Commons Sitting of 17 January 1979

Preamble
The House met oa half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Cyprus
    Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the United Kingdom abstained from voting, following the recent debates on Cyprus at the United Nations.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): The United Kingdom, together with most of its EEC partners, did not vote for the General Assembly resolution on Cyprus because it was not thought to be conducive to the resumption of intercommunal negotiations. My right hon. Friend welcomes the indications that, following a great deal of diplomatic activity, in which he and I have been closely involved, and a great deal of supporting detailed work by Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials, these talks may well soon be resumed under the auspices of Dr. Waldheim.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cypriot territory has nothing to do with the intercommunal talks? Does he further recognise that yesterday in the House the Prime Minister announced that West Germany would open discussions with the Turkish Government to resuscitate the Turkish economy and make it possible for Turkish troops to continue their occupation of the island? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is unpre-
    1684
    cedented in post-war history? The United Nations has called upon a Government to withdraw occupying troops, and yet here we have four major world powers making it possible for Turkey to continue that occupation, in denial of the decision of the United Nations.
    Mr. Judd: I am sure that on reflection my hon. Friend will agree that the preservation and health of democracy in Turkey is of great significance to the whole Western community. In that context I am sure he will agree that it is important that the Westtern community takes seriously its economic relations with Turkey. As for the situation in Cyprus, I point out to my hon. Friend that if we want results, in terms of the withdrawal of the Turkish army, this is most likely to be found in the context of an overall settlement.

    Namibia
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards recent events within Namibia; and what efforts are being made by the five Western powers to achieve a peaceful settlement in that country.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): The Government welcome the visit which the United Nations Secretary General's special representative is currently paying to Namibia. The five Governments hope that, following South Africa's decision to co-operate in the implementation of Security Council resolution 435, United Nations supervised elections can be held in Namibia later this year.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it appears that the South Africans and the United Nations are agreed that the next elections will be held on 30th September of this year? In those circumstances, may I ask the Foreign Secretary to do his utmost to ensure that, first, there is no delay, and, second, that there is a cease-fire and an end to acts of violence within Namibia? Is he aware that all those circumstances, in their turn, could easily prevent the successful holding of those elections? Will

    1685
    he do his utmost to ensure that those two essential criteria are upheld?
    Dr. Owen: I agree very strongly with the hon. Gentleman that the sooner elections are held the better, and that the sooner a new constitution and independence come to Namibia the better. A prerequisite of that, incorporated within the proposals put forward by the five Western powers, was the necessity to have peace—and to have no violence—in the territory. We all agree that in a violent situation it would be exteremeley difficult to hold democratic elections. Peace, therefore, is absolutely essential and we shall work for it as will, I believe, the other African States surrounding Namibia.
    Mr. Grocott: What credence does my right hon. Friend give to assurances given by the Government of South Africa that they are interested in seeing that there should be fair elections in Namibia when they do not have the slightest intention, in their lifetime, of seeing that there are any fair elections in South Africa?
    Dr. Owen: There is a difference. There is no doubt that South Africa adopts a different stance to the rights of black Namibians—indeed, even black Rhodesians to a lesser extent—than it is prepared to countenance for black South Africans. I have to deal with the situation as it is and I have to work with the South African Government. The fact is that this position is a formidable advance on the situation as it looked in August and September of last year.
    Mr. Pym: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on the Opposition Benches welcome the developments that have taken place concerning Namibia? Is it not the case that all the parties involved in Namibia now agree that elections on this basis—under United Nations' auspices—should take place, and, consequently, are not the omens good?
    In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), may I ask the Foreign Secretary to make sure that he uses all his influence to ensure that there is no slip back in what has been proposed? Does he agree that it is most important that the supervising forces of the United Nations should be made up of disciplined and impartial military units drawn from countries
    1686
    which have taken a balanced view of this situation?
    Dr. Owen: I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I have spent a great deal of time on this issue because I believe that it has great importance for Southern Africa generally. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the question of the composition of the force is a matter for the Secretary General. It has always been the objective of the United Nations, in any of its peace-keeping operations, to ensure that a United Nations force is broadly acceptable to all those who will be in contact with it. It can never make an absolute commitment or give a veto to any one power or country. The United Nations has reconciled all the different views in every one of its peace-keeping operations, and I am confident that Dr. Waldheim will be able to do so with Namibia.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that SWAPO will have a free and unfettered opportunity to contest these elections, without any intimidation, harassment or interference from the South African authorities?
    Dr. Owen: Yes, I am. I believe that Mr. Ahtisaari, whose involvement in this issue is long-standing, will ensure—this is one of the major tasks of United Nations supervised elections—that all parties have a fair chance of putting their case and of forming the new Government of an independent Namibia. I believe that, subject to some matters that still need to be negotiated and decided, SWAPO will decide to return to Namibia and co-operate fully in the elections.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Do the five Western demarche powers in the contact group regard the number of United Nations observers as being negotiable?
    Dr. Owen: I believe that this has been clarified since the Secretary General put forward his proposals. Those clarifications which we undertook in Pretoria, but most importantly those undertaken in direct discussions between Dr. Waldheim and Mr. Pik Botha, the South African Foreign Minister, and in subsequent discussions, have ensured that everyone can live with the terms of the Secretary General's report.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he remains satisfied with the progress of negotiations towards a settlement in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the Rhodesian situation.
    Dr. Owen: The situation in Rhodesia is deteriorating. The number of people who have lost their lives since the internal settlement was signed increases monthly, as does the number of people emigrating. There has been an escalation of the fighting and martial law now covers 90 per cent, of the country.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to make a statement on the mission of my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) at the end of Question Time.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the Foreign Secretary's reply, I wonder whether it would help hon. Members if I said that instead of calling them now I shall call them when the statement has been made by the Prime Minister. That might make greater sense. I should point out that I shall not call later those hon. Members whom I call now.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend seen a report in the South African Financial Mail to the effect that Britain is said to have been prepared to guarantee oil supplies to South Africa in return for South Africa's co-operation in
    1688
    dealing with Rhodesia? Bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's oft-repeated statement that in our dealings with South Africa there would be no trade-off agreements, may I ask him emphatically to deny that report?
    Dr. Owen: There is no question of Britain supplying oil to South Africa. As for a trade-off, I have always believed that the issues of Namibia, Rhodesia and South Africa will have to be dealt with in different compartments. There is a certain linkage—it would be foolish to deny that—but I do not believe that we should trade off one against the other.

    China (Arms Sales)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what diplomatic purpose he is seeking to advance in agreeing to the sale of military equipment to China.
    Dr. Owen: As I have made clear on previous occasions, our aim is to develop a balanced relationship with China covering the political, trade, economic, scientific, technological and cultural fields. We see the sale of some defensive equipment as a natural part of this relationship.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend take a similar view of the Soviet Union? If he does, may I ask whether he will sell Harriers to the Soviet Union, too?
    Dr. Owen: There are major differences. The Soviet Union, in alliance with other countries, is part of a military pact—the Warsaw Pact—whose stated objectives are contrary to the national interests of this country and to which we have felt it necessary over the years—
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Harriers are "defensive", not offensive.
    Dr. Owen: Whether it be offensive or defensive, we do not sell weapons to people in organisations which threaten the security of our country and that of our closest allies.
    Mr. Blaker: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that close relations between the West and China are not only consistent with detente but might encourage the Soviet Union to give some meaning to detente?
    Dr. Owen: I have always believed that there is a difficult and complicated balance to strike between having good, constructive relations on detente with the Soviet Union and, on the other hand, not rebuffing China but trying to bring it more into the international world. I include in that aim a constructive dialogue with China about detente and disarmament, which I believe is in the interests of the Soviet Union.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Now that the Government have taken a decision on the sale of these aircraft to China, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is able to tell the House roughly what proportion of the overall trade package which the Government hope to negotiate in February will be arms equipment?
    Dr. Owen: The negotiations are still taking place and will he carried further when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry visits China next month. There is still a lot of detail to be gone into.
    Mr. Hurd: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what representations have been received on this issue from the Soviet Union and what reply has been sent? Have the Government made it clear that pressure from this source on this subject is unwelcome and will be firmly resisted?
    Dr. Owen: What the Government have done in reply to representations from President Brezhnev is to make clear how we see this issue. How we see it and explain it in private letters to the Soviet Union is exactly the same as we are explaining it to the House. There is no difference. I believe that it is reasonable for people to make their views felt. I do not believe that it is reasonable for any country to accept the right of another country to dictate its foreign policy. Obviously we shall not accept that.
    We shall listen to the views of others, even if we disagree with them, and we shall put our view constructively within the relationship, which we have made clear we wish to maintain, of good constructive relations with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union must recognise that detente is not a one-sided track and that it, too, has responsibilities. It ought to look at the policy of detente and at some of its actions around the world, in
    1690
    South-East Asia and Africa as well as in Europe.
    Mr. Litterick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread disappointment in the country over the Government's decision, yet again, to sell an advanced weapons system to a poverty-stricken nation in the Third World? Is he further aware that this policy contradicts both the spirit and the substance of the magnificent and encouraging speech made by the Prime Minister to the disarmament session of the United Nations?
    Dr. Owen: The whole question of arms sales raises difficult issues. It would be absurd to believe that there are not occasions when selling arms buttresses and strengthens a country and can contribute to detente, to a country's security and to that country being able to feel that it can play a greater part in the world community and in world disarmament talks. A blanket ban on all arms sales would be detrimental to the cause of disarmament and arms control, which I know my hon. Friend holds dear.
    Mr. Aitken: Is it not the case that these arms sales maintain, or help to maintain, a more adequate balance of power between China and the Soviet Union? Is this not desirable, given the fact that China, so far as we know, is not attacking Western interests in other parts of the world, whereas the Soviet Union—whatever it might be saying about detente—is definitely doing so, not least in Southern Africa?
    Dr. Owen: One should not look at these arms sales as changing the balance of power one way or the other. One reason why one is wary of offensive arms sales is that they affect the balance of power. There are dangers in trying to, manipulate the balance of power and to determine matters in that way. If we examine the issue on its merits we should recognise that when we are requested to supply arms, in the way that has happened on a number of issues, we should bear in mind that to refuse to do so is also an act of policy which will have certain consequences, some of which I believe would be adverse.

    Passport Applications
    Mr. Michael Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider

    1691
    withdrawing the question relating to a spouse's former marriage in the passport application form if a previous passport is being surrendered without any change of name.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): Yes, Sir. This year's reprint of passport application forms will indicate that a United Kingdom-born woman surrendering a standard passport in her present name need no longer give details of a former marriage unless her application includes particulars of a child born outside the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that this Question follows correspondence which I have had with him involving a constituent to whom distress has been caused? How widespread is this problem, and will he confirm that this is another example of bureaucratic nonsense that tends to linger on? How many more examples has he up his sleeve?
    Mr. Luard: I recall our correspondence very well. The hon. Gentleman should be gratified that, as a result of the correspondence, I have changed the regulations in the way he suggests in his Question. I do not think this has been a widespread problem, but there has been a slight difficulty, which will no longer exist.

    Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in the negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty with verification since the speeches on the issue by British representatives at the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in the summer.
    Dr. Owen: The tripartite negotiations have continued to make progress towards a properly verifiable treaty. Many of the major issues have been resolved. The negotiations resume on 29th January, and the United Kingdom for its part sees no reason why outstanding issues should not be quickly settled.
    Mr. Allaun: Since both sides have now agreed on verification by black box monitors in each territory, why is the
    1692
    United States still stalling? Following the splendid speeches that were delivered in New York on this subject, should not Britain take the initiative, either by abandoning further tests, or at least by making specific proposals at the Geneva meeting to break the deadlock?
    Dr. Owen: There are specific proposals on the table dealing with verification. There is a recognition that one can overcome some of the problems by having seismic devices. The siting of such devices, how many and the exact arrangements for them have still to be finally negotiated. However, a great deal of progress has been made.
    Mr. Sever: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in recognising the demands for world peace it might be a good idea, as hinted at by the Prime Minister yesterday, for meetings at Foreign Minister level to be promoted more often? Will he endeavour to see that such meetings with his colleagues across the world are promoted?
    Dr. Owen: I believe that it is helpful for these issues to be raised more frequently at a political level. The United Nations special session was helpful in enabling Prime Ministers and Presidents of States to make commitments on behalf of their countries. I am a long-standing believer in the fact that the MBFR discussions in Vienna, which have become increasingly bogged down, need to be raised to a political level. I also see advantage in the follow-up conference to the Helsinki accords in Madrid at Foreign Minister level.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the most recent SALT talks between the President of the United States and Premier Brezhnev have had any bearing on his thinking on this subject?
    Dr. Owen: I believe that it is fully compatible to have a SALT agreement limiting strategic arms and also to pursue a comprehensive test ban. What one is after in a comprehensive test ban is to try to persuade those countries which are on the threshold of becoming nuclear States not to cross that threshold. They wish to be convinced that the nuclear weapon States are themselves contributing to disarmament and that it is not merely a one-way process. We should not

    1693
    always ask the non-nuclear weapon States to exercise restraint while we, the nuclear weapon States, continue to test an increasingly sophisticated range of weapon systems.

    Argentine Air Force (Commander-in-Chief)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire on 30th November, any firm arrangements have yet been made for a visit by the Commander-in-Chief of the Argentine Air Force.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): We have now heard that this visit will not be taking place.
    Mr. Canavan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. But since the main purpose of any such visit, or proposed visit, would be to buy arms, may we have a categorical assurance that no such visit will take place in the foreseeable future by any member of the armed forces of Argentina, bearing in mind the possibility that those arms will be used to escalate the level of violence throughout South America and to increase and continue the reign of terror and the mass violation of human rights in Argentina itself?
    Mr. Rowlands: I cannot give such a categorical assurance, because there is no general ban on the sale of arms to Argentina. Individual sales are dealt with under the criteria—be they political, security or financial—that we apply to sales of this kind.
    Mr. McCrindle: What are the different human rights considerations in the mind of Her Majesty's Government which allow them to decide that it is possible to sell arms to Argentina but not to Chile?
    Mr. Rowlands: During the last election the Labour Party made a firm political commitment that it would operate an arms embargo on Chile in the light of all the circumstances of the way in which the junta came to power and the way in which it has behaved in an abominable sense since.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Bearing in mind that 30,000 citizens of Jewish origin were allowed out of the Soviet Union and that nobody is allowed out of China, does my hon. Friend agree that China is a more repressive State than the Soviet Union? How does this tie in with the decision—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a long way from the Argentine to China, and it is not connected with the original Question.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Is not this attitude typical of the unconstructive attitude of Her Majesty's Government in foreign affairs? Would it not be very much better to negotiate arms deals with the Argentine—because it has to get arms from somewhere—to the benefit of British employment and technology, and at the same time incorporate appropriate negotiations to secure the safety of the Falkland Islands?
    Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my reply. I said that there was no general arms ban on the sale of arms to Argentina.

    Bucharest
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Bucharest.
    Mr. Luard: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Janner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent visit of President Ceaucescu to this country and the recent ministerial visits to Bucharest from this country have helped to contribute to good relations between Britain and Romania? Will he pay tribute to the sturdy independence of Romanian foreign policy?
    Mr. Luard: I agree that our relations with Romania are excellent. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the relationship of Romania to her neighbours or the Warsaw Pact countries, but Her Majesty's Government fully welcome and support the right of every nation to hold its own views on matters of international concern and to express them freely and independently.
    Mr. James Lamond: If my hon. Friend intends to write to the Romanian Government to congratulate them on their

    1695
    decision not to increase their arms expenditure, would it not be hypocritical if at the same time he enclosed some sales literature on the Harrier aircraft, since the Romanians might be coming into the category of a nation that could buy it?
    Mr. Luard: I have no intention of addressing such a letter to the Romanian Government at present. If I do so, I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments.

    Belize
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's latest proposals on the future of Belize.
    Mr. Rowlands: I refer the hon. Member to the account of our proposals I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) on 29th November and to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) on 14th December. Our proposals remain on the table and we intend to continue the negotiations.
    Mr. Durant: In these discussions, will the Minister do nothing to damage the territorial integrity of this small country unless he has the full backing of the people of Belize? Some of us are anxious that the pressure from Guatemala might make the Government change their mind.
    Mr. Rowlands: The commitment has been clear, namely, that no decision, arrangement or settlement can be made which is unacceptable to the people of Belize.
    Mrs. Jeger: What consultations have taken place with the United States about its continuing supply of arms to Guatemala and its training of personnel in that country in order to threaten Belize?
    Mr. Rowlands: We have regular discussions with the United States on such issues. Indeed, I had such discussions only last week. As I understand it, the United States is not selling any new arms or equipment to Guatemala.
    Mr. Luce: Is it the case that Guatemala has not as yet rejected the proposals recently put forward about Belize by the British Government? If it has rejected
    1696
    those proposals, what progress, if any, has been made on the proposal put forward at the Commonwealth Heads of State meeting at Kingston, which was that there should be a Commonwealth defence contribution to Belize?
    Mr. Rowlands: In his broadcast to the Guatemalan people the Guatemalan Foreign Minister said that he rejected our proposals. However, he left the way open for further negotiations. We intend to pursue the possibility of further negotiations. The door has not been closed on the negotiations. The other considerations which the hon. Gentleman mentioned do not come into play at this moment.

    Helsinki Agreement
    Mr. Sainsburyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the extent to which those provisions of the Helsinki Agreement relating to freedom of religion have been observed by the signatory States during the last year.
    Mr. Luard: These provisions have been observed satisfactorily by most signatory States, but during the past year serious difficulties continued to be encountered by religios believers in the Soviet Union and in certain East European countries.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Does the Minister recognise that priority is given in the principles of the Helsinki Agreement to freedom of religion and that that is a matter of great concern to many British people? What steps are being taken to monitor these aspects of the Final Act? Will the observance of religious freedom be given sufficient priority at the next review conference in Madrid?
    Mr. Luard: We try to monitor the observance of this issue and all other aspects of the Helsinki Agreement. All human rights aspects of the Helsinki Agreement will be carefully discussed and examined at the next conference in Madrid in a year or two's time. According to our present information there is restriction because the number of places open for worship to religious believers remains artificially limited. There is discrimination and pressure against believers and their families, and the supply of religious literature remains inadequate.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that of late there has been a welcome increase in the number of people of the Jewish faith who have been permitted to leave the Soviet Union? In the circumstances, will he prevail on the Soviet authorities to release Professor Alexander Lerner and those who have been held at home or in exile, such as Ida Nudel and Vladimir Slepak, who have been waiting for a long time to leave and who are held in Russia, totally contrary to the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act?
    Mr. Luard: I am aware that there has been a welcome increase in the number of Jews allowed to leave the Soviet Union in the past year or so. We hope and trust that that trend will continue. It is not normally open to us to raise the cases of individual Jews who are not our own nationals, but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend and all organisations that are concerned about this matter will continue to stress the importance of particular individuals being allowed to leave.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is every opportunity taken by Ministers and by Her Majesty's missions in the countries concerned to draw to the attention of the Governments there the concern felt by the British people for the free practice of religion, whether it be Christian, Jewish Moslem or any other, and the effect that this has on relations and good feelings between the peoples?
    Mr. Luard: The House knows that Ministers consistently express their concern about human rights in the Soviet Union, both in public, as in the House, and sometimes when we meet our Soviet opposite numbers. I shall try to ensure that this aspect is raised on suitable occasions.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister aware that one Christian leader, Pastor Vins, has suffered serious persecution under the Soviet regime? Is he aware that action has been taken against his family, and that his son has been charged and is in prison? Will he make it clear to the Soviet authorities that believers in Britain are greatly alarmed, especially about the Vins family being picked out for such treatment?
    Mr. Luard: I hope that the Soviet Government are very much aware of the deep concern that is felt among all sections of the British people and in the House about such restrictions on religion. I hope that the Soviet Embassy in Britain will report the hon. Gentleman's remarks to its Government.

    Middle East
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the Middle East situation.
    Dr. Owen: We continue to support negotiations aimed at building on the Camp David accords and widening these out into a comprehensive peace settlement.
    Mr. Goodhart: As the new Government in Iran have made it plain that they do not intend to continue the Shah's role of policing the Persian Gulf, will the right hon. Gentleman say what discussions are being held with the United States and our other allies about providing some military protection for our friends and interests in that vital area?
    Dr. Owen: I do not think that stability in that area will come from outside Western military interference. It is important for close contact to be established between the countries surrounding the Gulf, many of which have a strong commitment to the Muslim faith. That may well be found to be a binding and not a divisive influence.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: There has been Western support for the Shah, and President Carter has ordered a review of American Intelligence to understand why he was not forewarned about lack of support for the Shah. Have we done the same with the British Foreign Office?
    Dr. Owen: No. I do not feel that I was not forewarned. It was always difficult to determine whether the form of government that had been established by the Shah was to survive. It was well known that there were considerable criticisms. I do not think that we lacked Intelligence. The mistake that may have been made was to underestimate the cohesiveness of the various elements that agreed on the one issue, although often

    1699
    differing on other matters, that the Shah should not remain as monarch. That is a matter of judgment rather than Intelligence.
    Mr. Walters: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that only a comprehensive settlement will bring peace to the Middle East? What steps are the Government taking, in co-operation with our European partners, to ensure that the Camp David agreement is not confined to a separate peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, with all the potential dangers, but is linked and extended in a comprehensive manner to bring about an overall settlement.
    Dr. Owen: The issues that have delayed a signature to the Camp David agreement relate almost exclusively to trying to ensure that it is not a purely bilateral agreement but an agreement set firmly in the context of a comprehensive peace settlement. If the issues that are still dividing the parties can be resolved we shall have laid the foundation on which we may go on to widen the agreement into a comprehensive peace settlement. The essence of the problem is still the West Bank and Gaza.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he was adequately forewarned of the likely turn of events in Iran by lion. Members and by those inside his party who advised him that his course was ill-advised? Is it not a fact that by rejecting that advice he has lumbered himself with a large number of military orders that may never be fulfilled and put himself in the worst possible position from which to establish friendly relations with a more enlightened regime in Iran?
    Dr. Owen: I do not dissent from the fact that my hon. Friend and many other hon. Friends made me fully aware of their point of view. It is a matter of judgment. With the benefit of hindsight it appears extremely easy. However, with the benefit of hindsight—
    Mr. Skinner: No, foresight.
    Dr. Owen: Even with the enlightened foresight for which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is famed—there was still a fundamental issue. Did we withdraw support? Did we try to change the situation in Iran? We chose to stick with the status quo
    1700
    during a delicate and difficult period. When we look to the future and to relations with the future Government, I do not believe that that will stand against us. When we form relationships with Governments, I believe that they judge us, broadly speaking, on whether we float around on the waves and tides of circumstance or whether there is a certain solidarity. I do not believe that we should interfere with the Iranian people's decision, and we have never sought to do so. What we supported at one stage was the status quo, and I am not certain that that was so wrong.
    Mr. Pym: Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman was taken by surprise, does he agree that it is a major British interest for us to maintain good relations with Iran? This is a difficult time for the people of Iran, and it is important that we should maintain good relations with them. Will he indicate to the House what steps he is taking in that regard? I am sure he will agree that events there have had their effect on the rest of the Middle East. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be rather surprised by the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). Is it not now a major interest of ours to do what we can to maintain stability in the Gulf? How that is to be done is a matter for argument, of course, but the need for it, and the risk that the area may not remain stable, clearly exists. It is important for us to do everything that we can to bring about stability.
    Dr. Owen: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) referred to military involvement. I do not think that that is necessarily the best way of achieving stability. Some would argue that that is one of the lessons to be learnt from Iran. There is a strong argument that in trying to tilt the balance too much by military sales in any one region there is a risk of putting in an unstable factor. It is an important objective of this country to have good relations with Iran, whatever Government the people of Iran decide to choose. We have long supported democratic elections, and we hope that the civilian Government will be able to bring about democratic elections. But the choice of the Government is for the people of Iran, and at this stage I do not think that it would help for us to try to choose or

    1701
    to indicate which way the Iranian people should go.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    European Commission
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the President of the European Commission.
    Dr. Owen: At a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 6th February.
    Sir A. Meyer: When the Foreign Secretary next meets Mr. Roy Jenkins, will he consult a very distinguished member of the Labour Party on what can be done to prevent the British Labour Party from drifting into an attitude of total non-cooperation and hostility towards the Community, on which the prosperity as well as the security of this country now depend?
    Dr. Owen: Mr. Roy Jenkins is President of the Commission and has a responsibility for all member States. I think that he would be the first to say that he would no longer wish to involve himself, or ought to involve himself, in domestic politics in this country in that way.
    Mr. Lee: Will my right hon. Friend, when he has further consultations with the President of the Commission, ask him whether, possibly as a side wind of the industrial position here, we should be allowed to release stocks of surplus food from intervention, to make up for the shortages existing here, or are we beholden to the Commission as to how those stocks should be disposed of?
    Dr. Owen: How we deal with the substantial food surpluses is a subject of great concern. It has also been a subject of considerable criticism at times that some of the decisions for disposal, which are taken on a Community basis and not on a national basis, have meant that these surpluses have gone, at very reduced and subsidised prices, to countries which have not nearly as strong a claim to them as have some of the member States.
    Mr. Marten: With regard to the question of non-co-operation raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), can the Foreign Secretary explain the non-co-operation of France over the European monetary system, why
    1702
    France has done this, and what the British Government's attitude is towards the problem?
    Dr. Owen: It is very difficult to be exactly clear why the French have done it, but one factor is that the French have always recognised, ever since they have been members of the EEC, that it is wholly legitimate to stand up for a national interest. The French see it as a major national interest to remove what they regard as the unfair advantage of German agricultural products because of the existence of the MCA system which works against the interests of the French farmer, as the French Government see them, and so they stand up for French interests. They are supported by the French Assembly and by the French newspapers. Some Conservative Members might do well to remember that it would not be a bad idea if, occasionally, the Official Opposition were to stand up for the British Government when we stand up in Brussels for a national interest.
    Sir A. Meyer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects next to meet EEC leaders; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans next to meet his opposite numbers in the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes next to meet the Foreign Ministers of the EEC.
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects next to meet EEC colleagues at the Foreign Affairs Council.
    Dr. Owen: I expect to meet my EEC colleagues next at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 6th February.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I call first those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend tell his colleagues, in view of his strident calls for British interests, which he demonstrated once again a few moments ago, that he is exceptionally pleased that the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party is drawing up an extremely anti-Common Market manifesto for the direct elections?
    Will my right hon. Friend explain that he is especially pleased that that manifesto will not be diluted by the Cabinet, since it has no rights in this matter, as it has in the drawing up of the General Election manifesto, and that the candidates who will be taking part in the elections on behalf of the Labour Party will be fighting for the restoration of British rights, in accordance with the Foreign Secretary's views, just pronounced, and for the reform of the Common Market structure, and with a policy for getting out in the event of failure?
    Dr. Owen: I do not think that the Floor of the House of Commons is the place for my hon. Friend and myself to argue about who should be on the NEC. As to what the NEC should do in any given situation, one reason why I opposed my hon. Friend in the elections to the NEC is that I have a different view from him about how the NEC should conduct itself.
    Mr. Forman: Will the Foreign Secretary accept and tell the House that none of the desirable reforms in the operation of the Common Market will be achieved, and that no better balance will be achieved in the Community budget, if the Government are tempted to proceed on the destructive and flat earth lines recommended by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?
    Dr. Owen: The Government have, over three to four years of painstaking and successful chipping away at some of the anomalies and inconsistencies in the common agricultural policy, produced significant progress. I believe that the next price fixing and the discussions on MCAs will be another opportunity to put constructively a case for reform which is
    1704
    not just in the British national interest but happens to be in the interest of consumers in all the member States.
    Mr. Tim Renton: Will the Foreign Secretary and other members of the Government show much more public muscle in dissociating themselves from the hysterical anti-EEC noises made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and other members of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, which can only be to the disadvantage of the national interest of the United Kingdom? In particular, does the Foreign Secretary, in view of the faltering Middle East peace plan, see any new initiatives in the Middle East which he and other EEC Foreign Ministers could take in concert?
    Dr. Owen: It would be better if Conservative Members would spend a little less time worrying about divisions within the Labour Party and attitudes to Europe, and concentrate a little more on some of the differences of attitude on their own side, and also on the overall, thrust of the Conservative Party's position in relation to Europe, which is one of constantly denigrating its own Government when that Government are fighting for a national interest. This gives the appearance in Brussels that, were a Conservative Government ever to come to office, they would be a complete pushover.
    Mr. Spearing: When my right hon. Friend next meets his colleagues at the Foreign Ministers' Council, will he remind them of the statements that he made during the course of the Bill dealing with direct elections to the EEC Assembly, when he said that in his opinion the direct election to the EEC was no threat to the powers of this House? Will he now tell the House the position about the budget of the EEC? Is it not correct that it is held up because of the powers of the unelected EEC Assembly? Is not there a quarrel with the Council over amounts running into hundreds of millions of pounds? Does not that bode ill for the powers of this House when there is an elected Assembly, which will use these powers as a bargaining counter?
    Dr. Owen: The dispute between the Council and the Assembly would be

    1705
    exactly the same whether or not the Assembly was directly elected. The reason why it was discussed in the Council on Monday was that the British Government, among other member States, hold very strongly to the view that it should not be in the power of the Assembly—and it is not in the power of the Assembly in the treaties—to fix the budget. The budget must be fixed by the body which is responsible for raising the revenue. That body is the Council of Ministers. Therefore, we shall not accept that the fixing of the budget total can be an issue for the Assembly. As long as this issue remains unresolved, we shall remain determined in our stance.
    Mr. Hurd: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, unlike the French Government, he and his colleagues and party have appeared to spend most of their time chipping away at the concept of the Community, that the result has been a steady rundown in the bargaining strength of this country to protect its interests, that it will take us quite a time to rebuild it and that we regard it as essential in our own interests that we should?
    Dr. Owen: I think that all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House must recognise certain facts. The majority of people in this country did not want to enter the EEC in 1972 and 1973. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen may wish to dispute that allegation, but that is my belief. I do not believe that politicians need to conduct referendums to determine political issues. We should be able to do that by exercising our judgment.
    There has been a substantial change in the attitudes of people in this country since we have been a member of the Community. There are still disagreements—disagreements held by supporters of the Conservative Party and of the Labour Party—about the advisability of our entry, but most people are determined to make a useful, sensible contribution to the European Community. I believe that is what we should do, and, in doing it, we should not be afraid to stand up for a legitimate national interest.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Foreign Secretary draw to the attention of EEC leaders the prices for basic commodities, such as meat and wheat, obtaining in
    1706
    North America at present? Does he appreciate that if we were not in the Common Market we would be able to buy at those much reduced prices? Does he feel that the Government would do better to concentrate on the common agricultural policy to combat inflation than to try to pressurise road haulage drivers to give up their just claim?
    Dr. Owen: We must try to keep down common prices. If we are successful in holding common prices, they will show greater similarity to world prices. World prices move around. My hon. Friend was right in what he said, but there have been times when the world wheat price has been higher than the Community price. I do not think that we shall ever get an exact parity of prices between the Community and the world. We wish to reduce progressively the wide disparity which still exists between overall international food prices and European food prices. I think that we are having some limited success in that respect.

    Summit Meeting
    Mr. Anthony Grantasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Council of Ministers plans next to meet officially to prepare submissions for the next European Council summit meeting.
    Mr. Judd: There will be meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council on 6th February and 6th March. Unless the presidency propose other arrangements, the preparations for the European Council will therefore be finally reviewed by Foreign Ministers a week before its meeting on 12th and 13th March.
    Mr. Grant: Does the Minister expect or, indeed, hope that by the time of the next summit Britain will be able to join the EMS, provided that it is then working satisfactorily?
    Mr. Judd: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman listened attentively to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on this matter. We did not enter because we did not believe that the criteria laid down for the operation of the scheme met the criteria which we felt would adequately protect and look to our interests. If things develop in the right direction, we shall review the position.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to make submissions on the common agricultural policy? If we cannot get any fundamental changes in that policy, will we make a clear statement that we shall withdraw from the Common Market until we get those changes?
    Mr. Judd: I assure my hon. Friend that it is intended that at the European Council meeting there will be a review of developments in the common agricultural policy. As for the line that he advocates, I think that would be unfortunate, because the indications are that, through the stalwart stand being made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and others, we are making progress towards reform.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When the agenda is being drawn up, will the Minister ensure that Iran is put on it so that EEC Ministers and leaders can discuss with France, where the Ayatollah Khomeini at present resides, why it has allowed him to carry on a vicious campaign against a country which is friendly to the West, particularly when he is one of the most reactionary bigots in history?
    Mr. Judd: If the hon. Gentleman feels as strongly as he appears to do, he might be a little unhappy to leave such discussions until March.
    Mr. Jay: Is it not increasingly clear that the EEC, far from uniting Western Europe, is becoming a cause of conflicts and disputes between Western European countries, by trying to force on them policies which they do not wish to pursue?
    Mr. Judd: I do not share my right hon. Friend's analysis, but I endorse something which I believe underlines part of what he said. If we are genuinely building a real Community, it is tremendously important that the Commission and others realise that we must move at a pace which can be digested by all the member countries, and a pace which does not force member countries to take steps which are against their national interests.
    Mr. Pym: In the Government's view, ought not the Community to attach especial importance to Turkey? Yesterday the Prime Minister referred to economic discussions at Guadeloupe. Ought
    1708
    not the Community to contemplate a much larger package of assistance to Turkey, and could this be considered before and at the summit meeting?
    Mr. Judd: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, in the context of various Community meetings, Turkey is very high on the agenda. We have a special association agreement—one of the first such agreements—with Turkey. Turkey is anxious about the future of that agreement. The shape that the future should take in this respect is a matter to which we shall continue to give close attention.

    Lome Convention
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the progress of the renegotiation of the Lome convention, with particular reference to the human rights issue.
    Mr. Judd: The negotiations began formally with a ministerial meeting on 24th July, and the agreed objective is to complete them by the spring. A second ministerial meeting, which I attended for the United Kingdom, was held in Brussels on 21st December in order to take stock of the progress made so far and to indentify the issues requiring further negotiation. Human rights was among the subjects discussed, and it was agreed that there was a need for further discussion of the problem.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Minister making progress on this matter of human rights? Is it Her Majesty's Government's intention to continue to press for some provision in the Lome convention for suspension of aid to countries which grossly and persistently violate human rights? Moreover, has he found that the developing countries recognise that this subject must be discussed, despite their natural reservations about their own sovereignty?
    Mr. Judd: The hon. Gentleman has put the point fairly. One of the indications of the progress is that, increasingly, the ACP countries accept that this issue needs to be discussed. We are certain that in the Community's future aid programmes human rights must be given higher consideration and that the agreement should effectively reflect this need.
    Mrs. Jeger: With regard to help for underdeveloped countries through the

    1709
    EEC, may I ask what is happening about the sugar producer countries of the Caribbean and of Mauritius, which seem to be suffering from regulations being made by the EEC which will make the standard of living in those poor countries much lower?
    Mr. Judd: The special sugar arrangements are not part of the negotiations currently going on about the future of the Lome convention. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would find that reassuring, because the protocol on sugar firmly protects the interests of Commonwealth sugar producers, for whom, as we all know, the sale of their sugar crop is a matter of life or death.
    Mr. Rifkind: Will the Minister give an assurance that Angola will not lie included in the renegotiated Lome convention as long as the existence of the Angolan Government is sustained only by the presence of 20,000 Cuban troops in that country?
    Mr. Judd: The Community is anxious to work out an effective economic relationship with those countries which should properly belong to the ACP grouping. Certainly there is a strong argument that if we can get such effective economic arrangements this will enable them to have more balanced general political arrangements than might otherwise be the case.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Is not there a fundamental political contradiction in having one criterion, namely, human rights,
    1710
    for the Lome convention, and another criterion, namely, status quo, when dealing with countries such as Iran?
    Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend he Secretary of State has been very candid about this matter with the House on a number of occasions. The constant argument of the cynic throughout history is, that because it is impossible to make progress on the whole front at once one should take no steps forward. We believe that if one cares deeply about issues such as human rights it is important to approach the issue pragmatically, to build by getting results which can achieve progress in particular situations and have a cumulative effect.
    Mr. Jessel: Why, under the Lome convention, are Commonwealth countries in Africa given trading privileges into the Common Market which are denied to Commonwealth countries in Asia, such as India? Is not this a blatantly unfair discrimination, to which the Government were signatories? What do the Government intend to do about it?
    Mr. Judd: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there is a certain dichotomy here. The Government are emphatic that the Community must have an effective and growing programme of assistance to the so-called non-associates, because we do not want to see the Lome convention becoming a divisive measure in so far as our relationships with the Third World as a whole are concerned.

RHODESIA
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement.
The Government are releasing today the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), who visited Africa before Christmas for private talks with all concerned in the Rhodesia dispute in order to advise me, in the light of his discussions, whether the right climate existed for an all-party conference on Rhodesia. I had told the House on 7th November that I would be prepared to convene such a meeting if the conditions seemed right.
My right hon. Friend left for Africa on 27th November. Accompanied by President Carter's representative, Ambassador Low, he visited Rhodesia and seven other African countries in the course of his mission, returning to this country on 14th December. He had consultations with the front-line Presidents, the leaders of the Patriotic Front and members of the Executive Council in Salisbury. He met representatives of other political groups and organisations in Rhodesia. He also had talks with Mr. R. F. Botha, Foreign Minister of South Africa, and General Obasanjo, Head of the Federal Military Government of Nigeria.
On his return to London, my right hon. Friend gave me a full account of his findings. I am most grateful for the way in which he has carried out this task. I have given the most careful consideration to his conclusions and I have also discussed them with President Carter. My right hon. Friend's principal conclusion, which he reached with great regret, was that no good purpose would be served by convening a meeting of the parties to the conflict in the immediate future, since there would be virtually no likelihood of a successful outcome. I have decided that I must accept this advice.
My right hon. Friend's discussions with the Patriotic Front and with the Executive Council in Salisbury made it clear that the positions of the parties on the key issues are very far apart and that there is at present no possibility of their moving sufficiently close to each other in the course of a negotiation to allow hone that agreement might be reached. My right
1712
hon. Friend concluded that a conference called now would end in failure and that this would inhibit any new attempt to promote a settlement for a period of several months at least. He nevertheless recommended that I should be ready to call a conference at once if developments should indicate a better prospect of success than would be the case today. I accept this advice also.
We shall not give up our attempts to achieve a peaceful solution. President Carter and I reaffirmed our commitment at Guadeloupe to do all in our power to promote a negotiated settlement in Rhodesia and bring the human suffering there to an end. We were in full agreement that the Anglo-American proposals remain the best basis for a peaceful solution. We will continue to work closely together to improve the prospects for a successful negotiation and to take advantage of any opportunity to promote a peaceful solution to the present conflict.
Mrs. Thatcher: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, perhaps I, too, may say "Thank you" to the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), who undertook this mission. I know that he will be as sorry as we are that he had to bring back such disappointing findings.
I note that the Prime Minister reaffirmed his commitment
"to do all in our power to promote a negotiated settlement"
What worries us a little, however, is that the statement contains no initiative to do that. May I, therefore, ask the Prime Minister three questions?
First, I should like to press the Prime Minister just a little to give more details on the attitude of the Patriotic Front. What he has said is susceptible of two interpretations. The first is that the Patriotic Front is not prepared to negotiate at all because it thinks that it can achieve its objectives by other means. The second is that, although the parties are very far apart, there is a possibility of negotiation in the end. If the second is the correct interpretation—I trust that it is—would it not be advisable now to have some kind of group of people making contact with all the parties regularly, to try to narrow the differences between them?
The second point is that there are to be elections in Rhodesia towards the end of April. All of us have agreed that six

1713
principles would have to be fulfilled before there could be any possibility of independence to Rhodesia, and most of us think that five of them have been fulfilled but that the last one, acceptance by the Rhodesian people, has yet to be tested. It would seem that those democratic elections are a way of testing that. I should like to know from the Prime Minister what we are doing to see that those elections can be held, not under perfect circumstances—that is not possible—but under the best possible circumstances that we can manage, and whether we are joining with other countries to try to have observers there to see that those elections are held as well as possible.
The third point arises from my question yesterday. The Anglo-American proposals have been on the table for quite a long time. They have not got anywhere. It seems that they are really not the right proposals. I hope that they will not be treated as the only basis, or a rigid basis, for negotiation.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady asked whether any initiative was to be taken at present. The answer, I think, is that I took up at once the suggestion made by the spokesman for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), on the prospects of calling a conference, and that initiative, alas, does not seem likely to bear fruit.
I have no immediate plans for further action. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and representatives of the United States and other countries which are deeply concerned about the effects of this dispute are constantly in personal contact and will take any further steps that they think are appropriate, but I myself have no immediate plans to do anything.
Secondly, the right hon. Lady asked me about the attitude of the Patriotic Front. As I understand it, after Mr. Nkomo's conversations with my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey, Mr. Nkomo made it clear that he is no longer interested in talking to Mr. Smith about a political settlement on the basis of the Anglo-American proposals. He described the proposal for an all-party conference as a non-starter, and he said that the war has reached such a stage that there can
1714
only be a settlement by military means. If there are to be talks, they will have to be carried out by generals meeting on the battlefield. I think that that will give the right hon. Lady sufficient flavour of the attitude of Mr. Nkomo to show that there is no likelihood of her second proposition, which she hoped might be true, being in fact the case.
As for the Rhodesian elections, the nature of the constitution on which the campaign is now being conducted is such that it seems to hold little prospect of being acceptable to those who are fighting, certainly outside the country. In those circumstances, the elections that will be held on this matter are not likely to bring a peaceful solution. This is the tragedy of the matter.
Therefore, either we have to say that we shall desert the sixth principle—which the right hon. Lady does not say—because the conditions under which the elections are likely to be held are simply not tolerable in the sense of being likely to give a fair result, or we have to continue to work to bring these two groups together for the future of Southern Africa. That is certainly my view, and it is the view of President Carter. I do not wish to speak for the South African Government, but I believe that it would be not unfair to say that their view is that there must be an attempt to reconcile, even at this stage, those who are fighting outside and those who have formed the Government inside.
Thirdly, the Anglo-American proposals are the ones that hold the field. We have made it clear that if there were such a thing as an all-party conference, that is what we ourselves would put forward. But we have not been dogmatic in saying that. If in the course of a conference there were general agreement on modifications of those proposals, or on alternative proposals, since our main desire is to see that the principles are observed, and not any particular plan, we should be willing to modify it. But nobody has yet come forward with a more likely plan. This is the closest plan yet to anything that would be likely to reconcile the diametrically opposed interests there.
Mr. Speaker: Those who were here at Question Time will know that, on Question No. 3, when five Questions were

1715
answered together on this subject, I undertook to call the hon. Members who had tabled those Questions because they had no supplementary questions; they were awaiting the statement. I shall call them in due course.
Mr. David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that I returned only yesterday from a smaller but similar visit to that of the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and that I sadly came to the same conclusion—that a peace conference of the kind proposed was unlikely to succeed? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I found general appreciation of the visit of the right hon. Member? Will he accept, though, that the security situation has deteriorated even in the four weeks since his visit, with the extension of martial law and the extension of the call-up to the age of 59, and that the suffering of the civilian population, which was pointed out to me, has considerably increased in the past few weeks?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is within the country a growing demand for some United Kingdom initiative simply because of a growing recognition that the internal settlement itself is not likely to succeed? Is he aware that I have passed on a number of proposals that were put to me? I am not canvassing them openly at the moment, but will the right hon. Gentleman not rule out the possibility of appointing a special representative who can permanently go around the parties in the hope of securing an opening in order to seek a reconciliation between these warring forces?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for confirming the conclusions of my right hon. Friend and for what he said about the appreciation of my right hon. Friend's visit. I do not wish to load encomiums on my right hon. Friend, but the independent reports that I have received since his return show that, as our envoy and the envoy of this House to all those countries, my right hon. Friend is regarded as a friend by those whom he visited and as a man whom they can trust. This in some ways applies to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. I would not hesitate to ask my right hon. Friend whether he would make his services available in certain circumstances to
1716
repeat such a visit or, indeed, to go there on a different basis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We shall have to see what he has to say about that.
As for fresh initiatives, I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. There are clearly a number of areas to probe. The fact that nothing is announced publicly does not mean that nothing will take place. My right hon. Friend is probing a number of areas and will continue to do so. We do not intend just to sit and wait for this situation to develop, if there is anything that we can do, but there is no point in taking an initiative just for the sake of being able to say that one is doing something.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Since the compromises offered by Mr. Smith in the so-called internal settlement are now being broken, does my right hon. Friend agree that his and the Foreign Secretary's refusal to recognise the internal settlement has been fully justified by events?
The Prime Minister: I fear that it has been justified. The fears that we expressed at the time, I think, would not have been removed if that settlement had been recognised by the British Government. The situation would have continued to deteriorate, in our view, but that is a matter of judgment. However, rather than justifying ourselves before the bar of history, I prefer to look forward. I promise my hon. Friend and every other hon. Member that we shall not hesitate to intervene, privately or publicly, if the opportunity arises.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: As it is several weeks since the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) returned, will the Prime Minister explain why his Government have delayed so long in making a public statement, bearing in mind the fact that there has been considerable misunderstanding and uncertainty about British policy on Rhodesia in that country?
The Prime Minister: I was not aware that there had been any uncertainty, but the reason why I delayed publishing my right hon. Friend's report was that I wished to discuss it with President Carter first, as his ambassador had been party to the visit. We had that discussion in

1717
Guadeloupe and reached certain conclusions there. A report has been published as soon as the House reassembled. In certain circumstances, I would have made this statement on Monday.
Mr. Faulds: As the military situation worsens for the regime in Southern Rhodesia, and as military victory is likely for the Patriotic Front before many more months have passed, what contingency plans have the Government made for the time when Smith throws in the towel and returns responsibility to Her Majesty's Government?
The Prime Minister: I do not want to go too far into the whole matter here, because that is more proper for the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, but my hon. Friend may take it that the mere surrender of sovereignty would not of itself alter the situation unless those who assumed the positions which are now held by Mr. Smith and his colleagues were willing to come to talks with the Patriotic Front and all those concerned, including, naturally, the British Government, to see whether a solution could be reached.
Mr. Tebbit: In view of the views of Mr. Nkomo that the Prime Minister quoted, what will Her Majesty's Government do to bring pressure to bear upon the Patriotic Front to change their minds and come to the negotiating table? In the event—which the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) foresaw—that the Rhodesian Government should ask for the inception of direct rule from Westminster over Rhodesia, what would the Government's reaction be?
The Prime Minister: The second question is hypothetical. I ought to go as far as I can to satisfy the House, but I do not think that I can add to the answer that I gave to the previous question. It would depend, obviously, upon the attitude of those who took over the internal responsibilities that have been exercised in Rhodesia. [Interruption.] No, Sir, with respect, this country has not exercised internal responsibilities for Rhodesia, I regret to say—certainly for 50 years, if ever. Perhaps if we had this situation would not have arisen, but it is no use treading that ground again. I must therefore adhere to my reply to the last question, that it would depend on the attitude
1718
of those who assumed internal responsibility from Mr. Smith.
Secondly, as regards the pressure that we put on the Patriotic Front, a number of neighbouring countries are directly affected by this struggle. The territory of Zambia is occupied in some ways—although I suppose that they would say that they were giving hospitality to the forces of Mr. Nkomo. That country clearly has a strong desire—and would therefore want, I believe—to see talks if they were possible. There are other countries, including South Africa, which in certain circumstances would want to see talks. The pressure, such as it is, will have to continue to be diplomatic.
Mr. Anderson: Have the Government made any appraisal of the effects on Rhodesia of the disruption of oil supplies from Iran to South Africa, in terms of the economic viability and hence of the negotiating strength of the present illegal regime in Rhodesia?
The Prime Minister: South Africa is continuing to supply oil to Rhodesia. It represents a very small percentage of the total use of South Africa's oil. If that were to be cut off, it would transform the situation.
Mr. Jessel: As the purpose of sanctions is to bring about majority rule and as Mr. Smith has accepted the principle of majority rule, what is the point of continuing the sanctions, which do not work anyway?
The Prime Minister: We had a debate on this immediately before Christmas. The House reached a conclusion and the Government have not any different advice to offer than the advice that was accepted by the House then.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: We must face the reality, however much some people may dislike it, that Mr. Smith has lost his gamble, that the internal settlement has failed and that the Patriotic Front will win. Since a great many people in Rhodesia—indeed, the majority, in my view—want the Patriotic Front to win, is it not a fact that the only serious option open to us is how we may make that transition as swift and painless as possible? Surely we should be putting all the pressure we can on Mr. Smith and his regime, and upon South

1719
Africa to put pressure on Smith, in order to convince him to surrender.
The Prime Minister: I take note of my hon. Friend's views on this matter, and the fact that I do not comment on them should not lead him to draw any particular conclusions. Mr. Smith himself has dismissed as "moonshine" suggestions that the regime should fight the guerrillas until it wins. Therefore he is coming to the conclusion, as many of us have done, that it will be a long, drawn-out struggle before either side eventually can say that it is the master of Rhodesia. The whole of British policy has been directed to ensuring that the country should not be reduced to a desert while the two sides struggle with each other.
Mr. Charles Morrison: In the end, surely there will have to be some sort of conference. Indeed, the Prime Minister said that a conference would be called if developments demanded it. Is it not the case that it would be easier to judge and influence the course of developments if we had a permanent representative in Rhodesia? Will the Prime Minister give further consideration to this?
The Prime Minister: I shall certainly continue, with the Foreign Secretary, to give this matter consideration. The visit by my right hon. Friend has shown the advantages that can ensue. I ask the hon. Member to accept the assurance that, if it seems helpful, I shall have no doubts about asking that someone should go to Rhodesia.
Mr. Newens: What reports has my right hon. Friend had about recent incursions by the forces of the Smith regime into Mozambique? Does he agree that these incursions are to be deplored, not only because of the loss of life they cause or the fact that they make a settlement more difficult but because they will widen the area of conflict and are likely to increase tension between East and West?
The Prime Minister: I fear that incursions into other countries do have that result and, indeed, have influenced the lack of negotiation. These incursions should be called off—[HON. MEMBERS: "Both ways."] Yes, both ways. With respect, the question of who started these
1720
incursions is really rather less important than how we are going to end them. We are applying our minds to this. I hope that pressure can still be put on in due course—not necessarily next week—in order to bring the parties concerned not just to the conference table but to the conference table with a view to getting a settlement.
Mr. Amery: Does the Prime Minister agree that his statement today marks the end, for the time being at any rate, of the Anglo-American initiative? Does he further agree that the next concrete event to which we can look forward is the holding of elections in Rhodesia on 20th April? Will he consider discussing with the Executive Council in Salisbury ways by which those elections could be monitored by this country, so that this House can have some serious information about whether they are being freely and fairly conducted?
The Prime Minister: I do not accept that this marks the end of the Anglo-American proposals. Mr. Nikomo said that, but others have not said it, and I would regret it if that were the considered judgment of the right hon. Member. There is nothing, so far, to take the place of those proposals that comes within a mile of meeting the views of those who are concerned.
On the monitoring of elections, I do not believe that that would assist us in the task of getting those who represent the Patriotic Front to the negotiating table. We must make up our minds which is our prime objective. Surely, in the interests of bringing peace to Rhodesia, it must be to get those representatives to the negotiating table.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Since Mr. Nkomo has declared that his intention is to get power in Rhodesia exclusively by military force, will the Government make it plain to him that they will not be his ally in any way in achieving that?
The Prime Minister: We are not the ally of Mr. Nkomo, or Mr. Mugabe, or Mr. Smith. We have a constitutional responsibility here which, alas, because of the history of this country, we have not carried out, and we are still in a position in which we must try to get the best results between them on the basis of the prin-

1721
ciples that have applied in bringing dependent territories to full independence. That is the attitude that we have adopted, and that does not make us anybody's ally. But, if we are to get a settlement, neither should it make us anybody's enemy if we want to negotiate.
Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the architect of the Rhodesia tragedy is Ian Smith, his indispensable accomplice throughout the whole rebellion has been South Africa, which has supplied oil and arms? Will he bring pressure upon South Africa, jointly with the five Western Powers, if necessary, to terminate the continued supply of arms, oil and economic aid to this illegal regime, because that is keeping the rebellion and the war going?
The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that support from South Africa, and its modification from time to time, has produced changes in the attitude of Rhodesia. Therefore, South Africa carries a heavy responsibility in this matter because she has the power. What is taking place in Namibia shows that South Africa can be influenced and has been influenced by the work done by the five Commonwealth Foreign Secretaries, including my right hon. Friend, and it may be that a similar situation could arise in relation to Rhodesia. That is certainly one of the lines that we are keeping open.
Mr. Pym: The whole House is grateful to the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) for what he did, and it regrets very much that he had to report in the sense in which he did. Following that, it appears from the exchanges that have taken place today that the Government have no policy whatever towards Rhodesia at present. There appears to be a vacuum.
Are we not trying to secure the fulfilment of the fifth principle? Do we not require in Rhodesia free and fair elections? We agree, of course, that circumstances there have deteriorated to a point where that is very difficult. However, is it not still the objective? Is it not preliminary to a return to legality, international recognition and, therefore, independence? It does not appear from anything that the Prime Minister has said this afternoon that his Government have a policy or a plan to bring that about. Will 1722
the Prime Minister say whether that is so, and, if not, what his policy is and how he thinks he can achieve the objective that we share?
The Prime Minister: The position in Rhodesia now is that 90 per cent, of the country is lying under martial law. I really do not see how it is possible to talk about holding free, fair and unfettered elections in that kind of situation and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me on reflection. Although I am sure there will be a response, it is not for me to say what that response should be. Nevertheless, the right way to approach this is to persist with the basis of the Anglo-American plan. This still represents the policy that we believe should form the agenda when the parties concerned eventually all decide, as they must, to gather round the conference table. We shall be ready there. I suppose that they could fight on until the country is a desert, but that should not be a policy that the British Government should appear to encourage. Therefore, we must work to try to get them round the negotiating table.
I do not believe that any Conservative Member would dissent from that. They know that it is far better to try to get a peaceful settlement than to allow the fighting to go on. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are the Government doing about it?"] I will not answer that question. I do not know what the Opposition would do, apart from sending in the Brigade of Guards.
We have to continue with the diplomatic action, some of which must be carried out privately and cannot always be revealed at the time it is undertaken.
Mr. loan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that hon. Members on the Government side agree that he was right to delay publication of the report until the House resumed, because it was proper that the report should not be issued until he could be questioned in the House? In his discussions with President Carter about new initiatives, what consideration will be given to steps against South Africa? The key to the Rhodesian problem is that Rhodesia has been sustained by South Africa and that, if nothing is done immediately, pressure is likely to build up in the United Nations for sanctions to be taken against South Africa itself.
The Prime Minister: It is important to ensure that the United States is ready to work with us. That is one reason why the publication of my right hon. Friend's report was delayed. I am glad to confirm that the United States Administration and President Carter personally are fully ready to work in partnership to try to solve this problem. The United States and South Africa also have special connections, and action in relation to South Africa can be taken much better in conjunction with the United States than separately from them. There may be a possibility of progress along those lines.
Mr. Wall: I appreciate the Prime Minister's genuine interest in Rhodesia, but is he not now contracting out? May I press him further about the appointment of an observer in Salisbury? Does he agree that the weakness of the internal settlement has largely been due to the fact that the West refused to back it? If that is repeated when an African majority Government is elected in April, the inevitable result will be a civil war between the Matabele and the Mashona.
The Prime Minister: I have already answered the question about an observer in Salisbury. We have been over the hon. Gentleman's second question on a number of occasions and he knows that we do not share his view.
Mr. Lee: My right hon. Friend earlier gave a list of non-allies. Does he agree that Zambia, at least, is an ally that we should most warmly cultivate, and that we should do everything we can to provide any military assistance that President Kaunda may require, because as long as Smith is in power there will be a continuing danger of incursions into Zambia by the forces of Smith's so-called Government?
The Prime Minister: Zambia needs all the assistance and help that we can give. It has been a force for stability in Southern Africa. Not only is Zambia a member of the Commonwealth; President Kaunda has the deepest ties with this country, and we shall certainly give Zambia all the support we can.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am prepared to call three more hon. Members from the Opposition Benches in view of their wide
1724
interest in this matter, but we have three applications under Standing Order No. 9 to follow before we get on to the main business of the day. I try to do this for both sides of the House on different occasions, in the spirit of fair play.
Sir Frederic Bennett: Various remarks have been made about the impact of South Africa's altering its policies for supplying Rhodesia. Is it not a fact that since the reopening of the border with Zambia a large amount of the essential supplies received by Zambia come through Rhodesia from South Africa? Would a blockade such as that suggested by the Prime Minister not only possibly transform the situation in Rhodesia but seriously damage the Zambian economy? If the Prime Minister does not believe what I say, perhaps he would like to consult the Zambian Government on the matter.
The Prime Minister: I am not aware that any of my comments could have led to that question, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to the three valid points made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, will the Prime Minister give serious consideration to sending a permanent official or even a substantial presence to Salisbury so that the British, with our expertise, could help the Rhodesians draw up an electoral register and monitor and supervise the April elections? Does he agree that the election in April will be the best way of gauging how many people in Rhodesia—and they are the people about whom we are concerned—support the constitution being put forward by the interim Government and the Executive?
The Prime Minister: I have already answered the question about an observer and I have nothing to add to my reply. As for giving electoral advice, I do not believe that that would be helpful to our role in the present situation. Mr. Smith's Administration has not shown any desire to accept the advice that we have given him over a long period on some of these matters. If he had, I doubt that we would be in the present position.
Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: In the absence of a permanent commission and in the light of the Prime Minister's refusal to consider the appointment of a

1725
mission to oversee the elections and report on them, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to assess the results of the elections and their implication for future Government policy?
The Prime Minister: We shall assess the results in the same way as every other Administration will assess them When they come, we shall no doubt have full reports on them.

ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES
Mr. Rhodes James: I wish to raise a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, in your role as the defender of the rights and interests of Back Benchers. No statement is being made today by any Minister of the Crown relating to the situation that afflicts my constituents and, I am sure, those of many other hon. Members.
In my constituency, many vital products, including food, are not coming through. My constituents are asking me to represent them and to urge on Ministers the importance of the situation, but no statement is being made. I am particularly concerned that we have no statement from the Minister of Agriculture.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on the question of what recourse there is for an hon. Member, short of making an application under Standing Order No. 9, to compel a Minister of the Crown to answer the legitimate complaints of our constituents at this vital time.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I have received no requests for statements, but I see that the Lord President is trying to catch my eye.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope very much that a further statement on these matters and perhaps other kindred matters will be made to the House tomorrow and that that will be helpful to the House. I hope that I am not out of order in indicating that fact to hon. Members at the moment.
Mr. Speaker: That information may have an effect on the applications under Standing Order No. 9.

WATER SUPPLIES (NORTH-WEST ENGLAND)
Mr. Churchill: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the threat to public health in the North-West where 1 million people are without a filtered and chemically treated water supply."
I submit that the matter is specific, because since midnight last Thursday 1 million people in Rossendale, Oldham, Rochdale and the vicinity have been without any filtered and treated water supplies as the result of an unofficial all-out strike by 600 water and sewerage workers in the Pennine division of the North-West water authority. At least 2,000 houses are without any water at all, because no repair crews are available to deal with burst pipes.
I submit that it is an important, because it represents, in the judgment of officials of the water authority,
"a serious risk to public health."
Warnings have been issued to residents to boil water for at least one and a half minutes, but there is always the possibility that, in the absence of parents, children may out of habit go to a tap and drink water that is contaminated. Since last Friday, volunteers from the staff of the North-West water authority have been working to clean the filters, which otherwise would clog and all water supply would have ceased.
I submit that this matter has now become urgent because, following a meeting last night between the authority and the unofficial strike committee, the strike committee has declared that this action by senior staff in cleaning the filters to maintain the flow of at least dirty water to these 1 million homes constitutes strike breaking, and it has announced its intention to seek to spread the strike throughout the North-West of England.
This morning, picket lines were established outside the Audenshaw depot of

1727
the eastern division, which supplies Greater Manchester's water. So far, workers in this and in other divisions have, I am glad to say, refused to join this unofficial strike. But unless agreement is reached by Monday, when there is to be a one-day official strike of all manual workers, the water supplies of up to 5 million citizens of the country could be affected, and it has become a matter of urgency that the Government should declare whether they accept responsibility for the maintenance of essential supplies, of which water is possibly the most vital.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice this morning that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the threat to public health in the North-West where 1 million people are without a filtered and chemically treated water supply".
We are undoubtedly faced with very difficult circumstances in the country. I have listened carefully to the observations that have been made this afternoon. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. There are times when I wish that I could give my reasons. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and that today I cannot submit his application to the House. The House will understand that we are in very difficult circumstances.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There will be a statement to the House tomorrow, and I am sure that it will cover this matter, which is very important. Indeed, there may be other questions that other hon. Members will naturally wish to raise. A statement will be made to the House tomorrow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not today?"] I am asked "Why not today?" Discussions are going on which we hope will assist in dealing with the situation. The Government must judge that factor as well. But the Government will seek to make a
1728
statement to the House tomorrow, and I hope that that will be of assistance to the House and will be taken in that sense.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are grateful to the Leader of the House for that indication of the intention of the Government to do something in this respect, but may we be told who is to make the statement? Since the right hon. Gentleman has agreed that a statement should be made tomorrow, I think that many of us would have been much happier if it had been made today. Can he give an undertaking to the House that while the emergency lasts a statement will be made on the course of the situation each day to the House?
Mr. Foot: I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says about the absolute requirement that the House should be kept informed constantly on the matter. Whether there should be a statement every day, and who would be the most appropriate Minister in each case to make it, is another matter, but I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I take fully into account what he has said, and it is in that spirit that we will respond to the situation over the coming days. As I have indicated, it is not yet decided who will make the statement. It may be that two Ministers will make a statement, but let us wait to see who will be the appropriate Minister to make the statement tomorrow.

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES
Mr. Ashley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the cutting off of supplies by the Hong Kong Government to refugees on board the 'Huey Fong'."
I have just returned from Hong Kong, where I have been looking at the problem of refugees in general and of the refugees on board the "Huey Fong" in particular. First, this matter is specific because there are 2,700 people, including 1,000 children, stranded just outside Hong Kong. They have been there since 23rd December. They have been sustained by food, water and medical supplies by the Hong Kong

1729
Government, but their condition is now deteriorating.
One man has died, and an increasing number of the refugees are ill. A few hours ago, a correspondent informed me that the Secretary for Security of the Hong Kong Government has threatened that the Hong Kong Government intend to cut off food, water and medical supplies to the refugees. I submit to the House that the cutting off of these vital supplies means cutting the lifeline of the refugees, and that it would be a shocking and inhumane decision. I suggest that no civilised society can permit 2,700 people to perish on the high seas by a calculated act of Government policy, no matter how harassed that Government may be.
Secondly, I submit that this matter is important because these refugees should be allowed to land temporarily in Hong Kong and take their place in the queue with other refugees. It is also important in order to enable us to recognise the splendid record of the Hong Kong Government and to try to ease their burden, because they have behaved magnificently on refugee problems. But we should not ease the burden of that Government at the expense of the refugees on board the "Huey Fong".
Thirdly, this is an international problem requiring an international solution, and I submit that we need to press all countries to accept a quota of the refugees. I hope that, if you, Mr. Speaker, agree to my request, we can convene an international conference under the auspices of the United Nations Commission on Refugees, so as to ensure that this growing flood of refugees should not become flotsam and jetsam destined for disaster.
Finally. I submit that my application is urgent because it is literally a matter of life or death owing to this threat to the refugees, and I therefore submit that nothing could be more important.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave, under Standing Order No. 9, to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the cutting off of supplies by the Hong Kong Government to refugees on board the 'Huey Fong'".
1730
The hon. Gentleman gave me notice this morning. I have listened with great care to him, and the House knows that I do not decide whether this matter shall be debated. I merely decide whether it must be debated tonight, in place of the business before the House, or tomorrow night. I regret that I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES
Mr. Speaker: In view of the earlier exchanges, does the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) wish to continue with his application under Standing Order No. 9?
Mr. William Shelton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing, in view of the cumulative effects of the food blockade on housewives and our constituents, a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the approaching situation of acute food shortages in the country".
The matter is specific and urgent, given the statement made by the president of the Food Manufacturers Federation on "The World at One" today I have since spoken to him on the telephone, when he confirmed that only 10 per cent. of processed foods was reaching the nation's shops. The term "processed foods" includes anything in a can, a packet or a bag. By the end of next week, at the very latest, there will be acute shortages and acute hardships. That is his considered view as president of the federation.
The urgency of the matter is supported by a statement made by the managing director of Tesco to the Evening News this afternoon. I have also spoken to Tesco on the telephone. The firm says that pickets have cut off more than 60 per cent. of all food reaching its 600 shops throughout the country, which serve about 10 million people every day. The managing director rang the Government emergency committee, which asked whether he could ring back and then said "No, do not ring back because we too, are helpless."

1731
I understand that other food chains are in the same position. Therefore, I submit that this is a matter of urgency. We have a few days left. The sooner the matter is debated, the better. It is clearly one of great importance to our constituents.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) gave me notice earlier, at the earliest opportunity that he had, that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the approaching situation of acute food shortages in the country."
I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I also listened to the earlier exchanges in the House. The House knows that it has instructed me not to give the reasons for my decision. I listened carefully, but I must rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How can we proceed further in this matter? As a Back Bencher, I cannot question your ruling about this afternoon's applications under Standing Order No. 9, nor is it my wish to do so, but, having listened to your answers to my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) and Streatham (Mr. Shel-
1732
ton) about the plight of their constituents, in a situation that many of us find reflected in our own constituencies, I wonder how we can proceed under our Standing Orders further to pursue in the House the interests of our constituencies at this time of crisis.
Yesterday we had a debate that gave about six hours' examination to the matter. It brought forth statements from Members on both Front Benches about where the two main parties stood, and we heard where all the parties in the House stood on the matter. But Back Benchers are still worried and concerned because of the pressure under which they find themselves today with our democratic representation.
All that we can do, Mr. Speaker, is to ask you what we can do to see that we continue to debate and to represent our constituents in this House at this time of crisis. I am very worried and concerned that we must pass on to other business today.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my remarks in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), which were unusual in the context of the normal reply that I gave to an application under Standing Order No. 9. I indicated that I was deeply aware, as we all are, of the serious difficulties confronting the country, and I used the words "not today". I have been as helpful as I can be to the House in that indication.

WATER INDUSTRY (CONSUMER COUNCIL)
4.25 p.m.
Mr. Tony Durant: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a consumer council for the water industry.
In view of the serious matters that the country faces, I do not intend to delay the House for more than a few minutes.
The Water Act 1973 set up the new authorities, and I welcomed that. I think that it was right. The Act encouraged the water authorities to become financially self-sufficient, but, under section 30, by 1981 all consumers will have to pay according to their consumption, without discretion. That will mean a lowering of the water rate for industry and an increase for the householder, which will be a serious matter. In the Thames water authority area, for example, it is suggested that the domestic water rate could increase by as much as 25 per cent. That is a cause of considerable concern. The Berkshire County Council has already passed a resolution pointing out the dangers of the proposals to move towards equalisation of charges for water between industry and the consumer.
The first step that the water authorities in most parts of the country have taken is to introduce direct billing, though not all authorities have yet done so. When direct billing was introduced there was widespread anger and concern about it. The first reason was that there was the introduction of a standing charge, of which there had previously been no mention. That hit the small householder. There was no discount for the low paid and no rebate. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has introduced a Bill to take account of that, and I welcome his steps in that direction.
There were no clear methods of payment. The whole matter was completely arbitrary. The only concession that we had, after pressure, was that the householder can now pay his bill quarterly. However, that gives no satisfaction to council tenants, who are used to paying their rent, part of which used to go towards the water payment, weekly or monthly.
1734
The pay arrangements were bad at the time. Insufficient facilities were arranged for people to pay. There have been threats to cut off the supply of those who do not pay.
The conduct of the water authorities needs examination. My Reading ratepayers, ever vigilant, have examined the local accounts of the Thames water authority and have found one or two interesting anomalies. For example, they found that the directors of the Thames water authority are each given a car— I am not opposed to that—but when they have to go to the headquarters in London a chauffeur-driven car is sent to pick them up, take them to the meeting and take them back again. They do not even use their own cars. That is the sort of thing that consumer councils would consider.
The directors have had expensive trips abroad. The late Member for Lambeth, Central, Mr. Marcus Lipton, raised the whole question of the trip to Japan, which was to cost the authority about £10,000.
I am not critical of the fact that we now have the water authorities. What I am critical of is the way in which they are examined. They are not really responsible to anyone. Therefore, they should have a consumer council. They constitute one of the few national authorities with. out a consumer council.
The council should have powers to interview officers, look at the accounts, ask for information and discuss the whole basis of payment—the whole formula that will be used in getting the money into the authorities. That would be of help to the consumer.
I should like to see such a body composed of volunteers—representatives of industry, other consumer councils, trade unions, women's organisations, waterways where appropriate, and national industries where appropriate. Perhaps, for a change, those members could be voluntary instead of receiving a fee. I am sure that people would do these jobs voluntarily. I know of plenty who would. The administrative cost could possibly be met by a percentage from the National Water Council.
It was right to set up the authorities, but water is a vital resource. We have heard from an application under Standing Order No. 9 today what happens when water authorities cannot carry out their job.

1735
The new water authorities have existed for about five years. They are now tackling the backlog of neglect, particularly on the sewerage side of the industry. It is right that they should do that. But we should have a body which can watch over the excesses and extravagances of the water authorities, to represent the interests of the consumer and to discuss methods of payment and the reactions of the citizen. A consumer council would be the correct body to do that.
I have received a letter from the National Consumer Council, which has been in correspondence with the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection about this matter. That council is in favour of establishing such a body. I commend this important Bill to the House.
4.31 p.m.
Mr. Tom Litterick: I oppose the Bill for a number of reasons.
The House will be surprised to hear a Conservative Member bringing forward a Bill of this character, particularly since the current Act which determined the present structure and rules was enacted by the last Conservative Government. There is no reason why that Conservative Government, if it was thought that this was a matter of importance, did not establish a consumer council for the water industry.
The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) did not mention that the members of existing water authorities are elected and are responsible to their constituents. There is an element of responsibility in that.
When I was a local councillor, more than once my council invited the officials of the local water board to attend meetings and be questioned. The officials responded to those invitations. I was present at more than one such meeting. The type of examination that took place was precisely the type to which the hon. Member referred in the context of establishing a consumer council.
Notwithstanding the unsatisfactory structure established by the Water Act 1973, at least two of the objections to which the hon. Member referred are not well founded. Perhaps in his area the local authorities are not aware of what they are entitled to do.
1736
I can assure the hon. Member that the Severn-Trent water authority is only too happy to meet the local council and to subject its officials to the type of grilling which a Select Committee of the House would conduct if so instructed. That is an effective way of satisfying one element in our responsibility towards our constituents.
The hon. Member used the word "responsibility". I presume he meant that in the political sense. He must know that setting up a consumer council will not create a responsible body since no consumer council exists on which there are elected representatives. Consumer councils comprise nominees of other bodies. That means that his proposal would not create an additional, helpful institution which would enable the public voice to be heard and made effective within the governing councils of the industry. It would simply add another talking shop of nominees.
At present, elected councillors nominate some of their members to serve on the water authorities. That ensures that more than half of all the members of the authorities arc elected and can be held responsible for the behaviour of the water authorities. They can recommend to their councils that they should act as representatives of the local population and subject the local authority to questioning.
It is a little puzzling that a Conservative Member should seek to set up another quango. The hon. Member sought to escape from that dilemma by suggesting that members of the proposed council would agree to serve without payment. But that would set a precedent which would probably be unacceptable.
At present all consumer councils are served by salaried people. The hon. Member is advocating the setting up of another quango and increasing public expenditure. That is an all too familiar situation for Conservative Back Benchers. Collectively the Conservatives argue in favour of reductions in public expenditure, but individually they regularly make proposals which involve increases in public expenditure and which might buy them a little popularity in their own patches.
I am not suggesting that that is the game that the hon. Member for Reading,

1737
North is playing, but he will admit that his colleagues play that game with boring frequency. They should exercise a little restraint in the interests of political consistency and of containing public expenditure.
The hon. Member's emphasis on consumer interests leaves aside a number of profoundly important questions which require the urgent attention of the House. Earlier today hon. Members urged that we should have a debate about these matters. Part of the water industry's problem is that it has been neglected in terms of capital investment. The industry is staffed mainly by low-paid workers. A large proportion of them have been found by the Child Poverty Action Group to be low paid. A significant number of the workers receive family income supplement. That is one reason for the dispute in the North. The Conservatives seem to be little concerned about that.
Water is a vital commodity. The industry's negotiating procedures are sadly deficient. The House should examine

Division No. 33]

AYES

[4.39 p.m.

Ashton, Joe

Gray, Hamish

Pattie, Geoffrey

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Penhallgon, David

Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

Hicks, Robert

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Banks, Robert

Hooson, Emlyn

Rathbone, Tim

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Hordern, Peter

Rhodes James, R.

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Biggs-Davison, John

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Rooker, J. W.

Brotherton, Michael

Jopllng, Michael

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Kilfedder, James

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Buck, Antony

Lawrence,Ivan

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

McCrindle, Robert

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Macfarlane, Neil

Stradling, Thomas J.

Costain, A. P.

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Trotter, Neville

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Madel, David

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Crouch, David

Mates, Michael

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Mather, Carol

Wall, Patrick

Drayson, Burnaby

Mawby, Ray

Weatherill, Bernard

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Weetch, Ken

Elliott, Sir William

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Wells, John

Fairgrieve, Russell

Monro, Hector

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Farr, John

Montgomery, Fergus

Wiggin, Jerry

Finsberg, Geoffrey

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Fookes, Miss Janet

Morgan, Geraint

Winterton, Nicholas

Fry, Peter

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Mudd, David

Younger, Hon George

Goodhart, Philip

Ovenden, John

Goodhew, Victor

Page, John (Harrow West)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Mr. Tony Durant and

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Pardoe, John

Mr. Ian Gow.

NOES

Anderson, Donald

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Buchan, Norman

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Cowans, Harry

Bates, Alf

Canavan, Dennis

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Beith, A. J.

Carter Jones, Lewis

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

Bidwell, Sydney

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Cohen, Stanley

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

that because therein lies much of the trouble.
These workers are not in the habit of taking industrial action. They do not bargain or negotiate in a militant manner—which is one reason why they are so badly paid. But the hon. Member's proposal has nothing to do with that. It would add nothing of positive value to the water industry's institutions but it would add to public expenditure. For that reason, I call upon the House to reject the proposal.
Mr. Speaker: May I tell the hon. Gentleman, before I put the Question, that he is not bound to vote unless he wishes to do so just because he has expressed opposition to the Bill?
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 89, Noes 106.

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

John, Brynmor

Parry, Robert

Dewar, Donald

Judd, Frank

Pavitt, Laurie

Dormand, J. D.

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Kerr, Russell

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Eadie, Alex

Lambie, David

Ryman, John

English, Michael

Lamborn, Harry

Sandelson, Neville

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Lamond, James

Silverman, Julius

Evans Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Litterick, Tom

Skinner, Dennis

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Steel, Rt Hon David

Evans, John (Newton)

Loyden, Eddie

Strang, Gavin

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

McCartney, Hugh

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

McElhone, Frank

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Flannery, Martin

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Madden, Max

Tierney, Sydney

Freud, Clement

Mahon, Simon

Tinn, James

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Tomlinson, John

George, Bruce

Marks, Kenneth

Urwin, T. W.

Golding, John

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Graham, Ted

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Ward, Michael

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Mikardo, Ian

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Woodall, Alec

Hardy, Peter

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Woof, Robert

Home Robertson, John

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Young, David (Bolton E)

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Oakes, Gordon

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Ogden, Eric

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

O'Halloran, Michael

Mr. Kevin McNamara and

Hunter, Adam

Park, George

Mr. A. W. Stallard.

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Parker, John

Question accordingly negatived.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL
Order for Committee read.
4.51 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: I should tell the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) that I cannot call the instruction that he has tabled on the Order Paper. It is out of order on two counts. First, it seeks to embody in the Bill provisions that are in no way cognate to its existing provisions and scope. Secondly, it is inconsistent with the decision of the House on the Second Reading, when an amendment which would have had the effect of rejecting the Bill because its scope excluded a discussion of proportional representation was negatived by 27 votes to 355.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful to you for your advice on my instruction. If I appear to be arguing with you, it is not that I disagree with your ruling, because I am bound by that, as is the House as a whole. I simply seek further elucidation.
May I refer, on the first point about the instruction being cognate, to page 509 of "Erskine May" which deals with:
"Admissible Instructions.—(1) Extension of objects."
This paragraph reads:
"An instruction is necessary to authorise the introduction of amendments into a bill, which extend its provisions to objects not strictly covered by the subject matter of the bill as disclosed on the second reading, provided that these objects are cognate to its general purposes."
"Erskine May" goes on to give a number of specific examples, one of which is particularly relevant. On page 510 there is mention of the Restoration of Order in Ireland (Indemnity) Bill, the Public Bodies (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Bill and a number of others. In the middle of those examples is the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Bill 1928. "Erskine May" says that on that Bill,
"to assimilate the franchises for men and women in respect of parliamentary and local government elections and for purposes consequential thereon, an instruction was put down,
1742
empowering the committee to insert provisions dealing with the maximum scale of election expenses. The Speaker stated that it was doubtful whether the committee would be able to entertain this question without an instruction, and that he considered this question cognate to the bill. The instruction was accordingly moved and agreed to."
What I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is that the question of the method of election is as cognate to this Bill as was the question of election expenses in the case of the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Bill.
The second point that you have raised, Mr. Speaker, places the House in a considerable dilemma. You will recall that when the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) moved his amendment he moved it as follows:
"That this House, whilst acknowledging that the number of Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland ought to be increased, declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill because its narrow scope fails to provide an opportunity for this House to determine whether or not those Members should be elected according to the principle of proportional representation."—[Official Report, 28th November 1978; Vol. 959, c. 256–7]
The wording of that amendment has placed hon. Members in a difficult situation. If they voted for the amendment they could be welcoming, or acknowledging, the argument that the number of Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland ought to be increased. They may have had doubts about voting for it because of the provision concerning proportional representation. According to the amendment, an increase in seats would require proportional representation. If hon. Members had wanted proportional representation but not an increase in Members they would have had to vote against the amendment.
Hon. Members were placed in a difficult position over the Government's original motion. If there had been a fine balance on this first point, concerning the cognate provision, those of us who wanted to discuss proportional representation, or STV, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) would call it, would have been stymied by the words of the Liberal amendment. They represented a Morton's fork. We should either have had to welcome the increase in seats and debate proportional representation or we should have had to say that we did not welcome

1743
the increase and so did not welcome proportional representation.
We are in a difficulty. It is your proper prerogative, Mr. Speaker, to decide what amendments to call. There were two amendments on Second Reading, one from the hon. Member for Isle of Ely and one in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). In your wisdom, you chose the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely. The result has been that we are prevented from discussing something which many of us regard as being of the utmost importance in terms of the way in which Northern Ireland is represented in this House.
Proportional representation for Northern Ireland Members would bring the form of election to this House from the Northern Ireland constituencies into line with the system used there in local government elections, Assembly elections and European Parliament elections. I am sorry to have taken up so much time on this point, but I should be grateful if you could advise us as to how final your decision is.
What is the position of Back Benchers when we have a Bill that has been finely drawn by the Government and on which there is collusion between the two Front Benches, with a view to pushing it through all its stages in one day? This is preventing proper consideration of the important constitutional issues that are involved.
Mr. Stan Thorne: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am one of the hon. Members to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) referred. I wished to vote on the basis of supporting proportional representation. I wished to support PR then, as I have supported that principle in the House on previous occasions. However, I was prevented from so doing because of the wording of the amendment, which implied acceptance of increased representation in seats in Northern Ireland. For that reason, although I am recorded as voting in a certain way, I am in a dilemma, and my dilemma remains.
5.0 p.m.
I believe that this House has never debated or decided upon PR per se. It
1744
has been linked with devolution and the Common Market, and in this instance with Northern Ireland. I believe that it is proper for us to debate the electoral system under which these new seats would be provided.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened with great care to both hon. Members who have contributed to this short discussion. I have spent a good deal of time considering this matter. First, I wish to inform the House that the Bill that is now before us concerns the numbers of seats, not the method of election. Secondly, there is no doubt that the House disposed of an amendment, with all its difficulties for hon. Members, in most decisive terms when the matter was discussed. There fore, I am afraid that I am unable to call the instruction.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]
The Chairman: May I deal with the first group of amendments—
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I regret having to interrupt you before we have properly begun our proceedings on the Bill, but I wish to draw your attention to the provisional list of selected amendments.
Following Mr. Speaker's ruling on the instruction, are you open to argument on the question whether we shall be able to discuss amendment No. 1 and the subsequent amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and in my name, or amendment No. 16 which appears in the name of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who unfortunately is not present in the Committee?
The Chairman: Perhaps I should make one general point to the Committee. It is important that I should give a general ruling at this stage.
I wish to remind the Committee that this Bill is a very narrow one. It has one purpose and one purpose only, namely, to increase the number of constituencies in Northern Ireland. All its provisions relate either to that or to the necessary consequential amendment of existing law that such a change involves. Anything else is outside the scope of the Bill and, with four exceptions, all the

1745
amendments and new clauses that do not appear on the selection list relate to different purposes and are out of order on that ground. The four exceptions are amendments Nos. 19 to 22, which, in the exercise of my usual discretion, I have not selected.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) asked about amendments Nos. 1, 5, 12, 23 and. I think, new clause 1.
Mr. McNamara: I did not mention new clause 1. I wished to refer to amendment No. 1.
The Chairman: New clause 1 deals substantially with the same point. Dealing with amendment No. 1, I should inform the hon. Gentleman that that amendment. to which others are consequential, would introduce a form of proportional representation that would go well beyond a simple increase in the number of constituencies with which this Bill is concerned.
Mr. McNamara: I wish to thank you for your remarks, Mr. Murton. However, I am perplexed, on the subject of constituencies and Members, as to which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Since you have informed the Committee that you are concerned with constituencies, I of course accept what you say. I also understand that you are exercising your discretion in this matter. However, 1 should like to draw your attention to the amendment that appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose)—amendment No. 18—which ties in with new clause 3. The effect of the new clause and amendment No. 18 is aimed not at the substance of the Bill but at the time, place and circumstances under which the Bill will come into operation.
I submit that there are precedents showing how and when legislation on constitutional topics and the franchise should come into operation. I refer you, Mr. Murton, to section 2 of that excellent piece of legislation, the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. In regard to devolution, that Act said:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State—(a) that the Northern Ireland Assembly (in this Act referred to as 'the Assembly') has made satisfactory provision by its standing orders for the purposes mentioned in section 25(2) to
1746
(5) below; and (b) that a Northern Ireland Executive can be tormed which, having regard to the support it commands in the Assembly and to the electorate on which that support is based, is likely to be widely accepted throughout the community, and that having regard to those matters there is a reasonable basis for the establishment in Northern Ireland of government by consent, he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council appointing a day for the commencement of Part II of this Act."
That Act was rushed through the House in about four hours during one afternoon in 1971 following an appeal in the Irish Court of Criminal Appeal. A manuscript amendment was accepted, which was complementary to my suggestion. It was proposed that the Act should come into operation contingent upon certain happenings. That amendment was put forward by the then Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), and included a provision to the effect that the Act would cease after six months. The Chair was prepared to accept that amendment. I remember the occasion distinctly because only seven hon. Members voted for it. However, it was accepted by the Chair.
The amendments to which I have referred do not restrict the principles contained within the Bill. They seek to define the places and the times when the measure may come into operation. There are adequate examples of similar sections in other legislation. A provisional list has been drawn up by the Chair. I urge you, Mr. Murton, with respect, to consider carefully whether either amendment No. 18 or new clause 3 could be accepted.
The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull. Central (Mr. McNamara) for explaining his argument so clearly. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that I took considerable care when making my selection. I took that care because there are certain difficulties.
The main difficulty from the hon. Gentleman's point of view is that the Bill is extremely narrow. The two Acts to which he has referred and prayed in aid in the hope that I might reconsider my decision were much wider in scope. Amendment No. 18 and new Clause No. 3 both have the effect of seeking to delay the operation of the Bill until the occurrence of hypothetical events that are in no way concerned with a number of the

1747
existing constituencies in Northern Ireland. I have listened with great sympathy to the hon. Gentleman's arguments but I cannot accede to his request.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Kingstonupon-Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) was good enough to refer to new clause 5, which was tabled in my name and which relates to Northern Ireland peers. The hon. Gentleman showed great interest in the matter on Second Reading, when I had something to say, as did he. I invite the attention of hon. Members to the effect of the new clause. It is an important point, although I fully accept that it is extraneous to a House of Commons Bill. I fully accept your decision, Mr. Murton, not to select the new clause. I should have been astonished if you had selected it.
The Chairman: I am a grateful to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) for the comfort and support that he has given the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is correct. The membership of another place is entirely outside the scope of this measure.
Mr. McNamara: You referred, Mr. Murton, to hypothetical circumstances. Despite the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on Second Reading about what is Government policy, and despite what the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) stated was the policy of the official Opposition, the question whether there will be devolved government in Northern Ireland may be hypothetical if the measure before us is enacted as it stands. You will recall that that was the burden of the arguments of some of my hon. Friends.
If one is to argue that something is out of order because it is based upon a hypothetical happening, every piece of legislation that we pass may well be in that category, no matter how widely or narrowly drawn. For example, a progressive system of income tax based upon increasing allowances for the number of children presupposes that two people will come together—a hypothetical possibility—and have children. That approach forgets about the revolution of the pill or the fall in the size of families. I understand that the average family per married couple is 1·9 children.
1748
5.15 p.m.
I do not believe, Mr. Murton, that you are scraping the barrel in trying to find an objection to my proportion. I believe that a proper attitude has been taken to the problem. As is our custom, we have before us a provisional list. With respect, Mr. Murton, I suggest that you reconsider the nature of the rules. To argue on the basis of what might or might not be a hypothetical happening is inconsistent with decisions that have been taken on amendments to other Bills. The example that I have given was based on a widely drawn Bill, but the Armed Forces Bill 1976 was narrowly drawn. It was so narrowly drawn that it was written in longhand. We never received a proper copy of the Bill, because it was rushed through so quickly.
Even if we are concerned with a hypothetical circumstance, surely we may still discuss the matter and still argue the case for the operation of the Bill to come into force when that hypothetical event takes place. With great respect, I do not think that it is for the Chair to say that the aims and objectives of Her Majesty's Government's policies are hypothetical, any more than I think it right to say the same about the policies of the official Opposition. If your decision, Mr. Murton, is based on the word "hypothetical", I suggest, with respect, that we be given a further opportunity to discuss the matter.
The Chairman: I am prepared to drop the word "hypothetical" if that will be in any way of help to the hon. Gentleman. That word does not affect my ruling. The amendment and the new clause have the effect of seeking to delay the operation of a measure that is before us until the occurrence of events that are in no way concerned with the number of the existing constituencies in Northern Ireland. "Hypothetical" might be superfluous. I must stand by what I have said. I am afraid that we cannot incorporate in this discussion that which the hon. Gentleman seeks, and I must stand by the ruling that I have given.
Mr. A. W. Stallard: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. In your opening remarks you rightly described the Bill as a narrowly drawn measure. It is a tightly drawn but exceedingly important Bill. We are about to discuss an

1749
important constitutional issue. It is obvious that there is not a great deal of interest in it in the House, but there is outside, including both parts of the island of Ireland.
Are we not entitled at least to the presence of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the Leader of the House, or both, on such an important constitutional issue? If you agree, Mr. Murton, that our discussion merits their presence, bearing in mind that the outcome of the Bill may determine the Government's thinking over at least the next five years, and perhaps beyond that, and may give rise to other similar Bills, or Bills that will have an effect similar to the one before us, do you not agree that we are entitled to the courtesy of the presence of the Secretary of State while we discuss such an important matter?
The Chairman: I note the observations made by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), but I point out that this is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. You said that it was not a matter for the Chair. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) referred to an interesting point. When this matter was discussed as a clause moved by the then hon. Member for Down, South, Captain Orr, on the Constitution Bill, there voted against this very proposal the Leader of the House, the Home Secretary, and my right hon. Friend who is now the Minister of State. I am sure that he will perform very well for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but he is still not the Secretary of State. Almost the only person from the Government who can come in virgin and unsullied in his attitude to the proposals is the Secretary of State.
It seems to me, therefore, that rather than expecting, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North has done, that the Home Secretary, the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should stand on their heads—or do whatever sort of contortion Members do when they get into the Government and change their policies overnight for very facile and very dangerous reasons—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should be here in his
1750
virgin form, young, and unsullied by what has gone on in the past, not having voted, and able to give his opinion on it.
The Chairman: None of that is a matter for the Chair.

Clause 1
INCREASE OF NUMBER OF CONSTITUENCIES IN NORTHERN IRELAND
Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 10, leave out
'18 or less than 16'
and insert
'24 or less than 21'.
The Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 2, in page 1, line 10, leave out '18' and insert '16'.
No. 4, in page 1, line 10, leave out '16' and insert '14'.
No. 6, in page 1, line 14, leave out '17' and insert '22'.
No. 7, in page 1, line 14, leave out '17' and insert '15'.
No. 8, in page 1, line 16, leave out '16' and insert '21'.
No. 9. in page 1, line 16, leave out '16' and insert '14'.
No. 10, in page 1, line 16, leave out '18' and insert '23 or 24'.
No. 14, in page 2, line 5, leave out '17' and insert '22'.
No. 15, in page 2, line 5, leave oat '17' and insert '15'.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. May we take it that there will be two Divisions, as one of the amendments is to reduce the number of seats and one is to increase it?
The Chairman: I should have said, before I called the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to move his amendment, that if the Committee desires to have a Division on amendment No. 3, and amendment No. 3 is negatived, I shall be prepared to allow a separate Division on amendment No. 2 if that is required by the Committee.
Rev. Ian Paisley: It has been said by the Government that the aim of the Bill is to give fair representation in Parliament to the people of Northern Ireland. I

1751
notice that, writing in Tribune, the Minister of State emphasises that very point when he says that the question really is
"whether the people of Northern Ireland deserve fair representation in Parliament."
It is the contention of the Government, of the official Opposition, and, I believe of the Official Unionist Party, that the Bill will accomplish fair representation in this House for the people of Northern Ireland. I take a different view, because I do not believe that the numbers decided on by the Speaker's Conference—and consequently by those hon. Members who found themselves involved in the proposals of the Bill—give fair representation numerically to the people of Northern Ireland. I want to develop this aspect, because it is very important to the people of Northern Ireland.
I always thought that when a Speaker's Conference was called concerning the boundaries of constituencies and the increase in constituencies, the prime purpose of such a Speaker's Conference was to hear from all parts of the House the exact feeling, and to hear the representations that Members of this House might have to make in relation to what is a very important matter.
We know that the Speaker's Conference was so constituted that only Official Unionists had the opportunity of taking part in the deliberations. Those deliberations are, of course, secret. Some Members of this House to this day do not know and never will know what took place in those deliberations.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman later on.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is not the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) aware that a member of the Social Democratic and Labour Party was a member of the Speaker's Conference?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am not arguing that point, with all due respect to the hon. Gentleman. I am talking of the Unionist representation. At that time there were other voices of Unionists in this House. There was my colleague the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) who is beside me. There was the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), who at that time was leading the Vanguard
1752
Party. There was also the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), who has not been a member of the Official Unionist Party. Surely those three Members, as against one Member from the SDLP, had a right to have their voices heard at the Speaker's Conference? That right was denied them. I have no objection to the hon. Member for Belfast, West having been at the Speaker's Conference, because he had a right to be heard on this issue, but what about the section of Unionism for which I am speaking? I shall maintain in the debate that I am speaking for a wider section of Unionism than were the two hon. Gentlemen who were at the Speaker's Conference, because my view has been endorsed by all sections of the Unionist-voting people in the Convention, which was elected on proportional representation. This needs to be kept in mind.
Mr. Fitt: I fully concur with the objections that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman. Even though it has been said that the Speaker's Conference was kept private and that we were not supposed to say what happened at it, may I tell the hon. Gentleman from the Floor of this House that I made vehement pleas to have as many people from Northern Ireland as possible at the Speaker's Conference. I also urged that the press should be admitted and that the proceedings, if necessary, should be held in Northern Ireland. It was certainly not by any action of mine that the Speaker's Conference was held in such privacy.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The official Opposition are involved in this as much as are the Government. The Government, when they talk about fair representation for Northern Ireland, should make sure that it is fair representation. That was not the case at the Speaker's Conference. A large section of elected Unionism was not heard. The elected representatives of that Unionism—Official Unionism, Vanguard Unionism, Democratic Unionism and Independent Unionism—had put firmly on the record their attitude to the number of seats, which is the issue that we are debating in this House today.
Mr. Stallard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech, and I apologise for interrupting at this point. I should like him to tell me something, if he will, because

1753
it is important to my own thinking, and we are all trying to develop our attitudes on this very important question. Would he have adopted the same approach about increased representation were Stormont still in existence? In other words, would fair representation have the same kind of connotation, given an Assembly or a Government in the Six Counties such as existed with Stormont, or would the hon. Gentleman have other considerations? It is an important question and one that I would like to get clear from my own point of view.
Rev. Ian Paisley: My view is that it is more important for Northern Ireland to have a devolved form of government than to have extra seats here. I should make it clear that that is a personal view.
Mr. Harold McCusker: What about the Convention report?
5.30 p.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall deal with the Convention report. I put this on record in my Second Reading speech. I am not going back on anything that I said before. If the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) wants to say something about it, he can. The hon. Gentleman is now leaving the Chamber. On Second Reading I made it clear that my aim and objective was to have proper devolved government in Northern Ireland. That was also the primary objective of the Convention. The hon. Gentleman, who has run out of the Chamber, was not a member of the Convention, so it ill becomes him to deliberate on the matter. That is the issue.
Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to finish this point. We are coming here not like Cinderellas pleading with this Parliament "Please give us a few more Members of Parliament". If we are to have fair representation, it ought to be fair. Northern Ireland is entitled to fair representation in this place.
Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point?
Rev. Ian Paisley: No, not on this point, because I am only just developing it.
1754
I believe that we should have proper devolved government in Northern Ireland. I take the parallel with Scotland. A Scottish devolved Government will not take away seats from Scottish Members here. This is a vital point. When Stormont came into existence, seats in this place were taken away. Now there is a reconsideration on the part of the Government and talk about fair representation. If we are to be fair, Northern Ireland should have proper devolved government. I am prepared to have the issue of proper devolved government in Northern Ireland put to the test in a referendum, in the same way as is to be done for Scotland and Wales. However, we should have fair representation in this place. If I were asked to make a choice, I should go for devolved government in Northern Ireland. I should be content, although it would not be fair, to have just the 12 seats here. However, I am not arguing for that today.
Mr. McNamara: I think that in this matter the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is perhaps more honest than some of those who sit on the Bench with him. I should like to put two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, does he agree that acceptance of the policy of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), which the Bill embodies, means that his hopes of an acceptable form of devolved government in Northern Ireland are considerably reduced because we should be moving to an integrationist situation?
Secondly, I understand that the hon. Gentleman put his name to the majority report of the Convention and the proposed Act at the end. Clause 52 provides:
"The number of Representatives from Northern Ireland in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be such number (but not less than 20) as may be determined by a judicial commission appointed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom within six months of the appointed day."
The Official Unionists, in getting what they have got from the Government, regrettably, have in fact got the worst end of the stick compared with what the majority of the Convention thought they wanted. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for quoting from a book with an orange binding.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman should quote more from books with

1755
orange binding. The Government, the official Opposition and the Official Unionists, in the Speaker's Conference, did not have before them a Member representing the other side of the coin of Unionism. What is more, the report flew in the face of what elected Unionist representatives of the people of Northern Ireland had already agreed to.
I want now to come to the Convention. The main aim of the Convention was to have devolved government in Northern Ireland. I brought this point out in my speech on Second Reading and I repeat it and lay it on the line here. The Convention report, at page 11, refers to representation at Westminster. It states that the UUUC, which at that time consisted of the Official Unionists, the Democratic Unionists and what became the United Ulster Unionist movement because of defection from the body of the Vanguard Unionists led by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), the UPNI—Mr. Faulkner's party —and the Northern Ireland Labour Party
"argued strongly for an increase in Northern Ireland's representation at Westminster and the Alliance Party was also prepared to give active support to this if agreement was achieved on a constitution."
The Alliance Party differed in that at that time it said "You cannot increase the number of MPs at Westminster until you have agreement on the constitution." Subsequently, when the Alliance Party made its submission to the Speaker's Conference, it changed in regard to that matter. In a very short submission, the Alliance Party stated that it would like to have 20 seats at Westminster. The Alliance Party, on page 12 of its submission, stated that
"The Alliance Party is in favour of increasing the number of Westminster seats in Northern Ireland from 12 to 20."
It also wanted representatives to be elected by proportional representation.
Therefore, we find that all sections of Unionism at that time agreed that there should be an increase. That was agreed to by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East, and people have adhered to him in the Convention. This argument is a red herring. They were not asking for extra seats as extra seats. They did not want anything different from any other part of the United Kingdom. They wanted fair representation. They did not
1756
want anything beyond what was given to any other part of the United Kingdom.
The Convention report states that
"The Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution—hereinafter referred to as the Kilbrandon Report—also recommended an increase."
I have heard hon. Members argue that the Kilbrandon Commission was wrong to recommend an increase in representation in this place. A number of hon. Members, who have now been converted to the fact that we should have extra seats at Westminster, at that time argued against extra representation.
The Convention report continues:
"The UUUC favours a number between 20 and 24 and advances the following arguments in support of greater representation".
The Convention was elected on the single transferable vote. It was not really proportional representation. It was a similar electoral system to that in the South of Ireland. At that time the House of Commons wanted to identify us as closely as possible with the Republic. The Convention was elected on a single transferable vote—the kind of system that we have in local government, that we are to have for the European elections and that has been argued for on both sides of the House of Commons by those who believe in some kind of PR. No one in this place could argue that the Convention was elected in a manner not agreeable to those who are in opposition to the Unionist way of thinking.
The elected Unionists, who had a firm majority in the Convention, argued not for the number of seats which were agreed to at the Speaker's Conference by the two spokesmen of Official Unionism —five, perhaps four, and at most six—but for 20 to 24.
"Northern Ireland, as an integral part of the United Kingdom, ought to be represented in the United Kingdom Parliament on a basis and scale similar to that used to determine the representation of comparable parts of the Kingdom."
Those parties did not argue that we should have parity with England. That is what the Bill will give us. It does not give us parity with the rest of the United Kingdom, as I shall show. That is not my summing up of what is taking place. That was issued by the Library through its research division. It issued a paper which said that all that had been given by the Speaker's Conference was the principle

1757
of parity of representation at least with England. Therefore, it is not what I say but what the research division of the Library says.
We are getting parity only with England, not with the United Kingdom. We never asked for parity with England. We asked for parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is taxed on the same basis as the rest of the country, and therefore the power of Parliament to tax must be balanced by the right to representation.
The Convention report says:
"The allocation of United Kingdom funds, including those spent in Northern Ireland, is determined by Parliament at Westminster. Parliament legislates for Northern Ireland. Devolved government in other parts of the United Kingdom is held by Her Majesty's Government to be fully consistent with parity of representation in the United Kingdom Parliament."
That refers to the proposals for devolution in Scotland and Wales.
The report continues:
"The UUUC suggested that the precise number of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and the Northern Ireland constituency boundaries should be determined by judicial commission. The UPNI also argued for equality of representation with other parts of the United Kingdom and suggested that at least one of the Northern Ireland Members should be included in United Kingdom representation at the European Parliament."
The Northern Ireland Labour Party, which I understand has some fraternal connection with the Labour Party, also suggested that Northern Ireland should be given adequate representation in the House of Lords. It put forward the figure of 20 for the House of Commons. What I am seeking to do, with the hon. Member for Down, North, is to put before the House today what the Northern Ireland Convention wanted. The Northern Ireland Convention was an elected body and had the right officially to voice Unionist opinion. I want to add that not only did the Unionists, who had the majority in the Convention, want more than is offered to us today on the basis of fair representation, but the Alliance Party has said "We want 20 seats". It has had a change of mind and is prepared to go for the 20 seats. The Northern Ireland Labour Party has also said "We want 20 seats".
Therefore, the overwhelming voice of the elected representatives of Northern
1758
Ireland has said "Fair representation means not parity with England but parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, we should have what the Convention report recommended. We should have the 20 to 24 seats".
Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman explain when this newfound desire for democracy began? I seem to remember that when the hon. Gentleman and Ulster Unionists generally had their own way they did not bother unduly about legalising democracy. They managed to do all that they wanted to do as regards housing, jobs, and so on, without this legality. Is it not a fact that it is only in the last few years since there has been real opposition to the position occupied by the Ulster Unionists that a new-found desire for democracy and legality has suddenly emerged—possibly in the last six or seven years, and not before that?
The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member is getting out of order. We are not discussing legalising anything. The Committee is discussing whether we shall increase the number of seats in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Sir Myer. The point that I made is absolutely relevant to the question of the expansion of the number of seats in Northern Ireland and, indeed, is fundamental to that. It is being watched by the whole population there, as well as by a large number of people in England. Therefore, with due respect, I believe that I have raised a relevant point—although I shall accede to your ruling.
The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am obliged to the hon. Member for doing that. I disagree with the hon. Member. The point is that we are discussing whether we should increase the number recommended in the Bill.
5.45 p.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I should have thought that, even if there had been a late conversion, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) would have welcomed it. I do not accept what he said, but if Northern Ireland representatives are moving towards democracy, as he suggests, he should be happy about it and not argue against it. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman

1759
said but, as you, Sir Myer, have ruled that I cannot discuss it further, I am not permitted to follow his line of argument. I should be quite happy to do so on another occasion at some other time—
Mr. Flannery: At some other hour.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, at some other hour—probably early in the morning.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is concerned with making comparisons between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, may I ask whether he is aware that one of the many reasons why I do not like the Bill is that if the same principles of representation were applied to Staffordshire— which is, in part, my responsibility—as it is proposed should be applied to Northern Ireland. we should need an additional two seats to make it 12 instead of the 10 that we have at the moment? In the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to see that proper comparability is established throughout the United Kingdom, has he considered how many additional seats we should need to establish in Staffordshire to bring it into line with the sort of representation that he now proposes for Northern Ireland?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I should have thought that that was a matter of concern for English Members. It is no concern of mine. If English Members are prepared to be under-represented, that is their business, and I am not at all concerned about it. I am dealing with a matter that has been put forward by the party to which the hon. Member belongs. The Labour Party is trying to argue down the throats of the people of Northern Ireland that the Government are giving fair representation. If the Government would say in this House "We are not giving you parity with the rest of the United Kingdom; you are getting parity only with England," we should at least have a basis for honest discussion. But an attempt is being made, by a whole welter of propaganda efforts, to tell the people of Northern Ireland "You are getting exactly the same as the rest of the United Kingdom".
I shall take up the point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott). I shall consider one of
1760
the English seats about which he seems to be so concerned. Newcastle,
Central—
Mr. Grocott: What about mine?
Rev. Ian Paisley: Newcastle, Central has 23,556 constituents, while my constituency has 102,828. When one compares those, one sees that the seat which I represent is four-and-a-half times larger than one English constituency.
Mr. Grocott: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has come on to that point. It is of tremendous interest to me because, representing as I do Lichfield and Tamworth, one of the matters that concerns me about Northern Ireland is the small size of the electorates of the constituencies there. Ten out of the 12 are substantially smaller than my own. Naturally, I take the view that I am capable of representing 100,000-plus constituents, and I do it, I hope, rather better than many of the Members in Northern Ireland.
I should have thought that although the hon. Gentleman is anxious to have the constituency sizes reduced, and although he is honest and frank enough to admit that he is not concerned about the rest of the United Kingdom—I think that I paraphrase him accurately—he must, surely, be concerned about it to the extent of considering how we would physically accommodate the Members in this House if we were to apply to the rest of the United Kingdom the principles of representation that he is now trying to apply to Northern Ireland.
I have not done my sums, but my guess is that it would need at least half a dozen more Members of Parliament for Staffordshire alone. The hon. Gentleman must consider the physical problems involved. If we had representation on that scale, the House would look like a crowd scene from "Ben Hur".
Rev. Ian Paisley: Knowing the way that the House is attended, one could be sure that one would get a seat if there were 800 Members rather than the 600-odd now. I am amazed at what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is typical of things that are said in the House about Northern Ireland. Let us look at the size of the Northen Ireland constituencies which the hon. Gentleman has been busy

1761
despising, saying that they are small, and make a comparison with both Scottish and English constituencies.
In Glasgow, for instance, the Central constituency has 20,412 electors. That would be the size of an old Stormont constituency in our Northern Ireland Parliament. The constituency of Western Isles has an electorate of 22,709; Orkney and Shetland has 28,307; Caithness and Sutherland has 29,598; Glasgow, Govan has 26,941. The constituency of Newcastle, Central has an electorate of 23,556; while Gateshead, West has 29,796.
If one puts those figures beside the consituencies in Northern Ireland, one sees how much out of proportion Northern Ireland is in the electoral quota in relation to the electoral quota in parts of England and Wales. Armagh has 93,496 electors, while Fermanagh and South Tyrone has 72,319. Of course, the hon. Member who represents that constituency does not come here too often, so no doubt he has time to look after his 72,319 electors.
It is noticeable, too—I am not making any point about this, but it is interesting to comment on it—that the Republican-held seats have the lowest quota. A Republican vote is worth, in some cases, one-and-a-quarter to one-and-a-half times the value of a Protestant Unionist vote.
Londonderry has 94,871 electors; Mid-Ulster has 81,937; Antrim, North has 102,828; Down, North has 98,901; Antrim, South has 125,924; Down, South has 89,855. In the Belfast seats, Belfast, East has 76,740 electors; Belfast, North has 66,651; and Belfast, South has 70,256. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) represents a constituency of 59,924 electors.
Putting those figures together, one can see how in this matter Northern Ireland has been so badly treated by this House. There has been a determination by both sides of the House to do that. I have heard Conservative spokesmen saying that there should not be more representation for Northern Ireland in this House. They have also said that they did not feel that the time was even ripe to discuss this matter. The Labour Party, too, has commented on this issue.
1762
What I am asking today is whether Northern Ireland is to receive fair representation—not extra seats but the representation that it ought to have. It is clear that the line that is drawn in this House is parity with England and not parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. A greater injustice will now come about, because the Government have made clear that if they win the referendum there will be devolved government in Scotland but in no way will they reduce the number of Members of Parliament from Scotland, and the same applies to Wales. Yet when it does not seem to anyone in Northern Ireland that steps will be taken to have a devolved form of government there in keeping with democratic principles, where the wishes of the majority will be acceded to, we are to have our numbers fixed not on the basis of parity with the rest of the United Kingdom, as they should be, but with England. That is very unfair indeed.
There is another matter that disturbs me. Attempts are made to argue that these seats will go one way or the other. It is the business of this House to see to it that the people of Northern Ireland have proper numerical representation in this House, but it is no business of this House how the people of Northern Ireland vote in those constituencies. That is the business of the electorate. Yet in order, probably, to persuade certain hon. Members of the Left wing of the Labour Party, it is said that these seats will go entirely to Republicans.
That statement was made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He said:
"Of the 17, it is quite likely that four or five could be anti-Unionist seats."—[Official Report, 9th November 1978; Vol. 957, c. 1168.]
That statement alarms me, because that could not happen unless there were to be colossal gerrymandering. Looking at the map of Northern Ireland, one sees that that is an absolute fact. If one wanted to carve out those seats in that way, I do not know how one could ever get five such seats.
The Minister of State went a little further, when he wrote to Tribune saying:
"Nevertheless, given the statutory rules which bind Boundary Commissions, the geography of Northern Ireland makes it very

1763
likely that there will be a majority of non-Unionist voters in perhaps five of the new constituencies … Four or five anti-Unionists would be likely to be on our side of the House and in a hung Parliament likely to give us a majority too."
Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Before we proceed on this line, let me say that I am in a difficulty. The question of the duty of the Boundary Commission does not enter into our deliberations this afternoon. We could get into very dangerous and what I would regard as strictly out of order contributions if we were to look at the matter from the viewpoint of how these constituencies will ultimately vote when they are created. I therefore ask hon. Members to keep in line with what the Bill provides and not to try to discuss the duty which will devolve upon the Boundary Commission when the Bill becomes law.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I am sorry to appear to be seeking to challenge your ruling. However, one of the points that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has been making concerns the arguments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, both in the presentation of the Bill and earlier, about what might happen—in fact, it was said with a greater degree of certainty than that—about the representation in this House should extra seats be allocated to Northern Ireland.
The occupants of the Chair on those occasions did not rule my right hon. Friend out of order when he made these points. If these are the arguments being advanced for the increase in the number of seats which we are discussing under the amendment, are we not in order in examining the grounds for the supposition of the Secretary of State in making this one of his binding arguments? I am informed that that was one of the arguments that he used at the Speaker's Conference to persuade people of the wisdom of this matter. Whether that is true I do not know. I was not there, and it is only the whisper that one hears about these things.
Let us consider what my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading. He referred to
1764
"an increased number of anti-Unionist members on the Labour Benches."
I asked that we should see
"the documents, papers and workings by which my right hon. Friend arrives at that rather remarkable conclusion".—[Official Report, 28th November 1978; Vol. 959, c. 245.]
I regarded that as a wide and sweeping assumption and, democratically, as a dangerous statement to make, flying in the face of the known facts about the distribution of population in Northern Ireland. Surely, we are allowed to pursue that point.
6 p.m.
Mr. Thorne: Further to the point of order—
The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time. I have listened carefully to it. I remind the hon. Member that this is not a Second Reading debate. That is the first point, and an important factor in our debates. The House is now in Committee and there are entirely different orders and Standing Orders governing our deliberations. It has already been explained that this is a narrow Bill, simply deciding whether the number of seats in Northern Ireland has to be increased or not and by what number.
We are now dealing with an amendment to go beyond what is included in the Bill. To get into arguments about how those seats will ultimately be disposed of in political terms is, in my opinion, out of order. So long as one deals purely with the number of seats being created, which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) wishes to amend, that will be in order, but I do not see anyone being able to juggle on a narrow tightrope of this kind.
Mr. McNamara: If what is feared as a result of statements is that there might be suggestions of a deliberate gerrymander to obtain a desired result—
The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It would be completely out of order to deal with what will happen when the Boundary Commission gets down to examining the situation.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Perhaps you can help me, Sir Myer. Am I right in thinking that when the Boundary Commission reports this House can accept its report or reject it?
The First Deputy Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Fitt: On a point of order, Sir Myer. May I draw your attention to the evidence of the Leader of the House to the Speaker's Conference? I referred to evidence given the previous week by Mr. Justice Murray, the Deputy Chairman of the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission, who had said that he was not concerned with politics, religion or any other consideration in drawing up boundaries. He said that he was concerned only with the numbers of people—in other words, a head count.
I referred to this in paragraph 144, speaking to the Leader of the House:
"Mr. Justice Murray, Deputy Chairman of the Boundary Commission in Northern Ireland, said quite clearly last week that he could only take into account—this would be his primary consideration—the number of people, the number of heads, he would not be able to take into account any religious or political criteria. If that is so then a very important part of the whole Northern Ireland problem would be neglected if we are to look at the figures purely on the basis of the number of heads?"
In reply, the Leader of the House said:
"I think it would be very difficult to give instructions to the Boundary Commission which would take into account all the factors which you have mentioned though some of those factors might be taken into account. But again I think that is primarily a question for the House of Commons to decide in the way in which it sets up the Boundary Commission or the way in which it passes judgment on the Boundary Commission. I am not saying these are not important matters but we would hope the issue for this Conference is something different. Of course those questions are matters which the House of Commons can discuss both before and after the Boundary Commission is established."
In paragraph 157, again in answer to my questions, the Leader of the House said:
"The House of Commons will consider all those matters because obviously those considerations will be put to the House of Commons when it makes its decisions."
Time and time again, as any hon. Member can see from the minutes of evidence, in answer to my questions the Leader of the House said repeatedly that there would be no restriction on debate in this House before or after the setting up of the Boundary Commission.
The First Deputy Chairman: That is exactly what the House has done. There was no restriction during the Second Reading debate on what had been pro-
1766
mised. As the hon. Gentleman himself said, the House will finally decide whether to accept or reject the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. This afternoon we are considering whether to leave out
"18 or less than 16"
and insert
"24 or less than 21"
and in another case to leave out "18" and insert "16". That is what we are to discuss.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I have been trying to keep within this argument, but when the people of Northern Ireland are told that they will get fair representation and then Ministers say that possibly five seats will go to anti-Unionist candidates, they are perplexed. They wonder how Northern Ireland can be carved up in this way.
The Secretary of State and his colleagues have been quite open about this in the House and in letters to the press. They have said that the aim is four or five Members who will be anti-Unionist. Immediately that is said, the people of Northern Ireland ask how they are to have fair constituencies when it has already been decided that they must be Republican constituencies. That is an important point which comes into the numbers question.
On the increase in numbers, the Alliance Party and the Northern Ireland Labour Party have come into line with the thinking of the UUUC. The Vanguard Party made a submission in which it said that proper representation would be as many as 30 seats. If that were increased, no hon. Member would be able to suggest that all of them—there were only to be five originally—would vote in a particular way.
That is my point, Sir Myer, within your ruling—that we are talking about the number of seats. Numbers are now very important when Government spokesmen are prepared to make such strong statements about how these constituencies will be made up and the type of voters that will have the majority.
Mr. Thorne: The hon. Member is confusing me. To judge by his statements in the House, he seems confident that these additional seats will return Unionist and other representatives on a similar basis as at present. I think that that is right, that

1767
additional seats will almost certainly be represented by Unionist and pro-Unionist Members. Surely, he recognises that the Secretary of State and his assistants are saying what they are about the likely representation in order to influence some of us on this side of the House to withdraw our opposition to the Bill as it stands. That is the sole purpose of it. I suspect that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is well aware of that.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I have already said that this was done to persuade certain elements of the Labour Party. However, the House is not in a position to say how the Boundary Commission will draw the boundaries. If we knew how the boundaries were to be drawn, the conclusions that are drawn could be verified and substantiated. If one looked at a map of Northern Ireland it would be difficult, but not impossible, to tell how one would carve five extra Republican seats out of the present boundaries, keeping in mind the population ratio. That is the aim. If that is what the Government want done, the people of Northern Ireland will naturally ask how this is to be fair representation.
The House should not be concerned about what Members are returned from the particular seats. We should be concerned about the number of seats that will give proper numerical representation. The trouble is that the House does not like the way people vote in Northern Ireland, and there have been many experiments to try to change it. We have tried to change it by changing boundaries, councils, voting and how people vote. At the end of the day the majority of the people will still get their message and convictions across.
It is unfair for Government spokesmen to make the statements that they are making. The people of Northern Ireland must inevitably ask whether the Boundary Commission will so deal with the boundaries that the end product will be what the Government are now saying.
Mr. John Farr: My impression was that Government Ministers said that out of the total of new seats for Northern Ireland there could be perhaps four or five that voted with the Government. They did not say that out of the new extra number of seats—five, six or whatever—there would be four or
1768
five extra Republican seats. They indicated that the total representation which might vote with the Government out of the new conglomeration could be as high as four or five.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to me carefully, or he would not have made that remark. This is what the Minister of State said, and I quote from Tribune:
"Nevertheless, given the statutory rules which bind Boundary Commissions, the geography of Northern Ireland makes it very likely that there will be a majority of non-Unionist voters in perhaps five of the new constituencies."
I am not trying to misrepresent anybody in this House.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. McNamara: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has not risen to speak on this issue. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has not seized the point that was made by my right hon. Friend in his article. I accept the argument of the hon. Gentleman about the substance, but on the use of the word "new" he is perhaps following a false trail. My right hon. Friend was talking about new in the context of the 17 new constituencies, not the creation of five new seats.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading:
"On the basis of this Bill, there will be 17 seats, and it is possible … once the boundaries have been redrawn, going for an electorate of just over 60,000 per Member, for there to be four or possibly five anti-Unionists out of the 17. Therefore, the minority population in Northern Ireland should be able to get increased representation in the House of Commons. If anyone wants to take the time to look at the make-up of the population and examine the breakdown, he will find that that is feasible.—[Official Report, 28th November 1978 ; Vol. 959, c. 245.]
I then rose on a point of order to ask whether we could have the documents, papers and workings of the Secretary of State. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will concede that his first point is incorrect, but on the second point I believe that his argument is valid.
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is incorrect only in the sense that the Boundary Commission is not obliged to change every constituency. We have had a reshuffle of seats in the past in Northern Ireland. When I came into this House, Antrim,

1769
South was a far larger constituency than it is today. There was then a change. Belfast, West was slightly enlarged, Antrim, North was enlarged, Antrim, South was reduced, but the other seats were left as they were. It does not follow that every oncsttuency must be changed. I concede that there will be more than five new constituencies. That does not mean that all 17 will be absolutely new constituencies. If I have misrepresented anyone, I apologise sincerely.
We are dealing with numbers today. We are dealing with numbers that have been commented upon, and it has been said that this will give Northern Ireland fair representation with the rest of the United Kingdom. I take exception to that That is why I am moving this amendment which is in keeping with the finding of the Northern Ireland Convention, which was an elected body set up by this House. It is also in keeping with other parties which have now come in and changed their minds, however belatedly, and which believe that the number of seats should be about 20.
The figure put today could be four or five or even six. We might get four or five, but it is hardly likely that we will get six. Even if we get six we still do not have fair representation for Northern Ireland in keeping with the rules that govern electoral quotas in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I wish to oppose this amendment because the mover of it has worked on an assumption, namely, that there is something that he describes as the United Kingdom quota that the figures in the Bill do not tally with. There is, of course, a Great British quota. If the hon. Member reads the document that has been prepared by the Library he will find clearly stated in that document that were Northern Ireland to receive 16 seats, which is the minimum number proposed in the Bill, it would be in line with both the quota that England receives and the quota that is described in that document as the Great British quota.
On the other hand, if the hon. Member is trying to suggest that Northern Ireland is not receiving the same number of seats as Scotland or Wales, his point is valid. But it is valid only to the extent that were Northern Ireland to receive the same
1770
number of seats as Wales one would hope that the Boundary Commission would increase the number from 12 to 18. Were it to be put on the same basis as Scotland, I freely admit that 18 is not the required figure. It would have to be 19.
One could argue that the situation in Scotland is different from that in Northern Ireland. Therefore, in drawing the boundaries of the constituencies, at least in Scottish terms, one is to some extent limited to what is possible within the geography of that region of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is wrong in supposing that Northern Ireland will not receive a comparable number of seats if we take the Great British quota or the English quota. His argument holds good only if he compares what is in the Bill with what Scotland at present receives.
I declare an interest in that I was a member of the Speaker's Conference. All of us who took part in those deliberations had a single objective—to give electoral equity to Northern Ireland in terms of the democracy of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that any of us was motivated by a desire to see this or that party, this or that religious group, or this or that political group receive advantage from what we did. Our thoughts turned on the fact that it has become generally accepted in this House that the people of Northern Ireland are under-represented at Westminster, and have been so under-represented for over 50 years, as the Leader of the House pointed out.
It is true that Northern Ireland had Stormont for many years. In fact, in this House we believed that Stormont so ruled Northern Ireland that we had little need to take account of what was going on in the Province. But that is all history. Since Northern Ireland has not had a proper Government of its own, even in the local sense, for six years, it would be wrong to continue to allow under-representation in the one democratic and elected Chamber in which the Northern Irish people still have a right to express their views in full.
The Speaker's Conference was created out of a feeling on both sides of the House that this wrong should be put right. I feel very privileged to have been a member of that Conference.

1771
I add that I shall not be satisfied until Northern Ireland not only has fair representation at Westminster but has a devolved administration of some sort or other. Only then can Northern Ireland stand on all fours with any other part of the United Kingdom. Only then can the people of the Province say that they enjoy the same democracy as the rest of the citizens of the United Kingdom, and that they have the same right to control their affairs and the same voice in Westminster.
To that extent, the figure that we arrived at in the Speaker's Conference has one flaw which I would want to see removed. I hold what some people would call a simple view. In the last analysis, I believe that each one of us in this Chamber should represent approximately the same number of electors. At present there is a serious imbalance in the number of electors whom we represent. We have heard the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) say that Staffordshire is under-represented. If he takes the so-called English quota of 65,000, he is right. By the same token, I am representing too many people in West Berkshire, because my constituency numbers more than 80,000. As we begin to get the spread of seats correct for the regions, we shall be forced to look at the whole structure of parliamentary representation in this Chamber.
If we were to work on simple mathematical calculations, with everybody representing about the same number of people, England should have an increase of 12 seats from 516 to 528. Scotland should have its number of seats reduced from 71 to 59 and Wales should have its number reduced from 36 to 32. In other words, Scotland should have a reduction of 12 and Wales a reduction of four. That meets the point that was made by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth, because 12 more seats for England and a reduction of 16 for Wales and Scotland would give a net result of about the same number of Members as we have already, and the representation would be much fairer, particularly to England.
Because there are geographic considerations of which we must take account—this argument has been used for leaving Scotland as it is—and because the Speaker's Conference was considering
1772
Northern Ireland representation, we had to decide whether we should aim for a figure approximating to the Great British quota or whether we should put Northern Ireland on a par with Scotland or Wales. In our wisdom, or otherwise, we came to the compromise solution embodied in the Bill.
Mr. James Kilfedder: With whom was the compromise made?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I wish that the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) would put his party political allegiance and his nationality in his pocket for a moment and look at the matter with equity. If we had put Northern Ireland on a par with one of the regions, which region would we pick? Scotland has a geographic structure which is very different from that of Northern Ireland. Scotland is very much larger in land mass. Northern Ireland is on a par, in terms of land mass, with Yorkshire. It did not seem reasonable to say that Northern Ireland should have 19 seats, giving it the same quota as Scotland.
What about Wales? Geographically Wales is more similar to Northern Ireland, giving a quota of 18 seats. Some of us thought that the least that we could do was to put Northern Ireland on a par with Wales. This would put Northern Ireland somewhere between England and Scotland. To draw a parallel between Wales and Northern Ireland is not unreasonable. However, it was fair to ask "Why Wales"? Why did we not choose England? In equity we felt that the answer lay in a compromise between the top figure of 19 seats, as in the case of Scotland, and the bottom figure of 16, as in the case of England. Taking Wales as the nearest region to Northern Ireland and drawing a comparison, we decided that 17 was the figure on which we should advise the Boundary Commission to work. It should accept that 18 was the top figure and that 16 was the lowest.
Of course, it could be said that we should have gone for the Scottish figure, because Scotland has the best representation of any part of the United Kingdom, but I am prepared to accept the geographic argument and say that it does not apply to Northern Ireland. I therefore agree with the overall recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference that 17 is the ideal figure, with 18 and 16 as the alternatives.

1773
6.30 p.m.
It has been pointed out in the paper prepared by our Library that we have set a ceiling for Northern Ireland that is, to some extent, unusual when laying down what should be the number of seats that any region may reasonably claim for its representation. The Northern Ireland electorate has increased by more than has that of any other part of the United Kingdom since 1949. If a ceiling is set for the number of seats in Northern Ireland, it may be argued that if the electorate increases enormously we may have this debate again in 10 years' time, with hon. Members arguing that Northern Ireland's population is so large that 18 seats is not a reasonable number to give fair, democratic representation.
There is some force in that argument, but although Northern Ireland's electorate has increased by 19·5 per cent. since 1949, that increase is represented only by 14,052 people—about 25 per cent. of the number of electors who will be required in future to return an hon. Member for a constituency in Northern Ireland. Therefore, if in the past 30 years we have reached an increase of only one-quarter of the number of electors who will be required for a new seat, is it not reasonable to say that we shall probably have to wait another 30 or 40 years before enough people have joined the electoral roll in Northern Ireland and for any of us to feel that 18 seats is too small a number to give fair representation?
Why did we choose a ceiling figure at all? Our view was that we had not only the responsibility to decide what would be an equitable figure to give Northern Ireland parity with other parts of the United Kingdom but a duty to give the Boundary Commission a target figure that we felt might be described as the optimum result if Northern Ireland were to have fair representation at Westminster.
We believe that the figure of 17 is that optimum result, but because drawing boundaries is a more difficult task than we may imagine, we thought that to freeze the figure on a single number and to say that it was the only number on which the Commission could work might make its job so difficult that it was better for
1774
us to give it the flexibility of plus or minus one.
We hoped and believed that that would allow the Commission to draw new boundaries with the greatest fairness to all the people living in Northern Ireland —without regard to their political loyalties, religious affiliations or party choice.
We wanted to create as much equity as possible. I oppose the amendment because I believe that Mr. Speaker's Conference reached the right decision. I may be biased, because I was a member of the Conference, but I believe that the figures in the Bill are right and those are the figures for which I shall vote.
Mr. McNamara: The whole House is indebted to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who had the good fortune to be a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference and who has explained to us in great detail how the Conference reached its conclusions. That I disagree with those conclusions is another matter, but that the hon. Member has done the House a service in explaining properly, for the first time, how the difficult decisions were arrived at and what principles guided the Conference cannot be denied and is important to the House and the people of the United Kingdom.
I was fascinated by some of the little gems in the hon. Gentleman's speech when he put Yorkshire in one place, equated Scotland with Wales, drew a parallel here and moved a continent there and a subcontinent elsewhere. He almost became, for the House, a great cartographer, if not the greatest apologist. His speech was an interesting and valuable one, however, and we are grateful for it.
If we are to grant more seats, it should be the minimum number of seats, and to get my amendment in order, within the terms of the Bill, I have chosen 16 as the minimum number.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke of some of the speeches made on Second Reading and of promises that may have been made or implied to my hon. Friends to get them to support the Bill, or to members of the minority Republican or non-Unionist population in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman was pointing to a very dangerous procedure.

1775
If the House had decided that it would consider the introduction of proportional representation in General Elections in Northern Ireland, the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the minority might get five or six seats might have been fair. That assessment could be made on the basis of population or the way in which votes had gone in other elections in Northern Ireland, whether for local government, the Assembly, or the Convention. However, to align certain parties in Northern Ireland with one side or the other would not be acceptable to them. In particular, the Alliance Party would not think of itself as a party of the minority. It claims to cross the divide between the two sides, and under proportional representation the Alliance Party would presumably win one or two seats. Indeed, I understand that in the elections for the European Assembly on 6th June—
The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that we are not discussing proportional representation or the European Assembly elections. Perhaps he will therefore return to the amendment.
Mr. McNamara: I was taking up a point that has been developed before and that was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who said that the minority might get five or six seats under a system of proportional representation. I said that that might be possible if the House had agreed to implement a system of proportional representation, although some parties that would reasonably hope to gain seats in such an election would regard themselves not as parties of the majority or the minority but as parties that straddled the divide.
The point that I was going on to make was that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was not referring to that sort of situation. He was referring to the sort of situation in which the Boundary Commission in Northern Ireland would take into consideration various factors, such as population, natural boundaries, county, city and town boundaries, and so on, and, on the basis of those considerations, propose a number of extra seats for Northern Ireland. My argument is that if the aim of my right hon. Friend was to persuade us and the people of Northern
1776
Ireland that, somehow, magically, they would get increased representation in this House, either he was badly advised or, as I believe, he was, perhaps unconsciously, misleading people about what a possible result would be. I do not believe that it was his deliberate intention to mislead, but I think that that will be the consequence of what has been said.
It is very dangerous to make that sort of statement anyway, for exactly the reason that the hon. Member for Antrim, North gave. If this House is to say that we should give extra seats to Northern Ireland—I do not think that we should—we cannot then say "But this is going to be the result of the election". It is absolutely wrong for us to argue in that way. It is wrong because, assuming that the Boundary Commission will be impartial, as I am sure it will be, if it leads to hope unfulfilled and promises unkept it can make the political situation far worse than it is.
If it is meant as a nod and a wink at the Boundary Commission that, somehow or other, extra seats can be carved out, with a sort of Republican cordon sanitaire along the border, or Derry city just taken out and given representation by itself against a general background, that will be a very bad situation and will amount to a reversal of the arguments that many of us were advancing about the situation in 1968 and 1969.
Hon. Members know that basically I am against the extra seats being granted to Northern Ireland, but if we are to think in terms of the way in which these extra seats are to be granted, I think that there is a great deal of substance in what the hon. Member for Antrim, North said. I much regret that, so far, we have had no interjection from the Official Unionists. I see that their Bench is completely empty.
Mr. William Craig: I am here.
Mr. McNamara: I am sorry. There will be joy amongst the angels in heaven for one sinner doing penance, and the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) is right now back in the fold. There is hope for salvation for the hon. Member for Antrim, North. He may yet repent and join the right hon. Gentleman. I apologise to the right hon. Member, but not to his colleagues, for

1777
none of them has taken part in this debate. It looks as though the Government will have to do their dirty work for them in justifying the decision to increase the number of seats.
The hon. Member for Newbury said that there was a great sense of burning injustice which had forced this House to clamour at the doors of the Leader of the House and of the Leader of the Opposition and say "Please write to Mr. Speaker and establish an electoral conference so that we can bring justice to Northern Ireland". What a marvellous situation it is, in terms of the way in which the tremendous formation of conscience, under the pressures of a lost vote and of a possible General Election and no Lib-Lab pact, was forced upon us. Is that the truth of the matter? In a sense, would that it were so. But that, of course, is not how it happens.
6.45 p.m.
In this numbers game, we have a full house. We have extended another line in order to extend the life of the Government for perhaps another six weeks, or three months, and sometimes I think that we have to say to the Government that though they make their alliances, for which we understand the reasons, and though we would be better off, and are better off, without a Tory Government, sometimes when we make these arrangements we may live to regret them.
It is ridiculous to talk about the five Members who may or may not come in, who may or may not represent a minority, as holding the balance in a hung Parliament, because if there are five of them, what about the other 12? Does it mean that they will have gone back to the other side?
I recall the 1964–66 Parliament—briefly, because I was in it for only a few weeks. If Northern Ireland had had this increased number of seats in 1964, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) would never have formed his Administration. In brutal party terms, the Government should think about that situation. The Government might really believe that if this increase in numbers goes through Parliament, Members from Northern Ireland will run around beating their breasts and saying "How sweet, how kind, how noble, how
1778
beautiful. We will support this Labour Government, yea, till the last day of November, until which time they can legally remain in office." Do my right hon. Friends think that that will happen?
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should look at the voting record of the pack of them. For example, the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) has been a consistent Tory Unionist, voting that way all the time against the evils of Socialism. How did these Members vote on the question of Harland and Wolff and the Shipbuilding Industry Bill, and on so many other Bills, in order to twist us and put the Government on a rack so as to get their way and achieve this Bill?
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I want to get the essence of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. His cynicism about his own Front Bench is his own business, but is he saying that although we have parliamentary democracy and claim that people have rights, the people of Northern Ireland are to be denied those rights, which are enjoyed by the people in Scotland, Wales and England?
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman himself said that the people of Northern Ireland were to be denied the rights of the people of Scotland, so I do not think that he can bring that point forward as an argument.
As the hon. Member for Newbury knows, I am for full democratic representation of all people in the island of Ireland. I am all for the principle that there should be one vote for one man, one woman or one child over the age of 18, whether by the single transferable vote, first past the post, or whatever. But I do not believe that that representation should be here, and I see no point in advocating the policy that the number of seats here should be increased.
I believe that the Six Counties are for the time being part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but whilst I believe in their administration and the provision of services to them, I would do nothing to increase their representation here. I have always adopted the position that the right of the people in that area should be to join their fellow Irishmen in Dail Eireann or an institution with another name if they wish.

1779
I do not wish to see their representation increased here.
If the hon. Gentleman is to argue for increased representation for the people of Northern Ireland, he should take the line advocated by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. if they are to have representation they should have the best. The best would be what the Convention argued, what the members of the Convention put their signature to, and what members of the Official Ulster Unionist Party in this House have thrown away. Not one amendment from the Official Unionists seeks to achieve what they all wanted in the Convention—to persuade the Committee by the power of their arguments to bring forth the model Bill from the Convention report which would give that representation. I put my name to the hon. Member's amendment because I felt that this important matter should be debated.
When we consider the alterations that we are making in this numbers game, in this political bingo, we should remember that the prize may be control of the balance of votes in a hung Parliament. Any change in the numbers of Northern Ireland representation in this House is something that the Government and the Opposition Front Bench have tried to avoid. They have swept it under the carpet, not appreciating its significance. It is a matter of fundamental constitutional significance that the House is seeking to increase the representation.
The franchise that existed in the old Irish Parliament before 1800 mirrored very much the franchise of this House; corrupt boroughs, limited franchise, very few voters. Then, when the Catholics were given the forty shilling vote, the vote became very important. After the election of O'Connell and the defeat of Vesey Fitzgerald, part of the price for emancipation was the forfeiture of the forty shilling franchise for the £10 franchise. After the passage of time and the introduction of the Reform Act, the franchise in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as it then was, became on a par.
The representation in this House varied from time to time. Under the Act of Union, until 1832 it was 100. From 1832 to 1885 it became 105. One could argue that after the famine that represented a degree of over-representation.
1780
Perhaps Liverpool, Scotland, should have got one Member earlier and the Bowery, in New York, should have got one, as well as Boston. Nevertheless, there was that increase to 105. It dropped by two in 1918 to 103, and between 1918 and 1922 the representation was 105.
The best description of how the figures were arrived at was in the paper presented to Mr. Speaker's Conference by a Ms Frances-Jane French, MA, M.Litt, of Dublin, in which she examined in considerable detail the arrangements made in the Cabinet and the Cabinet sub-committee that dealt with Ireland in the years of the coalition of the time.
The War Cabinet held a meeting on 7th October 1919 at which it decided to set up the Cabinet Committee on Ireland. Under the chairmanship of Walter Long, former Chief Secretary for Ireland, a former Tory Chief Whip and a member of the coalition, the Committee was set up to consider Irish policy and make recommendations. This was after the Home Rule Act had been passed and it was in suspension after the outbreak of the First World War.
The Cabinet agreed on 25th November, after a full discussion
"that [the] Cabinet Committee [on Ireland] should proceed to work out the Bill or Bills … necessary to give effect to the policy proposed in its third report".
Unfortunately, there are no records of that report. I am not quoting in full, but giving sidelines. Hon. Members may wish to see the paper itself in the green box in the Library. No mention was made of the number of seats allocated to Northern Ireland or any arrangements for determining any constituency boundary. It was recommended that the Cabinet Committee
"should be asked to submit alternative drafts on any matters on which the Committee felt that the decision should rest in the Cabinet"
No alternative drafts were ever submitted to the Cabinet Committee on the question of the number of seats to be allocated to Northern Ireland or on the arrangements for deciding the constituency boundaries.
The first draft of the proposed Bill that went before the Cabinet Committee, entitled "Representation of Ireland in House of Commons of United Kingdom"

1781
stated, in subsection (a) of section (1), that:
"The number of members to be returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be 42 [i.e. 30 for Southern Ireland & 12 for Northern Ireland] and the constituencies returning those members shall (in lieu of the existing constituencies) be the constituencies determined by the Commissioners appointed by His Majesty for the purpose."
That is the origin of the number 12.
The fourth and final report of the Cabinet Committee on Ireland, dated 2nd December 1919, stated that:
"This committee are now in a position to make their final recommendations in regard to Bill X" [the Government of Ireland Bill, 1919/20]. The report went on 'The Sub-Committee [on finance of the Cabinet Committee] also make the following recommendations on points which have not yet been settled:—
(a) They recommend that representation in the Imperial Parliament should be in proportion to population which should give Ireland about 63 or 64 members' [i.e. 18 or 19 for Northern Ireland and 45 or 46 for Southern Ireland]."
7 p.m.
But:
"At a meeting of the Cabinet held on 3rd December 1919. 'Walter Long, Chairman of the Cabinet Committee [on Ireland] read the heads of the latest proposals of the Cabinet Committee, which had not yet been circulated.' These included:—
'8. That representation in the Imperial Parliament should be in proportion to population which should give Ireland about 63 or 64 members.'
'10. That the total number of Irish elected members should be three times that of the representation of Ireland in the Imperial Parliament.' … 'It has the additional advantage that the same constituencies will serve for the Imperial and the Irish elections, each constituency will return 3 members on proportional representation instead of the one they will return to the Imperial Parliament.'
It was also agreed at this Cabinet meeting:—
'That the Chief Secretary for Ireland [Mr. later Sir Ian Macpherson], in consultation, if he desired, with one or more of his colleagues, and with such Irish officials as he might desire, should complete the draft of the Bill on the basis of the above provisional decisions, as soon as possible, with a view to its further consideration by the Cabinet.'—[no mention made in 'the above provisional decisions' referred to here, of the question of the allocation of seats to Ireland in the Imperial Parliament or to the question of the determination of the constituency boundaries].
1782
A second draft of the proposed Bill … was printed on 6th December 1919. Clause 15 of this Bill entitled 'Representation of Ireland in the House of Commons of United Kingdom' states in subsection (a) of Section (1) that:—
'The number of members to be returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be [sixty three] and the constituencies returning those members shall (in lieu of the existing constituencies) be the constituencies returning members to serve in the Parliament of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland and the number of members to be returned to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom by all such constituencies shall be such as may be determined by such Commissioners as aforesaid, and each such constituency shall return one member.'
At a meeting of the Cabinet … held on 10th December 1919, Clause 16 of the proposed Bill, entitled: 'The Representation of Ireland in the House of Commons' was discussed and
'The Cabinet agreed:—
[11] (a) that subject to the result of an interview which the Prime Minister intended to have with the Irish members of the Government, Clause 16 of the Bill should be amended so as to reduce the number of Irish members provided for in thee Imperial Parliament to 42' [i.e. 12 for Northern Ireland plus 30 for Southern Ireland]—[There is no subsequent Cabinet Minute on the result of the Prime Minister's interview with the Irish members of the Government].
(b) that the Government should be prepared to re-consider the whole clause when they had ascertained the general opinion of the House of Commons on the question".
The Cabinet at its meeting on 19th December 1919 agreed after some discussion:—
[7] 'to accept the recommendations of the Cabinet Committee that the number of Irish members included in the Bill should be 42' And
[17] 'The Cabinet invited the Cabinet Committee to examine the Bill in the closest detail before its introduction in Parliament.'
A further draft of the proposed Bill was printed on 2nd February 1920. Clause 17 of this entitled, 'Representation of Ireland in House of Commons of United Kingdom' stated in subsection (a) of Section (1) that:—
'The number of members to be returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be 42 and the constituencies returning those members shall (in lieu of the existing constituencies) be the constituencies named in parts I and II of the Fourth Schedule to this Act.
The Cabinet at its meeting on 24th February 1920, the day before the Government of Ireland Bill was given its formal First Reading in the House of Commons and was ordered to be printed, came to various conclusions regarding the Bill after
'The Prime Minister pointed out that with a Bill of so controversial character much

1783
would have to be left to the temper of Parliament and many adjustments would doubtless have to be made in it later on.'
Subject to these conclusions (none of which dealt with the allocation of seats to Northern Ireland or the drawing of the constituency boundaries),
'The Cabinet gave their general approval to the Draft Bill but it was recognized that owing to the difficulty of forecasting public and Parliamentary opinion it would be necessary for the Cabinet to accept important modifications in the Bill during its passage through Parliament.' "
The writer of the paper draws an interesting parallel between
"the clause dealing with Irish representation at Westminster, as it appears in what is clearly a preliminary draft of the Bill and the comparable clause in the Bill as it was eventually printed for its introduction into the House of Commons, notwithstanding what took place regarding this matter between these two events.
This preliminary draft of the Bill is in the form of a duplicated typescript and is headed: 'Government of Ireland Act 1919'. The draft bears no date, but its contents would date it circ. the latter part of October, 1919. Clause 15 is entitled—
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to read out a document that the Committee is perfectly able to get from the Vote Office if it so wishes?
The Second Deputy Chairman: I had been wondering when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) would relate what he was reading to the amendment.
Mr. McNamara: I am relating it to the amendment, Mr. Godman Irvine. We are arguing how the number 12, which we are seeking to amend, was originally arrived at. Until we have settled that, we are not in a position to judge whether it is right to make additions to, or deletions from, the number in question.
Some of us did not have the great advantage of being able to talk about the arguments in this fairly important paper in Mr. Speaker's Conference. Other hon. Members have a right to direct their attention to the arguments in the paper, particularly because of the conclusions with which I disagree. I disagree with them entirely, except to say that they would support what the hon. Members for Antrim, North and Down, North would perhaps argue.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: May I, Mr. Godman Irvine, draw your attention and perhaps the attention of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) to the fact that the document has been in the Vote Office since last autumn. Therefore, the idea that hon. Members other than those who served on Mr. Speaker's Conference have had no opportunity to read it is a little far-fetched, to say the least.
Mr. McNamara: I have not argued that hon. Members have not had an opportunity to read the document. What I have argued is that they have not had an opportunity to debate it, which is a different matter. We are entitled to do that, and to measure the value of the argument.
Mr. Kilfedder: Surely the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) is entitled to put forward the evidence in the paper and read it to the Committee, if need be, to answer what the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said in his speech. I find the paper very interesting, and hope in time to use it.
The Second Deputy Chairman: If we were never allowed to quote from documents available in the Vote Office, speeches might be somewhat attenuated. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) is entitled to refer at reasonable length to what is in a document that is available.
Mr. McNamara: I had not been quoting in extenso from the document. I have not adopted the policy of someone who once, in the American Senate, read from the second sentence to the penultimate sentence of "Gone with the Wind" in order to claim that he was merely quoting and not reading the whole document. I have tried to show where the figure 12 comes from. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newbury was following my argument with the care that he generally gives to hon. Members' arguments, as was shown by his intervention. He will have observed from what I have said that we should perhaps have had 18 or 19 Members for Northern Ireland and 45 or 46 for Southern Ireland. I am seeking to examine the arguments which led us to our conclusion on the actual numbers involved in 1920–22.

1785
One subsection of the draft Bill said:
"After the date of the first meeting of the Irish Parliament the number of members to be determined by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be forty-two and the constituencies returning those members shall (in lieu of the existing constituencies) be the constituencies named in the second part of the First Schedule to this Act, and no University in Ireland shall return a member to the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
We know that the Irish were allowed to send a university Member for some time. The paper continues:
"In the Schedule setting out the constituencies, Ulster was to consist of nine counties, with the constituency of Donegal/Fermanagh returning two members and that of Monaghan/Tyrone two members. In all, the nine counties of Ulster were to return 15 members to the single Irish Parliament proposed in this document."
I think that we can skip one or two of the following paragraphs. The important matter is that the Bill as it was ordered by the House on 25th February 1920 to be printed said:
"After the appointed day the number of members to be returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be forty-two "
and so on.
A new third subsection reads:
" 'On the appointed day, the members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall vacate their seats, and writs shall as soon as convenient may be, be issued for the purpose of holding an election of members to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the constituencies other than University constituencies mentioned in Parts I and II of the second schedule to this Act.'—[The constituencies named in Part II of the second Schedule are those constituencies in the six North Eastern counties of Ulster]."
We arrived at a figure of 12 Members for Ulster. The figure remained more or less the same until the current problems in Northern Ireland began. Once that figure was arrived at constitutionally the people of Northern Ireland were represented sometimes by only Unionists. At other times some of the representatives were abstentionists or people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). At other times representatives did not turn up, even though they were Unionists. There was an interesting representation. Nobody challenged that situation until the unhappy problems began in Northern Ireland. Until than no one
1786
questioned the Northern Ireland representation in the House. That is of fundamental importance.
We were in a unique situation. At that time Northern Ireland Members could ask any question that they wished about England, Scotland and Wales, but they could not ask questions about housing matters in their own constituencies, for instance. Other Members could ask how many slums there were in their areas, what were the rates and any other question. But neither an English Member nor a Northern Ireland Member could ask about the Six Counties. Nobody seemed to mind.
One of the reasons for the troubles was this self-imposed gag. We had two classes of Members of Parliament. We had Ulster Unionists, who could ask about anything anywhere except in their own constituencies, and the rest of us.
What caused the sudden demand to increase the representation? The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and his Government decided, for sound reasons, that they should suspend the constitution of Northern Ireland. After that, everybody questioned whether Stormont would ever be restored to what it had been. The decision was made to get rid of Stormont and the old Governor-General and to start again with a power-sharing Assembly.
7.15 p.m.
Some of the powers of that power-sharing Assembly were to be different from those of the Stormont Parliament, and the decision was made by a number of Ulster Unionist Members, particularly by Captain Orr, who then represented Down, South, to seek to influence the House to consent to extra representation for Northern Ireland. The agitation for extra representation stems from then. Captain Orr moved new clause 6 "Representation in United Kingdom Parliament". It stated:
"(1) Section 19 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 is hereby repealed.
(2) The representation of Northern Ireland in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be not less than 16 members."—[Official Report, 21st June 1973; Vol. 858, c. 911.]
The new clause was brought up and read a First time. The number chosen —16—is interesting, not only because it is 4 times 4 but because it is the minimum number which the present Bill suggests is applicable to Northern Ireland. Captain Orr was perhaps less

1787
ambitious than some but his caution and modesty is rewarded in the Bill. At least he achieved what he asked for—possibly more in terms of extra seats. But I think that he received little of what he deserved.
Captain Orr argued that we should have more seats. His successor, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) who then represented Wolverhampton, South-West, supported that proposal. He used the delightful phrases that we have come to expect from him. He said:
"Many and many a summer at Hawarden did Mr. Gladstone ponder upon the theological problems of whether, given Home Rule, representation in this House should cease altogether or whether it should be diminished, and, if so, on what principle it should be diminished."—[Official Report, 21st June 1973; Vol. 858, c. 914.]
The right hon. Member came to a fairly sound conclusion that there was no real basis for deciding how any number was arrived at.
I have tried to show from the quotations that I gave from the Cabinet minutes of the time that basically, although there had been a certain logic in the numbers originally suggested, when one came to the position of the 12 Members and the 30 Members there was no logic in it at all. One of the important points in the paper was the fact that these were decisions taken by Cabinet in Cabinet, without any reference to the House. One could almost say that this decision to set up a Speaker's Conference, which has resulted in today's Bill, was taken by the Cabinet in Cabinet, without any reference to the party or the principles and policies of the Government up to that time.
The matter was debated in full. It was said in 1973 that the right hon. Member for Down, South had suggested that there should be 16 Members for Northern Ireland.
In many ways he was advancing the same kind of argument as that put forward by the hon. Member for Antrim, North today. What is more interesting, when we look at this debate on the numbers game—because this basically is what the debate and the policy of the Government has been about—is that it calls to mind what was said by Mrs. McAliskey, when she seemed to sum up the position of my hon. Friend the
1788
Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—though I am not sure that he would normally call her in aid. She said, speaking of the argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South—although he was at that time representing a Wolverhampton seat—that the right hon. Gentleman based his argument on the claim that representation in this House for Northern Ireland was democratic.
Her argument was that none of the Northern Ireland Members ought to have been in the House. She thought that the Province was over-represented to the tune of 12 Members because Members ought to have been in their own independent country. Mrs. McAliskey wanted to make the position of her constituents quite clear. In so far as they could prevent it, not one single solitary Member would put his foot further over the threshold at Westminster.
The interesting argument here is the one advanced by my right hon. Friend, who is now the Home Secretary, on this question of the numbers game. He advanced the argument which is the one to which I believe we should apply our minds. He argued that the situation in Northern Ireland, in terms of politics, terrorism, economics and the divide which exists in the community, was such that the aims and objects of this House should not be concerned with particular number but should be concerned with trying to find a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. My amendment seeks to reduce the proposed number of Members to represent Northern Ireland here. I hope that it will help to concentrate the minds of the people of Northern Ireland upon their problems and prevent them from looking to this House for a solution to those problems. Those will be the arguments that will cause me and my hon. Friends to seek to divide the Committee this evening.
I return to the point which I raised earlier in relation to the speech made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. He spoke about what had been in the Convention report. We may recall that the report contained a model Bill for the future government of Northern Ireland. That model Bill contained a part VIII, dealing with Northern Ireland representation in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. This is dealt with in clauses 51 to 54. It is interesting that it comes.

1789
between part VII, dealing with legislative powers in the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and part IX, dealing with law and order.
Clause 51 said:
"Without prejudice to section 52 of this Act, Northern Ireland shall have the right to be represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom by a number of Representatives similar to those returned to that Parliament by any other part of the United Kingdom comparable to Northern Ireland."
Clause 52 states that
"The number of Representatives from Northern Ireland in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be such number (but not less than 20) as may be determined by a judicial commission appointed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom within six months of the appointed day."
Clause 53 states that
"The judicial commission shall in addition determine the boundaries of each constituency in Northern Ireland to return such Representatives."
Clause 54 states that
"After the report of the judicial commission the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall enact legislation to give effect to such report."
If we compare these proposals with the Bill which we have before us, and the numbers game which we are all engaged in, the point of interest is the question of numbers. The first important point to arise from clause 52 is that we go from a boundaries commission to a judicial commission. I am certain that members of the majority party in the Convention at that time would not have made an issue of that provided that they got their particular numbers of representatatives—at least 20. That takes us back to the question of the magic number spoken of by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, which is proposed by the Government but with which I disagree. Speaking to the hon. Member's amendment, I would be interested to know why, although he pays great attention to the Convention report, he is a little bit more modest than the Convention. Although the Convention report asks specifically for 20 or more Members, the amendment of the hon. Member for Antrim, North and his right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South, to which I have appended my name because I am interested in it, is to the effect that we should leave out
"18 or less than 16"
1790
and insert
"24 or less than 21".
I am sorry that I said that the hon. Member for Antrim, North was less modest than the right hon. Member for Down, South. I should have said that he was not emulating that right hon. Gentleman's modesty. He is, in fact, asking for more. It would be interesting to hear in more detail why he felt that it was necessary to depart from the Convention report by one iota.
If we are to accept that we should increase the number of Members from Northern Ireland we must work out precisely what the figures should be. Is there to be comparability with the United Kingdom, that is, is the representation for England, Scotland and Wales to be added together and divided by the number of electors? Or are we to have comparability with Scotland, with Wales or with England?
7.30 p.m.
Once we begin on that basis with the numbers game we cannot take geographical factors into account. It is wrong that because a person lives in the Western Isles, for example, with all the advantages and disadvantages involved, his vote should be more valuable than the vote of someone living in central Hull, with all the advantages and disadvantages that that involves. If we are to get into the numbers game, everything must be of equal value. By their piecemeal additions the Government have failed to decide upon what the membership of this House ought to be. Had they done so they could then have decided upon an electoral quota instead of going about it the other way, namely, deciding upon the quota and then fixing the membership.
There are other reasons why the numbers game is important. The aim of the policies put forward from both sides of the Committee has been to achieve a devolved form of government in Northern Ireland. The object of that was that it was felt that the people in Northern Ireland would then be better able to look after their immediate domestic affairs. As a Socialist, I believe in devolution of power from the centre, enabling individuals to make as many decisions as possible about their own future, against the background of a solid economic and social base. If we are to decentralise, we must

1791
encourage devolution in Northern Ireland as well as in Scotland and Wales.
The trend in the numbers game to increase the number of seats does not lead to such devolution. That was the argument of the Government when in Opposition. Instead, such a trend leads to the argument of the integrationists. The next argument that will be made is that if we have so many more Members of Parliament we ought to ensure that we can get along without any devolved Parliament. It will be said that all that will be needed will be readjustments of the powers of local authorities.
Northern Ireland is not like any English county. I said that the Secretary of State was being dishonest. He argues that it is still the policy of the Government to achieve devolution. However, the only way of achieving this end it by ensuring that there can be no move towards integration. We must ensure that the people in the Six Counties look to themselves and seek to take powers from the Secretary of State. Once the extra seats are given such an argument is lost.
Mr. Stallard: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just when the seats have been granted that the problem will arise; it is during the vacuum that will exist between now and 1984, when the extra seats may well be a fact? Does he agree that there will be a tendency to operate in this period as though the seats had been allotted? There will be no motivation for seeking a political solution based on the lines which he has eloquently described. Does he agree that it is damaging to the aspirations of those of us seeking genuine devolution in Northern Ireland that this should be so?
Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend is right. The year 1984 is perhaps a sad one to mention in this respect. Big brother with the big stick will have won the argument. Democracy will have gone. It will be argued time and again "We are being more democratic by giving more seats to Northern Ireland". Democracy is not merely a question of majorities and minorities and of who receives a certain amount of representation. There might be the most vicious totalitarian majority possible. That would not be democratic, even though it was elected. Democracy is concerned with the way we
1792
treat people, with our attitude and respect for the rule of law. It is concerned with the quality of representation. It is not one separate item. It is not a question of votes and powers. It is to do with all sorts of rules, how we play the game, how we treat one another and so on. The system set out in the Bill will not be democratic.
The increase in numbers will remove the pressure for devolved government. Pressure will then increase for representation at local government level. When the troubles were on in Northern Ireland it was not at Stormont that the rub came. It came at local level, in job discrimination and so on. With this Bill we shall be returning to the possibility of such conduct.
If hon. Members believe that the object of the exercise is to get for Northern Ireland what is right, they should vote for the amendment of the hon. Member for Antrim, North, and should regret the fact that the Official Unionists have not tabled amendments to the Bill.
If hon. Members do not accept that argument and regard what is happening as not being in the long-term interests of the people of Ireland, or of the people of this island, they should vote for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend and myself as the provision which will do the least harm. But whatever they vote for, if they vote for the Government's proposal they must do so appreciating that it is a shabby compromise produced in shabby circumstances—something that the Government and our party will regret.
Mr. Kilfedder: I support the amendment and hope that the Committee will allow it to pass. The people of Northern Ireland wish justice to be done to them, and this is one way in which justice can be achieved.
There is nothing more nauseating than a patronising speech, but I regarded the speech made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) as offensive. It was offensive to me, as I am sure it was to most Unionists in Northern Ireland, because the hon. Gentleman had the privilege—a privilege that was denied to me and to many of my colleagues in Northern Ireland—of serving on the Speaker's Conference which ended by making the recommendation which is embodied in the Bill.

1793
There were on that Conference two representatives of Unionist thought in Northern Ireland—the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). I was not invited to be a member of that Conference, nor were the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who represents the Democratic Unionist Party, the former representative of the Vanguard Party, the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop).
Therefore, this is our chance in Committee on this Bill to put forward our demand for justice in the name of the Ulster people. No longer should we accept something less than justice. What has been put forward does not satisfy me or the Ulster people. We all seek the opportunity to engage in a political debate on Northern Ireland. Surely, the more Members who represent Northern Ireland in this House the better the debate will be and the sooner we shall have a political settlement.
The hon. Member for Newbury admitted that when serving on the Speaker's Conference he accepted what he regarded as being second best for Northern Ireland. That is not good enough. If that was his approach to a serious constitutional issue, I am not surprised that the Conference ended by recommending a paltry figure of few extra seats, which was an insult to the people of Ulster.
Mr. Stallard: The hon. Gentleman said that the presence of more Members from Northern Ireland would mean more discussion in this Chamber about the affairs of Northern Ireland. On what does he base that remark? As he looks round the Chamber, does he suggest that if the Unionist and Loyalist faction had another three, four or five seats in this place all the Benches would suddenly fill and we should be able to have adequate discussion on Northern Ireland? Is not that suggestion just pie in the sky? Surely such a move would contribute nothing that would benefit the people of Northern Ireland.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Kilfedder: Debate need not necessarily take place in this Chamber. If I
1794
had to make the choice between extra seats in this Parliament and a devolved Parliament in Northern Ireland, I should opt for a Stormont Parliament. In such a Chamber many matters could be freely debated. I am referring not to the old Stormont but to a Stormont in changed circumstances. It would be a place in which issues would be live and which more people would attend and be eager to debate matters of importance to the Ulster people.
However, until that devolved Parliament is created, if more Members from Northern Ireland are sent to this place they will be able to speak more effectively for the Ulster people. They will be able to say "I have been elected by so many people in Northern Ireland, and therefore my voice is entitled to be heard".
Ulster people are fed up with elections. We have had election after election in which the Ulster majority have put forward their views and advanced reasonable views seeking a devolved Parliament. But, in the meantime, the more Members who are in this place talking for Northern Ireland, the better chance the Ulster people have to make their views known.
Mr. Stallard: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that this is an "either-or" situation? Is he saying that the clamour for extra representation in this House is a reaction to the abolition of Stormont? Does he not believe that a devolved Parliament, Assembly or Convention, whatever it may be called, could discuss at a later stage the subject of representation?
Mr. Kilfedder: If a choice involving one or the other were open to me, I should opt for the Stormont Parliament. However, I have always believed that if justice is to be done to the Northern Ireland people Northern Ireland should be fully and properly represented in this Chamber. I raised this matter long before most hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland came to Parliament. I added my name to this amendment in order to secure justice for the Ulster people.
As I said on Second Reading, the Bill perpetuates an injustice to the Province. I reminded the House of the remarks of a leading Scottish anti-devolutionist, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who said that by rights Ulster should have 23 seats in this place. I am

1795
astonished, therefore, that Ulster Members could come to Westminster and ask for fewer seats. I regard it as extraordinary that Ulster Members could vote for fewer seats than the number put forward in the Convention report, which had the backing of Unionist politicians in Northern Ireland, who in turn had the backing of the majority of the people in the Province.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) when quoting at some length from various documents. I felt that he was giving an effective answer to the hon. Member for Newbury, who tried to insult the efforts made by myself and the hon. Member for Antrim, North by suggesting that we could make a comparison between Northern Ireland and Yorkshire.
We already suffer in Northern Ireland from Whitehall decisions. I dislike the fact that Whitehall civil servants, under their Northern Ireland Office Ministers, make decisions for Northern Ireland when they do not live there, do not pay bills there and do not experience life there. They are not truly aware of the problems in Northern Ireland.
Rating in Northern Ireland, for example, is carried out on the basis of a region in England. That region may be Yorkshire. I have repudiated that system in the past. I repudiate any suggestion that for the purpose of representation in this place Northern Ireland should be considered on the same basis as Yorkshire.
The brief prepared by the Library makes it clear that if Northern Ireland were given the same representation as Scotland it would have 19 seats. That figure is based on the electoral quota for Scotland, which at present requires 53,649 electors on average to elect one Member. It is interesting to consider the history of how the present representation of 12 Members came about. I shall not repeat what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central said, except to remind the House that the first Home Rule Bill that was enacted—the Government of Ireland Act 1914, which never came into effect—provided for 42 Irish representatives in this place, 12 of them from Northern Ireland.
The Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Macpherson, during the proceedings on the 1920 Bill, said:
1796
"In the Act of 1914 Ireland was given 42 Members in the United Kingdom Parliament. On the population basis the number would properly have been 64, but the number 42 was selected, not on any logical principle, but as a sort of adjustment to meet circumstances that might arise in future, including a scheme of devolution."—[Official Report, 29th March 1920; Vol. 127, c. 940.]
It seems that a figure was grasped out of the air. It seems that the view was taken that any figure would do for Northern Ireland—namely, whatever number would satisfy some of the Northern Ireland politicians and get through the House.
I am not certain whether I am absolutely right, but I believe that in 1920 the population in the South of Ireland was 3 ½ million, and in the North 1 ½ million. On the basis of the figure of 64 Members in the 1914 Act and the 1920 Act, Northern Ireland should now have 20 Members in this place. How is it that the hon. Member for Newbury can suggest that justice is being done to Northern Ireland by offering it the paltry few extra seats contained in the Bill? That is why I make my protest.
I am not here to accept second best for the Ulster people. As others have demanded in the past, including those on the opposite side of the political fence, I am here to demand justice for Northern Ireland. On that basis I expect to receive support from other hon. Members.
Scotland and Wales have more generous representation in this place than England. Scotland has proportionally more seats than Wales. Even now, with the prospect of Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, there has been no attempt—there will be no attempt—to reduce the representation from those regions in this Parliament. There has been no attempt to ensure that each constituency in the United Kingdom is based on the same number of voters. The reason is simple. It has long been recognised that because of the distance of Wales and Scotland —especially Scotland—from Westminster and the poorness of those regions compared with England, justice compelled the provision of more Members than the population warranted in Scotland and Wales.
There is no harm in asking for equality with Scotland. Northern Ireland, like Scotland, is remote from the centre of Parliament. For Northern Ireland, com-

1797
munications are even more difficult than they are for Scotland. There is a stretch of water between us and Great Britain. That makes life difficult for those engaged in industry and commerce, and it makes life more expensive for those living in the Province.
One reason for the development of local resentment against London interference—the Whitehall civil servants—is the dictation from Whitehall, which regards itself as knowing best. The people of Scotland have long since shown that they repudiate the arrogant assumption of Whitehall civil servants that they know best. They do not know best, and they have proved that over the decades. The people of Northern Ireland realise that Whitehall civil servants do not know best when it comes to dealing with problems of Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Ulster people would like to see a Stormont Parliament established. In the meantime, I wish to see more Members from Northern Ireland in this place so that Northern Ireland's point of view may be put forward.
Was it right or sensible that Bournemouth, for instance, in the 1930s had the same size of electorate as the hunger marchers of Ellen Wilkinson's Tyneside? The principle of London weighting is accepted in salary negotiations to cover the additional cost of living in the capital. Perhaps there should be a similiar principle in democratic representation for the poorer regions of the United Kingdom.
Proportional representation is advocated by those who want to see every vote have an equal value. Surely we can argue that, in the national Parliament, representation should take note of depressed areas. I do not believe for one moment that the hon. Member for Newbury represents a constituency which is a depressed area. That is why I find it so annoying the fact that he can dismiss Northern Ireland's appeal for extra representation. This House should take note of the fact that Northern Ireland is poorer than the rest of the United Kingdom. An area which is depressed and geographically far removed from Westminster ought to have more Members in this House.
8 p.m.
I see no real argument against the poorer regions having more Members than
1798
the prosperous regions. The people and the problems of the poorer regions are more demanding of Government initiative and of parliamentary time, as well as of public expenditure, than the prosperous regions, which are usually well represented because the density of population ensures that there are more Members.
The stupendous moral authority which the Scottish and the Welsh Members had in this House in the hungry 1930s was in part in consequence of their complete involvement with the hardships of their constituents. Those Members were able to speak from the heart because they represented electorates which were small enough to enable them to become completely absorbed in the problems and tribulations of their constituents.
Every Government publication, including those of this Government, has shown where Ulster stands in the prosperity league of the United Kingdom. It stands at the bottom. Over 20 per cent. of Northern Ireland families are in receipt of supplementary benefit, as compared with 15 per cent. in England. We have twice the national average for unemployment. We have a 50 per cent. higher sickness benefit rate, and four times the national average for family income supplement. Government reports have shown that the housing position has worsened in the last five years. There is a greater proportion of families in substandard housing in Ulster than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. If ever a region of the United Kingdom needed more representation in this House, it is Northern Ireland.
We might also look at the European Parliament for an analogy. Northern Ireland was given three seats, although its population justifies only two. I know that the right hon. Member for Down, South and his colleagues wanted only two seats, not three.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Why was it given three seats?
Mr. Kilfedder: I wanted three, but if we had been offered four I should have taken them. I should have taken six seats if they had been offered, for the simple reason that representation and democracy cannot hurt any region or any country. The more representatives Northern Ireland has in the European

1799
Parliament, the better. Unless the offer of three seats instead of two was made for entirely sectarian reasons, the justification for strong representation in the Parliament at Strasbourg, and for representation on the EEC committee, where policy is formulated—and especially on those committees which deal with social and regional matters—is to be found in the needs of a poor area.
I do not intend to reiterate what I said during my Second Reading speech. Certainly, I do not intend to follow the example of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central, who spoke for just over an hour. Northern Ireland should have more seats than are offered in the Bill put forward by the Government. We should, out of justice for Northern Ireland, have more seats.
If we are ever to create—as I want to see created—in Northern Ireland a fair and just society, this Parliament had better start on that route by making sure that justice is done to Northern Ireland by giving it its proper and full representation in this House, bearing in mind that the analogy on which we must work is not that of Yorkshire or of Newbury but of Scotland. We want something better than Scotland has, bearing in mind that Northern Ireland has a great deal to endure.
Mr. Stallard: It is not my intention to delay the Committee for longer than is absolutely necessary on this important constitutional matter. It is not often that I find myself in too much sympathy with the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) or with his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev, Ian Paisley). I confess to a certain amount of sympathy with them on the question of the discussion of representation from the Six Counties and with their type of argument, albeit that I want to oppose the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
I do not think that we can seriously begin to discuss this issue on the naive comparison made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he suggested that Yorkshire and the Six Counties can be equated. This ultranaive comparison between the Six Counties and any other part of the United Kingdom does not bear any examination; nor would anyone, of whatever political
1800
persuasion, if he thought about it for a few seconds, feel that such an important issue could be discussed on such a basis.
I asked the hon. Member for Antrim, North, in an intervention, why he had not been so vociferous in the past, during the existence of Stormont, on the question of representation and the number of seats. He honestly answered that his priority, even now, would be some form of devolved government in the Six Counties rather than increased representation. I found some measure of agreement with him there. If I can find that measure of amity and agreement, even from where I stand—and there is no secret about this—with someone who is so diametrically opposed to everything else that I say, I feel entitled to hope that there is at least some chance of finding agreement among politicians in Northern Ireland on other proposals, before we get to the question of representation.
I do not accept that it is an "either-or" situation. I put that to the hon. Member for Down, North. I think that we can discuss devolved government, and that we ought to be discussing some structure of devolution for Northern Ireland at all levels. A devolved Convention, Assembly, or whatever it was, could then discuss representation and decide whether it wanted more or less. It would be for that body to decide and not for us sitting here.
The degree of interest in the problem can be seen by the small number of hon. Members present tonight. Do we honestly believe that hon. Members here should make the decision? If we were honest, we would agree that they ought not even to have a voice in such a decision. It should be for the devolved Assembly to decide what the representation should be. That Assembly would be composed of people on the spot who understood the position. It should be for them to decide, in conjunction, perhaps, with the Mother of Parliaments, or with the base unit, the size of representation.
Rev. Ian Paisley: That is exactly the point that we have been trying to make. The Convention was the last elected overall body for Northern Ireland, and it was the Convention which came to a conclusion, albeit not unanimously, about the number of seats which justly should be given to Northern Ireland. I suggest

1801
that if there were another election the fall-out in the electorate would not be that much greater. Even the Northern Ireland Labour Party and the Alliance Party are now coming into line with the thinking of the Convention. The hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that if an elected body makes a decision this Parliament should think about it. I should point out that an elected body made a decision and that this Parliament is going against that decision.
Mr. Stallard: It saddens me to think that sometimes we are so much in agreement, but I can leave it at that. It is one of those things about the situation in the Six Counties.
I believe that our priorities are wrong. The priority now is not increased representation. That has certain implications for the minority, for myself and for many others in this country who do not have the same kind of long-term aspirations as the hon. Member for Antrim, North. The fact that we are discussing increased representation ties us more closely to permanent direct rule—the consolidation of integration—and that will be for ever more.
As I said in a previous intervention, the situation will be almost dormant until 1984. Who will discuss any political initiative in the vacuum between now and the implementation of the Bill or the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Antrim, North? It will be pointed out that we have already discussed this matter and that it is in the hands of the Boundary Commission. Therefore nothing can be done politically, or in any other way, between now and 1984, and by that time the situation may have got much worse.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that when the Kilbrandon Commission proposed that Northern Ireland's representation at Westminster should be increased from 12 to 17 or thereabouts it made that proposal in the context of devolution? It did not say that it would depend upon whether there were devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. It said that, whether or not there were devolved institutions, Northern Ireland was underrepresented in the House of Commons and that its representation should be
1802
increased. Has the hon. Gentleman considered that?
Mr. Stallard: Yes, I have. That was not the minority opinion of the Kilbrandon Commission, which was an important opinion. It was not adequately discussed in this Chamber, but it should have been. It did not, in fact, substantiate what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has said. But, even if it did, as he said, it justified increased representation. Therefore, we come back to the numbers game. We come back to where we began.
I was once near Balloch in Scotland and, because I had lost my way, asked someone "How do I get to Loch Lomond from here?" He said, "If I were going to Loch Lomond, I would not start from here". We are in that kind of situation. If I were looking for a serious permanent solution to the problems of the Six Counties, I should not start with the numbers game. I should start from a completely different viewpoint.
I should start—I make no apology for this—from the position that one day this country will have to give up any sovereignty over that part of the island of Ireland. If I start from that position, like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), who gave us an eloquent history lesson on representation, I say that Northern Ireland should not have any representation here. Therefore, I should not agree to an increase in the numbers of those who should not be here in the first place. That puts my argument in perspective. I suggest that with these amendments and the Bill we are going in the wrong direction, because we are consolidating integration.
Mr. Kilfedder: On the question of integration, I think that the hon. Gentleman earlier unwittingly erred in saying that the Bill was the final act of total integration. Does he agree that perhaps there will be one other stage, namely, the establishment of a regional council or councils, or administrative body or bodies, and that will be the death knell of a devolved Stormont Parliament?
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Stallard: I do not recollect saying that it was the final stage. I would not have said that. But I agree that this is a step in the direction to which the

1803
hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention. The next step would be to form some kind of county council. Indeed, I think that it has been suggested. I imagine that the Secretary of State would be the chairman of that county council, operating with his civil servants. In fact, he is. That is about the size of it now, although it is not perhaps generally recognised. That would be the next stage, but that would be entirely in the opposite direction to the one in which I wish to go. Therefore, hon. Members will recognise why I oppose the amendments and the proposals in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Down, North made comparisons with Europe. If we play the numbers game, the logic is that we should send 635 Members to Europe. Why are we sending only a few if we are to be represented there on the basis of numbers? I understand that each prospective Member—I confess that I have not taken too much interest in this matter—will represent about 250,000 electors. The argument being put forward here is that Northern Ireland Members already represent too many constituents and that therefore representation should be increased. Is not that an argument for increasing to hundreds the United Kingdom's representation at the European Parliament?
Mr. Kilfedder: The point that I was making—
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We are not discussing the European Parliament. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to come back to the amendment.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Surely we are discussing the argument for extra representation. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) was drawing an analogy to prove how ridiculous the argument was.
The Second Deputy Chairman: I was trying to deter the hon. Gentleman from going too far upon the road on which he was beginning to start.
Mr. Stallard: I apologise if I was straying too far from the amendment. I was endeavouring to reply to a point which had been made in the debate and to which no objection was taken when it was mentioned. Therefore I thought
1804
that I was entitled to reply to the justification prayed in aid by the hon. Member for Down, North regarding more representation for Northern Ireland in Europe. I think that he was sad that the Official Unionists had been prepared to accept two Members as opposed to the proffered three. He wanted four, five, six or more.
I was trying to reply to that part of his argument by referring to the way in which the numbers game has been and is being played. People ask me "How can you justify only 12 seats from Northern Ireland on the basis of population?" I reply that if Northern Ireland had its devolved structure—Government, Convention, Assembly, Executive or whatever—12 would be too many because we have our Sovereign Parliament here and we have accepted a reduced number for Europe on the basis of the electorate. Is there not an analogy there'? That was the point that I was trying to make.
Mr. McNamara: Does my hon. Friend agree that this question also arises in terms of the representation of Luxembourg in Europe compared with Northern Ireland's representation here? Luxembourg is entitled to so many because it is over-represented on the basis of my hon. Friend's argument.
Mr. Stallard: That is right. Again, I am grateful for that intervention because it adds weight to the point that I am trying to make. If we become so deeply involved in this numbers game, there is no sense to it at all. Irrespective of Luxembourg, or any other part of Europe—to bring the argument right back to the amendment, Northern Ireland and this Committee—what I am trying to prove is that the situation in the Six Counties is not simply an arithmetical problem. One cannot solve the problems of Northern Ireland by mathematics. Otherwise, they would have been solved many years ago.
I said at the beginning that the ultanaive comparison made by the Secretary of State with other parts of the United Kingdom does not bear examination. But we ought not to forget it, because if that is the basis of the Government's thinking, the whole thing goes to pot. We cannot solve the problems in that part of the island of Ireland simply on the basis of arithmetic alone. The problem goes

1805
much deeper than that. If it did not, why have we had the situation that has existed since 1968? Why has all this trouble been caused if it was simply and purely an arithmetical decision that was needed, if all that we had to do was to divide the population by X and get so many representatives and we should be happy ever after? That is rubbish. It is absolute nonsense.
What has been proved, if anything has been proved at all in these past few years during the short debates that we have had here, is that there is no British solution to this problem, arithmetical or otherwise. The solution lies with the people in the two parts of the island of Ireland. It is our job here to make sure that the people of Northern Ireland are given the opportunity, the structure and the government in order to be able to solve the problem.
Therefore, as I have said many times, I start from a different standpoint, because I am convinced that it is the only thing that has never been tried. We have tried everything else. I suppose that in the last 10 years everything has been tried, except increased representation, and we are now trying that. My reading of various press reports, in the North as well as in the South and in various journals here, is that the Bill will add nothing at all. It will contribute nothing towards a solution of the problems in the Six Counties. On the contrary, it may well harden the attitude on both sides and contribute to an increased polarisation of the two communities.
Therefore, I want no part of the kind of solution which will worsen the problems of all the people who have suffered so much in the Six Counties in the past 10 years. I am seeking a peaceful reconciliation, not a repolarisation of those two communities. That is what the Bill does, and the amendment will do it even more.
For all those reasons—I do not want to delay the Committee any further at this stage—I hope that the Committee will vote against the amendments.
Mr. Craig: We have had a long and tedious debate. I do not think that in this Bill we are concerned with the solution of the problems that beset the people of Northern Ireland. We are concerned only with fair and proper representation
1806
in this Parliament for the people of Northern Ireland.
It is a matter of judgment as to what is fair and proper. I believe that if there is not to be devolution in Northern Ireland, the figure of 16 to 18 would be totally inadequate to represent the interests that are special to Northern Ireland as distinct from the rest of the United Kingdom. However, I am an optimist. I take at face value the commitments by the two major parties of this Parliament that they intend to work towards devolved power. Therefore, I address my mind to what is reasonable, having regard to the prospects of devolution.
There is a well-established practice in the history of British franchise of weighting the electoral quotas in favour of interests that are not numerically strong. Agricultural interests in the sparsely populated rural areas always had special consideration when one drew the boundaries of their constituencies and therefore increased, the number of Members representing them as against the more populous industrial areas.
That is a perfectly valid analogy in arriving at what is an appropriate figure for Northern Ireland. My judgment leads me to a figure in the mid-20s as the best solution. It is not for me or for individuals to press the point as one of personal opinion. We must have regard to the usual procedures and practices of this Parliament. Those practices and procedures led us through the Speaker's Conference, where people of many political shades, with honesty, integrity and good will, made their judgment as to what they should recommend to the House of Commons and to another place. I am disappointed that their recommendation was not greater.
I find it odd, indeed, that, having got that recommendation, some hon. Members would dispute even that allotment of additional representation. It is difficult to proclaim that one is supporting democracy and at the same time deliberately to stand in the way of better representation for the people that one purports to represent. It is even stranger if one happens to belong to a party that calls itself the Social Democratic and Labour Party. I do not know what the Ministers were hoping to do when they highlighted the possibility

1807
of some of these additional seats benefiting minority parties. I do not suggest that it was an effort to bribe people into voting in certain directions. I think that they were, very properly, showing how undemocratic it was for those hon. Members to seek to deny people better representation in this Parliament.
I cannot say how soon progress will be made on the devolution front, but in the meantime there is an appalling lack of accountability by Government to the electorate and people in Northern Ireland. We must use what institutions are available to us to improve the standards of democracy.
I welcome this short step forward. I sincerely hope that those hon. Members who have indicated this evening that they would deny the people of Northern Ireland adequate and proper representation will reconsider their position. A diminution of democracy is no way to seek progress.
Mr. Fitt: From the outset, I have regarded this Bill as one of major constitutional importance. It will affect the composition of the House and consequently will determine whether we have Labour or Conservative Governments. Leaving aside for a moment my involvement with Northern Ireland, as one who has consistently supported the Labour Government I feel that in their attempt to stay in power over the past few months they have been cutting off their nose to spite their face.
They have gained a few extra months from an agreement with Unionist Members under which they will abstain to keep the Government in power. The new seats will come into being in 1984. One can only go on their track record, but Unionist Members have never been known for their alacrity in jumping into the Lobby in support of a Labour Government.
Mr. Craig: Would the hon. Member support additional seats if there were a guarantee that we from Northern Ireland would vote Socialist? Also, would he suggest that a deal was done with the Speaker's Conference over additional representation?
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Fitt: If the right hon. Gentleman will sit still for a moment, I shall answer these questions. I intend to clarify how
1808
I see the issue. Would I support them if they voted Socialist? The answer is "No". Was a deal done with the Speaker's Conference? I have doubts. One should not say that on the Floor of the House, perhaps, but I am saying it now, and I shall give my reasons.
This attempt to cling to power by doing a deal with the Unionists, which began in early 1977, followed pledges by Labour Governments, and particularly by the present Home Secretary, that in no circumstances would Northern Ireland be given extra representation before community government or consensus politics were created in Northern Ireland. One has only to read the debates in Hansard to see conclusively how often the Labour Government refused the demand for an increase in the number of seats.
Few hon. Members are here for this debate. Those who are absent will have to reckon with that fact—particularly Labour Members. Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, particularly on the Back Benches, who are sponsored by the trade unions and who are committed Socialists—there are still some in the Committee tonight—must accept that if there is a hung Parliament after the election of 1984 or 1985, going on their record the Unionist Members will support the Conservatives. That will mean that the Labour Movement and the trade union movement will not see the Socialist Government for which they voted. It therefore behoves the Committee to consider carefully the decision that it lakes tonight. This is a Bill of major constitutional importance.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, indeed it is. Therefore, surely, the representation in this House and the distribution of constituencies should not be decided on those grounds. The hon. Gentleman is now saying that this is a dangerous step because of something which may happen to party advantage in 1984.
Mr. Fitt: I do not mind these interventions—in fact, I am looking forward to them—but if the hon. Gentleman listens, he will hear why I am opposing this increase.
An increase in the number of seats to 23 or 24, as is suggested by the amendment, would certainly determine the complexion of the Government. That is

1809
why the Bill is of major constitutional importance. I should have hoped that before setting up a Speaker's Conference to consider such a Bill, everything involved would be debated on the Floor of the House. Although I was a member of the Speaker's Conference, I resented the cloak of secrecy that applied to us all.
Some people in the Committee who will be voting on this issue tonight are not aware of everything that was said at the Speaker's Conference. As soon as we met we were told that the Conference was secret, and that only certain parts would be made public and printed. There were other parts that were not to be disclosed. I am not allowed to come from the Speaker's Conference and talk to my colleagues in the Tea Room or corridors and tell them why a certain decision was made. I am not even allowed to tell them now. When I made an interjection earlier this evening about a matter raised in Mr. Speaker's Conference there was a howl. That is not democracy at all.
If the Committee has to take such an important decision we should all be aware of everything that was said, who said it, and the constituency that he represents.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Sir Myer. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is making some interesting and in some ways exciting observations. I understand that whatever may be the convention he may say what he likes in this Chamber and accept responsibility for what he says. If he feels that there were matters at Mr. Speaker's Conference that should be mentioned, he is perfectly entitled to state them, no matter what was agreed at that Conference. He has a responsibility as a Member to take his own decision. It is another question whether it is advisable.
The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): What the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) can do is rather limited. If he took part in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, that would have been a more appropriate time to debate this than the narrow confines of the present Committee. We cannot have a general discussion of what he does or does not know. The
1810
issue is whether we should increase the number of seats, as contained in the amendment.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I do not think that you have quite answered my question. I was not for one moment suggesting that my hon. Friend should go outside the rules of order, but if he accepts the responsibility for what he says and it is relevant to the amendment being discussed, he is entitled to state it, whether or not it was recorded in the minutes of Mr. Speaker's Conference.
The First Deputy Chairman: He may do so as long as he is in order.
Mr. Flannery: At the beginning of the debate the Chairman said that this was a narrow Bill, and he is absolutely correct. It is not purely in the mathematical sense that it is narrow. In order to justify a certain number of seats, it is surely necessary to bring politics into the argument. To narrow it further prevents us from raising many important points.
The First Deputy Chairman: The Bill suggests a certain mathematical arrangement or an increase in the number of seats to be allocated to Northern Ireland. That is agreed by everyone who has paid the slightest attention to the contents of the Bill. There are two groups: we are discussing one group of amendments that seeks to increase the number of seats and another that seeks to reduce that number.
Mr. Fitt: I am speaking on the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), which seeks to increase the number. I do not want to see an increase from 17 or 18 to 23 or from 12 to 23. I do not want an increase at all.
I believe that this Bill, which can determine future Governments of this country, has not been adequately discussed. People who went into the Lobby to vote for the Government on Second Reading were not aware of everything that was said at the Speaker's Conference. I believe that there was an undue restriction there. Every Member of Parliament should have been party to and privy to every aspect of the discussions, because ultimately they can affect his party, his constituency and future Governments of the country.

1811
On the very first day that we met I proposed that the press should be brought in to hear what we had to say, that, if necessary, the Speaker's Conference should go to Northern Ireland, and that there should be no hindrance or restriction on the number of persons making representations. I wanted everything to be open and above board.
One member of the Conference said that he did not think the proceedings should be open or that there should be any record of who had spoken or what constituency he represented. I asked him why. He replied that we might start getting a lot of anonymous letters. To any Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland getting a lot of anonymous letters is the least of his worries. We get them every day; indeed, I should be disappointed if I did not get them. If we did not get them, at least three or four postmen in Northern Ireland would be sacked. The whole atmosphere of the Conference was "Let us deliberate and take decisions, but do not let anybody know who said what". Is that democracy? I think it is in direct conflict with our ideas of democracy.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The hon. Member must know that such decisions as were reached in the Conference were reached on a simple majority vote. That is a pure case of democracy in action. If the hon. Member is saying that his voice is the only one to which people should listen, and that no one else has any rights, he is not talking about democracy.
Mr. Fitt: When the Leader of the House sent for me and asked me to serve on the Speaker's Conference I had serious doubts, but I felt that it was as well to be there to see what was happening. A few days later I said, with no disrespect to any member of that Conference, that when I looked at the composition of the Conference—the people who had been appointed to it—
The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are not starting a discussion on the composition of the Conference. I see that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is having a little smile to himself. Obviously he appreciates the position. The Bill, as it tells us in the explanatory memorandum, is to give effect to the
1812
recommendations in the report of Mr. Speaker's Conference on electoral law. That is where we stand at the moment.
Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Surely the Speaker's Conference must have discussed the question whether the figure should have been 10, 14, 16 or 25 seats. Therefore, the House should be given some information about the kind of factors that members of the Conference took into account in arriving at their decision. We have been told, as I understand it, that members of the Conference. as a committee, decided that they would meet in secret and impose this conspiracy of silence. That is an insult to the House of Commons which set up the Conference. It should have informed the House, so that the House could make a better decision.
8.45 p.m.
The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order.
Mr. John Ellis: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Since these facts have been revealed—I was not aware of them in as much detail as we have been given—is there any way that the House can send for the secret minutes so that we may apprise ourselves of the arguments? Mr. Speaker's Conference carries a great deal of weight and it is important that we should be able to sift all the arguments. It appears that much information is unpublished. We should surely be able to look at what took place at those meetings.
The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. There is nothing to prevent his providing himself with a copy of that evidence, but we cannot discuss the matter now.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. In my speech I went into great detail about how Mr Speaker's Conference arrived at the figure of 17 seats, with the flexibility of one up or one down. It is a pity that the hon. Members who are raising points of order were not able to find the time to be in the Chamber to hear my speech.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Sir Myer. The point of order of my hon.

1813
Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) concerned not the availability of printed evidence of matters taken in public, such as the evidence of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and others, but the fact that there were a number of sessions, even before conclusions started to be reached—unless they were reached before evidence was taken in public—when decisions were taken about composition, rulings, the evidence to be heard, and so on.
My hon. Friend wants to know the content of those discussions so that he knows what weight to attach to various arguments. The recommendations of the Conference were taken on majority decisions and the number of votes counted rather than the weight of the arguments.
The First Deputy Chairman: We are beginning to waste time needlessly. Let me make abundantly clear, for the last time, that there are no steps that the Committee can take to deal with the question of what transpired at Mr. Speaker's Conference.
We have under consideration amendment no. 3 and that is what I propose to hold hon. Members to in our discussions.
Mr. Fitt: Amendment no. 3 is designed to increase the number of seats proposed in the Bill. I listened to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) discussing what took place in Mr. Speaker's Conference and I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) questioning the whole basis of how the provision of 12 seats for Northern Ireland was originally arrived at.
Before we take a decision on the amendment, we should be fully aware why there are 12 seats at present, why the Bill proposes 17 or 18 seats, and why the amendment suggests that there should be 23 seats. A decision taken in total ignorance on a matter of this magnitude will not be in the interests of the House, the country or the Government.
During the proceedings of the Conference I asked the Leader of the House whether there were any written records to which I could have access concerning the question why 12 seats were granted in 1920. I asked the Leader of the House:
1814
"We heard last week from Judge Murray that there is no written record as to how the figure of 12 was arrived at. Is that right, have you any knowledge of the reasons for this number?"
The rather cavalier reply of the Leader of the House was:
"When you say no written record, in these Crossman days I dare say there are written records lying around the place!"
Lying around the place! I could not find them, and I do not know what place the Leader of the House was talking about. My right hon. Friend said
"I am amazed they have not reached the newspapers."
I, too, am amazed, because I do not know where they were lying around in the first place. If I cannot get them, I do not know how the newspapers can get them. But all this is an awful admission of ignorance of why the figure of 12 seats was fixed in the first place.
I then asked the Leader of the House:
"You said in your opening remarks that Northern Ireland was under-represented by the number of seats it has. If that is true in 1977 it has been true for these past 50 years, is that right?"
He replied "Yes, that is so." Then I said:
"It has always been under-represented since the creation of the state in 1920?"
He replied "Yes, that is right."
What were the Labour Governments between 1945 and 1951 and 1964 and 1970 doing when there was such a blatant injustice? What were they all doing when Northern Ireland was being so grossly unjustly treated? The answer is that they had a comfortable enough majority to keep them in office and did not have to depend on votes from Northern Ireland. That is why Northern Ireland did not get its representation.
The amendment seeks to increase the number of seats from 16 or 17 to 23. I think the hon. Member for Antrim, North will accept that were it accepted it would end for ever any hope of trying to bring about reconciliation between the communities of Northern Ireland.
The first Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the present troubled period was the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). He was accepted as being impartial, as holding the ring between the warring communities. His successor, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym),

1815
also a Tory, was there for only a few days. He was accepted as not knowing much about the situation but as not leaning to one side or the other.
My right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, was seen as being in the ring trying his best, in a very difficult situation, to bring together the two communities. But the present Secretary of State is seen by the minority as being a Unionist. That is why there is such ill feeling about this proposal. People in the minority community feel that the Secretary of State is in support of the Unionist majority and is not in any way trying to take into consideration the feelings of the minority population.
When there is a Secretary of State who so antagonises one section of the community in Northern Ireland, one can guarantee that he will not achieve any success there. He has put himself in one camp. He has ostracised the minority community to the extent that he has done, and this proposal is the straw that will break the camel's back.
The Bill was brought in by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It should have been brought in by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary should be here on the Front Bench. He is the Home Secretary for the United Kingdom. He is in charge of all the Representation of the People Bills which come before the House. He is in charge of all means of electoral reform. But the Government have tried to underplay this proposal. Not many Ministers are on the Front Bench today. They want it all kept in a low key and a low profile because if the Labour and trade union movement in general were aware of the ramifications of the Bill there would be uproar.
I have received a letter, not from an Irishman or a Catholic but from an English Socialist. When it appeared in the press that there was to be an increase in the seats for Northern Ireland, this lady wrote, from 36 Princess Gardens, West Acton, London:
"Today I read in 'The Times' the Prime Minister's announcement of his intention to create a situation of even greater imbalance in the representation of MPs from Northern Ireland in the House of Commons. I am utterly dismayed with the actions of the Labour Government in relation to its responsibilities in Northern Ireland. We must have one of the worst Labour Prime Ministers of all time, and
1816
it is with this in mind that I have decided to abstain from voting Labour at the next election.
In my position as an Executive Committee Member of the Ealing Community Relations Council, I represent the interests of the Irish community on the council, and I have always urged Irish people to vote Labour in their best interests. Now I shall cease to do so and shall instead urge them to refrain from wasting their vote on the Labour Party and to follow my example in abstaining from casting any vote at all.
I congratulate you on your criticism of the Prime Minister's action and have noted carefully the lack of opposition from Labour MPs."
I have not yet replied to that letter, but I intend to do so. I intend to send with my reply the voting lists so that the author of that letter knows who are the real Labour Members who voted with me on the Second Reading of the Bill. As a Socialist, it hurts me to receive a letter from another Socialist saying that that person will refrain from voting for a Labour candidate. But that has resulted from the Government's attempt to buy themselves a few short months more in office.
What have the Government done in Northern Ireland? The Bill is allegedly designed to bring people together and to create a just representation in Northern Ireland. That is what the Secretary of State said when he spoke of the Bill. What do the people say? The Irish News in Belfast is recognised as a newspaper which represents the minority view in Northern Ireland. On 1st December it stated:
"Mr. Callaghan is proving to be the typical capricious British politician in his attitude to the North. Has he forgotten so easily the Westminster debate of four years ago when the then Prime Minister, Mr. Wilson, declared: As a Government we believe that the only hope for the future of Northern Ireland lies in power-sharing.'
From the lips of the head of a Labour Government, Unionist-Loyalists were told that there would be no integration; that Sunningdale was far from dead; and that strenuous efforts would be made to resurrect the Executive government in which power would be shared.
Such Labour convictions were expressed after Westminster had seen how a democratically conceived exercise in shared power had been at the mercy of Unionist-Loyalist obduracy during the Executive's five months of existence.
It was made clear to the opponents of Westminster's will that if they continued to show such reckless disregard for the agreed policy of broad participation by all political groups in government here, this would be regarded as a calculated decision to take the road out of the

1817
United Kingdom to which they were even then confessing unswerving loyalty."
The Unionist Members, to a man, brought to an end the Executive that was so painstakingly built up in 1974. Were they chided or scolded by the Labour Government? They were not. They were commended. They were promised extra seats to bolster their intransigence.
Allegedly, it is still the Government's intention, with the support of the Opposition, to recreate consensus politics in Northern Ireland. An increase in the number of seats, particularly the increase which is demanded by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), will make doubly certain that there will be no political movement in the next two or three years.
The right hon. Member for Down, South travels the length and breadth of his constituency telling people "Now that we have the promise of extra seats the next item on our shopping list is a return of power to the local authorities in Northern Ireland." Those are the local authorities which caused such turmoil when they were able to do what they wanted to do. An increase to 23 in the number of seats will make any political movement unlikely.
9 p.m.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North was right to chide my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for writing in Tribune that the increase in the number of seats would mean, in effect, that four or five of those seats would go to non-Unionist Members. That is utter rubbish, if it is not even worse, if it is not blatant lies, as I say it is. It is an attempt to con the Labour and trade union movement into accepting the Bill.
Even if it were true that with the increase in the number of seats four or five non-Unionists would be sent here, do the Government believe that that would contribute to a lessening of the present tension in Northern Ireland? It would do no such thing, because the minority community in Northern Ireland now says "We have an Irish aspiration. We want to believe that some day, we do not know when—it may be years, and we do not know how many—Ireland will be united." In other words, to use a phrase that came out of the Conservative Government
1818
under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), there is an Irish dimension. The minority in Northern Ireland must be allowed to believe that some day Ireland will be united by consent—certainly not by violence. My record of opposition to violence is well known to most hon. Members.
But it is now being seen in Northern Ireland that the Government are saying "You who believe in the Irish dimension should forget all about it. We do not support you. Whether you think there will be a united Ireland by peaceful transition or otherwise, you are not getting it. Instead, you will get total integration, because we have done a deal with the right hon. Member for Down, South and want to stay in power. We are not terribly concerned about how you in Northern Ireland feel about this. In fact, we are not terribly concerned about the conditions in which the 10,000 or 11,000 troops are operating. We are concerned about staying in office." That has brought about a great deal of antagonism and resentment among the minority.
I quote from another editorial in the Irish News, a representative voice of the minority, which says:
"The clamour over the last year or so is simply the Loyalist reaction to the abolition of Stormont, and there is no use in their denying it".
The Unionists have lost their absolute control of Stormont, their total control of the whole population and everything that went with that. They are saying "If we are not getting that back, we shall settle for a highly acceptable second option—more seats, and the more the better."
Mr. Thorne: Integration.
Mr. Fitt: Yes, they want integration.
The editorial continues:
"The Labour Government's decision following the Speaker's conference, to provide an early introduction of the Bill (although the Boundary Commission may take a couple of years to reach its final recommendations on constituencies) can only be described as a cynical manoeuvre to ensure a maximum number of Loyalists' votes and owes nothing to a desire to provide for simple electoral justice."
Mr. McNamara: Is not the logic of my hon. Friend's argument the logic of what I was arguing before, and which some integrationist Unionist hon. Members are arguing and declaring to be the

1819
case—that with the extra seats giving integration they will guarantee a return of local government on the old basis as well? Is not that what is being offered as a guarantee of how powerful they are and what their squeeze is on a Labour Government? Will that be the next thing if we try to stagger on until November?
Mr. Fitt: My hon. Friend, if he had been present, would have heard me say that. In Northern Ireland the right hon. Member for Down, South is repeatedly telling his audiences, wherever he may find them, that they have got this promise from the Government of an increase in the number of seats. He is telling them that the next item on the shopping list will be the return of local authority powers.
I have noticed that there may be Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen in this House who are all unaware of the boiling resentment in Northern Ireland because of this proposal to increase the number of seats. This is a matter that cannot be disregarded. What this Bill is saying to constitutional politicians like myself is "There is only one of you at Westminster. We do not need you any more." There are the "Gang of seven" as they are referred to by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). If I had seven hon. Members from my party here this Bill would never have seen the light of day.
I continue with the editorial:
"The Labour Government's about-turn is now staggeringly obvious and must be painful for those in the Labour ranks who once believed that no Labour Government would turn so easily from self-righteousness about the Northern Ireland problem to doing 'deals' with the 'Ulster Unionists'. The Labour Government no longer has fixed loyalties. In its actions it is becoming difficult to distinguish it from a Conservative Government."
The concluding passage of the editorial corresponds to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), who I believe has shown a great deal of courage and principle by resigning from his office. There are very few hon. Members in this House who are so involved and so concerned about what is happening in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend has shown courage in resigning to express his opposition to this Bill. There is nothing phoney about the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, and I am quite certain that his electorate
1820
will give him all the support necessary in Future elections.
The editorial states in conclusion:
"Britain still evades the issue of the natural aspirations of the Irish people and still cannot see that the lessons of history show that she cannot always rule this part of Ireland. Direct rule and more seats at Westminster are merely leading her into a cul-de-sac."
I turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for Newbury. Two or three times during his speech he said that what was happening in Northern Ireland was just and democratic. He had much to say about democracy in the Province and the democratic will of the Northern Irish people. Let me say this to him: the last time that the Irish people—not the Northern Irish people—had a vote on a constitutional issue was in 1918. Of the 102 Irish constituencies which were represented in this House, 78 returned Members who said that they wanted a united Ireland. That was what democracy was all about. The overwhelming majority of people in Ireland in the 1918 election returned 78 Members out of 102 who wanted a united Ireland.
What was the democratic action of the then Government, who were so concerned with the concept of democracy? Did they consider the fact that 78 constituencies out of 102 obviously wanted Ireland to be united? Did that Government heed that demand? No, they did not. They brutally partitioned Ireland in the interests of a wholly fake Unionist majority. That is why we are having this debate. Can anyone say that the partitioning of Ireland, leaving as it did an artificial minority and an artificial majority in Northern Ireland, was a roaring success? Just think of the past 10 to 20 years.
Think of what has been happening to the people of Northern Ireland, to the young soldiers in the British Army, to the murdered members of the RUC and the UDR. Has partition been a success? It has not. This proposal to increase the number of seats will force constitutional politicians into a cul-de-sac from which they will never be able to escape. My party has consistently sought constitutional answers to the problems of Northern Ireland. At all times we have condemned violence. We have always said that, one day, we should like to see a united Ireland.

1821
At my party conference last November a motion was carried which said that the British Army and the British presence in Northern Ireland could no longer be seen to be acting in an impartial way. That presence was seen to be operating openly and blatantly in support of the Unionist majority and its aspirations. That motion was carried by 700 votes to two. That proves that the Government's actions are forcing constitutional politicians such as myself into a position which we would rather not be in.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. He refers to articles in Socialist periodicals in which Government Ministers have got down to the level—that is the only way to put it—of trying to "con" the readership of Tribune. I do not believe for a moment that Dick Clements believes all this. Neither does anyone else.
If all of the proposed extra seats were to be held by the SDLP the problems in Ireland would not be solved. These problems cannot be settled by an increase in the number of seats. The hon. Member for Newbury spoke of democracy in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that Northern Ireland was ever a democracy. It never will be under the present system. It was not democratically conceived and brought into being. The State of Northern Ireland was brought into being against the wishes of the overwhelming majority in the island of Ireland. As a result, a phoney border was drawn. It is one which breaks up houses. The border goes through one house and leaves two rooms in the Republic and two in Northern Ireland. The border runs through a village. One side of the street is in the Republic and the other is in Northern Ireland.
Something had to be done to appease the then threatening Unionists. The same is happening with this Bill. It is appeasement all over again. This time the Government are appeasing by granting the Unionists a number of seats. If all the extra seats were held by my party it would do nothing to lessen the tensions. Northern Ireland was deliberately designed as a sectarian State. Let no one talk about the majority there. It is a phoney majority. It was never a majority. It is a minority in the island of Ireland but it has succeeded time and
1822
again in intimidating various Labour Governments.
What do we do tonight? Strictly speaking, we are discussing an amendment to increase the number of seats. I shall oppose that proposal. However, is it too late to ask the Government to change their mind? This has happened before on Irish issues. In 1913 legislation on Home Rule passed through this House but was suspended following the outbreak of the First World War. That legislation was never put into operation.
9.15 p.m.
We all know that the present Government can last for months only—perhaps fewer than we all think. The Government do not have to grant these seats to the reactionary forces of Unionism in Northern Ireland. By enforcing this legislation, the Labour Government are likely to lose English, Scottish and Welsh Socialist support in what will be a crucial General Election.
There is no rush for this legislation, because the seats will not come into being until 1984 or 1985. Why the rush? I suspect that the right hon. Member for Down, South told the Government "If you do not grant us this Bill to enable me to claim a victory in Northern Ireland, we shall vote against the Labour Government and bring about their defeat."
As this Government do not have many more months to live, I believe that for the sake of their self-respect, and for the sake of Labour Members and the working-class and trade union movement, which this Government allegedly represent, and, indeed, for the sake of their own consciences, the Government even at this late stage should think again.
I note that the Home Secretary has not attended these debates. I wish that he would take part in this debate in order to justify these proposals.
Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend will recall that when the vote was taken on this amendment on the legislation relating to the Irish constitution, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary voted against it, as did my right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Minister of State. However, it is only the Minister of State who is here to face the music and to explain his reversal of view—an explanation that we all await with interest.
Mr. Fitt: I agree with my hon. Friend. When this Bill becomes law, an atmosphere of political collision will be created between the minority and majority communities of Northern Ireland. That atmosphere will exist even though the boundaries will not be drawn or the seats taken up until 1984 or 1985. However, in the intervening years there will be hostility and resentment. The Unionist Party will take the view that it has scored a victory, and the minority party will feel that it has been beaten. Therefore, some means will be devised to level out the situation.
My constituency of Belfast, West—which contains many troubled areas, in which houses have been wrecked, where there is high unemployment, bitterness against the action of the security forces, and where many murders and maimings have occurred—is where the effects of the Bill will be felt. They will be felt not on the half-empty Benches of this Committee, because most people in this place have never been to Northern Ireland. I agree that over the past few years a number of hon. Members have gone out of their way to go to Northern Ireland, but the vast majority in the House have never been. Some members of the Speaker's Conference were never in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Ron Thomas: Unless they went secretly.
Mr. Fitt: Indeed. They have not told us about that yet. Probably we shall hear about that in 30 years' time.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North told the House that the Northern Ireland Labour Party and the Alliance Party were now in support of the Bill. That is not strictly true. There are serious divisions within the Northern Ireland Labour Party. Some say that the Bill is acceptable, while others oppose that view. I know that one of its leading spokesmen, David Bleakley, who was a Minister in a previous Northern Ireland Government and a member of the Convention, is not in support of an increased number of seats for Northern Ireland Members in this place. He has said publicly that if the number of seats is to be increased the increase should take place within a system of proportional representation.
1824
The Alliance Party and the Liberal Party made submissions to the Speaker's Conference. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) in his place. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) is speaking with a great deal of support in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman is not regarded as an eccentric or as somebody who does not know anything about Northern Ireland. The minority in Northern Ireland fully support the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). I am not sure what feelings exist on the Liberal Bench, but when the hon. Member for Cornwall, North made his statement he had the full support of the minority population. That was brought about by the proposal to increase the number of seats in this place.
At the end of the day the House will ensure that the Bill becomes law. That is because it is Government policy. Even if that were not so, I suppose that there would be enough Opposition Members to ensure that the Bill became law by giving it their support. I ask the Government —it is a call that will not be heard—to reconsider the disastrous effects that the Bill will have, and even at this late hour to search their conscience and to withdraw it.
Mr. Powell: When my hon. Friends and I were elected in October 1974 we said in our common address:
"We are determined to obtain equality with other parts of the United Kingdom in parliamentary representation."
At every election meeting that I adressed I assured those to whom I spoke of my conviction that that was something that the House of Commons would not refuse. I believed that because I thought it impossible for the House, having declared that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom—that is the official, acknowledged status of Northern Ireland—to alter that status without the consent of a majority of its inhabitants. The House knowing that since 1972 there has been virtually no other elected representation of the people of the Province except in the House, I thought it impossible for the House to decline to accord to that electorate at least equal representation with other parts of the kingdom.
However, something happened two years after the commencement of this

1825
Parliament that removed the last possible objection that could be urged against what in any case would otherwise have been self-evident and inherent in the House of Commons and its constitution. There was always the argument that Northern Ireland, until 1972, had for 50 years had a local Parliament in which much of the locally applicable law and administration was transacted.
Therefore, if this House were at this point to give Northern Ireland full representation, which it has not had since 1922, in the Parliament of the United Kingdom that would certainly, it was argued, be an obstacle—perhaps a compelling obstacle—to any form of restoration or creation for Northern Ireland of self-governing institutions. That was the one remaining case—the one case—which could be made in this House with self-respect against Northern Ireland being fairly represented.
But that argument was disposed of by the House itself two years ago. Two years ago the House itself decided that the full representation—indeed, the representation on a scale higher than that proposed in this Bill—of Scotland and Wales in this House could be no impediment to there being in the case of Wales a local Assembly but in the case of Scotland a fully-fledged local Parliament. So this House—not just the Government —took the decision which removed the last argument, for this House resolved that there was no incompatibility between full representation here—indeed, a high scale of representation here—and the creation of devolved institutions, including parliamentary institutions.
Mr. John Ellis: The right hon. Gentleman has said twice that that could be the only argument, but I put it to him that there is another argument. I do not wish to interrupt him at an inconvenient time, but perhaps he will deal with this other argument in the course of his speech. if 40 per cent. of the people, in view of what had been done, had never accepted it in the democratic way that we do here, and if they were to see the creation of more seats as reinforcing the divide which had existed since the inception, would not that in itself be a fair argument for saying that if the minority
1826
were to view the creation of seats as further estranging them that might be a reason for not doing it?
Mr. Powell: I must admit that that is not an argument that I can follow. If not to be estranged is to have the prospect of local institutions, then I have pointed out that full representation has been declared by this House to be no barrier to local institutions. If, of course, not to be estranged is to be taken out of the United Kingdom altogether, then no degree of representation will deal with that. Small or great are alike in that respect.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) must address himself to the fact that the claim not to belong to the United Kingdom cannot be met by any alteration of status within the United Kingdom or within this House. So I say that it was not unnatural, upon that decision of this House, taken in the context of Scotland and Wales, that there was no incompatibility between what many regard as the appropriate constitutional future for Northern Ireland and fair representation in this House, that at that point the Government declared that in their opinion Northern Ireland was not fully represented, and ought to be, and proceeded by the proper constitutional method, the conventional method, the method which we have followed for many decades, with agreement in this House, to decide how such a decision should be implemented and how Northern Ireland should be given equality with other parts of the United Kingdom.
9.30 p.m.
Mr. Stallard: I am following closely the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the valid comparison with Scotland and Wales. But does he accept that on Second Reading the Secretary of State superseded those discussions and arguments when he said that in Stormont days, when there was a degree of devolution in Northern Ireland, representation was based on 89,000 and now it should be based on something nearer 50,000, as in the United Kingdom? Does he accept that there is a real fear and danger in the minds of many Scottish and Welsh Members and electors that that will be used as a precedent for reducing representation from Scotland and Wales to 12

1827
seats and seven seats respectively? That argument has been resurrected by the Secretary of State's comparison.
Mr. Powell: As I understood and recollect the remarks of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on Second Reading, they were entirely in line with what I am saying, namely, that this decision of the House does not in any way prejudice, prejudge or create an obstacle to any future decision which may be taken as to the local constitution and administration of Northern Ireland.
Parliament proceeded in the proper way to determine how full and fair representation, against which no argument any longer remained, should be accorded to Northern Ireland by setting up a Conference under Mr. Speaker in accordance with precedent—a precedent which has been followed on even larger constitutional matters affecting the composition of and election to the House of Commons.
That Conference comprised 29 hon. Members under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker. It could not be said that those hon. Members, for the most part, approached the question which was put before them either with closed minds or light-heartedly. Indeed, they addressed themselves de novo to whether it was proper that Northern Ireland should have increased representation at all. It can hardly be said that it was a Conference packed with hon. Members whose minds were already made up on the subject. It is true that they came—one would have thought that they were obliged to come—to a decision by an overwhelming majority that Northern Ireland should have increased representation. But they did so only after deliberation and consideration of such evidence as they decided was relevant.
When they proceeded to decide by how much that representation should be increased, they arrived at their conclusion almost unanimously; there was one dissentient. That is an important fact for Northern Ireland. It is important that when this major step—and such it is—is taken, it should be taken with the overwhelming consent of Members representative of all parts of the House of Commons acting in a constitutional manner and in accordance with precedent when dealing with such questions. It is that
1828
which will give assurance to the people of Northern Ireland that in future this question will not be the football of politics in the House of Commons or in this country. It is a decision which, as near as it ever can, the House of Commons as a whole has taken and is taking.
In arriving at the figure, the Conference naturally addressed itself to the level of representation in other parts of the United Kingdom. It established that an increase of four seats would give Northern Ireland equality of representation with the overwhelming preponderant part of the United Kingdom.
If the Conference had said "Our recommendation is that Northern Ireland should have 16 seats", we could not have denied that that was broad, fair justice for Northern Ireland. The House of Commons would have been entitled to say to us "We have put you in Northern Ireland on an even footing with the overwhelming majority of the Kingdom of which you are an integral part". But the Conference did not do that. It took note of the fact that there is a higher scale of representation in Wales and in Scotland and that on the basis of those two scales Northern Ireland would have 18 and 19 seats respectively.
Naturally, my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux) and I, as any other hon. Members representing Northern Ireland in our places would have done, pointed to the analogies between the circumstances of Northern Ireland and of Scotland, but we pooled, as we do in this House when we act as a House, our views with those of our colleagues. And the view of our colleagues was that the analogy with Wales was the closest, but not complete. It was upon that view that the Conference decided finally—and we thought it our duty to ensure that that decision was, as nearly as possible, the unanimous decision of the Conference—that the the representation of Northern Ireland should approach that of Wales. Indeed, it will equal that of Wales if, in the exercise of the discretion which it is to be given, the Boundary Commission recommends 18 seats.
So there is no mystery about how the figure comes to be in this Bill. There is no mystery about how it was arrived at. There is no mystery about the report behind the Bill, which had the support,

1829
as nearly as it can be mobilised, of the whole of the House of Commons ; and there is no mystery about the reason why the House of Commons, virtually as a whole, supports this decision. It is because this decision is in accordance with the principles of the House of Commons itself that it could not take any other decision without renouncing those principles and weakening the basis of its own authority.
My hon. Friends and I will support the Bill as it stands because it embodies the virtually unanimous recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference and as near as may be the unanimous will of the House of Commons, to which, as the essence of the union of the United Kingdom, it is our pride and our right to belong.
Mr. John Ellis: I sought, in an intervention, to challenge the contribution that has just been made and I feel that I must challenge it more. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that, with the passing on of Stormont, the last remaining reason, there could be no reason—and I think he said it two, three or even four times in his speech—why the more normal figures should not apply for Northern Ireland. I believe that it would be remiss in this debate if that statement were allowed to go unchallenged.
Returning to the point that I made when I intervened, it is a bit of an anachronism, as we stand here, that if there is one part of the British Isles, or this conglomeration of islands as such, where it can be demonstrated that there is different history, and in many ways a different culture, that place must be Northern Ireland—much more so than Scotland—yet this is the one area for which some of its representatives seek to make the bonds more iron hard. I wonder why that is.
It is perfectly arguable, if we are talking about democracy as we know it, to say that there is something inherently wrong if, after an election—most hon. Members who represent English, Welsh and Scottish constituencies believe that they are here to represent all the people—the minority who did not vote for the Member elected believe that in the constituency they cannot have any faith that they will
1830
get justice in the matter of pensions, in housing and where that should be allocated, or on anything else.
The extraordinary situation is that about the only time one sees the parties united on anything is when they are getting more money for themselves. As soon as the money is allocated for a factory, for instance, there is immediate division about where that factory will be placed, and so on. There is no trust on the part of 40 per cent. of the community in the other 60 per cent. The writ does not run. That is the situation that we face in looking at the increased number of seats. We seek to heal and to change.
It is a legitimate argument that hon. Members should judge the Bill and these amendments solely on the question whether they will do anything for democracy or to bring the communities together, or whether they will do the reverse. In my view, the Bill will do the reverse. We have sufficient indication of that in the way that the communities have regarded this matter. It is being fed back to us in many ways, in some of the speeches that we have heard this evening, that the 40 per cent.—as was inevitable, it seems—have objected violently and said "This divides us more". Therefore, we are not helping the cause of democracy by the Bill or, specifically, by these amendments. That is a fair argument.
Let us look at one of the significant pieces of evidence that came from Northern Ireland, where a great deal of research was done into people's attitudes towards these issues. It was revealed that a substantial section of the community, Catholic and Protestant, supported direct rule. That was a terrible indictment of their native politcians. That must mean that they have no faith.
Mr. Powell: It is hardly an indictment of full representation in the House of Commons.
Mr. Ellis: No, but it is an indictment of people in the Province, who say "We are different. The English will never understand the problems of Catholics and Protestants. They have never lived here." I accept that. However, when questioned on this matter, a large number of people, Catholics and Protestants, said—perhaps it was self-evident from their unhappy history—that whoever was

1831
the majority could not gain the support of the minority in any way until their own institutions, and Stormont itself, blew apart.
Before I became a Member of Parliament, as a citizen of this country who was responsible in some way I always thought that this was a situation that had festered over the years. I came to the conclusion that the House of Commons never discussed it. Certainly, in my early years here we never discussed it. That was because we were so sick of the whole issue, which had festered on and on, and so long as the people there managed to get by without too much killing, we would keep quiet and say nothing. The situation changed dramatically when that unhappy Province blew itself apart and the House of Commons had to take notice and had to take action.
9.45 p.m.
I am not filibustering in any way. All that I seek to do, by any means available, by this Bill or any other, is to lessen the division and the sectarianism in Northern Ireland. The Bill does not do this. By giving more seats it will make the minority even more isolated; they will fear that their legitimate aspirations are being pushed further away. The mass of the people, who are not active politicians, despair of their heritage. No one has challenged the survey, which showed that a significant number of Catholics and Protestants would prefer direct rule—
Mr. Powell: From here.
Mr. Ellis: Yes, because, they say, "Our experience of our institutions shows that we cannot trust each other and we cannot trust those elected to give us a fair crack of the whip. Everything they do is a negation of what we believe."
That is deplorable. We here should be the guardians of all the great virtues. But one of those virtues is to be able to take decisions for oneself, democratically and with tolerance, seeking the trust of those who disagree. Not all these things happen in Northern Ireland. The great majority of the people, Protestant and Catholic, who are not killers or members of murder gangs, want to live in peace. The heritage of liberty demands that
1832
people stand up and declare themselves for it.
Unchallenged evidence shows that a huge number of people concluded that they could not achieve that and that they would rather give the control of affairs to Englishmen. They say, in effect, "Even with the increase in seats, policy will be decided by people who disagree with us." All too often, the charge is that we do not live there or know the background. But that survey shows that they are prepared to let us make the decisions.
Mr. Fitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that during the sitting of the Constitutional Convention in Northern Ireland, when Northern Irishmen of all religious persuasions sought desperately for a political solution, 48 hours before it ended, an Englishman—the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—said in a public speech in Belfast, in the words of Cromwell: "In the name of God, go." He did not want Northern Ireland politicians or the Constitutional Convention to succeed. Yet that is the right hon. Member who is now saying that an increase in seats will not prevent the creation of political structures in Northern Ireland. He will do his best to ensure that no locally-based structure is created in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Ellis: I am grateful—
The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I thought that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) had risen to ask his hon. Friend to refer to the amendment under discussion. He did not do so, so I will ask the hon. Member to come to the amendment.
Mr. Ellis Mr. Ellis rose—
Mr. McNamara: I was of the same mind—
The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Is this a point of order?
Mr. McNamara: No, Sir Myer, it is an intervention.
Mr. Ellis: I gave way.
Mr. McNamara: Had it been a point of order, Sir Myer, I should have addressed you directly, as I have done in the past. My hon. Friend gave way to allow me to make an intervention.

1833
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) talked about direct rule and the majority of the people preferring it. He was correct in what he said, but the argument for direct rule was based on the status quo. It was an argument for direct rule and not for increased representation.
Sir Myer, there is a lot of talk below the Gangway.
The First Deputy Chairman: Order.
Mr. McNamara: Following his great statement, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) pointed to that thing below the Table there and said "Take away this bauble." That was a denial of democracy if ever there was one. In that way we would end up with a military dictatorship.
Mr. Ellis: My hon. Friend speaks many words of wisdom.
Mr. Tom Litterick: On a point of order, Sir Myer. There seems to be an informal meeting at the door which is preventing us from hearing the proceedings of the Chamber.
The First Deputy Chairman: Will hon. Members refrain from talking, so that we can hear what is being discussed on amendment No. 3?
Mr. Ellis: It is difficult to maintain a train of thought. The speeches of the right hon. Member for Down, South are always worth listening to. I thought he was trying to demonstrate that there could be no logical reason for opposing the Bill. I challenge that assumption. The Bill will do nothing to lessen the sectarian hostility that divides the unhappy community. It is an alien situation in a democracy to have within communities— for the purposes of the argument I make no difference between Catholic or Protestant—groups of people who go outside the law in pursuit of their political aims. It cannot be judged within those parameters. Will the fundamental question of the creation of these seats do anything to lessen the sectarian divide? Will other more moderate points of view be heard in this Committee?
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does my hon. Friend accept that extension of representation for Northern
1834
Ireland is important for the Government? The Government can abrogate responsibility for solving the real problems of Northern Ireland by this exercise of extending representation in Northern Ireland. Does he also not agree that although the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made an impeccable analytical argument, he failed to reach any conclusions? He is arguing that Parliament can never be wrong because constitutional decisions have been taken. But there is no comparison between the political, social and economic situation in Northern Ireland and in Scotland and Wales. Those comparisons are therefore not only unfair but completely unacceptable.
Mr. Ellis: My hon. Friend takes the argument one step further and challenges the prime motivation of the Bill. I hope that that point will be developed in the course of the debate. I am trying to be kinder and ask whether the Government's aim is to lessen the sectarian divide and improve the situation. If that is their belief, I am seeking to argue against that proposition, because I do not believe that it is true. If hon. Members attempt to buttress the argument even further by appearing to put a gloss on an unsatisfactory situation, that is an even bigger condemnation of these amendments.
I cannot see why, if the ratio of the divide in Northern Ireland is 60 to 40, there is not a similar ratio in representation in the seats that we already have. The outcome of these extra seats is, in the circumstances, unlikely to change the situation one iota. What it is likely to do is further to alienate the already alienated 40 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is 39 per cent."] I do not wish to quibble about this. The point I am trying to make is that we can make democracy work only if after the elections the people who did not vote for the successful Member do not go out into the streets—
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Will you ask the Ulster Unionists who are making interventions to stand up on their hind legs and make their contributions properly so that we can follow the train of thought of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis)? Otherwise, we shall have to appeal once more for silence and my hon. Friend will have to repeat many of his arguments.
The First Deputy Chairman: I have been listening intently for the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) to come to the point of the amendment under discussion—I was anxious not to miss that—and therefore I did not hear any interjections. If I hear any sedentary comments, I shall certainly ask the hon. Members concerned to rise in their places.
Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. I distinctly heard the words "Where did you get 40 per cent. from?" from two or three Ulster Unionist Members in a sedentary position. I should have thought that their references to that number 40 were related to what we were discussing today. The amendment concerns the question of numbers. Ulster Unionists have been very reluctant to take part in the debate. They have come in and out rather like yo-yos. If they have a contribution to make, they should stand up and make their points in accordance with the proper procedures.
Mr. Ellis: I accept your chairmanship, Sir Myer, as I must, and I shall accept

Division No. 34]

AYES

10.00 p.m.

Anderson, Donald

Dempsey, James

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Doig, Peter

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Armstrong, Ernest

Dormand, J. D.

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Ashton, Joe

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Dunlop, John

Kilfedder, James

Bean, R. E.

Dunn, James A.

Knox, David

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Dunnett, Jack

Lambie, David

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Eadie, Alex

Lamborn, Harry

Biggs-Davison, John

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Lamond, James

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

English, Michael

Leadbitter, Ted

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Boardman, H.

Evans, John (Newton)

Lofthouse, Geolfrey

Bradford, Rev Robert

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Eyre, Reginald

McCartney, Hugh

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Farr, John

McCusker, H.

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

McElhone, Frank

Budgen, Nick

Fookes, Miss Janet

McKay, Alan (Penlstone)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Campbell, Ian

Ford, Ben

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Cant, R. B.

Forrester, John

Maclennan, Robert

Carson, John

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Carter, Ray

George, Bruce

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Cartwright, John

Golding, John

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Gourlay, Harry

Marks, Kenneth

Cohen, Stanley

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Coleman, Donald

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Grant, John (Islington C)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Conlan, Bernard

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mather, Carol

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Hardy, Peter

Mayhew, Patrick

Cowans, Harry

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Hayhoe, Barney

Molyneaux, James

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

Hooley, Frank

Morgan, Geraint

Davidson, Arthur

Horam, John

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Morton, George

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Hunter, Adam

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Deakins, Eric

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

John, Brynmor

Neave, Alrey

your ruling on all these matters. However, I assure the Committee that I shall not be put off. I shall make my speech and, if it takes me that much longer, I shall have to detain the Committee to do so.
It does not matter whether the figure is 40 per cent. or 39 per cent. What I am saying would be true even if the figure were only 10 per cent. If, after an election, a significant number of people—perhaps as low a proportion as 5 per cent.—feel so aggrieved that they go outside democratic forms altogether—
It being Ten o'clock the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
That the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Shape.]
The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 32.

Noble, Mike

Sever, John

Weatherill, Bernard

Oakes, Gordon

Shepherd, Colin

Weetch, Ken

Ogden, Eric

Snape, Peter

White, James (Pollok)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Spriggs, Leslie

Whitehead, Phillip

Paisley, Rev Ian

Stanbrook, Ivor

Whitlock, William

Palmer, Arthur

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Park, George

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Powell, Rt Hon J.Enoch

Tinn, James

Winterlon, Nicholas

Radice, Giles

Torney, Tom

Woof, Robert

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Urwin, T.W.

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Young, David (Bolton E)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Rooker, J.W.

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Roper, John

Ward, Michael

Mr. Ted Graham and

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Watkins, David

Mr. Alf Bates.

Rowlands, Ted

NOES

Beith, A. J.

Madden, Max

Skinner, Dennis

Canavan, Dennis

Mahon, Simon

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Corbett, Robin

Maynard, Miss Joan

Stallard, A.W.

Cryer, Bob

Mikardo, Ian

Steel, Rt Hon David

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

O'Halloran, Michael

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Ovenden, John

White, Frank R.(Bury)

Flannery, Martin

Page, John (Harrow West)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Parry, Robert

Woodall, Alec

Home Robertson, John

Penhaligon, David

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Richardson, Miss Jo

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Litterick, Tom

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Mr.Kevin McNamara and

Loyden, Eddie

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Mr.Ron Thomas.

Question accordingly agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRI- BUTION OF SEATS) BILL
Again considered in Committee.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
Mr. John Ellis: My speech so far has been subject to a number of interruptions, through no wish of mine. I was last interrupted when I was replying to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Down, South. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no objection to an increase in the number of seats. I do not wish to be unfair about his argument. I seek to demonstrate that if the general cause of democracy as we know it is likely to be disadvantaged by the creation of more seats, that is a good argument for not passing this measure or the amendments.
10.15 p.m.
I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Down, South did justice to my intervention. An extraordinary state of affairs exists in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. If a substantial number of people —even if they are in the minority—view this move as a setback and a further alienation, we must oppose it.
For those reasons I am against the amendments which seek to add to the number of seats in the Bill. Those who have power and are in the majority must concede to the minority view. However, during our many discussions on the subject I have heard no word from the Ulster Unionists—who are in the majority—about what they seek to do to help the minority. When suggestions are made, whether by the Unionist majority or by the Catholic minority, they refuse to have anything to do with what is suggested.
We are not discussing democracy in the way that we normally accept democracy. When I visited that unhappy place everybody I spoke to wanted to know whether I was Catholic or Protestant. No one wished to know my political opinion.
My credentials in that respect are better than those of the right hon. Member for Down, South. I do not wish to be per-
1840
sonal but the right hon. Member has confessed many times that he belongs to the Church of England. At one time such people were Catholics. My own antecedents are different. I was brought up as a Primitive Methodist. I have had nothing to do with the Church of England. I am not an atheist, but I have doubts and I am an agnostic. We do not down arguments or people on the basis of their religious background.
Mr. Stallard: I am following the argument of my hon. Friend as closely as possible, because of the importance of this subject. I know of his long-standing interest in the matter and his many visits to the Six Counties. I believe that he visited the Province recently. Was he aware of any grass roots pressure for this increase in representation at West minster?
Mr. Ellis: The subject was never mentioned. That could have been chance. There was a certain amount of pressure from some political quarters concerning Stormont.
Can those who support the amendments and the Bill honestly say that this legislation will remove the bitterness and heal the estrangement felt by the minority? Will the bitterness and the hatred be lessened? If they can honestly say that it will be, it seems that the legislation will have contributed something. If they can honestly say that, I shall reconsider my position. It is my honest and sincere conviction that those conditions which break apart the community and which result in the present unhappy state of affairs will not be helped by the Bill or the amendments.
Mr. Airey Neave: I explained on Second Reading why the Conservative Party supported this Bill and why we agreed with the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference. I did so in some detail and it is not necessary for me to address the Committee any further on that score. We do not support the Bill because we are in favour of integration, as has been suggested. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that full representation is no barrier to effective local institutions. We are not supporting the Bill because the extra seats would be

1841
a substitute for devolution. If the Minister of State wishes to resist the amendments, whether in favour of increasing the number of seats or of reducing that number, we shall support him. We want to see the Bill enacted as it stands.
It is unwise to indulge in too much speculation about the political complexion of the extra seats which may follow from this Bill. That rather detracts from the work of Mr. Speaker's Conference. It was my impression that it had no desire to entrench one community or the other as a result of its recommendations. As I understand it, the purpose of the Conference was to seek to end the existing under-representation of the Province for the benefit of all the people there. This has been the policy of the Conservative Party for a long time.
We should be judging the amendments, as we have judged the Bill, on the merits of under-representation. Attention has been drawn to the quotas—64,000 for England and 84,000 for Northern Ireland. Strong evidence was given to Mr. Speaker's Conference on this point. Since an all-party conference has come to this decision by an overwhelming majority, I do not believe that we should oppose it.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): It was said when we first set out on this group of amendments that they were narrow in scope. I hate to think what would happen if they were any wider in scope.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Do you have any idea of the purpose of my right hon. Friend's intervention? Will those hon. Members who have amendments tabled for discussion have the opportunity to deal with the reply given to them by the Minister? I understand that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) wishes to reply to the debate, and I, too, wish to reply to the points made on my amendment.
I seek an undertaking that the closure will not be moved by the Government and accepted by the Chair before hon. Members have had an opportunity to reply to the debate. There are many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and Bristol, North-West (Mr.
1842
Thomas), who should be given an opportunity to make their contributions. I regret the fact that the Minister of State has taken this opportunity to address the Committee. Am I in order in asking him, through you, Sir Myer, to desist from speaking now to enable my hon. Friends to make their contributions?
Several Hon. Members rose—
The First Deputy Chairman: I shall deal with one point of order at a time. The duty of the Chair is simple. If a Minister rises to speak, the occupant of the Chair calls him.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I understand that immediately the Minister completes his reply to the debate, the Government intend to move the closure. Since the Committee is discussing my amendment, am I not entitled to reply to some of the points that have been made in the debate?
The First Deputy Chairman: We must hear the Minister out, because he has already risen to his feet.
Mr. Concannon: The Committee has been debating amendments that arise from radically different points of view but have a common object in seeking to alter the number of seats appropriate to Northern Ireland, thus departing from the recommendations of the overwhelming majority of the members of Mr. Speaker's Conference.
The amendments which are in the names of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) have been discussed together. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in linking his name with two amendments. His ingenuity knows no bounds.
Mr. McNamara: I thank my right hon. Friend for his compliment, which I accept in the manner in which it was given. However, I believe that it would be of much more interest to the Committee to know whether my right hon. Friend, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, will be bullied into accepting the closure, thus not allowing my hon. Friends to make their contributions to the debate or to allow us to sum up our case in the light of his reply.
Mr. Concannon: I have been a member of many Standing Committees upstairs and Committees that have been taken on the Floor of the House, It is quite normal for the Minister to express his point of view when he considers it opportune to do so, and the Minister is usually called. This does not prevent the Committee stage continuing.
Mr. Ron Thomas Mr. Ron Thomas rose—
Mr. Concannon: I do not think that this is a point for me. I am merely exercising my right as Minister to reply to the debate.
Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill is of crucial constitutional importance? Does he also agree that it would be indefensible for the Government to curtail debate on the Bill?
Mr. Concannon: Since I have been on the Front Bench since four o'clock this afternoon, I do not think that it is correct to say that there has been any curtailment of discussion. Judging by the way things have gone so far, I do not think it can be said that there has been any curtailment of discussion on the Bill, which contains only two clauses.
The statutory level put forward—namely, to increase the number of seats from between 16 and 18 to between 21 and 24—may be described as the target figure. That would be an increase from 17 to 22. Seventeen seats would put Northern Ireland on par with the rest of the country. That seems fair. If Northern Ireland were to have 22 seats it would be more generously represented, by far, than any other part of the United Kingdom. Each Member would represent 47,000 electors compared with 54,000 in Scotland and 66,000 in England. If we had strict parity in Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom, we should arrive at 16·1 seats. Seventeen seats would produce about the same representation as in Wales and would be slightly short of that in Scotland. We are trying to right an unfairness. I am sure that hon. Members would not wish to put Northern Ireland in a favoured position and thus create another unfairness.
10.30 p.m.
My hon. Friends the Members for Belfast. West (Mr. Fitt) and for Kingston
1844
upon Hull, Central are asking the Committee to approve amendments that disregard the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference. The result of their amendments would be 15 seats for Northern Ireland instead of the 17 recommended by Mr. Speaker's Conference. Instead of the possibility of a variation of 16 to 18 there would be the possibility of a variation of 14 to 16. I am not sure why my hon. Friends have alighted on 15. I thought that they were opposed to any increase in Northern Ireland representation in the House of Commons. I thought that they were opposed to the principle of increasing Northern Ireland representation and not merely to the extent of the increase.
I hope that my hon. Friends will recall that the membership of Mr. Speaker's Conference was 14 Labour Members, 11 Conservative Members, one Liberal Member, two Unionist Members and one SDLP Member. Conference agreed—there was only one dissenting voice—that 17 was the appropriate level of representation for Northern Ireland, subject to possible variation to 16 or 18. I ask both my hon. Friends and some hon. Members whether they have any reasons for thinking that in reaching its conclusions the Conference was guided by any considerations other than its view of what was fair and just for the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Loyden: I accept everything that my right hon. Friend has said about Mr. Speaker's Conference, but does he agree that the increased representation of Northern Ireland is a matter for the House of Commons and not for the Conference? He has suggested that the decision of the Conference should have an overwhelming influence on the decision of the House of Commons. Will he make it clear that it is a matter for the House of Commons?
Mr. Concannon: Of course. That is why we had a Second Reading. The House decided its attitude to the Bill on Second Reading. We are now in Committee. We are considering the fair allocation of seats to Northern Ireland. There will be a Third Reading. We shall go on from there.
Mr. Ron Thomas: My right hon. Friend spoke about what he thought were the motives of those who took part in

1845
Mr. Speaker's Conference, which arrived at a certain decision. We have already heard that much of the proceedings of that Conference was taken in complete secrecy. There are no minutes of what was discussed. How does my right hon. Friend arrive at his assessment of the motives of those who took part in the Conference?
Mr. Concannon: My hon. Friend seems to impugn the motives of the members of Mr. Speaker's Conference. I do not believe that the rest of the House of Commons would wish to impugn their motives in that way. Certainly, I should not wish to do so. We are following what has always been the accepted way of dealing with these matters in this place.
Several Hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The Minister does not appear to be giving way. Hon. Members know perfectly well the way in which we behave in the House in those circumstances.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. My right hon. Friend has invited my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and myself and some of our hon. Friends—
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Whatever the Minister invited anybody to do is not in the hands of the Chair. If the Minister wants to give way, he can do so, in which case the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) will have his opportunity.
Mr. Concannon: I have already given way three times and would like to get on.
Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend asked me a question.
Mr. Concannon: I have given way quite enough, I think. My hon. Friend knows very well that it takes quite a lot to unsettle me and I will not be bullied into giving way.
Mr. McNamara Mr. McNamara rose—
Mr. Concannon: Just for my flat-mate, I will give way.
Mr. McNamara: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I ask for favours from him not on the ground of friend-
1846
ship but on the basis of the rules of the House. I have no wish to pursue the matter.
Mr. Concannon Mr. Concannon rose—
Mr. Stallard: Will my right hon. Friend give way? I would like to pursue the matter and I am not my right hon. Friend's flat-mate. He has said that the numbers were arrived at on the basis of the Speaker's Conference. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that, inasmuch as we have any information at all about the Speaker's Conference—
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order. Mr. Concannon. I see that the Minister has given way. I apologise.
Mr. Stallard: I understand the confusion. Based on the very scant information that any of us has about what happened at the Speaker's Conference, we have been able to glean that it was mainly an arithmetical discussion. It was based on mathematical considerations about areas and electors. This Committee is entitled to go much further than that and to discuss the political implications of those mathematical calculations. That is what the discussion is about, and I hope that the Minister will address himself to that.
Mr. Concannon: Once again, I should like to remind the Committee that a Speaker's Conference is a traditional and accepted way of deciding these things. The Government have already indicated that they accept the recommendations of the Conference, and I can see no reason whatever to quarrel with them. I am content to accept the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference that Northern Ireland deserves 17 seats in the House of Commons. I hope that the Committee will also agree and will not accept either group of amendments.
Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order. Mr. Godman Irvine.
The Second Deputy Chairman: The Question is, That the Question be now put. There can be no point of order arising.
The Committee proceeded to a Division—
Rev. Ian Paisley (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. We are discussing an important matter concerning the future representation of Northern Ireland in the House of Commons, and it is my amendment that is before the Committee. I represent one of the largest constituencies in Northern Ireland and I am denied the right to reply to a debate initiated by the calling

Division No. 35]

AYES

[10.38 p.m

Anderson, Donald

Fookes, Miss Janet

Molyneaux, James

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Morgan, Geraint

Armstrong, Ernest

Ford, Ben

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Ashton, Joe

Forrester, John

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Morton, George

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Freud, Clement

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Bates, Alf

George, Bruce

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Bean, R. E.

Golding, John

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Beith, A. J.

Gourlay, Harry

Neave, Airey

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Noble, Mike

Berry, Hon Anthony

Graham, Ted

Oakes, Gordon

Biggs-Davison. John

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Ogden, Eric

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Grant, John (Islington C)

Palmer, Arthur

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Park, George

Boardman, H.

Hardy, Peter

Penhaligon, David

Bradford, Rev Robert

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Radice, Giles

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hooley, Frank

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Horam, John

Roderick, Caerwyn

Buchanan, Richard

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Roper, John

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Campbell, Ian

Hunter, Adam

Rowlands, Ted

Cant, R. B.

John, Brynmor

Sever, John

Carson, John

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Shepherd Colin

Carter, Ray

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Spearing, Nigel

Cohen, Stanley

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Coleman, Donald

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Strang, Gavin

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Lambie, David

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Conlan, Bernard

Lamborn, Harry

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Lamond, James

Tinn, James

Cowans, Harry

Leadbitter, Ted

Urwin, T. W.

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Davidson, Arthur

McCartney, Hugh

Ward, Michael

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

McCusker, H.

Watkins, David

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

McElhone, Frank

Weatherill, Bernard

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Weetch, Ken

Deakins, Eric

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

White, James (Pollok)

Dempsey, James

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Whitehead, Phillip

Dewar, Donald

Maclennan, Robert

Whitlock, William

Dormand, J. D.

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Dunlop, John

Marks, KennethWoof, Robert

Woof Robert

Eadie, Alex

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

English, Michael

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Evans, John (Newton)

Mather, Carol

Mr. Peter Snape and

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Mr. Joseph Dean.

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

NOES

Canavan, Dennis

Home Robertson, John

Mikardo, Ian

Corbett, Robin

Kilfedder, James

O'Halloran, Michael

Cryer, Bob

Litterick, Tom

Paisley, Rev Ian

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Loyden, Eddie

Parry, Robert

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Madden, Max

Richardson, Miss Jo

Flannery, Martin

Mahon, Simon

Rodgers, George (Chorles,

of my amendment. I ask, Mr. Godman Irvine, whether you will protect minorities in this House and give the people in Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives, a chance of democracy.
The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) does not appear to be interested in any reaction to what he said, but he has no right of reply.
The Committee having divided: Ayes 150, Noes 27.

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Skinner, Dennis

White, Frank R. (Bury)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Mr. Kevin McNamara and

Stallard, A. W.

Woodall. Alec

Mr. Stan Thorne

Steel, Rt Hon David

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

Division No. 36]

AYES

[10.52 p.m

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Rev. Ian Paisley and

Mr. James Kilfedder.

NOES

Anderson, Donald

George, Bruce

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Golding, John

Neave, Airey

Armstrong, Ernest

Gourlay, Harry

Oakes, Gordon

Ashton, Joe

Gow, lan (Eastbourne)

Ogden, Eric

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

O'Halloran, Michael

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Graham, Ted

Ovenden, John

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Palmer, Arthur

Bates, Alf

Grant, John (Islington C)

Park, George

Bean, R. E.

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Parry, Robert

Beith, A. J.

Hardy, Peter

Penhaligon, David

Bell, Ronald

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Radice, Giles

Berry, Hon Anthony

Home Robertson, John

Richardson, Miss Jo

Biggs-Davison, John

Hooley, Frank

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Horam, John

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Boardman, H.

Hughes. Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hunter, Adam

Roper, John

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

John, Brynmor

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Buchanan, Richard

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Rowlands, Ted

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Sever, John

Campbell, Ian

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Shepherd, Colin

Canavan, Dennis

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Skinner, Dennis

Cant, R. B.

Lambie, David

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Carson, John

Lamborn, Harry

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Carter, Ray

Lamond, James

Snape, Peter

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Leadbitter, Ted

Spearing, Nigel

Cohen, Stanley

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Stallard, A, W.

Coleman, Donald

Litterick, Tom

Stanbrook, Ivor

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Steel, Rt Hon David

Conlan, Bernard

Loyden, Eddie

Strang, Gavin

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Cowans, Harry

McCartney, Hugh

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

McCusker, H.

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Cryer, Bob

McElhone, Frank

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Davidson, Arthur

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Tinn, James

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Urwin, T.

Davies, or (Gower)

Maclennan, Robert

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Deakins, Eric

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

McNamara, Kevin

Ward, Michael

Dempsey, James

Madden, Max

Watkins, David

Dewar, Donald

Mahon, Simon

Weatherill, Bernard

Dormand, J. D.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

weetch, Ken

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Marks, Kenneth

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

White, James (Pollok)

Eadie, Alex

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Whitehead, Phillip

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Whitlock, William

English, Michael

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Mather, Carol

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Mikardo, Ian

Winterton, Nicholas

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Flannery, Martin

Molyneaux, James

Woodall, Alec

Fookes, Miss Janet

Morgan, Geraint

Wool, Robert

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Wrigglesworth Ian

Ford, Ben

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Forrester, John

Morton, George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Mr. Thomas Cox and

Freud, Clement

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Mr. John Evans.

Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: Ayes 0, Noes 179.
The Second Deputy Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) wish to move his amendment?
Mr. McNamara: Yes, Mr. Godman Irvine.

Division No. 37]

AYES

[11.04 p.m

Beith, A. J.

Ovenden, John

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Canavan, Dennis

Penhaligon, David

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Woodall, Alec

Freud, Clement

Skinner, Dennis

Home Robertson, John

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mikardo, Ian

Stallard, A. W.

Mr. Kevin McNamara and

O'Halloran, Michael

Steel, Rt Hon David

Mr. Eddie Loyden

NOES

Anderson, Donald

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Ford, Ben

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Armstrong, Ernest

Forrester, John

Morton, George

Ashton, Joe

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

George, Bruce

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Golding, John

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Gow, lan (Eastbourne)

Neave, Airey

Bates, Alf

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Noble, Mike

Bean, R. E.

Graham, Ted

Oakes, Gordon

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Ogden, Eric

Berry, Hon Anthony

Grant, John (Islington C)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Biggs-Davison, John

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Palmer, Arthur

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Hardy, Peter

Park, George

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Pendry, Tom

Boardman, H.

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Bradford, Rev Robert

Hooley, Frank

Radice, Giles

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Hunter, Adam

Roderick, Caerwyn

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

John, Brynmor

Roper, John

Campbell, Ian

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Cant, R. B.

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Rowlands, Ted

Carson, John

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Sever, John

Carter, Ray

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Shepherd, Colin

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Cohen, Stanley

Kilfedder, James

Snape, Peter

Coleman, Donald

Lambie, David

Spearing, Nigel

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Lamborn, Harry

Stanbrook, Ivor

Conlan, Bernard

Lamond, James

Strang, Gavin

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Leadbitter, Ted

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Cowans, Harry

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Urwin, T. W.

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Cryer, Bob

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Davidson, Arthur

McCartney, Hugh

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

McCusker, H.

Ward, Michael

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

McElhone, Frank

Watkins, David

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Weatherill, Bernard

Deakins, Eric

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Weetch, Ken

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Maclennan, Robert

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Dempsey, James

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

White, James (Pollok)

Dewar, Donald

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Whitehead, Phillip

Dormand, J. D.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Marks, Kenneth

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Dunlop, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Winterton, Nicholas

Eadie, Alex

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Woof, Robert

English, Michael

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Mather, Carol

Evans, John (Newton)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Molyneaux, James

Mr. James Tinn and

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Monro, Hector

Mr. Thomas Cox.

Fookes, Miss Janet

Morgan, Geraint

Question accordingly negatived.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment proposed: No.2, in page 1, line 10, leave out '18' and insert '16'.—[Mr. McNamara.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 17, Noes 151.
The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 13, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
No. 17, in page 2, line 26, leave out subsection (6).
Mr. McNamara: The purpose of the amendments is to explore more fully a statement made on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—whose absence I regret, just as I regret the absence of some of my other right hon. and hon. Friends—which seemed to indicate that when subsection (2) came into operation there would be almost a guarantee of five or six seats for the minority population within the Six Counties.
The amendments deal with the position of the Boundary Commission, which is responsible for fixing constituency boundaries. It is responsible for doing so on the same basis as that within the rest of the United Kingdom, although until the Bill becomes law it merely has the task of dividing 12—the present number of seats in the Six Counties—into the number of electors, taking various other factors into consideration, to arrive at suitable constituency boundaries.
Clause 1(3) of the Bill alters rule 5 of the principal Act so that, in framing its first report under section 2(1), the Boundary Commission shall read rule 5,
"(under which the electorate of a constituency is to be brought as near the electoral quota as is practicable having regard to the other rules) in accordance with the definitions given in subsection (4) below instead of in accordance with rule 7 of those rules."
Section 2(1) of the principal Act is entitled
"Periodical reports of Commissions as to redistribution."
It states that
"Each Boundary Commission shall keep under review the representation in the House of Commons of the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned and shall, in accordance with the next following subsection, submit to the Secretary of State reports with respect to the whole of that part of the United Kingdom, either—

(a) showing the constituencies into which they recommend that it should be divided in order to give effect to the rules set out in the Second Schedule to this Act ; or

(b) stating that, in the opinion of the Commission, no alteration is required to be made in respect of that part of the United Kingdom in order to give effect to the said rules."

1854
All political organisers wish that the Commission would look at section 2(1)(b) of the Act more often, because of the problems that it creates for sitting Members and parties in the reorganisation of boundaries. But democracy must have its way, and that is a proper rule.
The schedule dealing with the redistribution of seats states that
"The number of constituencies in the several parts of the United Kingdom set out in the first column of the following table shall be as stated respectively in the second column of that table—

Part of the United Kingdom

No. of Constituencies

Great Britain

Not substantially greater or less than 613.

Scotland

Not less than 71.

Wales

Not less than 35.

Northern Ireland

12.

2. Every constituency shall return a single member."
That is clear and precise. We tried to change that but we were ruled out of order. That was sad, but it could not be helped.
Rule 3 shows the power of the City. It reads
"There shall continue to be a constituency which shall include the whole of the City of London and the name of which shall refer to the City of London."
Rule 4 says that
"So far as is practicable having regard to the foregoing rules …in England and Wales"—
I shall not weary the Committee with the rule regarding county boroughs, and so on. It argued that no county district should be partly in one constituency and partly in another. That was amended to deal with the Assembly in relation to constituencies.
Clause 1 (3) of the Bill says how
"the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland shall read rule 5 of those rules ".
Rule 5 says that
"The electorate of any constituency shall be as near the electoral quota as is practicable having regard to the foregoing rules; and a Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of the last foregoing rule if it appears to them that a departure is desirable to avoid an excessive disparity between the electorate of any constituency and the electoral quota, or between the electorate thereof and that of neighbouring constituencies in the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned."
Mr. Clement Freud: The hon. Member has lent his name to almost every amendment. The Boundary Commission will take a long time to work out this complicated problem. Would it not be sensible if the Commission divided the Six Counties into four multi-Member constituencies in case, by the time its report comes before the House, the House is sufficiently enlightened to realise that proportional representation is the only proper answer?
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. None of that arises on the amendment.
Mr. McNamara: Without that ruling of yours, Mr. Godman Irvine, I might have been tempted to stray into the realms of proportional representation. Because of the way in which the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) worded his amendment on Second Reading, the House was prevented from having an adequate discussion.
Perhaps in the "clause stand part" debate it will be possible to discuss the point raised by the hon. Member without straying too far beyond the rules of order—
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The opportunity will not arise on clause stand part, as this point is not part of the Bill.
Mr. McNamara: Had it been included in the Bill I should have said that I have voted for proportional representation on every occasion when I felt that it should apply to Northern Ireland. I would not support it in the United Kingdom. I believe that the system should be the same in the Republic and the Six Counties—
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the amendment.
Mr. McNamara: I very much regret that I was led astray by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely.
11.30 p.m.
We come to rule 5 of the rules under which the electorate of a constituency is to be brought
"as near to the electoral quota as is practicable having regard to the other rules in accordance with the definitions given in subsection (4) below instead of in accordance with rule 7 of those rules."
Clause 1(4) of the Bill says:
1856
"In rule 5 as it applies by virtue of subsection (3) above—(a) 'electoral quota' shall mean a number obtained by dividing the aggregate electorate (as defined in paragraph (b) below) of all constituencies in Northern Ireland by 17";
and then we see, in paragraph (b)
"'electorate ' shall mean, in relation to any constituency, the number of persons whose names appear on the register of parliamentary electors in force for the constituency at the passing of this Act".
If we compare that with rule 7, as we find it in House of Commons Redistribution of Seats Act 1949, we find that in the application of these rules to each of the several parts of the United Kingdom for which there is a Boundary Commission.
"the expression 'electoral quota' means … a number obtained by dividing the electorate for Great Britain by the number of constituencies in Great Britain existing on the enumeration date",
and (b)
"The expression 'electorate ' means (i) in relation to a constituency, the number of persons whose names appear on the register of parliamentary electors in force on the enumeration date under the Representation of the People Acts for the constituency; (ii) in relation to Great Britain or Northern Ireland, the aggregate electorate as hereinbefore defined of all the constituencies therein'':
and (c)
"the expression 'emuneration date' means, in relation to any report of a Boundary Commission under this Act, the date on which the notice with respect to that report is published in accordance with section two of this Act."
We shall see when we come to subsection (5) of the clause that the position becomes different because of the fact that, in a sense, we are seeking to create a completely new situation by increasing the number of seats from 12 to 17, and then looking at the application of the various rules governing the Boundary Commission to effect the changes in the increased number of constituencies in Northern Ireland and seeking to push the matter ahead a little to get new boundaries by the time of the next General Election.
This is interesting, because the Bill refers also to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which deals with the position of the Assembly under the Act and the position of the constituencies thereunder.
That leads me to clause 1(5), which seeks to delete subsections (5) and (6) of section 28 of the Northern Ireland

1857
Constitution Act. Those subsections deal with constituencies and numbers of members.
I regret that I was unable to amend the principal Act or the Bill on the advice I received in order to give more positive reference to this group of subsections, because it would have dealt with the provision of proportional representation. But we find under subsections (5) and (6) of section 28 that
"An Order in Council under the said Act of 1949"—
that is the principal Act—
"for giving effect, with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in a report or supplementary report of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland may amend section 1(1) of the said Act of 1973 by altering the number of members there specified and may amend the Schedule to that Act by altering the name of any of the constituencies there mentioned or the number of members there specified in relation to any constituency".
Subsection (6) of section 28 says that
"Any provision of an Order in Council under the said Act of 1949 altering the boundaries of any constituency in Northern Ireland or the number of members specified in the said section 1(1) or the said Schedule in relation to any constituency shall not affect any election to the Assembly before the next general election to the Assembly or affect the constitution of the Assembly then in being."
That is important, because at present the Assembly, as such, is suspended. As I understand it, it has not yet been abolished. The provisions of the 1973 Act would have affected the Boundary Commission in the way in which it sought to draw up the boundaries for the new constituencies and would have created a degree of confusion. As I understand it, these subsections provide a solution to any problems and conflicts that might result from the passing of the Bill and the existence of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949.
Clause 1(5) of the Bill deals with the definition.
It says:
"For subsections (5) and (6) of section 28 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 (effect of Orders in Council under the principal Act on elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly) there shall be substituted the following subsections",
and these are the subsections which take the place of those which I have read to
1858
the House as being in existence under the 1973 Act.
The substituted subsection (5) says that
"An Order in Council under the said Act of 1949 for giving effect, with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in a report or supplementary report of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland may make amendments conequential on giving effect to those recommendations in section 1(1) of and in the Schedule to the said Act of 1973."
The substituted subsection (6) says that
"The coming into force of any such Order in Council shall not affect any election to the Assembly before the next general election to the Assembly or affect the constitution of the Assembly then in being."
I think that the points I have made and the elucidation that I have given to the Committee of the various provisions in the subsections that we are seeking to delete are of considerable importance, because the Secretary of State, I believe, chose to indicate that, in some way or other, the Boundary Commission would draw the constituency boundaries in a way that would determine the result of elections. He may not have wished to give that impression. He may have been expressing a pious hope, namely, that with there being extra seats in Northern Ireland there might be additional opportunities to have further representation in Northern Ireland of what in the House of Commons is loosely called the minority. If that is so, my right hon. Friend should have said so.
Whether he likes it or he does not, my right hon. Friend has given conflicting impressions to various people. For example, he has apparently given the impression to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that boundaries will be drawn that will guarantee a result to Republicans or others. He gave the impression to Members on the Government Benches, and perhaps even to members of Mr. Speaker's Conference, that with the redrawing of the boundaries there was the certainty of extra representation. Whether he liked it or not, he was doing my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) a considerable favour, almost on the basis of "This hurts me more than it hurts you".
These impressions are totally misleading. It is wrong that they should have been given in the first place. If we are to have elections in the Six Counties based on our system, they will have to be

1859
based on the system that now operates, of one man, one vote. We must not have a constituency boundary that is drawn to ensure that a certain group is certain of being returned. A serious reflection would be cast on the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission if it were felt that its integrity was being impugned by the suggestion that there were certain to be ways of boundaries being drawn to ensure a certain result—in other words, if it were to lose its impartiality. Secondly, it would be serious if it were felt that it was being leaned upon so as to achieve a certain result.
Outside certain specific areas where the minority population may or may not have a majority—it varies from area to area and from place to place—I do not believe, even with electorates of the size that will be produced with about 17 seats, that it will be possible to draw boundaries without a degree of what used to be termed gerrymandering. That would be reprehensible.
If I have been accurate in what I think is happening as a result of the amendments, I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies he will try to reverse what I believe is the unfortunate impression given by the Secretary of State of the results of elections for certain seats. The forecasting of such results is always a strange and difficult task because of what may happen as a consequence of the number of candidates. If there is more than one candidate of a particular hue in a particular constituency, it could affect the election for that seat.
11.45 p.m.
We have read with interest in the newspapers how various alliances have been formed and have not been formed on what is usually called the Unionist side of the divide, with threats and counter-threats and cutting up, and the withdrawal of candidates in one form or another. That has also applied on the minority side. It is very foolish for anyone to suggest, therefore, what any particular result will be.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say that he feels that the Secretary of State may have been in some way a little impetuous in what he said, and that perhaps a more considered opinion would be that there is a chance for any candidate for any seat to be elec-
1860
ted if he can persuade a majority of the electors to vote for him. That would be a much better way of looking at the matter. It is important that the Boundary Commission should have its integrity completely untarnished.
The amendments that are made by the subsections in Clause I have necessitated our glancing again at the Northern Ireland Constitution (Amendment) Act 1973. It should be borne in mind that that is still on the statute book. That is a very important matter. I see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State nods his head. It is on the statute book. I suggest, however, that this Bill and its provisions are a dagger in the guts, and that as a result of this measure it w ill not he seen in operation again. Little by little it will disappear from the statute book as integrationists on the Unionist side get their will.
Mr. Powell: As subsection (4) of Clause 1 is among the subsections being considered in this group of amendments, perhaps I may take the opportunity of putting to the right hon. Gentleman the difficulty of construction, of which I have given him notice, by which I am not the only person to be puzzled.
In subsection (4)(a) there is an instruction for the calculation of the electoral quota by using the figure 17 as a divisor. One understands why that is appropriate, assuming that it is 17 constituencies with which, under subsection (2), the Boundary Commission is dealing. However, under subsection (2), if it appears to the Commission that for the time being there should be 16 or 18 constituencies, it may make recommendations for either of those figures. There must, somewhere in the Bill, presumably, be something which in that case enabled either 16 or 18 to be substituted for 17 in the application of subsection (4)(a). I can only apologise for not having been able to find it, but I assume that it must be here somewhere, since it would be irrational, if the Boundary Commission were providing for 18 seats, for it to work on an electoral quota produced by dividing the electorate by 17.
I hope that I have sufficiently explained my difficulty to the right hon. Gentleman for him to be able to clear it when, he replies.
Mr. Ian Gow: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), not for the first time, has drawn the attention of the Committee to an important point. I take it that the Minister of State will undertake that if, as I suspect, the right hon. Gentleman is on to a good point, an appropriate amendment will be moved in another place. It seems to me that line 5, page 2, should read "17, 16 or 18 as the case may be". No doubt the Minister will direct his remarks to that point when he replies.
It seems to me that this series of amendments falls because of the decision on the earlier series of amendments. The subsections that these amendments seek to remove are essential to the Bill, assuming that we have rejected, as we have, the first series of amendments. I believe that an inevitable consequence of having rejected the first series of amendments is that we should reject the second series.
During our proceedings today the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) and others have drawn the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Speaker's Conference comprised only 29 Members of the House of Commons. The hon Gentleman, in particular, said that we should not be so powerfully influenced as the right hon. Member for Down, South suggested we should be by the overwhelming recommendation of the Speaker's Conference. But, when considering this series of amendments, it is relevant to remind the Committee that it was by 22 votes to one that the Speaker's Conference made its recommendation, that on Second Reading the voting was 350 to 49 in favour—a majority of seven to one—that on the first amendment the voting was 179 to none and that on the second amendment the voting was 151 against and 17 in favour—a majority of nine to one.
I believe that the Committee would be well advised to reject these amendments. Indeed, if the Committee were to accept them it would make nonsense of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join the Government in resisting these amendments. I hope, too, that the Minister of State will deal with the important point about subsection (4)(a).
Mr. John Ellis: I find the amendments textually complicated. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston
1862
upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) if I do him an injustice, but I am bound to say that the purpose of his amendments seems to be in line with what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said—namely, wrecking.
Mr. McNamara: No.
Mr. Ellis: I hear my hon. Friend say "No". I followed the point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and I am sure that that will be answered. Whatever my feelings about the Bill, at least I could follow that point. But I did not follow the argument deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central for the amendments. It may be that, as he opposes the Bill—indeed, I do—they are wrecking amendments.
My decision on the amendments rests on the sole criterion: do they help? That is my main consideraton. Will the Bill, if we must have it, help or hinder the selection of seats?
Will it lessen the sectarian divide in the whole community? Will it help to improve the position?
If this be a wrecking amendment, that I understand. But if there is something to be said for the amendment—if it is a criticism, so must it be—and it will help in the central purpose which is so important, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central and the Minister of State will say something to persuade me when they sum up.
Mr. Fitt: I have appended my name to the amendment for a reason that is different from that which led my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) to move it. I did it because I have a first-hand knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland.
I live in Belfast. I know the different areas where the constituencies would be likely to be drawn. I know the political complexion of those areas. For example, in my constituency there is a very deep religious and political divide. The people at Mr. Speaker's Conference could not be aware of the very serious divisions in Northern Ireland and the political atmosphere that prevails there.
Mr. Justice Murray appeared before the Conference. I asked him specifically what

1863
would be the work of his Commission, what it would be entitled to do, and what consideration would be given to various aspects of life in Northern Ireland. At paragraph 108 of his submissions, I said to him:
"Could your Commission in any circumstances take into account the political complexion of the various constituencies? And could you in any way, in drawing up boundaries, take into account the political complexion of the various constituencies?"
Mr. Justice Murray replied:
"As I understand it, as a quasi-judicial body giving effect to these rules the political complexion of constituencies certainly would not be for the considerations within the rules."
Mr. Justice Murray makes it quite clear that all he is concerned about is the number of heads to be counted.
Later in my questioning of Mr. Justice Murray I asked him whether he was aware that the vast majority of the population in Northern Ireland lived in the city of Belfast and within a radius of about 30 miles of Belfast. He agreed that that was so.
That area, therefore, is the area where the constituencies will be created. There will not be an extra seat for Fermanagh and South Tyrone or for Mid-Ulster. The possibility is that there will be an extra seat in the county of Londonderry. One cannot see a constituency boundary being drawn around a part of Belfast and then stretched way out into the rural areas of Northern Ireland. Therefore, in effect, the seats to be created will be in the city of Belfast.
We are all aware—particularly those of us who represent Belfast—of what is regarded in Northern Ireland, especially in Belfast, as a Loyalist area or an anti-Loyalist area. We all know very well the political and religious complexions. We are all tragically well aware of them. I wish that I did not know how many Protestants there were in Northern Ireland. But given the basis on which the Province was founded and the politics there since the setting up of the Stormont Government in 1920, we are all only too well aware of the terrible divisions that exist.
12 midnight.
In Mr. Speaker's Conference, the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) asked the Leader of the House:
1864
"With respect, the question of the work of the Boundary Commission arises only after the necessary statute has been put on the statute book—is that not so?"
My right hon. Friend replied: "Yes, that is right." But the Boundary Commission will begin work only after the Bill becomes law. Yet when he announced this legislation a few months ago, the Prime Minister said that the Commission could start right away, without waiting for the Bill to become an Act. That is another concession in the haste to get the Bill through.
I wish that every hon. Member would read the evidence of the Leader of the House. I questioned him closely about the political situation in Northern Ireland and the political considerations over the number of seats. I asked whether it would be possible to discuss the religious affiliations of different areas. Repeatedly, I was told that these were matters for the House of Commons—" That is interesting, but it is a matter for the House, not for Mr. Speaker's Conference." But whenever we try to mention these matters we find that clauses 1 and 2 are so tightly drawn that such discussion is impossible.
I shall not mention PR, Mr. Godman Irvine, because you would rule me out of order, but the form of election is relevant. When I asked the Leader of the House whether we should be able to discuss it, he said that that was certainly a matter for the House of Commons.
Last year, I led a delegation to meet the Secretary of State and his Ministers at Stormont Castle, when we raised the subject of the form of election to be used if the seats were increased. My political friends and I are not backward children. I left that meeting with the distinct impression that consideration would be given to the form of election. Perhaps the Secretary of State is shrewder than I am—
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would come somewhere within range of the amendments that we are discussing.
Mr. Fitt: I digressed for a moment, Mr. Godman Irvine. The amendments relate to what the Boundary Commission will do and will not do. References to various clauses and schedules are not sufficient to allow it to deliberate on all

1865
aspects of political life in Northern Ireland so as to allow it to come to a decision based on a head count. The Leader of the House said that all these things could be discussed and that the Boundary Commission would discuss them. He said that the Boundary Commission would discuss many other matters, apart from the number of people residing in an area. Now we find that the Boundary Commission will not discuss anything except the question of the number of people living in a particular geographical area.
I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central when he said that the Secretary of State and his colleagues somehow were able to predict the political complexions of these constituencies after the elections had taken place. How can he do that? How can he know that three or four seats will be non-Unionist? How can he say how the people will vote, or what the atmosphere will be at the time? The only way to gauge the political complexions of the constituencies in Northern Ireland is by referring to religion. In the Province it is generally accepted that the minority—people of the Roman Catholic religion—will normally support the anti-Unionist candidates, while the majority—the Protestants—will normally support the Unionists, whether they are Official, Democratic, or Protestant.
Is the Secretary of State saying that it is possible that the Boundary Commission will engage in deliberate gerrymandering, and that it will count the heads of the Catholics, Protestants and the few agnostics scattered around the place?
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has pointed out how inadequate some of these provisions are. but it is not in order for him to continue with that line of argument.
Mr. Fitt: I am absolutely delighted that you, Mr. Godman Irvine, accept that these provisions are inadequate. They are grossly inadequate. That is why the amendments have been moved. If these amendments were accepted they would kill the Bill. That is why they have been tabled.
Mr. McNamara: Much as I appreciate the legal knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and that of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), I do not think that the amendments actually kill the Bill. If that were the case they would not have been selected. They may make the operation of the Bill more difficult if the alterations contained in these subsection do not apply and we must go to the principal Act of 1949 for the rules and regulations. The reason why the amendments should be accepted is that they make it easier for the Boundary Commission to carry out its task, subject to the difficulty that was indicated to the Committee by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
Subject to that, it would be relatively easy. Otherwise, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West must accept that we would be governed by the provisions of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949.
Mr. Fitt: I accept what my hon. Friend said. I listened with a good deal of attention as he quoted various schedules to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act and the Representation of the People Act.
It has been proved conclusively over a number of years and a number of elections that the criteria embodied in the quotations that he has read to us may be very good criteria—I would say they are very good criteria—for use in England, Scotland and Wales, but they are not very good criteria for use in Northern Ireland, because of the whole history of Northern Ireland, because of the fact that Northern Ireland is part of a divided Ireland, and because of the history of the creation of Northern Ireland. Sometimes English politicians are inclined to think that the standards they have in their elections could easily be transferred to elections in Northern Ireland. It does not happen.
I hope that in speaking on these amendments I have drawn sufficient attention to the gross inadequacies under which we are labouring in discussng a Bill of such major constitutional importance as this. Even at this stage, if the Minster considers what is likely to happen in the drawing of these boundaries he will be forced to the conclusion that it is no easy

1867
matter for a Boundary Commission to be given the task of increasing the number of seats in Northern Ireland. If we are to increase the number of seats in Belfast and the area around it, all those seats will undoubtedly go to one political party.
It is not yet too late for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to inform the House how sure he is that the Boundary Commission will be able to perform the impossible and create non-Unionist seats in a Unionist electorate and a Unionist area. I do not think that it is possible. That is why I support these amendments.
Mr. McNamara: Does my hon. Friend agree that the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) was relevant? He said that if the Government had felt serious about representation and about giving the Boundary Commssion a job to do, they would have considered the possibility of creating—
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have already drawn the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that that does not relate to these amendments.
Mr. Fitt: I agree with my hon. Friend. This little, two-clause Bill was drawn so tightly that it left those opposed to it to try to find an ingenious way of changing the content. The whole House, Government and Opposition, should have been quite open in saying what they were going to do in setting up a Speaker's Conference. I heard an hon. Member on the Opposition side say that nobody knew what the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference would be. I knew as soon as I saw the names of the members of the Conference. I was the only one to oppose the recommendations. They were no surprise to me.
The Government would have been more honest if they had said that they had promised the Unionist Party that it would get five more seats and that they intended to set up a Boundary Commission that would take a head count but would not be allowed to take into consideration the religious and political affiliations of the people of Northern Ireland. That would have been honest. Instead, the Government have said they are worried about justice and equity and the number of people in Northern Ireland who are not represented at Westminster. The
1868
Minister of State, in a hole-in-the-corner fashion, wrote to Tribune claiming that the seats would go to non-Unionists. Does he think that all the people of Northern Ireland are stupid? I can assure him that we are not.
12.15 a.m.
Mr. Thorne: I seek clarification of subsection (3) in order to be able to determine an attitude towards the amendment. I understand that the present rules under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 are to be changed in the way spelt out in that subsection.
What is there in the proposed new rules for the determination of these seats that is more favourable than the present rules, in terms of fairness, democracy and various other qualities that we are alleged to be seeking in the Bill? The Government have the responsibility to establish beyond doubt that there are advantages in democratic terms before the Committee can legitimately pass subsection (3).
I also seek guidance about the way in which the Boundary Commission will do its work. Commissions listen to the views of political parties involved in the electoral system, whether in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. My experience of the Commission at work and in consultation with political parties is that it does a deal—I hope that that is not an unfortunate term—on the wishes of those parties and something like horse-trading can develop. I do not believe that either of the two main parties in the House has been free from that sort of trading for a long time.
There is reason to believe that under a Boundary Commission report that will affect a number of constituencies in England after the next General Election changes in representation will occur that will not unduly affect the balance in those areas, and the political parties have been signifying in recent months whether they will accept those recommendations.
That could also happen in Northern Ireland, and when the Boundary Commission starts work it will no doubt take into account representations of various political parties about the location of the new constituencies, even given the words in the Bill:
"as near the electoral quota as is practicable"

1869
I am concerned that when representations are made by the existing political parties in Northern Ireland to the Boundary Commission, the weight of the various factions of the Conservative-Unionist parties there is likely to have far more effect on the final decisions of the Boundary Commission than, for example, the representations of the SDLP, not to mention the Northern Ireland Labour Party.
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the amendment. What we are waiting to hear is why the amendment would be of any assistance to his case.
Mr.Thorne: Ths is part of the question that I am trying to illustrate and that concerns me, in terms of whether I accept subsection (3) or vote for the amendment. It seems to me that the amendment merely seeks to leave out the subsection, and that means that rule 5 under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 would apply, as distinct from the proposal in this Bill. I am attempting to understand—I am posing the question accordingly—what virtues the proposed change has that would ensure that the sort of representation that emerges following the work of the Boundary Commission would be of more or less value than what would obtain under rule 5.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has done some research and has established, at least to his own satisfaction, that to accept this provision in the Bill would militate against an improvement—given that we are to have these extra seats at all—in the method of determining the electoral constituencies that would obtain under rule 5. I am prepared to give way to him if he can enlighten me as to the results of his research, because this aspect seems to me to be relevant.
Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for dignifying what I have done by calling it "research", which, however, I think stretches the bounds of definition even more than some of the other speeches that we have heard.
The answer that I must give is this: these amendments are really amendments to Government amendments to legislation.
1870
The legislation governing the drawing up of boundaries is contained in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts for the general principles, but with regard to the seats for the Assembly, established under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, particular rules are laid upon the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland in relation to reports that it must put forward and to the way in which boundaries must be drawn for Assembly seats in cognisance of parliamentary seats in the United Kingdom, based upon the principle, contained in the 1949 Act, that there will be 12 Northern Ireland seats.
Basically, what this Bill—the Government's amendments to those Acts—seeks to do is to do away with some of the provisions contained within those two earlier Acts and to speed up the procedure by which the Boundary Commission may operate, and make it perhaps more efficient. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) pointed out, amongst the things that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said when announcing his intentions with regard to a Speaker's Conference and so on was that there was nothing to stop-the Boundary Commission from working straight away.
I say that the Boundary Commission should operate for Northern Ireland under the same rules and procedures as apply in the rest of the United Kingdom, and under the rules and procedures laid down by the 1973 constitution Act. Failure to do that would be the first step towards throwing that Act out of the window and would defeat the object of some of the integrationists.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Which hon. Member has the Floor?
The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull. Central (Mr. McNamara) has made a number of speeches during the evening. I thought that he was now making an intervention. Interventions must be brief. I think that the hon. Gentleman has had his turn.
Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, Mr. Godman Irvine. I thought that we were in Committee. Secondly, I thought that you were in the Chair and

1871
not the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison). Thirdly, when the hon. Gentleman raised his point of order I thought that he was referring to conversations on the Front Bench, and that he was unable to hear me.
I trust that what I have said in my intervention meets the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne).
Mr. Thorne: The intervention, which I welcomed, has been helpful in clarifying certain of the issues that arise when one considers amendment No. 11. Therefore, I have little alternative but to return to my original point. I do not want to be guilty of undue repetition, but it seems to me that the Government have a considerable responsibility to convince us that doing away with rule 5 of the 1949 Act and establishing the rules envisaged in the Bill will be advantageous to the people of Northern Ireland.
I should be interested, for example, to hear the views of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on this issue. I respect his knowledge of the procedures of the House and the electoral machinery established by it over a long period. Does he consider that after we have got rid of rule 5 the people of Down, South will—if Down, South exists after the passage of the Bill—have improved prospects in terms of the democratic right to elect a Member on the sort of basis that would give the equality with the United Kingdom that he and colleagues of his from Northern Ireland have mentioned?
We read at the bottom of subsection (3):
"given in subsection (4) below instead of in accordance with rule 7 of those rules".
It is difficult readily to see what rule 7 says in detail, because it is not quoted in full in the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us what is involved. It would be easier for hon. Members to address themselves realistically to this problem if rule 7 were in the Bill. There is no schedule to the Bill. Therefore, it is difficult to know what rule 7 says. It is difficult to understand how the rule supplements rule 5.
The Minister will have to give my hon. Friends and me some good material, which establishes the advantages following from the substitution of subsection
1872
(3) for rule 5, before we can accept it. Amendment No. 11 attracts me because of the misunderstanding arising from this part of the Bill.
Mr. Concannon: These amendments are not wrecking amendments, but they would hamper the work of the Boundary Commission.
I shall deal first with those amendments that seek to delete subsections (3) and (4). These would make the job of the Boundary Commission more difficult. The Commission would have to base its calculations on an outdated electoral register.
12.30 a.m.
I shall explain why these subsections, are in the Bill. As the law stands the Commission is bound to approach its task in the way that is laid down in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949, as amended by the 1958 Act.
One of the first acts of the Commission is to find the electoral quota for Northern, Ireland—that is, the figure which represents the ideal size for all the Northern Ireland constituencies. There is a figure at which the Commission should aim, in so far as it is practicable, and given its other rules, when drawing constituency boundaries.
The Commission will never be able to achieve an equal size of constituency, but the quota provides a target. At present the electoral quota is achieved by dividing the Northern Ireland electorate by the number of seats. If the law is not amended the Commission will have to divide the electorate by 12.
The resulting figure of about 86,000 would not be helpful, since with 17 seats the true average figure would be about 61,000. The Commission by statute would be provided with a target which it and everybody else would know to be impossible.
The Commission could still do its job, but only by aiming at a point 25,000 electors distant from the statutory bull's eye. That would be less than desirable, so we have provided that for the Commission's first review it will use as its base figure not 12 but 17. That will ensure that it will achieve the target.
In future reviews there will be no need to do other than divide the electorate by the number of seats. That covers the

1873
argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
In the first review the quota will be reached by dividing the electorate by 17. That is what subsection (4) is about. Dividing by 17 is sensible, since that is what the number of constituencies will be, unless the Commission decides that it should be 16 or 18. Dividing the electorate by 17 does not bind the Commission to deciding upon 17 constituencies. The quota is a target.
Obviously the Commission will not be able to hit the target if it does not go for 17 constituencies. The law does not require it to hit the target; it has only to get as near to it as possible, taking into account all of the rules that it has to observe. In reviews after the first review, subsections (3) and (4) will cease to be relevant. The Commission will revert to the ordinary rules laid down in the 1949 Act.
To reach the quota then, the Commission will divide the figure by the number of constituencies, which will be either 17, 16 or 18. As in the first review, the Commission will have a target at which to aim, leaving it with the same freedom to diverge—
Mr. McNamara: It would appear that if the Boundary Commission decides that 16 seats is the right number, that figure will not vary. There is no room for movement unless the Commission returns to the House. That is my interpretation of what my right hon. Friend said. He said that we take the existing number and divide it by 17—a desirable number in terms of Mr. Speaker's Conference report. We fix the number and forget subsections (3) and (4). After that, we come back to the number of seats that we have, for example, 17.
Mr. Concannon: My hon. Friend is right, but at the next review the Commission will obtain the quota from the number of seats in existence. This measure will still be in existence. The recommendation of 17 was made to give the Commission the chance of going one below or one above. If there are 17 seats on this occasion, that figure will apply. If the Commission recommends otherwise to the House, the position will be different. There might be other considerations—
Mr. McNamara: I am sorry to pursue my right hon. Friend. Suppose that the Commission on this occasion decides that 18 is the right number. Will it be stuck with 18?
Mr. Concannon: No. Perhaps I am not making this clear. My hon. Friend is probably mixing up the quota with the number of seats. The quota is something to be aimed at. Mr. Speaker's Conference has said that 17 must be the figure to be aimed at to reach a quota of 60,000. This gives the Boundary Commission an option, because it has other things to consider in going for either 16 or 18 seats. Whether the Commission goes for 16, 17 or 18 seats, or whether Parliament accepts those figures, we know that to obtain the quota for the next Boundary Commission the electorate must be divided in accordance with the number of seats then in existence. But that does not prevent the Boundary Commission recommending 16, 17 or 18 seats for the next Boundary Commission.
The second job of subsections (3) and (4) relates to the calculation of the electoral quota. That quota is reached by dividing the electorate by a number of seats. As the law stands, one decides the electorate by examining the date when the Boundary Commission gave notice of its intention to embark on a review. The electoral register then in force is used by the Commission for all the necessary calculations.
However, the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission is in an unsual situation. It gave notice of an intention to start a review in February 1976. When it was known that a Speaker's Conference was to be set up to consider the level of Northern Ireland representation, the Commission sensibly decided not to take its work—based on the premise that there would be 12 seats in the Province—any further. It preferred to wait to see the outcome. As the law stands, it would have to calculate the electoral quota by reference to the electorate shown in the electoral register which was in force in February 1976.
The effect of subsections (3) and (4)(b) is to instruct the Boundary Commission to refer instead to the electoral register in force on the passing of the Bill, for the purpose of its first subsequent report, thus giving it access to up-to-date figures.

1875
Let me tell the Committee what are the rules of the Boundary Commission in Northern Ireland. The Boundary Commission, under the rules set out in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 and 1958, first has to publish in the local press initial recommendations for the various constituencies. If more than 100 electors in a proposed constituency object to the recommendation—and a political party is taken to represent at least 100 electors—a local inquiry is held. If, as a result of that inquiry, it is felt necessary to modify the recommendation, the new recommendation has to be published and a further local inquiry may—not "must"—be held.
When this process has been completed for all the constituencies, the Boundary Commission submits a report to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The whole procedure, if there are objections to the initial recommendations, could take about two years.
The eventual report to the Secretary of State contains only recommendations. It is for the Secretary of State then to lay the report before Parliament and to introduce an Order in Council giving effect to the recommendations, with or without modification. Thus, it is Parliament, not the Boundary Commission, that has the final decision on what a constituency's boundaries should be.
The statutory criteria that the Boundary Commission must follow in deciding the area covered by constituencies are set out in statutory form. These criteria are that the electorate should be as near to the electoral quota as practicable, but that in Northern Ireland no ward shall be included partly in one constituency and partly in another. The Commission must also take account of local ties and special geographical considerations, such as the size, shape and accessibility of the constituency. Therefore, one can see that although the Boundary Commission has guidelines, what happens eventually will be decided by Parliament.
I turn to the amendment that seeks to delete subsection (6). The deletion of this subsection, which parallels provisions in subsections (3) and (4), would mean that the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland, in drawing up its first supplementary report on the number of members which each constituency should return to the Northern Ireland Assembly,
1876
would be compelled to use the electoral register in force on 16th February 1976 rather the register in force at the passing of this Bill for the purpose of calculating the size of the electorate. The latter will, of course, be much more up to date. That would mean that the Boundary Commission would not be able to prepare its first supplementary report on the most accurate possible basis. It would not prevent the Commission from doing its job but would prevent it from undertaking that job in the way which it and everybody else would wish.
What the Committee is being asked to do by these amendments is to complicate life for the Boundary Commission in two ways. First, it would be given a target for the size of constituency that it could not possibly hit, since it would divide an out-of-date figure for the electorate by an irrelevant number of constituencies. Secondly, it would be prevented from using an up-to-date register when preparing its next supplementary report.
On those grounds, I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
12.45 a.m.
Mr. McNamara: The Committee is indebted to my right hon. Friend for what he said. However, I do not believe that the amendments would complicate life for the Boundary Commission by any degree greater than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done by what he said on Second Reading.
When I moved the amendment I drew attention to what my right hon. Friend had said on that occasion about what would happen in the constituencies. He had suggested that certain electoral results would ensue, and I wanted an answer from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State as to how and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could guarantee certain results. No reply has been forthcoming to the question that I asked.
We have my right hon. Friend the Minister of State saying that we are making the position more difficult for the Boundary Commission by suggesting that we operate the rules as they are at the moment, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, by suggesting that certain results will follow in any case, is saying that we should pay no attention to

1877
the rules. On balance, I think that I prefer to complicate life for the Boundary Commission to ensure that a fair system operates rather than to complicate things in the way suggested by the Secretary of State, namely, by saying how certain results will be achieved following the boundary changes.
I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) asked about the effect of the amendments and was at that time of the view that he might not support them because he did not quite understand the position. When my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) raised the matter I tried to explain the situation and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State agreed with my interpretation of it.

Division No. 38]

AYES

[12.49 p.m

Canavan, Dennis

Mahon, Simon

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Cryer, Bob

Mikardo, Ian

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

O'Halloran, Michael

Woodall, Alec

Flannery, Martin

Parry, Robert

Home Robertson, John

Richardson, Miss Jo

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Litterick, Tom

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. John Ellis and

Loyden, Eddie

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Mr. George Rodgers.

McNamara, Kevin

Stallard, A. W.

NOES

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Morton, George

Armstrong, Ernest

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Bates, Alf

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Neave, Airey

Bean, R. E.

George, Bruce

Oakes, Gordon

Beith, A. J.

Golding, John

Ogden, Eric

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Berry, Hon Anthony

Graham, Ted

Park, George

Biggs-Davison, John

Hardy, Peter

Pendry, Tom

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Penhaligon, David

Bradford, Rev Robert

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Radice, Giles

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

John, Brynmor

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Campbell, Ian

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Roper, John

Carson, John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Carter, Ray

Kilfedder, James

Rowlands, Ted

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Lamond, James

Sever, John

Cohen, Stanley

Leadbitter, Ted

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Coleman, Donald

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Snape, Peter

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Spearing, Nigel

Cowans, Harry

McCusker, H.

Strang, Gavin

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

McElhone, Frank

Tinn, James

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Urwin, T. W.

Davidson, Arthur

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

White, James (Pollok)

Deakins, Eric

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Whitehead, Phillip

Dempsey, James

Marks, Kenneth

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Dewar. Donald

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Dormand, J. D.

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Woof, Robert

Dunlop, John

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Eadie, Alex

Molyneaux, James

English, Michael

Morgan, Geraint

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Mr. James Hamilton and

Evans, John (Newton)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mr. Joseph Dean.

Question accordingly negatived.
That being the case, and bearing in mind that the Boundary Commission's job has to some extent been simplified, in that it does not have to follow the ideas of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) and consider the question of proportional representation, because that is outwith the scope of the Bill, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, despite the eloquence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, to support the amendment. I believe that we should keep to our good, old, well-tried and established British system, which we know works fairly and works well, for giving extra seats to Northern Ireland.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 19, Noes 113.
1 a.m.
THE CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendments proposed

Division No.39]

AYES

[1.01 a.m

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Morton, George

Armstrong, Ernest

Fookes, Miss Janet

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Bates, Alf

George, Bruce

Neave, Airey

Bean, R. E.

Golding, John

Oakes, Gordon

Beith, A. J.

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Ogden, Eric

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Graham, Ted

Paisley, Rev Ian

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Park, George

Biggs-Davison, John

Hardy, Peter

Pendry, Tom

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Penhaligon, David

Bradford, Rev Robert

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Radice, Giles

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

John, Brynmor

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Campbell, Ian

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Roper, John

Carson, John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Carter, Ray

Kilfedder, James

Rowlands, Ted

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Lamond, James

Sever, John

Cohen, Stanley

Leadbitter, Ted

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Coleman, Donald

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Spearing, Nigel

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Strang, Gavin

Cowans, Harry

McCusker, H.

Tinn, James

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

McElhone, Frank

Urwin, T. W.

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Davidson, Arthur

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Ward, Michael

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

White, James (Pollok)

Deakins, Eric

Mallalleu, J. P. W.

Whitehead, Phillip

Dempsey, James

Marks, Kenneth

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Dewar, Donald

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Dormand, J. D.

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Woof, Robert

Dunlop, John

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Eadie, Alex

Molyneaux, James

English, Michael

Morgan, Geraint

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Evans,loan (Aberdare)

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Mr. Peter Snape and

Evans, John (Newton)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mr. Joseph Dean.

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

NOES

Canavan, Dennis

Mahon, Simon

Stallard, A. W.

Cryer, Bob

Mikardo, Ian

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

O'Halloran, Michael

Woodall, Alec

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Parry, Robert

Flannery, Martin

Richardson, Miss Jo

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Home Robertson, John

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Mr. Kevin McNamara and

Litterick, Tom

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Stan Thorne.

Loyden, Eddie

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
CITATION
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Several Hon. Members rose—
The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): I call Mr. McNamara.
thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 48 (Debate on clause or schedule standing part), The the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 114, Noes 18.
Mr. McNamara: Whom did you call, Mr. Murton?
The Chairman: I called the hon. Member. There will be time; I shall call the other hon. Gentlemen in due course.
Mr. McNamara: I hope that that is so, Mr. Murton, because earlier the Government moved the closure when one of my hon. Friends was on his feet.
The Chairman: I called the hon. Gentleman because his name is on the amendments that were not selected, and I

1881
assumed that he wanted to speak on the clause.
Mr. McNamara: It is a pleasure to know that one can have amendments that are in order but not selected, as most of my amendments have been out of order.
The purpose of my amendments was to deal with the way in which the Bill may be cited. The clause provides:
"This Act may be cited as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1978, and shall be included among the Acts which may be cited as the Representation of the People Acts, and this Act and the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 and 1958 may be cited together as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 to 1978."
My amendments would have provided that the Bill be cited as the Representation of the People (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) Act.
1.15 a.m.
I cannot understand why amendments such as these did not attract the signature of the Ulster Unionists. I should have thought that they would have signed for different reasons from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).
I wanted the citation of the Act strengthened to show precisely what it and the preceding Acts did. For the Ulster Unionists it would have demonstrated, peradventure, that the representation of Great Britain was the same as that of Northern Ireland. For my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West it would be a continuous reminder that he had still a long way to go before the Six Counties of Northern Ireland ceased to be represented in this Parliament. Therefore, it would represent for him a continuous spur to try to have rectified what is being done in this Bill for good sense to prevail, and for us to get rid of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and redress the situation by reducing it to what it was before 1800.
One could argue that we might well have had the pre-1800 situation with a better sort of Parliament in Ireland had some of the work of Members in the House of Commons in the nineteenth century been appreciated and followed up, instead of the Ulster Unionists inciting Ulster to rebellion, led by the Tories, under Lord Randolph Churchill.
1882
That is all by the way. The main purpose of looking at the contents of these amendments is not only to question the points that I have raised but to see whether there is some way in which the citation of this measure can draw attention to what has been done.
We have taken Northern Ireland and treated it separately and differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. A completely different electoral register is to be used for drawing up the constituency boundaries. We are giving the Boundary Commission completely different instructions from those for the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the distinction between the two parts should be properly drawn.
We have amended an Act that dealt specifically with this—the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The last amendment that we debated dealt with the important alterations to the role of the Boundary Commission in Northern Ireland. Accepting the amendment that I suggested would have drawn people's attention to what is happening.
It is interesting to note that we have for Northern Ireland a floating idea of representation contained in the Bill—it floats between 16 and 18. There are very different provisions for Scotland and Wales, where the parent Act refers to "not less than", and very different provisions for the United Kingdom where I think it uses the phrase "in the region of" in relation to numbers. Here we have a situation in which Northern Ireland is being singled out in a specific, separate and distinctive way.
If we had agreed to the title that I suggest, and that I would have moved if my amendment had been selected, we should have had a citation that would have brought to the memories of people in the House, and perhaps, outside, the way in which the Bill has been drafted, to show that we are determined to retain the anomaly of one form of election for representation in this House but different forms for local authorities, for Assemblies if they come about, and for the Parliamentary Assembly of Northern Ireland.
We are, all in all, creating in this Bill a curious and senseless anomaly. It is a very sad thing for the Labour Government to have done or even contemplated. It is good to have driven home yet

1883
again the point that the Labour Government have crawled to the Ulster Unionists in order that they should remain in power. It is a sad thing to have to say about one's own Government.
The citation would also have drawn attention to the fact that a change of policy has been made without reference to the parliamentary party, the national party, or the national executive of the party. That is a matter of importance. It would also have drawn attention to the fact that we have had no acceptance or even acknowledgment from our own Front Bench that there has been a change of policy. For them even to have admitted grudgingly that there had been a change of policy would have been welcome to us.
For all these reasons we should have accepted the amendments which were in order but were not chosen for debate.
Now we shall be left with a Bill for which the citation will read:
"This Act may be cited as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1978, and shall he included among the Acts which may be cited as the Representation of the People Acts, and this Act and the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 and 1958 may be cited together as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 to 1978."
It is an unhappy way to cite an Act of such a nature. It almost suggests that this evening we have done something of which we may be proud. I do not believe that we have. We have stored up trouble for ourselves in Ireland, and, regrettably, in this country.
It is not a happy day, or a happy time, and I regret that we are citing the Bill under a general heading covering membership of the whole of this House and not distinguishing between the Great Britain seats and the Northern Ireland seats. I hope that we shall vote against the clause.
Mr. Ron Thomas: I should like to follow the remarks of my hon. Friend, who has just said that the Bill is not something of which we should be proud and certainly not something that we can cite as a House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill that has been given the consideration that it deserves.
A number of us were fully prepared to speak on clause 1 when the Govern-
1884
ment suddenly moved a closure motion. I am reasonably certain, without looking up the relevant issues of Hansard, that the other Acts with which this Bill is now linked, under clause 2 received more consideration by the House.
We are asked to cite the Bill as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, for a number of reasons. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that we should do so because the Ulster Unionists in their election manifestos had consistently put the claim for more seats. That may be so, but it was not in the October 1974 manifesto of the Labour Party, and 1 remind my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that we are supposed to be here to carry out that manifesto. There was no mention of increasing the number of Northern Ireland seats at Westminster. We said:
"There must be some form of power-sharing and partnership because no political sytem will survive, or be supported, unless there is widespread acceptance of it within the community. There must be genuine participation by both communities in the direction of affairs."
The right hon. Member for Down. South asks us to judge the situation in the Six Counties as though we were dealing with six counties in Lancashire, the South-West, the Midlands, or some other part of England.
Mr. Litterick: How unreal can you get?
Mr. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman wants us to ignore the 300 years' struggle by the Irish people to create one nation. He wants us to ignore the events of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and to imagine that we are dealing with six counties in Great Britain. He looks at the matter as a constitutional theorist and ignores the reality of what is happening in the Six Counties.
The Government want us to cite the Act in this way, but there was a complete contradiction in the Secretary of State's speech on Second Reading. He said:
"Northern Ireland's present level of representation was set in 1920. At that time, a devolved Parliament was established in Northern Ireland responsible in both legislative and administrative terms for a wide range of matters. It was then generally accepted that, because of the existence of that devolved Government, Northern Ireland did not need

1885
the same level of representation at Westminster as did those other parts of the United Kingdom which did not have a devolved Government. Northern Ireland was allocated 12 seats plus a university seat. If seats had been allotted in proportion to population on the same basis as in Great Britain, Northern Ireland would then have received 17 or 18 seats."
He was saying that because of devolved government in 1920, Northern Ireland was not given, and should not have expected, the same number of representatives in this Parliament. Later, the Secretary of State said:
"Let me restate briefly what the Government's policy is. We are as convinced as ever that the only way to find a fair and durable solution to Northern Ireland's political problems is to restore to the Province a devolved Government in a form that is acceptable to a majority of the people in both parts of the community. I make that statement without qualification, and I think it is one that the official Opposition would endorse."—[Official Report, 28th November 1978; Vol. 959, c. 421-427.]
So we are asked to cite the Bill as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1978 on the basis that the Secretary of State is saying that the essential policy of the Government is to bring about devolved government in Northern Ireland, in the Six Counties. At the same time, he uses the argument that, because of devolved government in Northern Ireland from 1920 onwards, for 50 years nothing was done about this situation.
1.30 a.m.
If it is the aim of the Government to have devolved government in Northern Ireland, their case for additional seats does not stand up to argument. I hope that the Minister of State will come clean on this. I think that it is an insult to the House that the Secretary of State himself is not present, although as far as I know he is voting in the Lobbies. He should be here to answer these points.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Can you explain to me how the hon. Gentleman's speech is in any sense in order in terms of the citation of the Bill in clause 2?
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman was in order possibly up to the last two sentences, when, I am afraid, he drifted off—if I may put it that way—into the question of the number of seats. He should confine himself to the subject matter of clause 2.
Mr. Thomas: I readily accept your advice, Mr. Murton. The essence of what I am saying is that we are being asked to cite the Bill as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1978, and we have been given all kinds of reasons why we should do so. I dealt with some of the arguments used by the right hon. Member for Down, South. I went on to deal with the arguments used by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State's argument for citing the Bill as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1978 was that in 1920, because of a devolved Parliament in the Six Counties, there was no justification for increasing the number of seats for Northern Ireland in this House. He said that the Government's policy was clear—they wanted to see devolved government in Northern Ireland. Why, then, are they giving the extra seats now?
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has made clear why the Bill was brought forward. It was, of course, to ensure that the Ulster Unionists supported the Government on the Queen's Speech, and presumably will support the Government until the Bill receives the Royal Assent. But what happens then? I assume that the Bill could be an Act in a short while. Where, then, I wonder, will be the loyalty of the Ulster Unionists to the Labour Government?
Another reason given why we should cite the Bill as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1978 is the Speaker's Conference. I have here the letter from Mr. Speaker, dated 13th February 1978, dealing with his Conference on electoral law. I have been looking at the list of those who sat on that Conference. I do not remember that the House was ever given the opportunity to decide who would serve on the Conference, and I attend this place regularly. I readily accept that among those serving on the Conference were Members of the House who are members of the Ulster Unionist groups, with a legitimate connection with Northern Ireland.
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is moving away from the Committee stage in dealing with questions raised on Second Reading. He must return to the question of citation.
Mr. Thomas: We are told that the major reason why we should cite the Bill as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1978 is the result of Mr. Speaker's Conference. We are asked to say that that is a justification for so citing it. I am saying that that justification exists only if those who formed the Conference were a reasonable sample and cross-section of hon. Members. That Conference was not. None of my hon. Friends who are always present when Northern Ireland matters are discussed—Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)—was a member of the Conference. Not one member of the 80-strong Tribune group was a member of the Conference.
The Chairman: We must not go into the composition of Mr. Speaker's Conference. It is not germane to the clause.
Mr. Thomas: Then I simply say, Mr. Murton, that the composition of the Conference does not inspire me to cite the Bill as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1978.
Mr. Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend the Minister address his mind to the alternatives? It seems to me proper, in considering the citation, to examine what might be a more realistic way of citing the measure. Has he considered whether it should be cited as the "Concessions to Ulster Unionists Act 1978" or the "Survival of Labour Government Act 1978"?
The Chairman: That is even more irrelevant than the remarks of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend.
Mr. Thomas: I could add "The Day the Labour Government Sold Their Soul for a Few More Days Act 1978". I am sure that there are many other possibilities in the minds of my hon. Friends.
I simply say, Mr. Murton—I thank you for your indulgence—that I have been asked to cite the Bill to my constituents as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1978. I am trying to give some indication why I shall find that difficult. Another part of the letter from Mr. Speaker to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reads as follows:
"The Conference first met on 27th July 1977 to consider their course of proceeding. They decided that the deliberations of the
1888
Conference should be in private and that the record of their deliberations should not be made public. They also decided that the names of Members voting in divisions of the Conference should not be published, though the number should."
I am asked to try to persuade my constituents to accept that they should cite the measure as the clause proposes on the basis that they cannot check how any hon. Members voted in any Division and cannot consider the no doubt deep analytical deliberations of the members of the Conference. They are not allowed to do that—
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is not allowed to do it either. I have been more than indulgent, but I must rule that we cannot discuss any further the question of Mr. Speaker's Conference.
Mr. Thomas: I find difficulty because the title implies that it is a Bill of constitutional importance. It is a Bill of fundamental constitutional importance. It suggests to the people of the Six Counties that something is being done to deal with their traumatic problems. But all that is being done is to tie the Six Counties to Britain against the clear aspirations of the Irish people for a united and independent Ireland.
I cannot cite the Bill as proposed because we have spent nothing like enough time on it. Debates have been deliberately cut short by the Government and the Whips' office. I wonder whether Members of the House of Lords, including Lord Scanlon, have been told to be there at 3 a.m. today, so that the Bill will be law by 4.30 a.m.
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must not stray out of this Chamber.
Mr. Thomas: I hope that those "bovver boys" in ermine spend as much time on this measure as they spent on the measure to nationalise the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. I shall vote against the clause.
Mr. Flannery: I oppose clause 2 on the ground that the Bill is not a House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill. It has been given an aura of democracy, based upon expediency. It is an abortion.
The Bill is being considered with indecent haste. Its importance is not

1889
fully understood. I am convinced that it will harden attitudes in Northern Ireland. It will strengthen the hand of the para-militaries and the IRA because it is not what it says it is.
As usual, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke in precise, legalistic language. As usual, his conclusions were totally detached from humanity. He did not understand what he was saying. His precise, academic approach shows no compassion for the people.
The right hon. Member speaks of Northern Ireland as if it is the same as any other part of the United Kingdom. It is not. It is a unique part of the United Kingdom. It is the result of 800 years of brutal imperialism. It was imposed upon the Irish people by drawing a line round an inbuilt Protestant majority.
The Chairman: I must interrupt the hon. Member's discourse. We are discussing a very narrow point. He is going wide of it. He must confine his remarks to clause 2.
1.45 a.m.
Mr. Flannery: I shall try to accept your advice, Mr. Murton. I believe that some of the points that I am making are relevant. The title of the Bill suggests that there are oppressed minorities in, for instance, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Northumberland, and other parts of the country. There are not. The reality is that we are dealing with a Northern Ireland measure, not a House of Commons measure. The comparison does not hold water. Yorkshire did not have a line drawn round it. The people there were not excluded, because they were in a religious minority, from obtaining jobs or houses.
This point has not been taken into account even in the naming of this measure. The Bill is an expediency, a capitulation to keep the Government in power. It is disgraceful, because it means that only a handful of us will represent the democratic aspirations of the bulk of the Irish people. Will the Bill improve in any way the position in Northern Ireland? It will worsen it. Will it improve the position in Southern Ireland? Of course not. Will it improve the position in the whole of Ireland, as its title im-
1890
plies? It will not. It will harden the situation in Britain. It has come before us now—after 50 years of oppression—because the Government are in great difficulty. This demagogic title, which is a misnomer, has been given to it to get it through and keep us in power for a few more days or weeks.
The loyalty of those voting for the Bill has never been with us. Those who are listening to us in our own country and in Northern and Southern Ireland will regard the few voices on the Labour Benches as the authentic voice of those who regard the Bill as being totally at odds with the name given to it in clause 2.
The Irish News of 30th November really described the Bill properly. It said:
"More Unionist Voices at Westminster".
That should be the name of the Bill. The enthusiasm of the Ulster Unionists for this misnamed Bill arises from the fact that they know that they will have more Unionist Members in the House, voting Tory, as soon as they are freed from the Labour Government. The editorial, describing this Bill, says:
"Mr. Mason, who opened the Second Reading on the Government's Bill, was unction itself when he spoke about the need for fair do's' all round.… The Government, he declared with a rhetorical flourish, can no longer put up with the situation of only 12 seats."
No longer! For all these years the minority community has been held in miserable subjection. Bombs have had to be exploded before we could get this misnamed Bill.
We are doing something tonight that will take a long time to undo. This misnamed Bill has placed in dire jeopardy people in Northern Ireland and parts of England. I am deeply ashamed that the Labour Party, the Whips, and the Front Bench in particular, should have pushed us into this position, without giving us the proper time to discuss this serious measure. I am ashamed of what has happened today.
Mr. Litterick: I shall speak very briefly. I find it difficult to accept that this legislation should be entitled the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill. That sticks in my throat, because I am a political person, a member of the Labour Party, and I was sent to this place on an election manifesto that

1891
said nothing about this legislation. The Labour Party conference has never discussed action on the lines laid down by this Bill, because it has never had the chance to do so. The Bill should be retitled the Direct Rule (Continuation) Bill.
In making this kind of concession to a political element in Northern Ireland the Government are perpetuating a situation that the vast majority of people in mainland Britain would agree is indefensible. We are trying to put an aura of respectability round a situation that cannot be justified. This Bill means that the Government have abandoned any commitment to power sharing. It can give the British people no guarantee that the Ulster Unionists, having got their pound of flesh out of this Government in the form of extra seats, will not return in a month or two to ask for something else. That something else will be the restoration of Stormont. In other words, they will want a 1920 situation plus this legislation. They will continue to have British military support for sectarian government in Northern Ireland. That is all that this Government have done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr Flannery) was right to say that by bringing forward this Bill we are guaranteeing the British people more bloody trouble in future years. We shall do that because we are ossifying a political situation that appar-

Division No. 40]

AYES

[1.55 a.m

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dempsey, James

McCusker, H.

Armstrong, Ernest

Dewar, Donald

McElhone, Frank

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Dormand, J. D.

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Duffy, A. E. P.

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Bates, Alf

Dunlop, John

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Bean, R. E.

Eadie, Alex

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Beith, A. J.

English, Michael

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Evans,loan (Aberdare)

Marks, Kenneth

Berry, Hon Anthony

Evans, John (Newton)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Biggs-Davison, John

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Bradford, Rev Robert

Fookes, Miss Janet

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Molyneaux, James

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Morgan, Geraint

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

George, Bruce

Morris, Rt Hon Charles B.

Campbell, lan

Golding, John

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberayon)

Carson, John

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Morton, George

Carter, Ray

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Hardy, Peter

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Cohen, Stanley

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Neave, Airey

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Noble, Mike

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

John, Brynmor

Oakes, Gordon

Cowans, Harry

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Ogden, Eric

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Paisley, Rev lan

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Park, George

Davidson, Arthur

Kilfedder, James

Pendry, Tom

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Lamond, James

Penhaligon, David

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Deakins, Eric

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Radice, Giles

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

ently has defied the wit and courage of Westminster-based politicians for all these years.
We neglected Northern Ireland in the period between 1922 and 1970. We paid attention to it only when the guns began to fire. That is a judgment on the House of Commons of earlier years. But it is surely totally unjustified for the House of Commons to continue to act in the same cowardly way in the face of the problems in Northern Ireland. Why do we in London repeat the mistakes of the past? There is no justice in this respect, and I cannot accept the title of the Bill.
Mr. Concannon: I note that not even the short title of the Bill can escape the scrutiny of my hon. Friends. The reason why the Bill carries this short title is explained in the long title.
The Bill's primary purpose is to amend rule 1 of schedule 2 to the parent Act, the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949. It is therefore logical that the Bill should be entitled likewise, the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill, as was the Act of 1958, which also amended the 1949 Act. I cannot advise the Committee to vote against the clause.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 113, Noes 18.

Roderick, Caewyn

Strang, Gavin

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Roper, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Tinn, James

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Rowlands, Ted

Urwin, T. W.

Woof, Robert

Sever, John

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Wrigglesworlh, Ian

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Ward, Michael

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Snape, Peter

White, James (Pollok)

Mr. Donald Coleman and

Spearing, Nigel

Whitehead, Phillip

Mr. Ted Graham.

NOES

Canavan, Dennis

Mikardo, lan

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Cryer, Bob

O'Halloran, Michael

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Parry, Robert

Woodall, Alec

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Home Robertson, John

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Loyden, Eddie

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Tom Litterick and

McNamara, Kevin

Stallard, A. W.

Mr. Martin Flannery

Mahon, Simon

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman: The Question is, That I do report the Bill without amendment, to the House. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".
Hon. Members: Aye.
The Chairman: To the contrary, "No".
Hon. Members: No.
The Chairman: I think the Ayes have it.
Hon. Members: No.
The Chairman: I should point out in regard to this Question, which I have put to the House, that it is stated in "Erskine May", at page 533, that it is now regarded as a formal Question and that the Chairman had deprecated debate on it, and I suggest that this should extend to any question of a Division. This is the usual procedure. I hope that the House will agree to that.
Question agreed to.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Stallard.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Standing Order No. 53 states that
"If a motion to re-commit a bill as a whole be made, Mr. Speaker shall permit a brief explanatory statement of the reasons for such re-committal from the Member who makes, and a brief statement from a Member who opposes any such motion, and shall then put the quetion thereon."
I call Mr. Stallard.
2.7 a.m.
Mr. Stallard: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall keep within the bounds of your instructions and be brief. First, I move that the Bill be re-committed because of the absence during the whole debate of any senior Government Minister. Secondly, the Secretary of State has not been seen in the House since the debate began. On an extremely important constitutional matter one could have expected that as a matter of courtesy. Nor has the Home Secretary or anyone from the Department been in the Chamber during the whole debate. Because of the nature of the Bill we would have expected, as well, the courtesy of at least a visit from someone in that Department, and a voice.
I move that the Bill be recommitted also because of the curtailment of debate by the Government on at least two occasions, and on another occasion when we were refused permission to debate the Question, That clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
For those reasons, and because I consider the Bill to be one of the most important constitutional measures to be discussed this Session—it is almost as important as some of the devolution stuff that we discussed in the last Session, and we know how long that went on—I beg to move that the Bill be recommitted. suggest that it is being pushed through with undue haste not for political reasons but for sheer expediency. I do not accept that the Bill has been adequately discussed by a sufficient number of hon. Members, and it has not been given the courtesy that it merited by Front Bench spokesmen from the Departments concerned.
2.11 a.m.
Mr. Concannon: I object to the recommittal of this measure to the House. The Committee stage has been taken on the Floor of the House, not upstairs. All hon. Members had the right to be here today and to put their views. On the

Division No. 41]

AYES

[2.11 a.m

Canavan, Dennis

Mahon, Simon

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Cryer, Bob

Mikardo, Ian

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

O'Halloran, Michael

Woodall, Alec

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Parry, Robert

Flannery, Martin

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Home Robertson, John

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Kevin McNamara and

Litterick, Tom

Stallard, A. W.

Miss Jo Richardson.

Loyden, Eddie

NOES

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fookes, Miss Janet

Neave, Airey

Armstrong, Ernest

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Noble, Mike

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

George, Bruce

Oakes, Gordon

Bates, Alf

Golding, John

Ogden, Eric

Bean, R. E.

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Beith, A. J.

Graham, Ted

Park, George

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Pendry, Tom

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hardy, Peter

Penhaligon, David

Biggs-Davison, John

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Radice, Giles

Bradford, Rev Robert

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

John, Brynmor

Roderick, Caerwyn

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Roper, John

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Campbell, Ian

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rowlands, Ted

Carson, John

Kllfedder, James

Sever, John

Carter, Ray

Lamond, James

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Cohen, Stanley

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Snape, Peter

Coleman, Donald

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Spearing, Nigel

Concannon, Rt Hon John

McCusker, H.

Strang, Gavin

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

McElhone, Frank

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Cowans, Harry

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Tinn, James

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Urwin, T. W.

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Davidson, Arthur

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Mallalieu, J. P.W.

Ward, Michael

Deakins, Eric

Marks, Kenneth

White, James (Pollok)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Whitehead, Philip

Dempsey, James

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Dewar, Donald

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Dormand, J. D.

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Molyneaux, James

Woof, Robert

Dunlop, John

Morgan, Geraint

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Eadie, Alex

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

English, Michael

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Morton, George

Mr. John Evans and

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Mr. Bryan Davies.

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. McNamara: I beg to move, That Strangers do withdraw.
Notice being taken that Strangers were present, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant

Division No. 42]

AYES

[2.26 a.m.

Loyden, Eddie

Parry, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

McNamara, Kevin

Stallard, A. W.

Mr. Gerry Fitt and

Mahon, Simon

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Mr. Tom Litterick.

O'Halloran, Michael

question of who should be here, as was said earlier, I speak for the Government in this matter.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 53 (Re-committal of bill):—
The House divided: Ayes 18, Noes 112.
to Standing Order No. 115 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That Strangers do withdraw:—
The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 112.

NOES

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Neave, Airey

Armstrong, Ernest

Fookes, Miss Janet

Noble, Mike

Bean, R. E.

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Oakes, Gordon

Beith, A.J.

George, Bruce

Ogden, Eric

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Golding, John

Paisley, Rev Ian

Berry, Hon Anthony

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Park, George

Biggs-Davison, John

Graham, Ted

Pendry, Tom

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Penhaligon, David

Bradford, Rev Robert

Hardy, Peter

Radice, Giles

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Roderick, Caerwyn

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Home Robertson, John

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Campbell, Ian

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Roper, John

Canavan, Dennis

John, Brynmor

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Carson, John

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Rowlands, Ted

Carter, Ray

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Sever, John

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Cohen, Stanley

Kilfedder, James

Skinner, Dennis

Coleman, Donald

Lamond, James

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Snape, Peter

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Spearing, Nigel

Cowans, Harry

McCusker, H.

Strang, Gavin

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

McElhone, Frank

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Cryer, Bob

McKay, Allen

Tinn, James

Davidson, Arthur

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Urwin, T. W.

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

McNair-WiIson, M. (Newbury)

Walnwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Mallalieu, J.P.W.

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Deakins, Eric

Marks, Kenneth

White, James (Pollok)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Dempsey, James

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Dewar, Donald

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Dormand, J. D.

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Woof, Robert

Duffy, A. E. P.

Morgan, Geraint

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Dunlop, John

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Eadie, Alex

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Morton, George

Mr. Alf Bates and

English, Michael

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Mr. John Evans

Evans,loan (Aberdare)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Question accordingly negatived.
2.38 a.m.
Mr. Concannon: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In the debates on Second Reading and in Committee, we heard a lot about the supposed origins of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have done what we can to answer the fears that have been expressed, but we do not seem to have met with great success.
Much has been made of a change of attitude by the Government since 1976. We do not for a moment pretend that the Government's view on the question of Northern Ireland representation has not changed over the past few years. It has, but let us remind ourselves why that change came about. To do that we need to recall the events that culminated in the early months of 1977.
For the previous two and a half years—since May 1974—direct rule had prevailed in Northern Ireland. There was no devolved government. But it was this Government's intention to restore devolved government as soon as an
1898
acceptable basis could be found. That, of course, is still our policy. However, because of the absence of devolved government, there was pressure on us to increase Northern Ireland's representation in this House. It was put to us that Northern Ireland's relative under-representation in comparison to the rest of the country had been justified in the past by the existence there, but nowhere else, of a devolved Government which handled many of the Province's affairs. It was further argued that, in the continuing absence of a devolved Government, the under-representation could no longer be justified and should be corrected. In other words, increased representation was presented as a kind of compensation for direct rule.
The Government rejected that argument. We saw no justification in seeking to increase Northern Ireland's representation—a process that would take several years—solely in order to plug what was a temporary gap. It might well have transpired that by the time the process of increasing the representation had been completed, devolved government would have been restored.
Mr. Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Government supporters do not appear to be much interested in what the Minister is saying, but I should like to hear him. Please would you ask them to behave themselves?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If there is some ground swell of conversation, I am sure that it will not now continue.
Mr. Concannon: Perhaps it is the excitement of what I am saying.
The Government resisted the calls for more seats for Northern Ireland, and we suggested—as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) reminded us so assiduously on Second Reading—that the question of Northern Ireland's representation should not be tackled in advance of a resolution of the constitutional impasse in the Province.
But in February 1977 there was an event of some significance. Since the establishment of a separate Parliament for Northern Ireland, under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, there had been widespread acceptance of the view that devolved government in a particular part of the United Kingdom should be accompanied by lower representation at Westminster for that part of the country. In the debate on the question of devolution to Scotland and Wales, that view first began to be seriously questioned, and in the early hours of the morning of 2nd February 1977 the House of Commons gave its verdict. Voting on an amendment to the Scotland and Wales Bill, the House rejected any reduction in the number of MPs representing Scotland and Wales following devolution.
This radically altered the situation that we faced in Northern Ireland. There we had a part of the country that everybody agreed was under-represented, and yet the justification for that under-representation had been removed in the 2nd February vote. Parliament had made clear its view that full representation was warranted regardless of the existence of devolved government, and that is why, in the next month, the Prime Minister announced that the question of Northern Ireland's representation would be referred to a Speaker's Conference.
What does the Bill do to the long-term future of Northern Ireland? The basic problems that we face in Northern
1900
Ireland stem from the existence there of two communities with conflicting aspirations as to the long-term constitutional status of the Province, and their inability up till now to set aside their long-term ideals and find a compromise to allow for a shorter-term resolution of the differences that divide them.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State continues to seek ways to achieve the necessary compromise. He is currently in touch with all four major political parties in the Province, and he is hoping for further discussions with them to find ways of making progress.
Throughout the debates on this Bill, my right hon. Friend and I have stressed the importance of looking at it on its merits, and in a positive light. We often hear claims that this House does not pay enough attention to the serious affairs of Northern Ireland. I hope that the Bill helps in that respect.
I respect the views of those who oppose the Bill. They do so through sincere and genuine beliefs. But I must say one thing to them: "Do not let your attitude to this measure distort your view of what the Government are seeking in Northern Ireland." We seek a return to devolved government in Northern Ireland. We insist that it must be on a basis acceptable to both sides of the community.
We also continue to believe that the long-term constitutional status of Northern Ireland cannot be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. If that consent comes, we shall not stand in the way of change, but as long as Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom we see no justification for denying it fair representation in the United Kingdom Parliament, and this Bill is the outcome.
2.44 a.m.
Mr. Neave: We hope that the Bill will receive its Third Reading. We accept a great deal of what the Minister of State said about devolved government in Northern Ireland. I have already said that we do not regard the extra seats for Northern Ireland as a substitute for devolved government, when the time comes.
The right hon. Gentleman explained the Government's rather sudden conversion to extra representation in terms of

1901
what happened in February. The Conservative Party has made clear since its election manifesto of October 1974 that in its view Northern Ireland is under-represented. It clearly is under-represented. The electorate in Northern Ireland has grown by a considerable figure since the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Anyone who looks at those figures will feel that the case for the Bill is overwhelming. We hope that it will soon become law.
On Second Reading on 28th November I said:
"The electoral quota for Northern Ireland has increased from 50,000 in 1925 to the present level of 86,000."
I also said—I know that the Secretary of State thought that this was a strong point:
"The electorate in Northern Ireland has grown by 500,000 since 1922."—[Official Report, 28th November 1978; Vol. 959, c. 253.]
That had happened without any increase in representation, and it is one of the strongest reasons why we think that Mr. Speaker's Conference was right in its recommendations. When the Prime Minister announced those recommendations last spring, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that we would support the Bill at all stages, and we have done so.
As far as I know, no Opposition Member has ever suggested that the Bill will resolve all the political and social problems of Northern Ireland. Of course it will not. Nor can anyone seriously predict how people will vote in the 1980s, when the Boundary Commission has done its work and the Bill is implemented in terms of constituencies.
What is important is that Northern Ireland should be equitably represented in relation to the rest of the United King-dom. We believe that increased representation will benefit the whole community and that the Bill does not necessarily entrench any one community in regard to representation, and we hope that the Boundary Commission will soon be enabled, by the Bill's becoming law, to starts its work.
2.48 a.m.
Mr. McNamara: I wish that I could join my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and the hon. Member for Abing-
1902
don (Mr. Neave) in welcoming the Third Reading of the Bill. Unfortunately, I cannot do so. I do not see it as heralding a new dawn, either for the House or for the Six Counties of Northern Ireland—or, indeed, for this island of ours here. I think that we shall regret the effects of the Bill for many days, and perhaps many years.
I listened with interest to what my right hon. Friend said about the sudden conversion that took place in the early hours on the Scotland and Wales Bill. The conversion really took place when we did not get our guillotine motion through. The sudden realisation that Northern Ireland was under-represented—if it is under-represented here, and if it should be represented here in the first place—came because of pressures put on my right hon. and hon. Friends that if they wanted to remain in government they would have to increase the number of seats in Northern Ireland, and that they could not afford to affect the representation in Scotland and Wales, either.
It seems that the Gaelic fringe has been the support of this Government, as it has of Liberal Governments in the past. But that little bit across the water will place us in considerable difficulties.
I suggested earlier that had my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) faced the increased number of Members for the Six Counties that the Bill suggests, in all probability he would never have formed his Administration in 1964.
It is also interesting to note that we are increasing the number of seats, as a Government and party, in the Six Counties at the same time as the Boundary Commission is reducing the number of Labour-held seats in London. That is an odd thought. Perhaps it does not reflect the idealism of the Labour Party. But we are prepared to condemn ourselves to pristine purity and Opposition. I did not think that that was what we were about.
I believed that our party's policies were not to increase representation in the House for the Six Counties. If one spoke to any member of the Shadow Cabinet when we were in opposition or to any member of the present Government the impression was given that we should aim for a united Ireland. But that is not so today.

1903
We desire what should be the long-term objective, but we conspire to ensure that in our short-term attitudes and projects the ideal—if such it is—of a united Ireland is not achieved. We fail to ensure that justice is achieved, and perhaps we perpetuate injustices in our own country.
I do not believe that by strengthening the bond between the Six Counties and our country we have done anything towards achieving peace in Northern Ireland. I do not think that we have done anything to stop bombs in this country. We have done nothing to improve the reputation of this Government and the House.
Our proud boast was that we would hold the ring. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Home Secretary the troops went in. We were there to hold the ring between the communities until they worked out their own solution. We said that we would act together to help the communities to come to terms with the situation and try to live together. We believed that whatever happened to the Six Counties, we should help them by acting fairly, and by not altering the status quo unless the people wished to alter it.
That was our attitude. That is what we said when we attempted to form the Assembly. Those were our principles when we called for the Convention. We laid down three principles—that the solution must be acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland and to the House, and must recognise the Irish dimension.
Instead of holding the ring we have come down heavily in favour of one side. There is no clamour by the minority for extra representation in the House. Indeed, most of them want no representation here at all. Their representatives are here because of the historical accident of 1920.
My right hon. Friends, for seasons that I understand but because of short-term expediency, have come squarely down on the side of one of the parties in the dispute. That means that we no longer hold the ring, whatever the Secretary of State may say about hoping to achieve a devolved Government. That hope has now gone, except that is might be achieved in some other disastrous political situation or—God forbid—under a Government led by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). If that should happen, the Ulster Unionists, with or without the
1904
extra seats, will put on the squeeze, demanding that those powers should be returned to local government. We have heard the Ulster Unionists already guaranteeing that, as they have delivered the extra seats, so they will return the power to local government. It was there that it all started. We shall not be able to oppose that, because we have started that process today.
The result of the decision of my right hon. Friend to increase representation in Northern Ireland will be that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) will no longer be regarded as an eccentric within this place. There will be people who will say that as we have betrayed our mission and come down heavily on the side of one of the parties to the dispute it is not now worth the trouble, the expense, the lives, the investment, to remain there. People will ask whether the work done by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to attract employment has been worth it if the political environment is not to improve.
It is ironic to recall the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when, in 1973, he addressed the House during the proceedings on the Bill dealing with the constitution and dealt with the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. He said that the Ulster Unionists should accept the proposal and come willingly into partnership, or all bets would be off. There had to be a compact between both sides. We saw what happened in that compact. We saw how those who sit on the Ulster Unionist Bench led the UWC strike against a democratically elected Assembly, against the wishes of this sovereign Parliament, and helped to bring the Assembly down. We saw how they succoured the actions of the Provisional IRA. We saw how they sabotaged the Convention, how they voted against what we on the Labour Benches regarded as proper Socialist measures.
In the past few weeks, on votes before and after confidence motions, they have played ducks and drakes with us, squeezing everything they can out of us. Are they doing it to restore peace, harmony, bliss? Or are they doing it so that they can return to the bitter sectarian regime that existed in Northern Ireland before our troops went in and our

1905
boys began to lose their lives? That has been their policy.
In the past, in some difficult times, I have protected the backs of members of the Government Front Bench on matters affecting Irish policy. I did so because I believed that it was working in the long-term interests of peace between all the communities in Northern Ireland. I am afraid that I am no longer in a position to act in that way. I must be suspicious of every action of the Government Front Bench, and of its every motive. Its fine ideals have gone out of the window in a squalid desire to retain office at any price.
2.58 a.m.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: I respect and acknowledge the sincerity and tenacity of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). Unlike him, I welcome the Bill as a measure of belated justice. The explanation given by the Minister of State for the astonishing change of mind on the part of the Government was of interest. So was the different explanation given by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central, and other Labour Members. Historians will find the explanation of those hon. Gentlemen more convincing than they will the explanation of the Minister of State. If I may call to mind some words of T. S. Eliot, the Government have done the right thing for the wrong reason.
As for the Conservative Party, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), we did not require conversion. We have long held that Northern Ireland is under-represented in the House of Commons. We have not deviated from that position, and for that reason we welcome the Bill.
We have heard some fanciful and some pessimistic speeches from Labour Members alleging what the Bill does and does not do. Those of us who take an interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland receive objections from every corner of the Province when a measure arises that excites apprehension or disgust. My appreciation is that the minority in the Province, as distinct from politicians who claim to speak for them, are not unduly apprehensive, because the Bill is intended to do justice to Northern Ireland in respect of its representation in Parliament.
1906
This Bill will give Northern Ireland a fairer representation befitting a parliamentary democracy in the only legislative assembly in which the voice of Ulster can be heard. The right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who sit for Northern Ireland constituencies are heavily burdened, particularly because of the troubles and the Macrory gap which was opened by the abolition of the Parliament at Stormont.
The Bill, when enacted, will give some relief to representatives in Parliament and to those whom they represent. The Bill does not affect the freedom of the people of Northern Ireland democratically to choose their constitutional future and national status. They had an opportunity to do this in the plebiscite, known as the border poll, held in 1973, when a substantial majority of the Northern Ireland electorate—including, despite intimidation, many Catholics—chose the Union. Having so chosen, they are surely entitled to proper representation in the House of Commons and, I might add, with a closing reference—which is surely out of order—to my new clause, in another place as well.
3.3 a.m.
Mr. Litterick: This is one of the saddest parliamentary occasions in which I have participated. The Government have completed a large circle of their policy on Ireland—one which was embarked on by a previous Government.
I cannot agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) about the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Abing-don (Mr. Neave) to the effect that the Conservative Party needed no sudden conversion to the idea that the six counties in Northern Ireland needed stronger and more numerous representation in this House. The last Conservative Prime Minister made strenuous efforts to bring about some kind of rapprochement in Northern Ireland among the contending sectarian groups, as did his Labour successor. What brought about the conversion was the obduracy of the most powerful sectarian group in Northern Ireland and the tactics which it used in Northern Ireland to wreck the Assembly and subsequently in this place to embarrass the Government who had a virtually non-existent majority.

1907
I do not think that this legislation is the type of enactment that will excite the respect of adult men and women in the community, because they understand well that this is a piece of political expediency. They understand that this is a group of politicians turning in order to hang on to office. They understand that politicians will behave in this way and that they have survival instincts, like everybody else, and want to hang on to their jobs. But, at the same time, the community expects of politicians that they will at least try to adhere to certain reasonable standards of what I call public morality. They expect that principles to which parties say they adhere and hold valuable will be defended and cherished whatever difficulties the Government meet at any time. But what the public have seen in this piece of legislation is a Government—I would prefer to say a group of politicians, office holders—simply running away, simply putting fig leaves over a hideous political problem in order to satisfy a short-term political need of their own.
In our view, the result of that will be that the people in mainland Britain—I hope that nobody will take offence at my using that phrase, it is just a handy one for me—will not have to endure the longer-term consequences which I fear will arise from the fact that this Bill has been passed. I think it much more likely that the people of Northern Ireland will have to endure for a very much longer period than would otherwise be the case a repetition of the things which they have experienced because of the problems in Ireland.
We are not simply giving the electorate of Northern Ireland more seats in this place. We are, as the Secretary of State said on another occasion, welding Northern Ireland to the British body politic. We can understand the desire of certain politicians to do that. Since Carson we have all understood that. But we did not expect that a Labour Secretary of State would be a Carsonite, and that is what he is, in principle. We do not expect this of a Labour Secretary of State because we have understood—at least, we as a Labour movement thought we understood—for a long time that Carsonism—if I may use that phrase—is simply another brand of Toryism in a particular
1908
cultural political setting, that is, the setting of Northern Ireland.
In terms of our principles, we have always felt that the British Labour movement could never have any truck with it, and now we find that our Government—I wish that I could find a way of speaking in inverted commas—are giving aid and comfort to what Brian Faulkner in his memoirs called the ghost of Carson.
Having mentioned Brian Faulkner, I think that it is worth while in the context of the Bill to dwell for a moment on his career. He was, above all, an Ulsterman. He saw himself as an Ulsterman. As it happens, he was one of the most sophisticated politicians that Ulster has ever produced—possibly the most sophisticated. But he had weaknesses and blind spots, like the rest of us, and one of the stranger ones was that, as he confessed in the last chapter of his memoirs, he was not sufficiently aware of the significance of the religious differences that existed within the community in which he was born and raised.
Faulkner regretted that he had not paid more attention to that. He clearly felt that had he paid more attention to it the damage that the Orange lodges were able to do to the Assembly, thereby wrecking virtually every political purpose that he had ever conceived, might not have occurred. The result was that Faulkner, who was one of Ulster's most distinguished politicians, ended his political life as a failure.
It seems difficult for an Ulster politician to operate on the basis that he is neither a Protestant nor a Catholic. Those who have tried to do so have usually failed. Sometimes they have been killed for making the attempt. Faulkner merely failed. It may be that he was luckier than others. However, he tried—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who worked with him for some years, came to understand this clearly—to demonstrate that it was possible to have been born a Protestant in Ulster, even to be, as Faulkner was, a member of an Orange lodge, and still to consider oneself part of a polity that deserved balanced treatment, in which the law should be enacted and applied to every citizen regardless of religious affiliation.
Faulkner learned the hard way. He discovered—given the dominance of the

1909
Orange lodges, it is not yet possible but he worked towards it and had a measure of success—that it was beginning to be possible in Northern Ireland to get people with different original religious affiliations to agree to seek at least the common ground and to build on that.
That approach was smashed by those who sit on the Unionist Bench. They smashed what was the beginning of real hope for Northern Ireland, for the whole of Ireland and for the people of mainland Britain. The people of mainland Britain have had to pay heavily in treasure, blood, fear and in violation of their system of justice on behalf of the Unionists. All that has happened to us because of them. It has happened because of the weakness of successive Governments.
We arrive at the position where we surrender to the Unionists by giving them more seats in this House. That is supposed to make things better, but no speech that I have heard from the Secretary of State or his Ministers has given any indication of what might be made better as a result of giving the Unionists more seats. There is no doubt in the minds of my hon. Friends that the Bill will merely increase the number of Ulster Unionists who sit in this place. That is all that it will do. What is different about that? What is better about that?
With respect to the Conservative Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Abingdon, it does not make much sense to say that it is fairer that the people of Northern Ireland should have as many seats pro rata as we have on the mainland. We should remember that the Irish have had that. They had it long ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) pointed that out at great length. It was not a matter of representation in terms of parliamenary seats. It was a simple matter of British authority over the Irish. It still is. That has not changed. In fact, that has been made worse. We are reverting to an older situation. We are returning to an older relationship. As I have said, this is a continuation of direct rule.
We have had that not merely in the past decade but in the long distant past. We should remind ourselves that most of the really violent rebellions by the Irish against the use of British authority over
1910
them have been led by Protestants. If we think for a moment we realise that the eruption of Orange Protestantism within Ireland is a recent and relatively eccentric thing in Irish history, and it will pass.
The Bill seeks to make direct rule permanent. We shall find in the fulness of time that the familiar facts of the relationship between Britain and Ireland will resurrect themselves once again and that both peoples will have to pay a heavy cost.
3.15 a.m.
Mr. John Ellis: In the midst of all the troubles that we have to face, the coming debates, the General Election, and all the important matters to be considered, I have to confess to a feeling of inadequacy in the context of the subject that we are discussing tonight. It is a pity that so few hon. Members are present on this occasion.
We know that there were difficulties in Ireland which were apparent long before my own party was ever represented in this House. We know that there were great men in the Liberal Party in those days. Year after year the problems of Ireland had to be faced by those great men. Acts were passed. Governments were brought down. That was in the days when we were a mighty Empire and could influence events all over the world, yet with all the influence that we had, we could never satisfactorily deal with the affairs of that island.
One forms friendships in one's life. It is not just a courtesy title when I refer to my right hon. Friend. I do not use the words lightly. We are friends and we shall remain friends, yet on this issue we are divided. I can say the same concerning my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). We have been together ever since we came into this House. I have arguments with him. Perhaps I do not ask as much as he does. I look at the Bill solely in the context of whether it will improve the position in Northern Ireland and whether it will lead to a lessening of hatred, bitterness and strife.
I quail at the prospect of making decisions tonight, even at this stage, in the light of my knowledge of the problems faced by all those great men. Some were rogues but they were very great men,

1911
utterly sincere, and they grappled with this problem to very little effect. Tonight in this place we join that band as we decide what we are to do and ask whether the position will be improved by what we do.
Nothing that I have heard, in all the hours that I have spent in considering this problem, convinces me that by giving these extra seats the years of bitterness and strife will be brought to an end or the prospect improved in any way. I do not believe that it will be changed. Indeed, the minority will feel more alienated than before. People both north and south of the border have become soured towards what would be regarded as conventional politics in many other parts of the globe. They are affected in their political judgments by the fact that they are still fighting the old sterile battles. This has been to the detriment of the lives of people in the south of Ireland and in the north. I believe that that will go on, and that we shall not improve the position by this measure.
As regards the voting position in the House, if a decision were taken to increase representation because of the domestic situation, that would be a heinous crime. I want to see a Labour Government returned. I hope that we shall lose the next General Election. If the card had been played—[HON. MEMBERS: "Win."] I am sorry. Did I say "lose"? I was thinking that, in the context of Ireland and its problems, I should prefer to lose that election if it meant that, while I had been a Member of this House, I had played a meaningful role in achieving a satisfactory solution. I do not want to order events. If people in Northern Ireland would stop killing each other, provided that it was a reasonable society, I should not mind if it were a capitalist society. I make that considerable concession.
Earlier, I intervened in the speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He said that the existence of Stormont was the only viable reason for opposing this measure and that now that it had gone, there was no reason. I challenged that statement then and I challenge it now. I have an overwhelming conviction which I think supersedes the judgment made by the right hon. Gentleman. Will this Bill improve the age-old rift, the unhappy stalemate? Will
1912
it reconcile communities, or make people more bitter?
I submit, with all the sincerity that I can muster, that we shall join those other great men and those other bright measures that have been canvassed in this situation, because we have been no more successful than they were in making progress. Indeed—I am sorry to finish on this note—if the Bill goes through, it will be interpreted as strengthening all the hatred and bitterness. I am sorry to have to say that. I am also sorry that the House has been unable to play a better role tonight.
3.23 a.m.
Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) has repeated the question which he asked earlier in our proceedings today and the challenge which he issued, perhaps most personally to me, to say whether I believe that this measure will be ameliorative, will contribute to a reduction of violence and of the fear under which people live in Northern Ireland. I answer him directly. I believe that it will.
It is because I believe that it will that, since March 1972, from that Bench there, I have pointed to this measure as perhaps the first necessity for the welfare of all in Northern Ireland following the events of 1969 to 1972.
Having stated my conviction. I shall briefly give my reason. There has been much talk about two communities and their divisions and mutual antagonisms. But the immediate reality of violence in Northern Ireland is not warfare between two communities; it is the oppression of both communities—but more, of the two, of the Roman Catholic minority—by a movement, the object of which is to alter by violence the status of Northern Ireland, contrary to the present clear wishes of a majority of its inhabitants.
That movement, that force, lives upon hope of success. It lives upon uncertainty. It lives upon reasons which can be given by it to itself—by which it can still convince itself—for believing that if it continues its oppression and violence, if terrorism continues, that will alter the decision of this House and change the status of Northern Ireland.
We have in many ways, by contradictions in our behaviour, made it easier for that delusion—for such I believe it to be —to be entertained by what are called

1913
the men of violence. The most manifest contradiction was that while proclaiming Northern Ireland to be an integral part of the United Kingdom, this House until recently steadily refused to recognise that fact in the most elementary form in which membership of the United Kingdom is recognised—by representation on an equal basis in this House.
Representation on an equal basis will deny no man in Northern Ireland anything that he has. It will deny none of the aspirations which people such as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) wish to see accomplished without violence. It will do nothing to place any obstacle in their way. It will certainly place no obstacle in the way of new constitutions, if they can be evolved, which meet the specifications which have been laid down.
It will take nothing away; but it will give something. It will give to all concerned an added conviction of stability, a conviction that there is not an ambivalence on the part of the United Kingdom, speaking through this House, as to its undertaking that the status of Northern Ireland as part of the Kingdom shall continue as long as that is the will of the majority of its inhabitants.
So I say that the measure is beneficent in its effect, and, having accomplished something which—I am using these arguments now not for the first but for the hundredth time—I believe to be beneficent, I would not wish this House to part with this Bill with feelings of mean self-accusation. The House has not been fair to itself in this debate today. It is not true to say that the House of Commons is doing this thing because of a squalid deal for votes in the Lobbies, to save or to prolong the life of an Administration. I shall prove that.
First, if that had been so, I would not have confidently, in October 1974, when the outcome of the election still lay in the future, been convinced to the point of assuring those to whom I spoke that this was a measure which the House of Commons, sooner or later, could not refuse. Again, if this had been a squalid deal, one could not, in my opinion, have induced 29 hon. Members, under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker—members who had no interest in any deal what-
1914
ever; who considered the matter ab initio—to arrive at an all but unanimous conclusion.
The Prime Minister himself, when this decision was announced on 23rd March, 1978, stated openly that it was in no consideration or expectation of support, either in the Division which was to take place that night or generally, from myself or my colleagues. The Prime Minister was telling the truth. In that Division, as a matter of fact, three of us—my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) and Armagh (Mr. McCusker) and myself—felt obliged, in recognition of what the Prime Minister had said, not to vote against him that night. But when he said, and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Rev. Ian Paisley) confirmed, that there was no understanding, no promise given or received, he said no more than the simple truth. If it had been otherwise, then indeed it would be an unworthy reason for the House of Commons to do something which is self-evidently fair and reasonable towards a part of the Kingdom. It would alter the character of the act which the House of Commons has now performed. Those of us who know the House of Commons could never doubt that it would do this sooner or later because it was implicit in the Union and in this House itself, nor do I understand anyone who can say that by granting full representation to a part of the Kingdom this House can be doing otherwise than place the greatest obstacle it can in the way of injustice or misrule. If there has been injustice, if there has been misrule in Northern Ireland, then we who come from Northern Ireland—
Mr. Dennis Canavan: You do not come from Northern Ireland.
Mr. Powell: I was sent from Northern Ireland by those who elected me, as the hon. Gentleman was sent by his constituency—
Mr. Canavan:—when you were rejected by Wolverhampton.
Mr. Powell: Since the hon. Member has mis-stated the event, I will put it on the record. It was a voluntary act upon my part to decide that I could not in

1915
conscience stand again for a seat that I would have held by 20,000 votes.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Well, perhaps 20,005.
Mr. Powell: I am sorry that 1 was diverted for a moment to something personal because this is not a personal matter, except that the House of Commons is personal to all of us.
I repeat—if there is injustice, or has been, in Northern Ireland, if there is misgovernment, or has been, in Northern Ireland, what surer way to remedy it could there be, so long as Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, than by bringing Northern Ireland fully within the representation of this House and by giving it all the rights and laying upon it all the duties which are enjoyed by and laid upon all other parts of the United Kingdom? That, as Members of this House, we must believe.

Division No. 43]

AYES

[3.35 a.m.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Armstrong, Ernest

Fookes, Miss Janet

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Neave, Airey

Bates, Alf

George, Bruce

Noble, Mike

Bean, R. E.

Goldlng, John

Paisley, Rev Ian

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Park, George

Berry, Hon Anthony

Graham, Ted

Pendry, Tom

Biggs-Davison, John

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Hardy, Peter

Radice, Giles

Bradford, Rev Robert

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Roderick, Caerwyn

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Roper, John

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

John, Brynmor

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Campbell, lan

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Rowlands, Ted

Carson, John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Sever, John

Carter, Ray

Kilfedder, James

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Lamond, James

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Cohen, Stanley

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Snape, Peter

Coleman, Donald

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Spearing, Nigel

Concannon, Rt Hon John

McCusker, H.

Strang, Gavin

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

McElhone, Frank

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Cowans, Harry

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Tinn, James

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Ward, Michael

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Mallalieu, J. P.W.

White, James (Pollok)

Deakins, Eric

Marks, Kenneth

Whitehead, Philip

Dempsey, James

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Dewar, Donald

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Dormand, J. D.

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Woof, Robert

Dunlop, John

Molyneaux, James

Wrigglesworth, lan

Eadie, Alex

Morgan, Geralnt

English, Michael

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mr. Joseph Dean and

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Morton, George

Mr. John Evans.

NOES

Canavan, Dennis

Manon, Simon

Stallard, A. W.

Cryer, Bob

Mikardo, lan

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

O'Halloran, Michael

Woodall, Alec

Flannery, Martin

Parry, Robert

Home Robertson, John

Richardson, Miss Jo

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Litterlck, Tom

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Mr. Kevin McNamara and

Loyden, Eddie

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. John Ellis

Question accordingly agreed to.
So we ought not to part from this Bill with other than a sense of pride and of relief that at last the House of Commons has acted in accordance with what it has for so long professed—that Northern Ireland is, for as long as the majority of its inhabitants desire, an integral part of this Kingdom.
But though it was foreseeable, it has seemed to many of us—those who have watched from without and those within—an unconscionable time a-coming. Now that it has come, it seems something strange that the thing desired so long should at last be achieved. I find myself using the words of Elizabeth I:
"The Lord hath done this thing, and it is wonderful in our sight."
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The House divided: Ayes 104. Noes 17.
Bill read the Third time and passed.

SERVICE FAMILIES (MARRIED QUARTERS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape].
3.46 a.m.
Miss Janet Fookes: The outsider may wonder why the issue of the vacation of married quarters by estranged Service wives should be a matter for public concern, but 1 submit that it is not only a matter of public concern but a matter of considerable scandal in the way that the system works and the injustice that is brought about.
Let me explain briefly how the system is worked under the Queen's Regulations of 1975, which apply specifically to the Army. If a Service man considers that he is estranged, he has a duty to report that fact to his commanding officer. He has to fill in a form declaring that he has changed his marital status and he can then move into barracks. The married quarter is supposed to be vacated and, if the wife remains, she is immediately classed as an illegal occupant and eviction proceedings are started—though the authorities may be kindly disposed and not set them in motion too quickly.
The whole situation, from the wife's point of view, can change in 24 hours. To add insult to injury, the wife is then supposed to be responsible for paying the rent, though in such cases it goes by a technical name and she has to pay, in effect, double the rent. That happens at a time when the wife may be in serious financial difficulties as a result of the estrangement, while the Service man who moves into barracks may, even though he must pay for that, be in a fairly cushy position.
This situation cannot be allowed to continue. I have had some heart-rending cases brought to my attention of women who have suffered terribly as a result of these procedures. The declaration of estrangement is made unilaterally and there have been cases in which the first notification that the wife had of something being seriously wrong was when she received a notice to quit—a severe shock.
There is, of course, the appalling problem of finding other accommodation. That is not easy, especially when there
1918
are children. As one woman in this plight told me "You suffer the double shock of losing both your husband and your home."
Anyone who has to deal with those trying to find accommodation will know what a problem it is. Local authorities for the most part, however sympathetic they may be, usually have enough problems of their own without the addition of estranged Service wives who may have no connection with the area in which they happen to be living in married quarters.
Possibly the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act will be of some assistance to them, but then they have to be truly without homes, and it is an intimidating experience for anyone to be served with a summons. Indeed, one wife wrote to me that it came as a terrible shock to her to receive a summons. The husband had walked out on her, but she was the one who had to face the music, so to speak.
What can be done about this problem? First, I suggest that for a period of time—say, six months at least—the wife should be given the undoubted right to remain in the married quarter, or possibly, if more convenient to her, in some other married quarter. Secondly, she should not be required to pay the double rent, which is a kind of damages for trespass, as I understand the regulations. I believe also that the husband should remain responsible for paying the rent during that period of grace. This would at least give a chance either for reconciliation or, if that proved impossible, for her to make other arrangements for herself and any children. As it is, the system almost seems fiendishly devised to help break up a marriage, because it is so very easy for the Service man to make his declaration and to depart into barracks. Far more effort should be made on this side of the question.
I hope also that the Minister will declare tonight that he is willing to accept the justice of the case and, I hope, will make some specific recommendations as to what might be done to ease the position. I am not certain how the problem extends to the other Services because my main inquiries and the main information I have received affect the Army. I should be interested to know from the hon. Gentleman whether all three Services are affected equally and whether he can speak

1919
on behalf of the other Services in his reply.
I have been appalled by the hardships that have been brought to my notice as a result of the system and, of course, as a result sometimes of a husband's behaviour. Perhaps one or two examples will illustrate the point. One case affected a wife who was out in Germany in married quarters. She came home in good faith to look after a sick relative—a parent, I think it was. While she was away, the husband took the opportunity of saying that she had deserted him, which was quite untrue, moving out of his married quarters and going into barracks, and putting all the family possessions into store. The wife found that it was very difficult to get them out of store; she could not get back into her old home and she had to pay well over £100 if she wanted the possessions moved back. That is an intolerable position for any woman to be placed in.
I know of another case, much nearer my own constituency, where the lady concerned got into such a state of panic—she was pregnant and had a small child also—that she made a suicide attempt. Her husband bullied her over the whole situation and because she had no settled place where she could go the whole position seemed to get blacker and blacker from her point of view.
Those are just a few of the cases that I have had brought to my notice. I am sure that there are many more.
I should like to make clear that I am not suggesting for one moment that the Service should have a permanent responsibility for housing estranged families. Clearly, that would not be possible. But it is intolerable that they should be immediately placed at risk in this way, within 24 hours.
I earnestly ask the Minister to give tonight an assurance that will bring some ray of hope to the women who are in such an appalling predicament.
3.55 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): I know that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth Drake (Miss Fookes) has been concerned with this very difficult question for some time. I am pleased that she has raised it in this debate because I think that it provides
1920
an example of how the Armed Forces try with the utmost flexibility to cater for the individual's circumstances within the overall requirements of the forces.
The hon. Lady wrote in August to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the problems facing the estranged wives of Service men. My letter in reply provided some of the background to the question she has raised today, so I shall of necessity repeat some of the points again, although perhaps in greater detail. However, I am sure that the House would wish to have the full details of what is usually a very delicate and difficult situation for all concerned.
To set the question of estranged wives in context, I should first explain in general terms the reasons behind the provision of married quarters for Service men and their families. Responsibility for housing is, in the first instance, essentially a matter for the individual Service family, as it would be in civil life. However, obviously, the special conditions and demands of a Service career often pose considerable difficulties. A Service career may involve frequent postings, every two or three years, both within this country and overseas. Service bases are often situated in more remote parts of the country where there is a lack of available private or local authority housing. Nevertheless, a Service man has to be housed near his place of work to meet the requirements of the Service, which often involve long and irregular hours and the need to be readily available on standby.
Our aim is to avoid, as far as possible, separating husbands from their wives and families, while meeting the requirements of the Armed Services themselves. Consequently, the Ministry of Defence provides married quarters so that Service men can still set up a family home and to reduce the effects of the turbulence which a Service career often entails.
For the purposes of allowances and entitlements, Service personnel are placed in one of five different marital categories. The first two carry the entitlement to a married quarter where one is available. Broadly speaking, these two categories comprise married Service men who would normally live with their wives and families, and, secondly, Service men, or women, who are widowed, divorced or

1921
separated and who have care and control of their children and normally live with them. These categories also carry entitlements to a range of other benefits, such as separation allowance and boarding school allowance.
Technically, married quarters are not tenanted but are occupied under the terms of a licence signed by the Service man. The Service licence requires, among other things, that a Service man should occupy the quarters himself with his wife and, where appropriate, children. It makes it quite clear that on posting or the termination otherwise of his eligibility he is required to vacate the quarter to allow other eligible Service men to benefit.
It is in this broader context that the question of estrangement needs to be seen. From what I have said earlier the House will appreciate that a change in a Service man's marital circumstances will obviously affect the range of allowances and entitlements that have previously been made available to him. Service authorities need to know at the outset if the marriage has broken down. If the Service husband no longer wishes, for whatever reason, to continue to live with his wife, he is under a duty to report the matter to his commanding officer.
The hon. Member has indicated that she feels that it is far too easy for a Service man to announce unilaterally that he is estranged from his wife, and I can understand her concern. However, relations between husband and wife are a private matter for the couple concerned. I believe that it would be wrong for the Services to intrude in this delicate area to decide themselves whether estrangement has taken place. I do not think that in most cases a Service man would choose to inform his commanding officer of the breakdown of his marriage lightly or without good reason. As I explained in my letter to the hon. Member, I believe that we must rely on the individual Service man to act in good faith.
I do not, however, wish to give the impression that the Services are impersonal and unconcerned with the Service man's domestic problems. Far from it. Very often the Service authorities will have already become aware of marital difficulties and various forms of welfare assistance may have been offered to the
1922
couple. Even after the estrangement has been officially notified a wide variety of advice and assistance is available.
In the Army, for example, immediate help could come from padres, medical officers, unit families officers or WRAC army welfare assistants. Where counselling in greater depth is required, cases can be referred to SSAFA or local authority social workers and national marriage guidance counsellors. Comparable resources are, of course, provided in the other two Services. I think it would be wrong to go beyond this and insist on some form of compulsory marriage counselling. In the end the couple themselves must decide if and when an estrangement has taken place.
Once a Service man has formally declared his estrangement from his wife, his changed marital status means that he is no longer entitled to a married quarter and the range of married benefits unless he continues to have care and control of any children there may be. As I have explained, married quarters are provided to enable the Service man and his family to stay together while at the same time meeting the requirements of a Service career on the husband. When the Service man is no longer living with his wife, for whatever reason, I do not think that it is reasonable to expect the Ministry of Defence to take on the responsibility for housing estranged wives and families on a permanent basis. I am sure that the hon. Lady concedes that. I am sure that the House will agree that the only proper solution is for them to be found other accommodation. For its part, the Ministry of Defence seeks to make this as easy as possible, compatible with the need to establish its right to repossess their property.
Although each Service has its own detailed procedures, what happens in practice is broadly similar in all three. Once estrangement has been reported and the change in marital status officially declared, notice to vacate the quarter is served. Wives who remain in occupation of the quarter after this notice has expired are classed as irregular occupants. The period of notice is normally no more than 61 days, after which action may be taken, with the wife's knowledge, to obtain a court order for possession. This establishes MOD's right in law to reclaim the quarter and enables mesne profits to be

1923
charged for the period of irregular occupation.
Mesne profits are in the nature of damages which a person unlawfully in occupation of a property is liable to pay the person entitled to possession and are assessed on the basis of a market rent for a similar civilian property. It is not a doubling of the rent as the hon. Member suggested.
During this period the Service welfare authorities make every effort to help the wife in her search for alternative accommodation and, in particular, close contact is made with local housing authorities. The Ministry of Defence would not necesarily seek an order for possession immediately after the expiration of the notice. A period of grace is often allowed to enable the wife to find alternative accommodation.
If the wife is making genuine efforts to do so, no action may be taken for some months. On the other hand some local authorities may not consider rehousing the wife and family until an order for possession has been made. In such cases the order may be sought earlier to facilitate rehousing. Indeed, wives themselves often ask for this to be done.
I should add that an order for possession does not give authority for eviction. Unless the quarter is required for entitled personnel, who would otherwise be separated from their wives and families, the Ministry of Defence is most reluctant to proceed further and apply for a warrant for possession which gives the necessary legal authority for eviction, and in every case ministerial approval is required before any such application is made to the courts. As with an order for possession, however, some local authorities will not give the estranged wife priority for accommodation until a warrant for possession has been served. This in itself sometimes means that this further step is to the benefit of the estranged wife.
To give the House an indication of how reluctant the Ministry of Defence is to take proceedings against estranged wives in these circumstances, irregular occupancy by estranged wives often lasts for about 15 months and in some cases even longer.
I can bring to mind two cases in the Epping Forest area where estranged wives have been in possession for over two
1924
years. There is no way in which I shall allow an application for eviction to be made because of what I consider to be the completely un-Christian rules operated by that council in demanding a three-year residential qualification before it will give consideration to rehousing. There have been only three evictions in the past two years.
I think that all three Services handle these cases of estrangement with the utmost sympathy and consideration. We must rely on the individual Service man who is entitled to a married quarter and the associated range of allowances to act in good faith and formally to notify Service authorities when he becomes estranged from his wife. I appreciate that in some cases the request by a Service man to change his marital status may be precipitate, particularly where the couple are young and immature. However, considerable help is available to assist Service families with their marital problems and every effort is made to help the couple effect a reconciliation if they want this assistance in what is, after all, a private matter. Given the basis on which married quarters are provided, it is not reasonable to expect the Ministry of Defence to take on an indefinite commitment to house estranged wives and their families.
Apart from anything else, such irregular occupation of married quarters would deny them to other Service families and could cause further separation of husbands and wives in the Armed Forces. I believe that the existing arrangements for helping estranged wives to find alternative accommodation are fair to all concerned and, as I have told the House, the Ministry of Defence is most reluctant to take action to evict estranged wives. Where the married quarters are required by other Service men we must, however, in the last analysis, be able to get possession of them.
Finally, I draw the attention of the House to a 1974 report by Shelter which looked at the question of housing the Armed Forces in the context of its report on tied accommodation. Having reviewed what happens in cases of estrangement and noted the unwillingness of some local authorities to accept responsibility for housing estranged wives and families until there is at least a legal separation, or a

1925
court order for possession has been obtained, Shelter concluded that:
"These difficulties"—
that is with local authorities—
"prolong the rationalisation of the housing situation for the family concerned but our evidence leads us to believe that the Services are particularly humane and supportive in such situations."
I hope that, having heard what I have said tonight, the hon. Lady will share this
1926
view. The Services do all that they can to help everybody concerned in these unfortunate and difficult situations, consistent with their responsibilities to other Service men and their families.
I hope that I have said sufficient to reassure the hon. Lady.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Four o'clock a.m.