§
Lords amendment: No. 81, in page 19, line 26, at end insert new clause "D"—
("D. Where it appears to the Secretary of State that—
would or might cause substantial detriment to the special social or economic needs and interests of the Orkney Islands or the Shetland Islands or any or their inhabitants or to the status of their councils, sections 35, 36 and 37 of this Act shall apply respectively as they would apply if that provision, action or instrument were such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of section 35 or, as the case may be, 36 or 37.")
§ 6.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this we are to take Lords amendments nos. 105 and 107.
Mr. MilanThis amendment deals with the question of Orkney and Shetland. Although this is a short debate, I should briefly give the background.
As the Bill left this House, subsection (3) of clause 80 stated that in the event of the majority of the people in either Orkney or Shetland or both voting in the referendum against the implementation of the Act, there would be an obligation on the Secretary of State to lay before the House the draft of an Order in Council in effect excluding those areas from the implementation of the Act and providing also for the establishment of a commission to recommend changes in the government of Orkney and/or Shetland.
On Third Reading, I made it clear that I believed that provision to be a mistake. In particular, I thought that it would be detrimental to Orkney and Shetland if, following the referendum, devolution were to go ahead but they were to be excluded, even if only for a temporary period. I 90 believed that it would be not a short temporary period but a long one. For a whole lot of administrative and other reasons, as well as for wider reasons, I thought that such a situation would be considerably disadvantageous to the people of Orkney and Shetland.
Subsequently, I had discussions with the islands councils, and, of course, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), whose amendment it was that I criticised during the passage of the Bill through the House, was involved. The aim was to see whether we could get a provision in the Bill specially relating to Orkney and Shetland which would be acceptable to the Government and to the islands councils as representing the people of Orkney and Shetland. This we have managed to do in terms which now appear as Lords amendments nos. 81, 105 and 107.
In approaching this matter, I had accepted all along that there were genuine apprehensions in Orkney and Shetland that the establishment of a Scottish Assembly could act to their detriment. There were a number of different aspects. For example, there were the questions of oil-related activity and the harbour provisions in the county council Acts. There was also a number of other matters about which the people of the islands felt certain apprehensions. I made clear at the time, and still take the view, that some of those apprehensions are ill founded. Nevertheless, they are genuine, as I readily admit, and as I said on Third Reading.
In the circumstances, I accepted that we should have to write, and ought to write, special provisions into the Bill. There are now two special provisions written into the Bill by amendments moved by the Government in another place. They appear in amendments nos. 81 and 105. At the same time, amendment no. 107 takes out the particular bit of clause 80 which, as I have said, I felt was undesirable and would be likely in its application—assuming, that is, that devolution were to go ahead and the people in Orkney and Shetland voted against it —to be detrimental to the people of Orkney and Shetland.
Amendment no. 81 writes in a new clause after clause 37 providing for certain override powers in relation specifically to Orkney and Shetland. What it 91 says is that where it appears to the Secretary of State that a Bill passed by the Assembly, or any action to be taken on behalf of a Scottish Secretary, or any instrument made by him under any Act of Parliament or Scottish Assembly Act,
would or might cause substantial detriment to the special social or economic needs and interests of the Orkney Islands or the Shetland Islands".the override provisions which are expressed in general terms in the Bill shall apply to the particular provisions as they apply in the general override powers of the Bill, and the Secretary of State will be able to take action to safeguard the special social or economic needs and interests of the Orkney Islands or the Shetland islands.I believe that this is a very significant increase in the safeguards for Orkney and Shetland written into the Bill. As well as being accepted by the other place, it has been welcomed by the islands council on behalf of the people in the islands as giving them the kind of special protection which they have always wanted to be written into the Bill in their special circumstances.
§ Mr. DalyellAssuming good faith in this matter, which I do, how is it possible, with the best will in the world, to bind any successor in this matter? One Government cannot bind another. That is the difficulty here.
Mr. MilianAs I understand the position, this power will depend on the Secretary of State. Many other things depend on the Secretary of State. This was explained in the most explicit terms in the meetings that I had with the Shetland islands council and the Orkney islands council. They supported the amendment following the meetings that I had with them. That was the view they took. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that I made the effect of the amendment absolutely clear in the meetings that I had in Orkney and Shetland.
§ Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)The Secretary of State has said, I think, a couple of times —I refer to the Shetlands and not Orkney —that what he is doing has the approval of the Shetlands islands council. Will he say whether it has the unanimous appro- 92 val of the Shetland islands council? If not, will he give some indication whether it is a very narrow majority?
Mr. MilianIt has not the unanimous approval of either council, and my hon. Friend, who has been following this, already knows that. There are not many things which pass through this House with unanimous approval. I am saying that the two councils, which were elected as recently as May of this year, have approved these amendments, after discussions that I have had with them.
Amendment no. 105 provides for the establishment of a commission to look at the government of the Orkney and Shetland islands. This is to meet what are obviously real apprehensions from the longer-term point of view about the operation of the Scottish Assembly in relation to Orkney and Shetland. By the first amendment we have written certain provisions into the Bill which will apply when the Assembly is in operation. At the same time, we are taking on the obligation under the second amendment to establish a commission which will look at the government of the Orkneys and Shetlands from a longer-term point of view.
What we are doing here has two particular aspects. There is the immediate aspect of the override powers which will provide protections as soon as the Bill is in operation. There is also the longer-term aspect of looking at the government of Orkney and Shetland which is provided for by the establishment of the commission under Amendment No. 105.
There is, therefore, an obligation, if the first commencement order is made under the Act, and the Assembly is to be established, for the Secretary of State, within three months of the making of that first order, to establish a commission to look at the government of Orkney and Shetland and to recommend such changes as may be desirable. In making its recommendations, as the amendment says,
the commission shall have regard, among other things, to the special social and economic needs and interests of the Islands".It goes on, making the position absolutely clear and explicit, to say that any recommendations from that commissionmay include recommendations for making changes in this Act, including changes in the constitution and powers of the Assembly.93 The matter will fall, therefore, within the competence of the recommendations of the commission.The Shetland council had itself taken the step of asking the people in Shetland to vote on whether they wanted a commission of this nature. The people have voted quite overwhelming for that, and I have no doubt that a similar test of opinion in Orkney would have produced the same result. This provision for the establishment of a commission has the approval of the council in Orkney and has the approval also of the council in Shetland.
The place at which these amendments have to be decided, of course, is here in the House of Commons. We have to make the judgment whether these provisions are sensible. I believe that they are. I believe that they provide a settlement to an argument which has continued during the course of the Bill in a way which is acceptable to the representatives of the people of the islands. I know that it is acceptable to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
It is a matter for the House to decide, but I suggest that an agreement of this sort, and amendments of this sort, which have the support of the people in the islands themselves, ought to be seriously considered by this House and ought also to have the approval of this House. That is why I am recommending that we agree with these amendments.
§ Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)When the Scotland Bill was first introduced, I set out to achieve two aims for Orkney and Shetland. The first was that there should be safeguards for the special position and interests of the islands.
Among the most important of these was, first, that the special Acts and provisions relating to oil and its revenues should be safeguarded. Second, that the position of the Shetland and Orkney islands councils, as independent all-purpose authorities, should be maintained. Thirdly, there was our concern over prospects for fishing. Fourthly, I wanted to ensure that we should have better treatment over freight charges and fares, and transport generally. Lastly, we wished to ensure that our separate tradition, way of life and history—including the unique nature of Shetland knitwear, dependent 94 upon crofting—should also be safe-guarded.
I have always said that the problems of transport and freight charges for the basic industries were just as important as the constitutional position of the islands. My original amendment to the Bill, dealing with these and other related matters, was not reached and therefore was not passed, but the new amendment which the Secretary of State has explained, Amendment No. 81, was negotiated between him and the island authorities and myself. Then certain further changes to it were negotiated between the Minister of State and myself. These were accepted by the two island authorities, and ultimately they were written into the Bill by the Lords.
The safeguards take the form of extending the Secretary of State's override powers, so that if it appears to him, or his successors, that any Bill, order or action of the Assembly, or the Scottish Executive, would be to the detriment of the needs and interests of Orkney or Shetland then the Secretary of State can use his powers under Clauses 35, 36 and 37 to call in the proposals of the Assembly, or of the Scottish Secretary, and in one case ask the House of Commons to agree to veto such proposals or in the other to forbid the proposed action. What is important is that the Secretary of State's powers will extend to any attempt to alter the status of the island authorities.
6.30 p.m.
These amendments may not be ideal. I myself should have preferred them to be more specific, although there are always difficulties about specifically stating in Acts of Parliament certain points without detracting from the generality. However, I should have preferred it had they been more specific. Their effectiveness will to some extent depend upon the Secretary of State, but under the previous amendment not passed by this House, and under all requests of the islands councils, we should equally have been dependent upon the Secretary of State.
At one time the Shetland position was that it would like to remain under the Secretary of State for all purposes. Therefore, it hardly lies in the mouth of the islands council to say that we cannot rely 95 upon him. Further, although it will to some extent be a matter of what action the Secretary of State takes, he will be bound by the Act. If he fails to use his discretion he can be questioned in this place. I suppose that Adjournment debates, as well as the full panoply of parliamentary debate, could be brought to bear upon him.
Another point is what the word "public" means in Clause 35. I have never been quite certain whether "against the public interest" refers simply to the public interest of Scotland or to the public interest of Great Britain. However, although improvements could perhaps be made in the drafting, there is no doubt that in their final form these amendments were accepted by the islands councils. Indeed, in my view, they were greatly improved during the course of negotiations with the two right hon. Members in charge of the Bill. Indeed, had they not been so improved I myself could not have recommended their acceptance.
My other aim was to procure the setting up of a commission to examine the future government of Orkney and Shetland. For instance, I have been attracted by the possibility of going some way towards the position of the Isle of Man. An amendment along these lines was tabled in the Commons was passed and we are most grateful to hon. Members of all the major parties, except the nationalist parties, who voted for it. However, it had certain possible drawbacks. As the Secretary of State has said, it would have led to some interregnum. How difficult that would have been to get over is to some extent a matter of opinion. However, there is no doubt that it was valid to say that it would have led to some doubt about the administration of Orkney and Shetland while the commission sat.
Secondly, the commission would have been set up only had Orkney and Shetland voted "No." If they were not to do so—and there is no certainty how they will vote—then there would be no commission. In fact, the original amendment tied the commission to a "No" vote. Thirdly, the setting up of the commission could have required a vote in Parliament. Therefore, it was just possible that, even if the islands did vote "No", no commission would have been set up. Now, at 96 any rate, we have the certainty of a commission, and that is some additional gain.
Further, and most important, in the words of Amendment No. 105,
the commission shall have regard, among other things, to the special social and economic needs and interests of the Islands;That is to say, it can range far beyond the mere constitutional position and look at such matters as treatment over transport, fishing and so forth, which are certainly included in thesocial and economic needs…of the Islands:As I have said, I regard that as being of considerable importance. In addition, the commission can even make a recommendation for changes in the powers of the Assembly. In fact, it has a very wide remit. I hope that it will use it to look at the various possibilities for the future government of the islands, including possibly the Isle of Man position.I therefore maintain that I have achieved a great deal of my original aims. The islands councils are satisfied, but are anxious to be assured that they will be consulted on the setting up of the commission, on the exact terms of its remit, and on its membership. So far as he is able, I hope that the Minister will give that assurance. The councils also attach importance to the fact that the commission will report back to the Secretary of State and this House. I take it that that, too, is certain.
The arrangement, as it has come down from the other place, is a package deal. If any part of the package fails, we go back to the previous amendment. Orkney and Shetland would never have got these twin aims had we not passed the previous amendment. They now have the chance of producing their evidence to the commission about their future. It is hoped that through the commission a form of government will be achieved which will enable the islands to develop their unique characteristics as an island community.
As island communities, Orkney and Shetland differ in history and tradition from the rest of Scotland. The islands are faced with the risk of oil developments and are badly handicapped by high transport costs and uncertainties over fishing. No other part of Scotand is in that position. Parliament has rightly 97 decided, and the Secretary of State has agreed, that the islands need special treatment. From now on I hope that they will continue to receive that treatment and that the amendments, as they are put into force, will give the islands the safeguards and the help to which they are entitled.
§ Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire)The first point to be made is one which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), namely, that the provisions in these amendments would not have been moved by the Government had it not been for this House agreeing to a previous amendment against the advice of the Government. Had it not been for the House of Commons forcing through that amendment, the kind of safeguard sought by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland would not have been contemplated by the Government.
Therefore, it must be said that these amendments make the Bill better than it otherwise would have been. Quite clearly there are special circumstances and factors relating to Orkney and Shetland. That is why we Conservatives supported the original amendment. Originally, those factors were not taken into account by the Secretary of State, as he himself has admitted. But he came to accept that the apprehensions felt in the islands were very real.
In no way do I want to sound carping after what the Government have done, but I think that the amendments are on the vague side. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that he would have liked them to be more specific, and I agree with that view. Indeed, in a sense they are so vague as to be possibly of rather less value than they might at first appear. From contacts with Shetland islanders—and I have seen deputations from the islands—we know that they were consulted on several occasions. But it seems that they were put under quite considerable pressure to accept, or at any rate consider and decide upon, the amendments which are now before the House. I do not suppose for a moment that there was any misleading at all. I am not making that charge. But it is a fact that the Shetland islands council was put under very great pressure to agree. I hope that 98 it understands the limitation of what is now proposed.
It seems to me that the islands are not offered a great deal under new clause D, which says:
Where it appears to the Secretary of State—no one else, just him—that…any provision…or any action… or any instrument…would or might cause substantial detriment to the special social or economic needs and interests of the Islands.That is pretty vague phraseology. I am not sure how much reliance can be placed upon it. One must say that, and hope that the Minister will say something more about it in his reply. Does it really give the islands the protection for which they were hoping? The Secretary of State must be convinced, first, that something is genuinely wrong and, what is more, he must be convinced that the enactment or provision or whatever is referred to is not in the public interest. This is the same wording as applies in the override powers which we debated earlier, but there is no clear definition of "public" and the judgment about it must be made by the Secretary of State.It seems to me that there is a potential for controversy, because the Secretary of State has to consider not only what is said in the clause—
substantial detriment to the special..needs and interests of the… islands"—but also that substantial detriment in relation to the whole of the rest of Scotland and other regions in Scotland. He must decide whether in the public interest what is proposed may be more detrimental to another part of Scotland or to the whole of Scotland than perhaps it would be to the Shetlands or the Orkneys.
§ Mr. DalyellAs a former Secretary of State, albeit for Northern Ireland, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the words "substantial detriment" mean precisely what the Secretary of State of the day thinks is politically expedient to him? Is not the interpretation of these words absolutely crucial? What Secretary of State will take on his own party in the Assembly on behalf of what is naturally a very small minority? Do not Shetlanders have to face up to these political facts?
§ Mr. PymThat is exactly the point that I was trying to make. The assurance, in so far as it can be said to be any assurance, is very vague. "Substantial detriment" is very difficult, if not impossible, to define. The phrase appears to relate to the Orkney Islands and the Shetland Islands. If the public interest comes into it, and if the consequence of not taking a particular action would cause substantial detriment to, say, the region of the Western Isles or to the Grampian region or to the rest of Scotland for any reason whatsoever, is not that an exceptionally difficult judgment to make? There is no absolute guarantee that, if there is to be substantial detriment on any common sense basis, the Secretary of State might still not take any action because in the public interest the consequences for other parts of Scotland would be equally detrimental.
§ Mr. GrimondI take the right hon. Gentleman's point and I wish that there could have been closer definition. However, it must be borne in mind that, had the Bill remained in the state in which it left the Commons, there would have been no safeguard at all: this is an additional clause.
§ Mr. PymI entirely accept that, and I do not want to be carping about it. However, the House should not misunderstand the true nature of what it is asked to agree to.
On new clause H—the longer-term proposal to establish a commission—I strongly support what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said about the consultation which should take place with the people of the islands about the establishment of the commission, about working out its terms of reference and, I suggest, about its membership. The Secretary of State has consulated the people of the islands and I am sure that he will continue to do that, but they will appreciate an undertaking from him given in the House today—as he says, the House must reach a conclusion on this—that he will consult the islanders both on the terms of reference of the commission and on its membership. That is particularly important in view of the almost shotgun circumstances in which finally the Shetland islands council had to come to a conclusion about whether to agree to what 100 the Government propose in these amendments.
We shall not oppose these amendments, of course. They are certainlly an improvement on the Bill as originally drafted. We accept them on that basis. However, I think that they are of a very limited character.
§ Mr. George CunninghamI shall be extremely brief in order to ensure that others are able to get into the debate.
I am sorry to hear the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) say that, of course, the Opposition will not be opposing these amendments. I absolutely understand the difficulties if a majority—note the word "majority"—of the Shetland islands council decide to favour these amendments: it is extremely difficult for Members of this House to say that we shall override that majority and nevertheless vote against the amendments.
For reasons that I shall give, I should be prepared to do so. But it is absolutely clear that there is not a majority in the House for killing these amendments, and for myself I think it would be a waste of time, at 7 p.m. to go through the charade of a Division, but I am opposed to the amendments and would call a Division and vote against them if there were any chance whatever of a majority of the House going the same way.
6.45 p.m.
When these amendments passed in the House of Lords some misinformed newspapers carried the story the other day that the Government had made enormous concessions to the people of Orkney and Shetland. Of course, that is the very opposite of the case. The Government made no concessions whatever. The worst position from the Government's point of view was the amendment we made to the Bill—Amendment No. 149 in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—when we had the Bill previously. Compared with that, anything else was preferable. That is why in the end, after having made some gestures and offers, the Government overcame all their objections of principle and practicality and gave the Shetlanders what they thought was necessary in order to obtain a majority within the Shetland islands council.
101 Let us remember something: amendment no. 149 was passed through the House not only by a large majority but at the specific and urgent and strongly-worded request of the Shetland islands council, a request which had been repeated in two Sessions. It was said at the time "We know that if this passes through the House there will be attempts to kill it later on and we hope that you will resist those attempts."
It should also be said that at the time when all this was at its most active a referendum was held within Shetland to find whether the people of Shetland supported the activities of their Member of Parliament and of the islands council in endeavouring to safeguard the islands' interests. The means chosen by the Member and by the islands council at that time to safeguard the interests of Shetland were Amendment No. 149. It is, therefore, arguable that the Shetland islands council at the moment is in some ways not free to go against what received the backing of the referendum held on Shetland. There was an enormous poll and the proposal received an enormous majority. We must take that into account.
That is the principal reason why, if there were to be a serious vote at 7 p.m., I personally would vote against these amendments, because I took that referendum to mean that the people of Shetland gave support to amendment No. 149, which is what the council and the Member of Parliament were at that time arguing for.
It must be remembered also that the majority on the Shetland islands council in favour of going along with this compromise was extremely narrow. It is not the case that every member of the council wanted it. It is not the case that there was near unanimity. It is the case that the proposal was nearly defeated, and all the previous proposals were defeated by large majorities. So if people were going against the recommendations of a majority of the islands council they would be going in favour of practically 50 per cent. of the members of the islands council.
I agree with the spokesman for the Opposition that the Shetlanders are placing their faith in safeguards that will turn out to be insubstantial. It is inconceivable that a Secretary of State would 102 easily bring himself to lay an order before the House to overcome something which had been decided by the Assembly or by a Scottish Secretary. What the Shetlanders are saying is "At your urgent demand we agree to go into devolution provided you safeguard us against the necessary and natural consequences of doing so." That is what they are asking us to do.
There is no way that can happen. The Shetlanders either go into devolution and take the consequences or they do not. That choice they previously had. At the moment they are being misled, and perhaps they are misleading themselves, that this compromise is possible whereby they can go in under the Assembly but be protected against it. I do not believe that they can rely upon those safeguards and I am sorry that they allowed themselves to be persuaded that they should invite the House to make these changes to the very sensible proposal which we passed on 25th January.
§ Miss Harvie AndersonI am very perturbed about developments in this matter, in which I have a considerable interest. My interest in the issue began long before discussions on this Bill arose. We have heard about the discussions with the islands council which have approved the amendments. My understanding is that the amendments were approved by the narrowest possible majority, and it is important to remember that.
We must also realise that the Orkney and Shetland Islands have a very high regard for their Member of Parliament. Therefore, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was obviously in a dilemma. On the one hand, he had unique constituency considerations; on the other, he had a party commitment to the Government. Therefore, it is not surprising that he should say, as he did a moment ago, that the amendments before us represent a negotiated agreement. They are an effort to reconcile two different viewpoints. In my view, these viewpoints are irreconcilable.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is vital to retain safeguards, as far as possible, for a traditional way of life. But there is an oil reserve fund for which special legislation went through the House, and I wonder whether safeguards 103 exist for that. I can see no safeguard whatever in the amendments before us. Once the islands are in, the safeguards go. One cannot suddenly contract out of one's contracting in. That is true in many walks of life.
There is an added difficulty if ever the Assembly is predominantly Scottish nationalist. This will produce many difficulties for oil development which we well know because we have been warned. We have been told time and again that it is Scottish oil, and therefore in these circumstances it is no more likely to be Shetland oil than United Kingdom oil. That would have a very substantial impact on the reserve fund and the legislation that has been put through the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has already pointed out clearly that there is a problem over the exact meaning of the words "substantial detriment", and the question of who is to be judge of that. It is perfectly clear that no Secretary of State would be likely to go against the wishes of his own party men in the Assembly.
I make these remarks merely to put on the record my grave doubts whether the Shetland Islands wishes have been met and my equally grave doubts whether they will be met in the future.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine)Order. The Minister requires the leave of the House to speak again because he moved the motion.
Mr. MilanI do not mind at all if the leave is not granted. May I ask the leave of the House to speak again?
I deal first with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I shall not try to predict what the commission might recommend for Orkney and Shetland. The right hon. Gentleman has his own views, and no doubt those views, and others, will be put to the commission.
104 The commission will have wide terms of reference by the very wording in the Bill. This point arose in my discussions with the islands councils. We have drafted amendment No. 105 in terms which, in a sense, almost write the terms of reference into the Bill. This is a very considerable protection. Obviously, I shall have to consider the terms of reference in detail later, but I would not want in any way to try to derogate from the statements that are written into the Bill.
Obviously I cannot give a guarantee that the membership of the commission will be in the hands of the island authorities. I do not think the House will expect me to do that. However, I said when I met the islands councils that I had it in mind that membership would include people who had, or were likely to have, special knowledge of the islands communities and their problems. Obviously it will be a commission which will give a balanced recommendation at the end of the day. It would not suit the House or the Government to have on the commission people who were likely to come to only one particular point of view. Therefore, I shall certainly ensure that there is a balanced representation on the commission.
§ Mr. GrimondWhat consultation will there be over the remit and over membership?
§ Mr. MillanCertainly there will be consultation over the remit, and I am sure that the question of membership will come up. But on the membership question the right hon. Gentleman must accept that there is no suggestion that membership will be nominated by anyone other than the Secretary of State. I do not believe that there will be any serious difficulty here.
I turn to the question of the override provision. Some hon. Members argued that the wording was rather vague. We have followed the wording in the Bill already on the override powers. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) mentioned that this was a power in the hands of the Secretary of State and that it depended on his judgment.
Clause 35 and the following clauses also put powers in the hands of the Secretary of State. He is specifically mentioned there. These powers similarly require the Secretary of State to make a judgment. 105 Therefore, there is really no difference between Amendment No. 81 and the wording that is already in the Bill, dealing with the general override powers. In the nature of things, one must write these matters in fairly general terms.
If anything, we have written the Orkney and Shetland override powers in more detail than the general override powers. We deal here with the question of
substantial detriment to the special social or economic needs and interests of the Orkney Islands or the Shetland Islands.These words were amended in accordance with suggestions from the islands councils which obtained advice from their own agents. These words were put in because they meet the worries that the islanders had about the special social and economic needs of their people.Of course the public interest is involved and it would have been rather difficult to exclude it. Obviously these will be matters for judgment, but they are no more difficult than some other matters on the exercise of override powers which will be decided by the Secretary of State.
I said earlier in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that no Government could commit another Government. By that I meant, first of all, the general proposition which is accepted on all matters in this House. Secondly, I meant that when one is depending on the actions of the Secretary of State one cannot be absolutely sure that every Secretary of State, given powers, will behave in exactly the same way in identical sets of circumstances. I say that in general terms, but the important aspect is the obligation on the Secretary of State to examine these matters, and there will be pressures on him to take a view favourable to Orkney and Shetland in certain circumstances.
§ Those obligations are specifically written into the Bill. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, when the Bill left this place, although it contained something about the commission, it contained nothing about specific override powers on Orkney and Shetland. From that point of view this amendment is a considerable additional protection for the people of Orkney and Shetland.
§ I believe that these amendments are desirable, and I commend them to the House.
§ Mr. DalyellI advise the people of Orkney and Shetland to give a resounding "No" in the referendum, because with the best will in the world—
§ It being Seven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [4th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
§ Lords amendment no. 81 agreed to.
§ Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Seven o'clock.