Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

HC Deb 02 July 1981 vol 7 cc1107-26 10.25 pm

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins)

I beg to move, That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time motion No. 3: That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.

Mr. Atkins

I addressed the House for nearly 50 minutes earlier, when I referred to both the orders. I shall not say any more about them now, but if a debate arises and I am asked to reply I shall ask for leave to do so.

10.26 pm

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

The subject of the debate is, as the Secretary of State has already observed, identical to that which has engaged the House throughout today's sitting. Indeed, it is one single debate extending from the commencement of business until one and a half hours after the motion which has just been put from the Chair, with only this difference—that the convenience of the House has been suited by taking the Division in the middle of the debate. That is so convenient to many hon. Members that if we had the advantage—which we do not—of a sessional committee on procedure the committee might well consider whether it would not be convenient to adopt this method more frequently so that hon. Members could have the Division at a reasonable hour—perhaps rather earlier than the conventional meaning of that term—and then those who were still interested in the topic could continue the debate until its natural limit.

The debate has been, and is, one which fully justifies the maximum avail of the time of the House, and I do not think that it meeds any apology if hon. Members, particularly hon. Members representing seats in Northern Ireland, take the opportunity to carry further the matters which have engaged the House already.

The debate today was not approached by hon. Members entirely without preparation. It is true that the Secretary of State had been keeping his cards close to his chest; his consultations always stopped short at the point at which any indication would be given of what the Secretary of State had in his mind. The speech by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was designed to be in the nature if not of a bombshell at any rate of a breath of fresh air. However, we were provided by the press—thanks no doubt in part to the activity of the Government's public relations officials—with a reasonable preview of three points of view which would be put forward in the debate. First, we had a preparatory initiation into what would be stated by the Secretary of State. Where the leak came from may or may not be a matter for subsequent investigation. Then the speech by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, which he already had in typescript at a fairly early hour yesterday, somehow managed to get into the hands of the press, so that the shock which hon. Members listening to it might otherwise have sustained was somewhat softened and modified.

There was, however, a third contribution to the debate, of which we also had the benefit from the newspapers. Paradoxically, it was by an hon. Member who did not find it necessary to attend the debate at all. We were not merely told that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) would not be present; we were told the reasons why he would not be present. They were reasons entirely consistent with the attitude which that hon. Member has constantly maintained towards the House and are significant for the real implications of his politics.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North has made no secret of his belief that the views of the House are unimportant where the future of Northern Ireland is concerned, of his contempt for the House, of his readiness to abuse the House both inside it and outside, and of his repudiation of any allegiance to the House.

The essence of the union of the United Kingdom is its Parliament. It is not possible to be a Unionist and to sustain the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, at the same time, to repudiate the authority of this House of Commons, for the two are one and the same thing. The emphasis and weight of the doings and utterances of the hon. Member for Antrim, North over the years have been a repudiation of the authority of the House—a repudiation which has not been limited to words but which has extended to deeds; the attempt, which came near to wrecking the economy of the Province four years ago, to stage a revolt to coerce the House in matters concerning Northern Ireland.

Curiously, this constituted a strange link between the absent contribution of the hon. Member for Antrim, North and the present contribution which most of us were fortunate enough to have the pleasure of hearing from the former Prime Minister. They are both in favour of "Go it alone". They are both opposed to the continued maintenance of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are both in favour of an independent Ulster.

It is true that the independent Ulster that is a gleam in the eye of the hon. Member for Antrim, North does not entirely resemble the independent Ulster that was adumbrated by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, but they have this important thing in common, that they look to a future which, in the common phrase, will be settled by the people of Northern Ireland for themselves. That phrase in itself is a repudiation of the union; for no part of the United Kingdom can itself settle its future except that its future will be part of the United Kingdom—that self-determination which the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) confirmed again, anything else notwithstanding, is firmly held to by the Labour Party—as it must be by that party's very nature.

The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East made a speech which was remarkable chiefly as coming from someone who had so recently been Prime Minister and who had for so long in positions of supreme responsibility been concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland. It was its unrealism which was its extraordinary quality. He opened his speech by advancing the proposition that somehow we must make an end of the apparently interminable vista of the fluctuating but continuing attack on that part of the United Kingdom by the Irish Republican Army. He posed the question—he posed it to himself, he posed it to the House—how are we to make an end of this?

How are we, not content with repression, with periods of exhaustion alternating with the continual recurrence of the threat of the IRA, to eliminate it entirely? He came to the extraordinary conclusion that the answer was an independent State of Northern Ireland.

How could the right hon. Gentleman, with all his knowledge, envisage—how could any person, who has the slightest knowledge of Northern Ireland and of the history of Ireland, envisage—that an independent Ulster would not be the object of the even more violent and determined hostility of the IRA?

There would be actually an additional dimension—or, rather, there would be the development of a dimension that has been seen all too clearly already in the past year or so—namely, an international dimension such as has not been experienced previously, and on a scale that has not been experienced before. Those forces in different parts of the world which at present covertly support the IRA and are bringing pressure to bear upon the Government to do and say things inconsistent with the essence of a United Kingdom embodying the Province would have free rein. The whole issue would be thrown into the international arena. The analogy of Lebanon would not be far fetched as a description of what might be expected by an independent Ulster under attack from an IRA with hopes and prospects such as it has never enjoyed before. It was a fantastic injection into the debate of something wildly unreal. It was remarkable principally in that it could actually fall from the lips of a former Prime Minister.

The Secretary of State had his own little contribution to unveil to the House. He did not use the words used by the Minister of State. The Minister of State described the proposal as a "nominated Parliament". That was a useful lapsus linguae, if such it was, because the sheer impossibility, incompatibility, contradictory nature of the term "nominated Parliament"—I suppose there was a nominated Parliament of a sort for a year or two during the Commonwealth, but it is not a term one normally uses in the hearing of the House—was enough to put the House on its guard against the absurdity of what was being proposed. Of course, we were not given details—they had not been worked out. But we were invited, if not by our vote, to say broadly "What a jolly good idea!" and to wish it the best of luck.

As far as we can gather from the few signs vouchsafed by the Secretary of State, there would be a body of 50 people. They would be picked by a system not yet disclosed, or even worked out. The verb used was "nominated". They are to be nominated by the Secretary of State—

Mr. Humphrey Atkins

Either the right hon. Gentleman was not listening or I did not make myself clear. I said that I would invite to serve on the council people nominated by the political parties from the elected sources that I described.

Mr. Powell

The elected sources that were described were the district councillors, the Members elected to the House and the Members elected to the European Assembly. A selection is to be made from among a fairly large body of people—I have not worked out the total pool from which they will be drawn, but it will run to several hundreds—upon a basis that will depend on any view on what the Secretary of State regards as the parties.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Quangos.

Mr. Powell

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the notion of a quango is innocent and acceptable indeed compared with the monstrosity that I am inviting the House to consider. It has not done so yet because there has been no serious examination of the notion. We have barely had any details given to us. We are not to debate the issue for another six months. So we might take a few minutes now to consider what is before us.

I was saying, when I received assistance from the hon. Member for Bolsover, that from this electoral college, as it were, this pool of nominated persons, 50 persons will be selected upon unknown principles from undesignated parties—we are not short of political parties in the Province—by the Secretary of State.

The council is to be an advisory body. It is to advise the Secretary of State. He is to put questions to it on the various matters with which he has to deal and, after due debate, it will provide him with its considered advice, which may be either unanimous—I leave that to the imagination of the House—or arrived at by some process of voting—I cannot think that anything so simple as the ordinary majority system that we have in the House would be acceptable in so complex and novel a body—at any rate, advice with dissent will be forthcoming.

The council will also advise on legislation. It will give its opinions upon the proposals for legislation affecting Northern Ireland, presumably in the form of Bids and Orders in Council. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention whether it would be legislation by Act of Parliament for Northern Ireland or only legislation by Order in Council. Perhaps he had not thought of that point. He merely said "legislation". I shall be prepared to give way to him at any stage when he feels moved to give the House a little more elucidation of the extraordinary proposition that he has casually flung into the air in the course of today's debate. So, the council, this nominated body, this body drawn from persons elected to be members of district councils, from persons elected to be Members of this House, the legislature of the union, and from persons elected to be Members of the European Assembly, is to advise the Secretary of State upon legislation.

There is a third function. The council is also to be a constitutional convention. It will be able to consider the future government of Northern Ireland. It will be able to consider various ways in which that part of the United Kingdom might be governed, administered and legislated for. In this context, there will be access to the council—communications to and from it—from the Irish Republic. It was not accidental that the interest of the Irish Republic and its government in the constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland was mentioned by the Secretary of State almost in the same breath.

The council, then, is to be all those things. It is to advise upon policy, upon legislation and upon the future constitutional arrangements for a part of the United Kingdom.

What will happen to its advice? I take the simplest example. Let us suppose that by a majority, or even unanimously, the advisory council says "We do not like this Order in Council. We do not want it." Will the Secretary of State nevertheless persist against the homegrown grass-roots expression of political opinion in the Province? Will he say "No, I shall take it to the Floor of the House of Commons and there I shall not only have the value of the Whips and my majority, but I might even get some support, as I usually do—and intelligent, helpful and constructive support—from hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituents"? Or will he say "I am sorry, but that is it. I have had it. The advisory council will not wear it?"

But what happens in opposite circumstances, when the advisory council says "This is a good egg. Excellent. We have considered your Order in Council, Secretary of State, and we commend it." What is the position of Members of the House then? It occurs to me—this may be some comfort to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that it may help to abbreviate some of the proceedings on Northern Ireland legislation. Perhaps the Secretary of State will say "The House will wish just to take note and formally to approve the order, but, of course, it has been considered by my advisory council in Northern Ireland, a thoroughly representative body, which I have selected in the manner I have explained from various collections of district councillors and others. They say that it is a good order; so how dare anyone get up in the House, so remote and alien from circumstances in Northern Ireland, and venture even to debate, let alone to criticise, it?"

How can hon. Members, who will eventually take responsibility to their constituents for that legislation one way or the other, presume, with their limited information and sources of advice, to do what we have done over the last seven years, namely, co-operate with the Government in the continual improvement of legislation, even under the stultifying procedure of Order in Council? A dilemma is created by the institution of such an advisory body. It is incompatible with the nature of the House. In no other context does any Minister dare to say to the House "I have taken political advice on the measures which I am about to lay before you." Of course, he takes advice from specialists and from various interested bodies—he hears and listens to them.

Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North)

Or from Central Office.

Mr. Powell

The Minister takes advice from all over, but he comes to the House as the one forum where all hon. Members have the equal right to participate in the legislative process.

There is no means of reconciling the representation of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the Kingdom in the House, a representation which, unless the Government at the last minute renege upon their undertakings—something which has not been unknown—will become a full representation as from the next Parliament, with the sort of set-up proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

It is an absurdity. It is an inherent absurdity and a manifest absurdity, but it is more and worse than that. It is a sinister absurdity.

Mr. Stallard

It must be a good idea.

Mr. Powell

It is certainly a good idea for somebody. I do not know whether the Secretary of State will regard this as a compliment, but he did not think of this for himself. I ask him to take that in the best possible sense. If it applies any balm after the criticisms of his notion which I have offered, the right hon. Gentleman is entirely welcome to it. But those from whom the idea comes well understand what the consequences of it would be.

They well understand that the constant conflict between Her Majesty's Government administering Northern Ireland and an advisory body, which, sitting and debating, no doubt, in public or leaking in public, would have a vested interest in being opposed to the Government, in taking the most extreme point of view in polarising every possible issue, would create rising frustration and be an obstacle to the work of government. Thus the pressure would be increased to say: "This is no good. We cannot go on like this. We must have a directly elected assembly and a Government responsible to it." Then we should go once again round the course which we know so well and which one hon. Member after another in the debate has admitted is impracticable.

Nevertheless, there are those who still hope that it can be brought about, because it involves breaking the link between Northern Ireland and this House of Commons. The first virtue of the advisory institution from their point of view is that it does that. It essentially destroys the function of the Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland. It raises once again the spectre of a provincial legislature and executive incompatible with belonging to the United Kingdom, as the House and the people of Wales and Scotland discovered when they respectively debated and voted upon devolution in the last Parliament. It opens out a new channel whereby the Republic can be involved in the constitutional evolution of Northern Ireland.

The key to all this is that it would be a body that is corruptible. It would be a body upon which people could get to work. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux) quoted what was no jocular remark by a former Secretary of State when, discussing the possibility of giving more power to the existing local authorities in Northern Ireland, he said that the difficulty was that no excuse could be found for paying them more. When people set about destroying a province or a nation, they go about it in the way that is customary—almost historic—in Irish experience. They go about it by corruption. It is ultimately only through corruption that men can be brought to participate in forswearing their own inheritance.

This is something that has been long intended. It is true that it is in an attenuated form just now. I remember the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, telling me in October 1979 "You can take it from me that there will be an Assembly." "Oh, no," he added, "I did not get that as a leak from the Cabinet. The thing has not gone to the Cabinet yet. Ministers do not yet know. But you may take it from me that there will be an Assembly." Well, we fought it off. It did not happen when those who passed that message expected it to happen in 1980. It will not even happen in 1981. But in 1982, in this attenuated form, which is as much as they can manage at present, they reckon it will just do. It will take them on their way.

There have been expressions of regret in the debate that all the honest attempts that the House and successive Governments have made to find some solution in Northern Ireland have been so unsuccessful. "Why", said one hon. Member after another, " a person hardly mentions one of those suggestions before scorn is poured on it, sometimes from both sides of the House." One or two hon. Members commiserated with the Secretary of State for having shared that experience today. I shall tell him why it happens. I will explain, for the reason is simple, why all these proposals, so well meant and so well intended, have foundered.

Let me first, however, refer to a very interesting passage in the Secretary of State's speech. He was describing direct rule, and he came on very accurately—it was a well written passage—to describe the inadequacies of direct rule, due to the fact that this House and the hon. Members and Ministers in Her Majesty's Government have to deal with matters which in the rest of the Kingdom are dealt with by people on the spot, elected by the people on the spot, in various forms of local government body.

It was an absolutely accurate statement of the one practical difference—certainly the one practical difference which affects ordinary people—between the thing that we call direct rule and that which is not known as direct rule but is the rule in all other parts of the United Kingdom which hon. Members represent—the absence of ordinary common-or-garden local administration. The passage followed so naturally, so logically, in the right hon. Gentleman's speech that one could almost see the paragraph indentation at the point where it did not lead to the conclusion to which in an earlier draft it had led. It led instead to something with which it had nothing to do.

That brings me to my explanation. In dealing with Northern Ireland, the House has consistently refused to apply its own principles. We may be as modest or self-deprecatory as we wish, but we in this country and in this House have acquired a good deal of wisdom over these 700 years or so. It is that wisdom which we flout whenever we deal with that part of the United Kingdom. We would not dream in any other circumstances of setting up a political advisory body in a part of the Kingdom represented in this House. We would not dream of saying "You should have an Executive which is recruited from people who have been elected to do opposite things". All the proposals, small and great, for the government of Northern Ireland fly in the face of the constitutional principles upon which this House exists. That is the reason why they all fail and why they all founder. They are unworkable for the reasons for which we do not have them in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

rose—

Mr. Powell

I would rather not give way, if the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) does not mind. He and I—and it has been mainly he—have done a lot of preparatory work together for this, and we in Northern Ireland are much indebted to him for the constitutional doctrine so clearly and properly applicable to the Province which at some expense of time and trouble he taught to the House of Commons and to the United Kingdom.

The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East used the expression "We have been pursuing dual policies". I am taking the phrase out of the context in which he used it, but it is a beautiful phrase to describe the way in which Parliament has acted since Northern Ireland, which was always its responsibility, returned in 1972 to be its direct responsibility. We have "pursued dual policies", and the Government are doing so at this very moment.

The Government say, as they must say of any part of the United Kingdom, that Ulster remains part of the United Kingdom so long as the majority of its people so wish. But if one says that there is no choice but to treat Northern Ireland exactly as one would treat any other part of the United Kingdom, to govern it as any other part of the United Kingdom is and to represent it as any other part of the United Kingdom is. If we attempt to do otherwise, there is a contradiction which immediately bears its fruit.

In one contribution it was said that the people of Great Britain are the guarantors of Northern Ireland. They are indeed, whatever was said in section 1 of the 1949 Act. The right hon. Member for Mansfield was quite right when he said that the guarantee was not a paper or a statutory one. It is the inherent guarantee that applies to any part of the United Kingdom represented in this Parliament of the United Kingdom. As he said, it is a consequence of logic.

Moreover, it was said that the guarantors are entitled to something in return for their guarantee. So they are. Each part of the United Kingdom is guaranteed by the whole of the United Kingdom, but only upon condition that that part, claiming as its birthright to be part of the United Kingdom, fulfils the laws of the United Kingdom and complies with the constitutional procedures—representation and all the rest—of the United Kingdom.

That is the condition, the ticket, the price. Those who would provide Northern Ireland with different laws, Governments and constitutions contradict the guarantee itself and deny the assurance that they gave to the people of Northern Ireland. They do not do it in secret; for the contradiction is well seen and understood by the enemies of this country, who thereby are the enemies of that, the most vulnerable part of this country.

In that ambiguity, that self-contradiction, lies—I now repeat something that I remember telling the House nine years ago—the ultimate guilt of this House and of successive Governments for the suffering of our fellow citizens in that Province.

11.2 pm

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury)

One is bound to listen to the right hon. Member for Down., South (Mr. Powell) and envy his superb intellect. One might say that he has done an incredible demolition job on the proposal put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The only trouble is that the right hon. Gentleman has done a demolition job on a building that is not yet standing. His remarks—powerful though they are—suggest that he knows what is in my right hon. Friend's mind when he cannot possibly know. The right hon. Gentleman has only the sketchiest of details given in my right hon. Friend's speech. Therefore, to discuss that brief outline in the way in which he has is to stretch one's credulity.

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right to remind us of Parliament and what parliamentary democracy means in the United Kingdom. He is right to warn us of the dangers of tampering with parliamentary democracy—whether by trying to give Northern Ireland some form of representation it does not currently have, or whether by some form of devolved assembly—and the risk to ourselves and the powers we possess. That is the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility, and it is our duty to listen. But I suggest that he should wait to see the details of my right hon. Friend's proposals before being quite so categoric in saying that they are bound to be as disastrous for Northern Ireland and the future of parliamentary democracy as he suggested.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will find time to produce a Green Paper before the end of the year which spells out in some detail exactly what is in his mind. As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, my hon. Friend the Minister's remarks about a nominated Parliament seemed to change the type of structure that my right hon. Friend had put before the House. Clearly a nominated Parliament is a considerable remove from an advisory council.

I cannot pretend that I was not disappointed that my right hon. Friend should feel that an advisory council was the first step when considering better institutions for the government of Northern Ireland. I have spent several years persuading my right hon. Friend and his predecessors that we cannot consider that Northern Ireland has proper, democratic Government while it is so limited in its local government facilities and is so under-represented in Parliament. It might be said that at least Northern Ireland has district councils. Those of us who know anything about Northern Ireland's local government structure know that those district councils have far more limited powers than councils in any other part of the United Kingdom. Instead of starting at the top, the Government might have considered that the redressing of that wrong, by expanding the powers of district councils, would have made a more positive contribution to democracy in the Province.

I am told that other parties in Northern Ireland would resist such proposals. However, if it is right that democracy should be seen to be working in the community of Northern Ireland, it must be right for Parliament to do what is right in the eyes of the majority of people and to give Northern Ireland its proper local government representation, just as we have now, thank God, decided to give Northern Ireland its proper parliamentary representation.

I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has not found it possible to consider some change to the area boards and to make some of their members more directly elected than at present. Area boards and district councils, if amended, could give a local government structure to Northern Ireland which—even if not exactly comparable to the structure in other parts of the United Kingdom—would at least expand the democratic process in local government.

I must admit to having some sympathy with the concept of an advisory council. I thought about this subject and wondered whether some consultative council was in my right hon. Friend's mind or whether I could have put that idea in his mind during our debate. However, when I read The Times I realised that my thoughts had been preceded by those of others, who had thought more diligently and effectively. As I read the story in The Times I was reminded of the words of the late Reginald Maudling. He once told me that in nature barrels leaked from the botton, but in politics barrels leaked from the top. With those succinct words ringing in my mind as I read that story, I realised that if we were to hear about an advisory council in the course of the debate Reginald Maudling's words would, once again, be proved true.

When I consider the details of the proposed advisory council, I am slightly perplexed to know why my right hon. Friend should think it necessary to have an advisory council to consider matters that could have reasonably been considered by a Select Committee, or, more simply, by a Royal Commission. The structure of government in Northern Ireland and the role of Northern Ireland Departments are the stuff of a Royal Commission. Those of us who have considered Northern Ireland's local government will be aware of the Commission under Sir Patrick Macrory which drew up the present structure. Why is it neccessary to have an advisory council instead of a Royal Commission or—if it is felt better to keep the matter within the House—a Select Committee made up of Northern Ireland Members and other hon. Members? That is my first question.

Secondly, I ask the Secretary of State on what basis he proposes to choose the representation from the district councils. At present 12 Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland sit in this House—or will when the Fermanagh and South Tyrone seat is filled. There are three Members from Northern Ireland in the European Parliament. There are 26 district councils. Seventy per cent. of the votes cast in the local district council elections were cast for three parties, yet 12 parties have one or two district councillors within the vast mass of those made up by the three parties. On what basis, therefore, will my right hon. Friend select the 35 other members for his advisory council? Will it be done on the percentage of votes that they got in the district council elections? What equation will produce the 35?

Is it really reasonable to suppose that hard-working Northern Ireland Members of Parliament will find time to be active both in this House of Commons and on the advisory council in Northern Ireland? If we believe that a considerable amount of Northern Ireland legislation has to be taken on the Floor of the House that requires the attendance of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, is it not asking rather a lot of them to be both here and at an advisory council in Belfast?

There is one deficiency—a uniqueness—about Northern Ireland in terms of Westminster politics, and that is that all those Ministers who represent the Departments in the Northern Ireland Government are not drawn from the Province. They are not drawn from the Province, whether they represent the Conservative Party or the Labour Party. Looking into the future, there is little likelihood of any Ulster Member of Parliament actually being a Minister with responsibilities in Northern Ireland.

Because that is the situation there is no interface, as there is in Scotland or Wales, between the Ministers and the areas that they represent. Thus, to that extent, some form of consultative council or advisory council which provides the interface between the community of Ulster and those who seek to govern the Province would have some value.

I suggest to my right hon. Friend that, instead of drawing his advisory council purely from those who have been elected in one way or another—either, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said, to perform a local authority function or to perform a function in Europe or here in Westminster—he might consider that advisory council in a broader community sense. It might have a greater value and validity in the minds of Ulster people if those who made up the council were drawn from the whole community and not just from the politicians. Why not include the leaders of Northern Ireland industry, agriculture or the trade unions? In their own narrow sense they are as representative of part of the community as are the politicians. A council that drew so widely from the community would be of more value in creating the interface between Government and people.

Perhaps such a council would have another value. Instead of creating this extra-parliamentary committee, which, as the right hon. Member for Down, South warned us, may pose an inherent threat to the continuance of Westminster parliamentary democracy in Northern Ireland terms in the way in which that democracy applies to the United Kingdom, there could be a community council, smaller, perhaps, than 50 but closer to the Secretary of State, and more of a consultative body in terms of the running of the community, its economy, fanning and social problems. Would that not have a value to the Secretary of State which might make his job and those of his Ministers more effective in explaining to the community what he is seeking to do and hearing from its leaders their views on his proposals?

Such a body would not have a legislative function. It could not have such a function. It would simply be advisory. Such a body would clearly not be the right body to look at the three points that he has suggested that his advisory council would examine. A Secretary of State's council made up of a mix of politicians and community leaders would, I like to believe, close the gap that exists and will continue to exist while Northern Ireland cannot be governed by Ministers who have constituencies in the Province.

In those terms, I offer these suggestions to my right hon. Friend. I offer them at this moment because the advisory council is still in the process of being structured. Whatever suggestions might be made about how the advisory council might appear when hon. Members debate the Green Paper or whatever be the form in which the Government choose to present it, this seems to be the moment to feed in my thoughts.

11.16 pm

Mr. Wm. Ross (Londonderry)

I listened with some interest earlier to the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) pontificating about activities in Northern Ireland over the last three months. We have heard all sorts of theories about Northern Ireland since at least 1968. What worries me is that some of the fancy theories were actually put into practice. Each has ended in abject failure. The reason is that all flew in the teeth of reality.

The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying that the Labour Party was embarked upon a course of allowing us self-determination so long as we were determined to commit suicide. That is a course that the people of Northern Ireland have no intention of following. We will not follow it. We will not have any device, no matter how that device is constructed, that sets us on the path to destruction.

I do not wish to take up much time, as many hon. Members wish to speak. I should like to refer briefly, however, to the two orders that we are asked to pass. I thought that the effect of direct rule was stated by my Roman Catholic constituents in recent articles in local newspapers. An article in The Londonderry Sentinel says: Let us not forget that it is the Catholics who are suffering at the hands of the IRA through extortion, knee-capping, and the destruction of property, plus many other added terrorist ideals. In The Belfast Newsletter of 16 June there was an account of a Londonderry man who had been shot in both legs by the IRA and had had to have one leg amputated. His mother had described the terrorists as 'Satan's slaves' from whom Ireland needed protection. The mother urged all decent people to get together to save other young men from the fate suffered by her son, Noel, a 28-year-old father of five.

Added to that are the riots that we have experienced in Londonderry over many years, not least over the past few months. There has been endless destruction of property and attacks emanating from the Creggan and the Bogside in particular on law-abiding citizens. My constituents who live in those areas have, above all people, been put into the hands of the murderers, the gunmen, the arsonists and the bombers. If the newspaper reports are to be believed, my constituents are in terror of their lives. That is a very true indictment of successive Secretaries of State who have allowed that condition to pertain for so long in the city.

I deal only with that city, because it is the part of my constituency where the problem is most rife. However, it is not the only one, as the Secretary of State knows. Hon. Members who represent the many other areas that are similarly affected will no doubt talk of them.

There is a cry from the streets in my constituency, a cry that is echoing more and more clearly not only from the Protestant population but from the Roman Catholic population. Simply stated, it is "Get the IRA off our backs". The people do not care much what measures are needed to get it off their backs.

There is no denying what the folk are saying, and what they have been saying more and more clearly for years. It is now coming through more and more clearly in the press as well. A Government who do not heed that cry and who do not take the necessary steps, whatever those steps may be, to dispose of that evil cancer in Northern Ireland society, will be, and have been, judged a failure in Northern Ireland.

Are the Government now prepared seriously to do something about that problem, or shall we go on with the nonsense so clearly exposed earlier in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)?

11.22 pm

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)

We have tonight heard a remarkable speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). One of its most compelling and outstanding qualities was that it added considerable force to the argument of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he needed an advisory council. Having listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South I am much more convinced by my right hon. Friend's arguments than I was when I first heard them.

The right hon. Gentleman advanced a powerful argument in favour of the responsibility of the House. He rightly reminded us that ultimate responsibility for legislation in Northern Ireland rested with the House. But what he did not fully perceive—or what, if he perceived it, he did not fully state—was that one can discharge that kind of responsibility only with knowledge. The House cannot discharge its obligations to the people of Northern Ireland unless it has a proper recognition of the reaction of the people in Northern Ireland to the policies put forward by the Government.

I have never supposed for one moment that the authentic voice of Northern Ireland was represented by the majority of Northern Ireland Members. One of them—the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—is boycotting the House. Great as is my respect for the right hon. Member for Down, South, I do not believe, have never believed, and do not expect to be convinced, that he is an authentic representative of the people of Northern Ireland.

I have listened to many other hon. Members from the Province and I do not think that they are truly representative of the people of that Province. If that is true—and I suspect that most hon. Members would agree that it is—any additional information that the House can obtain is essential if we are fully to discharge the obligations that the right hon. Gentleman reminded us of.

The right hon. Member for Down, South said, as a general proposition "The Province is part of the United Kingdom and therefore should be governed in precisely the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom." That cannot be. That is an illusion. That is nonsense. We cannot give to the Northern Ireland local authorities unfettered control over education. We cannot give to the Northern Ireland local authorities unfettered control over housing. Why not? Because they would abuse it as they have in the past and as they will again.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford (Belfast, South)

Bunkum.

Mr. Hogg

We who have had to look back at what has been done in Northern Ireland since the 1920s know that it is not bunkum. We are not prepared to give to the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland anything approaching unfettered control. We have to contemplate something new.

Speaking on behalf of myself and, I suspect, most other hon. Members, I welcome the Secretary of State's suggestion. It is more likely that we shall have a truly representative voice that way than we do from hon. Members who sit on the Opposition Benches.

11.26 pm

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

I had no intention of making a speech in the debate, but the speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) requires a few comments from one or two Opposition Members. The right hon. Gentleman made a devastating speech and an analysis against the Government's proposals that many of us will go along with, up to a point. He referred to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and opposed his proposal.

The right hon. Member for Down, South made only one proposal—that there should be full integration. In other words, he said that we should leave the situation as it is and continue with Members from Northern. Ireland having their say in this House, as before. Over a number of years many proposals and many attempts have been made to reach a solution in Northern Ireland. None of them, including those by the right hon. Gentleman, have been successful.

The violence in Northern Ireland has continued. The proposals from various sides have been rejected. I am not close to Northern Ireland, but I do not agree with the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that Northern Ireland Members are not representative of the Northern Ireland people. They represent the people who elect them. They are not representative of everybody in Northern Ireland. That must be accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is representative of the views of those who elect him. Others represent other views. We are victims of history.

I should like to put the case as someone who is not close to Northern Ireland, who is not looking at the problem from an Ulster point of view, but who has the view of the rest of us in the United Kingdom. I refer to those who look across the water to Northern Ireland, whether we are Roman Catholic, Protestant, Church of England, Muslim, or anything else. We look with horror at what is happening to our people in that Province. We look with horror at the violence, whether it be committed by the gunmen on one side or on the other. No one will suggest that it has only been the gunmen from the IRA who have been involved—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

Pretty well.

Mr. Heffer

Over the years gunmen from both sides have been involved. There is no point in moving away from reality. We have looked on all of this with horror. We have had some positive proposals from some of my colleagues who say that we should get the troops out. Some actually suggest that we get our troops out and put in United Nations troops—as though that would solve the problem. It would not solve the problem, any more than the idea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East of an independent Ulster.

What would happen to the minority? Would there not still be a Protestant ascendancy in an independent Ulster? None of us wants that. What is the solution? We have heard a million solutions and we have witnessed an attempt to move in the direction of a solution by the Government. They do not say that it will work, and in my view the right hon. Member for Down, South is right—it will not work.

I said that we are the victims of history. This argument is not the same as the argument about devolution of power to Scotland and Wales. I was against such devolution to those countries. But this is not the same argument. Originally England conquered Ireland—[Interruption.] That situation was accepted in Wales a long time ago—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) may not have accepted that, but the overwhelming majority of the people in Wales have accepted it in a recent vote.

Historically, the position is different with Ireland. The people in Ireland over hundreds of years wanted measures of independence. There was the Grattan Parliament, and all sorts of different things. We insisted on maintaining our control, until the border developed. No matter whether we have direct rule once again, a continuation of integration, some sort of advisory council, or this fantastic idea of a nominated Parliament—whatever that means—the problem will not be solved until the border is eliminated. Incidentally, I have never heard of such a thing as a nominated Parliament. There is either an elected Parliament or a nominated council of some sort.

Until the border is eliminated, the problem will remain. It will keep coming up, if not in one generation then in the next, and the one after that. That is the crux of the problem. We have to find out how we can reach a peaceful solution to the problem of the elimination of the border. How do we get rid of it? How can we accommodate the millions of Protestants in Northern Ireland with the rest of Ireland, which is Roman Catholic? How can we have an agreement whereby they will live in harmony and peace? Do we need, as a first step, representation from North and South on some type of council? I do not know. However, we shall never solve the problem until we address ourselves to the issue and work might and main to reach a solution.

11.34 pm

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith, North)

Tonight's debate has seen the culmination of a change that has been coming about in the overall debate on the politics of Ireland. That change has been coming and, tonight, has taken expression not least from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), because he offered a solution which, although I do not agree with it, opened the debate. That has been recognised and spelt out by the debate in the Labour Party about what our policy should be.

That has been further highlighted by the speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It has been brought to a head by the election of the late Bobby Sands and the continuing hunger strike. If we ignore that, we ignore a painful fact that will not go away.

I listened with great care to the suggestions made by the Secretary of State. I wish them the same success that I wished the talks that he initiated a year ago. However, I fear that they will fail, for the reasons that the representatives of the Unionist parties have spelled out. The problem for the Unionist parties, as I understand it, is that they cannot enter into any meaningful negotiations—not because they are not honourable people or because they do not think that there is a problem but because, for them, to enter into negotiations represents an explicit recognition that there is something special and different about Northern Ireland, whereas their case is that they want unity with the United Kingdom and a form of local government which is not essentially dissimilar to that which any other part of the United Kingdom can expect. That is a logical and understandable position to adopt. If I held a Unionist view, which I do not, I would share that point of view and would not negotiate. That is the problem which time and again faces Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland.

There is another logic available, which is the logic that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) mentioned, that we move towards a united Ireland. There are problems with that, however. The Times in its editorial today said: The Ulster question goes to the heart of allegiance and national identity. That is the root issue of political society". The problem is that The Times did not go on beyond that to question the entity of Ulster as it was set up in the 1920s. A large percentage of the population do not accept it as a legitimate State. That position is not new. We have heard that the violence was decreasing until the recent death of Bobby Sands. That is true. The figures for violence in Northern Ireland have for years gone up and down like a roller coaster ever since the State was created.

The alternative is to work towards a reunited Ireland with safeguards for the minority in that united Ireland. I recognise that that path is strewn with difficulties and dangers. It must be. No Opposition Member believes that the people who believe in the union do not have real and genuine fears that they will be a minority in a united Ireland. Some of those fears are grossly exaggerated and I do not think that they are always real fears. but fears are what matter, those fears exist and must be dealt with.

There is a wider dimension as we have to consider the matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walton said, from the point of view of the British people as a whole. This country has made its name for political democracy in the furthest corners of the world, yet tonight we are discussing an order that will undermine that democracy of which we are so proud. It is precisely the growth and extension of Acts of Parliament which have trespassed on the civil liberties of our citizens that cause so much concern. Democracies are seldom broken overnight. They are whittled away. The core of the rock within is the need to keep stepping up the sort of legislation which eats away at people's civil liberties. We proscribe political parties. We deport people from one part of the United Kingdom to another. Those are serious matters, which eat out the heart of a democracy. We cannot allow that to continue. We must deal with the political problem that causes it. I recognise that we cannot simply discuss those acts overnight as though they are of no importance, but we must grasp the political nettle that lies underneath.

When people say, as some have today, that to talk about a reunited Ireland is to surrender to terrorism, they could not be further from the truth. Above all, they are allowing the terrorists to define the terms of the argument. I refuse to have the terms of the argument defined for me by terrorists or paramilitaries of any sort. It is reasonable for me to hold the view—as I have since long before the present troubles broke out—that the only sensible course is a reunited Ireland. To say, as some have tried in the debate, that that is a surrender to terrorism is a dangerous nonsense.

The importance of the debate within the Labour Party is that it gives some hope to the minority community in Northern Ireland that there is another way besides that of violence. My criticism of the Government's actions in a number of areas is that they almost assume that there are only two sides to the Irish problem—those who use violence and those who do not. It is my experience that not only the protesting prisoners but others who associate with them are as split and divided in their attitudes as any other political group. For example, some hunger strikers want political status, and nothing less will do. Let us be clear what we are talking about. Political status means having a command structure in prisons. That is what it is about. That is the one issue on which we should never give way. There are many other issues on which we can give way. The command structure is wanted by the hard-liners. But many others, both in the prisons and outside, who support them want a way off the hook. The difficulty is that when we take a hard line we reinforce the hard-liners on the other side. That is the failure of that policy and of the policy of pretending that we will not talk about the possibility of a reunited Ireland because to do so would be to encourage terrorism. I do not believe that it would do that. I am not prepared to have the terms of the debate defined in that way.

I would like time to say something about the way that we should approach the problems or reuniting Ireland because that needs to be spelt out in detail. It would not be in order to do that now. I recognise that the Secretary of State wishes to reply to the debate. With that proviso I draw my comments to a conclusion.

11.43 pm

Mr. Humphrey Atkins

One of the advantages of what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) described as an odd procedure—that of having a debate concluded at about 10 o'clock and then started again—is that it has enabled a number of contributions—six in all—on the subjects that we have been debating all day to be made by those who did not have a chance to speak earlier. Five of the six devoted themselves mostly to the second order. One, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), referred mostly to the first order. I shall return later to the points that he raised.

Five of the six Members dealt with one order and, needless to say, there were five different views. There are always five different views when five people speak about Irish affairs—and about many other affairs, also. It is not any surprise to me that the proposals that I put forward this afternoon setting out the intention of the Government to move in a certain direction were not received with unanimous rapture and applause. There were different attitudes to the proposals.

The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) did not think much of the proposals. As we all expected, he argued his favourite line—that Northern Ireland should be treated in precisely the same way as any other part of the United Kingdom, in spite of the differences that are all too obvious for some of us to see.

He believes that the governance of the Province should be exactly the same as anywhere else, with district councils and county or regional councils above them, with the final authority resting with the Government and Parliament. That is an understandable and respectable point of view. However, the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to have convinced his fellow Northern Irelanders that it is a good idea. I wish him luck if he wishes to do so. As I shall seek to show, he may be able to do so by means of some of the machinery that I have suggested.

I hear, as hon. Members will know and as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has heard, that many people in the Province are bitterly opposed to the return of power to local authorities because they do not believe that it will be properly used. They may be wrong. I merely say to the right hon. Member for Down, South and to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that they have not convinced people in Northern Ireland that they are wrong. There still exists antipathy towards that course. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use his endeavours not to persuade me that it is a good idea but to persuade the people to whom he seeks to apply it.

The right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury spoke about the composition that I proposed for the Northern Ireland Council. It would be my intention to invite people to serve on the council after seeking nominations from the Northern Ireland parties which have been shown in recent elections to have a substantial following in the Province. The parties will be asked for a specified number of nominations related to their electoral strength. The term "nominated Parliament" has been used once or twice during the debate. That is not what the body will be.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

That is what the Minister of State called it.

Mr. Atkins

I want to clear up the issue for the right hon. Gentleman. I am saying that that is not what the body will be.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

That is what the hon. Gentleman said it would be.

Mr. Atkins

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to state for the third time that it will not be a nominated Parliament. It will be a Northern Ireland Council whose members will be invited by me to serve.

They will be drawn from a list that will have been nominated by the political parties from those who are elected representatives. They will be elected not to the council but to other bodies. I explained earlier that to set up an elected council of the sort that is proposed would take time. There would have to be primary legislation passed through Parliament to allow that to be done if it were to consider the range of matters that I wish it to consider. I am adopting the device that I have proposed because I believe that there is a need for speed. I believe that there is a need for this advice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury suggested that I could obtain advice in other ways. He was right to make that suggestion. In fact, I already obtain advice in other ways. He suggested that leaders of business, of trade unions and of agriculture, for example, should be appointed to bodies to advise me. I am already receiving advice from such persons in a number of areas. There is, for example, the Northern Ireland Economic Council, which contains precisely the type of people to which my hon. Friend referred. There is the Industrial Development Forum, which advises my hon. Friend the Minister of State on industrial development matters. There is the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. There is a range of bodies to which I appoint members. The difference between those bodies and the body that I propose is that I shall not elect or choose those who sit on it. I shall invite people who are already elected—not by me, but by their fellow Northern Irishmen—to take positions. They will be nominated by their parties and I shall simply issue the invitation.

Although I have a great deal of advice from a wide range of quangos, the one thing which I do not have is advice from elected politicians outside the House. I get advice inside the House. That is extremely useful. I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Member for Down, South to this because he did not hear something which I said earlier, so perhaps he did not hear this comment either. All of us, when we make decisions, large or small, like to try to find out the effects of those decisions on the people whom they will mostly affect. We take advice from our constituents or from whatever source we want.

In matters concerning Northern Ireland, of course we get advice from hon. Members representing Northern Ireland, but I do not believe that we shall do ourselves any harm by getting as much advice as we can. I do not see why we should be any the worse off by getting advice from the advisory council. I for one would welcome advice from elected politicians not chosen by me but invited by me to serve, who will have three roles, which I shall go through quickly.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim, South)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Atkins

I have only two minutes left, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I finish what I have to say.

First, I shall invite those people to study the activities of the Government Departments in Northern Ireland, rather in the manner in which the Select Committees do here, although it will not be the same thing. Secondly, I shall invite them to consider legislation. The right hon. Member for Down, South asked me whether it would be only Orders in Council. That would be my intention. Thirdly, I would invite them to consider what arrangements for the future governance of the Province would command general support. That is where the right hon. Member and his hon. Friends can do their persuading, if they wish.

Those are three useful functions not currently being performed by a body such as the proposed council. Therefore, it is my intention to proceed along those lines, although I shall consult hon. Members from Northern Ireland and the Opposition, at the right hon. Member's request.

The hon. Member for Londonderry spoke of the difficulties which his constituents suffer and asked whether the Government would take further steps to rid his constituents and others in Northern Ireland of the scourge of terrorism. We remain determined to do that. However, as I said earlier, we remain determined to do it by using the law. We are seeking to return to a legal system, with which we are all familiar, in due course to get rid of the Acts which we are considering tonight. We want to use the law in order to make people obey the law. We are determined to do that, but we shall not go outside the law because we do not believe that, in the end, that will bring the peace which the hon. Member wants for his constituents.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes, 137 Noes, 28.

Division NO. 245]	[11.43 pm
AYES
Alison, Michael	Cranborne, Viscount
Ancram, Michael	Dorrell, Stephen
Arnold, Tom	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)	Dover, Denshore
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Dunlop, John
Beith, A. J.	Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Berry, Hon Anthony	Dykes, Hugh
Best, Keith	Eggar, Tim
Bevan, David Gilroy	Elliott, Sir William
Biggs-Davison, John	Faith, Mrs Sheila
Blackburn, John	Farr, John
Blaker, Peter	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)	Forman, Nigel
Bowden, Andrew	Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Bradford, Rev R.	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bright, Graham	Goodhart, Philip
Brinton, Tim	Goodlad, Alastair
Brittan, Leon	Gow, Ian
Brooke, Hon Peter	Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Brotherton, Michael	Hampson, Dr Keith
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)	Hannam, John
Browne, John (Winchester)	Hawksley, Warren
Bruce-Gardyne, John	Heddle, John
Buck, Antony	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Butler, Hon Adam	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Cadbury, Jocelyn	Hurd, Hon Douglas
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Chapman, Sydney	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Kilfedder, James A.
Cope, John	Knox, David
Costain, Sir Albert	Lawrence, Ivan

Le Marchant, Spencer	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Silvester, Fred
Loveridge, John	Speed, Keith
Lyell, Nicholas	Speller, Tony
MacGregor, John	Sproat, Iain
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)	Squire, Robin
Major, John	Stainton, Keith
Marlow, Tony	Stanbrook, Ivor
Mellor, David	Stanley, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Stevens, Martin
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Stradling Thomas, J.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Moate, Roger	Thompson, Donald
Molyneaux, James	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)	Trippier, David
Murphy, Christopher	Viggers, Peter
Neale, Gerrard	Waddington, David
Needham, Richard	Wakeham,John
Nelson, Anthony	Waldegrave, Hon William
Neubert, Michael	Waller, Gary
Onslow, Cranley	Ward, John
Osborn, John	Watson, John
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)	Wells, Bowen
Patten, John (Oxford)	Wheeler, John
Pattie, Geoffrey	Wickenden, Keith
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)	Wilkinson, John
Proctor, K. Harvey	Winterton, Nicholas
Raison, Timothy	Wolfson, Mark
Renton, Tim	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Rhodes James, Robert
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)	Mr. Carol Mather and
Rossi, Hugh	Mr. Selwyn Gummer.
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

NOES
Alton, David	Meacher, Michael
Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)	Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Race, Reg
Canavan, Dennis	Richardson, Jo
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)	Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Cryer, Bob	Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Dixon, Donald	Skinner, Dennis
Dobson, Frank	Stallard, A. W.
Eastham, Ken	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Fitt, Gerard	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Flannery, Martin	Welsh, Michael
Heffer, Eric S.
Howells, Geraint	Tellers for the Noes:
Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Mr. Clive Soley and
Lamond, James	Mr. Alfred Dubs.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.

Resolved, That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]