotland—that are more keenly sporting than the Scots. We might tonight pay tribute to them for having got into the next round of the World Cup whereas the English team has not done so, and they have done it largely because of the number of Anglo-Scots who might find themselves on the wrong side of the border in the future that we survey. A Sports Council was set up for England and Wales, and another separately for Scotland, under a Royal charter. I had a good deal to do with procuring that Royal charter. It is never easy to get a Royal charter. It is not something that Ministers can just set up. It has to be worked out very carefully, and it must have the consent of the Queen. Let us suppose that the Scottish Assembly wished to change, in one way or another, the Royal charter setting up the Sports Council for Scotland. Is it the case that, as a result of the limitation in paragraph 5 of Schedule 6, the Scottish Assembly would not be able to touch that Royal charter for Scottish sport? I believe it must be right to prevent that Royal charter from being amended or changed in any way by the Scottish Assembly. However, I should like a further assurance because of the way in which the paragraph and the schedule are written. If a Minister of the Crown wished to change the independent Scottish Sports Council back to a political creature, with himself in the chair and once again with his hands in the business of handing out grants, all that he would need to do, if I read the Bill correctly, would be to have a word with his friends in the Scottish Assembly and with the Scottish Secretary, and he would put up a proposal to amend the Royal charter to remove its independent character. Given that the Secretary of State consented to that change and so advised Her Majesty, it would take place. It would take place, as far as I can make out, without any action of the House of Commons and without any accountability to the House of Commons. Perhaps I should take the Minister through the steps very simply, because this could happen. A Minister of a Conservative or a Labour Government might decide that he wished to change the independent Scottish Sports Council established under Royal charter back to a political body. He would simply telephone his friends in Edinburgh, and the Scottish Assembly would put up that proposal. The Secretary of State would then give his consent and would so advise the Queen. Then it would happen. It would be done. I do not believe that it would serve Scottish sport, English sport or any other sport well if the Royal charter establishing an independent Sports Council could be changed in that way. I hope that the Minister will be able to give categorical assurances that the independent Royal charter Sports Councils cannot be changed by the back door in the manner that by my reading the Bill makes possible."Any provision affecting the Crown in its private capacity."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) said, this is a probing amendment and, in the interests of saving time, because there are many other matters that we want to get on to before 8 o'clock, I want to raise only one point. It is a point that I could have raised equally well either on Schedule 6 or on Clause 24, but I wish to do it at this point to save time.
I cannot understand why the Government have chosen the method of laying down these provisions by means of an instruction that the standing orders of the Assembly should provide for them. It would have been much simpler and much clearer and, as I will show shortly, more effective but certaintly as effective if the Government had just laid down that these provisions had to take effect without specifying that they should be written in the standing orders. Amendments Nos. 420 and 421 to Clause 24, page 12, were aimed at amending Clause 24 with that object in view. If we instruct the Scottish Assembly so to draw its standing orders that these exclusions are made it will work all right but it will be a clumsy way of doing it. It would have been much simpler to lay down that these exclusions shall be made. A more fundamental objection is this. Would the Minister care to consider what would happen if the Scottish Assembly decided to suspend standing orders at some point in the proceedings which it would be entitled to do just as the House of Commons is entitled to do? If the Scottish Assembly decided to suspend standing orders, all the exclusions which the Minister is writing into the Bill because they are necessary would become non-operative. This is a fundamental objection to this method of proceeding, by instructing that it should be written into the Assembly's standing orders. I should like the Minister, unless he has a good answer today, to consider the matter carefully between now and a later stage because I do not think that what he is trying to do in this clause and schedule will work if the Assembly has the right to suspend standing orders, as such an assembly obviously would have. What would happen to the schedule and its associated clause if the Assembly suspended standing orders?As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) said, this is a probing amendment. Perhaps it is just as well that it is, because if it were passed it would give the Assembly the power that the Opposition, I understand, do not want it to have. If passed, it would empower the Assembly to interfere with Royal charters and the bodies constituted thereunder. So perhaps it is just as well that this is a probing amendment.
The position at present, and, as we see it, the position as it will be in future, is that a body established under Royal charter and wishing to have changes made to its charter normally applies to the Privy Council. It is very seldom, if ever, that Parliament itself has brought about changes in a charter body or in a charter itself. It normally works the other way round, that the body concerned makes approaches to the Privy Council and, based on those approaches, the changes are then made by agreement with the body because the approach comes from it in the first place. It is envisaged that this position will continue once the Assembly is in being. In other words, Royal charter bodies which are established in Scotland would, by the same token, make application to or have discussions with the Assembly if they wanted changes in the charter and then the changes would be recommended but would come to the Secretary of State for Scotland because, as we have said so often throughout this Committee stage, there is no direct link with the Monarch and therefore it has to be done through the Secretary of State for Scotland. The position at present is quite clear. It is a position that certainly we expect to continue in the future. The safeguard is that any changes that are made in Royal charters must come to the Secretary of State whoever he or she may be at that time. So the safeguard that the House of Commons is asking for is included in the statement that I have just made. I will deal briefly with one or two specific points that were raised. Much was said about the universities. It goes without saying that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, in particular, who I accept cannot be with us at present, was arguing against a proposition that is not contained in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said, that is a matter for debate on another occasion but it is certainly not one for the moment. That is not a criticism, but obviously as the Bill is set out there is no provision and no proposal to devolve universities. This takes in the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). Because there is no provision to devolve universities, if a university established under a Royal charter were to have its Royal charter changed by the Assembly in a way that we do not envisage, equally the safeguard would be that the matter would have to come to the Secretary of State whoever he or she may be at that time.Of course my hon. Friend is quite correct in what he says as at the present time, but does he realise that some of us take the view, rightly or wrongly, that if the Assembly is established inevitably there will be an irresistible demand from the Assembly men to get their clutches on the universities?
What we are talking about is an Act of Parliament. Any extension of the powers contained in this or any other Act is a matter for the House of Commons. However much my hon. Friend may claim that the Assembly would want to get its claws, as he puts it, on the universities, eventually it is a matter for the House of Commons to resolve. That is exactly the safeguard that I have been explaining.
Much was said about the Health Service in Scotland. I do not intend to dwell on this issue too long but, as has been pointed out, I deal with the Health Service in Scotland as well as devolution. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire said, from his knowledge of the Health Service, that we have a different structure in Scotland. The Health Service in Scotland is not organised on the same basis as the Health Service in England and Wales. We did not accept the advice that was given by the McKinsey study team that was accepted here in England and Wales. Our Health Service is based on a one-tier structure. Indeed, when it came to implementation of consultants' contracts and junior consultants' contracts as they were implemented some 18 months ago, the health boards in Scotland negotiated their own arrangements with consultants in Scotland. There is a whole range of differences between the Health Service in Scotland and the Health Service in England and Wales. Although I do not deny that the professions in the Health Service are against devolution, with great respect the professions—I deal with them closely and have a good friendship with them—do not speak for the trade unions in the Health Service. I doubt whether some of the views expressed by those who have taken part in the debate represent the views of the Confederation of Health Service Employees or of the National Union of Public Employees or any of the other trade unions involved in the Health Service in Scotland. It would be wrong to give the impression that the view expressed on Monday was a unanimous view. There are other views.In any representations that my hon. Friend has had from people in the medical profession, has he ever been given any substantial reasons why there should be any deterioration in the standard of care after devolution compared with the present situation?
7.0 p.m.
I should have to think long and hard about any good substantial reason given to me by the profession why the standard of care would decline following the establishment of an Assembly. I seriously doubt whether that would be part of the profession's argument. In many ways the standard of care is just as much in the hands of the profession as it is in the hands of the politicians.
Does the Minister accept that two arguments are being advanced? The first, in the context of the block grant, is that the same priority might not be given to health because of the problems and pressures associated with such things as housing in Glasgow. Secondly, bearing in mind that Scotland receives 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. more per head on devolved services than England and Wales, there is real concern that this happy situation might not continue if the block grant had to be separately identified.
The hon. Gentleman has raised two points. What the hon. Gentleman calls the block grant is based, first, on negotiation, and, secondly, on need. It is not necessarily the case that the figures he used in his intervention would not apply during the negotiations. That is a matter for negotiation at that time.
On the question of the Assembly deciding its priorities, that is what devolution is about. There is no point in hedging on this subject. That is why I say so often that on the day an Assembly election takes place the politics of Scotland will be transformed. I hope that hon. Members opposite are listening carefully to this. When the elections take place the SNP will no longer be able to campaign on slogans. It will have to say where it stands on issues such as the Health Service, education and housing. The SNP has not had to say this up till now. It has got away with not saying it. But on the day when elections are held these issues will come sharply into focus and no party will be able to get away—as the SNP has done—with failing to say where it stands on various issues that concern the people of Scotland.The Minister is making a political point. Does he agree that we have published the policies that we advocate on housing, health and matters of that sort? Whether or not he agrees with them, we have come into the fray in preparation for Assembly elections in the same way as the Labour Party and the Scottish Labour Party. It is only from the Conservative Party that there has been a deafening silence.
The policies that are published appear to differ in each part of the country. If it is the policy of the SNP that the Health Service in Scotland should be run by a health commission made up of the profession, not only am I sure that the House of Commons and the Assembly and the people of Scotland will reject it but I think that the SNP may well pay very dear for that kind of policy.
May I make a constructive suggestion? Will my hon. Friend reread pages 102 to 218 of the great book on Aneurin Bevan written by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House? My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) raised questions about the setting up of the Health Service. Will my hon. Friend the Minister read how these detailed discussions took place in the past? If that analogy is to be made, it behoves my hon. Friend to talk seriously over the Christmas Recess to the doctors about their very real worries and make a statement to the House in the New Year about the results of these discussions. This is not something that can be dismissed lightly. They are real worries, although I shall not go into them now. Discussions ought to take place.
All I can say to my hon. Friend is that whenever anyone refers to Aneurin Bevan, the phrase that always comes to my mind is "familiar echoes from the past". We have had familiar echoes from my hon. Friend during these debates. However, I shall have a second look at the book and at the discussions which took place before the establishment of the National Health Service.
To reassure the medical profession, can the Minister give a simple assurance that if the Assembly comes into effect when the block grant has been fixed, the extra per head of the population given to Scotland for devolved services will not in any way be reduced from the present level of 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. more?
I cannot even give an assurance that the amount will not be reduced next year, let alone an assurance about what will happen when the Assembly comes into being. I think that the hon. Member understands that very well and realises that this is not a sensible point.
I wish now to answer other points which have been put to me. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire referred to the debate being about whether the people of Scotland had confidence in their ability to administer their own affairs. My hon. Friend and I have been partners in the devolution issue for some time now, but I do not think that I can agree with him on that score. There is no doubt about the self-confidence of the people of Scotland. We see it all over the world, and, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) generously pointed out, we saw it on the football field. The debate is not about that issue, and it devalues a debate on devolution to go into that aspect because it does not really exist. I have answered most of the points put to me—I hope that the Minister will not fail to deal with the question about the Royal charter on the Sports Council, which is of great importance to people outside the House.
That is no different from the question about the Royal charter on the other bodies in Scotland which are set up on that basis. I felt that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was dreaming up conspiracies which will never materialise. He was posing the proposition that in years to come some devious Secretary of State might want to return the Sports Council to the status of a political body, and that therefore the initiative would come from the Secretary of State. I do not believe that that position will prevail. Furthermore, it is a hypothetical situation. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that we cannot become involved in such so-called conspiracies and hypothetical situations. There is no apparent reason why such a situation should prevail.
The Government have been in power since February 1974 and no attempt has been made to do any such thing. The previous Government set up the Royal charter. That therefore takes care of the two main political parties. If I am confident of anything, I am confident that we shall never have an SNP Secretary of State for Scotland. The initiative will therefore not come from that direction. If the Liberals were to provide the Secretary of State for Scotland, I doubt whether an initiative would ever come from them. I therefore do not know what keeps the hon. Member awake at night, but it seems that he is about to tell me.Indeed I am. The hon. Gentleman should take this point more seriously. The current Minister who is responsible for sport has said expressly that he wishes to change the Royal charter so that the Minister can resume his position of political leadership within the Sports Council. That point is on record, and the Under-Secretary should take it seriously.
The question that I and many other people want the hon. Gentleman to answer is this. If a Minister sought to resume his political place on the Sports Council and to use its funds basically for political rather than sporting reasons, could he not, as the Bill stands, arrange for that change to be proposed in the Scottish Assembly, and consented to by the Secretary of State for Scotland? Admittedly the Privy Council could determine the matter as it wished, but we know that if the Government of the day strongly recommend a course of action it will be accepted by the Privy Council. I believe that that could happen, and I say that with some experience. I hope that the Minister will not make light of this matter and suggest that it is a hypothetical situation. I say that it is a real situation.This Bill deals with what the Assembly can do. The hon. Gentleman has moved on to what he thinks the Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Government would do. That is not what the Bill is about. It would be better if I restricted myself to what the Bill is about rather than become involved in imaginary situations that might or might not arise.
I turn to the question of the standing orders. Of course the Secretary of State could stop any Bill if there was an attempt to avoid obtaining his consent through the suspension of standing orders. There are therefore safeguards in that mechanism as well. This has been a short but important debate and the Committee need not be concerned—I do not say that lightly or with any irreverence to those who have spoken in the debate—about the aspect dealt with in the schedule. The schedule deals specifically with those issues which require Crown consent, and that is why the matter is not covered in Schedule 10.I hope that the Under-Secretary will not completely shut his mind to the possibility of a fresh look at the method of dealing by standing orders with the issue I referred to. I accept that the Secretary of State can in effect veto a Bill if it is wrong, but I hope that he and his officials will look hard at this matter because the way in which the Minister proposes to deal with it is nonsense. He could deal with it much more effectively if he deleted the provisions about standing orders and inserted straight-forward measures in the Bill instead.
I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member has said, but, as he knows, when I commit myself I commit myself, and when I do not I do not. This is one of those nights when I am not committing myself. I hope that I have said sufficient to reassure the Committee on this point.
Amendment negatived.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 25
Preservation Of Order
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
This clause is not simply about the Assembly's Serjeant at Arms, Assistant Serjeant at Arms and badge-holders. If it is to be a five-days-a-week, 37-weeks-a-year Parliament, the number of such officials will not be significantly fewer in the Scottish Assembly than in the House of Commons.
Let us consider the expertise of the Clerks. There are 51 Clerks to the House of Commons. In the Assembly there will be Clerks for Assembly Bills, Clerks for Public Bills and Clerks for Private Bills. The whole purpose of the Assembly is to churn out legislation. The point is that the Assembly is a legislative Assembly. It will therefore need a great many Clerks and parliamentary draftsmen, and parliamentary draftsmen can be a considerable bottleneck. The issue turns on how many Committees are set up and whether they are Select Committees or Standing Committees. If many of them are established, the Assembly will need a lot of Clerks. If few Committees are established and the Committee stages of legislation are taken in Committee of the whole House, fewer Clerks will be needed.On a point of order, Sir Myer. Is it in order to discuss the question of Clerks to the Assembly? Are they to be entrusted with the preservation of order in the Assembly? Has not the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) gone far outside the terms of the debate?
If the hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 25, he will see that it states:
"Proceedings" means the conduct of the business, and, therefore, the Clerks are obviously involved in it."The standing orders of the Assembly may include provision for preserving order in the proceedings of the Assembly".
7.15 p.m.
Being obedient, Sir Myer, I shall move on to ground which I feel is certainly the business of Clause 25. I refer to one particular Committee, the Privileges Committee. The clause states:
I am not trying to conjure this out of the air, because I happen to be one of the very few Members of the House of Commons to have had the misfortune to come before the Privileges Committee. It is a very awe-inspiring experience, and no one who has had it is likely to forget it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) will, I am sure, agree with me. To be cross-questioned, in front of people such as the Leader of the Opposition, by the present Lord Chancellor is no joke, even if one feels that one is morally innocent. I shall not go into the case in the late 1960s when I appeared before the Privileges Committee. I simply want to say that we ought to examine very carefully indeed—and this is surely the time to do it—precisely what we are setting up inside the Assembly. In case anyone should think that I am out of order, I repeat the wording of the clause:"including provision for excluding a member from such proceedings."
Surely this is the place in which to raise the whole question of privilege in the Scottish Assembly. I confidently predict that our Scottish propensity to haul one another in front of a Privileges Committee will be no less great in Scotland than it is in the House of Commons. Indeed, it will probably be greater, because when we are left to ourselves the Scots are a very fractious people. I do not know why this should be the cause of merriment to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), because I should have thought that the whole issue of privilege in the Assembly—"The standing orders of the Assembly may include provision for preserving order in the proceedings of the Assembly, including provision for excluding a member from such proceedings."
When the hon. Gentleman sits down, I shall show that I take this clause very seriously.
If there is not a Privileges Committee of some sort—it may go under another name in the Assembly—how are disputes to be settled within a subordinate Parliament? There is no easy way round a Privileges Committee. I feel strongly about it because the scars of the episode to which I referred still remain with me. I suspect that similar scars remain with any hon. Member who has had the misfortune to appear before his colleagues at a meeting of the Privileges Committee.
I turn now to a different point, Sir Myer. In the running of an Assembly there are great difficulties when there is a committee system. In his famous letter to the Shetland Islands Council of 23rd November 1977, my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, on page 3:In the running of any Assembly, Assembly Committees will find that they have a great problem. As is further stated on page 5 of the letter,"The planning system, which does not fit neatly under either devolved or reserved matters, constitutes a special area in which Ministers must retain what are in essence concurrent powers. The Secretary of State is empowered to intervene, whether or no: a Scottish Secretary has already called in an application, if it raises issues affecting a reserved matter, such as ports, energy, industry or defence. Planning issues affecting matters for which Ministers remain responsible to Parliament have to be settled by the Government, who alone are in a position to have due regard to factors of wider national interest."
I shall not take up any more of my colleagues' time. All I will say is that it is a terrible shame that we are faced with a guillotine. If I have been itsybitsy and incoherent, I do not apologise for it. It is simply that there is no time in which to explain properly issues of very real substance. The issue of privilege is one that simply cannot be swept under the carpet."The Government will in any case retain its powers to give specific grants … and to approve capital expenditure; and these powers could be altered if necessary by further Westminster legislation."
This is a very remarkable clause indeed, and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is quite right in saying that we ought to have time maturely to consider its implications—why it is here at all, what would be different if it were not here at all, and its general effect. I hope that I may remain in order in taking it—in this respect only, that is—in connection with the next clauses which follow. In this and in subsequent clauses in some cases we are saying that the Assembly may make standing orders. In others we are saying that it shall make standing orders.
My first question is: can the Assembly make standing orders only on those matters on which this Bill either permits or instructs it to? If it can do so on other matters, what is the point of permissive clauses such as this one? The natural deduction is that, unless it is expressly permitted to make standing orders on the subjects mentioned, it cannot make standing orders at all. I can understand the purpose of clauses which say "shall make a standing order", but unless the power is limited to whatever is permissive or mandatory in the Bill I do not see the point of a permissive clause. It will be a funny set of standing orders which is limited to what is laid down permissively or mandatorily in this and the following clauses. Is the purpose of the clause to protect the Assembly from proceedings in the courts? Is the reason for Clause 25 that if it were not there and the Assembly made standing orders under which it could exclude a Member from its proceedings, that Member would have a remedy outside the Assembly in the courts? I assume that is so, but it is important if it is so, and I think that we are entitled to an explanation of the effect in that respect of this clause. The clause refers toThis presumably means that it cannot make standing orders which cover the exclusion of a Member except in the interests of preserving order. May that be confirmed? If that is so, it means that the Assembly will not have the power to exclude a Member, apart from Clause 26, for any reason whatsoever but that of preserving order in the proceedings. There can be no question of turpitude or of any behaviour short of disqualification under Clause 9 or Clause 26. There can be no question of a Member being excluded in any of those circumstances. I now come nearer to the subject matter of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I refer to the relationship between the proceedings of this Assembly and its control over those proceedings, and the situation of the House of Commons. We ought to dwell upon that. The privileges and powers of the House are not exclusively connected with its legislative capacity, but I think that most hon. Members would say that they were highly germane to its legislative capacity, and that we would be a poor legislative assembly if we did not possess those rights and privileges. I think that I am being realistic in venturing to say that in the Bill we are transferring part of the legislative power of the House in a part of the kingdom to another Assembly. It is therefore relevant for us to inquire what rights and privileges it is envisaged that the Assembly will possess. It has been stated—I think not without justice—that the nearest thing that this country has to a written constitution is a combination of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and "Erskine May". Indeed, those are the only ultimate safeguards which, lying within the control of the House, are solely within the power of the House to extend, to confirm or to limit, so that in that sense it is true that the ultimate recourse of the citizens of this realm is to the House and to the manner in which it conducts its proceedings. We are, of course, sovereign over our own procedures. We are also sovereign over our own discipline. We can punish or expel a Member without reason shown if we wish to do so, and without recourse to any external authority. If there were any recourse to an external authority, then, sure enough, our independence would be gone. It is the fact that nothing which happens here and nothing that we do can be called in question outside, which gives us our supreme legislative competence and our supreme ultimate power over the Executive. We ought to be told very clearly to what extent, if any, such privileges are expected to belong to the subordinate legislative Assembly that we are setting up. If, as my untutored reading of this and the following clauses suggests, it is that anything that is not guarded in these clauses is open to challenge outside the Assembly, we ought to understand—and so should the SNP—that it is a very different kind of legislature that we are establishing. If any hon. Member were to ask me or other opponents of the Bill "What are you complaining about? You do not like these powers being devolved at all. Why do you complain when we discover that they are devolved to an Assembly that is weak and vulnerable in a way that we are not?", I should reply "I am very tender of the manner in which the power to make laws governing the citizens of any part of this kingdom is exercised". If the power to make laws is to be exercised by a body which in the respects I have mentioned is open to the censure, interference, discipline and overruling of external bodies, I think that we should know and we ought to take it into account before we proceed further with the Bill. It is not really the rights of the Assemblyman that we are concerned with. If that was all we were concerned with, I would not be troubling the Committee. It is the rights of the citizens of Scotland who will live under the laws which it is envisaged will be made by this Assembly that we are concerned with. That is why we ought to be very careful to understand entirely what kind of Assembly we are setting up. Although this is only a three-line clause, I hope that the Government will not underestimate its importance. I hope that the Minister of State, if he is to reply to the debate, as is his wont, will deal very carefully with the implications of this and the other clauses and throw as much light as he can upon the Government's view of the status of the Assembly and its Members."provision for preserving order in the proceedings of the Assembly, including provision for excluding a Member".
The clause gives me concern, as it does the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I find it very difficult to understand what it means. Presumably it means that the standing orders of the Assembly may include provisions for preserving order. Presumably there may be no provision for standing orders and the Assembly is entitled to have no provisions for keeping order and no provisions for exclusion.
On the other hand, the Assembly "may" provide for keeping order and "may" provide for exclusion only on the basis that it is contrary to order. Presumably, therefore—this is the implication of what is for once simply a statutory sentence—if provisions are made for the exclusion of persons who are said to be not preserving order in the Assembly, that is a basis upon which one can exclude them. 7.30 p.m. Therefore, for instance, if we wish to exclude a member from the Assembly for whatever reason—that he says things that we do not want to hear—we can adopt the attitude that is frequently adopted in those great cathedrals of free speech, the universities, which have characterised the right hon. Member for Down, South and others as persons who necessarily and always offend order. Whenever such persons turn up to speak their audiences at such institutions scream and yell and say that they are persons who should always be excluded. That is what the clause says. That is the only basis upon which one can exclude, and that is the basis upon which the orders that may be made will compel exclusion. I find that a very dangerous inference. There is another thing which I do not think has been understood sufficiently but which should be understood. This is not a very big clause. Some hon. Members may not think that it is a very important clause and some may not even understand it, but let us not forget that the change in the British constitution which we are arguing here in this High Court of Parliament will be voted upon by a jury in Scotland that represents one-eleventh of those whom it will affect. If we went to the most informed and intelligent person in Scotland, we would discover that he had no idea of what the argument is. The Press cannot give it to him in two lines and the media cannot give it to him in two minutes, or whatever time they have. The argument is being debated before those who are entitled to be in the Strangers Gallery. There are very few of them; it is not full. There are usually three Members on the Government Front Bench, less than half a dozen hon. Members behind it, and perhaps 30 or 40 hon. Members on the Opposition side of the Committee. It is they who have to decide whether the argument is right and answer the questions of those among whom the argument is unknown and is not heard. This Committee stage should be transferred to Scotland, so that those who will have to judge the issue could listen to it. We should not need a very big church hall, because there are only 10 Labour Members and 40 Opposition Members present. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said that they are all in Argentina. Not yet. But let us be clear. Even on so simple a clause as this, there is an important argument of principle which will not be known to those who will vote "Yea" or "Nay" when we have voted upon the clause.I shall not detain the House for more than a moment. As we have moved on to the detail of the Bill it has become crystal clear what a devastatingly bad thing it is to be working under a timetable. It is fair to say that this section of the Bill, relating to standing orders, is a dog's breakfast. I do not know upon what basis the provisions have been written into the Bill. As has been said, there seems to be very little rhyme or reason as to which provisions contain a mandatory entitlement and which are permissive.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will bear in mind that as we are working under a timetable he is not able to be put under the pressure that Parliament ought to put him under. But it is clear to me that this section, dealing with standing orders, must be fundamentally re-examined. I can see no arguments for saying that these two items should be given a permissive "may". There is no rhyme or reason about it. If the provisions "may" be put into standing orders, what on earth is the point of writing it into the Bill? The Assembly is free to do as it wishes. In spite of the fact that the Minister has a timetable motion at his back and he can get away with anything he likes, I hope that he will take back this part of the Bill, which is a dog's breakfast, and think it out again.I find it a little surprising that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) should describe this clause as a "dog's breakfast". I note his comments about working under a timetable, but I take it a little hard that some Conservatives should be constantly reminding us of the fact that we have a guillotine. They have voted for the guillotine, as I have myself on many occasions. The Opposition voted for it, for example, on the European Communities Bill—
indicated dissent—
I exempt the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) from that charge. I know that he did not vote for the guillotine on that occasion. I was dealing with the smaller fry from Ayr.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised again the question of what the Scots are like. He ascribes great national characteristics to us. I am no greater expert on the Scottish character than he is. He says that we Scots are fractious. I take the view that we are no different from people in any other part of the United Kingdom. I suppose that my hon. Friend absorbed that sort of idea when he was at Eton and Cambridge. Fortunately, I had a Scottish education. Therefore, perhaps I am nearer the mark when it comes to judging the Scottish character. If my hon. Friend insists on setting himself up as a judge of the Scottish character, I might suggest that he would be better equipped to do so had he been educated in Scotland.At the schools which the Minister attended, he learned to be unctuous.
Maybe if I needed that capacity to be refreshed I could listen to hon. Members from time to time. I believe that the Scottish people are level-headed and responsible and that they will make a great success of the Assembly and the democratic opportunity that it presents. I hope that hon. Members will not mislead the Committee on an unfair assumption of the Scottish people's capability.
But the substantial issue is this—and I suspect that we are no more and no less fractious than anyone else. Are we really saying that the Assembly does not need a Privileges Committee? If that is so, how will it settle disputes, as disputes are bound to arise from time to time? Will the Assembly have a Privileges Committee, and, if so, what form will it take?
That is largely a matter for the Assembly, and I shall come to that in a moment.
The right hon. Member for Down, South raised the question of "shall" and "may" and the effect of these terms. Where the word "shall" applies, there is an obligation on the Assembly to include a provision in the standing orders. Where the word "may" applies, the Assembly is not bound to follow the provision and does not have to implement it. "May" is merely an indication of what Parliament thinks is appropriate for inclusion in the standing orders, but the Assembly will not be compelled to follow it. I must make it clear that the Assembly will not have parliamentary privileges What we are doing in setting up the Assembly is delegating certain legislative and executive powers to the Assembly and Administration in Scotland. We are not devolving sovereignty, and there is no question of parliamentary privilege attaching to the Assembly. In Clause 8(1) of the Bill, a procedure is provided for the Assembly to regulate its standing orders. In Clauses 24 to 29, the particular provisions of the standing orders are highlighted in the Bill. Some have to be made obligatory on the Assembly and other are left on a "may" basis. This is an indication from Parliament to the Assembly of what it is expected to provide.Is the Minister suggesting that the "may" clauses are an indication to the Assembly of what it should do? If, however, the Assembly has the total power to do whatever it likes, regardless of the clause, what is likely to happen?
I have been making a distinction between "shall" and "may" There are certain provisions that we believe are absolutely essential. There are others which, we have made clear, we think should be provided but which are not obligatory on the Assembly. By and large, we are leaving a great deal to the Assembly about the way in which it conducts itself once it has been established. To provide a great amount of detail for all the provisions is not a very sensible approach. We are making the assumption that the Assembly will be composed of reasonable people just as we have reasonable people in the House of Commons. [Interruption.] I believe that the House is a very responsible institution, despite what some hon. Members may think, and I believe that we can make the same assumption about the Scottish Assembly.
The right hon. Member for Down. South raised another point about the expulsion of a Member. In Clause 25 there is no reference to expulsion but only a reference to the exclusion of a Member from the proceedings. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Ayr believes that every provision should be a "shall" provision which would be obligatory on the Assembly. The Assembly may choose to make other standing orders about matters that are not referred to here. It is desirable that Parliament should lay down some provisions that are obligatory and others that are desirable.Does the Minister agree that normally the provision in a statute that any particular body may do something implies that in the absence of such a provision it may not do that thing? Is it not misleading and somewhat contrary to normal parliamentary procedure, instead of conferring the permission which would otherwise be required, to give useful hints for standing orders rather than to specify legislative requirements?
Secondly, will he explain what would happen if the Assembly refused to pass a standing order that was said to be mandatory? Would the sanction be that legislation that was subsequently passed would be void and of no effect? If not, what is the alternative sanction?I have made my position clear. The Assembly is in a different position with "may" provisions than it is with "shall" provisions. I do not think it is necessary to go any further than that. The words "may include" are an indication to the Assembly that this provision should be included. If we did not work in this way, we would have "shall" provisions everywhere.
It is perfectly clear that any sensible Assembly will make such provisions; there is an obvious stock in trade of standing orders. If it does not follow up a "shall" provision, it will be breaking the law as it is laid down in the Bill which I hope will become an Act. The Secretary of State would be able to require it to make the Standing Order or fill the gap. Once this Act of Parliament has passed through Parliament, he will be able to do this because the Bill says that the Secretary of State will have powers and he can deal with it. The right hon. Member for Down, South said that we should not underestimate the importance of the clause. I have no intention of doing so. On the other hand, it is possible to overestimate the provisions of the clause. I think that there is no question but that the Assembly will abide by the provisions in the standing orders. It is essential that some form of standing orders should be established, and we have set out particular points, some obligatory and some optional on the Assembly. Bearing in mind that there is no parliamentary privilege and the Assembly is subordinate to this Parliament, I do not think that any suggestion has been made that there is a better way of going about this.If Clause 25 were not in the Bill, and if standing orders were nevertheless made for excluding a Member on grounds of order, would that Member have an external remedy? The hon. Gentleman has already said that the Assembly will have no privilege, but will the standing orders of the Assembly protect the Assembly against external remedies against its actions?
7.45 p.m.
I must confess that I do not know the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. I think that it involves an examination of the law. I am not in a position to give an answer. I shall endeavour to establish it. I shall communicate with the right hon. Gentleman. It is difficult to envisage what legal remedies might be open to a Member of the Assembly in the situation that the right hon. Gentleman poses and the protection that might be available. It is a bit much to expect a Minister to give a legal opinion off the cuff on such a matter, but I shall ensure that the right hon. Gentleman receives an answer from me.
I believe that this is a sensible clause. We are debating whether it should stand part of the Bill. The debate has widened somewhat, but I am happy to talk about other clauses in the spirit in which the debate has been conducted. I submit that it is sensible for these provisions to form part of the clause, and I hope that the Committee will agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.Perhaps the Minister of State will say a further word about privilege. Is the Assembly to have no privilege? Surely it will have qualified privilege.
It is a difficult matter. I am talking about parliamentary privilege. It will have absolute privilege in respect of defamation, for example. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman has raised a different matter. Provision is made in the Bill. The Assembly will have the same privileges as the House of Commons.
Clause 16.
As the hon. Gentleman reminds me, that is provided for in Clause 16. I was talking about parliamentary privilege as the matter had been raised, quite reasonably, by the right hon. Member for Down, South. I hope that I have given him a clear answer to that if not to everything else.
The Question is, That the clause stand part—
I shall detain the Committee for only a few seconds. The Minister of State was honest enough to say that he could not answer one of the questions. With respect, he has not answered the other questions. I ask the hon. Gentleman to make a point of writing to answer the other matters.
First, what will happen if the Assembly fails to carry out one of the instructions that it "shall" put a certain matter into standing orders? Under what provision of the Bill would the Secretary of State be able to compel the Assembly to do that? Secondly, if these matters have been selected as permissively to be included in the standing orders, surely the provision of two particular matters implies that other matters that could have been so required are not able to be written in at all. By writing in one, the hon. Gentleman is automatically saying that others cannot be included. Thirdly, will the hon. Gentleman give a proper and firm answer to the question which has been raised concerning exclusion on the ground of creating disorder? If that measure were not in the Bill, could not the Assembly do precisely that? Would not that be a perfectly satisfactory solution? This has been a most unsatisfactory debate.I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes that view. No doubt he feels that he should display his diligence as a former devolutionist who is now part of the team which opposes the Bill. He is making rather a meal of these issues. He probably thinks that they are more important than the other matters that we are coming to discuss.
I said to the right hon. Member for Down. South (Mr. Powell)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is important to remind the Committee that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has been quite a keen devolutionist. He has shared platforms with me to argue the case for devolution. I do not mind being criticised by the hon. Gentleman, but it is only right to remind the Committee of the hon. Gentleman's earlier attitude towards devolution. I do not know the answer to the question posed by the right hon. Member for Down, South but I shall actively seek to establish the answer. As for the other matters raised by the hon. Member for Ayr, I am rather surprised that he does not come forward and say that we should insert "shall" provisions. It would be open to him to table amendments that would make these provisions mandatory.It is the Government's Bill.
We have a responsibility for the Bill, but it is open to the Opposition, as well as those on the Government Benches, to table amendments to improve it. One of the Government's responsibilities is to explain the Bill, and that is what I am endeavouring to do. As for the Assembly's standing orders, if we were to make certain matters incumbent upon it, I can imagine all sorts of possibilities arising.
I believe that the clause will ensure that the Assembly will have sensible standing orders, but these are largely matters for the Assembly to decide. I cannot believe that it is necessary to give it a complete kit that will cover everything that is likely to arise. I believe that it will be a sensible body. I see no reason to think that it will not behave sensibly. I do not know whether the Assembly will be as fractious as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) believes. I do not know whether my hon. Friend will stand for the Assembly. His standing is not beyond possibility. If he is elected, the Assembly might be rather more fractious than I anticipate. However, I believe that it will behave reasonably and that the clause includes a perfectly reasonable provision. I hope that the clause will stand part of the Bill.Surely it would be best if from now on we chose to forget each other's past. I have here an article of 19th August 1974 about
It states that my hon. Friend"Mr. John Smith, MP for North Lanark."
From now on, Sir Myer, do not you think it would be best—"claimed that members of the party who were pressing for devolution to a Scottish Government without the loss of the office of Secretary of State and a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster were being dishonest."
Order. We are not going to widen the terms of Clause 25.
With respect, Sir Myer, I think that I am entitled to answer my hon. Friend. Before I do so, I remind him that in October 1974, when he was chairman of the Scottish Labour Group of Members of Parliament, he complained that the Government were not speeding up proposals to bring devolution before the House of Commons.
We all have a past.
And that is no bad thing. My hon. Friend is adept at stating the obvious. We all have a past. I hope that hon. Members will not stick rigidly to their positions on constitutional matters. It is extremely important that we have a lively and developing dialogue. I hope that, as the Bill proceeds, some of the scales that afflict some Opposition Members in their blind opposition to devolution will drop from their eyes and that they will be persuaded of the merits of the Bill. I hope that when that happens they will be big enough to admit that they were wrong before and were persuaded by the Government in Committee
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Members' Pecuniary Interests
I beg to move Amendment No. 239, in page 12, line 17, at end insert:
'and such disclosures of pecuniary interest shall be entered in a register, compiled in such form as the standing orders shall provide, and deposited with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council'.
With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 444, in page 12, leave out lines 18 to 21. No. 240, in page 12, line 21, leave out '£500' and insert '£1,000'. No. 185, in page 12, line 21, at end insert:and expulsion from the Assembly'.
I have tabled Amendments Nos. 239 and 240 to probe the Bill and try to make the Government issue a clear statement on the elected Members' pecuniary interests. I am aware that the Government have been running away from a debate on the subject for almost 18 months. It seems from the way in which my hon. Friend the Minister of State has been speaking for the past few minutes that he is trying hard to avoid a debate on the issue now.
My hon. Friend knows that that is not my position.
I hope that that is true. If my hon. Friend is concerned to have a debate, I trust that he will make arrangements for a proper debate on Members' interests and that it will come before the House of Commons very soon.
It is clear that the present posture adopted in the House on Members' interests, especially the part of it that relates to the register, has become farcical. It is clear that in many local authorities the procedure for recording Members' interests does not work very well. It seems that there is an overwhelming case for one system of declaring and recording the pecuniary interests of all elected representatives in the United Kingdom. It is absurd that we should have different standards applying in different pieces of legislation. The provisions in the Bill should be set out in terms that are acceptable both to the House of Commons and to all other elected bodies which operate within the United Kingdom. The clause ought to be considered not on its own but in terms of the general question. This matter should not be left to be dealt with in the Standing Orders. I looked carefully to see whether the Bill could be amended in such a way as to enable this provision to be set out clearly separately from the Standing Orders. It does not seem right that this matter should be legislated for by Members of the Assembly and then imposed upon them. The declaration of interests should be made a condition of people participating in elections to the Assembly. It should not be imposed afterwards. Such matters should be dealt with other than by Standing Orders. At the moment, people can be elected to the Assembly on one set of Standing Orders only to find, while they are serving, that the Standing Orders are altered. I hope that on Report the Government will bring forward some provision to take this matter out of Standing Orders.Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I have very little time. No. If such matters are to be imposed by Standing Orders, the legislation should set out the guidelines more clearly than it does.
We have already had reference to the word "shall". As I understand it, the Standing Orders could provide that Members shall declare their interests, provided that they are likely to amount to more than a particular sum. The Standing Orders could state that it would be a courtesy for Members to declare their interests. Therefore, although there would be a requirement that there be Standing Orders to that effect, they could be extremely weak. My amendment would make it more positive that there be a register of interests than would be set out in the Standing Orders. There is a strong argument for the Government's looking into the whole question of Member's interests and putting it into legislation, not only in this Bill, but in the Wales Bill and the European Assembly Elections Bill, in order to set standards for the whole country. I should like to deal briefly with the Amendment No. 240, which concerns enforcement. This seems to be one of the major problems in the House of Commons at present. We have a register of Members' interests, but there is apparently no political will to enforce it. The Government have at least learned a bit of a lesson from the farce that has been going on in the House with regard to its own register of Members' interests. The Government have now decided to make the enforcement of the declaration of Members' pecuniary interests a matter for the courts. It is a difficult matter. I am surprised that the Liberal Party's Amendment No. 444, which suggests leaving enforcement to the Assembly, does not refer to enforcement from outside. I should have thought that it was clear that the present arrangements in the House of Commons are not working because they rely on Members to enforce the declaration of interests, and obviously political issues are at stake. The Bill provides for a fine of only £500. I think that the penalty should be more severe.Does this not constrast with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life—the Salmon Commission, published 18 months ago and not yet debated—that the penalty for councillors, who at present can only be fined, should be up to two years' imprisonment? Even that recommendation has not been followed in the Bill.
That clearly illustrates the fact that there should be a major debate on this issue. I hope that the Minister, who will not really have sufficient time to reply to the debate—I have been forced to try to condense many of the remarks that I should have liked to make—will give an undertaking that there will be a full debate on the whole question of Members' interests not only in the House of Commons but in the elected Assemblies that we are setting up.
Briefly, the Government's view is that the question of the conduct of the register is best left to the Assembly.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about subsection (2). I should point out that the Government are having second thoughts on this matter, but not in the direction for which my hon. Friend is arguing. We do not see the Assembly as a local authority body. The Government are seriously thinking about what might be done on Report—for example, removing subsection (2) altogether. I think it right to make that statement tonight.It being Eight o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [ 16th November] and the Resolution [ 22nd November], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eight o'clock.
Clauses 26 to 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Remuneration Of Members, Etc
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
Division No. 36]
| AYES
| [8.0 p.m.
|
| Allaun, Frank | Graham, Ted | Parry, Robert |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Grant, George (Morpeth) | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Perry, Ernest |
| Ashton, Joe | Grocott, Bruce | Price, William (Rugby) |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Reid, George |
| Atkinson, Norman | Hardy, Peter | Richardson, Miss Jo |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Roderick, Caerwyn |
| Bain, Mrs Margaret | Hart, Rt Hon Judith | Rooker, J. W. |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Hatton, Frank | Rose, Paul B. |
| Beith, A. J. | Henderson, Douglas | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Horam, John | Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) |
| Bishop, Rt Hon Edward | Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Bradley, Tom | Hunter, Adam | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) | Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Janner, Greville | Silverman, Julius |
| Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) | Jay, Rt Hon Douglas | Skinner, Dennis |
| Buchanan, Richard | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Small, William |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | John, Brynmor | Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) |
| Campbell, Ian | Johnson, James (Hull West) | Spearing, Nigel |
| Carmichael, Neil | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Clemitson, Ivor | Jones, Alec (Rhondda) | Stewart, Rt Hon Donald |
| Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) | Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Stoddart, David |
| Coleman, Donald | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) | Kerr, Russell | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Corbett, Robin | Lamborn, Harry | Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) |
| Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | Lamond, James | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E) | Lee, John | Thompson, George |
| Craigen, Jim (Maryhill) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon) |
| Crawford, Douglas | Litterick, Tom | Tierney, Sydney |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Luard, Evan | Tinn, James |
| Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) | Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) |
| Cryer, Bob | Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson | Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) |
| Dalyell, Tam | McCartney, Hugh | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) | MacCormick, Iain | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Watkinson, John |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | McElhone, Frank | Watt, Hamish |
| Deakins, Eric | Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Weetch, Ken |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Maclennan, Robert | Welsh, Andrew |
| Dempsey, James | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Doig, Peter | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | White, James (Pollok) |
| Dormand, J. D. | Mendelson, John | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Edge, Geoff | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Whitlock, William |
| English, Michael | Molloy, William | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Ennals, Rt Hon David | Moonman, Eric | Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford) |
| Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) | Moyle, Roland | Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E) |
| Ewing, Harry (Stirling) | Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King | Wilson, William (Coventry SE) |
| Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray) | Newens, Stanley | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. | Noble, Mike | Woodall, Alec |
| Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | O'Halloran, Michael | Woof, Robert |
| Flannery, Martin | Orbach, Maurice | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Palmer, Arthur | |
| Forrester, John | Pardoe, John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Gilbert, Dr John | Park, George | Mr. Joseph Harper and |
| Gourlay, Harry | Parker, John | Mr. A. W. Stallard |
NOES
| ||
| Adley, Robert | Boscawen, Hon Robert | Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Braine, Sir Bernard | Clark, William (Croydon S) |
| Alison, Michael | Brittan, Leon | Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Brocklebank-Fowler, C. | Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) |
| Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East) | Brooke, Peter | Cope, John |
| Awdry, Daniel | Brotherton, Michael | Dean, Paul (N Somerset) |
| Banks, Robert | Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Bell, Ronald | Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Dunlop, John |
| Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) | Budgen, Nick | Eden, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Benyon, W. | Bulmer, Esmond | Emery, Peter |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | Fairbairn, Nicholas |
| Body, Richard | Churchill, W. S. | Fairgrieve, Russell |
The Committee divided: Ayes 176, Noes 142.
| Farr, John | Le Marchant, Spencer | Raison, Timothy |
| Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Rathbone, Tim |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) |
| Forman, Nigel | Loveridge, John | Rhodes James, R. |
| Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) | McCusker, H | Ridsdale, Julian |
| Fry, Peter | Macfarlane, Neil | Rifkind, Malcolm |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | MacKay, Andrew (Stechford) | Ross, William (Londonderry) |
| Godber, Rt Hon Joseph | MacMillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Goodhew, Victor | McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) | Marten, Neil | Shepherd, Colin |
| Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) | Mather, Carol | Sims, Roger |
| Gray, Hamish | Maude, Angus | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Grist, Ian | Mawby, Ray | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Grylls, Michael | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Smith, Dudley (Warwick) |
| Hall, Sir John | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Spence, John |
| Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Mills, Peter | Spicer, Michael (S Worcester) |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Hawkins, Paul | Moate, Roger | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
| Hicks, Robert | Monro, Hector | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Holland, Philip | Montgomery, Fergus | Tapsell, Peter |
| Howell, David (Guildford) | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Taylor, R. (Croydon NW) |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Morgan, Geraint | Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) |
| Hurd, Douglas | Morris, Michael (Northampton S) | Tebbit, Norman |
| James, David | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) | Mudd, David | Trotter, Neville |
| Jones, Arthur (Daventry) | Newton, Tony | Viggers, Peter |
| Jopling, Michael | Nott, John | Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester) |
| Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith | Onslow, Cranley | Warren, Kenneth |
| Kaberry, Sir Donald | Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Kimball, Marcus | Page, Richard (Workington) | Wells, John |
| King, Evelyn (South Dorset) | Pattie, Geoffrey | Winterton, Nicholas |
| King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Pink, R. Bonner | Younger, Hon George |
| Kitson, Sir Timothy | Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch | |
| Knox, David | Prentice, Rt Hon Reg | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Lamont, Norman | Price, David (Eastleigh) | Mr. Anthony Berry and |
| Langford-Holt, Sir John | Prior, Rt Hon James | Mr. Michael Roberts |
| Latham, Michael (Melton) | Pym, Rt Hon Francis |
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Agency Arrangements And Provision Of Services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
8.15 p.m.
This is one of the clauses to which we have tabled no amendments because we are not sure precisely what the clause is designed to do. I hope that that is not because of our lack of understanding, since we have shown that we have probably an even greater grasp of the details and the dangers of the Bill than the Government. I am sure that the Minister of State will accept that. What we would like to do is to ask one or two questions about why the clause is necessary.
Subsection (1) provides:and "relevant authority" is defined in subsection (3)—"Arrangements may be made between a Scottish Secretary and any relevant authority"—
My first question is whether we are correct in saying that this is a two-way process. Could a Scottish Secretary or his Department do a job for a relevant authority and could that relevant authority do a job for a Scottish Secretary? Can the Minister confirm that that is so? Second, can the Minister say under what circumstances he envisages these things being done? There are some public bodies, such as the Scottish Special Housing Association, which the Government ask to do a job for them. Is it this kind of thing which is envisaged, or is it to cover some of the relevant functions of the organisation itself? Thirdly, we should like to know why this provision is restricted to what are called relevant authorities. There will, I am sure, be many occasions on which the Assembly will want an outside body which is not a relevant authority to do a job for it. There will, presumably, be a great many studies carried out. One thing we always find with new bodies is that they want to do a great deal of fact-finding. I see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small) present. He can confirm what I say because he is one of those hon. Members who carries out parliamentary fact-finding on behalf of his colleagues, returning to give us a great deal of helpful information. Many hon. Members engage in fact-finding exercises which can be helpful. The Scottish Assembly will want to consider many things. It may wish to appoint Select Committees to investigate certain subjects such as land use in various parts of the world. It is more than likely that there will be a great deal of fact-finding. It may be necessary to employ consultants and to obtain advice from other places. Will the Minister say why the clause is limited to relevant authorities? Will it be possible for the Assembly to go ahead and make arrangements with bodies other than relevant authorities within the terms of the Bill? Why is it necessary for the Government to insert a specific clause saying that the Scottish Assembly can ask a local government body, a public corporation or a public authority to do a job for it? I should have thought that this was already within the scope of the Bill. If the clause did not exist, would it not be possible for the Assembly to ask relevant authorities to do a job for it? Another matter of interest is whether the clause would be a vehicle enabling the work of United Kingdom Departments to be carried out by the Scottish Assembly. Concern has been expressed about the possibility that this Bill will not be a logical stopping point. The Minister of State has said, and most hon. Members accept, that it is unlikely that the Bill will be a stopping point. Some people think that it will lead to separation, others that it will lead to federalism and others that it will lead to a shambles. Few people believe that it will be a logical stopping point and will form a firm constitutional basis. It would be interesting to know whether the clause could be used to enable the Assembly to take over the executive rôle of Government Departments—for example, the Department of Health and Social Security. There is no question of us objecting passionately or strongly to this clause because we are not sure what it does. I hope that the Minister of State can answer my questions."for any functions of one of them to be discharged by, or by officers of, the other, and for the provision by one of them for the other of administrative, professional or technical services."
In the minute after 8 o'clock the Committee approved six clauses in this fundamental Bill without a single word of debate and without a single amendment being considered. Whatever one's view about what the Government are doing, it is disgraceful that six clauses out of a Bill with such dramatic consequences should be dealt with in that way. Even if timetable motions are necessary at some future date, the minimum that should be required is that some time at least be given for consideration of each clause of a Bill, so that those who wish to speak about it have the ability so to do.
For the first time in our proceedings we are dealing with the relationship between the Scottish Assembly and United Kingdom authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has said, this opens up the question of the future rôle of United Kingdom Ministers in relation to devolved matters, the question of the future rôle of United Kingdom Members of Parliament and in particular the future functions and rôles of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies. Under the clause it would appear to be possible for a Scottish Secretary to require United Kingdom Ministers to carry out any of the functions devolved to the Scottish Executive. I should like the Minister to comment on whether, in that situation, Members of the House of Commons would be able to question a Minister on the issue that had been passed to him by the Assembly. The matter goes beyond that, because there was considerable speculation earlier about the function which Members of the House of Commons will have in relation to devolved matters in Scotland should the Bill take effect. In particular, the question has been raised whether hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies will have any worthwhile part to play in this House after devolution, if it is implemented and approved at the referendum. Certain hon. Members have suggested that the rôle and function of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies will be limited to debates on foreign affairs and defence. Clearly, even on a narrow interpretation of this clause and those following it, that would be a nonsensical suggestion. It is clear from the Bill that many areas will continue to be the responsibility of the full House of Commons and the British Government. I have been doing some research on what the consequences of this Bill will be if it is implemented. It may be of interest to mention those consequences. Since the beginning of 1974 Parliament has approved 267 Bills. Of those, 200 Bills have applied to Scotland, either as part of the United Kingdom or on its own behalf. If the Assembly, with the powers given in this and other clauses, had been in existence over the past three years, of the 200 Bills that have been passed by the House of Commons which applied exclusively to Scotland, only 47 would have been the responsibility of the Assembly. The other 153 would still have been the responsibility of United Kingdom Departments and of hon. Members sitting in the House of Commons, in particular those representing Scottish constituencies. Using this criterion for the future rôle of this House, it is clear that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies will, on that basis, have 75 per cent. of their present potential work load remaining if the Bill takes effect. If we apply other criteria the results are even more striking. My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart mentioned the future rôle of Select Committees. It is interesting, if we look at the present 15 Select Committees that have been set up by the House, to note that there is not a single Select Committee whose remit, either now or if the Bill becomes effective, would apply only to England or to any other part of the United Kingdom, to the exclusion of Scotland. Every Select Committee has a United Kingdom remit and, notwithstanding the words of this Bill, will continue to have such a remit. The rôle of Members representing Scottish constituencies will continue to be as active and legitimate as is the rôle of hon. Members representing other parts of the United Kingdom. The clause deals with the possible powers that might be given to United Kingdom Departments to deal with devolved matters. It is interesting to look at the consequences involved in the future responsibilities of United Kingdom Government Ministers. The conclusion that one must reach is interesting. Clearly, many of the responsibilities of the Scottish Office will be dramatically devolved to the Assembly. But some United Kingdom Ministers will continue to have almost identical responsibilities throughout the United Kingdom after devolution takes place. They will continue to have the same responsibilities for Scotland as they have for Wales and elsewhere. For example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's powers will virtually not be affected. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretaries of State for Energy, Industry, Prices and Consumer Protection, Trade and Employment will continue to have the same responsibilities throughout the United Kingdom, with one or two minor exceptions. Scottish Members will have as much interest in those responsibilities as do other Members of the House. A batch of Ministries or Departments at present have responsibilities for England and Wales and for Scotland. Examples are Transport, Health and Social Services, Agriculture, and the Home Office. In those four cases each Minister has a substantial but limited responsibility for Scotland and will lose nothing but a fraction of those responsibilities in relation to Scotland. Let us take the example of the Department of Health and Social Security. That Department is, and will continue to be, the sole Department that is responsible for pensions and social security matters. Not will the Home Office only retain responsibilities for nationality and immigration; the only responsibility to be devolved to the Scottish Assembly is that for summertime—a responsibility that we may assume the Scottish Assembly will not be enthusiastic to use. With the exception of the Scottish Office the responsibilities of United Kingdom Ministers will continue to affect the whole of the United Kingdom. I am not seeking to answer the arguments about the famous West Lothian question. Nothing invalidates the argument about the inequity that will follow the passage of the Bill if Scottish Members are able to vote on English issues without corresponding rights for English Members on Scottish issues. I am not entering into the question of the total Scottish representation in the House. This clause and others clearly demonstrate that if there is a substantial sense of grievance on the part of Scottish opinion or opinion in the House on the matters upon which I have commented it will come from those who believe that too little is devolved. Not only do all these matters continue to be United Kingdom responsibilities; in this clause and in others we see that even in areas that are devolved United Kingdom Ministers will continue, or may continue, to have significant responsibilities. In addition, although the Scottish Office will become a shadow of its present strength and relevance it will retain significant executive powers in certain non-devolved areas. I hope that the Committee will consider this matter. The future rôle of Scottish Members in the House of Commons is of importance and I hope that the Committee will not be lulled into the belief that only foreign affairs and defence will be legitimate interests for Scottish Members once the Bill has been implemented.My hon. Friend was speaking very quickly. He mentioned Select Committees. Surely under the Bill one cannot establish a Select Committee of this House to inquire into a devolved subject in Scotland—housing, for example.
8.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. There are certain matters that the Select Committees might not choose to consider, or might not be able properly to consider if the Bill were implemented. However, my point is that under the present remits of every Select Committee set up by the House not one would cease to have any relevance to Scotland in the event of the Bill's taking effect, whether we are considering the Select Committee on European Legislation or the Select Committees concerned with expenditure, House of Commons services, Members' interests, the nationalised industries, overseas development, the Parliamentary Commissioner, privilege, or procedure.
Or abortion.
An ad hoc Committee may occasionally be set up. However, I see that you, Sir Myer, are—
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman anticipates me. He is going wide of the clause.
I thought it proper, Sir Myer, to answer the questions asked by my hon. Friend—
It is not necessary.
As my hon. Friend's intervention was not ruled out of order, it would seem a bit unfair if the reply was.
I wish that I could stop some interventions before they became interventions.
My point—I conclude on this, Sir Myer—is that the clause gives various potential powers to the United Kingdom Departments but that even if the clause did not exist United Kingdom Departments would, notwithstanding the Bill, continue to have a major and direct rôle in the government of Scotland. That is a matter that the Committee should keep permanently before it when it considers the Bill.
On a point of order, Sir Myer. Is not the Committee in some difficulty? On a clause such as this it would be possible to stray into following clauses—as I did on the last section of the Bill under the guillotine—in the knowledge that unless one did they would not be discussed at all. I start by accepting blame for what I did, if blame is the right word. I rightly surmised that there could be no possible discussion on issues of Clerks, parliamentary draftsmen and a number of other matters, and therefore on "Clause 25 stand part" I went far wider than I would normally have done, or, indeed, is possible within the strict rules—
What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order?
It is this, Sir Myer: is there no way in which we can come to some kind of informal agreement between ourselves, or accept very strict rulings from the Chair, that we discuss the Bill clause by clause? As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) rightly said, it is nonsense that certain clauses should go undiscussed. It would be possible, in the light of previous rulings—not when you were in the Chair, Sir Myer—to discuss this whole section on Clause 33. That is necessarily unsatisfactory. But we have vital issues to raise on Clauses 35 and 36, so I ask either that you and your colleagues in the Chair are exceedingly tough or that we have an agreement to take a whole section and have a general debate on it. It is either one or the other.
That is a most interesting point of order. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is trying to usurp my position and get into the Chair. We would welcome him. But obviously we should discuss a clause on its own, and we should be discussing Clause 33. If there is a fleeting reference, to some cognate matter, without going into any detail, one would obviously allow it. One would welcome what the hon. Gentleman said, but it is not easy to interpolate other matters.
The suggestion was made that there should be some arrangement. The Chair will enter into no arrangement with anyone. It will discharge its duties as the Standing Orders lay down.Further to the point of order, Sir Myer. One of our difficulties seems to be that we sometimes wish to discuss the principle of the clause. For example, some of us wanted to discuss the principle whether there should be an Executive. I tabled an amendment to delete the clause in question. The amendment was not called for discussion, and even if it had been called it would probably not have been until after what were, in my view, rather less important amendments to specific bits of wording. Would not it be possible for the Chair, when making its selection, at least to look favourably at amendments to delete a whole clause and take them at the beginning of the debate on that clause, so that we may debate the clause rather than wait on the off-chance that there is time left to do so?
The Chair selects amendments according to the rules laid down by the House itself.
Further to that point of order, Sir Myer—
Perhaps the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) should take over the Chair.
In cases such as this clause, where there is a clear doubt on both sides of the Committee about exactly what the clause means, would not it be sensible for the Chair to decide to call the Minister at an early stage so that we might at least discover what was in the Government's mind?
We are getting on to interesting territory now. I should like nothing more. My own feeling is that we would save a lot of debate if the Minister rose to explain the clause.
Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. You will appreciate, I am sure, that no hon. Member on either side of the Committee has cast any reflection on the way that the Chair has done its job. We are complaining about the difficulty of debating in Committee a Bill of this constitutional complexity and magnitude. I think that it is fair to say that I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the Committee when I say that, in the light of the extreme difficulty in which we find ourselves, the Chair has been very reasonable, in the sense that it has been strict at some moments and less strict at others, and has helped the Committee to cope with what is a quite impossible situation. I think that it is important to put that on the record.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) did not join the House yesterday. This has been the practice over the years. It has not just arisen on this Bill. I suggest that we get on with the business and see how we progress.
I wish to raise a matter which is directly relevant to the clause.
The Shetland Islands Council proposed at one time to ask the people of Shetland whether they wished to be omitted from the Bill. It did not ask whether they were for or against devolution in Scotland. It wished to ask the people of Shetland whether they were anxious to be omitted from the Bill, and it was thought that this clause might be used in a way that I shall indicate. I have often described the situation in my constituency, and, in view of the time, I do not propose to do so at length again. However, my constituents have a different history from that of Scotland. At one time the Scots were extremely oppressive. My constituents feel that they have been neglected for many years over transport and the special allowances, for example, and oil has done them great damage as well as bringing them advantages. It may disrupt their economy. It has laid additional work on their public services. If it should affect the fishing of the fishermen or the crofting of the crofters, it would be disastrous for the islands. Naturally, they want to safeguard their future and, therefore, they attach great importance to the oil revenues and the disturbance fund. Some felt that it was at least possible that a Scottish Assembly might interfere with the arrangements that they had already made, such as their special Private Bill, and they wished to be safeguarded against this or to explore the possibility of being excluded from the Bill. I pointed out to them that, if they were excluded, they would have to make arrangements for their general administration. They are administered from Edinburgh through the Secretary of State for Scotland. He would lose all his powers and staff, and the islanders would have to make other arrangements. Their education is Scottish education. Most of their land is held under the system of crofting, which is a peculiarly Scottish system. They deal with the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Their law is Scots law. It was suggested to me that arrangements under Clause 33 could be made between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the relevant authorities in Scotland—the Crofters Commission and so forth—for the essential administration of the islands. When one first reads the clause, it seems possible that that might be so, because it is widely drafted. It says:Thus, at first sight, it might seem possible for the Shetlands to remain in general under the control of this Parliament but for the Secretary of State, since he will have lost most of his powers and staff under the Bill, to make arrangements for the Shetlands' laws, education, administration and so forth to be conducted by "relevant authorities" of Scotland. But, reading the clause more carefully, one finds that that is not possible. For example, subsection (2) would make it extremely difficult. In any case, I am convinced that that is not the real purpose of the clause. I accept that such wide delegation of authority by the Secretary of State would be illegal under the Bill. That matter is of interest not only to the Shetland Islands Council but to the people of the islands. I have had the advantage of talks with the Minister of State about it, and I am grateful to him. I think I can say that in private he has confirmed that this is not the intention of the clause and that, for good legal reasons apart from anything else, it could not be used for this purpose. I take this opportunity to get the Minister to put the position on record because it is of great interest in the Shetlands. Some people will feel that they might establish a special relationship. Many of us feel that some special relationship may, in the long run be necessary and desirable. That is to some extent my own feeling. But it cannot be achieved by this clause. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the precise purpose of the clause and how far he considers that one authority can contrive with another to perform functions under the terms of the clause."Arrangements may be made between a Scottish Secretary and any relevant authority for any functions of one of them to be discharged by, or by officers of, the others".
It may help the Committee if I make a few comments at this stage. Clause 33 is, in a sense, very narrow. While it provokes debate, it is very restricted in its functions. It merely sets up a situation whereby an arrangement—and here I must refer particularly to the comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who appeared to be saying that a Scottish Secretary could require a United Kingdom Minister—
indicated dissent.
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I have taken the wrong meaning.
The clause sets up an arrangement whereby a Scottish Secretary can perform a function on behalf of a United Kingdom Minister, obviously at the request of that United Kingdom Minister, or whereby a United Kingdom Minister can perform a function on behalf of a Scottish Secretary, again, obviously, at the request of that Scottish Secretary. It would appear to me to go without saying that such an arrangement would require both parties to enter into it before it could be struck. There is, therefore, no question of the Scottish Assembly having extended powers as a result of the clause. The hon. Member for Pentlands raised some important points. He seemed to concentrate rather heavily on the position of Select Committees in the House of Commons. I must remind him that they are Select Committees of the House; they are not Select Committees of a Minister of the Government. Therefore, Select Committees obviously cannot be part of the arrangements between a Scottish Secretary and a United Kingdom Minister. Subsection (1) of the clause precisely coincides with the understanding and interpretation of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). 8.45 p.m. I now turn to deal briefly with what was said by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who made an important contribution to the debate from the point of view of the people of Shetland and the Shetland Islands Council. I confirm categorically that the clause could not be operated in the way in which the Shetland Islands Council appears to think. All that the clause provides is an agency arrangement, no more and no less. That brings me to the point made again by the hon. Member for Pentlands, who asked whether a United Kingdom Minister acting as agent for a Scottish Secretary would be responsible to the House of Commons for that part of the work that he was doing on behalf of a Scottish Secretary. The answer is "No", because subsection (2) makes it plain that no such arrangements for the discharge of any functions shall affect the responsibility of the authority on whose behalf the functions are discharged. The authority which holds the functions is still responsible for them. That answers the point raised, quite rightly, by the hon. Gentleman. A United Kingdom Minister carrying out an agency arrangement on behalf of a Scottish Secretary would not be responsible for, and would not be questioned on the Floor of the House concerning that part of the agency arrangement that he was carrying out.I follow what the Minister says in the sense that ultimate responsibility for devolved matters must remain with the devolved Executive, but surely he is not suggesting that a United Kingdom Minister who is working within such an arrangement as is provided for in the clause will not be answerable to the House of Commons for what he does as an agent of the Scottish Executive.
That is right. I am not suggesting that. What I am saying is that subsection (2) makes it clear that even if an arrangement were entered into at the request of a United Kingdom Minister for a Scottish Secretary to do something on an agency basis on his or her behalf, that United Kingdom Minister would still be responsible to the House. There is no question of any United Kingdom Minister being able to shunt some of his responsibilities off on to the Assembly and, therefore, not be answerable to the House.
If a United Kingdom Minister were to do something on an agency basis on behalf of a Scottish Secretary—which is a different matter—he would not be responsible to the House for that function, but obviously he would be responsible for his own functions, whether or not he asked the Scottish Assembly to perform them on an agency business.I wonder whether my hon. Friend would clarify the situation. What kind of thing would a United Kingdom Minister do on behalf of a Scottish Secretary? May we have an example of what my hon. Friend has in mind?
I do not think that it is particularly helpful to give examples. The Committee is well aware that once examples are given the Government are drawn on other points and are asked to give other examples. In my view, it is sufficient to say that this provision is as it appears in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The House is not entering into something new. It is something for which there is provision in an Act which was passed by the previous Administration and which appears to work well. At least, I have not heard any complaints about it. There is a precedent for this provision. It is not something new that we are introducing. It is not something terribly radical, though I hesitate to confess that.
I hope that in what I have said I have been able to reassure the Committee and that we can now move to the next set of amendments.I must apologise to the Committee for the fact that on my return to the debate I shall strike a note of acerbity and uncertainty. I thought that this was a relatively innocent clause, but when I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) said I began to get a little alarmed.
Having heard the Minister, it seems to me that Clause 33, particularly when taken in conjunction with paragraph 8 of Schedule 2, is a large extension of government by prerogative, and the fact that that extension of the prerogative can be achieved only by agreement between United Kingdom Ministers and Scottish Secretaries does not fill me with any degree of reassurance. The clause seems to me to be rather objectionable in what it enables the Assembly and its servants to do through United Kingdom institutions in England. The somewhat curious phrasing of paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 enables the Assembly to extend—for very minor purposes, as the Minister pointed out—its legislative abilities beyond the boundaries of Scotland. I thought it was admittedly implicit when I read the debates that such cancelling out of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the schedule as was implied in paragraph 8 was for minor matters. What I find worrying is the extent to which powers which Parliament in all innocence has given to Ministers are now being and have been abused. In the Act setting out the terms under which, for example, Export Credits Guarantee Department aid might be given to various firms it was implicit that the Minister's discretion related solely to the creditworthiness of the customer and to the nature of the transaction. There was no implication that ECGD support would be withheld from a firm which did not even disobey the law but which did not follow guidelines which had no legal or parliamentary sanction of any kind. It was not either implicit or explicit that the Industry Act would be used for the purpose of disciplining private industry which did not fall in with the Government's wishes—not with Parliament's enacted legislation, nor even with powers devolved under supplementary legislation on Ministers, but simply with the Government's express wishes. These points may seem to be quite a way from Clause 33 and paragraph 8 of Schedule 2, but they are not, because it is in provisions such as these that these powers creep in. The Under-Secretary explained very clearly that if a Department were asked to act as agent by a Scottish Secretary that Department would not be accountable to Parliament through its Ministers for those actions which concerned devolved powers only. Yet, even though those devolved powers might be of a trivial nature involving legislation under Schedule 8 and with across-the-border effects, individuals in England who were involved would be unable to get redress from Parliament. Under Schedule 10, Group 21, relating to—inter alia—dog licensing, control over stray dogs is a devolved matter. Clearly it would be expedient, and indeed sensible, under paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to extend the legislation to cover dogs which strayed backwards and forwards across the border, but what happens in that event? I have deliberately chosen a trivial example. A more serious example might concern the movement of oil tankers. If an English person has no redress because the Minister concerned and Parliament are not accountable, it becomes a serious matter. This could be extended in other ways. There is no mention in the clause of who is to pay for the agency arrangements. I was alarmed when the Under-Secretary explained that the Minister and the Department, acting as the agents, will be in no way accountable to the House of Commons for their actions over devolved issues. To whom will they be accountable, and for whose money? How is it raised, and how do we control this spending if it involves general taxation, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is Chancellor of the Exchequer for the United Kingdom? Those are the sort of things that we hoped the Under-Secretary would explain. If he had done so, he would have removed the need to raise certain points relating to other clauses, but he has not done so. Nor has he given any indication of the purposes for which this provision could be used the other way round. The Assembly has the capacity, through its officers, to use for its purposes devolved powers, but the clause makes no reference to accountability. It seems that the Government are doing their best, at a rather curious time, to create within the Departments of State of the United Kingdom a sort of Crown Agency situation with the Scottish Assembly agents, where accountability is not sufficiently under the control of any elected body and we cannot be certain that the Assembly will fulfil the functions of a proper democratic Assembly.The right hon. Gentleman is a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I should like to ask him a question of opinion rather than of fact. If he were Chief Secretary to the Treasury, what would he expect to see in terms of financial returns from a Scottish Assembly in the kind of situation that he has described?
I should like to see laid down firmly in part of the legislation that any use of other Departments outside Scotland as agents of the Scottish Assembly in terms of Clause 33 should be paid for notionally or otherwise out of funds raised by the block grant or other method of financing the Assembly. In other words, as the Under-Secretary suggested, if the Scottish Assembly and its servant, the Scottish Secretary, uses as an agent a United Kingdom Minister, that should be accounted for on the basis of that agency being paid. I recall that the use of Government aeroplanes was accounted for by a Government Department and credited to the Board of Trade in my day. That reduces to that extent the funds available and voted to Scotland by the House of Commons.
My speech will be shorter than it would otherwise have been because of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I take issue with his statement that it is not useful to give examples. It is precisely when examples are given that we tend to get to the truth of the matter and to what will turn out to be the reality. It is one thing to discuss a Bill in highly narrow and legal terms and another thing to work out what is likely to turn out in reality. One of our main functions as politicians is surely to try to foresee the crises and difficulties before they take place.
I regret very much the absence from the debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), because for many years he has had a great deal to say about what he expects of the Select Committees and Standing Committees of a Scottish Assembly. This is precisely the point on which I feel that we shall run into difficulties on this and other clauses. The Assembly will almost certainly set up a number of Select Committees and have a number of Standing Committees. That is how the whole idea of the Assembly hase been partly sold.Order. I doubt very much whether the question of setting up the Assembly has anything to do with the clause, and I must ask the hon. Member not to pursue that line.
With respect, Sir Myer, it has a great deal to do with subsection (2)—
Not by my reading of it.
9.0 p.m.
The subsection refers to
We are talking about local authorities and public corporations. The Select Committee on Housing, if it were to do its job in public, would almost certainly become involved with the South of Scotland Electricity Board, the Hydro Board, the Scottish Gas Board and all sorts of other public authorities. Its demarcations would not be nearly as black and white as they may seem in the pages of a Bill such as this, because the Select Committee could not do its job with these narrow lines of communication. That is precisely where we shall get into great difficulty. A Select Committee of the Scottish Assembly that is worth its salt will not come within narrow, easily defined lines. [Interruption.] If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wishes to intervene, I shall gladly give way. He clearly does not wish to intervene. He comes into the Chamber—I accept that he has many other responsbilities—and he keeps up a running conversation. Of course, I shall give way to him if he thinks that I am wrong."the responsibility of the authority on whose behalf the functions are discharged".
I was not talking about my hon. Friend's speech.
I know my right hon. Friend's attitude to all this and I disagree with it. I say that there is a substantial issue concerning Select Committees of the Scottish Assembly. They would find it impossible to keep within these lines of demarcation.
Those who introduced the Bill included three Scottish Ministers. It will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Murton, to know that the Lord Advocate is not with us. So far he has taken responsibility for not one clause or amendment. We now have the advantage of the presence of the Secretary of State. We would very much welcome it if the Lord Advocate could be put in charge of some of the clauses, and particularly if he could be here when issues of fundamental constitutional importance are being debated.
The Under-Secretary gave the impression that he was almost resentful that a debate was taking place on Clause 33—Nonsense.
and the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) was most apt because he pointed out that we were under the gravest handicap and difficulty in debating the Bill properly since so many clauses were going through without debate. I must tell the Minister that we on the Conservative Benches believe that the Government should welcome the prospect of sensible and realistic debate upon every clause and that it is scandalous that clauses in a Bill of such far-reaching importance should go undebated.
I turn now to one aspect of the clause. It gives powers for agency arrangements to be made without stating where the financial responsibility for the services so rendered resides. Although there is a definition in subsection (3) of "relevant authority", there is, as far as I am aware, no definition in the Bill of "public corporation". If I have misunderstood that, no doubt the Under-Secretary will correct me. I think, therefore, that the Committee is entitled to have a list of the public corporations to which the subsection applies as at today's date. Of course we understand that, particularly if the present Administration remains in power, other public corporations may be created, but the Committee should be told which are the public corporations to which subsection (3) applies. I assume that among the public corporations to which subsection (3) applies are, for example, the National Freight Corporation and the British Steel Corporation. The British Steel Corporation has factories in Scotland. Therefore, we can assume that agency arrangements might be made between a Scottish Secretary appointed under Clause 21 and the British Steel Corporation. But does it also include the National Bus Company? Does it include Cable and Wireless Limited? Is the company over which Lord Glenamara presides one with which there can be an agency arrangement made by a Scottish Secretary? Are we really to envisage that the noble Lord will make a journey from London to Edinburgh and will be empowered to conclude an agency agreement with a Scottish Secretary? Is the National Enterprise Board included in the definition of "public corporation"? Is the National Enterprise Board a public corporation? Are we to see the Chairman for the time being of the National Enterprise Board concluding agency agreements with a Scottish Secretary? These are matters which seem to us to be of very great importance, but because there is no definition of "public corporation" we cannot tell whether the kind of situation that I have described will materialise. I hope that the Under-Secretary will intervene again and answer the pertinent points which were put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), whose arrival on these Benches is as reassuring for us as it is frightening to the Government Front Bench. It is certainly incumbent on the Under-Secretary to answer the points put by my right hon. Friend. Even though we do not have the advantage of the Lord Advocate's presence. I hope that we may still have a definition from the Under-Secretary and a list of the bodies which at present are included in the term "public corporation". Is Lord Glenamara's company included, or is it out?My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) divided the responsibilities which might be delegated to a relevant authority into political responsibility and financial responsibility. Perhaps I may add a third—legal responsibility.
I dare say that many right hon. and hon. Members in this Committee are more familiar with English law than they are with Scottish law. [Interruption.] I do not say all, but looking round the Chamber at this moment I suspect that at least half of the right hon. and hon. Members present are unfamiliar with Scottish law. I therefore join my hon. Friend in very much regretting the persistent and constant absence of the Lord Advocate and his failure to explain these points to those of us who are ignorant of Scottish law. This is no academic point. If, for the sake of argument, a nuclear reactor were to be built in Scotland, and if, for the sake of argument, it were to be decided to delegate from England some rights to Scotland in order to set up that reactor, and the reactor were later to blow up, the question who was responsible in tort for any negligence—or whatever tort there might be in Scottish law that would be relevant to such an action—might be very important indeed. Would the primary responsibility lie with the English authorities, or might it lie with the Scottish authorities to which the duty of building the reactor had been delegated? This is an important matter; it is not a mere academic matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "That matter is not devolved."] It is said that this is not devolved. It is a bad example, but there are various activities that can be devolved and that could give rise to substantial legal responsibility. What the Committee would like is a proper exposition from the Lord Adovcate of the law of tortious liability, in order to resolve these real doubts.With the permission of the Committee, may I say that when I intervened earlier I was trying to be helpful. Apparently that has not been the case. Despite the pleas from both sides of the Committee, it cannot in future blame Government Ministers if they decide not to intervene in the middle of a debate.
I do not believe for a minute that the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) does not understand the simplicity of the clause. I have never been one for trying to find a complex argument where none exists, and there is no complexity about this clause at all. I rest on the very simple point that what it provides is a basis on which a Scottish Secretary can enter into an agency arrangement with a United Kingdom Minister, or a United Kingdom Minister can enter into an agency arrangement with a Scottish Secretary, but if neither of the two wants to do so the agency arrangement cannot be entered into. For the life of me I do not see anything more simple than that. There is nothing complex or complicated about this clause. It has its precedent in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. It is not even an innovation that is being introduced into this legislation. It is really a simple and straightforward clause to allow the Scottish Assembly and the United Kingdom Government, through its Ministers, if they so desire, to enter into an agency arrangement. If they do not desire to do so, the agency arrangement simply will not take effect.As it is so simple, what is the parliamentary method for Parliament's preventing the United Kingdom Minister entering into an agency arrangement which the Government wish to enter into but which Parliament does not?
The right hon Gentleman has been here for much longer than I have. Each United Kingdom Government Minister is responsible to the House. There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head and saying that a United Kingdom Government Minister is not responsible to the House. He is, and he would be prevented from entering into an agency arrangement with the Scottish Assembly if the House said he had not to do so. It is as simple as that. There is nothing complicated in it. I am surprised at the heavy weather that has been made in respect of this clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked for examples. I thought it would be wise to refrain from giving examples, but one of the best examples is that of the Property Services Agency. That will not be a devolved agency, but it has offices, workpeople and all the rest in Scotland. If the Assembly decides to set up a Select Committee, that Select Committee obviously might want to call witnesses. But that does not mean that the Select Committee would have entered into an agency arrangement. It would not. The clause is about an authority entering into an agency arrangement. I finally turn to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). It was grossly unfair of him to say that I seemed to resent a debate on this clause taking place. I have never resented debates on anything. I would welcome a debate with the hon. Member, in Eastbourne, on the question of devolution. I take the strongest possible exception to the allegation that has been laid at my door. The hon. Member should know much better than to display the ignorance that he has displayed tonight in making such an allegation. If he had any decency at all he would withdraw that unfounded and unsubstantiated allegation.9.15 p.m.
I assure the Minister that I intended no discourtesy. He has always treated the Committee with great courtesy. I said that in his earlier intervention he had given the impression—it may well be that it was a false impression—that he resented the fact that we were debating a clause to which he ascribed little importance but we ascribe a great deal of importance. I assure him that I intended no discourtesy to him.
If that is the best I can get in the way of an apology, I shall accept it. What is said in this House and the way in which it is read into the record are two different things. Some things that are said in jest read quite seriously in writing. The hon. Member should be more careful about the allegations he makes in future.
The hon. Member asked for some examples of public corporations. One example is the Post Office—a public corporation set up under the Post Office Act 1968. This is not a nationalised industry in the sense that the Coal Board is. There are other good examples of public corporations. I stress the simple point that this is just a clause to enable agency arrangements to take place between the Assembly and the United Kingdom Government.Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Provision Of Information
I beg to move Amendment No. 188, in page 16, line 7, leave out 'the Secretary of State' and insert:
'any Minister of the Crown'.
With this we shall take the following amendments:
No. 189, in page 16, line 9, leave out:
'a Minister of the Crown' and insert 'him'
No. 194, in page 16, line 10, after 'Crown', insert:
'or a Member of Parliament'.
No. 238, in page 16, line 12, at end insert:
'Any such information shall be equally available to all Members of the Assembly'.
No. 109, in page 16, line 12, at end add:
'( ) Either House of Parliament may send for persons and papers from the Scottish Secretary'.
As you have observed, Mr. Murton, there are four other amendments grouped with Amendment No. 188. Two are in my name and those of certain of my right hon. and hon. Friends—Amendment No. 194, which is purely consequential upon Amendment No. 188, and Amendment No. 190, which raises rather different questions to which I shall address some remarks in a moment.
Although the Minister did indicate or betray certain feelings of resentment that some hon. Members considered Clause 33 a matter of some importance worthy of debate. I am sure that no Minister will query the importance of Clause 34 and the need for proper debate upon it. The clause concerns the provision of information. I should have thought that it was evident to all hon. Members that this was a vital matter affecting future relations between the Assembly and the House of Commons and the Assembly and the Government. The free flow of information is essential for efficient modern government and it is essential if we in Parliament—and, for that matter, those in the Assembly—are to fulfil our obligations to our electors and ensure that our decisions and actions are firmly based on fact. The Assembly has a very substantial area of responsibility as set out in the Bill, and it seems to us that it is essential that Government Departments and Parliament itself should be in a position to get the fullest information necessary for the performance of their and our tasks. In approaching this topic, I open up a little of what might be an apparent ambiguity in Clause 34, namely, the reference in the first line to the Secretary of State. The clause provides that any Minister of the Crown who requires information relating to the functions performed by a Scottish Secretary for the performance and exercise of his own functions may ask the Secretary of State to request the Scottish Secretary to supply that information, and that upon receipt of such a request the Scottish Secretary should comply with it. At first sight, and on first reading, the clause appears to suggest that all requests for such information should flow through the Secretary of State for Scotland. If that is the effect of the clause, or if that becomes the practice of Governments and Cabinets if ever the Assembly should be set up, it is and would be most reprehensible. It would make the Secretary of State for Scotland effectively the sole channel of communication between a Minister in his own Government and the Executive of the Scottish Assembly. I need not dwell too much on the obstacles and difficulties that such a system might present to efficient government. We have recently had the record of the late Richard Crossman on how relationships sometimes worked out between different Ministers in the Cabinet and the way in which personal difficulties and animosities could well impede the free flow of information between them. Those who have read the book will find a number of interesting instances. I refer the Committee to page 48 of the latest volume of "The Crossman Diaries" where the late Mr. Crossman refers to Cabinet discussions on devolution. He refers to the then Secretary of State for Scotland and writes:That is a revealing comment on not only the Cabinet of his day but the situation that future Governments might well face if Clause 34 is understood to mean that any requests for information from a Minister of the Crown have to be channelled through the Secretary of State for Scotland before they can become operative. If that is to be how the clause is read, and if that is the effect that is to be given to it by future Governments, that will be not only a reprehensible situation for all concerned but will lead to far less efficient and far less streamlined government. If a Minister's functions were affected in any way by the exercise of the Assembly and its Executive of certain devolved functions, it would be far better if he were able to go straight to the source for the information that he considered relevant to the performance of his functions. That is the question of relations between Ministers which is covered by Amendment No. 188. There is the further question raised specifically in Amendment No. 190, in page 16, line 12, at end add—"What Willy Ross himself actually likes is to keep Scottish business absolutely privy from English business."
We are concerned here with a bigger issue than is raised in Amendment No. 188, namely, the free flow of information to Parliament, not simply to the Government. There is a real, substantial and meaningful difference between these two aspects. After all, if a Secretary of State, or the Secretary of State, secures whatever information is sought, there is no obligation upon him to lay it before Parliament. Indeed, even if he does, he may do so selectively. In any event, the questions that he might have put to the Scottish Secretary might not have been the most relevant questions in the eyes of Parliament. Parliament might have wished quite separate questions to have been put and answered. So, even if the information is made available to Parliament by the Secretary of State, it might prove to be totally inadequate for Parliament properly to perform its functions. Therefore, it is right that we should ask the Minister, when he replies to this batch of amendments, to turn his mind specifically to the matter set out in Amendment No. 190 and to explain, how, in the situation envisaged in the clause, either House of Parliament can keep itself properly informed on all the issues for which it might have United Kingdom responsibility as well as certain responsibility to our own electors who will have to find a good bit of the cash and the wherewithal to support these various devolved functions. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will cover that point. I do not wish to take up a lot of the time of the Committee under this guillotine procedure. In all our debates on the different amendments, or those few amendments that have been called and discussed, we have had a multitude of evidence presented of the areas of conflict that are likely to or probably will arise between a Scottish Assembly and the House of Commons if we should ever be so unfortunate as to see this legislation become law. The areas of conflict are legion. Furthermore, we know that the proposition outlined in the Bill—the so-called settlement—will be not stable but very fluid. We shall constantly need to readjust our sights in the House of Commons to the procedures and the way that the provisions in this legislation are enacted and interpreted. If we are properly to perform our duty to our own electors, we must be sure that we are acting upon the fullest and most accurate information. I cannot see that the Bill, as drafted, guarantees to the House of Commons all the information upon which it will need to act. The danger is that, in a conflict of the kind that we envisage, the information will become a weapon in the battle. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that that shall not be so.'( ) Either House of Parliament may send for persons and papers from the Scottish Secretary'.
9.30 p.m.
I see this as a matter of the very greatest importance embedded in the clause, namely, not only the difficulties of information—I shall not echo the speech of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), although he has raised some very real problems—but another issue, the question of the double loyalty of the civil servants and precisely to whom they are loyal.
Let me explain in terms of the clause and in terms of the amendments. Let us suppose that a United Kingdom Minister asks for information. It may well be—indeed, it is likely to be—that this information will be of a fairly sensitive nature, otherwise he would not bother to ask for it. My hon. Friend the Minister shakes his head. I shall put the position and he can shoot me down if I am wrong or if my fears are ill placed. The civil servants in Edinburgh, from whom the information is asked, will have to make up their minds, or may have to make up their minds if there is a dispute between the Minister in the Royal High School and the Minister in Westminster, as to where their priority lies. I regret once again that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) is not present at our debates, because he has written and said a great deal on this subject of the Civil Service and the Royal High School, St. Andrew's House and New St. Andrew's House. The point that he has for ever been making is that, of course, the civil servants, being human—this is not dishonourable at all—will give priority and give their loyalty to those whom they think have the greatest say in their future. I very much regret that my hon. Friend is not here, because this is a very understandable situation. The civil servants may have to choose. There is the very great difficulty of the Civil Service trying to serve two masters, or two sets of Ministers—I do not like the word "masters" very much—who, because of the situation, may be in conflict, and the civil servants will have to make up their minds whether they are to be more helpful to one or to the other. There may be situations in which the civil servants can be fairly neutral. On the other hand, there may be situations in which they really have to decide to whom is their greater loyalty. In those circumstances, it may well be that they decide that their future is with the Assembly, in which case the loyalty would be to the Assembly Minister. Alternatively, the loyalty would be to the Westminster Minister if they think that their future lies with Westminster. Civil servants have standards of right and wrong, as do the rest of us. They will constantly be put in this kind of situation. I simply say that one cannot expect British civil servants, for whom I personally have a very great respect, with their traditions, loyalty and conscientious hard work, to serve two different sets of Ministers who may well be in conflict.What the hon. Gentleman is saying is not the case. In the exact example that he portrayed of a Minister in Whitehall requesting information from a Minister in Edinburgh, the hon. Gentleman is asking "To whom should the civil servants in Edinburgh give loyalty?" The answer, quite clearly, is that it is to their Minister in Edinburgh, whom they are serving. The hon. Gentleman is trying to say that civil servants are all human and that that is not dishonourable. That is a matter which will be of comfort to the Civil Service. Nevertheless, these individual qualms of conscience are something for which no Government can legislate in any event. But the clear lines of responsibility are laid out and are in no way equivocal.
If that is the situation, and I gather that the Minister of State confirms it—
Wholeheartedly.
it is clear that the loyalty of the civil servant in Edinburgh is to Assembly Ministers as a priority. If that is the situation, all I say is that this has great consequences for a unified British Civil Service.
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. I do not think that I can agree with the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). It is not only the case that civil servants temporarily working for the Scottish Assembly would still be members of the State Civil Service, but, if I read Clause 64 correctly, they would be appointed to their positions in the Scottish Assembly by the heads of the Civil Service for the United Kingdom as a whole. To say that there is no loyalty to the person who appoints and who, by definition, dismisses or reviews only seems absurd.
A great many people in the Scottish Office joined the Home Civil Service under the impression that they were joining a United Kingdom Civil Service. This is stated in their original contracts. If the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) and the Minister of State are correct, these civil servants would then form part of a Scottish Assembly Civil Service. Once a civil servant has given his wholehearted and unstinted loyalty to an Assembly Minister who may well be in conflict with Whitehall, with Great George Street, with the Civil Service Department, whether one likes it or not that will have some effect on his or her future career structure. If I am wrong, no doubt the Minister of State will shoot me down.
Absolutely.
I shall listen with great interest to what my hon. Friend has to say in shooting me down. I believe that the whole issue of the unified structure—
Does not this question of loyalty arise at the present moment? A civil servant may give his loyalty to a particular Minister who may be in hot dispute with a Minister in another Department, yet that civil servant might in the near future find himself transferred to another Department.
I wonder whether that is the case. There is a difference between the normal ministerial battles in Whitehall, with which we are all familiar, and, on the other hand, having a loyalty to a different structure, a different institution, a different career pattern. This is an important matter, and I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised an important point at the beginning of our discussion on the clause—the question of double loyalty for civil servants. They may well find it difficult to serve two masters. It would be hard for them to avoid being accused of being politically partisan in their work. I know something of the political climate in Scotland, and I can say that it is almost certain that accusations would flow about the work of civil servants.
I do not know how the Scottish Office will manage to deal with an exchange of stall from one United Kingdom Department to another. If that were to cease it would be to the great disadvantage of the Scottish Office. Over the years we have benefited through Scottish civil servants coming to work in Whitehall and, on occasions, Westminster civil servants being posted to Edinburgh. I am sure that the Minister is looking forward to replying to that issue. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) for moving this important amendment. I want to speak to Amendment No. 194. The clause itself is important, not least in the light of our debates on Clauses 22 and 23, when we talked about the Bill's abolishing the joint exercise of power between one Minister and another. In this clause there is a provision for the Secretary of State to obtain from a Scottish Secretary any information that he or other Ministers of the Crown decide is needed in order for them to exercise their functions. That means that devolution leaves unimpaired the ability of the United Kingdom Executive to inform itself about Scottish affairs. I do not complain about that. Ministers, or, in more practical terms, civil servants, will continue to be informed about Scottish housing, local government, education, and so on, as if no constitutional changes had taken place. I am afraid that there is no West Lothian question so far as the United Kingdom Executive is concerned. It is important that we should consider where this situation leaves Parliament. To whom are Ministers to be responsible in the event of questions being raised on information that is not available to hon. Members? Ministers are responsible to Parliament and they will be free to obtain any information that they may want, but Parliament must continue to operate in darkness. In Parliament it seems that the Secretary of State will be both Governor-General and ministerial postman. One is bound to ask why, in his capacity as postman, he cannot provide hon. Members with the same information as he is obliged to provide to Ministers of the Crown. I see that the Minister is looking puzzled. I ask him this question: if a Minister wants to know anything he asks the Secretary of State to advise him; where does that leave Parliament?I was looking puzzled because of the hon. Member's reference to a Governor-General. I did not understand the hon. Member.
During debates on previous clauses we have talked about the requirements of the Secretary of State and of the fact that the draftsmen and Ministers have seen fit not to allow the Scottish Executive direct contact with the Queen. As well as having the high and mighty position of Governor-General and standing in for the Queen in relation to the constitution of the Assembly, the Secretary of State also finds himself in the rather lowly position of postman. In that capacity he is obliged to obtain information from the Scottish Executive and to provide it to his colleagues [Interruption.] If the Minister does not understand the Bill, it is rather sad.
It is the hon. Gentleman's speech.
9.45 p.m.
My speech is simple. If the hon. Gentleman does not like the reference to a Governor-General we can leave that aside. If I am reading the clause incorrectly, I hope that the Minister will say so, but it seems to me that the Secretary of State is the messenger in obtaining for ministerial colleagues whatever information they think they require from the Scottish Executive. Is that a correct reading of the clause? I can only assume from the Minister's silence that it is.
Parliament can hardly hope to control the Executive if that kind of imbalance in the provision of ordinary public information is allowed and if Members of Parliament are denied access to the information that they require to do their job, which is to control the Executive. The hon. Gentleman may say that control over the matters that we are discussing rests not with Parliament but with the Assembly, and that in respect of devolved matters the Executive is the Scottish Executive and not Ministers of the Crown. But if that thought is in his mind perhaps he will explain how Members of Parliament may be expected to react to pressure from the Press or their constituents in cases where it might appear that the Assembly was not acting in the best public interest. For example, if a number of houses were destroyed or damaged by fire or flood in Scotland, and there was disagreement on the question whether the Assembly had enough powers and resources to cope, Ministers of the Crown could be informed by the Secretary of State, but would Parliament here be able to obtain sufficient information on which Members of Parliament could form a judgment about the situation in Scotland? I know that under Clause 37 the Secretary of State has the power to prevent or require action by the Scottish Executive, but how is Parliament to know whether he is performing that duty if Members of Parliament are denied the right to question him on devolved matters? The Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing)—has just issued a Press notice which warns that chimney fires amount to about 20 per cent. of all fires in Scotland, and he has been asking people to be careful, particularly at this time of year. He goes on to say in the Press statement that since 15th November there have been 1,671 fires in Scotland, that 11 people have died and 50 have been injured. Under Clause 40 pay policy is a reserved matter for which Ministers are responsible to this House, but as the fire service is a devolved matter only Members of the Assembly could deal with one effect of the current pay policy—the present strike. We in the House would not be able to question the Secretary of State on the consequences of a policy for which we are responsible, because those consequences are entirely a devolved matter. I should like to give another example of the difficulties in which the House may well find itself. This relates to corruption in local government, which unfortunately, has arisen. There are a number of cases outstanding, and corruption may occur again. If anything approaching the scandal of the Crown Agents, which the House debated yesterday, were to happen in local government or any other authority the responsibility for which is devolved would Parliament have no rôle to play?I can give the hon. Gentleman another example. What would happen over a matter such as Nine Wells Hospital, Dundee, which was the subject of a protracted inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee, on which I served? Under the Bill the health aspects would be devolved but the Treasury aspects would not. Who would be responsible for such an inquiry?
I agree with the lion. Member for West Lothian. That, again, is the sort of example that we are trying to put to the Minister so that we may better understand precisely what the Government propose.
In the case of any kind of scandal relating to a Department, the responsibility for which has been devolved, again Ministers of the Crown here would be able to find out what was going on. Incidentally, that knowledge would give them a responsibility to Parliament, but it would be a responsibility which Parliament would be unable to question because Parliament would not have the same information available to it. Again, I ask the Minister to advise the Committee. It is hard in these circumstances to see how Parliament could have, for example, a debate under Standing Order No. 9 to try to understand events which might be causing a great deal of public irritation and public pressure in Scotland. This is especially relevant when we remember that Ministers have told us that Parliament will retain the overall ability to act for any part of the United Kingdom. There does not seem to be much chance of Parliament doing that if we cannot ask Ministers what is going on. It seems to me to put this Parliament even more at the mercy of the Executive. There can be no reason why, under Clause 34, the Secretary of State should not be required to provide information for Members of Parliament relating to the exercise of their functions as Members of Parliament. I am sure that the Minister knows from his experience in his own constituency that people come to their Member of Parliament with all sorts of problems and complaints. To a great degree at the moment they extend into local government matters. It is totally unimaginable that people in Scotland will not go to their Members of Parliament with complaints and problems relating directly to the Assembly, and it may be for one reason or another that Members of Parliament will find that it is in the best interests of their constituents, if not in their own best interests, that they should take up some of these matters and try to find out what is going on by questioning the Secretary of State, who is responsible to the House of Commons and who is capable of finding out any information which he considers desirable for the exercise of his functions. Why should that be denied to Members of Parliament, to whom Ministers are responsible? That, to me, is the crux of the question on Amendment No. 194. Of course, the ability to continue to question the Secretary of State would not resolve the West Lothian question, but it would enable Members of Parliament to keep themselves advised on Scottish affairs. What could be more fair than that? After all, the House will have to sanction the plans for the block grant and for Supplementary Estimates, which are bound to arise despite the boasts of those who have conceived the idea of rolling all this on a four-year basis. Our experience shows us that since March 1974, when the present Government took office, we have had 12 Budgets. It is nonsensical to suggest that, by passing the Bill, somehow or other the management of our financial affairs in Britain will be so well organised that we can operate the sort of arrangement proposed for the block grant. If we are to consider here the block grant and Supplementary Estimates affecting the financing of Scottish affairs, surely it makes sense that, before hon. Members in the House make any contribution to discussions affecting money for Scotland, they must be as fully advised as Ministers themselves in regard both to previous expenditure and to proposals for future expenditure. Members of Parliament will be severely handicapped if only Ministers are aware of the details of how the Assembly has been handling its financial affairs. Incidentally, these amendments will not increase the cost of the Scottish Administration, since this work is already being done and the personnel are already established for it. It is clear from the arrangements that are being made for Ministers of the Crown that this work will continue to be done after an Assembly is established. I hope that the Minister will agree that this adds up to a reasonable case. It does not topple the god of devolution but it helps Parliament to continue to play an informed rôle in the affairs of Scotland. Surely that is no more than Scotland would expect of the House of Commons.Amendment No. 238, standing in my name, is among those that we are discussing. One of my beliefs about the Bill was that it would aim to improve the form of Government in Scotland. I have always believed that the way to improve the form of Government and its acceptability to the people was to increase the amount of information available to them. I thought that we might have had movement in the Bill towards a freedom-of-information provision. I looked carefully through the Bill to see what it said about the provision of information in general but all that I could find was this small clause, which is written in the most restrictive way, implying that only a minor problem exists in respect of the provision of information.
Has my hon. Friend yet given any thought to New Clause 2, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)? If he were to accept it, or another clause along similar lines, thus going for a wide dispersal of information to the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom in general, it would avoid the problems that arise on this clause. If the Government were prepared to legislate for freedom of information, such as has been done in the Swedish constitution and recent United States legislation, the points raised on the clause could be avoided. If my hon. Friend is not prepared to go along the lines of a wide opening up of information, I hope that he will give consideration to my amendment. One of the major problems with Governments at present, certainly with our own Government, is that there are first-class and second-class Members of Parliament. First-class Members are those who are Ministers and have reasonably free access to information; then there are Government Back Benchers and Opposition Members who are in many ways treated as second-class citizens in relation to the amount of information available to them. When there are problems involving the security of the State, there may be easy ground for justifying the argument that information should be kept restricted and secret, but where a matter does not involve the security of the State—as is the case in the Bill—it is very difficult to justify restricting information. Certainly, it would be hard to justify the argument that Ministers in the Assembly should have access to information while other Members of the Assembly should be denied it. I hope that my hon. Friend will be prepared to accept either New Clause 2 or—Order. I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that we have not yet got round to the question whether New Clause 2 is to be selected. He is somewhat ahead of himself in that respect.
I appreciate that New Clause 2 has not yet been selected for debate, Mr. Murton, but I suggest that if the Government were prepared to accept either New Clause 2 or something along those lines—something going much wider than this clause—it would remove almost all the problems arising from the clause. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will indicate how far he believes that information should be freely available to all Members of the Assembly. Ideally, of course, it should be available not only to Members of the Assembly but to all Members of the House.
On a point of order, Mr. Murton. May I speak in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett)? It is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with his point, which is an important one, but to say that New Clause 2 may or may not be selected surely once more brings us up against the guillotine procedure. If my hon. Friend is not allowed to bring up this point at this stage, when can he do so?
May I answer by saying that the clause is not in the group that we are discussing now?
10.0 p.m.
For the second time this evening, the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has been trying to cut the Assembly's clothes for it. Earlier today he tried to write in penalties about refusal to declare an interest and now he is trying to write in a freedom of information provision. These objectives are very reasonable but they should be left to Members of the Assembly to determine for themselves. It would be wrong if the House of Commons were to put the Assembly into an absolute straitjacket on both these points from the start. My party has sympathy with the two points that have been put forward, but we think it right and proper that the Assembly should itself grow in stature and status on these matters.
Surely it is reasonable that the Assembly should begin its work with as much of its structure and financial arrangements available as is possible in terms of wider information, otherwise it will spend its first two years arguing about how it will work. That is not its function.
That takes us back to to the centre-piece of many of the debates this afternoon—the "shall" and "may" provisions. It is reasonable that the House should occasionally write in mandatory clauses, but I find myself in difficulty, just as the Conservative Front Bench has done, with permissive clauses—because permissiveness could be taken to the point of absolute infinity.
I fail to follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. He is saying that he objects to permissive clauses because they will cut the throat of the Assembly. He has got this the wrong way round. The point about permissive clauses is that they can be taken up by the Assembly, or not. My hon. Friend is right. Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is sadly wrong.
If one says that something "shall" happen, one is taking away from the Assembly an essential decision that should be left to the Assembly.
I was drawn into the debate by the speeches of the hon. Members for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) and West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I found the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North extremely convoluted and difficult to understand. He was probably trying to create problems, and I leave it for the Minister to answer him. I found the speech of the hon. Member for West Lothian of considerable interest. Les extrémes se touchent. Not for the first time, I find myself in agreement with much of what he said—in this case about civil servants. Once there is set up in Edinburgh an Executive with a Civil Service working to that Executive, the sort of strains and stresses of loyalty described by the hon. Gentleman will emerge. Civil servants will look for a career structure leading to top jobs in the Scottish Civil Service. They will want to know where their loyalties will lie vis-à-vis any potential conflict and friction between London and Edinburgh. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said, and I think that the problems can be settled only in the fullness of time by the creation of a separate Civil Service in Scotland. That is coming and there is a precedent for it in Northern Ireland.This is an important issue. I say this not in a provocative way but to ask a question. The Scottish National Party would think, within its legitimate aims, of the creation of a separate Scottish Civil Service with its own career structure, and presumably the SNP in the Assembly would argue on those lines.
Yes, and reasonably so, because I do not see how it will work in any other way. That is a straight pragmatic, practical answer. That will happen in the fullness of time as the Assembly grows into a Parliament. That is a natural concomitant.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) spoke about the necessity for the free flow of information between London and Edinburgh, and I agree with that. It is vital that Ministers in Edinburgh and London should know what is in the minds of their opposite numbers. That would be true at any stage of the devolution process. Indeed, it would be equally true if there were a separate Scots Parliament in Edinburgh, because today we have to recognise the importance of inter-relationships everywhere. I would only say to the hon. Member for Reigate that it works in reverse as well. I heard precious little from him about Ministers in Edinburgh as they went about formulating their distinctive policies in devolved areas having information as to what was in the minds of Ministers here in the House of Commons. I hope that Ministers in Edinburgh are not to be served up a diet of stale porridge secondhand in terms of the thinking of Ministries here in Whitehall. I think that the hon. Member chose the wrong way of going about it. After all, he is a journalist himself. I think he will recognise that it is not right for all information to be fed simultaneously to different sources, for everybody to be talking to everybody else simultaneously all the time. It leads to confusion. One of the rôles for the Secretary of State in the Bill is to act as a conduit—a tunnel—for information going to Scotland, a clearly established channel of information to the Assembly from this place and vice versa. I suspect that what was coming from the Conservative Benches today was not a high flow of concern for constitutional practices but a desire for this place to meddle with the Assembly time and time again. We saw it escalating. First it was that Ministers in this place should be able to intervene. In the next speech it was argued that any Member of Parliament here should be able to intervene. At the end of the process, it was argued that either this place or the other place should be able to send for persons and papers at any time. That would be gross meddling. If that degree of meddling were to go on, it would lead to a hardening of Scottish attitudes faster than anything else. The Minister will be aware of the speech made by his colleague the Foreign Secretary at a "Scotland in Europe" dinner in Edinburgh a week last Friday. In the course of that dinner, the Foreign Secretary dealt with secondary legislation in relation to the Scottish Assembly, reviewing the relationships Edinburgh might have through London or with Brussels in secondary legislation matters. He talked about something which seems to be at odds with this clause. He said that a joint council for negotiation would have to be set up between the Assembly and Westminster in matters of devolved administration which also were EEC matters. I should like to know from the Minister how that will work. Is it not at considerable variance with what is set out in the clause? If the hon. Gentleman can give me any idea of what the Foreign Secretary had in mind—I know that this is of concern to the hon. Member for West Lothian also, because he dropped his razor on hearing the report of that speech on the morning radio—I shall be obliged. The Assembly must be trusted to grow. If people are to meddle and interfere at every stage, if they are not to allow one clear channel or conduit between Edinburgh and London, the very act of meddling and interfering will lead to a hardening of Scots attitude faster than anything else.If meddling means wanting to know how the block grant is to be spent, meddling it is. I want to support the amendments very briefly, purely on the matter of finance, because when my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) was speaking I intervened to ask him about the position of Select Committees. I was thinking of the Expenditure Committee. As I understand it—I ask this as a question to the Minister—after the House of Commons has voted a block grant there is nothing that any of us can do about the way in which that block grant is used, nor can the Expenditure Committee or the Public Accounts Committee have any say in the matter. The Assembly sets up its own Public Accounts Committee and its own Expenditure Committee. That is all very well.
When we assume that the Assembly sets up its own Public Accounts Committee we also assume—this is the subject of future amendments—a Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General. This assumes, in turn, a very large skilled staff. Some of us beg to dispute whether all these skilled auditors in the Scottish C and AG Department actually exist. So I question the automaticity of the Scottish ability.
I accept that entirely. Referring to the amendment, particularly in regard to Members of Parliament, I do not believe that there is any way in which the House of Commons can obtain detailed information on the way in which that block grant is spent. When we turn to the devolved subject—I am thinking particularly of Group 4, on housing, which deals with devolved subjects such as housing rents, rent allowances and rebates—am I being completely naive in suggesting that it is quite possible for the Assembly to build houses costing £50,000 each, for example, if it so desires? If the Scottish Assembly did so desire, it could have a grave effect on the housing policy adopted in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Will the hon. Gentleman say why he believes that it would be wrong for the Assembly to spend the block grant in the way that it wished, so long as it did not overspend it?
My point is that, in certain respects, the way in which the Assembly spends it can affect the rest of the United Kingdom. It can affect the policy of the Minister of the Crown in the clause that we are discussing. That must be so. That is only one example of a devolved subject.
I could continue with other examples all the way down the list, where actions taken north of the Tweed could have an effect on what happens in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I am asking the Minister how, unless we pass these amendments, after the passing of the block grant by the House hon. Members can obtain the information that they may desire in order to ascertain how this money has been spent?My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) has raised an extremely important point to which we shall have to return later, presumably when we debate the block grant. Several other important points need to be answered. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) raised the question of who exactly is the Secretary of State. My understanding of "Secretary of State" in legislation is that it refers, as it were, to a collective body and means all the Secretaries of State rather than the Secretary of State for Scotland in particular. Am I right in saying that "Secretary of State" can refer to any Secretary of State rather than simply the Secretary of State for Scotland? I have looked at the Bill to see whether there has been any change in the narrow meaning and to see whether "Secretary of State" refers only to the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I assume that it means all Secretaries of State.
This means that apparently any Secretary of State can ask for information that is relevant, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot ask for information that is relevant because he is not a Minister of the Crown. I should have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at least as likely as any other Minister to want to know what had happened to the money that he had been disgorging to the Scottish Assembly. I hope that we have a clear definition of the position. Several hon. Members have raised the question of the Civil Service. Obviously, when we come to Clause 64 we shall have to look at this in great depth. I am happy to see that, in the selection of amendments, the amendment relating to Clause 64 comes at the beginning of one of the guillotine stages rather than at the end. I hope that we shall have a chance to look into this matter, because it is of the gravest importance. The kind of difficulties that have been exposed already need a great deal of discussion. I wish to refer briefly to the amendment dealing with the position of Members of the House of Commons. It is clear that the Minister assumes that Questions will no longer be asked in the House about devolved matters in Scotland. He assumes that this will happen not as a result of the Bill when it is passed but perhaps as a result of some kind of convention that will be operated by the House of Commons. I have argued in earlier debates that Scottish Members of the House will find themselves in a position in which they will no longer be able to ask these very important Questions about matters which closely concern their constituents. I am beginning to wonder whether this is so and whether it will still be possible for Members from Scotland to continue to ask parliamentary Questions and ask for other information relating to devolved matters in Scotland. We need an explanation from the Minister not only about what he hopes the convention of the House will be but about the law of the land. I refer the Minister back to Clause 21, which was dealt with in a totally inadequate way as a result of the guillotine procedure. 10.15 p.m. I ask the Minister to look at Clause 21(3), which states:Does the phrase"Such of Her Majesty's prerogative and other executive powers as would otherwise be exercisable on behalf of Her Majesty by a Minister of the Crown shall, if they relate to devolved matters and are exercisable in or as regards Scotland, be exercisable on behalf of Her Majesty by a Scottish Secretary."
mean under the law that it shall be exercisable exclusively by a Scottish Secretary, or does it mean that it could continue to be exercisable concurrently both by a Scottish Secretary and by a Secretary of State for Scotland or other Ministers of the Westminster Government? That question seems to be one on which, at the very least, some kind of definition is called for, and it has considerable bearing on the whole question of parliamentary Questions. In one respect, the Minister and one or two other hon. Members have actually helped to persuade me that the Scots have a grievance. We had an earlier argument about parliamentary Questions and I took the view that Scottish Members had an advantage over English Members. Statistically speaking, I think that that is true, but I accept that, because they can plump for only one subject, the Scots therefore have some kind of grievance. The answer to that is that it is for the House to find ways to remove the grievance rather than for us to go through the elaborate rigmarole of the Bill. A number of important factual points have come out in the debate on this important clause, and I hope that the Minister will answer them."be exercisable by … a Scottish Secretary"
Perhaps I may deal with one of the points which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) put to me directly about what was meant by "Secretary of State". He is correct in assuming that under the Bill the "Secretary of State" can mean any Secretary of State. It is the Government's intention, however, that the channel of communication for requests for information should be through the Secretary of State for Scotland.
One of the amendments seeks to provide that the request for information should come from any Minister of the Crown. We think that it would be more sensible if such requests were channelled through the Secretary of State for Scotland, just as a matter of practicality, so that there was one established line of communication between the United Kingdom Government and the various Ministers in it who were seeking information in connection with their functions. The hon. Member raised a question about Clause 21(3). It is my understanding that the effect of the Bill will be that the exercise of the Prerogative will be exclusively by the Scottish Secretary. It is not a concurrent power exercisable by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I shall check that point in detail, and if the interpretation that I am now offering is incorrect I shall correct it.On this question of the practicalities of the situation which determine that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be the line of communication, does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill no longer therefore relates to the behaviour of the Assembly but is also incorporating an aspect which affects the behaviour of the Executive, the Government and the House of Commons? The Secretary of State for Scotland, and not the Scottish Secretary, is responsible to the House. Surely the point here is that it is possible to envisage a relationship between the Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament that will grow. Why should we not write that into the Bill? Why should it not be possible for the Minister of Agriculture at Westminster to consult his opposite number in Edinburgh? If that cannot be done, that is nonsense.
That is not in any way banned. There is nothing to stop the Minister of Agriculture discussing matters with the Scottish Secretary, and one would hope that there would be close and regular consultation with United Kingdom Ministers. We are dealing here, however, with a much narrower matter, namely, the statutory right to require the provision of information. In normal circumstances one would expect that information to be exchanged freely and without difficulty. We think that the power should be written into the Bill in case there might be any difficulty. In the ordinary course of events, there is no reason to suppose that the Scottish Administration and Assembly would be unwilling to co-operate with the United Kingdom.
Perhaps I may give an example. The Committee might be interested to know what we have in mind. If, for example, there is a question of statistics for international organisations, for United Nations bodies or for the European Economic Community, and a United Kingdom Minister wishes to produce complete information for the whole of the United Kingdom to these bodies, he can require the relevant information to be supplied from the Scottish Secretary. In such circumstances, it is difficult to imagine that the Scottish Secretary would not be willing to give that information. Education is another example. The United Kingdom Government will remain responsible for university education throughout the United Kingdom. It might be highly relevant to the planning and provision of university education to have statistics and information about the number of school leavers or some other feature of the school system, which is a devolved matter. One would expect there to be sensible co-operation on these matters. As I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), it is a useful backup provision to have, and one would expect there to be regular and systematic consultation on all matters of mutual concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) raised the question of information in general terms both here and in the Assembly. I read New Clause 2 with very great interest when it appeared on the Notice Paper. I understand that it is translated from the Swedish Information Act, and I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North on their industry in getting it translated from the original Swedish and putting it on the Notice Paper of the House of Commons. I know their very deep concern about this matter. It would not be proper for me to indicate at this stage what attitude one would take to New Clause 2, certainly not until I have heard my hon. Friends' advocacy of its merits. If it is selected, I have no doubt that the case will be made forcefully. In general terms, in speaking of information to be available to Assembly Members from the Scottish Administration, I incline to the view at this stage, without having heard the argument, that it is very much a matter for the Assembly itself to decide. The Assembly might wish to operate on quite different conventions. It might be much more interested in the giving of information than United Kingdom Governments have been up to now. It is a matter entirely for those who form the Administration and for those who are Members of the Assembly to consider between themselves. I do not think that I can be expected to give any greater indication than I have been able to give tonight on that matter. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the question of civil servants. I hope he will not misunderstand me when I say that I think the hon. Member for Aylesbury is right and that it will come up under a later clause. None the less, since my hon. Friend has raised it, may I say that I do not believe that there is a conflict of loyalty between civil servants. There will still be a United Kingdom Civil Service, but those responsible to Scottish Secretaries and the Scottish Administration will be responsible to them, and those who are responsible to United Kingdom Ministers will be responsible to those Ministers. I see no difficulty in their carrying out their duties conscientiously and loyally in the way in which they presently do. I do not believe that there would be merit in having a separate Scottish Civil Service—certainly not at the start—and I disagree with the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) on this. Those who are members of the Civil Service unions and the like are quite strongly of the view that a United Kingdom Civil Service should be retained. It may be that in course of time the Scottish Assembly might resolve that it would be better to have a different Civil Service for Scotland. That is a matter which could be discussed with the United Kingdom Government. At the present time, I believe that there is a great deal of merit in having a United Kingdom Civil Service. That is the strong view of the Government at the moment and the strong view of the Civil Service as expressed through its trade unions. When my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian agrees in some way with the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire it is a matter of interest but it does not necessarily lead us to the truth, because they are colliding from quite different directions and have quite different purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian is totally anti-devolution in any shape or form, and the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire has quite different purposes and objectives from those of my hon. Friend. I do not think than my hon. Friend can take much comfort from the fact—There is no degree of agreement between the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and myself. It is either him or me. It is either the status quo or it is independence.
I disagree fundamentally with that proposition. I think that it obscures the argument. I will not go into a general Second Reading consideration of the merits of devolution, but I think that it offers the opportunity for a Scottish dimension in politics in this country firmly within the context of the United Kingdom. I think that the arrangements made in the Bill to achieve this are practical arrangements. They may not be approved by the Scottish National Party, and I can understand its wanting an independent Scotland, but I do not believe that the vast majority of the people of Scotland want anything to do with that proposition. I must be evenhanded and say that I think my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is also wrong.
Is not that an interesting statement that we have just heard—that it is either the status quo or independence? In other words, the loudly trumpeted support for devolution is a sham and a hypocrisy. Does that not mean that, in saying to the people of Scotland that they are in support of devolution, the Scottish nationalists are saying it for no other reason than because they believe it will be the means of achieving, and will inevitably mean, independence? Would it not be fairer if they stood up and said so, despite the fact that they might annoy Professor Ian MacCormick, who is a much more civilised person than most of the people on that Bench?
I am sure that my hon. Friend's comments will be noted by those who read these debates. [Interruption.] Some dedicated citizens may well read these debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West is right to pose some of the contradictions that arise in the attitude of the SNP. I thought its position was that it was for independence and nothing else and that that was what its conference was all about. The SNP will have plenty of opportunities in the months ahead to reveal to the Scottish electorate what it stands for.
To have the real contradictions in the position of the SNP brought forward, surely the sensible thing would be to have a second question in the referendum?
I must resist the temptation to be drawn even wider. My hon. Friend has asked me to go so far ahead in the Bill that I would end up at the very last schedule. He will understand that I must resist that temptation.
The amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) asks that the statutory requirement should apply in the case of a Member of Parliament as well as of the Secretary of State. My understanding is that the amendment would mean that the Secretary of State, in order to reply to any Member of Parliament, would have to require the Scottish Secretary to supply information. Of course, this would be an enormous extension of the obligation upon the Scottish Administration and there would be an extremely onerous burden on the Secretary of State and the Scottish Administration to supply all the information that was required by any Member of Parliament. The hon. Member for Aylesbury asked in what respect Houses of Parliament could question the Secretary of State. I thought I dealt with that matter on a previous occasion. The subject of Questions in the House is not a matter for the Government. It is essentially a matter for the House. The House may well reach the same convention as it did in the case of the Stormont Parliament in Northern Ireland. That may well be the precedent. But it is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the House itself to determine.The point at issue is whether it shall be possible. The word used is "may" and not "shall".
If the House decides to continue the practice of Scottish parliamentary Questions on devolved matters, we shall be in a position in which a Scottish Member might ask the Minister a Question. In order to find the answer, the Minister might have to turn to the Scottish Executive. That is what we are anxious to safeguard. Since the Minister says that this will not be decided until the subsequent period, it is not unreasonable to ask for that safeguard.It is not unreasonable to suppose that Members of Parliament might ask a whole series of Questions that will require the Scottish Administration to give the Secretary of State an endless supply of information. That might well be the situation. There would be a heavy burden on the Scottish Administration.
We are giving powers to the Assembly in the devolved areas. We ought to leave it some room to operate and to get on with the discharge of its responsibilities without always looking over its shoulder at the House of Commons and interference with questions that are the major responsibility of the Assembly.
10.30 p.m.
If that is the Minister's view, how does he justify the continuation in the House of Commons of 71 Members from Scottish constituencies who have full voting and speaking capabilities over every matter relating to the United Kingdom but are denied receiving this information from the Scottish Administration?
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) earlier this evening. He demonstrated very clearly the wide range of responsibilities for which the United Kingdom Government were still the Government of Scotland. These responsibilities include energy, trade, employment and economic affairs. As far as legislative powers being transferred to the Assembly are concerned, there will remain many matters for which the Secretary of State is responsible. Scottish Members are free to concentrate their attention on matters for which this Government have a responsibility. There is a heavy burden of Scottish legislation going through the House.
We are dealing here with the question of information being required. I have tried to explain to the Committee that this is a useful back-up clause. I hope that the House will reject the amendments for the reasons I have given. As it stands, the provision is reasonable. If it were extended to Members of Parliament, it would create serious difficulties for the Scottish Administration.I must press the Minister. He is trying to have it both ways. He is talking about devolving powers and responsibilities to the Scottish Administration and about the heavy burden that Scottish Members feel in this place, yet in the clause we are denying Members of Parliament their rights in connection with receiving information about devolved matters in Scotland. He cannot have it both ways.
The right hon. Gentleman did not put his name to the amendment. I wonder why. Apparently he is in agreement with it, and his name appears on most Front Bench amendments from the Opposition.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is creating an imaginary dilemma. He knows perfectly well that the amendments say that the Secretary of State would have to act on requests for information from each individual Member. I think that this is an onerous duty to place on the Scottish Administration. It is quite different from the case in which Ministers of the Crown are exercising their functions within the range of their responsibilities. This is a fairly limited area. But if Members of Parliament could raise anything and everything for which Parliament was responsible, this would mean constantly going to the Scottish Administration. I do not think that that is a practical way of solving the problem. I am sure that the Scottish Administration would be happy to supply the information to Members from both Scottish and English constituencies. But it is going too far to impose this obligation. We must give the Assembly some room to breathe without overlooking all its activities. I do not think that that amendment is a very great improvement, and I hope that the Committee will reject it.My hon. Friend is not naive, but when he tells us that he thinks that the Scottish Administration would be happy to supply information to the House of Commons he really stretches the imagination. Of course they would be happy as long as the information was to their advantage. If it was to their disadvantage, in matters such as money, which have been raised often enough in this debate, some of us doubt whether they would be so happy.
I do not know whether I am naive, but I certainly do not have the fevered imagination of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, who conjures up such devastating scenarios. When my hon. Friend has a nightmare, it must be about devolution and I shudder to think what it is like.
Amendment negatived.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
There are one or two matters arising from the Minister of State's reply that the Committee will wish to examine further.
The first matter that arises is the situation of Westminster Members of Parliament. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has turned his mind to Scottish Questions and Members of Parliament being able to ask the Secretary of State questions on devolved matters. He has suggested that there would be a great flooding of the Scottish Executive if it were to have to cope with the Questions. However, if the Secretary of State for Scotland is doing his monitoring job as the House of Commons would expect him to do it—after all, he has responsibility for the affairs of the Assembly—he will have most of the information available to him in any case. He will require that information in the exercise of his functions. It does not seem that the Scottish Executive will be required to do a great deal of extra work in providing information for Members of Parliament. It is important that Ministers should recognise the point that was made earlier in a supporting amendment—namely, that when Members of Parliament speak in Scottish debates on financial matters, such as the block grant or the Supplementary Estimates, they will require to have information on the financial and spending policies of the Assembly. If that information is not made available to them and is not built up over a period, they will not be able to play their full part in financial matters. Surely the Minister will agree that a Member of Parliament who is not able to know what is going on in his constituency—in his own back garden, so to speak—is at a severe disadvantage in trying to do his work for his constituents. Nothing should be written into the Bill that in any way removes a Member of Parliament's responsibility for his constituency and his constituents. Different hon. Members may view that responsibility in different ways, but, regardless of party, most hon. Members recognise their personal responsibility and the trust that constituents place in their Members of Parliament. I cannot accept that a tremendous burden would be placed on the Scottish Executive or on the Secretary of State if hon. Members were to be able to continue asking Questions on Scottish affairs. Another question that I put to the Minister of State for his consideration involves a matter of detail that is perhaps of some importance. How will the Secretary of State himself obtain information from local government? At present, he makes direct requests to local government—to the regions and districts—for information for his own purposes. Will he be able to continue going direct? Does the Minister envisage that the Secretary of State will first have to ask the Scottish Secretary about local government matters and then collect the information from the local authorities? A request for information may be put through the Secretary of State by any Minister of the Crown, but there is no sign of any time limit. There is no sign of any possibility of a sanction being used by the Assembly if for any reason—this is a possibility—relations are sour at any stage between the Secretary of State or his Government at Westminster and the Scottish Assembly. It is all very well to make this provision for the better government of the United Kingdom whereby Ministers of the Crown will be able to obtain any information that they require for the exercise of their functions, but it is important that we should try to consider in Committee what might happen if for any reason the Scottish Executive were to refuse to comply with a request for information, either at all or on time. It will not be enough for the Minister to say that everyone will live happily ever after when the Bill becomes an Act. We must recognise as politicans the practical differences and difficulties that may arise. Finally, I ask the Minister to consider whether, if Parliament exercises its right to legislate on a devolved matter and proceeds to do so, Members here should be able to ask Questions about that matter thereafter. This point is tied in with the first point that I made about the ability of Scottish Members, or Members of Parliament here, being able to continue to ask Questions on Scottish business. I hope that the Minister will return to that point in his reply.I shall be brief. Together with others of my hon. Friends, I have a growing unease about the way in which the Government are making certain assumptions about people in our society who are supposed to be impartial.
I have a concrete suggestion to make. Would it be possible, before we come to this matter again on Clause 64, to have an official view from the Civil Service unions, and in particular the First Division of the Civil Service, on what they really think about this matter? I am far from convinced that this proposal is at all acceptable to serious-minded civil servants who understand that there are extremely delicate problems involved that they have not been asked to face before because their loyalties have been absolutely indisputable. Therefore, hope that the First Division of the Civil Service will be asked for its views on the kind of problems involved. Secondly, I think it is fair to refer to the previous discussion relating to judges. My hon. Friend the Minister of State said:Does anyone imagine that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will check the use of the oil revenues? The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has campaigned on the slogan "It is our oil—it is his oil, it is her oil, it is their oil" under captions of an old man, an old lady and children playing at school. Will he accept absolutely obediently and without fuss when the judges of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council say "No, it is not their oil"? The whole difficulty in this matter is that we make assumptions about civil servants and judges. I suggest that it is high time that we had an official statement on the considered view of the judges and of the First Division of the Civil Service."The most effective check against the Assembly extending its powers is the use of the Judicial Committee, but I have to counter arguments from the Opposition dealing with a rather academic matter. The vires check would be used if the Assembly sought to extend its powers by, for example, taxing oil revenues. It would then be checked by the Judicial Committee."—[Official Report, 29th November 1977; Vol. 940, c. 354.]
I want to raise a matter that must be raised at some time during our debates. In the last debate the Minister of State talked about the nightmare that he imagined his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) having about this legislation. I want to talk about a most improbable nightmare, but one that we must recognise.
The Minister and the Lord President of the Council have referred to the Stormont precedent. They have attempted to justify some of the proposals that they have put forward on the ground of what happened at Stormont. For example, they said that they viewed the rights of Members of Parliament in much the same way as those of Stormont Members. Let us suppose for the sake of argument—I do not think that it is remotely likely—that some of the events that have, alas, taken place in Northern Ireland were to take place in a devolved Scotland. I suggest that that is the kind of consideration that we must think about in constitutional legislation of this character. One has to be prepared for the worst. 10.45 p.m. As I say, I think it extremely unlikely that it would happen, but it might happen. After all, to be blunt, there are racial tensions in the largest city in Scotland. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that some kind of abuses grew up in Scotland and that the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Assembly did not do anything effective about them. It seems to me that even if these abuses took place within devolved areas, such as crime, local government or housing—in Northern Ireland these were all areas in which it is claimed that abuses took place—surely, at a certain point, the House of Commons would have to take note of them, and I believe that at a certain point the House of Commons would have to intervene. I think that the first step in an intervention of that kind would be the search for exact information about what was happening. Obviously, that is something that would have to be done with the greatest delicacy. However, it seems to me that either Members of Parliament or a Select Committee should be in a position to say to the Secretary of State "Please find out from Scotland, with all the authority that you as Secretary of State possess, exactly what has been happening". Somewhere in the Bill the power to do that should be spelt out. As I understand it, the Secretary of State will have that power if he wishes to exercise it off his own bat, but there comes a point at which the responsibility must ultimately lie with the House of Commons. I believe, therefore, that it should be written into the Bill that we would have the power to make inquiry if we were suspicious or afraid that the kind of things that happened, alas, in Northern Ireland were happening in Scotland, although, as I say, it is very unlikely that they will happen there. We have a duty to be able to cope with that eventuality.I support very strongly the very interesting and important statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), which was on the matter that concerns me most deeply about the clause.
As the Committee knows, I intervene very seldom in its proceedings, although I endeavour to attend most of them. I have had an odd feeling throughout the proceedings, particularly tonight. My memory is of when I was Clerk to the Scottish Standing Committee, when Mr. Stuart was Secretary of State for Scotland. There was a famous occasion when we had a 14-hour debate at the end of which the Secretary of State said that he could not advise the Committee to accept the amendment. That was his speech. At that moment a quick-witted Whip, or, at least, a quick-footed Whip, was on his feet to move the closure—which was a relief to me because I discovered after seven more hours that the amendment was out of order anyway. But those were the days before we had the guillotine on measures such as the Bill which is now before us, and, although that 14-hour debate may have been rather futile, we have now had several non-debates or very short debates on matters of very profound concern not only to Scotland but to the House of Commons and this nation. The clause contains a particular phrase and implication which I regret very deeply and which worries me very much. I share my concern with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. The clause states simply that the Secretary of StateI am not quite sure why the word "request" is put in at the end. The clause would imply a demand which, if I were a Scottish Member, I would regard as an insult to the Assembly and to the position under the devolved powers. But there is no time limit involved. The nature of the information is not specified. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury made the absolutely valid and fundamental point that we do not expect that a situation will arise in Scotland comparable to that which has arisen in Northern Ireland. However, having been through that experience and knowing that the House of Commons may be involved in situations relating to Scotland and that it may require information urgently, that information must be supplied as of right and quickly. That should be clearly written into the Bill. It does not appear in this clause or anywhere else. I make this point very seriously to the Minister, for whom I have great respect. We are making a very valid point about the importance of information, the speed of information and the clarity of relations between the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland and the House of Commons. This is a very important point. It is an important clause. It does not meet the fundamental problems that concern my hon. Friends and myself. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter before we reach Report stage."may request the Scottish Secretary to supply the information and the Scottish Secretary shall comply with the request."
The wording of the clause says that the Secretary of State "may" request. This leaves the matter entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State of the the day who decides whether to make use of the clause to get information on behalf of another Minister of the Crown in the execution of his duties. I would like to know whether, if the wording were altered to "must", that would enable the House of Commons to insist that this power was so used. At present, it means that the use of the clause to obtain information is wholly and entirely within the discretion of the Government and that hon. Members can have no effect on that. It is, therefore, yet another extension of government by prerogative, of which we are seeing so much, both in practice and now in prospect.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) traversed the same ground as we covered earlier on the amendments to the clause. I make no objection to that, although I somehow have the unworthy suspicion that there is a desire not to reach Clause 35.
Nonsense!
I expected that there would be rather indignant protestations from the Opposition, but I think that many of my hon. Friends will know what I mean.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury raised the question of racial tensions, referring to Glasgow. He ought to know that Glasgow probably has the best community relations record of any city in the United Kingdom. There may be others just as good. The hon. Member always strikes me as "Southern English man" in his approach to this question. He looks at the whole thing with grave suspicion. Somehow, he believes, these slightly lesser beings in Northern Ireland and Scotland will have slightly less regard for civil rights than those in any other part of the United Kingdom. I have confidence that Members of the Assembly will show as much concern on these matters as does the House of Commons. I see no reason to come to any contrary conclusion. I wonder why the hon. Gentleman referred to Glasgow.It may be that what the Minister says about Glasgow is correct. I do not claim to know. But he has just referred to Northern Ireland, and the fact is that we had to abolish the Northern Ireland Government because of what was going on there. In the improbable circumstances of something comparable arising within a devolved Government in Scotland, I want to know what the powers of the House of Commons will be. That seems to be an entirely fair question—and an important one.
I am entitled to comment on the hon. Member's general attitude to devolution which shines through. I recollect his position on regional development policy to other parts of the United Kingdom. It is very much a Southern English attitude.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury was supported by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) in his usual careful and restrained way. I do not believe that this amendment—What amendment?
We are effectively talking to the amendment which was not accepted. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) wants to make effective interventions, he should have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and tell him how splendid is the record of Glasgow in community relations. The hon. Gentleman knows how splendid it is, and he knows that there ought not to be concern about this. He played some part in achieving those good relations with the immigrant community.
The Minister seems to be trying to talk the clause out. I agree that Glasgow has a splendid record, as most hon. Members would agree if asked the same question about their own cities. The hon. Gentleman has not told us what will happen if the Assembly does not provide the information. Why is there no time limit on the provision of information? We need answers to these questions, not offensive comments. If the Minister does not have the information, let him say so.
I regret that I gave way to the hon. Member, because he has taken up time which I could use to answer questions.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North asked about the powers of the Secretary of State concerning local government. The Secretary of State will have a relationship with local government for some of the non-devolved matters, such as police. We are talking about the back-up provision involved in the supply of information to the Secretary of State in relation to the exercise of their functions. But the argument has widened. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said that there should be a statutory right of Members of Parliament to obtain information. That argument formed part of the discussion on the amendment to the clause. I ask the hon. Member for Aylesbury to take into account that we must have some regard for the Assembly's point of view as well as for that of the House of Commons. The hon. Member is always addressing himself with fear and trembling to what might happen to the House of Commons once we have devolution. We must strike a balance and ensure that the Assembly is permitted to operate effectively without Questions being fired at it by United Kingdom Ministers or Members of Parliament. In order to achieve an effective form of government in Scotland, it is essential that we achieve a balance and take into account the legitimate rights of both the sovereign Parliament and the Scottish Assembly.I wish to refer to an important aspect of the clause. What happens if the Scottish Secretary of State says "No" when asked to provide information or if he takes two years to provide it because he is in a huff with the United Kingdom Parliament?
There is an obligation upon the Scottish Secretary to provide information when requested to do so. Since the Scottish Administration will comprise law-abiding people, they will have regard to the terms of the Bill. I remind the hon. Member that in the United States the Supreme Court has operated for two centuries without any sanctions being open to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I thought that I might expand the education of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North on this subject.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North, who once was more in favour of devolution than he appears to be now, asked a number of questions which were covered during the debate on the amendment to the clause. The important point about the clause is that it requires a Scottish Secretary to provide information to the Secretary of State for the exercise of his function. That is a simple proposition. We have spent a long time debating this issue. Perhaps hon. Members have a reason for continuing the debate, because there has been a fair amount of repetition. My contribution has been shorter than that of many hon. Members. We discussed these issues fully, and now we appear to be going back over them. This is a valuable clause. I put it no higher than that. We shall expect the Scottish Assembly and the United Kingdom Government to co-operate together for the good government of Scotland. The United Kingdom Government will be responsible for many areas and the Scottish Assembly will be responsible for many others. We expect them to cooperate. That co-operation will be more effective if this useful back-up provision remains in the Bill. I hope that the Committee will not delete it.Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Power To Make Changes In Law Consequential On Scottish Assembly Acts
The next amendment is Amendment No. 115, with which it is proposed to take Amendment No. 118.
It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [ 16th November].
Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.
Sheriff Peter Thomson
11.0 p.m.
I beg to move,
Last Session I introduced a Private Member's Bill under which all public appointments would have been accountable to Parliament. It related to appointments such as the chairmen of the nationalised industries, ambassadors and so on, because I firmly believe that those who are appointed to such posts should be accountable to the House. Similarly, if people are to be dismissed from those public appointments the dismissal should also come to this House for debate. That is why I tabled the motion. I do not believe in the complete independence of the judiciary in the sense that it should not be accountable at all to Parliament. I believe that it should be accountable to Parliament and that the proposed dismissal of a judge is something that should be discussed and finally decided here, one way or the other. Sheriff Thomson, whom the order removed from office, is alleged to have taken part in political activity such that it is misbehaviour making him unfit for his duties as a judge. The basis of the allegation is the publication earlier this year of a pamphlet headed:That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Sheriff (Removal from Office) Order 1977, dated 22nd July 1977, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th July in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
"Scottish Plebiscite
It is important to remember that in the pamphlet Sheriff Thomson does not campaign for or propose any constitutional change in Scotland. What he proposes is that the people of Scotland be given the opportunity to express their opinion on what constitutional change, if any, they would like.Report by Sheriff Peter Thomson".
I am worried about correcting the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but it was not on the basis of publication of that pamphlet that Sheriff Thomson was reported as having misbehaved under the terms of Section 12 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971.
Action was taken under Section 12 on the basis of a complaint referring to the publication of a pamphlet, a complaint given first to the two senior judges in Scotland, Lord Emslie and Lord Wheatley, who investigated the matter on the basis of the complaint and then reported back to the Secretary of State.
We should also emphasise that in the pamphlet Sheriff Thomson attempts to be as impartial as possible in putting forward his proposals. On reading the pamphlet, I was struck by the fair manner in which he puts his proposals. For example, on page 2 he states:in the lead-up to his proposed plebiscite—"To achieve the appropriate atmosphere "—
and"The Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk may … undertake jointly an investigation into the fitness for office of any sheriff"
As far as I have been able to ascertain, the Secretary of State is not arguing that the sheriff in this case is unfit for office by reason of inability. Neither does my right hon. Friend appear to be arguing that the sheriff is unfit for office because of neglect of duty. It appears to me that the Secretary of State is arguing that Sheriff Thomson is unfit for office because of misbehaviour. But what misbehaviour? The House can think of many types of misbehaviour which would disquality a judge. We can all think of types of misbehaviour which would prejudice or affect his decisions when sitting on the Bench in his judicial capacity. Probably the most obvious is misbehaviour in terms of criminal activities. Clearly, it is inappropriate for someone who is himself a criminal to be sitting on the Bench judging other criminals. A judge who plays an open part in party politics would also disqualify himself from sitting on the Bench, where he is supposed to be impartial. If an accused person who was a Tory came up before a Labour judge or an accused person who was a Labour supporter came up before a Tory judge, there would be at least suspicion, well-founded or not, that he would not get a fair deal. Yet do we all agree with that? Are we consistent in saying that, or are not we ourselves guilty of double standards? In Scotland we have honorary sheriffs, and both north and south of the border we have thousands of justices of the peace serving on judicial benches. Many of them got their jobs in the first place because they were in possession of a political party card. That is a fact which I am sure no hon. Member will deny. I have also known cases of people standing for election under various party colours and deliberately putting "JP" after their names on election addresses in order to get votes. I am quite convinced of this. If this is not misuse of a judicial position, I do not know what is. I have also known cases where a person sits in the morning in court in judgment of his fellow men and in the afternoon in the council chamber taking political decisions. To those who say that this is the judiciary at a lower tier, I would argue back and say that the basic principle is the same. In any event, the upper tiers of the judiciary are not completely exempt. We had the case of Lord Hailsham, for example. He was Lord Chancellor during the 1970–74 Government. His was a political appointment. During his period as Lord Chancellor, he also thought that he was fit to sit on the Bench as a Law Lord. We also had the case of Lord Avon-side, who in the late 1960s served on a Tory Party committee—a study committee which caused such a ballyhoo in Scotland over a period of weeks that eventually he had to resign."report in writing to the Secretary of State … that the … sheriff is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour."
What happened to Lord Avonside?
He eventually had to resign, but it was only under great pressure from the public that he did so and Conservative Members were supporting him when he was sitting on that Tory Party committee.
Quite apart from party political involvement in the part of judiciary, we have had many partisan statements by the judiciary criticising the Government and also the Labour and trade union movement. What about Lord Denning and his disgusting remarks earlier this year about the Grunwick affair and his comment that it was mob rule? Let us suppose that someone who was at Grunwick came before Lord Denning. Does anybody suggest that he would get a fair deal? It is clear that the Government and most of the Members of this House have in the past tolerated situations where judges have been allowed to make open criticisms of the laws made by politicians in this House, and also criticisms of many of the decisions made by politicians, including those of the Executive. We had, for example, almost a year ago to the day, Lord Robertson using his judicial bench to attack my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Why? Because he had used his executive position to release Patrick Meehan who, he thought, had been wrongly convicted of murder. There was a clear case of the judiciary attacking the Executive, and yet as far as I know no retaliatory action, apart from a statement in the House, was taken by the Executive to deal with Lord Robertson.Does the hon. Gentleman feel that his argument would be stronger if he were to cite the case of Lord Wheatley, who is one of the two signatories to this letter to the Secretary of State? Does he recall that Lord Wheatley campaigned round the length and breadth of Scotland selling this rotten prospectus for the reorganisation of local government? That was a blatantly political action, and he has the hypocrisy to sign this letter to the Secretary of State attacking Sheriff Thomson.
I do not completely agree with that in the context of this debate. I think that Lord Wheatley's impartiality can be judged by the fact that he tried to send the father of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) to prison at one stage because he broke the provisions of the Tory Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act.
What about constitutional matters? Surely the basis of this pamphlet about a Scottish plebiscite is that a judge has expressed his views on a constitional matter. Is that incompatible with his position as a judge? What about Lord Kilbrandon, who was chairman of a Commission appointed to look into the constition of Scotland and come back with recommendations? It seems to me that the rules—if there are rules—on the political activities of judges require clarification. I am not in favour of a written constition to define the exact role of the judiciary as opposed to the Executive, but I think that the Government should clarify their views on this matter before picking on Sheriff Thomson, because they will be creating not just a precedent but a bad one. Can the Secretary of State tell me what political activity Sheriff Thomson has ever indulged in that has interfered, or was in danger of interfering, with his impartiality as a judge? There is nothing in this pamphlet which suggests that his impartiality as a judge was being impaired. There is nothing biased in the pamphlet. There is nothing partisan in it. No doubt the Secretary of State will dig up things from the past—the long-distant past. He will dig up such things as the Plebiscite Society, the Rutherglen plebiscite, the advertisements in judical garb, the allegations of discourtesy and so on. Certainly the sheriff received a warning on a previous occasion; one can read it in Hansard. The latest report from Lords Wheatley and Emslie reads:I want to make two comments on that. First, it may have escaped the minds of Lords Wheatley and Emslie that there is a big difference between actually organising a plebiscite and publishing a pamphlet proposing an impartial plebiscite. Secondly, in 1975 it was obvious that Lords Wheatley and Emslie disapproved of the plebiscite. They disapproved of the sheriff's activities, but nevertheless they did not then consider him to be unfit to hold judicial office. In other words, it appears now, two years later, that the publication of a pamphlet proposing a plebiscite is more serious in their eyes than the actual organisation of a plebiscite. Elsewhere, Lords Wheatley and Emslie appear to have concluded from the pamphlet—which says that"the publication of this 'Report by Sheriff Peter Thomson' can only be regarded as a repetition of the very kind of activity condemned in our report of 15th January 1975 and in clear defiance of the warning then given to the Sheriff."
that Sheriff Thomson intended organising further plebiscites in exactly the same manner as before, with himself as the returning officer. They had no right to conclude any such thing. They also insinuate that his use of the term "sheriff" was deliberately to try to make his plebiscite appear to be an official plebiscite. But they conveniently forgot to say that on the reverse of the pamphlet dealing with the plebiscite the sheriff says clearly"These local plebiscites will continue until this matter is resolved."
Thereby, he makes it clear that it is not an official document."This is not an official Crown document".
The hon. Gentleman says that these two senior judges had no right to assume that the type of plebiscite organised in Rutherglen and elsewhere would be continued. But in the pamphlet Sheriff Thomson says:
Nowhere does he indicate that he would cease to act as a returning officer. Does the hon. Gentleman believe it proper or improper that a sheriff who at the time was a returning officer for a parliamentary election should print, at his own expense, ballot papers distributed among members of the electorate and on those ballot papers have the words"These local plebiscites will continue until this matter is resolved."
Is not than an abuse of his position as sheriff?"They should be returned to Sheriff Peter Thomson, Returning Officer"?
In 1975, Lords Wheatley and Emslie concluded that such behaviour did not merit Sheriff Thomson's dismissal. That cannot be denied. Since 1974, sheriffs can no longer act as returning officers at General Elections. There has been a change in the law. The chief executive of the appropriate local authority acts as returning officer at General Elections. Thus the possibility of confusion is thereby reduced. There are different circumstances now compared with the 1974 situation. Sheriff Thomson has not repeated his 1974 activity, and he faces dismissal simply for publishing a pamphlet supporting an impartial plebiscite.
It is rather ironic that Sheriff Thomson has been campaigning for 30 years for such an impartial plebiscite and now, at long last, the Government are getting ready to propose his dismissal in the very year when they themselves have gone some way towards stealing his idea by having a referendum on devolution. Whether we agree with the case for Sheriff Thomson's dismissal or not, I think it is important that he should get a fair hearing, and I think that it is a pity that the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) was not debated and decided by this House. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will rise in a few minutes and say that Sheriff Thomson did not reply to the invitations from the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk and himself. Perhaps he did not reply to some of the invitations to come forward, but it is wrong to say that he did not reply to any of them. In the early days of the initial investigation, Sheriff Thomson wrote a polite letter to the President of the Court of Session dated 28th October 1974. He wroteHe received the following reply, and I have the original in my hand. It is a very curt reply from Lord Emslie. It reads:"Dear Lord President, I thank you for your letter of 25th October which arrived this morning. I should be obliged if I could have details of the charges against me. Is it said that I took part in 'partisan politics' on ' non-partisan politics'? If the charges concern the word 'politics' alone, then on what definition of politics is the matter proceeding? You will appreciate that … it is desirable that I know what charges I am called upon to answer. Yours sincerely, Sheriff Thomson."
How is that for discourtesy for a start? It is not "Dear Sheriff" or "Dear Peter," but "Dear Thomson"."Dear Thomson"—
In view of that sort of reply, is it any wonder that Sheriff Thomson thought that any further communication was pointless? But even if hon. Members think that he has been guilty of discourtesy to the Lord President of the Court of Session and suppose that his failure to answer letters was indiscreet, as it may well have been, are they seriously arguing that that provides sufficient grounds for dismissal? I can think of many hon. Members who do not answer letters, but I do not hear them arguing for their own dismissal. This House is sitting tonight as a final court of appeal in the case of Sheriff Peter Thomson. The House is sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity—"I am surprised at the terms of our letter of 28 October 1974. You already have the details of the complaint against you and you will appreciate that the burden of the complaint is that in your capacity as a full-time sheriff you have engaged in political activity. The question whether that is partisan or non-partisan is nothing to the point. Yours sincerely, G. C. Emslie".
The hon. Member has been funny and frivolous, but this is an important matter. This House is not a final court of appeal in the case of Sheriff Thomson. It is entitled under the Act to ensure that the judges gave a decision according to the Act to the Secretary of State and that the Secretary of State acted upon it. It is not a final court of appeal to an individual.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) has struck the heart of the matter. It is this. According to the hon. and learned Member, Section 12 of the 1971 Act deprives this House of its rights. I suggest that this House has the rights of the ultimate sovereign authority in the United Kingdom, including the right to defend Sheriff Peter Thomas—if he deserves defending.
Order. I appeal to hon. Members to remember that we had only two hours to discuss this matter and half an hour has almost gone. I must tell the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that the House this evening is exercising its rights.
I do not want to be tripped up by all these legal niceties about whether this is a final court of appeal, but de facto this House tonight will finally decide the fate of Sheriff Peter Thomson, and to that extent we are sitting tonight in a quasi-judicial capacity. It is one of the basic principles of natural justice that a man should be heard before he is condemned.
This House has gone to the bother of setting up industrial tribunals under the Employment Protection Act 1975 and so on in order to see that people have the right to be heard before they are dismissed. If Sheriff Thomson is not heard—and the fact that the motion of the hon. Member for Tiverton was not debated or decided is an indication that Sheriff Thomson will not be heard—the case for the dismissal of Sheriff Thomson must at best be doubtful. That reason alone, to my mind, is enough to justify voting tonight for the annulment of the dismissal order.11.26 p.m.
I think it might be for the convenience of the House if the House will allow me to intervene at this early stage. I hope that later on, if there are one or two things with which the House would like me to deal in winding up, I shall have permission to do so. I have tried to help the House already by publishing certain information in Hansard in answer to Questions on 25th and 30th November 1977, and I hope that hon. Members who are interested in this matter have been able to read in Hansard the answers that I gave.
I very much welcome the debate because I believe that this is a serious matter, and it is very right that the House should debate it. I want to start by explaining the procedure which is laid down in statute for the removal of a sheriff in Scotland. It is set out in Section 12 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971, and it has been the same in essentials since 1838. The essential part of the procedure is an inquiry by the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk, the two senior members of the Scottish judiciary. That inquiry may be instituted by the judges of their own accord or at the request of the Secretary of State, but may I make it absolutely clear that without such an inquiry the Secretary of State has no power whatever to make an order for the removal of a sheriff. There is no independent initiative by the Secretary of State on this matter without an inquiry.rose—
I am sure that many Members will wish to participate in the debate, and I should like to be able to complete my remarks without interruption.
The conduct of the inquiry is left to the two judges themselves. There are no statutory rules which lay down what they must do, but it is perfectly clear from what happened in this case that on each of the two occasions when the judges conducted an inquiry into Sheriff Thom-son's activities, in 1974 and 1977, they acted with scrupulous fairness and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. On each occasion Sheriff Thomson was informed that the judges were undertaking the inquiry under the Act, and on each occasion he was given an opportunity both to make submissions in writing and to appear before the judges personally or by counsel. He did not take any of those opportunities, but it is important to emphasise, in view of some of the criticisms which have been made, that the fullest opportunity was given. At the conclusion of their inquiry, the judges on each occasion came to the conclusion that Sheriff Thomson was guilty of "misbehaviour", which is laid down in the Act as one of the grounds on which a removal order can be made. On the first occasion the judges stated, however, that they did not yet find him unfit for office, both because he carried out his judicial duties in other respects satisfactorily—there has been no dispute about that then or since—and also because they thought that up till then he might have been under a misapprehension as to the objectionable nature of his activities. On the second occasion, the judges also found that Sheriff Thomson had been guilty of misbehaviour and they declared on this occasion that he was unfit for office. After considering the judges' report, I decided to make the removal order. I have described the procedure in detail in order to make it clear that no injustice has been done to Sheriff Thomson by the decision not to allow him to appear at the Bar of the House to answer questions. I understand that that procedure has been used on one earlier occasion when Parliament was considering an Address to the Crown for the removal of a judge. It may be—although this is a matter of English law and, therefore, not a matter for me—that a similar form of procedure would be thought appropriate if Parliament were in the future to consider an Address for the removal of, for example, an English High Court judge. But the procedure for the removal of an English High Court judge is quite different from the procedure for the removal of a Scottish sheriff.rose—
When I have explained the procedure I shall give way, but perhaps I may be allowed to complete this section of my speech. If an Address were presented for the removal of an English High Court judge, the proceedings would be initiated in Parliament itself and Parliament would therefore be the proper tribunal to decide judicially on the charges made against the judge.
But the statutory provisions dealing with the removal of English High Court judges have nothing at all to do with Scottish sheriffs. A sheriff who is accused of conduct which may lead to his removal is, of course, fully protected from injustice, but the protections are those which are laid down in Section 12 of the 1971 Act. These provisions were agreed in the House in 1971. Although the procedures date from a much earlier time than that, the provisions under which I am operating at the moment were agreed as recently as 1971 in this House. Indeed, the protections for a sheriff, as distinct from a sheriff principal, were improved in the 1971 Act, because before that Act there was no parliamentary procedure at all. If a sheriff had been removed before 1971 this debate could not have taken place, at least not on a Prayer with regard to the order. What I am saying is that as recently as 1971 the House had an opportunity to consider this procedure. I have looked back over the records and I find that there was virtually no debate on this procedure and no suggestion that this particular procedure was in any way unjust to a sheriff who might be involved in it. Parliament has made no provision for any inquiry other than the judicial investigation by the two senior judges of the Scottish Supreme Court. If, of course, there had been any suggestion that the judges in this case had not acted judicially in their inquiry and had not given Sheriff Thomson every opportunity to meet the charges against him, that might have been another matter. I do not believe, however, that any one who has studied this case would make any such suggestion. It is perfectly clear that Sheriff Thomson could have put forward to the judges on whom the duty of inquiry was laid the arguments in support of his conduct which he later sought to put to hon. Members and to others. But the fact is that he did not choose to do so. In those circumstances, there is in my opinion no justification for the view that, when Parliament has laid down in detail as recently as 1971 the procedure for the removal of a sheriff, he should be given an opportunity now—which is not provided for in the statute—to put forward a defence which he did not choose to make at the proper time.The Secretary of State has explained clearly and fairly the procedure laid down. Will he tell us at what stage the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk informed Sheriff Thomson of the charges against him, since the Secretary of State himself has used the phrase "reply to the charges"?
The information was given to Sheriff Thomson at the start of the inquiry. All the matters of which there had been complaint were intimated to Sheriff Thomson—I have the letters here—at the start of the judges' inquiry. It simply will not do to pretend that Sheriff Thomson was unaware of the charges made against him or that he did not have a full opportunity of rebutting them. He had every opportunity. When I go into the matter in rather more detail, that will be made clear.
My right hon. Friend is surely not saying—as he seems to be—that a sheriff in Scotland has fewer rights than a judge in the High Court in England. The Government may be right in wishing to dismiss this sheriff; I do not know, but I know that I am not prepared to vote for anybody's dismissal until I have heard him. This is an ancient judicial principle. Let us hear the other side. Why does my right hon. Friend seek to prevent Sheriff Thomson from being here?
I do not want to make invidious comparisons between Scotland and England, but a circuit judge in England can be dismissed without any parliamentary procedure. That is the nearest comparison that can be made with the sheriffs in Scotland.
: rose—
I hope that the hon. Member will allow me to continue. I have dealt with this section of the matter. I want to give more details of the case.
The two senior judges in Scotland found Sheriff Thomson unfit for office on the ground of misbehaviour, inter alia through the publication of a pamphlet advocating the holding of a Scottish plebiscite and formulating the questions to be answered by the voters. I shall return to the pamphlet at a later stage, but I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this matter has a long history. Sheriff Thomson's campaign for a Scottish plebiscite—which is no doubt sincerely meant—goes back over many years. He was one of the founders of the Scottish Plebiscite Society in 1947. There was, of course, nothing whatever wrong in that, because in 1947 he held no judicial office. But after his appointment as a sheriff in 1955 he continued to belong to the society. In the 1960s, complaints were received by Ministers about his activities, and these were drawn to Sheriff Thomson's attention by the Lord Advocate. He was also advised by the Sheriff Principal of Lanarkshire, at that time, Sir Allan Walker—he would be well advised to discontinue his activities. These were not then matters of formal investigation by the two senior judges. In 1974, Sheriff Thomson conducted a "Scottish plebiscite" in Rutherglen. He circulated to electors a voting card inviting them to vote for one of three propositions about the establishment and powers of a Scottish Parliament. The voting card contained the statementIt was sent to the voters along with an envelope for return to "The Returning Officer, Scottish Plebiscite, Uddingston, Glasgow". Uddingston is where Sheriff Thomson lives. These facts came to the notice of the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk and they decided to institute an inquiry under Section 12 of the 1971 Act. When the judges started their inquiry, they wrote to Sheriff Thomson to inform him of this. At the same time, they invited him to let them have written observations on the complaints. Sheriff Thomson did not reply to this invitation. The judges then invited him to attend personally at a stated time to give orally any explanation which he considered relevant. Sheriff Thomson neither attended the meeting nor informed the judges that he did not intend to do so. The judges then went on with their investigation. They decided that the subject matter of the plebiscite was at that time a sensitive and highly controversial one, particularly on the threshold of a General Election. In these circumstances, they held that Sheriff Thomson's participation in it was a public political activity of a controversial character which was incompatible with the exercise of the judicial office of sheriff. Apart from the general principle that a judge should not publicly engage in any political controversy, the language used in the plebiscite documents could readily have given the impression that Sheriff Thomson was acting not as a private citizen but in his official capacity as a sheriff. The judges therefore concluded that Sheriff Thomson was guilty of misbehaviour. Notwithstanding that conclusion, however, the judges did not at the time of the inquiry in 1974 recommend his removal from office."The result will be intimated by Sheriff Peter Thomson, Sheriff of Lanarkshire, at Hamilton".
Is it not most odd that the Government are putting forward a case against Sheriff Thomson at a time when the Secretary of State for Scotland is sponsoring a Bill demanding a referendum on exactly the same thing?
If that is not a demonstration of his engagement in political activities, I do not know what is. That is precisely the point I am making.
The judges referred to the fact, which is still not in dispute, that in other respects Sheriff Thomson adequately carried out his function as a sheriff. Moreover—this is important in view of the later history of the case—they took the view that the sheriff might in the past have laboured under the misapprehension that his plebiscite activities were unobjectionable because they did not involve him in any party political stand. In order to dispel this misapprehension, the judges sent to Sheriff Thomson a copy of their report to the Secretary of State. They addedThere could not have been a clearer warning than that. In accordance with the provisions of the statute, the judges sent their report to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who was then the Secretary of State for Scotland. My right hon. Friend accepted the conclusions of the report. He also asked the Sheriff Principal of the sheriffdom to speak to Sheriff Thomson to reinforce the warning which the judges had given at the end of their report, so that there should be no doubt in his mind about the serious consequences of any similar activity in the future. I understand that this warning was personally conveyed to Sheriff Thomson by the Sheriff Principal."It is to be hoped that he will not further engage in any similar activity. If he does so, however, it may be extremely difficult to resist the conclusion that his fitness for his office is at an end."
rose—
Order. Time is racing on. I hope that hon. Members will not persist in demanding to make interventions when the Member who is speaking does not give way.
The hon. Member should get back to his aircraft.
All this took place in 1974 and the very early part of 1975. However, Sheriff Thomson has continued with these activities. In April 1977 he issued and widely circulated a pamphlet entitled "Scottish Plebiscite—Report by Sheriff Peter Thomson". The pamphlet again urged the holding of a plebiscite on the government of Scotland and set out three questions for the voters on the form which the government should take.
It is true that on the last page of the pamphlet there are the wordsOne might wonder why it is necessary to state those words unless there could be some misunderstanding about the situation. Nevertheless, Sheriff Thomson uses his judicial title in the heading of the pamphlet and describes himself as"This is not an official Crown Document".
in a paragraph describing the organisation of the plebiscite. When the pamphlet was brought to my attention, I requested a fresh investigation by the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk. As before, the judges wrote to Sheriff Thomson asking him to submit written observations and inviting him to appear before them personally or by counsel. On this second occasion too these invitations were utterly ignored. The judges then proceeded with their inquiry. At its conclusion, they reported to me that the issue of the pamphlet constituted misbehaviour and that, because of this and of the earlier incident and of the final warning in 1974. Sheriff Thomson was no longer fit to hold his judicial office."Sheriff of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway at Hamilton, Lanarkshire"
This is the only opportunity that the House has to get to the heart of the matter. The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the removal of Sheriff Thomson on grounds of misbehaviour and political activity. He referred also to circuit judges and recorders in England who are, I suppose, the equivalent of sheriffs in Scotland. Will he explain how it is that Her Majesty's recorders may take their seats in the House of Commons and indulge in political activity? Where is the crime of Sheriff Thomson?
I am not responsible for what happens in respect of judges in England. I am responsible for what happens in Scotland under the terms of the Act. As I have made clear, I have acted throughout absolutely in accordance with the provisions of the 1971 Act which was passed by the House, of which the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has been a Member for a considerable time.
rose—
No; I shall complete the narrative.
Even at this stage—I was at the stage where I had received the report—I decided that Sheriff Thomson ought to be given yet another opportunity to make representations. I accordingly gave instructions that a copy of the 1977 report should be sent to him for comment. He did not acknowledge this, and he made no observations. That was in June of this year. I then decided after considering the judges' report, that its conclusions were correct and that, in the absence of any undertaking from Sheriff Thomson to desist from what had twice been held to be unacceptable activity on the part of a judge, I ought to make the order removing him from office. In making that decision I naturally attached great weight to the views of the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk. However, the ultimate decision was for me, subject, of course, to the decision of the House. I decided that the opinion of the judges was right. It has never, of course, been suggested that a judge must necessarily be isolated from all participation in public affairs. Judges have on many occasions been called upon by the Government to serve on Royal Commissions and committees of inquiry even when the subjects under investigation might turn out to be politically controversial. No suggestion is made that there is anything improper in a judge accepting such an invitation. Where, however, the judge takes part publicly in discussion or argument on a subject which may be politically controversial, not as the result of an invitation by the Government to undertake a public duty but of his own accord, in my view he is entering upon dangerous ground. This is no doubt an area in which it is extremely difficult to lay down hard and fast rules. But where what the judge has done goes beyond even expressing private opinions about a controversial matter and takes the form of involving his judicial office in the controversy, it seems to me that the line has been crossed, and that the judge who does this is guilty of misbehaviour. It is important to emphasise that this is—On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is becoming clear to me as a recorder that I am not entitled to vote in this matter. Is that so?
Frankly, I do not know the answer to that question. Before we take the vote, I shall be able to acquaint the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) with whether he is entitled to vote.
I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In that event, I wish you goodnight.
rose—
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are recorders allowed to speak in debates on political matters in the House?
Yes. That has been the practice. We have hon. Members who are recorders, and they take part in our proceedings. However, it is not for me to give rulings on matters that are governed by law.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you say whether, as the Secretary of State suggested, recorders are equivalent to sheriffs?
No.
Order. I hope that hon. Members will not pursue that matter. In my opinion, having listened very carefully, the Secretary of State has made it abundantly clear that he is dealing not with the situation in England but purely with the Scottish position. Mr. Millan.
Thank you. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was going on to say that the question whether there ought to be a plebiscite at all on Scottish home rule and, if there is to be such a plebiscite, the form of the questions which are to be submitted to the electorate are quite clearly issues calculated to arouse political controversy. I need not emphasise those points, because they are matters of acute controversy at the moment in relation to the Scotland Bill.
In this case, as I have said, Sheriff Thomson has not even confined himself to engaging in this controversy as a private citizen. He has used his judicial office as the justification for carrying on the campaigning. He has used his judicial title. He referred to himself on an earlier occasion as "The Returning Officer", and as recently as July of this year he published an advertisement in a Scottish newspaper for a public meeting to discuss the plebiscite, complete with a picture of himself in judicial wig and gown. Therefore, there has been a deliberate association of his judicial office with this particular political campaign.On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing whether a man should be dismissed from office. Surely, therefore, the Secretary of State should be heard in silence.
I am sure that the House will take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.
I am grateful for all this help. I am coming to the end of what I want to say.
I have already described the procedure in and the circumstances of this case. I was simply making the point that there can be no question in my view—and it is the view that the judges took—but that Sheriff Thomson engaged in activity of a political character and, what is more, deliberately engaged his judicial office in that activity. That, in my view, is the particularly serious aspect of this case. Of course, I considered this matter very carefully, even after receipt of the judges' report, and, as I have already said, I invited Sheriff Thomson at that time to make further representations to me. It was with some regret that I made the order removing Sheriff Thomson from office, because he has given long service as a sheriff and there has been no complaint about his behaviour on the Bench. Incidentally, it was in view of that service that I decided to exercise the powers that I have regarding his pension—a matter about which a number of hon. Members made representations to me. However, it was unnecessary for them to make such representations, because my decision about the pension was announced on the day that I laid the order for the removal from office of Sheriff Thomson. Therefore, he will receive his pension at the age of 65.Conscience money.
Nevertheless, in view of the history of the case, the two separate reports by the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk and the absence of any undertaking by Sheriff Thomson that he will not in future engage in this political activity, I decided that it was proper to make the order. I ask the House to accept that my decision was right and to reject the Prayer for the annulment of the order.
11.54 p.m.
When I came to the House this evening, I had two questions in my mind. The first was whether Sheriff Thomson had been fairly treated within the terms of the 1971 Act, had known the charges against him and had had an opportunity to defend himself. The second was whether the charges were so serious that he should be removed from office.
I confess that until the Secretary of State spoke I had some doubts whether Sheriff Thomson had been fully informed about the charges against him. However, I understand from the Secretary of State's speech—as far as one could hear it—that he was informed of not only the general charge of misbehaviour but the particular matters on which that charge of misbehaviour was founded. I also understand that he was given opportunities to see the judges and that he refused to take them. My mind was set at rest, at any rate to some extent, about the conduct of the inquiry under the 1971 Act, but I still remain unconvinced as to whether the substance of the charge is sufficient to dismiss a judge. This is an extremely serious step to take. The House must approach this matter saying that the onus is upon those who wish to dismiss the judge. If we have any doubts about it, our duty is to say at least that the matter is not proven if not that Sheriff Thomson is not guilty. My reason for saying that is that the misbehaviour consisted of organising a plebiscite. As far as I know, no evidence has been produced that Sheriff Thomson wanted or pressed that the plebiscite should result in any particular conclusion. I would not deny that there were certain aspects of his conduct which I should have thought were ill advised. However, in my time I have had something to do with judges. I could think of many judges some aspects of whose conduct have from time to time been ill advised. There have been no attempts to remove them for that reason. All that Sheriff Thomson did was to organise a plebiscite. What was unwarranted was to announce that he was a returning officer, chiefly because he was, in fact, a returning officer for parliamentary elections. But, again, I do not think that that by itself is sufficient reason for removing him. We have heard this evening an illogical position in which politics and the judiciary are involved. We have had the question of recorders, JPs and so forth. It is perfectly true that the 1971 Act determines the situation in Scotland and the position of sheriffs, but the Secretary of State himself said that, in his view, what finally determined him that the recommendation of the judges must go through and that Sheriff Thomson must be removed was that he was engaged in argument upon subjects which might become controversial. I want to return to the case of Lord Avonside, who is a distinguished judge in the highest court in Scotland the Court of Session. I am not making any criticism about him on this occasion, but I confess that I did so at the time. I quote his example as showing a certain attitude to politics which undoubtedly exists in the highest reaches of the Scottish judiciary. When the Conservative Party set up a committee of the party to advise it upon devolution, Lord Avonside joined it. What I have tried to make clear to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is that Lord Avonside resigned from the committee but after certain letters had been written to the Scotsman, one by myself. As far as I know, there was no pressure upon him from his colleagues. He resigned for good reason, because he thought himself that it was unwise. There was no pressure upon him to resign as far as I know. Obviously, he must have given the matter careful consideration, but this shows, at any rate, that this very distinguished judge did not think that it was a serious political step. It was a much more serious political step than holding a plebiscite. It was directly connected with a political party.
Subsequent to his resignation, did Lord Avonside persist with further political activity of that kind?
Having resigned from that committee, he could hardly go on persisting. I do not wish to make a point against Lord Avonside. I am merely indicating an attitude in Scotland that may be slightly different from the English attitude about the activities of judges.
I take another example. Again, it is not on all fours with the case before us. For some years I was a member of the Highland Panel. We were very fortunate to have Lord Cameron, a most distinguished judge and able man, as our chairman. He was appointed to this post. It was not his duty to take part politics, but it was his duty to make requests to the Government on controversial matters. No one thought that that was an activity inconsistent with being a High Court judge in Scotland. There may be a slightly different attitude in Scotland. The question of recorders is certainly interesting. We have to be clear not only that Sheriff Thomson has been properly treated under the 1971 Act but that the accusation against him is sufficient, even if proved, to remove him from office. For my part I still have some doubt about it, although I do not deny that his behaviour was incautious. Should he, then, be asked to come to the Bar of the House? Here I was not clear, from what the Secretary of State said, whether Sheriff Thomson has that right. If it is a right of Scottish sheriffs, I do not see why it should be denied him. If it is not a right, we should be clearly advised by the Government. If Sheriff Thomson is entitled to come to the Bar of the House, we would be wise to say that we shall hear him, because it is vital in a case of this importance that every conceivable criticism should be removed by giving him the fullest opportunity to state his case, particularly because there is some doubt about his removal.12.2 a.m.
I raised this matter on 28th July, the day after my right hon. Friend laid the order. There was not a single Member from the Scottish National Party in the House. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was present and he interrupted my speech with some pertinent questions. I see hon. Members who have been interrupting tonight who were in the House then and who took not the slightest interest in the issue at that time. I am glad that the House is now seized of the fact that we have had a certain measure of devolution in Scotland for a long period and that we have legislated as recently as 1971 in relation to Scottish sheriffs, who are judges in a certain type of court, in a manner very different from the procedure in England for equivalent judges.
We have to appreciate that Scottish sheriffs are expected to be impartial and not to take part in activities which would lead people to think that they were partial in one way or another. I was Secretary of State for Scotland in 1974 when the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk, the two highest positions on the Scottish Bench, instituted an investigation. Mark those words. It was an investigation. They received complaints, instituted an investigation and got in touch with Sheriff Thomson. They told him what the complaints were and asked him to discuss the matter with them. Sheriff Thomson refused to see them. He did not reply to their letters. When the report eventually came to me, it was a very serious conclusion which the judges had reached. They said that Sheriff Thomson was guilty of misbehaviour but they thought, since it did not seem to have interfered in the past with his objectivity in his judgments, that he was acting under a misapprehension or misconception of his activities. I agreed with that view put forward by the judges. I sent a copy of the report to Sheriff Thomson. The Sheriff Principal saw him and drew his attention to the gravity of the position, and to what the report said—namely, that if the activities complained of continued they would be construed as being incompatible with his continuing to hold office. That was in 1974. Then we had the report. We had the advertisements about the public meetings which Sheriff Thomson attended in his wig and gown. He said clearly that he was doing this as sheriff. That is important. We are not discussing a man holding opinions. Lords Advocate and Solicitors-General have gone from this House to the Bench. They can have political opinions, but they must not engage in political activities.What about Lord Wheatley?
He was appointed by the Government to be chairman of a Royal Commission, and it was in that capacity that he made his report. When Lord Avonside was invited by the then Conservative Party leader to become a member of a Shadow constitutional commission, surprisingly he accepted but he did not sit on that commission. He reconsidered his position. The Lord Advocate contacted him. Lord Avonside reconsidered, realised that it was wrong and withdrew from the commission because that would have amounted to engaging in political activities.
rose—
I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I have a very short time in which to explain my part in the affair.
I think that Sheriff Thomson was very very foolish and very unwise. He became obsessed with the Plebiscite Society—he is the Plebiscite Society. He engaged in the plebiscite in the middle of a General Election. He sent out ballot papers saying that they should be returned to him as returning officer. He was already returning officer for the General Election.He was not at the 1974 election.
He was deputy returning officer, but he had acted as returning officer.
A year ago we passed the Returning Officers (Scotland) Bill. The Opposition said that we must retain the sheriffs as returning officers because they never engaged in partial activities. This type of matter destroys confidence in the sheriffs as returning officers. It was a disgraceful thing to do. That was the issue on which the investigation took place. The Secretary of State was unfair because he did not quote the report of that investigation. That report clearly said that Sheriff Thomson had misbehaved—but he was given another chance. He said that he would continue to engage in the plebiscite until the matter was resolved to his satisfaction. When explaining why he did not appear before the Judges, Sheriff Thomson said:He was not summoned before a court. It was not a court but an investigation under the law. The Lord President of the Council and the Lord Justice Clerk were asked to"The court I had been summoned before had no basis in law."
and to report in writing to the Secretary of State. Sheriff Thomson was given the opportunity to see them but he ignored it. When my right hon. Friend eventually came to the distasteful task of deciding on this matter, he held fire. He sent a copy of the report to Sheriff Thomson, asking for his comments. Not a word came from him. Is my right hon. Friend to throw overboard the heads of the Scottish judiciary, the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk? He had no option but to produce the order. I regret it, but not only Sheriff Thomson's activities but his relationship to the Lord President of the Court of Session and the investigation, as well as to my right hon. Friend, is such that, sadly, he left my right hon. Friend no option but to make the order. I shall not support my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). I shall vote to support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State."undertake jointly an investigation into the fitness for office of any sheriff principal or sheriff"
12.10 a.m.
The precedents which govern tonight's debate were chosen by the Leader of the House, although the Secretary of State for Scotland has been busily denying them. In answer to business questions on Thursday 24th November, the Leader of the House specifically chose the precedents as the basis for denying the House the right which it had always itself exercised to decide whether to hear a person at the Bar of the House.
Moreover, the Leader of the House assured us that he had not left the research to somebody else but had done it himself. He said:the motion that I had tabled to give access to the Bar to Sheriff Thomson—"But if one takes into account that motion"—
It was not, as a matter of fact. It was in 1896, with a string of them in between, and it had nothing whatever to do with privilege. What it had to do with was petitioning for a reprieve for persons who had been accused of insurrectionary activity in Ireland. It had nothing to do with privilege. But the more important precedent that the Leader of the House, of his own free will, chose was the case of the dismissal in 1830 of a judge called Sir Jonah Barrington. It is no good the Secretary of State for Scotland's saying "Ah, but he was an English judge." This is the precedent selected by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House as a reason for not allowing the House to decide whether it wishes to hear this man at the Bar. This is what the right hon. Gentleman said, with a flattering reference to myself:"and one looks back at the precedents on the question, as I have carefully done, one sees that the last attendance at the Bar other than on a privilege question was in 1857."—[Official Report, 24th November 1977; Vol. 939. c. 1759.]
The right hon. Gentleman added his little joke:"The hon. Gentleman knows everything, but he might learn a litte more if he would listen a little longer. There is a precedent. There was a dismissal of a judge in 1830 and the House considered whether the judge should appear personally at the Bar. The House of Commons at that time decided not to do so."
What did the House actually do in the case on which the Leader of the House bases his refusal to allow the House to decide for itself whether it wishes to hear Sheriff Peter Thomson at the Bar? First, having been made aware of the result of an inquiry by the Commissioners of Judicial Inquiry in Ireland, a body in some ways analogous to the inquiry by the two judges in Scotland, it set up a committee, which examined all the depositions and all the written evidence. The Committee then examined viva voce the various witnesses, including the accused judge, Sir Jonah Barrington, himself. Incidentally, if the Leader of the House had done what he told us he had done and examined the precedents carefully, he would have read this ringing and majestic phrase at the end of the 15 pages of deposition by Sir Jonah Barrington, which he concluded with these words:"It was, of course, the Duke of Wellington's Parliament ".—[Official Report, 24th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1759. 1758.]
Harvey Smith did not originate the bi-digital procedure. But what did the House of Commons do after its Select Committee had examined Sir Jonah Barrington? Not content with that, when the Select Committee had reported to the House and the House had considered its report, the House then heard at the Bar counsel on behalf of Sir Jonah Barrington. Why did not the Leader of the House tell us that when praying this case in aid, having told us that he personally had carefully examined the precedents? Is it because his statement that he had carefully examined the precedents himself was untrue, or is it because he had examined them and was aware of this but did not want the House of Commons to know it? Those are the two horns of the dilemma on which the right hon. Gentleman has impaled himself. I will give way to him so that he may reply if he wishes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] It was only when the House of Commons, therefore, had first read the report by an exterior body like the two judges in this case, had examined all the evidence by means of a Committee of the House over many days, had examined the judge in person over many hours and then heard his counsel address it from the Bar, that it decided that there was no further information which it required in order to know the case that was put by both sides and arrive at its decision. It is exactly that which the Leader of the House has refused to permit Parliament to decide for itself, and—this is the truly scandalous incident—he has usurped the power of the House of Commons. I think the House will accept that I have done my homework rather more thoroughly than the Leader of the House has done his. There is no precedent of which I am aware for any Leader of the House refusing to allow the House of Commons to take this decision for itself. It is on that ground that the House owes it to itself to say that it will support the Prayer. This is the last occasion on which it can do so. When the House rises tonight, the praying time expires. This is the end of the 40 days. This is a very rare form of negative resolution procedure. It is not just an ordinary one. An ordinary negative resolution procedure can become operative as soon at the Minister makes an order. But this very rare one cannot, under the Act, become operative until after the 40 days of praying time, as laid down in the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, has expired. If the House votes for the Prayer tonight and passes it—assuming that the Leader of the House has learnt his lesson by then, although he is not very good at learning his lessons—it will give itself another opportunity. If the Secretary of State makes another order, there will be another period of 40 days in which the House, assuming that the Leader of the House will then permit it to do so, can decide for itself as it did on the last occasion—the precedent prayed in aid by the right hon. Gentleman himself—whether it wishes to hear this man's case."The judge therefore stands his ground and defies his enemies, this Twelfth day of January 1829."
My hon. Friend makes a serious allegation against the Lord President. Does he recall that on 7th May 1974, speaking during proceedings on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, the right hon. Gentleman spoke approvingly of fighting
Is not that what the Lord President himself is trying to do to Parliament tonight?"against the decisions of judges who have sought to twist the law to what they consider to be their advantage."—[Official Report, 7th May 1974; Vol. 873, c. 243.]?
It is not clear from that quotation whether it is the Lord President's conscience or his memory which is the weaker organ—possibly both.
What this is not tonight, and what it cannot be, is a trial of the merit of the dismissal. We cannot try the merit of the dismissal without hearing the case of Sheriff Peter Thomson, and this is doubly so because the Secretary of State for Scotland himself has made as one of his major complaints the fact that Sheriff Peter Thomson has not put his case as he had the opportunity to do to the Lord Justice Clerk and the President of the Court of Session.
I think that we should look at the equivalents. We have here somebody who refused to recognise the court or the investigations, or those who have to report upon them. If, in a criminal case, he decided to appear before the Appeal Court and put points that he had refused to put earlier, he would not be heard, and if in a civil case he decided to appeal to the House of Lords on the basis that he had refused to defend the case earlier, he would not be heard either.
I am most obliged to my hon. and learned Friend, who has told us what happens in criminal courts. However, I draw his attention to the fact that declining to respond to the invitation of an inquiry exterior to this House was exactly what Judge Jonah Barrington did. In 1829 he declined to put his case to the Commissioners of Judicial Inquiry in Ireland, but that did not stop the House of Commons from taking evidence from him in person.
This is the procedure, and this is the precedent quoted by the Leader of the House. It is not one that I have carefully selected to embarrass him. It is one he selected, and it would have grossly misled the House of Commons had it not been challenged. That is a very serious thing for the right hon. Gentleman to do to the House of Commons. The redress built into the 1971 Act for an administrative dismissal—and this is an administrative dismissal, not a judicial one—is by the mechanism of a Prayer only. Members from every part of the House—except the Liberal Party, and I suppose that if Liberal Members had thought about it they would have signed, too—including some of the most senior and distinguished Members, signed the motion that Sheriff Peter Thomson should be heard at the Bar of the House. This has been raised again and again on Thursdays, and each time the Leader of the House has refused to allow the motion to come on to the Order Paper "above the line". He has therefore usurped the function of the House of Commons. But, worse than that, he has brought about the situation that, on the last praying day that is left—it was the right hon. Gentleman who chose this day—we are asked to judge the merit of the dismissal without having heard the case of the person whom we accuse. That is why we do not need to take the view that Sheriff Peter Thomson should (lot have been dismissed to take the view that he should be heard at the Bar of the House. We do not even need to take the view that he should be heard at the Bar of the House to form the opinion that whether or not he is granted that leave is a function that belongs to the House of Commons and not to the Leader of the House. Those are the grounds on which hon. Members on both sides of the House, whether or not, having heard one side of the case., they believe that Sheriff Peter Thomson should or should not have been dismissed, owe it to themselves to vote for the Prayer as the only means of securing that Sheriff Peter Thomson receives the same natural justice as he has always administered in courts over which he has presided.rose—
Order. Earlier the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) asked whether, as a recorder, he is entitled to vote in these proceedings. I am glad to be able to say that it is quite clear that recorders who have a seat in the House may vote.
rose—
Order. We have 35 minues left. May I appeal for five-minute speeches in order that I can accommodate everyone who is trying to get in?
12.25 a.m.
Sheriff Thomson's jurisdiction includes my constituency. The sheriffs of Hamilton have acted as returning officers for a long time until recently. I understand that Sheriff Thomson so acted until 1966.
The independence and impartiality of Sheriff Thomson are an important matter for this House. They are a still more important matter for those of our constitutents who live and work under his jurisdiction. I have had no complaints about his ordinary conduct of his ordinary duties. I have no such complaints myself. Nor would I overrate the political impact of his campaign. It is utterly trivial; I think that it is quite eccentric and politically irrelevant. Nevertheless, putting together Sheriff Thomson's insistent activities, the warnings that have been given to him and the reports of the two senior judges, we have to ask ourselves whether, in the circumstances as they now exist, he is fit to continue in his office. We have to consider not only our own confidence but the confidence of our constituents in his impartiality and independence. People in Scotland are used to proper respect for authority. They do not regard it as in any way detracting from their freedom. But they have noticed that that respect for authority has not been forthcoming from their sheriff. That is the reaction of lay people in my constituency. It is not only they who are concerned; members of the legal profession, solicitors in particular, who practise in the sheriff court district are also concerned. There have been expressions of opinion by two solicitors in particular, Mr. Walker Munro of Motherwell and Mr. A. E. McIlwain of Leonard's solicitors in Hamilton. The latter wrote to a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I asked these two gentlemen this morning, as their representations were dated before 30th November, when the reports by Lords Wheatley and Emslie were published in Hansard, whether they had had the opporunity of reading them. Mr. Walker Munro said that he had offered to support Sheriff Thomson but his offer had been declined. He had not had an opportunity to read the reports. I asked these two gentlemen whether they would like to hear the reports, and when they said "Yes" I read them to them. They then authorised me to say that, having heard read to them the reports by the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk, they, while affirming the necessity of the independence of the judiciary, did not wish to sustain their objections to the order, which, they regret, appears to be necessary in order to safeguard the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. There is nothing but sadness in our proceedings. There is, and I trust that there always will be, room for eccentricity in the judiciary in Scotland. But when that conflicts with the view of the ordinary people and of the legal profession practising under the jurisdiction of the person concerned about the proper discharge of the proper rôle of a sheriff, then, alas, that eccentricity has gone too far. I hope that the House will accept the order.12.31 a.m.
The dismissal of a judge strikes at the heart of the independence of the judiciary, and I am sure that that is one thing upon which the whole House will agree. Can the House go a little further with me in agreeing that only if the weight of evidence is preponderantly against a judge and in favour of his dismissal should he be dismissed? If the House can go that far with me, perhaps there is room for voting against the removal of this judge tonight, or at least for asking the Secretary of State whether, in view of the time limit, he will reintroduce the order to give the House further time for consideration.
The Secretary of State put the question of the law fairly to the House, but I wish to emphasise one point that he made. It is that after the investigation has been called for—an investigation which appears to have been in private, and ipso facto it would be private between the two top judges in Scotland—the matter was subject to the action of the Secretary of State. The 1971 Act clearly says that the Secretary of State may take action. Therefore, it is not the decision of the two judges that is before us but the decision of the Secretary of State. I make that point because it brings me to the question I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman on the matter of legal interpretation. If the House is clear, and it seems to be so, that the dismissal of this judge would be made under statute law, I submit that we are entitled to look at the law of statutory interpretation in order to decide how to interpret "misbehaviour". There are three headings in the statute under which the Secretary of State's order was made. They are inability, neglect of duty and misbehaviour. It is clear that any discussion of fitness for office must refer to the judge's conduct in his judicial office. It is surely obvious to the House that inability certainly relates to his conduct on the bench. Neglect of duty must also so relate. By the rule of statutory interpreation ejusdenz generis, the third word in the list must be interpreted in the same relationship as the first two words in the list. Therefore "misbehaviour" must also relate to his fitness. Whatever we do as a House, therefore, we must be able, under the rule of statutory interpretation, to relate the misbehaviour that is alleged back to the conduct of the judge in his judicial office. We must be able to say that whatever was alleged against him was affecting the conduct of his judicial office. For example, we must be able to say that it affected his partiality. I suggest that that is a very serious question upon which the Secretary of State must satisfy us. I wonder whether he has come here with an open mind to listen to the debate, whether his mind is open to the possibility of making the order again, or whether he is going through this serious matter as a formality. Having said that, I do not think that the charge was clearly made. If the Secretary of State is content that the charge is as set out in his very detailed answer of 25th November, which appears in Hansard, and is happy to rest the allegations within the corners of that long and detailed answer, I submit that hon. Members, if they reread it, will find that there is no specific charge there except a series of failures to answer letters of warning to take heed. There is a suggestion, for example, that in 1974 one set of actions was accepted at least to the extent that no misbehaviour was found. A lesser series of actions by the same sheriff in 1977 led, as we know, to an allegation of misbehaviour. I refer to two phrases relating to 1974. The two top judges said that they did not yet find him unfit for office. It was also said that it would be unrealistic to hope that he would never do anything of the kind again. Is the misbehaviour of the sheriff, therefore, the belief on the part of the investigating judges and the Secretary of State—who is the one who really makes the decision—that this sheriff will commit some misbehaviour in the future? If that is so, that is surely quite untenable. Are we really seriously creating this very unusual precedent, which is not only a warning for every occupier of every judicial office in Scotland but must contain the germs of a warning for any holder of a judicial office in England? Suppose that a lawyer were advising any citizen summoned to appear before a public prosecutor who said "I am not telling you in exactly what specific way you have offended. I am not prepared to define the misbehaviour. I am not prepared to say whether it was partisan political activity or not partisan, but nevertheless I want you to come and see me." Any lawyer in those circumstances would say to the citizen "Do not go, because until you have a specific charge to answer you have the right to stay away. Until you know what the charges are, you cannot draw up the answers. You cannot even begin to be relevant." I make this point extremely seriously. I should like to make another point which no one has yet made. It concerns what is the legitimate action of a sheriff who is convinced in his mind that he has no specific charge yet to answer. We know that the sheriff wrote a letter seeking to establish what the specific charge might be and that it was curtly dismissed, with a refusal to be specific. I will give another reason why it is absolutely resonable for a sitting sheriff not to engage in correspondence or meetings with the supreme appeal judges. I should like the Secretary of State to comment on it. As a judge on the shrieval bench, the sheriff was still sitting daily, hearing cases. The ultimate appeal from a dissatisfied litigant before him was to the two divisions of the Court of Session, presided over by the very same two judges with whom he was being asked to have private meetings about unspecific charges. There is, perhaps, a fault in the very Act itself. At least, as has been pointed out, the sheriff has more protection than any type of equivalent judge in England. That is not in dispute, but that does not make it right. If it is not right in Scotland, we need not console ourselves that it is even worse in England. That argument does not hold water. We have here a case in which this sheriff is in no way being criticised for his inability. He is in no way being criticised for neglect. The alleged misbehaviour seems to be that when given the opportunity to go before the top judges of Scotland when summoned, he failed to do so to answer what he regarded as unspecified charges, and that he did this not once but several times. It is alleged that he compounded the felony—if it is one—by refusing to go when one of the judges offered him another opportunity.Having read the answers in Hansard, will the hon. Lady accept from me that she is totally and almost deliberately misleading the House in everything she is saying? Is it not right that both the two senior judges of Scotland made it absolutely clear that they were discounting what they described as his behaviour to themselves and that their complaint against him was that they found he had acted in a public capacity on a political matter?
I know that that is what the judges have both claimed, but, as I have already explained, it is the Secretary of State's decision that we are considering here. That decision is within the corners of the letter of 25th November, and it is only there that we read what these so-called allegations were.
rose—
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady appeared to suggest that the judges did not mean it when they said—
Order. Time is very short. Mrs. Ewing.
I shall treat that intervention with the contempt that it deserves.
On the merits of the case, I would say that if we are to turn from statute law to some convention of the common law it seems odd to reflect that a supreme judge accepted, albeit for 13 days of controversy, an appointment to a Conservative committee and was not dismissed. There are many other precedents that one could give. Perhaps I can clarify one thing with regard to the Plebiscite Society. Like many others, I was a member of that society. I have seen the form which is relevant to this case. That form used the phrase "returning officer". That had nothing specific to do with Sheriff Thomson. Whenever plebiscites were conducted in Kerriemuir, Annan and other places, that was the form provided by the Plebiscite Society in an effort to make the exercise as realistic as possible. The Secretary of State is clutching at straws if he relies on the merits of that. I shall finish by asking this question. If the allegations in 1974 were the most serious, why was Sheriff Thomson given this so-called other chance? If they were less serious in 1977, we must give the sheriff the benefit of the doubt, otherwise we are creating a precedent and no one knows where that precedent will lead us.12.44 a.m.
I do not think that the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) has helped the case a great deal by what she has tried to put forward.
There are one or two matters which should be settled at this stage. There is the general feeling in the House that it is unsatisfactory to have two hours—admittedly we have an extra half-hour—to discuss such an important issue. It has been complicated by the fact that we have been discussing two issues. First, we have been discussing the straightforward question of the conduct of Sheriff Thomson. Second, we have been discussing the important issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and others of how this issue has been handled in this House. There are, however, one or two things which should be said. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) surprised some of us from Scotland with the remarks he made about Sheriff Thomson's activities and statements. With regard to the Sheriff's plebiscite activities and the advertisement in the paper, the hon. Gentlemen give the impression that one should almost treat such matters as "So what?" I remind the House that recently in the Scottish Grand Committee, when Scottish law was being considered, we debated at lencth an important Government Bill—a Bill to take away powers from sheriffs. As has been mentioned, for years sheriffs in Scotland have been our returning officers in General Elections. They have had sole powers in this respect. We had a long debate about this, and what surprised me was the proposal from the Government that we should take away this power from the sheriffs and give it to local government officers. I was surprised to see that two people objected to the Bill—the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire and a representative of the Scottish National Party, the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick), who has been making a lot of noise during the debate. First, the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire:The hon. Member for Argyll said:"I agree that the impartiality of the sheriff is an important matter. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has already said that the sheriff is a step more remote from politics than either the Chief Executive or the director of administration of a local authority, who is in day-to-day touch with political matters. The local government officer is in daily touch with politicians, he may well have conisance of the majority opinion within his council, and to that extent he is not so remote from the day-to-day running of political matters as is the sheriff, for example."
This is probably the difference between Scotland and England. Whereas in England we have a different situation, in Scotland we have always taken the view that the sheriff should be totally above the political scene. As long as we can retain that situation, we are preserving something that Scotland thinks worth while."I return to the remarks of the hon. Member for Ayr about the impartiality of sheriffs in the past. No one in Scotland could ever have doubted that these men and their staffs were totally impartial. I know from the reaction that this Pill, small though it may be and not on the face of it likely to attract public interest, has attracted in Argyll that people simply do not believe that the new regime for the runing of elections will be as impartial as the old one … I believe that the running of something as important as an election ought to be in the hands of someone who is totally above the whole political scene".—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 14th December 1976; c. 10–13.]
Is there in my right hon. Friend's opinion any difference between "political", "partisan" and "constitutional" in these matters?
Yes, a very deep difference indeed. I wish I had time to go into it.
There are three questions. First, were the conditions of the 1971 Act properly carried out?Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any example of any time when Sheriff Thomson was anything other than objective? Did he ever show any bias?
Some examples have been given. I hope that the hon. Member will accept the views of his party at the time that the sheriff should be
I doubt whether, in view of what has happened, Sheriff Thomson was above the whole political scene. First, has the procedure laid down under the 1971 Act been properly carried out'? There was a different procedure before. In 1971 we had the advantage of having a debate in the House. There can be little doubt that the procedure has been properly carried out. The Lord Justice and the Lord President initiated a report, and there was another report to the Secretary of State. The reports showed that they had considered the matter with great care and understanding, and in the letter of 1975, although they stated that they were of the opinion that the sheriff's behaviour was inconsistent with his official judicial position, they would not report him as unfit because, basically, they thought that he would take their advice. The second thing we must ask is whether the issue was serious. There can be little doubt that it was. Certainly, sheriffs have opinions and sometimes express them, and I doubt whether participation in the plebiscite was a major problem in itself. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Argyll suggested that this was not a controversial matter because the Labour Government had adopted it. I would not think that this was a proper guide. More important is the nature of the campaign, because until recently sheriffs had a duty of being returning officers at elections. The 1975 report showed that quasi voting cards were issued to electors, to be returned to Sheriff Thomson, and the result was to be intimated by him in Hamilton. That was designed to give the impression that the plebiscite may have been official in character, and certainly this was inconsistent with the sheriff's office. Was Sheriff Thomson given a reasonable opportunity to state his case? He was given repeated opportunities—no one has denied this—to respond and be heard. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire raised the point about the original letter. What about a hearing in the House? Some people have taken the view that since 1971 there have been major changes in the protection of individuals against dismissal by measures such as the Employment Protection Act. The feeling has been expressed by a number of hon. Members that there is something basically wrong with depriving an individual of his position without giving him an opportunity to state his case. Although our Act of 1971 gave an opportunity for an additional hearing in the House of Commons which was not there before, there is nothing in that Act or any other Act of Parliament preventing the House of Commons from doing anything at all, including hearing the sheriff. There is a second point of view that has been expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), who asked why, as Sheriff Thomson had disregarded two senior judges and was not willing to express a view to them, the House of Commons should take a different view. In normal proceedings, evidence which is not advanced at an early stage is not advanced at a later stage."totally above the political scene".
Will my hon. Friend focus his attention on the point of whether the House wishes to hear the person about to be dismissed by the Minister? It is a decision for the House, not for the Leader of the House, who has usurped that function. The only way to remedy it is to support the Prayer.
There are strong views on both sides. I quite agree that this is an issue which should have been determined by the House of Commons. It is regrettable that this separate issue might have impinged on the less controversial debate about whether the Secretary of State acted correctly in what he did. It has introduced controversy into what may not have been so controversial, and it has introduced two separate issues into the debate affecting an individual.
I hope that the House will bear in mind the merits of the case. Where would we stand if we rejected the order on its merits? If we rejected it, we would be rejecting the advice of two senior judges who looked into the matter with great care and consideration. Secondly, we would have no rules of guidance on the conduct of sheriffs and we would undermine the whole basis of the 1971 Act, which was discussed and approved by Scottish and English Members in the House. It would seem to me that this would be a step that we would have to take very carefully. The matter is complicated greatly by the high-handed attitude of the Lord President, who is responsible for the conduct of the business of the House. He has concerned us on many occasions by the way in which he does things. There was an official Opposition request on the issue of whether Sheriff Thomson should be heard and discussed in the House of Commons, and this was rejected. It is unfortunate that the House was not given the opportunity of deciding the matter right or wrong. This is an unfortunate and unsatisfactory situation which has been created solely by the bad handling of the affair by the Lord President. If the right hon. Gentleman had acted sensibly and correctly, I believe that we could have debated what we should have debated—namely, whether the Secretary of State acted correctly. In view of what I have said about the merits of the case, I shall not be opposing the order. Although a small minority, a fringe group and some of its friends, might vote against the conduct of the Secretary of State, there is no doubt that more will be inclined to vote against the motion because of the unwillingness of the Lord President to allow an important issue to be debated. There will be a free vote for the Opposition. I hope that there will be a free vote throughout the House. I hope that what I have said makes it clear that I accept that the Secretary of State acted correctly. I think that the right hon. Gentleman applied the rules properly. I make no criticism of the action that he has taken. However, there is no doubt that the issue has been clouded by the unfortunate and regrettable action of the Lord President.12.57 a.m.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) finished his speech on a rather equivocal note. The substance of his remarks amounted to a rejection of the Prayer.
I wish to say very little. I tried to explain earlier the background and the procedures. I shall sum up by reiterating one or two points. First, it is utterly and completely untrue to say that Sheriff Thomson was not aware of the nature and detail of the complaints that had been made against him. He was made aware of the detail of the complaints as well as their general nature. It is wrong to suggest in any way that he was not. Secondly, it has been amply demonstrated during the debate that Sheriff Thomson had ample opportunity to deal with the complaints that had been made against him. He had ample opportunity to make representations both in writing and orally to the two judges. Incidentally, he had a further opportunity, not provided under the 1971 Act, that I afforded him to make a final representation to me. I find it difficult to explain why anyone can seriously suggest that in this case Sheriff Thomson has not had the fullest opportunity to deal with the complaints made against him. It has not been suggested in the debate that I acted in any way other than in full accordance with not only the letter of the 1971 Act but its spirit.Will my right hon. Friend justify his dismissal under the 1971 Act by saying what alleged misbehaviour on the part of Sheriff Thomson classified him as being unfit for judicial office? What
Division No. 37]
| AYES
| [1.02 a.m.
|
| Adley, Robert | Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW) |
| Bain, Mrs Margaret | Hannam, John | Ross, William (Londonderry) |
| Banks, Robert | Henderson, Douglas | Shepherd, Colin |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) | Jones, Arthur (Daventry) | Sillars, James |
| Benyon, W. | Kitson, Sir Timothy | Sims, Roger |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Knox, David | Stewart, Rt Hon Donald |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Langford-Holt, Sir John | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Brocklebank-Fowler, C. | Loveridge, John | Tebbit, Norman |
| Brooke, Peter | MacCormick, Iain | Thompson, George |
| Brotherton, Michael | Mackintosh, John P. | Warren, Kenneth |
| Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) | Mather, Carol | Watt, Hamish |
| Crawford, Douglas | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Welsh, Andrew |
| Dunlop, John | Moate, Roger | Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E) |
| Durant, Tony | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Winterton, Nicholas |
| English, Michael | Pattie, Geoffrey | |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Penhaligon, David | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Percival, Ian | Mr. Dennis Caravan and |
| Goodhart, Philip | Rathbone, Tim | Mrs. Winifred Ewing. |
| Goodhew, Victor | Reid, George |
NOES
| ||
| Allaun, Frank | Atkinson, Norman | Bates, Alf |
| Anderson, Donald | Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Beith, A. J. |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) | Bishop, Rt Hon Edward |
possible link-up was there with any of the alleged misbehaviour and his impartiality as a judge?
I was coming to that. I said that it has not been suggested that I did not act throughout in accordance with the letter and spirit of the 1971 Act. That is a measure that was passed comparatively recently by the House.
We come to the question of the behaviour of Sheriff Thomson. I accept that it is possible to have different views about the serious nature of his behaviour. I take the view that it is well—rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
proceeded to put the Question.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has anybody said "No"?
Yes, I understood so.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly,
That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Sheriff (Removal from Office) Order 1977, dated 22nd July 1977, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th July in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled:—
The House divided: Ayes, 52, Noes 170.
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Harper, Joseph | Palmer, Arthur |
| Boardman, H. | Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Park, George |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Hart, Rt Hon Judith | Parry, Robert |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Hatton, Frank | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) | Healey, Rt Hon Denis | Price, William (Rugby) |
| Buchan, Norman | Horam, John | Richardson, Miss Jo |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Rifkind, Malcolm |
| Campbell, Ian | Hunter, Adam | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Cant, R. B. | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Roderick, Caerwyn |
| Carlisle, Mark | Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) | Rooker, J. W. |
| Carmichael, Neil | John, Brynmor | Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) |
| Clarke. Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Johnson, James (Hull West) | Rowlands, Ted |
| Clemitson, Ivor | Jones. Alec (Rhondda) | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) |
| Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) | Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Coleman, Donald | Jopling, Michael | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Conlan, Bernard | Judd, Frank | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) | Kaufman, Gerald | Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) |
| Corbett, Robin | Kerr, Russell | Silverman, Julius |
| Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | Kinnock, Neil | Skinner, Dennis |
| Craigen, Jim (Maryhill) | Lambie, David | Small, William |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Lamborn, Harry | Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) |
| Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) | Lamond, James | Snape, Peter |
| Cryer, Bob | Latham, Arthur (Paddington) | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Cunningham, G. (Islington S) | Latham, Michael (Melton) | Stallard, A. W. |
| Dalyell, Tam | Leadbitter, Ted | Stoddart, David |
| Davidson, Arthur | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Strang, Gavin |
| Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Luard, Evan | Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| Deakins, Eric | Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson | Tinn, James |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | McCartney, Hugh | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
| Dempsey, James | McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) |
| Doig, Peter | McElhone, Frank | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Dormand, J. D. | Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Eadie, Alex | Maclennan, Robert | Ward, Michael |
| Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) | Watkinson, John |
| Ennals, Rt Hon David | Marks, Kenneth | Weetch, Ken |
| Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Ewing, Harry (Stirling) | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | White, James (Pollok) |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Meacher, Michael | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Fairgrieve, Russell | Mendelson, John | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W) |
| Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce | Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford) |
| Flannery, Martin | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) | Molloy, William | Wilson, William (Coventry SE) |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Monro, Hector | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Woodall, Alec |
| Ford, Ben | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Woof, Robert |
| Forrester, John | Moyle, Roland | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Fraser, John (Lambeth N'w'd) | Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Gilbert, Dr John | Newens, Stanley | Younger, Hon George |
| Golding, John | Noble, Mike | |
| Grant, George (Morpeth) | Oakes, Gordon | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Grocott, Bruce | O'Halloran, Michael | Mr. James Hamilton and |
| Hardy, Peter | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Mr. Ted Graham. |
Question accordingly negatived.
House Of Commons Members' Fund
Resolved,
That the Resolution of the House of 30th November, relating to the House of Commons Members' Fund, be amended, in line 8, by leaving out '1976' and inserting '1977 '.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
Procedure (Sessional Committee)
Resolved,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider any matters which may be referred to them by the House relating to the Procedure of the House:
Ordered,
That Miss Harvie Anderson, Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Ronald Brown, Mr. Walter Clegg, Mr. Peter Emery, Mr. Harry Gourlay, Mr. Sydney Irving, Mrs. Lena Jeger, Dr. Edmund Marshall, Mr. John Mendelson, Dr. Colin Phipps, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mr. Nicholas Scott, Mr. Cyril Smith and Mr. Nigel Spearing be Members of the Committee:
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; and to report from time to time:
Ordered,
That Four be the Quorum of the Committee. —[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
Hydrocarbon Oil (Units Of Measurement)
1.15 a.m.
I beg to move,
The main purpose of this order is to replace imperial units of measurement by metric units for the purposes of the duty on hydrocarbon oil and the related duties on petrol substitutes, power methylated spirits, and gas for use as road fuel. In making these changes it uses the same measurements as those adopted some time ago by the major part of the oil industry for its transactions at the wholesale stage. The opportunity has also been taken to make the measurements of temperature and pressure in the legislation in terms of degrees Celsius and millibars. The order requires the approval of the House, because the new rates per litre represent an increase in the present rates. But these increases are very small indeed, and no more than are necessary to arrive at convenient workable figures. For example, the rate for petrol, to four decimal places, would be 6·5991p a litre which is as near as possible to 6·6p. By rounding to 6·6p the duty has been increased by little more than one hundredth of 1 per cent. These minute changes of duty should have no effect on the price of oil to the consumer. More particularly the introduction of the litre as the unit for duty purposes does not affect the unit used for sales at retail level. Motorists will still be able to buy petrol by the gallon.That the Amendment of Units of Measurement (Hydrocarbon Oil, etc.) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1866), a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd November, be approved.
1.17 a.m.
The Order Paper says that
I understand that the Committee completed its consideration this afternoon and that it was critical of the explanatory note for not revealing that the order increases taxation. I accept that it increases taxation by an infinitesimal amount, but the Financial Secretary should give the House and the Select Committee an assurance of good conduct for the future. It would be helpful if we were told how much the Treasury expects to raise as a result of the order. I recognise that it will be a small amount. We accept the metrication of these units, but there are a couple of related points which arise from the order. It refers to degrees "C". I am not aware of any tax law which defines that term. From what the Financial Secretary said, it is intended to refer to degrees Celsius and not, as one might expect, degrees Centigrade. This is the first time that i have heard of Celsius being used in a statute. But that does not mean that it has not been used before. We are well past the days when it was possible to keep track of all legislation. The Minister must explain the reason for the change in the name of that scale. I understand that Professor Anders Celsius invented a scale which was inverted to produce the Centigrade scale. I do not wish to detract from his achievement, but it is 200 years since he died and I am sure he is above fussing about his reputation. The scale known as Centigrade has been used in the scientific world in France and on the Continent generally. The Italians add the letter "o", but they do that to many words. The Minister should explain why this term is to be used before we write it into the law. I am conscious that nothing but the most obscure Statutory Instrument could elevate me to this Box so I must not be too churlish. Many changes are made to Statutory Instruments. Many people would say too many changes are made. This year the number of orders of general rather than of local significance is over 1,000. This order has a tail of three consequential orders—Nos. 1887, 1888 and 1889. It is one of a larger batch of orders implementing Clause 7(1) of the Finance Act 1977. How many orders will be needed by the end of the year to deal with Section 7(1)? The order before us deals only with hydrocarbon oil. Will the right hon. Gentleman consolidate these changes into a statute as soon as possible? It is most confusing and difficult for taxpayers and their advisers to have the basic law scattered over Statutory Instruments. These provisions are not simply for a temporary rate of tax, which I think is more acceptable in a Statutory Instrument. These are the permanent units of measurement, the basic yardstick of these taxes. In fiscal matters, with a detailed Finance Bill every year, there should be less need for such orders. They should be consolidated into a more convenient form as quickly as possible."The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments have not yet completed their consideration of the Instrument."
1.21 a.m.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) on his appearance at the Dispatch Box. As he said, it is not as notable a spot in the parliamentary timetable as that which nearly came to us yesterday, but the hon. Gentleman has put his points clearly.
Relying on my scientific background as a former engineer, I would tell the hon. Gentleman that Celsius and Centigrade are exactly the same scale, but Celsius is rather the more fashionable nomenclature these days. I shall inquire into the other aspects that the hon. Gentleman raised and perhaps drop him a note in due course. The increase in revenue is minute, at well under £1 million. Set against the large sums that the hydrocarbon oil duties bring in, these small upward changes can be seen to be very small. The figures in the memorandum presented to the Select Committee show the remarkably close relationship between the figures we eventually chose and those under the previous scheme. The hon. Gentleman asked for consolidation of changes, and nobody can disagree with that aim in principle. There are problems of the parliamentary timetable, draftsmanship and so on, but we shall bear the hon. Gentleman's points in mind, and if the opportunity presents itself we shall be as happy as he to make these necessary changes.Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Amendment of Units of Measurement (Hydrocarbon Oil, etc.) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1866), a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd November, be approved.
Welfare Of Livestock (Sheep)
1.24 a.m.
I beg to move,
Hon. Members will know that this code is the latest in a series. Codes numbered 1–4 relate respectively to cattle, pigs, domestic fowls, and turkeys. With the addition of this code for sheep, the main species of livestock kept commercially in Great Britain will be covered by a code. Perhaps I might first of all remind the House of the status of this code. We have included in the preface an explanation of how the code fits in with Part 1 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, under which it is made, and we have quoted Sections 1(1) and 3(4) from the Act. It is not of itself an offence to fail to observe a provision in a welfare code, but such a failure may be relied upon by the prosecution as tending to establish the guilt of any person charged under Section 1(1) of the Act with the offence of causing unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to livestock. The code is therefore not mandatory. Its main purpose is to serve as a means of promoting livestock welfare by making an authoritative body of welfare advice available to farmers and stockmen. Its secondary purpose, as the Act explains, is to provide supportive evidence in a prosecution case. Over the years since the passing of the Act of 1968, the policy in relation to livestock welfare has been to start from the premise that the British farmer and his work people have a very real concern for the welfare of the livestock in their care. We believe that our farmers and workers have in good measure the skill or art of stockmanship upon which welfare so much depends. Accordingly, we have considered it appropriate that satisfactory standards of welfare should, so far as is possible, be secured and maintained through a policy of advice and encouragement. Our experience in the case of cattle, pigs and poultry, for which welfare codes already exist, has been that this is the right way to proceed. It is therefore our intention to use the code for sheep in the same way once it has been approved and issued. My right hon. Friends have been advised on the content of the code for sheep by the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. From a careful reading of the code, it is plain to see that the committee has given considerable thought to the form of the recommendations. The existing codes, upon which previous Ministers were advised by this same committee, have proved to be extremely useful documents, both to the farmer and to the adviser. As we fully expected, the advisory committee has made a workmanlike job of this new code for sheep, on which I am sure the House will agree it is to be congratulated. Turning now to the code itself, hon. Members will perhaps appreciate that sheep are a species of livestock for which the drafting of a welfare code is not an easy task. Sheep husbandry is carried on in a great variety of ways, on many different types and qualities of land, and with numerous breeds and crosses of sheep. Groups of animals often start life under one husbandry system and continue under another. For example, a cross-bred lamb born in a hill flock may be fattened on a lowland farm. Sheep rearing is essentially an outdoor form of husbandry, usually extensive in character. It is the exception rather than the rule for sheep to be housed. When this is done, it is normally for only part of the year during winter or during a limited period of the animal's life, for example, when lambs are being artificially reared. Consequently, the code is to a large extent concerned with extensive husbandry, and in this area it is neither practicable nor necessary for the recommendations in the code to include detailed advice. The precautions that are necessary to ensure welfare are therefore set out in broad terms in the code, and specific requirements are given only when there is clear evidence that anything else is likely to lead to trouble. Thus, in paragraph 9 the code states that colostrum is vital to the newly-born lamb. Some hon. Members may feel inclined to doubt the value of a code which deals with welfare in such general terms. They may even feel that there is little point in including in the code recommendations which no flock master or shepherd could possibly fail to observe. The proficient farmer or stockman can certainly be expected to practise what the code preaches. But we see merit in reminding even the most skilled and attractive of the need to consider the welfare implications of what they are about. As for those with less skill or experience, we consider that the code contains sound welfare guidance on the avoidance of welfare problems. The official advisory services will be able to give detailed guidance on the application of the code in individual circumstances. The House will note that annexed to the code is a selctive list of advisory publications. This is an innovation and, I think, a most useful one. The information in these publications reinforces and amplifies the advice given in the code, and we hope it will prove useful to farmers and stockmen to have this list of references. If the code is approved, which I sincerely hope will be the case, it will be printed and a copy will be sent free of charge to every farmer in Great Britain whose most recent agricultural census return included sheep. It is our aim to make sure that the advice the code contains is available wherever it can be put to good use in the interests of livestock welfare. We therefore also intend to send copies to veterinary surgeons in private practice and to make the code available in agricultural education and training establishments, and in university departments of agriculture. The House will appreciate that the livestock welfare provisions in Part I of the Act of 1968 apply just as much to livestock species for which there is no welfare code as they do to species in respect of which a code has already been issued. Consequently, throughout the years since the Act came into operation, the veterinary staff of the Ministry have been visiting sheep farms to check on observance of the Act. In addition, they have maintained a general oversight of livestock welfare standards when visiting sheep farms in connection with any other aspect of their official duties. In the period since the 1968 Act came into operation, our veterinary staff have observed welfare conditions on more than 4,000 premises in Great Britain where sheep are kept. On only about 15 of those premises were some of the sheep considered to be suffering unnecessary pain or distress. Official welfare advice was given in all these cases, and in over two-thirds of them the welfare problems were speedily resolved. Prosecutions were taken in the remaining cases. I think that that is a very clear indication that our sheep farmers and their stockmen generally exercise a high standard of management and stockmanship. I submit, too, that it amply justified our policy of seeking to achieve and maintain satisfactory standards of livestock welfare by advice and encouragement. We shall continue to rely upon the veterinary officers in the State service to exercise surveillance over the welfare of sheep, using this new code as an advisory tool. In addition, we shall ensure that advice given by others in the official advisory services is in line with the code. I hope that the House will approve the code.That this House takes note of the Paper entitled Code No. 5 of the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, relating to sheep, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th November, and approves the Code contained in paragraphs 1 to 41 thereof.
1.31 a.m.
We are grateful to the Minister for coming here late at night to explain the reasons for the introduction of these codes and something of the detail that is contained in them.
I must begin by declaring my interest as a farmer—as one who does not regularly keep sheep but who does so from time to time. Probably my greater interest in the sheep industry is that I am one of those rather rare English Members who represent more sheep than people, because my constituency is an area where the sheep industry is of immense importance. This debate has come on late at night, and I am afraid that I cannot apologise to the House for making a speech. I hope that it will not be too long, but there are a number of important matters that ought to be covered because—the Minister referred to this—unless we discuss this code properly farmers might be prosecuted for doing things that they have always done. I reiterate what I have often said, and what members of my party have often said from this Dispatch Box. We have consistently supported measures that are aimed at avoiding unnecessary cruelty to animals. That is a posture that we have always taken and will continue to take. I support what the Minister said, that in 99 cases out of 100 farmers are humane and caring for their livestock, and that fact ought to be recognised in a debate of this sort. As a background to this matter the Minister referred to the fact that in July 1971 the House agreed to similar codes for cattle, pigs, poultry and turkeys. It is a fact that sheep have had to wait some time for a code of this kind under the provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. I suppose that is because—and I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm this—sheep do not tend to be kept in the sort of intensive husbandry conditions in which the other four classifications of livestock tend to be kept. A very small percentage of sheep are kept in covered housing. It would be interesting to know just what percentage of the sheep population of this country is kept in housing of one sort or another. I suspect that it is a very small figure, because the vast majority of sheep are kept on traditional open air extensive systems of management. My guess is that there is a higher standard of stockmanship in the sheep sector than one finds in any of the other livestock sectors in British agriculture. I recall that the dean of agriculture at my university used to ask his students what was the most important thing that anyone should remember about sheep. The students would suggest all sorts of things they thought to be crucial, such as selecting the right breed, proper feeding, and having a good dog to look after them. But the old dean always came back to what he regarded as the most important thing in sheep husbandry—to remember that sheep die very easily. That is something that the hon. Gentleman may wish to ponder on. From the hon. Gentleman's own farming experience, he must remember that sheep have an alarming capacity to die without warning and even with the best stockmanship and management. Therefore, of all the guides produced for farm animals, this one for sheep is perhaps the least needed of all. If the House approves the code, which no doubt it will, when it is circulated it will cause a number of belly-laughs among flock masters and shepherds in some of our upland farms and territories. Many of them will say "Here again are the Government telling us how we ought to farm our sheep." They may be tempted to feel that the code represents an attempt by the Government to teach grandma to suck eggs. I guess that most of my constituents who keep sheep will feel that they have forgotten more about the art of sheep management than the people who wrote this document have ever known. It may be that they will not fully realise that the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has considerable expertise in animal husbandry. To what extent were there members of that committee with practical experience of sheep husbandry? It would also be helpful to know to what extent there is disagreement about the nature of these codes among the bodies consulted about them. There is a very long list of the bodies consulted before this code was printed for the consideration of the House. If some of them still have strong feelings about what is in or has been left out of the code, it would be helpful to know. I notice that the Dartmoor National Park Committee was among the bodies consulted, and I have no objection to that. But, if it was asked its opinion, why were not some of the other national park committees? I represent a Lake District constituency. Why was the Lake District National Park Committee not consulted? The hon. Gentleman understands, I know, that that committee has taken a very close interest in the problems of upland farming and upland management experiments. Why was the Dartmoor committee consulted and not some of the others? I want to voice a criticism which hit me quite hard when I first read the code. I was even more puzzled when I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he did not feel that there was a lot of need in the code for much detailed advice to farmers, because, as he rightly said, the huge majority of those who keep sheep know very well what ought to be done and what ought not to be done. It is all very well for the Minister to say that there is no need for detailed advice because there is already a good deal of detailed advice in the code. Paragraph 10 refers to the need for drying off ewes and for there to be no deprivation of food and water for more than 24 hours. Paragraph 18 mentions good pens being available, and says that they should not have sharp edges inside them. Paragraph 41 refers to the need to avoid having dogs which nip the sheep when they are rounded up. These are extremely detailed points of management. If the code contains matters as detailed as that I am surprised that it contains no reference to the problems of overstocking. From my experience of keeping sheep I should have thought that sheep suffer more from a degree of overstocking than from anything else. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will recall from his youth the old adage that the greatest enemy of a sheep is another sheep. One of the key aspects of sheep management is to keep them moving on to fresh ground and not to keep them for too long too thick on the ground on one piece of field. I cannot understand why there is no reference in the code to the fact that if sheep stay too long on a highly stocked field they will lose condition. We do not enjoy the conditions obtaining in New Zealand where these things seem possible. In the United Kingdom overstocking is a major source of poor welfare. Paragraph 8 says that drinking water should be made available at all times. That is not the traditional practice of lowland sheep farming, as I am sure the Minister knows. In the North of England the sheep are folded—that is, put within nets in confined areas of fields. They feed on turnips, sugar beet tops or kale, and it is not the practice, and never has been, to provide fresh water in those circumstances. When water is provided the sheep do not drink it. I considered this matter over the weekend while I was considering the code and I looked up a number of text books on sheep management to see whether my impression of these matters was confirmed. Since then the NFU has taken up the same point and has sent me extracts from some of the learned literature on these matters. I am satisfied to refer, however, to "Elements of Animal Nutrition", by Ashton, which says, on page 153:That is a well-known and well-understood practice among shepherds and people concerned with sheep. We should be clear about this because I should hate to think that any farmer in the future was liable to be prosecuted when employing this type of lowland sheep management, for not having fresh water in the sheep fold. It has been made clear and has been understood for generations that, as has been set out in the literature, fresh water is not necessary in these conditions. I hope that the Minister will explain his attitude to this aspect. My next detailed point relates to paragraph 12, which talks about sheep which are suffering severely and "should be humanely slaugthered". Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would be kind enough to explain exactly what is meant by that, and to what extent a shepherd is to be expected to put sheep in this condition out of their misery. Anyone who has had anything to do with sheep, and has gone to a flock early in the morning and found sheep in great distress, will realise the need to put them out of their misery extremely quickly. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would explain that a little more and say what is expected of a farmer to ensure that he does not offend against the code. We ought to know where we are on that. Paragraph 11 speaks of an inspection once a day at least for cases of fly strike under certain conditions. I wonder what systems of management the Parliamentary Secretary has in mind in this regard. Does this cover cases of sheep which are kept out of doors? I can quite understand the need for a daily or more than daily inspection of sheep which are kept indoors, but for sheep kept out of doors I should have thought it was not a practical possibility. To sum up, we support the motion. I do not think it will do a huge amount of good, because, as I have said already, I believe that the standard of sheep management in this country is higher than for any other class if livestock. Most of our sheep are kept on traditional lines. Good management exists, for without it sheep farming would be totally uneconomic. I suspect that the order has has been brought in rather to tidy things up, as we already have the four other orders. If this is the case, so be it. We do not object to that. A number of the details which I have mentioned need to be cleared up, but provided the Parliamentary Secretary can give us a satisfactory answer, I see no reason why the House should not approve the order tonight."The bulk of food consumed by sheep consists of growing crops. These are usually of a succulent nature, e.g., grass, forage crops and roots, containing enough water to meet the needs of sheep."
1.47 a.m.
In view of the late hour, the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) will appreciate it if I reply very briefly to his comments. He has handled the matter in his usual assiduous way, which I presume derives to some extent from his claim that he has more sheep in his constituency than any other Member of Parliament. I am not sure whether it in any way—
I did not actually say that. I said that I was one of the relatively rare Members with more sheep than people in his constituency.
I was not sure whether it had anything to do with the hon. Gentleman's electoral success.
Very briefly, on the general points that the hon. Gentleman made, it is obviously true that a very large number of shepherds and farmers, quite naturally, will wonder why on earth the Government are seeking to advise them on the matter on which they are obviously much more knowledgeable, practised and experienced than the Government. But the hon. Gentleman knows that his Government and the present Government have accepted this approach to animal welfare. It is a fact of life that a very large number of people in the United Kingdom, particularly in England—I do not think it is quite such a Scottish trait—take a very great interest in animal welfare. A significant proportion of the correspondence that I receive from hon. Members derives from complaints which they have received from constituents about animal cruelty or alleged animal cruelty. This is therefore, I think, a sensible and flexible way of going about things. As I said in my opening speech, if there has been cruelty—and there are instances of it in this area as in others—then evidence of a breach of the code tends to reflect guilt and is accepted as such by the courts. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of detailed points. I shall not cover them all tonight. I shall write in more detail on some on which perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like fuller answers. He was right in his surmise why we had kept sheep to the last. I agree that the number of sheep kept indoors is a very small proportion indeed. I do not know the exact figure, but it is trivial. The code has been well received. One or two people thought that it was over-simplified, but in the main it has been generally supported by the organisations involved, including the NFU and the British Veterinary Association. The hon. Gentleman was correct; a number of members of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee have direct experience of sheep. He also referred to the stocking rate. This is mentioned in paragraph 2. My own view is that the code is right to acknowledge that this is a matter which depends very much on the nature of the husbandry being practised at the time. It is true that sheep can survive for a very long time without drinking, but it is also true that it has been found they would prefer to drink regularly. The code therefore recommends that drinking water should be available to all sheep. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question why his particular park committee was not consulted, but I shall write to him.I should like to go back to the point about water. This is enormously important. Unless the Minister makes this clear tonight major difficulties could be caused in sections of lowland sheep farming. I looked at a field of sheep yesterday. About 300 sheep were fed by sugar beet tops. No water was available. I have never seen healthier looking sheep in my life. I have never known water being provided for sheep in this condition. But if farmers are to run the risk of prosecution because they do not supply fresh water it becomes a serious matter. I hope that the Minister will say something more to satisfy my concern about this.
I shall consider that point. The hon. Gentleman will, however, recognise that the NFU would not lightly agree to this code. I shall certainly pursue this point.
The Minister may recall that I have the Adjournment tonight. In fact, the NFU has drawn my attention to this point and is concerned about it as well.
I shall pursue these detailed points, but the general position of the NFU is that it supports the code, as well as the Government's general approach.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that there is a general desire throughout the House that we should bring these proceedings to a fairly rapid close. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to write to him on some of the more detailed points I hope that he will agree to the order being supported tonight.Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Paper entitled Code No. 5 of the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, relating to sheep, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th November, and approves the Code contained in paragraphs 1 to 41 thereof.
Northern Ireland
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
That the draft Development of Tourist Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 10th November, be approved.—[Mr. Snape.]
Question agreed to.
House Of Commons (Library)
Motion made,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), in their Fifth Report in the last Session of Parliament, on Computer-based Indexing for the Library.—[Mr. Shape.]
I should mention that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. From inquiries that I made earlier I understood that this was not exempted business and that the amendment I have down did not form an automatic block. I was therefore present in order to make an objection. I was not aware that this motion was not debatable at this hour.
It is in fact not debatable.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do I need to object to it in order to see that the motion is not debated or does not go through on the nod?
In the circumstances I take it that the hon. Member is objecting to it.
Yes.
Objection taken. Which day?
This day.
Cumbria
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Snape.]
1.56 a.m.
I fear that you are getting bored by the sound of my voice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am glad to have this opportunity of raising the problems of the county of Cumbria. The truth is that since coming here as a Member 13 years ago I have taken every opportunity which came to me to resist the integration of my constituency of Westmorland into the influence of governmental agencies which were based in Newcastle or the Northern Region. I shall come to the reasons why I have taken this view in a few moments. For the record, I have absolutely no personal antagonism to either Newcastle or the Northern Region. Indeed, my own family's roots are in County Durham, and particularly in Sunderland, which is an area in which you also have roots, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I attended the university at Newcastle, a city for which I have greater affection than for any other provincial city. I live in and was brought up in North Yorkshire, which is also within the Northern Region. I can only repeat that I raise this topic with absolutely no antagonism at all towards the Northern Region. I have always spoken against the anomaly of associating my constituency and Southern Cumbria with the governmental affairs of Newcastle and the North-East. I can recall raising this matter in meetings with the lamented Dan Smith, back in 1964 or 1965. I can remember raising it, to my great fury, with my own Government when they were in power in the earlier years of the 1970s, when there were proposals to reorganise the National Health Service. I can recall my pleas that Southern Cumbria, in particular, should be included with the North-West, because all the southern part of my constituency uses the general hospital facilities in Lancaster, so it seemed nonsense to put the health affairs of my constituents under Newcastle. The reason why I have taken this view is that the southern area of Cumbria has no affinity to Newcastle and the North-West. The people who live in Westmorland never go to Newcastle and the North-East unless they have to, because of the present arrangements and the way in which governmental affairs are organised. Secondly, the truth is that the communications between Newcastle and my constituency and Southern Cumbria are at the best terrible and in many cases nonexistent. If the Under-Secretary wants to test this out I recommend him to try the two-way journey between Barrow and Newcastle and back—270 miles—in one day. I guarantee that he will never find another journey, in any region, between a town which is an ex-county borough and a regional centre, which could involve him in travelling for a greater distance for a greater time. He could never find a more miserable car journey. Thirdly, I base my reasoning on the fact that people in South Cumbria have no social ties with the North-East. There are no common newspapers or media links, and my people take very little interest in the North-East. They do not support North-East football clubs—they support Manchester United and Liverpool, and that is a good test of social links between one part of the country and another. Compare that with the relations between South Cumbria and Manchester and the North-West. There are magnificent road and rail links, there are common media links of television and newspapers and there are close historic and social connections which shortness of time does not allow me to discuss. I have been talking about the situation relating to South Cumbria. Since the formation of the new county of Cumbria it is not possible to take such a parochial view. If one takes the wider case of the whole of Cumbria, one sees that there is an improved case for associating that county with Newcastle and the North-East. In fact, Carlisle is a good deal nearer Newcastle than Manchester, but there are miserable east-west roads, and relatively miserable rail links compared with the main north-south railway line and the magnificent M6 motorway. Although the difference is greater in mileage between Cumbria and Manchester, it is smaller in time. Even so, the Pennines provide not just the geographical barrier between Cumbria and the North-East but also a barrier which is largely concerned with a separate history and separate social connections. To sum up the matter—the truth is that to append Cumbria to the Northern Region is an artificial union. It is more suited to administrative convenience than to natural association. I should not have pressed my views on the House had it not been for the recent decision of the Cumbria County Council against membership of the proposed Northern Counties Association. It also decided to cease its membership of the North of England Development Council, principally based on North-East England. However, it decided to continue its membership of the North-West Industrial Development Association. The county council has expressed a desire to oppose a gradual drift into closer links with the North-East compared with the North-West. This is the gist of my case tonight. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that he will do his best to resist that drift. Over the past few years it has become clear that Cumbria's first choice is to be considered as a region on its own. There is much merit in that. It has been proposed to the Government. There was a delegation from Cumbria a few years ago which saw the right hon. Gentleman, who is now the Minister of Agriculture. He turned down the request Reluctantly I accept that the concept of Cumbria as a separate region is a dead duck. I confine myself to considering how Cumbria should now be treated within the present regional arrangements, bearing in mind the Government's refusal to allow it to be a region on its own. Cumbria's geographical situation, by its nature, position and treatment by Government agencies, is something of a hotch-potch. That is no surprise. It is probably natural and inevitable that it should be treated as something of a hotch-potch. It is strange that it should be treated in some instances as part of the Northern Region and in others as part of the North-West Region. The Department of Industry considers that part of Cumbria is dealt with by the Northern Region and part of it by the North-West Region. As for the Department of the Environment, Cumbria is dealt with entirely by the Northern Region. The North-West Regional Water Authority, based on Warrington, deals with the whole of Cumbria. Health is dealt with by the Northern Region at Newcastle. Electricity is dealt with entirely from the North-West. Gas is dealt with in the north by the Northern Gas Board and in the south by the North-West Gas Board. It is inevitably something of a hotch-potch. In considering how Cumbria is dealt with by various governmental agencies it is important to put on record that I am making no complaint about the service that comes to Cumbria from one region or another. I have many examples of my constituents and others within Cumbria saying that they receive a most helpful service from officials in various Government Departments, many of them making honest attempts to do their best to integrate Cumbria with either the North-West Region or the North-East Region. It is the artificiality of the union between Cumbria and the Northern Region that promotes such serious problems. My request tonight is in the following terms: where a clear choice exists, please do not make decisions to put Cumbria into the Northern Region rather than the North-West Region. If there is a choice to be made, I hope that all Government Departments will choose to put Cumbria in the North-West Region rather than in the Northern Region. That is the desire expressed by the recent vote of the county council. It is the desire of the vast majority within Cumbria, and especially so in the southern part of the county. I do not ask for a major reconstruction of our regional planning arrangements for Cumbria. I do not want Government action tomorrow to take Cumbria out of the Northern Region and to put it into the North-West Region. I hope that I have made that clear. However, when the choice exists I plead with the Government not to allow to take place a constant drift towards the Northern Region. The key necessity on the part of the Government is to have policies that are not made for administrative convenience but in the best interests of the people of Cumbria. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give his agreement and support to that sentiment. Recently, for example, civil servants in Cumbria employed in the Department of Employment have activated a vigorous campaign to resist the closure of their Preston and Barrow offices and for responsibilities to be shifted from Preston and Barrow to Newcastle. I was pleased to see a report in the Lancashire Evening Post of 23rd November 1977 in which the Secretary of State for Employment—the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth)—has halted the plans and given an undertaking to the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) that he is reconsidering the earlier proposals to shut the offices in Preston and Barrow. I very much welcome that move. It is exactly what I am asking for tonight to stop this drift away from existing links with the North-West and to attach Cumbria, against its will, to Newcastle and the Northern area. I hope that this debate will clear the air. As I have said, I ask for no radical upturns. I am confident that the majority of people in Cumbria do not want dramatic upturns of that kind. They want their position in regional terms to be a natural one and, where choices can be made, to go for the North-West rather than the Northern area. If the Minister can assure us that that point of view will be considered sympathetically, the debate will have served a useful purpose.2.11 a.m.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) for raising this subject in the House tonight or, rather, this morning. I acknowledge in particular the reasonable and moderate way in which he has put his case.
The hon. Gentleman admitted to a long-standing interest in seeing his part of the country as part of the North-West rather than as part of the Northern Region. I welcome that, because, as he knows, there are some people who approach the subject of local government and regional organisation by demanding immediate and wholesale change. There really is no mileage in such an approach. I recognise, particularly from what the hon. Gentleman said towards the end of his speech, that he was not making that mistake. Indeed, he has put quite fairly what I am sure is the instinctive feeling of a good many of his constituents—that they do not belong with the other areas in the Northern Region. That is a feeling which we in the Department of the Environment must take seriously, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall do just that. Incidentally, I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about officials from various Departments with whom he and others of whom he knows have had dealings. I thank him for his kind words about those officials, regardless of the regions to which they are attached. I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the settlement of boundaries is always a difficult matter. One can quote many examples, but I think that the boundaries about which we are talking tonight are amongst some of the most difficult in the country. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman illustrated that point very well in his speech. It may be helpful if I go over some of the case history. First, there is the county of Cumbria. This new county was formed in the local government reorganisation in April 1974 from the old counties of Cumberland, Westmorland and the northern part of Lancashire—"Lancashire beyond the sands". Other possible county patterns were considered at the time, including one for a new county for the Furness area, South Westmorland and North Lancashire. These, however, had other disadvantages, and the decision taken—very much on a balance of arguments—was to create the present county of Cumbria. Even so, Cumbria, though one of the largest English counties in area, has one of the smallest populations. The decision then had to be taken: in what region should this new county be placed? At the time of the reorganisation of local government structure and revision of boundaries, some adjustments were made to the boundaries of regions in England. Generally, these were arranged to bring the regional boundaries into line with the new local government boundaries. It was considered very important for counties to be placed wholly within a region—that is, for counties not to be split between two or more regions. I think that at that time all agreed that was the right decision. So far as Cumbria was concerned, the options were clearly to place it in the Northern Economic Planning Region or in the North-West Region. On balance—and again the balance was a difficult one—Cumbria was placed in the Northern Region. As the hon. Member appreciates, I was, of course, not involved then, but no doubt the obvious proximity of parts of Cumbria to the North-West Region, and the consequent wish of people to be in it rather than the remote-sounding Northern Region, was carefully considered before that decision was taken. One of the reasons for it, of course, was that it gave a better balance between the sizes of the regions in the North of England. This is an important factor which we must always take into account. Although it should never be the only argument adduced, it is obvious that we cannot look at any one change in isolation, without assessing as fully as posible the consequences of the change on other regions and their organisation. The matter of the status and alignment of Cumbria was reconsidered in 1975–76 following a deputation from Cumbria which met my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) in September 1975. I think that that was the meeting to which the hon. Member referred. The hon. Member for Westmorland and other hon. Members supported this delegation, and two hon. Members—one from each side of the House—accompanied it. Two particular matters were discussed by the deputation: the possibility of Cumbria being constituted as a separate economic planning region or sub-region and the possibility of establishing in Cumbria some sort of a sub-office of the Department of the Environment's regional office in Newcastle. Both these matters were thoroughly considered following the deputation, but the Government had regretfully to write to Cumbria to the effect that neither seemed practicable. I need not rehearse more fully here the terms of my right hon. Friend's letter, because they will certainly be familiar to the hon. Member. The Northern Region, as at present constituted, is in fact among the smallest English regions in terms of population—and it is on population that the volume of administrative work largely depends. I noted that the hon. Member said that we ought not to be making these decisions for administrative reasons but because of the interest of the people. Yet we cannot ignore the administrative arguments. A separate Cumbria region would be much smaller still and could find a place only in a system of much smaller and numerous regions. A Northern Region without Cumbria would be obviously smaller than it already is; and the North-West Region already covers a very sizeable population, without the addition of Cumbria. I do not say that these are concluive points but they are relevant. As regards a DOE sub-office in Cumbria, to be of value such a sub-office would have to be capable of settling most of the work that came its way without reference to the Newcastle office. But the range of work covered by the Department's regional offices is so wide—including transport as well as environment—that the necessary expertise could not be provided within a staff of the size the work load would warrant; and with the current pressure on Civil Service numbers we could not accept duplication of staff. It is certainly true that there is considerable variation between the operational boundaries of public utilities in the North and North-West. These are mainly for good operational reasons. One example, which the hon. Member cited, is river flows, which make it inevitable that Cumbria should come within the area of the North West Water Authority. But most Government Departments, in their regional organisation, follow the standard boundaries of the economic planning regions. These Departments include the Department of the Environment, the Department of Tranport, the Department of Employment and, with the small variation that the Furness area is still included in its North-West Region, the Department of Industry. Also, the newly-appointed Manpower Services Commission Regional Director will be responsible for the whole of the Northern Economic Planning Region. I do not believe that there has been any neglect of Cumbria by those regional offices of Government which are based on Newcastle. Certainly the hon. Member did not make that point. In fact, many hon. Members and officers have gone out of their way to praise the amount of time and attention Cumbrian affairs are being given. So while I naturally accept that the hon. Member is speaking for some of his constituents when he says they would rather not be in the Northern Region, I hope that he will accept that this is not as a result of any action or lack of action by the regional offices of Government Departments. I appreciate the force of the argument that with the M6 and the main-line railway from Carlisle, some parts of Cumbria are more readily accessible to Manchester than to Newcastle. Nevertheless, there has been a steady improvement of east-west links, despite what the hon. Gentleman has said, and he knows the area better than me—within the region in recent years. I am thinking particularly of the A69 Carlisle-Newcastle and A66 Workington-Penrith-Scotch Corner roads. This improvement is continuing. I should mention now the various ideas which are currently affecting regional government in England. I think it would be premature to form any views at this stage on how Cumbria might fare in any devolution proposals affecting the English regions. No such proposals have been formulated. It is interesting to note that the Northern Economic Planning Council—which includes within its membership five members drawn from Cumbria—said in reply to the consultation document, we issued, "Devolution: the English Dimension":This view, too, is one which the Government will inevitably have to take into account."The Council recognise that in some districts of Cumbria there is a feeling either that the county should be given a separate regional status of its own or that, in whole or in part, it should be transferred to the North-West Region. The Council do not however recommend either of these courses. The north of Cumbria, at least, has developed increasingly strong links with North-East England, and it seems doubtful whether Cumbrians would have as much say in the decisions of a regional body based on the heavily populated industrial north-west as they would do in those of a body based on the present Northern Economic Planning Region."
To use a quotation like that in the argument smacks of the old adage about the gentleman in Whitehall knowing best. I have explained to the House that Cumbria has taken a firm decision and I know that it reflects the majority view of the people of Cumbria.
The hon. Gentleman's point is one which we shall take into account. All I am saying is that when the Economic Planning Council comes out with a statement like that—and there are five representatives of Cumbria on it—that, too, is a view that we have to take into account. But while I would doubt whether anything has changed since 1974 sufficiently to alter significantly the balance of the arguments, I will gladly put it on record that the Government are willing to look at particular aspects of the arrangements which seem to be causing difficulty. It is important that we eventually review the position in this way. The 1972 Local Government Act foresaw the need for us to keep re-examining our boundaries, and this we shall be doing.
Meanwhile, I believe that Cumbria has a special and an important contribution to make to the affairs of the Northern Region where it is situated. For Cumbria to play its full part in these affairs would, I believe, be to the best advantage both of the county and of the region. I hope that, to a degree, I have been able to keep the options open and to recognise the points made by the hon. Gentleman. Equally, I hope that he will appreciate some of the arguments that I have advanced and some of the difficulties that inevitably arise over what is a difficult decision concerning boundaries and the region to which Cumbria should belong.Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Two o'clock.