§ Mr. Graham Page
I beg to move Amendment No. 134, in page 41, line 31, leave out' subject to paragraph 8 of this Schedule '.
§ The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton)
With this it would be convenient to take Amendment No. 136, in page 42, leave out lines 28 to 34.
§ Mr. Page
Amendment No. 134 is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 136. As a preface, I should say that now that we have accepted Clause 18, including subsection (2), we have to look at Schedule 2 in that light.
Of course, Clause 18(2) provides that a Scottish Assembly may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament—that is an Act of Parliament of Westminster. But that is to be subject to Clause 19 which states that the Scottish Assembly can establish law only if it is within, or to the extent that it is within, the legislative competence of the Assembly. To find out what is meant by the legislative competence of the Assembly one goes to Clause 19(2), from which one is directed to Schedule 2. So at last I have come to the point. We are seeking to amend the schedule which is the definition of the legislative competence of the Scottish Assembly.
Paragraph 2 of that schedule states,Subject to paragraph 8 of this Schedule, a provision is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly if it extends to any part of the United Kingdom other than Scotland.So, combining that with paragraph 1 of the schedule, one finds that the legislative competence of the Scottish Assembly is to legislate upon devolved matters which affect Scotland only. That is a simple statement. The devolved matters are set out in a later schedule. But I would have hoped that the House would accept paragraph 2 merely saying that a provision is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly if it extends to any part of the United Kingdom other than Scotland. No matter, for the moment, that it be on devolved matters. If it is on devolved matters, it should refer only to Scotland.
392 I should have thought that that was the whole intention of the Bill. Its aim is to set up a legislative Assembly for Scotland to legislate for Scotland. Yet those few words at the beginning of the paragraph bring in the small print. We turn over the ticket to read the small print on the back, and there we find paragraph 8. It says that paragraph 2 shall notprevent any provisions from being within the legislative competence of the Assembly if those provisions—and then there are two sub-paragraphs which drive a coach and four through the whole of the provision that the Assembly shall legislate only for Scotland.
These paragraphs say that the Scottish Assembly shall have the power to legislate in any other way if that isnecessary or expedient for making other provisions effective or for the enforcement of other provisions … or … are otherwise incidental to or consequential on other provisions.So if anything can be said to be necessary, expedient, incidental or consequential on some legislation which may be one of the devolved matters or which may refer to Scotland only, it will be within the competence of the Scottish Assembly so to legislate outside the devolved matters and outside Scotland.
This is the terror of this paragraph. It throws the gates wide open for legislation by the Scottish Assembly, a one-House Assembly, affecting the whole of the United Kingdom. True, it says that the Assembly must legislate on devolved matters only. But suppose that the Assembly legislates on some of the devolved matters set out in Part I of Schedule 10. There are set out no fewer than 26 groups of subjects on which the Scottish Assembly can legislate. Should it legislate on any one of those, and think that it is necessary, expedient, incidental or consequential to say that the same law should apply, for the sake of uniformity, to England and Wales, then under paragraph 8 it is quite within its competence to do so.
Let us look at the devolved matters in Part I of Schedule 10. Group 1, on health, lists a number of items, from which I pick abortion. Let us suppose that the Scottish Assembly decided to legislate for abortion on demand. There might be a flood of people crossing the border to get abortion on demand and it might 393 be very expedient, therefore, to have some law in the rest of the United Kingdom to stop that and to ensure uniformity. According to my ordinary interpretation of paragraph 8, that would be consequential on the Act of the Scottish Assembly. If it were not consequential it might well be expedient or necessary and certainly incidental.
Group 2 deals with social welfare, including children and adoption. Let us suppose that we continue to have different adoption laws in Scotland and England. Might there not be an effort to take advantage of one law which was more generous than the other? For the sake of uniformity it would certainly be expedient to have the same adoption laws in the whole of the United Kingdom.
Group 3 states that libraries, museums and art galleries are within the competence of the Scottish Assembly and it adds the teaching profession to the list. Are teachers in Scotland to have different qualifications from teachers in the rest of the United Kingdom?
§ Mr. Russell Johnston
The right hon. Gentleman may lay a great many ills at the door of the Bill, but it is somewhat illogical to complain that it might have the consequence of having different qualifications for teachers when that is the current situation.
§ Mr. Page
I acknowledge that there is a difference. In many cases it is thought that the difference between the law applying in Scotland and in England and Wales is very inexpedient. [Interruption.] This is a matter of opinion. It is said that this would not be inexpedient.
The list contains 26 groups of items which can be legislated on by the Scottish Assembly. If legislation is passed on these subjects in Scotland it may be very expedient for the legislation to be uniform throughout the United Kingdom. If that is so, the Scottish Assembly has competence to legislate for the rest of 394 the United Kingdom and perhaps even for Northern Ireland. Here we are setting up a separate legislative body, an entirely fresh kind of legislative body in that it is a one-Chamber legislature, to legislate not merely for Scotland alone.
It is true that the Bill begins by implying in the various clauses and schedules that the Scottish Assembly is a legislative Assembly for Scotland, but the drafting is rather peculiar. Clause 18(2) states that:A Scottish Assembly Act may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament.We start from a positive statement there that the Scottish Assembly could alter Westminster Acts of Parliament. It is true that the clause goes on to qualify it to the effect that the legislation must be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and it defines legislative competence, but, that being said, there is then the exception in paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 which I have endeavoured to describe.
While that exception stands in the Bill—Amendment No. 136 would delete it—the Scottish Assembly has immense powers to legislate for the rest of the United Kingdom.
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Dalyell
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) was right in a way to interrupt the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) on the education question, but, if I may say so, what was then said was not quite the whole story. A great sense of grievance has been felt and has been exploited—indeed, it has been exploited—by the Scottish National Party among primary school teachers in Scotland, who are told time and again that they are paid less than their counterparts in England are paid. How often have we heard that in SNP propaganda and argument. There is no question about it.
The full story is that we in Scotland get a fair share at present, and if primary schoolteachers are paid less, our honours graduates, in particular, and certain other categories are paid more—and for some categories significantly more. It is in the nature of human beings that we keep rather quiet about those areas in which we have advantage and we make a great noise about those in which we suppose ourselves to be disadvantaged.
395 As I say, these differences have frequently been exploited, and they are a marvellous source of political propaganda. They raise difficulties of the kind to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in general terms, and I think, therefore, that his argument cannot be quite so easily dismissed.
I shall stick to one point now because I have been on my feet a great deal today. I refer again to the disbelief in the idea of having devolved legislation at all in a subordinate Parliament within a unitary State. I put the matter in this way. The Assembly may pass a great number of laws on housing. I have sat, as has the right hon. Member for Crosby, I believe, through the proceedings on, I think, two Rent Bills. The truth is that the laws which the Assembly would like to pass if it is to carry out the promises made, especially in areas such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small) on Clydeside, will not meet the problems which they are designed to tackle unless a great deal of money is forthcoming.
I do not for a moment believe that the people of Scotland want too many laws, and least of all do they want a rearranging of legal chairs in a kind of game of musical chairs. But the things that we very understandably want done or improved all cost money. I make no apology, therefore, for coming back again to the point that laws of the kind which the Assembly would pass would be extremely costly.
The Assembly will not be responsible for raising the cash. The cash all comes from the block grant. Thus, either its laws would be seen to be a dismal failure or, having in all possibility overspent, the Assembly would go to Great George Street demanding far more than its share of the United Kingdom allocation to housing resources.
At this stage of the argument, I wonder what English Ministers responsible for housing and the like would say. I see my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, the Minister responsible for sport, on the Front Bench. I imagine that he would have something to say if that happened
396 Furthermore, there is the problem raised in the letter from my young constituent, Mr. Brian Fairley. If the Great George Street Treasury was presented with some kind of fait accompli, which is all too possible in one area, that would mean a shortage of block grant funds in another area. If there were massive overspending on housing, health, education or whatever in Scotland, other areas would suffer. Then there would be a hue and cry to find out why our level of education spending, health spending or whatever was not up to the standards of England.
All this is not fanciful. It is the realistic way in which matters work out when there is an unworkable subordinate Parliament in part, though only part, of a unitary Kingdom.
§ Mr. Russell Johnston
It is not only fanciful but unrealistic and unfair to suggest that the behaviour of the Members of the Assembly and the Executive created within the Assembly would be so irresponsible as to bring about the debts that the hon. Gentleman has spoken about.
§ Mr. Dalyell
I do not think that the behaviour of SNP Members has been exactly responsible, within the hon. Gentleman's description of responsibility. I am not blaming them, because that is what they are in business for—not to be responsible in making demands on Westminster. If we were all solemn responsible men, we might not have got into this situation in the first place.
§ The Chairman
Order. In his enthusiasm, the hon. Gentleman is straying very wide of the amendment. He knows that I can be tolerant when I am in the Chair, but he is going outside the terms of the amendment.
§ Mr. Dalyell
My hon. Friend the Minister of State will obviously agree with your intervention, Mr. Murton. It suits the Government to stick to narrow issues, to try to compartmentalise the Bill. If we simply take each narrow issue on the guillotine, the Bill may look possible, but we must return time and again to how people would behave, given a subordinate Parliament. I dispute that there is any chance of their behaving in a financially responsible way, because they would be in business to ask for more and more. 397 There would be an overwhelming temptation, to which any Member of that Assembly would have to succumb, to ask for more from the block grant. That is the difficulty with the block grant.
I return to my point, that if it is thought that the Assembly will simply be dealing with legislation in a vacuum, altering laws without doing something, without improving housing conditions, for example, it will be a marvellous talking shop. The Assembly Members can alter housing laws for as long as they like, but that will not greatly impress people in Scotland. The people will be impressed only if something is done, and doing something costs money. Money is at the root of the whole matter.
Here we return to the block grant and the endless argument. If things go wrong and the laws are not adequately implemented, who will be blamed? The blame will be put on the parsimony of the English Treasury. That is why we once again return to the unworkability of this scheme.
§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I should like to return to the amendment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has done a considerable service in moving it and explaining it as he did. However, I must say in defence of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), with regard to many of the devolved matters in Schedule 10, that I believe that the variety that we have in different parts of the United Kingdom is to the advantage of everyone in that it reflects the different character, background and tradition of those areas.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby is right to raise this matter. Where there are instances in which there may be a desire, or where it is expedient to try to bring practices into line, the Bill as drafted gives a very much wider jurisdiction to the Scottish Assembly than may seem to be justified by the bare words of the paragraph in the schedule. For that reason I think it is right to raise the matter.
I approach it from a slightly different angle from that of my right hon. Friend—less from a fear of the jurisdiction of the Scottish Assembly extending to England and much more from the point of view of whether the inclusion of a provision such as this in the Bill preju- 398 dices the proper operation of the Assembly. If the Assembly is to have powers and jurisdiction extending beyond Scotland, it is not in the least surprising that there should be resentment at the inclusion of these powers in the Bill. Therefore, in as much as it affects the acceptability of some of the provisions of the Bill, the Government ought to explain to the Committee why they have included this provision.
There is one instance where I can see that there could be need for a power of this nature. As I can think of only one instance, I wonder very much why this wider power has had to be put into the Bill. The instance is in relation to salmon and freshwater fisheries. As hon. Members will know, we have a river called the Tweed. There is another called the Esk, on the border between Scotland and England. In those cases where we have legislation before this House, under its proper jurisdiction, in relation to salmon and freshwater fisheries, it is not possible to have such legislation automatically certified. Although the Bills are promoted by Scottish Ministers, there are often provisions within them relating to the fisheries in the Tweed, the Esk and the Solway, which result in those Bills having an effect beyond the borders of Scotland.
As I have said, I can only think of the one instance of salmon and freshwater fisheries. I cannot think of any other instances where, within the competence of the Scottish Assembly, as laid down in this Bill, it would be necessary to legislate in the very wide terms of Schedule 2(8). If it can be narrowed down to specific issues, such as salmon or freshwater fisheries—there may be other instances which the Minister may mention to the House—I should have thought that it would be very much better and would make the Bill very much more acceptable, particularly to colleagues south of the border, if the exceptions were made specific to particular areas or particular issues rather than having these very wide powers in paragraph 8.
I therefore support my hon. Friend, and I would be very reluctant to allow the schedule to proceed without a very much more detailed and precise assurance from the Minister as to its purpose. Even if there is a purpose along the 399 narrow lines that I suggested, consideration should be given to whether these narrower lines should be specified rather than the very wide powers which it is absolutely right to question at this stage of the Bill.
§ Mr. Russell Johnston
I have two or three short points to make. At this juncture, especially following the remarks by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in raising the problem of Schedule 2(8), and also in relation to the remarks made by the hon. and persistent Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), I feel that the critics are perfectly entitled to suggest that there are problems of conflict and that there will be problems of conflict, probably of an ongoing nature, during the existence of the Assembly. But it must not be forgotten that the Assembly is being created because there are problems of conflict now.
Hon. Members should not suggest that the Assembly once created and once given powers to do different things, would go off its head completely and do all sorts of extraordinary things. Following my intervention, the hon. Member for West Lothian said that there would naturally be a tendency to ask for more, like Oliver Twist. Yes, there would be that tendency. But what he said previously was that Great George Street, as he is wont to call it, may well be faced with a fait accompli and would consciously, purposely and intentionally overspend. I do not believe that the persons elected to the Assembly would behave in that fashion any more than I believe that they would do all sorts of extraordinary things that the right hon. Member for Crosby fears.
Like the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), I suspect that this small paragraph has a very limited effect. It is within my recollection that the Highlands and Islands Development Bill contained provisions enabling the Highlands and Islands Development Board to do things in London because it might have to have an office in London and have exhibitions and do all sorts of other things in London.
400 Paragraph 8 says that these provisions must be within the legislative competence of the Assembly. Those provisions are clearly defined and well laid down elsewhere in the Bill. I do not wish to pursue the matter, but I wish that when making perfectly proper arguments hon. Members would not exaggerate so grossly.
§ Mr. Rifkind
Without any risk of exaggeration, I should like to pay a tribute to the Minister and assume that neither he nor his colleagues have paid very much attention to Schedule 2 in its present form. Had they paid any significant amount of attention to it I suggest that they could not possibly have allowed it to remain in its present form.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), if anything, understated the case for his amendment because the schedule, particularly paragraph 8, gives to the Scottish Assembly as a devolved legislature far more power than an independent Scottish Parliament or independent Scottish State would have. Although it is in a very limited sphere, the simple fact is—I am sure the Minister will not deny it—that if a matter comes within paragraph 8, the Assembly can change the law in England as well as in Scotland. That is a power which an independent Scotland would not have.
But for reasons that we do not yet know, the Government are proposing to give this power to the Scottish Assembly. Obviously it is a restricted area where that power can be exercised. I said that I would not exaggerate the case, but it is important to realise the limited areas where this power can be used.
One cannot be accused of being fanciful in making this case. Presumably if there were no such areas the provision would not have been included in the first place. It must be intended that in certain areas the Assembly can change the law of England as well as the law of Scotland.
According to Schedule 10, this power can be used with regard to pollution, erosion and flooding. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 allows the Assembly to pass laws which will change the law of England where it is necessary or expedient for the enforcement of other provisions. In the areas of pollution, erosion or flooding it is perfectly possible that in 401 order to make pollution or anti-flooding legislation in Scotland effective it is necessary that the regulations should also cover part of the coast of England adjacent to the Scottish-English border. Such a situation is perfectly conceivable. Obviously that is a real problem.
The question then becomes: what is the best way of resolving that problem? Is it, as the Government propose, to give power to the Scottish Assembly to change the law of parts of the United Kingdom outside Scotland? I suggest not, for the reasons put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby. The answer is simply that if there are certain matters where in order to make the Scottish Assembly's authority to deal with devolved matters effective it is necessary that the law of England should be changed, then that must be a matter of discussion and negotiation between the Scottish Assembly and the British Government. That is the way in which these matters must be handled.
If it is sensible and reasonable for certain changes to be made in the law of England, so long as this is the only Parliament for England, only this Parliament should have the power to change those laws. If we talk of matters which are merely consequential and if the Assembly believes that it would be reasonable for certain minor laws affecting England to be changed, the proper course is for the member of the Scottish Executive responsible to have discussions with the Secretary of State responsible for these matters in England and, by discussion and negotiation, to seek to persuade the British Government to introduce similar or consequential legislation in this House to effect the changes desired. It could be done without raising the legitimate anger 402 of hon. Members representing English constituencies.
It is indefensible that an Assembly elected by the electorate of one part of the United Kingdom, and only in that part of the United Kingdom, should he able to change the laws of other territories, and there is a way in which this real problem can be resolved.
I hope that the Minister will not dig in his heels and say that the Bill must continue in its present form without qualification. If there are consequential changes required in English law, the proper course will be for the British Government to have negotiations with the Scottish Executive. In 99 cases out of 100, I am sure that a compromise will be achieved, and the necessary consequential legislation can then be introduced in this House. That is the proper way to do it.
In its present form, the Bill gives the Assembly a power which I am sure that no one in Scotland will suggest should be available to a Scottish Assembly elected only by the electorate of Scotland. It is a quite unnecessary provision, and it is one which will create unnecessary problems for the Government. They have quite enough problems as it is. I am sure that they would prefer at least to do without this one.
§ Mr. Small
We are dealing with paragraph 8 of Schedule 2. I do not know how familiar right hon. and hon. Members are with the works of Wordsworth, but let me quote "Yarrow Unvisited":Float double, swan and shadow".Everything that we have here in the schedule is a shadow. What takes place here will be transferred to Edinburgh. Paragraph 8 really means that which is cognate and non-cognate to existing legislation.
§ Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that the scope of paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 should be narrowed.
What is significant about this debate is that all Opposition speakers, whether they support or oppose devolution, have asked the Minister to accept this amendment. For that reason, I think that the hon. Gentleman should take note of what has been said. Of course, there is an exception in the sense that no SNP Member has asked him to accept the amendment. That does not surprise me. As drawn at present, the Bill is the perfect recipe for major and continuing conflict between the Scottish Assembly and this Parliament. If there is conflict, it will suit the book of the Scottish nationalists perfectly. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to make a concession.
There have been references to Schedule 10. I hope the Minister will explain in rather more detail the implications for certain other aspects than those referred to already by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). What about the tenure and management of agricultural land? What about forestry and afforestation?
Let me expand a little on that second example. I understand that in any event forestry interests in Scotland have already asked that they should continue to come under United Kingdom control. Under Schedule 10 and Schedule 2(8), far from those interests in Scotland remaining under United Kingdom control, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a good proportion of the forestry and afforestation activities in England could come under Scottish control. There is nothing to stop the Scottish Assembly legislating in such a way as to enable the purchase of forestry interests in England. Perhaps I am wrong, but that seems a not unreasonable interpretation of the Bill as at present drawn. I hope that if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, he will at least agree to re-examine this matter.
§ Mr. Sproat
I had not intended to speak on this amendment until I heard the argument so persuasively advanced 404 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). It struck me what ludicrous matters we are debating on this occasion. We are proposing that people in Edinburgh should be able to make laws which apply to people in London simply because they are consequential on the laws made in Edinburgh. That must be madness. One can almost find no end to the madness that this situation would create.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said—and I took down his words: "I do not believe the behaviour of the Assembly would be so irresponsible". He was then referring to debts, but I would set no bounds on the irresponsibility of SNP Members deliberately to create trouble in a Scottish Assembly in order to cause the maximum amount of difficulty here. Perhaps I am wrong even to talk about their irresponsibility. We all know that it is their raison d'être to break up the United Kingdom. If they could make laws that so affected the people of England, surely this would lead to discontent and eventually to the break-up of the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. Russell Johnston
Do the hon. Gentleman's remarks indicate that he firmly believes that the Scottish Assembly would have a majority of SNP Members?
§ Mr. Sproat
That is not my conclusion, but no doubt there are a sufficient number of misguided Scots who would seek to elect one or two SNP Members. But it will not be only SNP Members who will drive these wedges between England and Scotland. The SNP Members will be taking such action for one reason, but Labour and Conservative Members, too, will be taking a similar view. It will be carried out on an Oliver Twist syndrome—in other words, it will be said "If the United Kingdom Treasury will give us £100, we shall hold out for £120." It will be a double recipe for disaster because we shall have to finance all the extra legislation as between England and Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) mentioned the subject of salmon fisheries, which was a very good example to cite. Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) referred to 405 forestry matters. I can quote another example—the battles over public lending rights which so interested Parliament at the time. What will happen if the Scottish Assembly is foolish enough to decide to establish a public lending right? I appreciate that there are hon. Members who believe that that would not be an irresponsible measure.
§ Mr. Sproat
It is a stupid measure, but not irresponsible. The House of Commons chucked it out a long time ago.
§ Mr. Sproat
I talked as much as I could, but it was only when the Deputy Chief Whip said "If you shut up we will drop the measure" that we decided to shut up, and they dropped it.
§ 10.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Sproat
I am trying to put behind me the unhappy memories of long ago. Looking to the future, we may well have a Scottish Assembly which, in its wisdom or unwisdom, will decide to bring in a public lending right. That is quite a possibility. It is a possibility, because the Assembly would have the power to do that. Apart from the fact that it would cost a lot of money, what would the effect be? It would mean that one would have to go to the publisher, Collins, which is a Scottish firm but English-based and in London, or to Macmillan's publishing house, whose headquarters is also in London—although I am not sure whether Collins' headquarters has remained in Glasgow. However, let us say Macmillan's. I mentioned Collins only as a sop to the SNP to show how far Scottish influence had spread, but I regret my kindness to the SNP now.
The publishers would have to be told that the Scottish Assembly had brought a public lending right into effect, which would mean that the publishers would have to pay its authors extra money in a possibly different way and the law in the rest of the United Kingdom would have to be changed with regard to those authors whose works appear on shelves 406 in Scotland and are published by publishers based in London.
§ Mr. Cormack
Does my hon. Friend realise that he is forging an unbreakable alliance between the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?
§ Mr. Sproat
I do not quite see that. Sorry, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I apologise for being a bit slow.
§ Mr. Dalyell
Should not the hon. Gentleman mention forestry, because both public interests, in the form of the Forestry Commission, and private interests have asked my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), who knows a great deal about these things, to bring in an amendment to exclude forestry from the devolved subjects? [Interruption.]
§ Mr. Sproat
I hear some of my hon. Friends ask what that has to do with the public lending right. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is thinking of forestry producing timber, producing pulp for paper. I take the point.
I have published a number of books and I should benefit from a public lending right, but I would rather lose that financial benefit than have such a stupid measure on the statute book. Publishers in London would have to alter all their accounting procedures with regard to authors whose works were stocked from Scottish shelves. No doubt, if the SNP had its way, it would be Scottish authors only who would receive the right, or would it be only those living in Scotland, or—as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) used to say—only those who had a Scottish grandmother, who would count as Scotsmen? I can imagine the appalling difficulties into which we should get as a result of trying to enforce the crazy laws that a Scottish Assembly might introduce. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) must not interrupt me too often or I might be sharper with him than I have been so far.
§ Mr. Sproat
My hon. Friend brings me to a new line of thought. I should be extremely interested to see how the social services might work in Scotland under the control of a Scottish Assembly that might bring in such benefits as telephones for old folk living alone in Scotland. That would be an excellent measure and I should be in favour of it, but it would have an interesting effect on the finances of the GPO in Scotland, and that could have an effect on the GPO in other parts of the United Kingdom, and we should therefore have to have modifications in the United Kingdom law.
§ Mr. Rifkind
Does my hon. Friend realise that under the Bill the Home Secretary would lose the power to control summer time in Scotland? It would be possible for the Scottish Assembly to change the time of day, and that could have consequential implications for the rest of the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. Sproat
That is an extraordinarily important point because although the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) failed to vote on the Scotland (Local Government) Act, he did vote about changing summer time. My hon. Friend has a good case for thinking that the Assembly might bring forward such a provision. We could have the extraordinary situation of it being 1 o'clock in London when it was 12 o'clock in Edinburgh.
§ Mr. Sproat
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who has been so distinguished by his persistent attendance at these debates before that interruption, asks "So what?" The point that my hon. Friend is making is that we would be introducing legislation in Scotland that would affect the rest of the United Kingdom. It would be a similar situation to that in the United States with the difficulties involved in trying to telephone from New York to California when it is teatime in Los Angeles and lunchtime in New York. A Scottish Standing Committee might finish at 1 o'clock in London, but a similar Committee would still be sitting in Edinburgh. One can foresee all sorts of problems arising.
Once we start to scratch the surface of an Assembly that is able to pass legis- 408 lation that will apply to England as well, we are opening a can of worms. I have been thinking of a few chance examples of the top of my head. For instance, what will happen if a dog that is licensed in Scotland runs over the border into England? Presurably that will involve consequential legislation in England.
§ Mr. Sproat
That is a possibility. Suppose a dog was registered in Roxburgh but ran across the border and was caught without a licence in Northumberland.
§ Mr. Tim Renton
My hon. Friend is missing an important point. Control of stray dogs is one of the specifically devolved powers.
§ Mr. Sproat
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) is not here. He has sound views on this matter. I understood him to say that although he would vote for the Bill, he intended to campaign against it in the referendum. I wondered why he was taking such an ultimately splendid attitude, and I realise now that the reason concerns one of the hon. Gentleman's consistent themes, namely, the appalling number of packs of stray dogs that are terrorising postmen and people on housing estates in Dundee.
§ Mr. Cormack
Does my hon. Friend not think that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) is voting as he is because he does not want to lose his dog licence?
§ Mr. Sproat
I remember that phrase from the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). We are using what might seem frivolous examples to make a serious basic point. It must be crazy for the Assembly to have the power to make such legislative proposals as we have mentioned, ranging from salmon fisheries, forestry, public lending right and the ridiculousness of dog licences, and that people in England who have no wish to suffer the consequences of that legislation would have to suffer because people elected to a Scottish Assembly by people living in Scotland said so. That must be wrong.
§ Mr. Gow
Has my hon. Friend addressed himself to the financial consequences of the Bill that are set out on page vi? Is he aware that a fortnight Thursday is the anniversary of the letter sent to Dr. Witteveen in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that it would be an essential element of the Government's economic strategy that there should be a continuous substantial reduction in the share of public resources required by administration?
§ Mr. Sproat
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) for reminding me of a significant anniversary. I must admit that it had escaped my mind. It is true that under this proposed legislation we would not only give power to a Scottish Assembly but would expand in the public sector. It might very well be that as a result of finances expended on public expenditure in Scotland there would be a consequential or incidental reaction to public expenditure in England. It would be interesting if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to reply, if he were present.
§ The Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the amendment. I do not wish to go wider still, but I remind him that it is St. Andrew's Day tomorrow. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will concentrate his mind upon Amendment No. 134.
§ Mr. Sproat
I apologise, Mr. Murton. I was led astray by the excitement of the debate.
I conclude by referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Inverness. I think that I recorded his words exactly. He denied that the "behaviour of the Assembly would be so irresponsible as to create debts". That is one of the subjects that we have touched upon today, and no doubt we shall return to it at greater length in future. It is precisely that point that must always exercise those of us who are root and branch opposed to the Bill. We believe that however the Assembly is run, it will create the expending of more money, even if it is run by the most responsible politicians that can be imagined.
§ Mr. Dalyell
Is there not a real problem of to whom the civil servants, especially in the financial sector, think they are responsible? Are they respon- 410 sible to Ministers in the Scottish Assembly, or is their first loyalty to the United Kingdom? It is no good the Minister of State yawning. The responsibilities of civil servants to two different masters is a real problem.
§ Mr. Sproat
I entirely agree. Civil servants cannot serve two masters, and yet we are introducing another of these irreducible conundrums. If the Assembly gets more money it might exceed the block grant, and even if it does not do so, the greater the block grant, the less for the rest of the United Kingdom. There is no way in which we can get round that.
I return to the hon. Member for Inverness. He said that he did not think that the Assembly would be so irresponsible as to create debts. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that there would be an Oliver Twist syndrome. Not only SNP Members but Labour, Conservative and Liberal Members would always be asking for more. The SNP would be asking for more not merely to improve facilities in Scotland but as a way of driving a wedge between England and Scotland. It would be another weapon to sow discord.
By taking the Bill forward without the amendment we are offering yet another positive incentive to create constitutional conflict between Edinburgh and Westminster. It is essential that we support the amendment.
§ Mr. Crawford
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) has spoken about possible wedges being driven between Scotland and England. His remarks could be construed as constituting a very large wedge.
During the debate the SNP has been accused of being possibly irresponsible in the Scottish Assembly. It has been said that its conduct will lead to conflict and clashes. It has been said that it would be irresponsible with this, that and the next thing. As for financial irresponsibility, I do not think that the Scottish Assembly could in any way, possibly be more financially irresponsible than successive Chancellors of Governments in running the finances of the United Kingdom. It could not be more irresponsible than Lord Barber and the present Chancellor.
If we are talking about causes for conflict, there can be no greater stimulus 411 for conflict than the harsh—I w as about to say venomous—words that we have heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said it would be bad if Edinburgh were to legislate for England. But the House of Commons has legislated for Scotland against the wishes of Scottish Members. What happened to Strathclyde is an example of how English Members have overridden the wishe3 of Scottish Members.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South chided my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) for getting his facts wrong. If the hon. Member looks at the Official Report of 22nd October 1973 of debates on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill he will find that the Commons rejected by 152 votes to 79 the Lords amendment to divide Strathclyde. On the basis of Scottish votes Strathclyde would have been split up since 26 Scots voted for it and 22 against.
§ Mr. Sproat
Does the hon. Member accept that his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said that English Members rejected that proposal on Second and Third Reading? There was no vote on either the Second or Third Readings. What is more, on the amendment that he has mentioned the leader of the Scottish National Party did not even bother to vote.
§ Mr. Crawford
My right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) was the only representative of the SNP in the House at that time.
§ Mr. Cormack
How many times in the last five years has the will of Scottish Members been thwarted by English Members?
§ Mr. Crawford
We have been thwarted on many issues, including unemployment, housing and public expenditure. Willy-nilly, the English Members have a majority in the House, and even if all Scottish Members voted in the same way the English would still have a majority. We saw this during debates on the Scotland and Wales Bill. We saw then how English Members were able to ensure that the guillotine did not fall, even although412 the majority of Scottish Members wished it to fall.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South should look inwards and think carefully before he says that conflict might arise and be stimulated by a Scottish Assembly. Judging from the way he spoke, I suggest that the potential for conflict will arise in this House not in Edinburgh.
§ Mr. Cormack
I am grateful to you, Mr. Murton, for reminding us that tomorrow is St. Andrew's Day. Perhaps all hon. Members should go to St. Stephen's Hall and look at the splendid series of pictures called "Birth of Britain" where they will see Queen Anne receiving the Articles of Union. Tonight we are debating the root of that Union, which we are anxious should be retained. We are debating a recipe for disaster and a prescription for chaos. If the Bill goes through as the Government would have it, and if that Assembly in Edinburgh is allowed to spread chaos and disunity throughout the United Kingdom, as it will, the achievement of 270 years will quickly be brought to nought.
Although it is getting late at night, and although we have, rightly, introduced a little levity into our debate, this is a deeply serious issue about which many of us feel profoundly. We believe in the Union. We believe in what was achieved in 1707, and we do not want to see an ill-conceived, badly-cobbled-together piece of legislation destroy what has been built up over almost three centuries.
Yet here we have a portion of this Bill which would enable a new and untried Assembly in Scotland to legislate, in effect, for the whole of the United Kingdom. That would be a prescription for disaster and chaos. It could lead to the sort of amusing results described by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), but they would not be very amusing in the enacting. They would make people frustrated, angry, deeply suspicious and very hostile.
That is, of course, the very result that the SNP would like to see. Members of that party have no desire to preserve the Union, and it is time we hammered that message home. The SNP stands for total separation, total disruption, the severance of the ties of centuries, an end to almost three centuries of history of the United Kingdom and all the achievements of 413 those years by the Union. The SNP sees this Assembly that the Government are giving it as merely the first step towards a totally sovereign and independent Parliament.
§ Mr. Cormack
I am delighted to have that approbation. I believe that that aspiration is legitimate and honourable, but I will fight it and oppose it with every breath I have and everything that the House enables me to use, because I believe that the majority of people in the United Kingdom and the majority of people in Scotland itself do not want that to come to pass. If the Bill goes through, that day will be that much nearer. I long for the day when we can take this fight to the people of Scotland, when we can give them a chance to express their verdict.
§ Mr. Crawford
The SNP has been wanting the people of Scotland to have that chance to show their verdict for many years, but this House has frustrated it.
§ Mr. Cormack
On that issue at least the hon. Gentleman and I would be totally at one, because it seems manifest nonsense that we should spend long hours on a measure of this kind before the people have had a chance to a say whether they want separation, which is the issue. I have total confidence that they will say that they do not want separation. I am convinced that they will say that they believe in the Act of Union, that they would pay symbolic homage to that picture to which I referred, and that they would honour St. Andrew's Day as one of the days of the four patron saints of the United Kingdom. The sooner they have the chance to say so the better.
It is arrant and manifest nonsense that the Government, in a Bill that they had the chance to reconsider and regurgitate during the longest Summer Recess in recent history, should bring in a provision which enables legislation emanating from a new Assembly in Scotland to influence England and to bind us to certain fundamental decisions over our lives. Whether it be dog licences or public lending rights—on which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South is misguided, although it is the only issue on 414 which he is—or anything else, the principle is wrong.
§ Mr. Russell Johnston
It is not by any manner of means the only thing on which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) is misguided. The question of dog licences has nothing whatever to do with this schedule. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has."] Even if it had, I remind hon. Members that in Switzerland there are 2,000 communes, each of which may have its own dog licences at will. That does nothing to harm the essential unity of Switzerland.
§ Mr. Cormack
I was not aware that we were debating the cantons of Switzerland or the Pekinese of Scotland. But the hon. Gentleman is misguided because stray dogs were specifically mentioned. Although my hon. Friend dealt with that subject in his customary light-hearted but excellent way, he was dealing with an issue which is specifically relevant to the topic under discussion. The whole House owes him a great debt of gratitude. But the fact is that this Bill is flawed through and through.
The Bill performs no service to anybody, least of all to the people of Scotland. To connive at the establishment of an Assembly with these powers would be to spread chaos, disunity and disruption through a kingdom to which most of us are proud to belong, want to serve and wish to see continue for many a long year.
§ Mr. Alexander Fletcher
The Committee is deeply indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for introducing this amendment, because as we have discussed the various matters relating to it we have seen yet again that, no matter for what official reason the Government put a timetable motion on the debates, it is perfectly obvious that they must have known in their heart of hearts that the Bill would not stand up to the sort of detailed investigation and debate that has taken place this evening on this and other matters.
The amendment seeks to remove from the competence of the Assembly any provision which extends outside Scotland. One can imagine the agonies of Ministers and draftsmen all through the hot summer months trying to keep this part of the Bill on a reasonably logical basis.
415 My right hon. Friend talked of the differences that can arise on different pieces of legislation that might be affected by this part of the Bill. He mentioned abortion and adoption laws being different in England from Scotland, and obviously that would imply that various other standards would be affected. This could result in some kind of population drift between the two countries, and I am sure that that would happen for quite the wrong reasons.
§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton
My hon. Friend has dealt briefly with the important question of abortion. Will he consider this further, because I believe that this one issue confounds the whole part of the Bill that we are now dealing with? It would create grave difficulties in this country if the laws on abortion in Scotland were different.
§ Mr. Fletcher
There are already differences between Scots and English law on a number of matters, but we do not want to make artificial differences between the two countries just for their own sake. People expect basic standards of health and social services throughout the United Kingdom, and I am sure that the Minister of State will agree from his experience as a constituency Member that there is no demand for different standards or types of service in these essential matters as between one part of the country and another. The danger is that 150 Assemblymen in Edinburgh will want to make things different just for the sake of having something to do in order to justify their own existence.
These divisions will not be helpful either in implementing the Bill or in the effort to maintain the unity of the United Kingdom. It is divisive to concentrate on and to extend our differences. It causes discontent and drives Scotland apart from the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a movement towards separation.
Of course, there are cultural and legal differences, as I have said, but these are in another category, for good historical reasons. As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, we do not want just to indulge in some kind of musical chairs, making changes because it seems a good way to increase employ- 416 ment among civil servants and bureau. crats in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) hit on an important point when he referred to public lending right, but I am sure that he realises that differences can be brought in also which affect companies, the way companies operate and the climate in which business is carried on in one country or the other. Such matters are bound to be affected by parts of the legislation which could be introduced in an Assembly.
This debate, therefore, returns to the crux of the matter and raises again the question whether the institution devised in the Bill could possibly survive not only in the present political climate in Scotland, but in the sort of political climate which it is bound to stoke up for the future. We should remember that although we are discussing a constitutional Bill there is not a bit of evidence to suggest that we are fighting a constitutional battle in Scotland. We are fighting a political battle, one party with another, and one party in particular is trying to upstage all the others with its demands for just about anything and everything. But there is no evidence that we are fighting a constitutional battle or constitutional campaign in regard to Scottish politics at the moment. What this ambiguous Bill does is to feed the fires and differences.
I know that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) takes a different view. He has stated that the Assembly is being created because there is conflict now. I think that he misunderstands the situation, if I may say so. I do not deny that they exist, but today's political conflicts in Scotland, just as those in any other part of Britain, can be at least sorted out and settled to the best of our ability in one arena, here in the House of Commons. I know that that is difficult enough at times, but none the less this is the place where we can get together and try to sort out our differences.
§ Mr. Russell Johnston
Is that the definitive answer from the Tory Front Bench, that the Tory Opposition do not want devolution at all and it can all be done here?
§ Mr. Fletcher
The point I am putting it seems a good way to increase employ- 417 He says that the Assembly is being created because there is conflict now. That is his reason for it. I am saying that whereas today's conflicts can be sorted out in one arena, here in the House of Commons, although that is difficult enough, the proposals in the Bill and the conflict which is built into the Bill will make it extremely difficult for us to settle conflicts in the future, because we shall find two different pillboxes engaging in battle. That is not the intention of those who propose devolution for Scotland. The intention is quite different from the proposals in the Bill. Again one wonders how the Government could possibly in the first place have put the ill-fated Clause 1 into the Bill and claim, as they did, that it did not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the sovereignty of Parliament.
I admire the Minister's coolness in replying to our debates. I hope that when he replies to this one he will take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). I hope that he will remember that the House of Commons should legislate in matters which affect the United Kingdom. I hope that he will remember that he stands at the Box as a United Kingdom Minister and that he will take the question of conflict, which has been seriously put to him, into account in his winding-up speech.
§ Mr. John Smith
When the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) moved the amendment, in his usual careful and precise way, I doubt whether he imagined that the debate would reach the wilder shores of fancy in which hon. Members have indulged. We have been told that all sorts of horrendous and terrific things will be done to innocent citizens in England by the wild, uncontrollable Assembly that will sit in Edinburgh.
It would be fair to remind the Committee of the powers contained in paragraph 8. Its essence is that the provisions empower the enactment of ancillary provisions relating to matters other than devolved matters, or extending to another part of the United Kingdom other than Scotland, only if those ancillary provisions are truly subsidiary to the purposes for which the Assembly Act has been passed. They are not an attempt to trespass into reserved or non-devolved 418 matters. That is implicit in the wording of the paragraph itself.
§ Mr. Smith
I should not have given way to the right hon. Gentleman because I was about to come to the clause when he interrupted.
It is implicit in the wording of the subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 8. Paragraph 8(a) refers to provisions that arenecessary or expedient for making other provisions effective or for the enforcement of other provisions.Paragraph 8(b) specifically recognises that the first category in paragraph 8(a) is also incidental or consequential in nature by the use of the word "otherwise". I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to that point.
In plain terms, in paragraph 8 we are dealing with two classes of ancillary provision, the first being incidental or consequential provisions needed to make an Assembly Act effective or enforceable, and the second being any kind of amending provisions which could be said to be incidental or consequential to any provisions of an Assembly Act. I am describing the meaning in plain terms.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked why we needed the provisions at all. It is because where we have an Assembly operating within devolved areas, properly within its own functions, making changes in the names of institutions or changes in the institutions themselves it is necessary to make amendments to other United Kingdom Acts of Parliament beyond the scope of the Assembly's legislative competence. If we did not deal with it by having these ancillary provisions it would be necessary to pass an Act of Parliament to make all the consequential changes in United Kingdom legislation.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) raised the question of consultation between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Assembly. He was one of the few hon. Members to appreciate the limited nature of the powers given in paragraph 8. It will be necessary for the United Kingdom 419 Government and the Scottish Administration to consult, and we expect that they will consult regularly about these provisions. It will be necessary for there to be a dialogue about it. But if there were some disagreement and if a Scottish Assembly attempted to sneak past as an incidental provision something which was a substantive matter which was not within its legislative competence, the United Kingdom Government could refer it to the Judicial Committee as a matter of vires, and the Judicial Committee could decide whether it was incidental or consequential, or whether it was an attempt to legislate for the United Kingdom. That is a very important protection.
§ Mr. Rifkind
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but I was not simply saying that there should be consultation between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive. I was saying that if ancillary legislation was required to change the law of England it was much more appropriate that this Parliament should have the power to pass it, and that the Assembly's powers should be limited to affecting the law of Scotland.
§ Mr. Smith
I am aware of that point and am dealing with it. Is it sensible that we must introduce separate legislation in this House for each minor, technical amendment? It is not easy to find time for legislation.
The right hon. Member for Crosby was carried away with exaggeration when he said that the provision could drive a coach and pair——
§ Mr. Smith
—through the whole matter of competence as between the Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament. He knows that any attempt to do that would be clearly ultra vires and could be checked by the Judicial Committee.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates what the provisions mean, but some of his hon. Friends obviously do not. What we propose is a much easier and neater way of dealing with minor tidying-up than requiring the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate to make corrections to Acts. For example, the Assembly might abolish the Housing Corporation, change its name or bring 420 in a different agency, so that it would be necessary to make a technical amendment to the Finance Act where it referred to the original body. That is a technical amendment which could easily be made under the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member for Pentlands said that we should have a separate Act to deal with such a matter, but I think that he would accept that that would be totally out of scale with the problem.
§ Mr. Rifkind
I am saying that it should be the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament. Whether it was done through an Act or subsidiary regulations would be a matter for Parliament to decide. But under no circumstances should it be possible for the Assembly to change a Finance Act passed by Parliament.
§ Mr. Smith
It is difficult to deal with two interventions at the same time. The hon. Member for Pentlands says that in all circumstances it should be for the United Kingdom Parliament to decide. But the United Kingdom Government have the check of referring the question of vires and the check of override, so I cannot see why hon. Members have this fear. They have been trying to suggest that somehow the Assembly will be able to make massive changes in the law of England outwith the territory of Scotland and totally subvert the whole legislative process of this House. They must know that that is absolute rubbish. There is nothing in the paragraph that gives anything like that power. These are ancillary and consequential provisions, and not much more.
§ Mr. Brittan
If that is so, would it not be appropriate that the matter should be dealt with under Clause 35, which gives the United Kingdom Parliament power to make consequential changes? That would not have the political difficulties of the Assembly's appearing to be legislating for England.
§ Mr. Smith
In many cases that is one technique that can be used to deal with such problems, but it is sensible to have a capacity for the Assembly to deal with 421 the matter, by giving it the limited capacity which has been given. It is being said by the alarmists that this is a much wider power than the Assembly can have. The truth is that it is a very sensible provision which is necessary when we have a Scottish Assembly legislating on matters where its legislation must dovetail neatly with the United Kingdom legislation, because our body of law will be created by the Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament, and it will make sense for everybody who has to operate under that legislation if the two pieces of legislation dovetail together.
Some of the wilder fancies that we have traversed in the course of the debate imply that the Scottish Assembly could make changes in the substantive law of England. I reject that absolutely. It cannot. Such changes must be incidental
§ to the provisions. I ask the House to move away from the wild exaggeration that we have had in the course of the debate and to start to look at the Bill much more constructively and carefully. If Conservative Members read Hansard tomorrow they will find that the steps of my argument have been careful and precise. I therefore ask the House not to accept the amendment.
§ It being Eleven 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 amendment be made: —
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 135, Noes 170.423
|Division No. 25]||AYES||[11.0 p.m.|
|Adley, Robert||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Page, Richard (Workington)|
|Alison, Michael||Hampson, Dr Keith||Pattie, Geoffrey|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Hannam, John||Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch|
|Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)||Haselhurst, Alan||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg|
|Awdry, Daniel||Hodgson, Robin||Pym, Rt Hon Francis|
|Baker, Kenneth||Holland, Philip||Rathbone, Tim|
|Benyon, W.||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)|
|Biffen, John||Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Hurd, Douglas||Ridley, Hon Nicholas|
|Bottomley, Peter||James, David||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd)||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)|
|Brittan, Leon||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Brooke, Peter||Kershaw, Anthony||Ross, William (Londonderry)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||King, Evelyn (South Dorset)||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Buck, Antony||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)|
|Burden, F. A.||Knox, David||Sainsbury, Tim|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Carlisle, Mark||Lawrence, Ivan||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Carson, John||Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Luce, Richard||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||McCrindle, Robert||Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||McCusker, H.||Sproat, Iain|
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||Macfarlane, Neil||Stainton, Keith|
|Cope, John||MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)||Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)|
|Cormack, Patrick||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Stokes, John|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Marten, Neil||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Drayson, Burnaby||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Tapsell, Peter|
|Eden, Rt Hon Sir John||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)|
|Fairgrieve, Russell||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)||Tebbit, Norman|
|Fisher, Sir Nigel||Mills, Peter||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)||Miscampbell, Norman||Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Moate, Roger||Viggers, Peter|
|Forman, Nigel||Molyneaux, James||Wall, Patrick|
|Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)||Monro, Hector||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Fox, Marcus||Montgomery, Fergus||Wells, John|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Moore, John (Croydon C)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Morgan, Geraint||Wood, Rt Hon Richard|
|Goodhew, Victor||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)|
|Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)||Younger, Hon George|
|Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Nelson, Anthony|
|Griffiths, Eldon||Neubert, Michael||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Grist, Ian||Newton, Tony||Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. John MacGregor.|
|Hall, Sir John||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.|
|Allaun, Frank||Grant, John (Islington C)||O'Halloran, Michael|
|Anderson, Donald||Grimond, Rt Hon J.||Orbach, Maurice|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Harper, Joseph||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Ovenden, John|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||Hart, Rt Hon Judith||Palmer, Arthur|
|Atkinson, Norman||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Pardoe, John|
|Bain, Mrs Margaret||Hatton, Frank||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Henderson, Douglas||Penhaligon, David|
|Bates, Alf||Hooley, Frank||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Bean, R. E.||Hooson, Emlyn||Radice, Giles|
|Beith, A. J.||Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)||Richardson, Miss Jo|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)||Roderick, Caerwyn|
|Bishop, Rt Hon Edward||Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)||Rodgers, George (Charley)|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Rooker, J. W.|
|Boardman, H.||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Rose, Paul B.|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Hunter, Adam||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)|
|Buchan, Norman||Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)||Rowlands, Ted|
|Buchanan, Richard||Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)||Sever, John|
|Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Janner, Greville||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Campbell, Ian||John, Brynmor||Skinner, Dennis|
|Canavan, Dennis||Johnson, James (Hull West)||Small, William|
|Carmichael, Neil||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Jones, Alec (Rhondda)||Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)|
|Clemitson, Ivor||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)||Kerr, Russell||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Cohen, Stanley||Lambie, David||Stallard, A. W.|
|Coleman, Donald||Lamond, James||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)|
|Crawford, Douglas||Litterick, Tom||Stoddart, David|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Loyden, Eddie||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)|
|Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)||Luard, Evan||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Cryer, Bob||Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)|
|Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)||Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson||Thompson, George|
|Dalyell, Tam||MacCormick, Iain||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)||McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||McElhone, Frank||Tinn, James|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||MacFarquhar, Roderick||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|Deakins, Eric||Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor||Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Mackintosh, John P.||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Dempsey, James||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)||Ward, Michael|
|Doig, Peter||Madden, Max||Watkins, David|
|Dormand, J. D.||Mahon, Simon||Watt, Hamish|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Welsh, Andrew|
|Edge, Geoff||Marks, Kenneth||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|English, Michael||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||White, James (Pollok)|
|Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Whitlock, William|
|Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||Maynard, Miss Joan||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch' ch)|
|Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)|
|Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kllbride)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Mitchell, Austin||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)|
|Flannery, Martin||Molloy, William||Wilson, William (Coventry SE)|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Forrester, John||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Woof, Robert|
|Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald||Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King|
|George, Bruce||Newens, Stanley||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Gourlay, Harry||Noble, Mike||Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Ted Graham|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||Oakes, Gordon|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.424
§ Question put, That this schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill: —
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 168, Noes 135.427
|Division No. 26]||AYES||[11.15 p.m.|
|Allaun, Frank||Blenkinsop, Arthur||Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)|
|Anderson, Donald||Boardman, H.||Cohen, Stanley|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Coleman, Donald|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Bray, Dr Jeremy||Cox, Thomas (Tooting)|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||Buchan, Norman||Crawford, Douglas|
|Bain, Mrs Margaret||Buchanan, Richard||Crawshaw, Richard|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)|
|Bates, Alf||Campbell, Ian||Cryer, Bob|
|Bean, R. E.||Canavan, Dennis||Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)|
|Beith, A. J.||Carmichael, Neil||Dalyell, Tam|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Carter-Jones, Lewis||Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)|
|Bishop, Rt Hon Edward||Clemitson, Ivor||Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Jones, Alec (Rhondda)||Roderick, Caerwyn|
|Deakins, Eric||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Rodgers, George (Chorley)|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Kerr, Russell||Rooker, J. W.|
|Dempsey, James||Lamble, David||Rose, Paul B.|
|Doig, Peter||Lamond, James||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Dormand, J. D.||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Litterick, Tom||Rowlands, Ted|
|Edge, Geoff||Loyden, Eddie||Sever, John|
|English, Michael||Luard, Evan||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)||Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson||Small, William|
|Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)||MacCormick, Iain||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.||McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)|
|Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||McElhone, Frank||Spearing, Nigel|
|Flannery, Martin||MacFarquhar, Roderick||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor||Stallard, A. W.|
|Forrester, John||Mackintosh, John P.||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)||Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)|
|George, Bruce||Madden, Max||Stoddart, David|
|Gourlay, Harry||Mahon, Simon||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)|
|Grant, John (Islington C)||Marks, Kenneth||Thompson, George|
|Grimond, Rt Hon J.||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)|
|Harper, Joseph||Maynard, Miss Joan||Tinn, James|
|Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|Hart, Rt Hon Judith||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Mitchell, Austin||Ward, Michael|
|Hatton, Frank||Molloy, William||Watkins, David|
|Henderson, Douglas||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Watt, Hamish|
|Hooley, Frank||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Welsh, Andrew|
|Hooson, Emlyn||Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)||Newens, Stanley||White, James (Pollok)|
|Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)||Noble, Mike||Whitlock, William|
|Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)||Oakes, Gordon||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||O'Halloran, Michael||Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Orbach, Maurice||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)|
|Hunter, Adam||Palmer, Arthur||Wilson, William (Coventry SE)|
|Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)||Pardoe, John||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)||Pavitt, Laurie||Woof, Robert|
|Janner, Greville||Penhaligon, David|
|John, Brynmor||Price, William (Rugby)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Johnson, James (Hull West)||Radice, Giles||Mrs. Ann Taylor and Mr. Ted Graham.|
|Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Richardson, Miss Jo|
|Adley, Robert||Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Alison, Michael||Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Glyn, Dr Alan||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)|
|Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)||Goodhew, Victor||Mills, Peter|
|Baker, Kenneth||Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Benyon, W.||Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Moate, Roger|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Griffiths, Eldon||Molyneaux, James|
|Biffen, John||Grist, Ian||Monro, Hector|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Hall, Sir John||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Bottomley, Peter||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Moore, John (Croydon C)|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||More, Jasper (Ludlow)|
|Bradford, Rev Robert||Hampson, Dr Keith||Morgan, Geraint|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Hannam, John||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)|
|Brittan, Leon||Haselhurst, Alan||Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)|
|Brooke, Peter||Hodgson, Robin||Nelson, Anthony|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Holland, Philip||Neubert, Michael|
|Buck, Antony||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Newton, Tony|
|Burden, F. A.||Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Page, Richard (Workington)|
|Carlisle, Mark||Hurd, Douglas||Pattie, Geoffrey|
|Carson, John||James, David||Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd)||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg|
|Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Pym, Rt Hon Francis|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Kershaw, Anthony||Rathbone, Tim|
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||King, Evelyn (South Dorset)||Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)|
|Cope, John||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)|
|Cormack, Patrick||Knox, David||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Ridley, Hon Nicholas|
|Drayson, Burnaby||Lawrence, Ivan||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Eden, Rt Hon Sir John||Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Fairgrieve, Russell||Luce, Richard||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)|
|Fisher, Sir Nigel||McCrindle, Robert||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)||McCusker, H.||Ross, William (Londonderry)|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Macfarlane, Neil||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Forman, Nigel||MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)||Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)|
|Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Sainsbury, Tim|
|Fox, Marcus||Marten, Neil||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Shelton, William (Streatham)||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Sinclair, Sir George||Tebbit, Norman||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Skeet, T. H. H.||Temple-Morris, Peter||Wood, Rt Hon Richard|
|Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)||Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)||Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)|
|Sproat, Iain||Viggers, Peter||Younger, Hon George|
|Stainton, Keith||Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)|
|Stokes, John||Wall, Patrick||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Stradling Thomas, J.||Weatherill, Bernard||Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. John MacGregor.|
|Tapsell, Peter||Wells, John|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ ThenTHE CHAIRMANleft the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to order [16th November].428
§ Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.