PROPOSALS FOR GENERAL OR PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF DIRECT RULE

HC Deb 08 June 1982 vol 25 cc42-101

Amendment No.2 proposed [27 May], in page 1, line 9, to leave the words 'by the Assembly and'—[Mr. J Enoch powell.]

5 pm

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'it', and insert 'the Assembly'.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

We return to a very important debate which raises the great issues of legislative devolution. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 concern the devolution of both legislative and Executive functions from Westminster to Northern Ireland. At the beginning of the debate, which was rather late at night, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said: The amendment would therefore open up the possibility that the Executive might, in effect, place itself in the position of functioning as a local authority through persons who would be responsible to it for the administration of certain functions that at the moment ire administered by the boards or by local authorities."—[official Report, 27 May 1982; Vol. 24, c. 1142.] The boards to which the right hon. Gentleman referred are the five education and library boards and the four health and social services boards in Northern Ireland. The boards administer those services on behalf of Ministers, whose creatures they largely are, although district councils nominate representatives to sit on them. They also appoint representatives to the Northern Ireland Housing Council, which acts in an advisory capacity to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

In considering the future constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland, the Committee should address itself to the question of how to make these statutory bodies, which are the creatures of Ministers, more responsive and responsible to local democracy. Before embarking on an ambitious and, I believe, unrealisable programme of rolling devolution, we must ask ourselves why local matters which touch the day to day lives of our Ulster fellow subjects in their towns and townlands cannot be entrusted by Parliament to local authorities, as they are elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Patten

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I had not intended to interrupt him so early, or indeed at all, but I should draw his attention to the fact that bodies such as statutory health boards are not unknown on this side of the water, where regional and district health authorities and similar bodies fit very well into our constitution.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

My hon. Friend is correct, but I am sure that, with his knowledge, he will also make the comparison between the range of functions discharged by directly elected representatives of the people in England, Scotland and Wales and the functions so discharged in Northern Ireland.

Which functions might well be discharged by local authorities in Northern Ireland? I shall not weary the Committee by listing the various functions now discharged by boards and by the Housing Executive, but also by central Government—by Northern Ireland Departments.

The Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, for which the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) is responsible, is the planning authority for the Province. It is surely part of the answer to my hon. Friend's intervention that in Northern Ireland planning is a matter not for the local authority, but for a Department with a Minister at its head.

The Northern Ireland Department of the Environment also manages the road system throughout the Province. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) is not present, because when he was a Minister at the Northern Ireland Office I conducted with him a correspondence, which I have continued with his successor, about an even more extraordinary matter—the custodianship of car parks. One might have thought that even in Northern Ireland local authorities would be allowed to deal with car parks. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham has now joined us, as I was criticising his stewardship of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment. He will recall our correspondence about car parks, which, I am glad to say, continues—as do parliamentary questions on the subject. Yet it is still thought right that in Northern Ireland a number of car parks should be a matter not for district councils but for the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment.

Will the Assembly provided for in the Bill be able to play a part in bringing local services under democratic scrutiny and control, and will existing local authorities be able to assume functions which the corresponding authorities in Great Britain take in their stride? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is chary of enlarging the powers of district councils. There have been exchanges in the House on this. My right hon. Friend is impressed by alleged instances of abuse of power—for example, in Lisburn borough council and in other councils, mainly where the Democratic Unionist Party predominates—and wishes to guard the minority against unfairness and discrimination. He is quite right to have that desire. It does his heart credit, and my right hon. Friend has a big heart.

My right hon. Friend also has big powers, however. I suppose that a Secretary of State conducting direct rule has more power than any lord deputy, lord lieutenant or viceroy who held sway in the Ireland of the past. The Secretary of State holds the purse strings. He dispenses or withholds patronage. He possesses the sticks and carrots with which to bash bigotry and reward co-operation by local councillors. Moreover, not all district councillors are controlled by what is known as the majority. There are councils in Northern Ireland—thank God—in which Unionists and nationalists work well together. I have paid tribute more than once to the Social Democratic and Labour Party for the way in which in certain councils it has co-operated and shown restraint when it has been in the majority and the Unionists in the minority. The SDLP is ambivalent on this, however. We are told that it objects to the addition of power to district councils. Yet SDLP members in local government are as eager as councillors of other parties to have scope and opportunity in their work.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, who is not present, now has charge of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment and attended the first conference of the Association of Local Authorities held in Newcastle on 28 April, to which the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) referred in an earlier debate on the Bill. The conference asked that the administrative structure of the functions of public health and building control should be returned to district councils. I have not seen the full proceedings of the conference, but I should like to see them. I hope that the Northern Ireland Office will be able to place them in the Library.

Mr. Stanbrook

Perhaps it would be possible for the report of that conference to be made available on application to the Secretary of State.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

Whatever is the best way of making the report available, I hope that hon. Members who wish to read the proceedings will have an opportunity to do so. I am not aware that any of the SDLP public representatives attending that conference demurred or objected to the suggestion of the enlargement of the functions of district councils. I might be wrong, but that is my impression.

Viscount Cranborne (Dorset, South)

I refer to the points of order which were considered by the previous occupant of the Chair. I wonder whether it should be made clear, as was suggested by my hon. Friends, that when the documents are available they should be provided not only to those who apply for them, but generally to hon. Members so that the matters are properly considered at a proper time and in advance of any alterations that are made during the passage of the Bill.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

That is not a matter for me to reply to. Having noted what my hon. Friend has said, I had better pass on. I do not wish to stray beyond the proper course of my argument or the rules of order.

Mr. Molyneaux

It might help the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) if I remind him that, about a year and a half ago, Lisburn borough council in my constituency went on strike for three months as a protest against the withholding of real powers over the planning and upkeep of roads. Those who were most vociferous were the SDLP councillors.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

I am deeply obliged to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) for his intervention. I hope that what he has said will be carefully noted by those on the Treasury Bench.

The objection, about which we are always told, on the part of the SDLP—which is the other side of politics that is thought of in connection with cross-community agreement—to a full-blown system of local government in Northern Ireland is that the SDLP is wedded to separation from Britain and the Dublin connection. The SDLP argues against what would draw Northern Ireland closer to the mainland and strengthen the bands of the Union. It condemns what so many of us on the Conservative Benches and in Unionist circles here and across the water advocate in that respect precisely because it is committed to an Assembly and a power-sharing Executive which it thinks can hold the door open to the South. That is the devolution for which it stands. It is a form of devolution that is incompatible with the form of devolution for which some Unionists stand.

The then senator Conor Cruise O'Brien, in the course of the second Ewart-Biggs memorial lecture at Queen's university, Belfast, on 23 June 1978, dwelt on the impossibility of reconciling those two forms of devolution.

He said: The effort to concentrate the dialogue on such arrangements is profoundly misguided. Conor Cruise O'Brien was right. The whole tenor of the Bill is profoundly misguided.

5.15pm

Those who believe in power sharing and think that that is the right way to proceed might consider that local government is the sphere in which power sharing is proper and possible. Power sharing is inherent in the British system of local government. It does not always work. It does not always work well. I can think of district councils in England where it does not work well. It is almost more than my life is worth to tell the Committee which party I am thinking of, but I can think of majorities that are not fair to the minority in the allotment of places on important committees or the rotation of the chair or the mayoralty. I can think of district councils that do not act fairly towards the minority.

We do not condemn the English system of local government because of Ken Livingstone, Ted Knight or the Burgesses of Bolsover. We must accept that there are abuses. There are remedies for them. There are and can be remedies in Northern Ireland. In the past, if the nationalist housing authority of Strabane or the Unionist housing authority in Caledon favoured Roman Catholics or Protestants in the allocation of homes—which they did—there were others who treated people justly without regard to faith or faction.

In those days there was a convention that we did not interfere. There was no redress from this place when there was injustice in local government. That has changed. It is a bogey to say that one dare not give more powers to district councils in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland, apart from now being under this one Parliament, has a commissioner for complaints, whose office antedates that of our local commissioners on this side of the water.

One objective of the Assembly is to immerse Northern Ireland politicians, for whom the Secretary of State is eager to find an outlet for their energies, in the tidal waters of rolling devolution. As I ventured to say on a point of order when the Committee last met, the Assembly is conceived of as if it were a constitution-making body. It is a hybrid between the old Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland constitutional convention. According to the White Paper, its principal task will be to reach agreement on how devolved functions will be exercised". If agreement on devolution acceptable to both sides of the community is not immediately forthcoming, the Assembly will still have scrutinising, consultative and deliberative functions". I suggest that the Assembly could have a function in a reordered system of local government.

The expert on Northern Ireland local government is Sir Patrick Macrory. I shall quote a few words from a paper that he prepared for the third Magee local government conference at Magee university college at Londonderry in March 1977. Sir Patrick said that many people in Northern Ireland believed that the abolition of the county councils, the upper tier of local government, was a grievous mistake. He said:

With the wisdom of hindsight, perhaps it was, for, as I wrote recently to The Times, I find it unthinkable that we would have ever have recommended their abolition"— that is the abolition of the county councils— and the transfer of their functions to Stormont if we could have forseen that within two years Stormont itself would disappear. He went on to say: Our crystal ball wasn't working that well in 1970. and with the disappearance of Stormont the keystone of Macrory' s arch was removed. He also stated that with the introduction of direct rule in March 1972 after the abolition of the Stormont parliament at least one County Council … passed a unanimous resolution emphasising the importance of maintaining the County Council in being as a democratic system of local government". Of course, that kind of resolution was ignored. It would be to minimise the role of district councils, as Sir Patrick points out, to say that they do little more than empty dustbins and bury the dead. There has however been reference to frustration among SDLP councillors no less than among Unionist councillors because—I again quote Sir Patrick— they are not dealing, as we meant them to deal, with an upper tier of elected local government … but with bureaucracy According to the White Paper, the direct rule arrangements rely upon Westminster to provide democratic safeguards on executive authority. They provide no other opportunity for Northern Ireland politicians to play a major part in the decisions affecting the Province". I suppose that Northern Ireland is about the same size but less populous than Yorkshire. When the Boundary Commission has completed its work, we hope that there will be 17 Members of Parliament from Northern. Ireland. I sometimes think, if I may say so in parenthesis, that the representation of Northern Ireland in the other place also needs attention. However, with 17 hon. Members for Northern Ireland and three Members in the European Parliament, it seems to me that Northern Ireland politicians have the scope they need without the sort of devolution that is contemplated in the Bill.

I have enough Irish and Ulster within me to resent the assumption that Northern Ireland people are not to be trusted with local government powers that are used or abused by such as Ken Livingstone. I am minded of some words of Archbishop Manning: I do not think that Englishmen are enough aware of the harm that some among us do by a contemptuous, satirical, disrespectful and defiant language in speaking of Ireland and the Irish people. It seems to me that the spirit of the Bill is colonialist. Direct rule exists in England, in Wales and in Scotland as well as in Northern Ireland. The administration is devolved, or largely devolved, to Edinburgh and Cardiff in the case of Scotland and Wales. Scotland and Wales have their own structure of local government. However, as in England, local government in Wales and Scotland is dependent upon Her Majesty's Government and Parliament here, to which Her Majesty's Government are responsible. Local government acts under powers conferred by Parliament at Westminster.

Direct rule in Northern Ireland differs from direct rule, if I may use the phrase, in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is direct rule of a quasi-colonial sort. By our conduct of direct rule since the abolition of Stormont, we have given colour to the republican propaganda that Northern Ireland is Britain's last colony, due, like the rest, for separation from Britain. We treat our fellow citizens, in the Bill and in other ways, as though the Catholics and Protestants were Jews and Arabs in mandated Palestine, or Turks and Greeks in colonial Cyprus. The Bill intends to impose upon these rival tribes a sort of Heath Robinson constitution. The Bill treats Ulster as though it were situated in colonial Africa, with tribes that can never trust one another and have to be protected from one another.

It is also patronising and colonial to argue that there must be movement, that the situation cannot remain as it is and that something must be done, even if it is wrong, to humour the agitators out of mischief. I find the sheer condescension of this approach offensive. We should be concerned not to immure Roman Catholics in a political ghetto with their special party and their special, pampered position. Instead, we should enable them to take part freely in the political life of the United Kingdom, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has done with such courage and distinction.

The White Paper remarks that there are those in Northern Ireland who believe themselves to be Irish. There are those on the mainland who are not quite sure whether they are English or British. There are Irish—people who will accept no other nationality than Irish—who are yet loyal to the Crown and faithful to the Union. I believe that the White Paper is on a false point. I recall a lady several years ago in Northern Ireland who said, The trouble with you English is that you will not allow us Irish to remain British. I should like to make an appeal for the decolonisation of Northern Ireland under the one Parliament of the United Kingdom and under institutions not be be compared with the Home Counties—it is easy to make ridiculous comparisons—but rather with Scotland, with which the two-way movement of peoples long preceded the plantations.

In his remarkable address, Sir Patrick Macrory commented that the greater part of the rates paid by the Ulster citizen goes to support the great regional services such as health and education over which democratic control is now non-existent or intolerably remote. It seems to me that the Ulster ratepayer is effectively subject to taxation without representation, which every schoolboy used to be taught was a bad thing. I recognise that the Secretary of State is trying to deal with this situation through his proposals. I do not however, believe that his method is right. Sir Patrick Macrory says that the first step should be to restore local democratic control of the regional services. He outlines more than one approach.

One possibility would be to revive the former upper tier. I do not know which method would be right. Sir Patrick suggests that the county and county borough councils could be revived or that there could be three regional councils consisting of a metropolitan regional council for greater Belfast, a northern regional council based on Coleraine and a southern council based on Craigavon. The course which he favours is the establishment of a single combined county council for the whole of the province.

It is the message of the White Paper that the Bill is to make a threefold advance in favour of political stability, economic recovery and the defeat of terrorism. I do not believe that the Bill will achieve any of those objects.

5.30

I venture to utter a few words on some of the economic implications. Some of us—my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and others in the Committee—were present in Belfast at the weekend at a conference of the body known as the Council for the Union. The hon. Gentlemen who are so amiably gossiping on the Opposition Front Bench will be glad to know that the Labour Party was well represented at the conference. Mr. Alan Carr, a former chairman of the Northern Ireland Labour Party, a party which I sometimes think the Labour Party on this side of the water has betrayed, was there.

Mr. Carr said that legislative devolution cannot regenerate the Northern Ireland economy which evolved as part of the United Kingdom economy. He argued that in the past legislative devolution had been detrimental to the Northern Ireland economy. Northern Ireland had missed out on the housing boom. He accused the Labour Government, until the arrival of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) at the Northern Ireland Office, of economic withdrawal from the Province. He said that that was a process that had been ended but not reversed.

This clause, and the amendments thereto, raise the celebrated West Lothian question. I wish that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who was so eloquent a few minutes ago on another important matter, was still with us. He could give us the benefit of his views on these amendments. He gave his name to the dilemma spoken of by the right hon. Member for Down, South late on the night of Thursday 27 May. It seems that we are driven back upon debates that took place on the Welsh and Scottish devolution Bills.

At that time the Labour Government did not face that dilemma, and this clause does not answer the question of how one may reasonably confer legislative autonomy and withhold financial autonomy. In the case of the old Stormont Parliament, the contradiction was resolved by making the Government of Northern Ireland an echo of its master's voice in Whitehall. Northern Ireland was treated for financial purposes like any other region of the United Kingdom. Thus, in 1973, most of the special forms of economic assistance were replaced by a special grant-in-aid from Westminster. Professor T. Wilson wrote in the Three Banks Review in December 1976, on the subject of development and public finance: Treasury control was tight, especially for new items of expenditure. It may well have been as tight as Treasury control over the Scottish Office. This was not financial autonomy.

It was the burden of the discourse of the former chairman of the Northern Ireland Labour Party that Northern Ireland had suffered in economic terms under legislative devolution.

Professor R. J. Lawrence, formerly professor of politics at Queen's university, Belfast said that: between the wars public provision in general fell below British standards—not because the Ulsterman was conservative, but because his Government was chronically short of money. Had Northern Ireland been fully integrated with Great Britain, how could Northern Ireland, alone of the regions of the United Kingdom, have been excluded from the energy grid of the United Kingdom? When, for example, the British Gas Corporation came into being, Northern Ireland consumers were not able to share the advantages of the mainland British who were within the system. Legislative freedom was necessarily more apparent than real. Treasury approval was required before grants were enacted at Stormont that differed from those in Great Britain.

In the 1960s Northern Ireland Ministers went out, as United Kingdom Ministers now go out with such energy, to find investment for Northern Ireland. The strength of those Northern Ireland Ministers was not that they were, as it were, Ministers of a sovereign Government responsible to a sovereign Parliament, or Ministers in a devolved Government possessed of full powers responsible to a Parliament with full financial autonomy, but that they could make the administrative decisions regarding grants for factory space and so on.

One of the most important statements about Northern Ireland in the Kilbrandon report, was: A separate Northern Ireland legislature would not of course be essential to meet the province's special legislative needs. Regions of the United Kingdom do not need legislative powers to be different.

We are told that Northern Ireland is different because there is water in between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

When the then Minister of Home Affairs, William Craig, was criticised for closing Royal Ulster Constabulary stations, he explained why this had to be done. He said: The Treasury curtailed the discretion of Ministers in the expenditure of public moneys and dictated the priorities of expenditure. Therefore, peace, reconciliation, stability and economic reconstruction do not require the Bill or legislative devolution.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

Order. I am following the hon. Gentleman closely, but I remind him that we are discussing who shall exercise the devolved functions. I hope that he will relate that to what he is saying. The hon. Gentleman is becoming rather general in his remarks and is moving away from the point at issue.

Viscount Cranborne

On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. In considering the amendment, I see that, under subsection (1)(a) reference is made, as so often in the Bill, to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Further, as you will have already observed, the long title refers to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. You will appreciate that if we are to make progress and sense in considering the Bill, we shall need to refer to the text of both these Acts.

I am informed, after the recent visit of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) to the Vote Office, that copies of those Acts are not available in the Vote Office. Is it in order for us to continue to consider matters relating to the Bill without having copies of these Acts?

The First Deputy Chairman

There are copies in the Library and in the Lobbies for hon. Members to refer to.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor (Basildon)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Armstrong.

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. I hope that it is new information.

Mr. Proctor

I hope that it will help the progress of the Committee if I report that hon. Members can order the relevant Acts if they so wish, but the copies will not be available until mid-morning tomorrow.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

I am mindful, Mr. Armstrong, of what you have just said. In conclusion, I want to confine myself to who should discharge those functions. We are discussing an important amendment to a crucial clause in a constitutional Bill. At some time in the debate we should hear something from the Opposition. If a constitutional measure of this kind is being discussed, concerning the functions of government and administration that are to be discharged in Northern Ireland, it should not be conducted by Members of one or two parties, but by the Committee.

I wonder whether that enterprising journalist Mr. Desmond McCarlan was correct when he disclosed in the Belfast Telegraph of 29 March 1982 a controversial and confidential Labour Party paper which contained these words: We will, therefore, introduce changes in the present system of local government to make it more accountable and democratic. We are thinking, in particular. of changes in the composition of the area boards, which administer the major local government services, such as education, planning and social services". Mr. McCartan went on to say: The suggestion is made that the elected element of the area boards should be increased to at least two-thirds, half of whom ought to be existing district councillors and half trade unionists elected to the boards through trade union machinery. Then, to quote again from the document as it fell into Mr. McCartan's hands: This will not only make for a fairer and more democratic system, but will also give the people of Northern Ireland the necessary experience of conducting their own affairs. I do not agree with everything in the document. I do not necessarily agree with the proposal that half the board members should be trade unionists, although one would like trade unionists to be present. However, is this what is in the mind of the Labour Party? I hope that we will hear something from those Labour Members who are with us in Committee. They are not numerous, but they are distinguished, both being on the Front Bench.

Mr. Stanbrook

Those Labour Members who are present today should be interested in this matter and in the proposals in Mr. McCartan's article from which my hon. Friend has just voted. They appear to be a model based upon the Bullock report on industrial democracy. We all know that the Bullock Commission was structured both by its terms of reference and its membership to produce the very result that was embodied in the report. It is important, is it not, that the Labour Party should give serious consideration to the proposal for Northern Ireland? Who knows, it might well be a contribution to a settlement in Northern Ireland which the Labour Party is peculiarly fitted to submit.

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. We shall not follow that road at this juncture, but will stick to the amendment.

5.45 pm

Sir John Biggs-Davison

I bow to your advice at once, Mr. Armstrong, and I shall not seek to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook); nor shall I say a word more about the Labour Party, because it can speak for itself. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Will it?"] It can speak for itself. We hope that it will speak for itself, otherwise others will speak for it or about it and what is said may not be correct. I suppose that my quotation is correct, because there has been no dissent from the Opposition Front Bench.

I have spoken about the Labour Party's attitude to the problems confronted in the Bill—

Viscount Cranborne

My hon. Friend has spoken of the Labour Party' s role and its opinions on the Bill. He also drew attention to the Bullock report. If the Bill is successful in what it proposes, will the functions of management and the role of workers in a company, as foreshadowed by the Bullock report, be devolved as a responsibility to the Assembly under the Bill? Will Parliament at Westminster be able to give its opinions on how those matters should be arranged in Northern Ireland if the Assembly is successful in that field?

Sir John Biggs-Davison

I hope that my hon. Friend will not think me either ignorant or discourteous if I do not respond to that invitation to discuss the Bullock report. We are in Committee and my hon. Friend may catch the eye of the Chair and be able to speak on that matter himself.

I have discussed the Labour Party's position, or the lack of it, and I want to deal with the position of the Conservative and Unionist Party. I shall refrain from quoting the manifesto of the Conservative and Unionist Party, except to say that it has quite a resemblance to the manifesto of the Official Unionist Party. Everybody knows what it says and I do not propose to quote it.

Manifestos are one thing, but in the heat of an election campaign one becomes careful of what is said. It is then that the Conservative Central Office carefully supplies parliamentary candidates with notes and information for guidance. That is the time in the campaign when a candidate must be extremely careful about what he says. Therefore, I have no wish to quote from the manifesto, although I believe what is said in it, but I quote from guidance that was issued in the heat of the election campaign, namely, the daily notes dated 11 April 1979.

It was said there: A Conservative Government, in consultation with the people and political parties in Northern Ireland, would seek to establish a Regional Council or Councils with control over specifically local matters (such as education, health and social services) which are not at the moment subject to any effective democratic scrutiny, as they are elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We do not believe that a more ambitious scheme to devolve executive and legislative powers to Northern Ireland would be successful in present conditions. In our view,"— that is the view that the Conservative Party invited its parliamentary candidates to place before the electorate— the talk of recreating political stability should begin fairly modestly with the establishment of a new framework of local government which the Province has lacked during the last few years.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

I am trying hard to follow what my hon. Friend is saying. I am coming to the conclusion—I hope that he will correct me if I am wrong—that he is trying to argue that because something was said at the last general election we should not now completely and radically change our point of view. If that is the tenor of what he is saying, will he justify that proposition? Surely the Secretary of State has taken the point of view that matters have changed radically since the last general election and that we should therefore be ready to meet those new circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friend will not take a Luddite view of how we should respond when circumstances change. Perhaps he would argue that there has not been any change. Have I misunderstood my hon. Friend?

Sir John Biggs-Davison

There has not been any fundamental change in the conditions and difficulties that confront us in trying to improve democracy in Northern Ireland. I happen to believe in my party's policy as expressed in the manifesto. The daily notes that were subsequently issued were bang on. I subscribe to the views expressed in them and do not believe that they have been outdated in any way. As long as there are no more interventions, I hope to conclude my speech within two minutes.

However, I shall make one final reference to the daily notes, because there is something very wise and prescient in them. They state: The next Government will come under considerable pressure"— hon. Members should note those last two words— to launch a new, high-powered political initiative on Northern Ireland, with the object of establishing another 'power-sharing' government in the province, which could pave the way for a federal constitution linking Ulster to the Irish Republic … The numerous discussions which we have had with people in all walks of life in the Province have shown that very different views on devolution are strongly held by local politicians. That is not merely our view: it is also shared by Mr. Roy Mason, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Labour Party's Manifesto states that 'for the present, direct rule remains the only viable alternative … We will work to make it more accountable and democratic'. I wonder in what respect circumstances have changed since then.

The notes continue: This objective is also shared by the Conservative Party, which has outlined its plans to established one or more regional councils which will involve all sections of the population, regardless of their political outlook, more closely in the running of local affairs.". It is upon the principles and policy of the Conservative and Unionist Party that most Conservative Members take their stand.

Mr. Molyneaux

It may be appropriate to remind the Committee of the words used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on 27 May when he moved the amendment. If the amendments are adopted—we hope that they will be, as they should be acceptable to all reasonable men and women—paragraph (a) will read: proposals for the resumption by persons responsible to the Assembly of all the functions". Administrative devolution would make it possible for the Assembly to do something very useful from day 1. However, if the Bill remains unamended, that will not be possible. If the amendments are carried, the Assembly will be able to assume, from day 1, high level control over those areas of local government that are now running wild and that are not answerable to any elected representatives.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 do not seek to downgrade the rather improbable structure proposed in the Bill. Indeed, they should have the opposite effect. They will ensure that from its inception, the Assembly has a real job to do. If the Assembly is to progress it is essential that it should have a job to do and that those elected to do it should recognise that. It is also vital that those who elect its Members should be able to recognise that the goods are being delivered and that grievances are being redressed. Nothing is more likely to create disillusionment and internal bickering within the Assembly than a group of 78—or, according to the Boundary Commission's report perhaps 85—well-paid elected representatives being told that not only do they not have that responsibility but that there is no intention of giving them any power unless they agree to something that would obviously make the whole structure unworkable.

On 27 May my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South cited the Minister's political philosophy. In their innocence some hon. Members find it difficult to believe that there is a sinister motive behind all this. However, that sinister motive has led successive Ministers to shy away from the various suggestions designed to achieve the same effect as our amendments. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has done the Committee and the nation a service. He has quoted from directives, instructions and information that were probably confidential at the time, and has drawn attention to the forecasts made in the daily notes, issued by the Conservative Party during the election campaign. It was forecast that determined attempts would be made to turn an incoming Conservative Government away from their policies.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

By whom?

Mr. Molyneaux

I may be able to provide some illumination. I remember discussing matters with the late Airey Neave and saying to him in a jocular fashion, " I hear reports that the Northern Ireland Office is busily engaged in preparing some light reading for you when you take over." He said that he had also heard such rumours and asked me what direction I thought was being taken. I said "I have not had a preview, but I have certain ways of finding out. The one thing that you will find in that document when you reach Stormont castle after the general election is that there will be 1,001 reasons why you should not do what the manifesto said you would do." When Airey Neave's place was taken after his lamentable and much regretted murder, it may not have been surprising that all that seems to have come true. I have often reflected on that conversation, on what might have happened and on how successful the saboteurs in the Northern Ireland office would have been if the late Airey Neave had succeeded to his office in Stormont castle.

Those in the grip of that influence and those who prepared the briefing documents—not the Conservative documents—knew very well that any Assembly or regional council with powers over administration and top level local government would provide no scope for the involvement of the Irish Republic. Consequently, there could be no scope for interference in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom. It would not have provided any scope for manipulating representation in an inter-parliamentary body that was soon to become a council of Ireland.

On 27 May my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South, reiterated his views on legislative devolution. In a sense, he may have pre-empted the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). The Bill gives us the worst of both worlds. It holds out the bogus hope of legislative devolution. We all know that it cannot be achieved as the Bill stands, because of the impossible restrictions placed on any progress. However, because it makes that pretence, it calls into question the right to equal representation in the House. The Secretary of State has already recognised that fact. He has said that in the unlikely event—he did not use those words—of legislative devolution being achieved, not because of the Bill but in spite of it, that that will be the time when the House will need to look again at the parliamentary representation of Northern Ireland in the House.

6 pm

It could be said that we are paying the price for legislative devolution, but being denied its substance and reality. The Bill unfortunately denies us administrative devolution. Our amendments are designed to remedy that defect and fill the yawning gap that the hon. Member for Epping Forest has so clearly described.

This morning I had a graphic illustration of the effect of that vacuum on one of my constituents. She was being flooded out by a fractured water main. She approached three separate authorities. Before 1973 those authorities would have been ender the local authority. They all came and looked longingly at the flood water and agreed that something should be done but that it was the job of the other. We then had the ludicrous position that, as the President of the United States of America was arriving to address Members of both Houses of Parliament, I had to telephone the Minister in Belfast. I pay tribute to his courtesy and efficiency, but it is nonsense that such a problem was incapable of being resolved by an administrative officer at the local authority headquarters.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest has taken us back to the Conservative Party manifesto position. I want to go back just a little further.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

I have followed my hon. Friend's description of himself and his constituent with the sympathy of one of those who have had similar experiences. Will he point out that exactly the same would apply under the realisation of full devolution as it stands in the Bill? It would still be the responsibility of a Stormont Department to deal with that matter. There would be no question, under the Bill, of its being dealt with by anything more local than at present. The only difference might be that the telephone call would possibly come from Stormont and not Westminster. The organisation, the chain of responsibility and the remoteness would be identical.

Mr. Molyneaux

I agree with my right hon. Friend. We might be less at the mercy of British Telecom and get the telephone call just a little earlier because we would be at an adjacent exchange. It would still have to be dealt with by a Minister of the Crown and not a local authority official.

I have to exonerate the present and previous Governments from blame for that state of affairs. The Stormont Government and Parliament designed this utterly crazy, unacceptable system. My complaint is that having the wealth of experience in central and local Government in Great Britain the present and previous Governments have identified the weakness—we know that from their honest confession—but they have not taken a grip of those who would be capable of implementing the decisions and forcing through what they know to be the only workable scheme to remedy the position to which I have drawn attention.

In case someone should say that the valuable guidance given in the daily notes of Conservative Central Office were inspired by some comparatively lowly officials and did not have the authority of the Conservative Shadow Cabinet, I quote from a speech by the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister, in Belfast on 19 June 1978. It is relevant to the essence of our amendments. It was less than a year before she became Prime Minister. She said—the first line is revealing— With my full agreement and that of his colleagues, Airey Neave has been talking of our plans to restore the upper tier of local government which was removed in October 1973. Ulster is the only part of the United Kingdom where regional services are not under the control of the locally elected representatives. We shall therefore seek to establish one or more directly elected Northern Ireland Regional Councils. These would have a wide range of powers, such as those which local authorities have in other parts of the United Kingdom. Local councillors would thus be able to perform the same role in Northern Ireland as they do elsewhere. They would also exercise control"— "control" is the word— over the area boards. There will be scope"— that is important— for all political parties to participate in these new instructions. The right hon. Lady then went on to deal with a subject that was dear to her heart: Education is one of those responsibilities which we want to see back in the hands of locally elected representatives. The Government seem convinced"— that was the former Government— that the people of Northern Ireland ought to welcome their efforts to impose a universal comprehensive system of secondary education on the Province. Many of the parents of Ulster's schoolchildren have different ideas, and have formed the Ulster Parents' Union. We agree with them when they reject the Government's argument that a universal comprehensive system should replace the excellent grammar schools of this Province. We shall put these questions in the hands of Regional Councillors and let the people decide through their elected representatives. I notice that the Secretary of State was paying attention, particularly when I read that first line. I shall read it again: With my full agreement and that of his colleagues, Airey Neave has been talking of our plans". The Secretary of State was a senior member of that Shadow Cabinet so the plan, the daily notes and the Conservative manifesto position were designed apparently with the agreement of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Gorst

May I ask the hon. Gentleman the question that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), which he rather cursorily answered? I did not get a satisfactory explanation from him. I wonder whether I can get a more satisfactory explanation from the hon. Gentleman. Have things changed in the three years since my right hon. Friend made those remarks before the general election or does the hon. Gentleman take the same view as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest that nothing has changed? If that promise was made in 1979 should it not prevail? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is aware of changes in Northern Ireland which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has noted, but which have escaped some of us?

Mr. Molyneaux

I shall endeavour to give the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) a courteous answer. Things have changed to a great extent in one direction. As a result of the exasperation that people have experienced since the general election of 1979 there is now a far greater demand for the restoration of real local government such as was set out in the Conservative Party manifesto and the speech of the right hon. Lady and of the hon. Member for Epping Forest. That makes it even less defensible for the Government to stall any longer before implementing something of which they were clearly convinced in 1979.

I wish to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to clear himself of the allegation implicit in what the hon. Member for Epping Forest said. The hon. Gentleman did not mean to make the allegation. I am sure that he was not singling out his right hon. Friend. But there may be a suspicion that the brief design to counter the Conservative daily notes has influenced his thinking. In 1979 the present Prime Minister said that the right hon. Gentleman had given his full agreement to the plan to restore real local government to Northern Ireland. At what point did he change his mind and why?

Mr. Barry Porter (Bebington and Ellesmere Port)

Were we not told by the Government on Second Reading and in the White Paper debate that no one of consequence in Northern Ireland wanted a local government structure?

Mr. Molyneaux

We have been told many curious things. I do not know where that information came from or on what it was based.

As I said in an intervention, again and again councillors apologise for writing to me about a planning problem and ask whether we can do something at Westminster to give them back the power for them to exercise it at first hand without having to ask us. That feeling runs throughout local government. It is the feeling of councillors almost to a man. Foremost in the demand for real power are the SDLP councillors, although its top brass have different things in mind. Unlike their councillor colleagues, their allegiance is not to the structure headed by the Secretary of State, but to that which exists in the other capital south of the border. It is scarcely surprising that they do not listen to what the councillors advocate.

It is alleged that when the Prime Minister made the ringing declaration she had in mind to fob us off with nothing better than upper tier local government. But I do not believe that she regarded it as a final stopping point. She expected that upper tier—the regional council—to have the function of restoring to the people of Northern Ireland more control over their own affairs as a first step. Being a prudent stateswoman she would look carefully at how the first step functioned before going further. It is a misrepresentation to suggest that administrative devolution in the form of a regional council and the restoration of local powers was the end of the Shadow Cabinet thinking.

If the Government are sincere in their desire, as the Secretary of State said in introducing the White Paper and on Second Reading, to provide better government for the people of Northern Ireland, they are not doing so in the Bill. The Gracious Speech at the beginning of the first Session of this Parliament stated that their aim was to give to the people of Northern Ireland more control over their own affairs. What the Bill proposes cannot be regarded as that by any stretch of the imagination. It merely affords the ability to chat and gossip about such affairs. If the Government are sincere in their aim the Secretary of State should invite the Committee to reflect on the suggestions made when the amendment was moved on 27 May and the further points made today, and, after mature consideration, reach a conclusion.

Together with the Government we shall do our best to erect a durable structure to do what the Bill manifestly fails to do—to give the people of Northern Ireland control and a mechanism to redress their grievances and to fill the only vacuum that exists in Northern Ireland as a result of the ill-advised removal of real powers from local government in 1973.

6.15 pm

Mr. Stanbrook

The quotations which we have heard demonstrate again what a catastrophe it was for the Conservative Party, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole when Airey Neave was assassinated. He had prepared himself for the office of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and reached the conclusion that what was needed was an upper tier in Northern Ireland. It was sad for us all that he was removed by an assassin and in his place was appointed someone who had not so prepared himself and who did not carry on the policy which he had advocated in the Shadow Cabinet and which had been approved, as shown by the quotations. It is a great shame that the Conservative Government did not stick to the promises made and the policy worked out so thoroughly by the man who was given the responsibility to do so.

I am at a loss to know why we abandoned the policy. That has never been satisfactorily explained. I am sure that it is not a question of personalities. It is not for want of courage. There is plenty of that in the present Administration. But there is no intellectual argument for abandoning the policy. It remains a great mystery to me.

Mr. Gorst

My hon. Friend is prejudging the conclusion. He assumes that the proposals will go through as they are. When we have discussed them fully they may not appear on the statute book in their present form. He should be a little less gloomy.

Mr. Stanbrook

My hon. Friend gives me hope that the House will not endorse the proposals.

Mr. Gorst

My hon. Friend should not be defeatist.

Mr. Stanbrook

I am not being defeatist, but I must be accurate. The Conservative Party evolved the policy; the Conservative Government did not implement it. The House has not pronounced on change. We may both be right. Parliament has not changed its policy. The policy that was put before Parliament by the Conservative Party before the general election is still the right one and I hope that Parliament will adopt it.

The amendment has one great merit in that it makes a clear distinction between legislative and executive devolution. Thus it shows at once the fundamental flaw in the Government's approach to the problem of constitutional reform for Northern Ireland. Devolution has been going on in the United Kingdom for decades. It is inherent in local government where powers are transferred to statutory bodies. A Secretary of State for Scotland and, more recently, a Secretary of State for Wales were appointed to take over powers for those parts of Britain that were previously exercised by the Government.

Executive devolution is the method by which Parliament has resolved the inherent contradictions, anomalies and differences between one part of the United Kingdom and another or decided that the characteristics and requirements of one region needed different treatment from that accorded to another. That is perfectly healthy, sensible and democratic.

However, legislative devolution, which is separate lawmaking institutions to the exclusion of the United Kingdom Parliament, is quite different and there is not sufficient support to justify taking that step. The only instance of legislative devolution was the so-called Stormont system in Northern Ireland which lasted for about 51 years but which was ill-fated. That appears to have been the accepted opinion of the majority of those who were concerned about the matter when, in 1972, we passed legislation to dissolve that system.

Now the Government disregard our experience of legislative devolution, the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and the opinions of the majority of their supporters in the previous Parliament, when we were so triumphantly successful in showing by argument, if not by numbers in the Division Lobbies, that the system was impossible. Despite that, my Government, of which I am so proud in every other respect, are intent and insist on going through the process again—a process that owes its origin not to their thought, experience and principles but to those of their erstwhile opponents. They do so on the grounds that they have made adjustments which make the system more plausible.

I cannot believe in the reason given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for introducing the notion once again into British political life. His main argument is that legislative devolution, in the form in which it is proposed in the White Paper and the Bill, is the only way to achieve political stability in Northern Ireland. In fact, it is a recipe for instability. Another reason given is that the proposals are necessary for Northern Ireland, even if we accept that the proposals for Scotland and Wales were wrong and should have been opposed, because Northern Ireland is different or special. I have tried to think of the ways in which Northern Ireland is different or special so as to justify such a different constitutional provision and structure. It is different in the sense that there is a campaign of violence that has claimed many lives and has continued for many years.

Mr. Porter

I do not have the advantage of having been a Member when the matter was argued in the previous Parliament, but I assume that devolution arguments 'were put forward and the same points were argued. I do not wish to pre-empt my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), but perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington can tell us what, in his view, has changed fundamentally since the previous debate.

Mr. Stanbrook

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of the point, but if he had been here in the previous Parliament he would have heard Northern Ireland being treated as a special case because conditions there were enough to justify different treatment. It was not thought at the time of those devolution debates, at least not by the Labour Party when in power, that Northern Ireland should be an example of how to give devolution to the rest of the United Kingdom. It was not quoted as a good example but it was considered to be special. The proposal that Northern Ireland was different was at once flattering and confusing to those of us who tried to understand what was going on in Northern Ireland politics.

Another feature of Northern Ireland's political life is the fact that a neighbouring State claims it as part of its territory. That is special and different, but does it justify different constitutional treatment or is different constitutional treatment some concession towards the territorial claim?

Sir John Biggs-Davison

Might it not be that the threat posed by the perverse constitution of the neighbouring State suggests that we should try with every constitutional means to bind Northern Ireland closer to us in accordance with the wishes of its people?

Mr. Stanbrook

My hon. Friend is right. We should not have any truck with or show favour towards a State that makes territorial demands upon the United Kingdom until it drops those demands and resolves to pursue its own way in peace with us, without thereby encouraging those who wish to translate the claim made in its constitution by violence into reality. That by itself cannot justify a special constitutional provision for Northern Ireland separate and different from that of the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

Is it not also a difference that various methods have been tried, which have all failed, to set up an Assembly or a meeting of some sort?

6.30 pm

Mr. Stanbrook

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is the lesson of our experience of recent years. Successive Governments of the United Kingdom have attempted solutions other than the outright common sense solution of treating Northern Ireland as just another region of the United Kingdom in every constitutional sense.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting to the Committee that the Convention failed? Was it not a failure of the House not even to discuss the Convention report, either the report of its majority or the report of its minority? Surely he could not say that everything that was set up failed because the Convention did its work and submitted to the House proposals which were not even discussed but were put under the carpet.

Mr. Stanbrook

I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. If it is not right to say that the Convention failed, it would be right to say that the initiative which prompted the Convention failed because its proposals were not adopted in the end and we were back to square one, as we had been with previous initiatives.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

Does not my hon. Friend recall that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said, there was a debate in the House on the Convention report? I remember speaking from where the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) is now sitting, on the Opposition Front Bench. What was clear was that there would be no acceptance of any form of legislative devolution that was acceptable to the Unionist parties. To that extent, the hon. Member for Antrim, North has his complaint. Any form of legislative devolution acceptable to him will not be accepted by any Government that we can expect to be in office.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Dean. Would it be possible to have clarification on that last point? As I understand it, the House debated the matter in an Adjournment debate. My information is that even the Minister concerned had not read the Convention report at that time. I know that it had not been distributed to the Opposition, so how could hon. Members have debated the report? They were discussing the matter in an Adjournment debate rather than dealing with the report.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Paul Dean)

I am afraid I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. It is not a point for the Chair. I suggest that we return to the amendment.

Mr. Stanbrook

If I may respectfully do so, Mr. Dean, I should like to congratulate you as a new Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. We welcome you to your new post and wish you much happiness and fulfilment in your position.

Wishing to keep in order, as I always do, I think we have had enough about the Convention—

Rev. Ian Paisley

It is not fair for the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) to tell the Committee that we had a full-scale debate on the Convention report.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

I did not say that; I said a debate.

Rev. Ian Paisley

A statement was made and a few questions were asked. The House was told, not, as the hon. Gentleman has implied, that my type of legislative devolution was rejected, but that the type of legislative devolution agreed by the majority of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland was rejected.

Mr. Stanbrook

There is no doubt that the Convention did not succeed in its purpose and has gone the way of so many previous political initiatives. The fewer political initiatives we have about Northern Ireland, the better for Northern Ireland and for ourselves.

I want to get back to the reasons why this apparently so un-Conservative notion of devolution should be applied to Northern Ireland. One reason given recently by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Lord Gowrie was—I shall paraphrase what he said—that it was to form different relationships between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. In other words, the proposals are not for the sake of devolution as a constitutional principle, but for the sake of some sort of accommodation with the Irish Republic. When they are expressed in that way, one can condemn the proposals straight away and out of hand, given the more recent history of the Irish Republic in regard to this country and the hostility that it has displayed towards us for so long, including the provision within its constitution claiming Northern Ireland as a part of its territory.

The interesting thing is that the noble Lord is himself a citizen of the Irish Republic and so presumably has dual citizenship. As a constitutional lawyer I find that something of a mystery because no man can serve two masters, especially if he is a Minister to one. An oath of allegiance to Her Majesty was needed presumably when the noble Lord undertook his present office. That oath of allegiance was to Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom, yet he apparently holds a passport of the Irish Republic which implies that he applied for that passport and that he owes allegiance to the Irish Republic. Presumably the passport would not have been issued to him without an application.

We all know that the Irish Republic confers Irish citizenship, whatever that may mean, upon all those born in the island of Ireland ipso facto. That is why some people whom we normally regard as British citizens travel around with passports issued by the Irish Republic. For a Minister of the Crown to owe allegiance to a State that claims part of Her Majesty's territory seems inconsistent with his constitutional and personal duties and personal allegiance.

Mr. Gorst

Do I understand my hon. Friend correctly? What he is suggesting is that the noble Lord is acting under some terrible imperative that is dragging him towards the re-unification of the North and South of Ireland and is at the same time a Minister of the Crown. Is this what my hon. Friend was arguing?

Mr. Stanbrook

No, I am not necessarily arguing that. I am just pointing out that duality of nationality implies duality of allegiance. Therefore, expressions of opinion from someone who acknowledges two sovereigns and pays allegiance to two sovereigns—

Mr. Budgen

How can one have dual allegiance?

Mr. Stanbrook

My hon. Friend asks how one can have dual allegiance. I accept that it is constitutionally improper if not impossible. But it must necessarily make us wonder about the value of the opinion of such a person when dealing with matters of this kind when he holds a ministry of this country in relation to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Farr

Has my hon. Friend thought that the noble Lord may possibly owe an allegiance similar to the allegiance that a person can owe both to a mother and to a wife? He might in some way be able to run the allegiances in tandem.

Mr. Stanbrook

I am a lawyer and I cannot accept the concept of allegiance that my hon. Friend has put forward. In my opinion allegiance should be single, undivided and exclusive to the sovereign.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

Would it be of help to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) to be reminded of what the noble Lord said, which was reported in the Belfast Telegraph on 13 January 1982? That is quite recently; that is in modern times. He said: I suppose that if I had my way I would have dual citizenship. He means not that he personally would but that he would have that institution in Northern Ireland. He continued: Why not have people living in the North who regard themselves as Irish, administered by Ireland and Britain? So that is an indication of the area of and dimensions of the thought and the dimensions of the noble Lord.

Mr. Stanbrook

Yes. I agree that that opens up further ideas. Of course, I may be wrong in thinking that the noble Lord is a citizen of the Irish Republic.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

He is.

Mr. Budgen

Does my hon. Friend agree that this will be raised in the no doubt protracted discussion of the matter in the Upper House? Their Lordships will not wish to be thought of as the mere poodles of the Tory Party and will wish to allow the noble Lord plenty of opportunity to explain his philosophy on the matter.

Mr. Stanbrook

I shall not pursue that. I simply find it incompatible, in view of his duties, for a Minister of the Crown to owe allegiance to a foreign sovereign, which is what it must be in this case.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that matter caused great anger in Northern Ireland, when so-called Ministers of the Crown in the power-sharing Executive, travelling on the business of the Crown, did so on Republican passports and refused to acknowledge in any way that they were British subjects? It made the people of Northern Ireland very angry.

Mr. Stanbrook

I think that I should get on, because I am coming to my main argument, which is that legislative devolution is incompatible with the unity of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made that point in moving the amendment, and it is fundamental to how I believe the Conservative Party should approach the whole question, because it substitutes within the United Kingdom a different supreme authority from that of the United Kingdom Parliament. It is, therefore, a fundamental flaw and weakness.

Secondly, it weakens Parliament by taking away from its Members for the region concerned the power to examine, investigate, criticise, encourage and warn the Ministers responsible for the administration of that region. The justification so often given in this place by ministers for proposals of this kind is that fuller democracy should be available for the people of Northern Ireland.

Here we come to another problem. If the people of Northern Ireland do not have full democracy, whose fault is it but that of the United Kingdom Parliament, which has left a void in the upper tier of local government there? What simpler method of restoring full democracy—by which I simply mean the sort of democracy enjoyed by people in the rest of the United Kingdom—could there be than the reinstitution of an upper tier of local government in Northern Ireland? It is as simple as that. cannot understand how it can be argued that fuller democracy or greater democratic rights for the people of Northern Ireland should be considered in any other light, but in this case it is proposed to give powers to one set of locally-elected politicians—those in any Assembly created in Northern Ireland—so that another set of politicians at a higher level—in this place—should be deprived of powers in respect of the region which they represent.

I am amazed to hear Ministers claim that their proposals will strengthen democracy in Northern Ireland, because the only limitation on democracy in Northern Ireland is the absence of full local government. As we have already been told today, Ministers simply refuse to replace the full local government structure to which Northern Ireland would be entitled if it were treated like the rest of the United Kingdom.

Then there is the justification on the ground of political stability. Is there any evidence that a devolved legislature in Northern Ireland will increase political stability? We know that the violence will not cease. The Republic of Ireland will still claim United Kingdom territory in Northern Ireland. It will provide the foundation for discontent, and continue to pursue its campaign of hostility towards us at all levels. Sectarian differences and religious prejudices, instead of being mitigated by absorption within the United Kingdom as a whole and spread over the genial and tolerant atmosphere of the United Kingdom generally, will be magnified and exaggerated within a small enclosed parochial atmosphere, such as is proposed for the Assembly of Northern Ireland. The free political atmosphere of this House of Commons, where virtually no one bothers to think of an hon. Member's religion or church in weighing the value of his opinions, will be replaced by one of claustrophobia in which—for many people—nothing will be discussed on its merits and everything will be coloured by religious affiliations.

6.45 pm

It is useless to say now that legislative devolution as it previously existed in Northern Ireland was a model which could be followed, or to say that appropriate modifications could be made acceptable. That previous experiment was Stormont, the system supposedly hated by a minority in Northern Ireland, and it came crashing down in ruins under the very pressures of sectarian violence which we have all been trying to cure.

It is unlikely that any modification of the Stormont system would be acceptable to either side—if we have to think all the time in terms of either side in Northern Ireland. The White Paper sometimes speaks of the two communities of Northern Ireland. At other times it speaks of the two sides of the community in Northern Ireland. We all know what that means. It means that those who framed the White Paper have the idea of a division institutionalised in their minds. That institutionalising has led to the proposals that are designed to encapsulate all the problems of Northern Ireland within Northern Ireland, in a separate system for Northern Ireland, not allowing the free tolerant air of the United Kingdom to work its healing magic on religious prejudices. Nor is the system likely to work. Legislative devolution will not work anywhere in the United Kingdom, least of all where passions are so inflamed. It is beyond belief that legislative devolution, which has been so heartily rejected by the Conservative Party in the past, should be brought out again as a means of settling this apparently intractable problem.

The effect of the clause is to offer Northern Ireland both legislative and executive devolution—both or neither, but without the choice of one or the other alone. If passed into law, it would make some Members of Parliament second-class Members of Parliament, able to vote and decide matters everywhere in the United Kingdom except in their own part.

That leads me to say something that I have wanted to say for many months. In my view, we should all pay tribute to the quality of the representation in this House of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, who take up their duties here as Members of Parliament from all parties. They do so under considerations of risk of personal danger and of pressures quite unknown to the rest of us. Their constituencies are on average far larger than those of hon. Members in the rest of the United Kingdom. They nevertheless carry out their parliamentary duties supremely well, articulating strongly and effectively the causes of those whom they represent. The whole House is in debt to them for the courage and devotion to duty that they display.

If Northern Ireland under present conditions can produce parliamentary representatives as good as these, why should we even consider a system which will have the effect of downgrading them? We have been advised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) that local Government is a means of satisfying the legitimate aspirations of the people of Northern Ireland, but that it is thought by some that the reinstitution of an upper tier of local government will be resisted so strongly by the so-called minority that it is not acceptable. When the suggestion is put to Ministers they say straight away that one cannot have a system of local government at that level because it would be given by sectarian and religious differences and all such prejudices would work themselves out in the way of discrimination. Yet, while Ministers are not prepared to implement the Conservative Party's original proposals for Northern Ireland, they are prepared to create an institution that would do just that at legislative level. Why on earth are they magnifying the problems that might arise from any Assembly devoted to local government questions?

We have to start from ground level. We have to build up confidence. As far as possible, personal contact between parliamentary representatives, local government councillors and parish councillors with their people is the healthy way in which ideas are canvassed in this country and in which legislators are kept on course in accordance with the view of their constituents.

Local government is therefore an essential part of the constitutional structure of any democratic country, not least in Northern Ireland. We need more democracy in Northern Ireland, but we need it in that gap which this Parliament has left for far too long—the gap between the existing district councils and the United Kingdom Parliament. Elsewhere that gap is filled by an upper tier of local government—county councils in England, regional councils in Scotland. Why on earth cannot we fill the gap in the same way in Northern Ireland? Why do we need to go through this terrible exercise all over again knowing full well in our hearts that it commands acceptance neither with us nor with the people of Northern Ireland?

Rev. Ian Paisley

I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) concerning your election to your office, Mr. Dean, and to wish you well. No doubt you will have plenty of time during the passage of this Bill to exercise your patience and leniency.

The hon. Member for Orpington rightly said that in moving the amendment the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made it clear that legislative devolution is what the amendments are meant to destroy. Speaking yesterday in Belfast, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Official Unionist Party, made it clear that his aim was the restoration of a Stormont system of government with the same scope and powers as the pre-1972 institution. He went on to say that he recalled saying in September 1979 that his party totally endorsed the proposals in the report on the constitutional Convention and would resist any attempt to weaken them. He said: That was three years ago, and I have to say I have no reason to believe that members of my party or the Ulster Unionist Council have in any way changed their minds over the last three years. Anyone who is aware of what Stormont was about will be aware that the keystone of the Stormont devolution was legislative devolution. There is no doubt about that. When the Official Unionists refused to attend the Atkins conference they submitted to Her Majesty's Government a paper entitled "The Government of Northern Ireland—presented to the Prime Minister by the Ulster Unionist Council January 1980". It said: The Ulster Unionist Party believes that Northern Ireland should be administered by an elected body empowered to legislate and govern and be known as the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to confirm that the quotations that he has read represent and have for eight years represented the policy of my party. I am also happy that he has given me the opportunity to say that he and others in the then United Ulster Unionist coalition delegated me to make the opening speech presenting the report of the constitutional Convention in a debate which he said earlier, by a slip of the tongue or a slip of the memory, did not take place.

Rev. Iam Paisley

I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has made clear that his party stands for legislative devolution for Northern Ireland because the amendments in his name which were moved by the right hon. Member for Down, South on 27 May concerned legislative devolution. Five times in his speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to it. He referred to the incompatibility of legislative devolution with the unity of the United Kingdom. He went on to say: It is the unanswerability which was teased out and proved time and time again in the debates on the Scotland bill that constitutes the ultimate incompatibility between legislative devolution and membership of a unitary parliamentary State such as the United Kingdom. Later he said: Legislative devolution is thus the beginning of separation, and legislative devolution to a Province that is henceforward to be fully represented in the United Kingdom is the more clearly the beginning of separation. He went on to say that ultimately legislative devolution is incompatible with the Union … The reason for that was that it was realised that legislative separation means political separation, means separation. The right hon. Gentleman said that the real reason for moving the amendment was to enable the Committee to knock out the cornerstone of any meaningful devolution, and meaningful devolution must mean legislative devolution. I remind the Committee that that was the cornerstone of the Stormont Administration. It came as no surprise when the right hon. Gentleman had to attack the very foundation of the Stormont system. He said: It was just possible, though it was part of the corrupt and slothful bargain by which the House disinterested itself for 50 years in the affairs of Northern Ireland".—[Official Report,27 May 1982; Vol. 24, c. 1146–48.] According to the right hon. Gentleman, the Stormont Administration came about as a result of a "corrupt and slothful bargain". All who sat in the old Stormont Parliament will know that that was exactly the thesis of every republican in the House. They argued that there was a corrupt and slothful bargain between the Unionist leaders of the day and the Westminster Parliament, and that as a result we had the Stormont Administration.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say in Belfast "We stand for legislative devolution" but say in the House of Commons "The only vacuum in Northern Ireland is that of a second tier of local government."

7 pm

Mr. Julian Amery (Brighton, Pavilion)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why Carson, the founder of Ulster in its present form, was so deeply opposed to the creation of Stormont? Carson wanted full integration and so, I think, did Craig. Why did these great men, who played such an important part in the foundation of Ulster, take such a different view from the devolutionist view that is sometimes argued?

Rev. Ian Paisley

If the right hon. Gentleman reads Ulster history, he will discover that Lord Carson formed a provisional Government of Northern Ireland and took over the running of Northern Ireland under his own wing and authority in defiance of the House of Commons. Indeed, he said in the Chamber "Arrest me if you dare." Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman should know that Lord Carson's aim was to see the whole of Ireland within the Union. Lord Carson was not an Ulster Unionist. For want of a better term, he was a southern Irish Unionist, although he led the Ulster Unionist people. He felt betrayed when his Unionist Party sacrificed the great aim of the party to see all Ireland within the Union. It is not right to suggest that Lord Craigavon was not a supporter of the Stormont Administration. He took the Premiership of that Administration and was its first distinguished Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman should read again the facts of Ulster history.

The philosophy of Unionism was to remain itself under the Act of Union. That Act was a legislative union with this House of Commons. That is what Unionists fought for, but the battle was lost. As a result, Northern Ireland had to accept what was given to it by the House of Commons. However, before it accepted that it had already made provision for a provisional Government in Northern Ireland. I hope that those remarks will be helpful to the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). I know of his interest in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Martin Smyth

Will the hon. Gentleman go slightly further in his explanation and tell the Committee that a provisional Government was formed in the event of the House of Commons voting Northern Ireland outside the Union into the Republic of Ireland or Eire, as it was then called? The Ulster people were determined that it would not go that way.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will not be tempted to go down that. road. We are straying rather far from the amendment.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The provisional Government had already been set up and it was effective. It had an army of many thousands to put into effect its laws and regulations and to keep the Province outside the powers of the IRA and the Republic.

The hon. Member for Orpington talked about a second tier of local government. He fails to understand that the entire Macrory report was based on a Stormont—24 regional councils, the boards and Stormont both administrative and legislative. In Northern Ireland we do not need to regain some tier of local government. We need the tier that is missing from the Macrory report, and that is the Stormont system, which would involve administrative and legislative devolution.

In Northern Ireland we have local government and we have boards but we have no administrative or legislative Stormont on to which they can hang. That is the vacuum. That is the problem to which the Committee should address itself. If we go ahead and introduce the Stormont administration that was envisaged in the Macrory report, the system will be completed.

Mr. Stanbrook

I am trying to follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. The new Assembly could fulfil the local government function which was envisaged in the Macrory report. It is not necessary for it to have a legislative function.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Yes, but the Macrory report emphasised that there would need to be both executive and legislative power. Northern Ireland cannot be governed properly from the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Antrim, South has talked about the problems that arise from a broken water main. That is an example of the impossibility of governing Northern Ireland properly from the House of Commons.

Most of those who are participants in the debate are against legislative devolution. They are against it for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They have a right to express their views and their views are interesting. However, we are discussing legislation. We usually discuss it after midnight. We discuss Orders in Council, which we cannot amend: we can vote either for them or against them. Even if all the 12 Northern Ireland Members agree—one of them does not come to this place—they cannot have any influence on legislation. What can 12, or 17, Northern Ireland Members do to influence legislation in this place?

The hon. Member for Orpington spoke of the high calibre of Northern Ireland Members. It would be wrong for the House of Commons to say "We can find 17 Members but we shall not be able to find 85 suitable Assembly Members for Northern Ireland". The 85 will have to be as good as the present 12 if they are properly to carry out their work in Northern Ireland. In that regard, the hon. Gentleman is not arguing logically. If the people of Northern Ireland are fit, according to this House, to have a second tier of local government, they are just as fit to deal with the legislation that is necessary for the good government of Northern Ireland.

I have made it clear before, and I shall make it clear again, that I accept the first part of the present proposal. We need an election and we need an Assembly. There are matters in Northern Ireland now that cannot be discussed adequately in this House. We cannot obtain the necessary input to the Government on such matters. Education is one example. It is important. We have not been able to get the necessary input when there has been a major proposal to merge one of our universities with a polytechnic. Agriculture, our most important industry, is another example. Planning and social services are others. Individuals in Northern Ireland are deeply interested in them. The only way that we can obtain the proper representation to the Government is by having an elected Assembly that will be able to put its views forcefully to Ministers on such matters.

Mr. Proctor

The hon. Gentleman is asking that those people who do not have a say and do not discuss the matter should be able to change the law with regard to that matter. He has not argued his case on that line.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The hon. Gentleman must give me time. I am talking about the first part of the proposal. I welcome it because direct rule in Northern Ireland is unbridled. There is little accountability, right from the Secretary of State to his officers in Northern Ireland, to the House. There is not one Northern Ireland Member on the Public Accounts Committee where he could deal with matters of which he has knowledge. I accept that members of the Public Accounts Committee ask Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, and rightly so, about various matters. But, as far as the House is concerned, we do not have that privilege and direct rule has been unbridled. It should be bridled and the suggested Scrutiny Committees have a good purpose in that respect. After all, they were suggested in the Convention report. They could do a good job.

With regard to the legislative part, I have made it clear, both in my speech in the debate on the White Paper and on Second Reading, that I am opposed to the mechanisms that are written into the Bill about how one gets power back, because they stand democracy on its head. Moreover, they insult the loyal people. The hon. Member for Orpington talked about people who want to stay with Great Britain and remain British. They are told that if they can manage 70 per cent. the House of Commons will discuss whether they are fit to have certain powers. But if one is not loyal, if one carries a Republican passport and can get 50 per cent. plus one, there is a possibility of one getting power. That is what is so repugnant to the people of Northern Ireland. There should be one basis for the bringing back of power to Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) said that there will never be legislative devolution on the terms on which people want it. I do not know what the House will do. Will it soldier on, year after year, with the problem that it now has, or will it face the issue and say "Look, the people of Northern Ireland have voted in a certain way"? I remind the House that every effort was made to change that.

The leader of the Official Unionist Party tells us that a Northern Ireland official is planning his political demise so that when he is got rid of the Northern Ireland Office can in some way get the Unionist party to go down its road. I do not know whether that is so. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us about the official who has sharpened his knife and is ready to use it on the hon. Member for Antrim, South.

I do not know what plans are laid for my early demise. If I were removed my party would carry on in the same way. It would be necessary to take the heads of the whole lot of them. I opposed power sharing. I was a member of the old Assembly. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. McQuade) was carried out—so was I. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) was also carried out of that House. We were opposed to power sharing. We remain just as opposed to it today as ever we were, and the Secretary of State knows it. We have told him so.

7.15 pm

If there is an 85-seat Assembly and if 70 per cent. say "We believe that legislative powers should come back", hon. Members should realise that people might vote for that. The 70 per cent. could be attained. The people voting may not want to serve in the Administration, but they could say "Yes, we feel that power should come back and we will give you your 70 per cent." What happens then? Will this House say "You have your 70 per cent. Therefore, we will start to roll out the devolution"? Or will the House say "We do not like the colour of those voters. They are not our colour. Therefore, you will not have your power"? That is why the Bill is absolutely wrong and why it cannot and will not work.

It is no use anyone believing that that power will work. The Secretary of State will find that he has an Assembly that is prepared to do good work in its Committees and to keep a tight eye on him and his Ministers, but it will not be able to reach any agreement about executive and legislative power except that the House changes its mind on the subject. Otherwise this House will say "You have the 70 per cent. We thought that it was an insurmountable hurdle. You have got over it and we will now give you those devolved powers."

Sooner or later the House must face up to the Northern Ireland situation and to the fact that for 50 years Northern Ireland had legislative devolution. I was not a member of any Stormont Government. After the Republicans left, I was leader of the Opposition. I had no responsibility for any legislation that was passed there. Nevertheless, Stormont did a good job and it is wrong for the hon. Member for Orpington to say that all we did was to wrangle about religion. The Kilbrandon report states about the legislation that went through that House: We have no doubt at all that home rule was of considerable advantage to Northern Ireland. Particularly in the large areas of government which were unaffected, or at least were not dominated, by the community problem, conspicuous progress was made under it. Perhaps the most impressive of these was in the field of health, where Northern Ireland, which used to be well below the standards of Great Britain, caught up with and in some respects surpassed them. The other social services were steadily built up. Education was greatly improved and, though it still continues, below university level, in two almost entirely different systems— that is the systems of Church and State schools— … and, though the level of unemployment continued to be higher than the average for Great Britain, the gap had been significantly narrowed at the time of the outbreak of the disturbances. So it is not right to say that in 50 years the Stormont Parliament did nothing. It did a very good job in extremely difficult circumstances. It must he remembered that at the beginning the Parliament was boycotted and Lord Craigavon had to put his own men—the Labour Unionist delegates—across the Floor of the House in order to form an Opposition. It is very hard to run a Government without an Opposition—albeit there is a silent Opposition in the Committee at present, but no doubt we shall hear from them in due time.

Quotations have been given from a Mr. Carr who attended the Council for the Union. Mr. Carr stood as a local government candidate and forfeited his deposit. He cannot be said to represent anyone in Northern Ireland if he cannot even win a council seat. All sorts of suggestions have been made. The former Secretary of State told us that the SDLP vote was diminishing and that the Alliance was coining forward as the main party, that the Unionist Party might be able to hold its own but that the Party that I represent would be entirely obliterated. The House should not put its faith in opinion polls. The election results will show the true opinions of the people of Northern Ireland. I am prepared to abide by those results. The Assembly election results will demonstrate to this House yet again that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want democracy and they do not want it stood on its head. They want the right to a real say in decision making in the Province.

I oppose the amendment because it takes away the cornerstone of legislative devolution. We must have legislative as well as executive devolution. We cannot do anything else if we are to go by the Convention report.

Mr. John Patten

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene now. First, I associate myself with the congratulations expressed to you, Mr. Dean, by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Budgen

On a point of order, Mr. Dean. If my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate now, he will not have heard the observations of at least three or four hon. Members, to put it at its lowest. [Interruption.] To judge from the remarks that I hear around me, it may be as many as 10. The Minister cannot possibly reply to hon. Members who have not spoken. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that this is a most unfortunate time for him to catch your eye, Mr. Dean.

The Second Deputy Chairman

That is a matter for the Minister. When the Minister in charge of a Bill rises, it is usual for him to be called. I am following the normal precedent.

Mr. Budgen

Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I thought that I had made it clear that no point of order arises.

Mr. Patten

We are in Committee, and it may be convenient if I intervene at this stage.

Mr. Gorst

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten

I should like to get on a little before giving way.

I associate myself with the remarks of congratulation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) to you, Mr. Dean, on assuming your: new responsibilities. I believe that we shall see a good deal more of each other.

Mr. Budgen

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten

I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to finish my remarks to you, Mr. Dean. I expect that we shall see a good deal of each other when Northern Ireland matters are discussed. They are usually discussed much later at night. Indeed, Northern Ireland affairs are not often discussed here in daylight and it is pleasant to be in that situation now, although the Committee may continue rather later on one or two nights. I now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen).

Mr. Budgen

From the way in which the Minister began his speech, I thought that he did not intend to give way at all. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I would have been saddened by such an approach. As I clearly misunderstood the Minister's attitude, however, I immediately withdraw what I said.

Mr. Patten

rose—

Mr. Gorst

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Patten

No, I intend to begin my speech—and begin it I shall.

Mr. Gorst

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Patten

No, I shall not give way. The debate has ranged very wide—far wider, I suggest, than the wording of the amendments might at first have suggested.

Mr. Gorst

Will the Minister give way now?

Mr. Patten

The amendments seek only the removal of a couple of words, but they point towards a quite different Bill and a quite different system of devolution from that to which the House gave a Second Reading.

Mr. Gorst

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten

If our positions were reversed, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) would no doubt find it most curious if I sought to intervene before he had made his first point. I shall certainly give way later.

Mr. Gorst

It might be more sensible if the Minister gave way now.

Mr. Patten

I repeat that the amendments seek only the removal of a couple of words, but they point towards a quite different Bill and a quite different system of devolution from that to which the House gave a Second Reading. It is on that that my argument will stand.

I should perhaps deal briefly with one or two general issues of principle, as they have been aired so much in the two days of this debate.

Mr. Gorst

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten

I intend to develop my argument.

Mr. Gorst

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten

I do not wish—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."]—I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily, but it might seem discourteous to those who have already spoken to ignore the arguments that have been made. I assure the Committee, however, that I do not intend to make a speech more suitable to a Second Reading debate.

Having completed that introduction, I now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North.

Mr. Gorst

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way now, although it would have been helpful if he could have answered at the start a question that is troubling many Members on this side of the House and perhaps, indeed, on both sides.

Does the Minister intend to make two speeches on this group of amendments? Unless we have some idea at this stage whether he intends to make a second speech, we shall be in great difficulty over the further contributions that I know my hon. Friends wish to make if they catch your eye, Mr. Dean.

Mr. Patten

At this stage I am attempting to assist the Committee by dealing with a number of wide-ranging matters. As I have said, the debate has ranged far more widely than the amendments, to which we should perhaps have addressed ourselves all the time.

Mr. Proctor

On a point of order, Mr. Dean. Will you rule on whether the Minister's observations about the scope of the debate going wider than the amendments actually allow is in any way a reflection on the judgment of the Chair?

The Second Deputy Chairman

I think that I made it clear—certainly my predecessors in the Chair made it clear—that this is a fairly wide amendment. Therefore, sensing the feeling in the Committee, the Chair has quite deliberately allowed a fairly wide debate.

Mr. Gorst

Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. Could you give some guidance on whether you will be able to consider calling more hon. Members after the Minister has spoken?

The Second Deputy Chairman

The hon. Gentleman is an experienced enough parliamentarian to know that the Chair cannot conceivably commit itself on that at this stage. We must see how we go.

Mr. Patten

If I may, Mr. Dean—

Mr. Proctor

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten

If I may, I shall continue trying to conclude my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North on whether this will be my only speech or whether I might seek to intervene again if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Dean, and should any other member of the Committee have been fortunate enough to do so. Clearly, I cannot predict at this stage whether I shall seek to intervene again.

Mr. Proctor

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten

No. I intend now to deal with the general, wide-ranging matters that have been made in the debate.

The first is the alleged threat to the unity of the kingdom. In our view, there is nothing in the Bill that could in any way be construed as a threat to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. In saying that, I seek to "read in" the view of the Government on this. The aim of the Bill is simply to provide a framework in which the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland can have—if I may borrow the expression of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell)—the opportunity to restore the process of democracy". 7.30 pm

The constitutional position of Northern Ireland remains exactly as set out in section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. That is that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom for as long as that is the wish of the majority of its people. Having said that, I hope that it will not be necessary for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reiterate that point during other debates on groups of amendments and single amendments.

As I said on Second Reading, the Assembly is subject to dual consent.

Viscount Cranborne

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Patten

I shall give way when I finish this point.

I said on Second Reading that the Assembly was subject to dual consent. It is important for the Committee to realise that. It is subject to the Assembly asking for devolution and the consent of this sovereign House of Parliament to give it, should Parliament so decide. The constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is not threatened by the provisions of the Bill. I shall happily give way to my hon. Friend, if he wishes to refer to that point.

Viscount Cranborne

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his courtesy in giving way. On the question whether the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain members of the United Kingdom, my hon. Friend says that that is the criterion by which he will judge whether the Six Counties remain part of the United Kingdom. I understand that the present position is that the Government have a discretion to hold a referendum every 10 years, or more frequently if they feel that that is advisable. Is it still the Government's intention to hold referendums at 10-yearly intervals? If it is, is that desirable, rather than relying on the opinion of the elected representatives of the Six Counties in Parliament?

Mr. Patten

That is a matter for consideration nearer 1983, when the next date falls due.

A second important point of principle that has arisen in this wide-ranging debate is the so-called West Lothian question. Naturally, I recognise the force of the arguments. However, those considerations, important though they may be in themselves and in other contexts, must be set, first, against Northern Ireland's special needs within the United Kingdom and, secondly, against Northern Ireland's long tradition of devolved government within the United Kingdom.

The unity of the kingdom has not depended, and does not now depend, upon constitutional uniformity. I challenge anyone in the Committee to suggest otherwise. We have said on many previous occasions why the Government are firmly of the view that the restoration of devolved government holds out the best prospect of finding constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland that are acceptable to both sides of the community.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

The Minister has issued a challenge. I would be prepared to say that the unity of the kingdom depends upon the fact that the law in this kingdom at this time is made exclusively by or under the authority of the House.

Mr. Patten

In the 50 years that Stormont was in existence, the law within Northern Ireland was made by the sovereign power of Stormont within Northern Ireland as it related to the greater sovereign power of this Parliament in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Budgen

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Patten

I shall not give way. I gave way earlier to my hon. Friend. In the end he did not have a point that he wished to make. Therefore, perhaps he will forgive me if I continue to try to answer this interesting point on the challenge that I perhaps rather foolishly threw out. I said that at no stage in the history of the United Kingdom had there been a period when the unity of the kingdom depended on constitutional uniformity. I believe that to be so.

Mr. Amery

My hon. Friend said that there was no question of derogating from the unity of the kingdom. He will realise that Stormont was established in the hope of the Parliament of the time that one day there would be a reunion of the North and South. Stormont was an attempt to postpone the final unification of the kingdom. It is a little uncertain whether it is good sense to argue that devolution and the establishment of a devolved Assembly do not put in question the unity of the kingdom. It does, and Stormont was meant to. Let us not forget that.

Mr. Patten

Whatever was in the minds of the architects of Stormont more than half a century ago, and whatever their intentions, the effect turned out to be different. I intend to make this my last point and I shall not give way again on it. For 50 years Stormont, for whatever reasons it was founded, acted in a way that did not derogate from the unity of the United Kingdom. I hope that I have demonstrated why, in the Government's view, some of the anxieties that have prompted the amendments are not justified.

Mr. Budgen

rose—

Mr. Patten

I must ask my hon. Friend to be fair. I have given way at least six times in a short period. I must have the opportunity to put forward the arguments of Her Majesty's Government.

Rev. Martin Smyth

rose—

Mr. Patten

I do not wish to be discourteous. I wish to direct the attention of the Committee to the powerful pleas that have been made for an increase in the powers of local government in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Budgen

rose—

Hon. Members

Give way.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

Surely the Minister will—

Mr. Patten

I wish to develop the argument about local government, and then I shall give way.

The Government believe that an increase in powers for district councils will be very contentious. I hope that the Committee will accordingly accept that, at the start of a process of constitutional development, that will require an enormous amount of good will. It would be counterproductive to do now as Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches propose.

I recognise the points that were made by the lion. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). He referred to the present insufficient democratic accountability in regard to the operation of boards and the provision of local government services in Northern Ireland. Those bodies are not unknown in England and Wales. England and Wales have regional health authorities and district health authorities, in exactly the same way as Northern Ireland, as I said in an intervention that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) kindly permitted me to make.

Rev. Martin Smyth

I should like clarification on two points. First, will the Minister acknowledge that for 60 years the Union was maintained because the Government in the devolved Parliament was a Unionist Government? Secondly, will the Minister enlighten the Committee about how many members of the statutory boards are failed politicians, rejected by the people and put there to make sure that the people's wishes are not carried out?

Mr. Patten

The second of the hon. Gentleman's questions requires me to make value judgments about the views in which Northern Ireland politicians are held by their peers in the Province, which I am not fit and able to make. I have already left the hon. Gentleman's first point. I reiterate that during the life of the Stormont Parliament it did not in any sense act against the unity of the United Kingdom.

It is the primary purpose of the Bill—

Mr. Richard Body (Holland with Boston)

My hon. Friend is speaking at some speed and covering a great deal of ground in a short time. In view of his earlier remark about any extension of the powers of local councils being contentious, I wonder whether he or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has sought the opinion of local authorities, particularly those with non-Unionist majorities, to sere whether they favour an extension of powers.

Mr. Patten

I hope my hon. Friend will accept that I shall deal with these points later in my remarks on local government. My hon. Friend will perhaps be content to await that stage.

It is a primary purpose of the Bill to attempt to enable executive functions to be discharged in Northern Ireland by an administration that is directly accountable to a local elected Assembly. The name of Sir Patrick Macrory has been mentioned on a number of occasions. His recommendation that many functions are better exercised on a Province-wide basis than by local councils regains its original force if there is an elected Assembly and a local administration to exercise those powers. It is precisely for those reasons, among others, that we wish to see an Assembly set up.

The unsatisfactory character of the present position is that powers have been concentrated on a Province-wide basis and that the direct rule arrangements have removed these powers from Northern Ireland hands almost entirely, except, perhaps indirectly, through the influence that membership of health and social services boards and education and library boards can bring.

I should like to draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that it would be open to the Assembly, once a devolved Administration had been re-established, to consider whether changes in the structure of local government in Northern Ireland were desirable. The Assembly would be free to do so under the terms of the Bill as they are drawn. It is, indeed, precisely the sort of matter that the Government accept the Assembly might wish to discuss, just at the Assembly might wish to discuss security or other related matters.

The last point—a fundamental one—is that, for all that hon. Members have said, there is no reason to believe that the devolution of executive responsibilities would be inherently less contentious than the devolution of legislative responsibilities. Anyone who knows the Province would say that the history of Northern Ireland sometimes has shown, since the 1920s, that the reverse is true. It was sometimes the exercise of executive power that gave rise to more dissent than the exercise of legislative power when Stormont was in existence. If an Assembly could reach agreement on the former, I believe that it could, and should, be given every opportunity to reach agreement on the latter.

We feel that the likelihood of workable proposals for devolution emerging that could command widespread acceptance would be materially greater if the Assembly had freedom to consider legislative and executive responsibilities together as it hammered out ways in which it could move from a consultative phase to a phase where it began to seek the devolution of powers to it under the dual consent of the Assembly itself and these Houses of Parliament. It is hard to see how one can deal with legislative issues without executive issues, to deal with the one independently of the other. It is for the reasons that I have given that I recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

The hon. Gentleman has made an important statement, unless I have misunderstood him. I understood him to say that the Government were prepared to contemplate the idea that the Assembly should put forward proposals for—I use a general expression—filling the gap in local government. If that is to be one of the subjects that the Assembly can consider, I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is possible, as the Bill stands, to include it in the proposals, and if so, how that is included in the structure of the Bill as it stands? If not, will he say whether the Government propose to amend the Bill to enable the Assembly to put forward proposals for filling the local government gap?

Mr. Patten

I did not, I think, quite say that. I apologise if I did not make myself clear. Once the Assembly has been set up, and once it has passed from its consultative stage to the stage where it has some, at least, if not all, of the devolved powers that it can seek in the transferred field, the Assembly would be in the position to begin to review the arrangements for the conduct of affairs that are at present under the rule of the health boards or the education and library boards or, indeed, in local government itself. It could reach that stage under the terms of the Bill, as presently drawn, only after devolved Government had been achieved.

I regret to say that the amendments before the Committee point to a different Bill and a different system of devolution from that to which the House gave a Second Reading. I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist them.

7.45 pm

Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield)

I should like first, Mr. Dean, on behalf of the Labour Party, to take this first opportunity to extend our congratulations to you on taking up your new post. I shall not detain the Committee for too long. The actions witnessed in this Committee have been enlightening to myself and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley). After 16 years in the House, I feel a little sad that I should have to get to my feet to stop the internal fight on the Government Benches. I should like, however, to correct one false impression that has been given—

Mr. Body

The hon. Gentleman has used the word "sad". Is it not also sad that there are no Labour Back Benchers present?

Mr. Concannon

I have stated before, and do so again, that this is a problem for the Government and for the Government's supporters. If my party has complete faith in its two Front Bench spokesmen, which is the case, to put the views of the party, this is only a compliment to those two spokesmen. I am sure that the Government Front Bench wishes that it had the support of Conservative Members to the same degree.

I should like to correct one point that I would not wish to accuse the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) of making intentionally. The hon. Gentleman read from a paper that was supposedly an original Labour Party document. He failed to read out the conclusions. It is important for the Labour Party to put its views on record because it coincides with the attitude of the Labour Members to the first two amendments. It is right and proper that we take our stance on paragraphs 13 and 21 of the White Paper—

Mr. Gorst

I should like to correct a remark that the right hon. Gentleman made a few moments ago which I did not have the chance to raise with him at the time. There have been only five speeches, apart from that of the Minister, on this group of amendments. Only two have been made by Conservative Members. How does the right hon. Gentleman therefore draw the strange conclusion about a war on the Conservative Back Benches?

Mr. Concannon

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has studied the White Paper or read the Second Reading debate. This is the second day, or the attempted second day of the Committee stage, through the whole of which I have sat, apart from taking a couple of cups of coffee. I intend to go on sitting through the Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North and I will have to take turns on the Front Bench, but I think that our stamina will be up to that.

I wish to correct one point, and to put our view on record. I should not like it to be thought that the Labour Party has given carte blanche to restoring all the local government authorities in Northern Ireland at one go. In the paragraph that finishes up that part of our policy document, which was given virtually unanimous support at our conference last year, it says: We would not favour, therefore, any major changes to local government without further consideration and consultation of those concerned. In the absence of a power-sharing devolved government, it would not be wise to go beyond the limited reforms suggested above. Those limited reforms were those to which the hon. Member for Epping Forest referred, such as the limited reform to the democracy within the boards. We did not go further than that.

It is made obvious, by quoting that paragraph, that the Labour Party would be against the amendments.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling)

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided; Ayes 153, Noes 28.

Division No. 176]	[7.50 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Eyre, Reginald
Alison, RtHonMichael	Fairgrieve, SirRussell
Arnold, Tom	Faith, MrsSheila
Aspinwall, Jack	Fisher, Sir Nigel
Baker, Kenneth(St. M'bone)	Fletcher, A.(Ed'nb'gh N)
Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset)	Forman, Nigel
Banks, Robert	Goodlad, Alastair
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Gower, Sir Raymond
Beith, A. J.	Grant, Anthony(Harrow C)
Benyon, W.(Buckingham)	Gray, Hamish
Berry, Hon Anthony	Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Best, Keith	Griffiths, PeterPortsm'th N)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Grylls, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Hamilton, Hon A.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Hampson, Dr Keith
Bright, Graham	Hannam, John
Brooke, Hon Peter	Hawkins, Paul
Browne, John(Winchester)	Hawksley, Warren
Bruce-Gardyne, John	Hayhoe, Barney
Bryan, Sir Paul	Henderson, Barry
Buck, Antony	Hill, James
Bulmer, Esmond	Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)
Butler, Hon Adam	Holland, Philip(Carlton)
Cadbury, Jocelyn	Hooson, Tom
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Horam, John
Chapman, Sydney	Hordern, Peter
Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)	Howells, Geraint
Cockeram, Eric	Hunt, David(Wirral)
Cope, John	Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Costain, Sir Albert	Irvine, Bryant Godman(Rye)
Crawshaw, Richard	Jessel, Toby
Dorrell, Stephen	Jopling, RtHonMichael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Kaberry, SirDonald
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)	King, Rt Hon Tom
Durant, Tony	Kitson, SirTimothy
Eggar, Tim	Lang, Ian
Elliott, SirWilliam	Lester, Jim(Beeston)

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)	Scott, Nicholas
Lyell, Nicholas	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Lyons, Edward(Bradf'dW)	Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)
MacGregor, John	Shersby, Michael
McNally, Thomas	Silvester, Fred
Major, John	Skeet, T. H. H.
Marland, Paul	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Marlow, Antony	Speller, Tony
Marshall, Michael(Arundel)	Stevens, Martin
Marten, Rt Hon Neil	Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)
Mather, Carol	Stradling Thomas, J.
Mawby, Ray	Tapsell, Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mellor, David	Thompson, Donald
Mills, Iain(Meriden)	Thorne, Stan(Preston South)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Townend, John(Bridlington)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)	Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)
Moate, Roger	Trippier, David
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Neale, Gerrard	Viggers, Peter
Needham, Richard	Waddington, David
Nelson, Anthony	Wainwright, R.(Colne V)
Normanton, Tom	Wakeham, John
Onslow, Cranley	Waldegrave, Hon William
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David	Wall, Sir Patrick
Page, John (Harrow, West)	Waller, Gary
Page, Richard (SW Herts)	Ward, John
Patten, John (Oxford)	Wellbeloved, James
Pollock, Alexander	Wells, Bowen
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Wheeler, John
Prior, Rt Hon James	Whitney, Raymond
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Wickenden, Keith
Rhodes James, Robert	Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)
Ridsdale, SirJulian	Wolfson, Mark
Rifkind, Malcolm	Young, SirGeorge(Acton)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Roper, John	Tellers for the Ayes:
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.	Mr. Selwyn Gummer and
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.
Sandelson, Neville

NOES
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Biggs-Davison, SirJohn	McQuade, John
Blackburn, John	Molyneaux, James
Body, Richard	Morgan, Geraint
Braine, Sir Bernard	Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Brotherton, Michael	Murphy, Christopher
Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)	Paisley, Rev Ian
Budgen, Nick	Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Cranborne, Viscount	Skinner, Dennis
Dunlop, John	Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)
Farr, John	Stanbrook, Ivor
Goodhart, SirPhilip	Winterton, Nicholas
Gorst, John
Kilfedder, James A.	Tellers for the Noes:
Knight, MrsJill	Mr. K. Harvey Proctor and
Lawrence, Ivan	Mr. William Ross.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 19, Noes 161.

Division No. 177]	[8.02 pm
AYES
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Molyneaux, James
Biggs-Davison, SirJohn	Morgan, Geraint
Body, Richard	Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)	Murphy, Christopher
Budgen, Nick	Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Cranborne, Viscount	Stanbrook, Ivor
Farr, John	Winterton, Nicholas
Goodhart, SirPhilip
Gorst, John	Tellers for the Ayes:
Knight, MrsJill	Mr. K. Harvey Proctor and
Lawrence, Ivan	Mr. William Ross.
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Gummer, JohnSelwyn
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Hamilton, HonA.
Arnold, Tom	Hampson, DrKeith
Aspinwall, Jack	Hannam, John
Baker, Kenneth(St. M'bone)	Hawkins, Paul
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Hawksley, Warren
Banks, Robert	Hayhoe, Barney
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Henderson, Barry
Beith, A. J.	Hill, James
Benyon, Thomas(A'don)	Holland, Phillp(Carlton)
Benyon, W.(Buckingham)	Hooson, Tom
Berry, HonAnthony	Horam, John
Best, Keith	Howells, Geraint
Bevan, David Gilroy	Hunt, David(Wirral)
Blackburn, John	Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Blaker, Peter	Irvine, BryantGodman
Boscawen, HonRobert	Jessel, Toby
Boyson, DrRhodes	Jopling, RtHonMichael
Braine, SirBernard	Kaberry, SirDonald
Bright, Graham	Kilfedder, JamesA.
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	King, Rt Hon Tom
Brooke, Hon Peter	Kitson, SirTimothy
Brotherton, Michael	Lester, Jim(Beeston)
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)	Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)
Browne, John(Winchester)	Lyell, Nicholas
Bruce-Gardyne, John	Lyons, Edward(Bradf'dW)
Buck, Antony	MacGregor, John
Bulmer, Esmond	MacKay, John(Argyll)
Butler, HonAdam	McNally, Thomas
Cadbury, Jocelyn	McQuade, John
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Major, John
Chapman, Sydney	Marland, Paul
Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)	Marlow, Antony
Cockeram, Eric	Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Colvin, Michael	Mather, Carol
Cope, John	Mawby, Ray
Costain, SirAlbert	Mawhinney, DrBrian
Crawshaw, Richard	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Crouch, David	Mellor, David
Dorrell, Stephen	Mills, Iain(Meriden)
Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.	Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Dunlop, John	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)	Moate, Roger
Eggar, Tim	Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Elliott, SirWilliam	Myles, David
Eyre, Reginald	Neale, Gerrard
Fairgrieve, SirRussell	Needham, Richard
Faith, MrsSheila	Nelson, Anthony
Fisher, SirNigel	Normanton, Tom
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)	Onslow, Cranley
Forman, Nigel	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Goodlad, Alastair	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Gower, SirRaymond	Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Grant, Anthony(HarrowC)	Paisley, Rev Ian
Gray, Hamish	Patten, John(Oxford)
Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)	Pollock, Alexander
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Grylls, Michael	Prior, Rt Hon James

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Thompson, Donald
RhodesJames, Robert	Townsend, CyrilD, (B'heath)
Ridley, HonNicholas	Trippier, David
Ridsdale, SirJulian	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Rifkind, Malcolm	Viggers, Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Waddington, David
Roper, John	Wainwright, R.(ColneV)
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.	Waldegrave, HonWilliam
Sainsbury, HonTimothy	Wall, Sir Patrick
Sandelson, Neville	Waller, Gary
Scott, Nicholas	Wellbeloved, James
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Wells, Bowen
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)	Wheeler, John
Shersby, Michael	Whitney, Raymond
Silvester, Fred	Wickenden, Keith
Skeet, T. H. H.	Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Skinner,Dennis	Williams, Rt Hon Mrs(Crosby)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Wolfson, Mark
Speller, Tony	Young, SirGeorge(Acton)
Stevens, Martin	Younger, Rt Hon George
Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)
Stradling Thomas, J.	Tellers for the Noes:
Tapsell, Peter	Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)	Mr. Ian Lang.
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Mr. Gorst

On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I in no way wish to encroach upon your discretion—which is obviously unquestioned when it applies to when the closure is moved and accepted—but I should like your guidance on one matter. The mover of the amendment under discussion did not have an opportunity to reflect and to give his observations on the Government's reply. Furthermore, we were given no guidance on whether he wished to withdraw the amendment in the light of the Minister's reply. In future, if the Chief Whip or any other hon. Member moves the closure will any consideration be given at least to the hon. Member who moved the amendment, so that he can respond to the debate?

The Second Deputy Chairman

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but such circumstances frequently arise when the closure is moved. In such cases the Chair must use its discretion.

Mr. Michael Brown

Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. Of course I accept that it is entirely for the Chair to decide whether to accept the closure. However, during our last debate the House was somewhat critical—in mood, if not in words—of the fact that the Minister intervened at a stage that those of us who wished to catch your eye thought unusual. If, during the remaining proceedings on the Bill—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is not raising a point of order. He is trying to resume a debate that has been completed. Will he please make his point of order?

Mr. Brown

I apologise, Mr. Dean. Would it not be a good idea to call the Minister concerned at the start of the debate and immediately after the mover of the amendments has spoken? Unlike proceedings in a Standing Committee, we had no opportunity to speak in the last debate, and we had to rely on the Minister being prepared to give way. Sometimes he did so with good grace, but at other times he refused. It is the Committee's duty to question the Minister, but we had no opportunity to do so unless he gave way. In addition, he moved rapidly. Will you ensure, Mr. Dean, that the Minister can be called immediately after the mover of the amendment, so that hon. Members at least have the opportunity to question the Minister on his speech? We did not have that opportunity during our last debate.

8.15 pm

The Second Deputy Chairman

I understand how the hon. Gentleman feels, but I should get into great trouble if I tried to decide when the Minister in charge of a Bill should be called. However, I am sure that the Ministers in the Chamber have heard the hon. Gentleman's views.

Mr. Farr

On a point of order. Before raising that point of order, Mr. Dean, may I wish you a long, happy and successful tenure? I am sure that you can readily advise those Conservative Members who do not agree with the Bill now to proceed if they wish to contribute to our debates. In the last debate, 10 or 11 Conservative Members failed to be called and only two succeeded. If that pattern is to be repeated, it will be difficult for Conservative Members to speak. I should like your advice in that respect.

The Second Deputy Chairman

With his long experience of the House, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that there is very little that the Chair can do in such cases. However, it is not unknown for those with grievances against Ministers to talk to them privately. In my experience of a previous incarnation, I sometimes found that quite a helpful device to adopt.

Mr. Budgen

Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. Although I welcome you to the Chair, is it not for the Chair to decide when the closure should be accepted? If, by chance, we felt that the Chair consistently accepted the closure early, our proper constitutional course would presumably be to table a motion. If Ministers are to make a habit of calling for the Patronage Secretary to move the closure although 10 hon. Members still wish to speak might they not be wise to allow some of those hon. Members to intervene in their speeches—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is debating my decision to accept the closure. That is not debatable and, furthermore, the matter has been dealt with.

Mr. Budgen

Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. Of course I do not wish to debate your decision or any future decision. But through you, might it not be helpful to the Committee, if Ministers were proposing to rise while many hon. Gentlemen were still waiting to speak, and to call for a closure after that if at least they were open and said that it was likely that there would be a closure at the end of the Minister's speech? Then if they do not give way there will be many hon. Members who may make such indications as they are properly able to make that perhaps a rather ready access to their questioning might be allowed. In the course of the Minister's speech there were many hon. Members who were anxious as to whether they would be able to speak. We did not press our questions and interventions because we naturally thought that we would be able to make a speech. The closure motion came as a great surprise to many of us.

The Second Deputy Chairman

The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not for me to decide when Ministers or any other hon. Members should rise in their places. I think that we should now get on with the next debate.

Rev. Ian Paisley

On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I trust that you will keep in mind that the debate is of great interest to Northern Ireland Members. Northern Ireland Members were wanting to speak but had no opportunity to do so. This proposal affects our future. I trust that you will keep that in mind. The Conservatives have made a good plea for themselves. Ulster had better make a plea for itself.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman on that point. I shall do my utmost to see that all parts of the House, particularly minorities, have their rights fully respected in our debates.

Mr. Gorst

On a point of order, Mr. Dean. May I draw to your attention, as you are at the moment the protector supreme of the rights of Back Benchers, the fact that there is a problem that will worry many hon. Members about the matter that we are discussing? We are discussing a constitutional Bill that is not normally, as I understand it, subject to the guillotine, but there is a form of back door guillotine which is in danger of being introduced—the closure. We look for protection in this matter. I ask whether you can give us that protection should the occasion arise.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Perhaps I should add, in view of the oblique criticism in his remarks, that nothing out of order has occurred during the last debate or the last Divisions.

Mr. Body

On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I believe that it is within your discretion whether we should have a debate on clause 1 stand part. I realise that we have yet to reach the end of clause 1, but some 12 of us on the Conservative Back Benches were seeking to catch your eye. Some of us are disappointed that we were unable to do so as it was almost our last opportunity to express our views on the essential merits of the Bill. You said that you would permit a wide-ranging debate. Those of us who may have strong views about the Bill, not only on the Conservative Benches but on the Ulster Unionist Bench, may be deprived of an opportunity to express those views except on a narrow point. They would be able to do so if you, Mr. Dean, were to permit a stand part debate on clause 1. Will you consider permitting that to take place when the opportunity arises, as that would be some solace to those of us who waited long and patiently to make our speeches? Twelve of us sought to catch your eye not long ago.

The Second Deputy Chairman

It is a little too early in our proceedings on clause 1 for the Chair to make a decision on a clause stand part debate. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the point that he is putting—I believe that it has been put earlier—will be carefully borne in mind by the Chair before the ultimate decision is made.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (2).

The Second Deputy Chairman

With this it will be convenient to take, the following amendments:

No. 119, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'shall', and insert 'may'.

No. 8, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'a', and insert 'the'.

No. 120, in page 1, line 21, leave out 'shall', and insert 'may'.

No. 10, in page 2, line 3, leave out from 'relate' to end of line 6.

No. 68, in schedule 1, page 7, line 15, leave out from 'force,' to end of line 17.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

On a point of order, Mr. Dean. May I, before I make my point of order, express my appreciation of the fact that what was called the provisional selection was, in fact, a provisional selection and that the Chair in its wisdom has been able to modify its selection as the Committee has proceeded with its work?

The point that I wanted to put to you, Mr. Dean, is that I understand that it is usual for hon. Members to be able to request a Division on amendments that are taken in conjunction with others. That being so, and since my hon. Friends and I would wish to divide on amendment No. 119, possibly on amendment No. 7, depending upon the Government's answer, if we get one, and amendment No. 10, might I, in mentioning that for convenience at this stage, inquire whether amendment No. 7 will in the event need to be put in a different form? You will appreciate that if amendment No. 7 is carried as it stands it will foreclose decision on the subsequent amendments.

I believe that it is normal in such cases to put amendment No. 7 in a special form that preserves the other amendments so that they may be divided upon. I believe that I have received signals of assent from you. I am obliged if I am correct in assuming that the position of amendments Nos. 119, 8 and 10 will be preserved in that way.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I hesitate to advise the right hon. Gentleman on procedural matters, but I am informed that if amendment No. 7 were to be defeated it would be possible to have Divisions on the other amendments. I shall consider the request that the right hon. Gentleman has made for separate Divisions on amendments Nos. 119, 8 and 10.

Mr. Powell

With regard to amendment No. 8, I said that when we have heard the debate—if we are able to have an adequate debate—my hon. Friends and I might wish to divide the Committee, in which case we will cause that view to be conveyed to you.

On a further point of order, Mr. Dean, regarding this group of amendments, may I submit to you, with great respect, that amendment No 68, which is associated with the remainder, relates to a wholly separate question? It would perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee and for the clarity of debate if the amendment could be taken separately. I wonder whether you will consider that even at this stage. It is essentially a—I hesitate to say narrow—clearly separate point from the wider matters that will arise from the rest of the amendments and you may decide that it would be more convenient for it to be debated separately.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I shall consider the request and discuss it with the Chairman of Ways and Means.

8.30 pm

Sir John Biggs-Davison

May I add my felicitations to those that have already been uttered to you, Mr. Dean, on your assumption of office. It is fortunate—or perhaps unfortunate—that you should begin with a complicated constitutional Irish measure, but we are glad that you are in the Chair.

The amendment stands in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and others. It is important and far-reaching, but I do not propose to speak at length. Other hon. Members will form their own opinions on its merits. I hope that the Committee will welcome the opportunity to explore the Secretary of State's mind on the complicated and, in some respects, obscure proposals again to form a devolved or partially devolved Government. I shall not argue whether it be "resumption" or "assumption", which is the subject of an amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan). We should like to learn from the Secretary of State how, in practice, the Government see the coming about of the new Executive in Northern Ireland.

Those of us who believe that the better future of Northern Ireland and the safety and prosperity of the people of the Province are best secured under this one sovereign Parliament wish to delete subsection (2) and with it the proposed Executive. Nevertheless, on the assumption that some such body may come into existence we should like to know more of the Government's intentions.

I shall not weary the Committee by reading extensively from the White Paper or recalling the expositions that Ministers gave on Second Reading. I summarise the relevant part of the proposal by saying that one or more of the Northern Ireland Departments, with the important exception of the Department of Finance and Personnel, may be devolved and placed under heads of Departments. No doubt they, like members of the former Executive, headed by the late Brian Faulkner, would wish to be styled Ministers. But one or more Departments may be devolved and placed under heads appointed from among the Assembly by the Secretary of State. All the affairs of such departments would then come under the Assembly within a dual system in which there would be Ministers responsible to Parliament here and Ministers—if I may use the shorthand for heads of Department—responsible to the Assembly, and these would collaborate, always subject to the support of the Assembly.

In the debate on amendment No. 2 I complained of a colonial attitude in the Northern Ireland Office to Northern Ireland and a colonial approach in the Bill to the Province's constitutional future. In an earlier incarnation I served in India, as did the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). At one point in the march of India towards self-government there was the Montague-Chelmsford reform, under which the provinces of British India were subjected to diarchy—a dual system. Ministers were entrusted with certain departments and were responsible for them to the provincial legislature. An equal number of departments were retained under officials.

The precedent is not at all precise, although I might in passing say that India resembles Ireland in that partition was the necessary corollary of independence. Diarchy illustrated—where it has been operated it nearly always, if not always, illustrates—the disadvantages of members of the same executive body answering to different masters.

After the Montague-Chelmsford reform had introduced diarchy into India, such was the friction and inefficiency that the Simon Commission reported against the system and it disappeared from the provincial sphere in India, although it is true that it emerged for some time in the central Government of India under the Government of India Act 1935.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I am very anxious to hear my hon. Friend's argument, and I am trying hard to do so, but there is a frightful noise in the Chamber. I do not ask for the adjournment of the committee until it is put right, but if it is an electrical fault perhaps something can be done about it immediately or the sound system can be turned off. I know that the strength of my hon. Friend's feeling is such that he could hold the attention of the Chamber without a microphone.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman is inconvenienced by the noise. My attention has been drawn to it and I hope that it will soon be put right.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

I hope that it is nothing electronic under our feet, but I shall persevere. I was so interested in my remarks that I did not notice the noise.

Paragraph 45 on page 11 of the White Paper explains that If the Assembly opted for partial devolution, the responsibility for 'transferred' matters would be divided between Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. In other words, there would be diarchy. The paragraph continues: United Kingdom Ministers and Heads of the departments drawn from the Assembly would then need to develop an effective working relationship"— they certainly would— but executive responsibility for devolved matters would fall to the latter who would be answerable for their actions to the Assembly. Legislative responsibility for devolved matters would be exercised by the Assembly …Executive and legislative responsibilities would be devolved only in respect of complete Northern Ireland departments. The heads of the Departments would be drawn from the Assembly. Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that it would be impossible for the head of a Department to be appointed from outside the Assembly? Do the Government have a closed mind on that matter? When the late Brian Faulkner was Prime Minister of Northern Ireland he appointed to his Cabinet from outside the Northern Ireland Parliament Dr. G. B. Newe, who was the first Roman Catholic Member of a Northern Ireland Cabinet. I should be grateful for some enlightenment on that point, because there might be advantages, assuming that the Executive comes into being, if an appointment is made from outside.

Mr. Stanbrook

Surely there are difficulties in such a proposal. Any such person would have to be a Member of the Assembly. If he were not, how could he be answerable to the Members of the Assembly for the functions of the Department? That strikes at the root of the problem in Northern Ireland. We are not talking about a system of diarchy. I could have capped my hon. Friend's example of India with the position in Nigeria. I helped to draft some of the documents for what we did in Nigeria. In the end, the system did not work, and it may be that my hon. Friend's suggestion is equally unlikely to work.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

I am trying to probe the minds of Ministers. In the precedent which I quoted, the right hon. Gentleman concerned was not a Member of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland. I fully take the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Can the Minister tell us whether it is unchangeable in the mind of the Government that the appointments of these heads of Departments should be made by the Secretary of State rather than by the chief Executive who may be appointed? As it happens, this was the subject of a new clause which I moved to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. There are those who think that if the appointment of the members of the then Executive had been left to Mr. Faulkner instead of being made by the then Secretary of State, it might have been to the advantage of Northern Ireland.

On Second Reading I put to the Treasury Bench a question which is relevant to this amendment and it might be helpful if I were given a reply. I said: let us suppose that a Unionist Party or group of parties were to return 70 per cent. representation made up of Catholic and Protestant Unionists perhaps in proportion to Catholics and Protestants in the Province. Does my right hon. Friend or the Government apprehend that Parliament would entrust those Unionists with devolved government? The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) intervened to say: It is my understanding—the Secretary of State may be able to enlighten us—that not only would Unionist Roman Catholics be unacceptable for the purposes of 'cross-community consent', but that Roman Catholic Alliance Members would not be acceptable. In other words, they have to be Republican Roman Catholics. I continued my speech by saying: This fills me with greater gloom and despondency about the Bill."—[Official Report, 10 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 490.] I should be grateful if I could have an answer from the Minister. Like so much in the Bill, it seems that there will not only be confusion through divided counsels, but that there will be a further tendency to institutionalise the division between what are called the two sides of the community, although a satisfactory definition of that phrase is never provided.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

My hon. Friends and I cannot be alone amongst those who have studied this subsection in finding it very difficult to understand and in having in our minds many queries as to what is intended. Those queries are quite separate, and I shall endeavour in my speech to keep them separate from the constitutional difficulties which are inherent in the nature of a rolling devolution and which therefore arise in that part of subsection (2) which relates to subsection (1)(b). Perhaps it will be clearest if I divide subsection (2) into three parts for the purpose of exposition and inquiry.

The first part concerns the proposals made under paragraph (a), that is, the case of devolution at one go or the revival of the 1973 constitution straight away. The second part is what is now technically called rolling devolution, that is, "Proposals under paragraph (b)", taking us over the page to the word "relate" in line 3 of page 2. Then there is a third matter—proposals for the appointment of persons to assist any person appointed as head of any such department". Perhaps therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I may deal with those three parts of the subsection separately and in that order.

8.45 pm

Of course, one cannot understand the subsection except by reference to section 8 of the Northern Ireland Constitutional Act 1973. Section 8 does not refer to a Northern Ireland Executive. Section 8 defines "the" Northern Ireland Executive, and under the 1973 Act there is only one Northern Ireland Executive, the Executive as defined and described in section 8 of that Act.

Therefore, my first query to the Government—it will be perhaps the slightest of my queries—is, what is the significance of the substitution of the indefinite article "a" for the definitive article "the" in the proposals which are mandatory under subsection (1)(a) of this proposals which are mandatory under subsection (1)(a) of this clause? It seems curious, if the proposals relate to the operation of the Constitution Act, that the Assembly should apparently be given the duty to make proposals for any old Executive—if I may be allowed to use that expression—whereas the operative powers to implement it are concerned only with "the" Northern Ireland Executive, as that is defined in section 8 of the 1973 Act.

My difficulty attaching to the indefinite article "a" Northern Ireland Executive is cumulated when I look at what the Assembly is invited to do. It is invited to make proposals as to the composition of the Executive. The Constitution Act sets out the composition of the Executive. So does this mean that the proposals can be proposals for rewriting section 8 of the Constitution Act so that when the Secretary of State proceeds—if he does so proceed—to make an Order in Council under clause 2 he can, if the Assembly has so proposed, bring into existence an Executive of a different composition from that which is laid down in section 8 of the Constitution Act?

From certain signs, I gather that the importance of this is clear to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Minister who is to reply. If we are to be permissively amending section 8 of the Constitution Act—we are not doing so expressly under the terms of the Bill, as far as I can tell—we need to be told by the Government within what limits and for what purposes and in what ways they would regard as acceptable proposals by the Assembly for remoulding the composition of the Executive, as set out in the aforesaid section 8.

If that is not the meaning of proposals as to the composition in line 18, I cannot understand what those words mean. Surely they cannot mean the nomination of individuals whom they think they would like to have composing the Assembly. If that were so, some might have died or taken other appointments or otherwise disqualified themselves between the Assembly putting forward its proposals and the Secretary of State getting around to making an Order in Council and then making the relevant appointments. So the expression proposals as to the composition of a Northern Ireland Executive must surely mean proposals for a Northern Ireland Executive differently composed from that which is described in section 8 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. That being so—and until I have heard the Minister's speech I cannot see any escape from that conclusion—the Government should tell the Committee what they had in mind by giving the Assembly not merely the permissive power to propose amendments to section 8 regarding the composition of the Executive but to make it mandatory upon it with the word "shall" to make proposals for the composition of the Northern Ireland Executive.

Having addressed that invitation to the Minister to assist me and the rest of the Committee by elucidation, perhaps it is an appropriate moment to observe that it is not of the slightest use to the Committee to be favoured with a reply from the Dispatch Box if the Committee is in no position after receiving that reply to consider it and debate it further. It makes a mockery of our endeavour to understand, let alone to approve, a Bill if, when we are beginning with the assistance of the Minister to understand what is in the Government's mind and to be led towards an interpretation of the clause, we are told that that is to be the end of the debate.

I hope that in our wrestling with subsection (2)—I fear we shall have to wrestle for some time because it is difficult stuff—we shall have the genuine assistance of the Government by way of a genuine intervention, giving the answers to the points which, if not of drafting, are of interpretation and giving us an outline of what they had in mind when they drafted the subsection. On that basis we can receive enlightenment and come to a conclusion—that is the purpose of the Committee—on whether we think that it is or is not a good idea. Strange and even unpleasing though this may be to an Administration, the purpose of proceedings in Committee is to ascertain whether the Committee happens to agree with the Government in the effect that they intend to introduce by each successive provision of the Bill.

That was in the nature—although an important one—of an interpolation or a parenthesis. I return to my questions under the first of the parts into which I divided subsection (2)—the first compartment, to avoid ambiguity, into which I divided the subsection. It is mandatory in that compartment to make proposals for the other appointments to be made under section 8. I have now passed from the proposals for the composition of an Executive, having put on the record I hope with sufficient clarity my difficulties and anxieties, to the proposals for the other appointments to be made under section 8.

I have been studying section 8 of the 1973 Act. Hon. Members are probably familiar with it, but if they have it in front of them they will see that the Northern Ireland Executive consists of the chief executive, the persons who are for the time being heads of Northern Ireland Departments and a third category described as any other person appointed under subsection (3) below to be a member of the Executive. Presumably the reference to other appointments is a reference to appointments under section 8 (3) of the 1973 Act. That is the best that I can do without further assistance. Once they are appointed, they are members of the Executive, and therefore presumably they are part of the composition of the Executive.

That sends me back to my old anxieties about proposals for the composition of the Executive, which may involve a remodelling of the principles of the composition of the Executive as set out in section 8 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. I have been watching the Minister's face attentively as a mariner might scan the skies, and I must conclude from my failure to observe the slightest sign of affirmation or dissent that the Minister is still in the same condition of doubt as I am about the "other appointments" that are referred to in line 19 of page 1, and whether they are the appointments to be made under section 8(3). On the assumption that they are, I am faced with my difficulty. The subsection states that the Secretary of State … may appoint such number of additional persons (if any) as he thinks fit to discharge, whether as members of the Executive or otherwise, such functions as he may determine; but the total number of persons at any time holding appointments under this section shall not exceed twelve. These other appointments presumably include the maximum of 12 to be made by the Secretary of State to discharge … such functions as he may determine whether as members of the Executive or otherwise. I take it that it is to be mandatory upon the Assembly to make proposals as to those appointments.

I wonder what the Assembly is intended to understand by that. Is it, for instance, to make proposals to the effect that the Secretary of State should not exercise that power? Would that count? Would that be covered by the wording? Would that fulfil the mandate that they shall make proposals? Are they to write to the Secretary of State "Dear Secretary of State, we should much prefer, and we hereby propose, that you make no additional appointments", or are they to make proposals for the composition, character, nature, peculiarities and qualifications of those who are to be appointed under section 8(3) of the 1973 Act?

9 pm

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott)

I fear that the right hon. Gentleman may be constructing a great argument on the basis of section 8 of the 1973 Act. In fact, paragraph 2 of schedule 1 substantially amends subsections (1) to (7) of section 8 of the 1973 Act.

Mr. Powell

I am much obliged.

Mr. Proctor

In reading schedule 2, which amends section 8 of the 1973 Act, the right hon. Gentleman will probably come across some matters that give cause for concern, especially paragraphs 1(5) and 1(6). Although it may have escaped his notice temporarily that it is proposed to amend section 8 by schedule 2, the worries that he has put before the Committee still exist and perhaps are superimposed.

Mr. Powell

I am much obliged to the hon. Member. He is quite right, but he has other places than that to represent.

The new subsection (3) which is substituted by paragraph 1 of schedule 2 seems—if I am wrong perhaps the Minister will correct me again—to involve many of the same considerations. I am grateful for the Minister's assent. Although I owe the Committee an apology for having directed its attention in the course of my queries to subsection (3) of the old section 8 in the 1973 Act I may—I have the Minister's permission now—direct it to the new subsection (3) as schedule 2, if it is enacted, will substitute it.

Once again, I inquire what is to be the nature of the proposals that must come forward from the Assembly as to the exercise by the Secretary of State of his power to make the additional appointments—to make appointments additional to, separate from, or in the course of the composition of a Northern Ireland Executive? Does it in any way give them the power—clearly not—to modify the statutory provisions that we are to make in schedule 2 or does it give them the power to make additional qualifications? in other words, does it lay down—this is the type of suggestion that I was making when the Minister was good enough to intervene to assist me—directions that they must show what types of person, for fulfilling what functions and what qualifications, whether political, partisan, sectarian or otherwise, they must have?

Coming to a conclusion on the first compartment of subsection (2), I hope that the nature of the mandatory proposals that are to come from the Assembly, both as to the composition and as to the "other appointments", can be made clear as we would not wish, I should have thought, to require the Assembly to make proposals unless it had an indication, and unless we had an indication in giving it that mandate, of the nature of the proposals that are to come from it and the extent to which those proposals might modify or elaborate the scheme set out in the 1973 Act and modified by the amendments in the schedule.

I come now to the second compartment—the rolling devolution proposals. Rolling devolution proposals must include proposals as to the appointment of a head of a Northern Ireland Department or two or more Northern Ireland Departments. If I have construed that correctly, I want to know what type of proposals these are. What is meant by saying that the Assembly must put forward proposals with regard to the appointment of the head of a Northern Ireland Department? Does it simply mean—I do not believe that it can—that it is to say "We want a devolved Department of the Environment and we want it to have a head" because they have said under subsection (1)(b) that they want a devolved Department of the Environment? It seems to be adding little or nothing to say that it must then make proposals to the effect that the Department will have a head. Surely there must he more to it than that.

So what proposals are there to be made? Is the Assembly to make proposals to the effect, for example, that the head of the Department of the Environment shall alternately or successively be taken from each of the political parties that are represented in the Assembly? Is it to say that the head of the Department is to be a person qualified in public health or a person with experience in the administration of the matters that fall to the Department of the Environment? What sort of proposals as to the appointment of a head of a Department or two or more Departments are so important that it is not just en optional extra for the Assembly to make such proposals but that it is absolutely mandatory upon it as an essential part of the operation of the process of devolved devolution?

Mr. Porter

Could not the word "proposal" be replaced by "nomination"? That is what it seems to mean. Schedule 2 provides that the persons appointed shall be from among persons who are members of the Assembly". Therefore, a proposal for a head from among those people would be a nomination to the Secretary of State, who is then subject to the 70 per cent. rule. The Secretary of State seems also to have a veto, as appointments shall be such as will in the opinion of the Secretary of State command widespread acceptance throughout the community. That is how I see it. Whether the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) sees it that way, I know not. It is still very confusing.

Mr. Powell

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who has clearly trodden some of the path that I trod in my mind in trying to understand this.

When I tried to understand this as a nomination, however, I encountered the difficulty that the proposals are preliminary to a decision by the Secretary of State to make an Order in Council in compliance with them. Unless all this is speedily performed, a nomination in any ordinary sense of the term might well be out of date before the time came for it to be implemented. Moreover, the proposals referred to in clause 1(2) must be once-for-all proposals. They must be proposals of a general or normative character which will always apply. Therefore, although the point about nomination had occurred to me, I had dismissed it on that account.

The hon. Gentleman's intervention brings me to the major constitutional issue which is most conveniently raised in this second compartment of subsection (2). The appointments are to be made by the Secretary of State on behalf of Her Majesty in the fashion set out in schedule 2. In fact, the appointees are to be Her Majesty's Ministers, at any rate in that sense.

The individuals appointed as heads of what I shall call the devolved Departments will be so appointed by reason of the composition and opinions of the Assembly, among other things. If they are not held to be responsible to the Assembly for the discharge of their office, it is difficult to see in what sense we are talking about devolution at all. I take it, therefore, that these appointments will be of persons who must retain the confidence of the Assembly. They will be there because they are to be responsible to the Assembly, and responsibility depends, as it does in the constitution of the United Kingdom, upon seeking to retain and succeeding in retaining the confidence of the elected Assembly.

Mr. Porter

No.

Mr. Powell

The hon. Gentleman disagrees with that. Perhaps we shall both be enlightened. He will agree with me, at any rate, that if the persons so appointed are not in that sense responsible to the Assembly we are not talking about devolution. We are not talking about democracy either, because appointees to the heads of Northern Ireland Departments could then cock a snook at the Assembly and need not conform with its decisions. I cannot believe that that is the intention.

Mr. Porter

That may not be the intention, but exactly that is said in schedule 2. Responsibility to the Assembly would appear to be restricted to being a Member of it, and thereafter there is nomination. I do not think that there is any responsibility to the Assembly, or any need to have the confidence of the Assembly.

Mr. Powell

That shows how important subsection (2) is. If subsection (2) opens up so grave a question, indeed destroys the foundations of the whole notion of devolved responsibility, we cannot be said to be wasting our time in investigating subsection (2).

I must admit that, as before, I have put a rather more generous construction—more generous in the attribution of rationality to the draftsmen and the Government—upon the Bill than has the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter). I confess that I had assumed, though I admit that it is to be read between the lines rather than on the lines of schedule 2, that the heads of Department who would be appointed in consequence of rolling devolution proposals under clause 1(1)(b) will be appointed because it is assumed that they enjoy the confidence of the Assembly and will cease to enjoy the confidence of that Assembly unless their administration conforms with its wishes and unless they can defend themselves against the criticism of the Assembly.

Let me bring the matter into practical terms. Let us suppose that X is appointed head of a devolved Department of the Environment. X is a good fellow. He is appointed one of Her Majesty's Ministers by the Secretary of State in accordance with the proposals. But the Assembly takes it into its head to pass a vote of censure upon X for the manner in which he administers the Department of the Environment. I suppose that it would be possible for the Assembly to pass such a resolution. It would be difficult.

We shall come to the question of standing orders. I hesitate to think that the reference to standing orders in subsection (3) is designed to prevent the Assembly from passing motions of no confidence in heads of Departments, so I proceed on the assumption that it will be within its powers of competence to pass resolutions of no confidence. Following that train of thought, what does "X" do then—or rather what does the Secretary of State do then?

Mr. Budgen

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he understands the rolling back provisions of devolution? I understand that once a power has been devolved under the rolling scheme, the old Stormont conventions will obtain. There can be no discussion of the exercise of that devolved power, yet under clause 5 the House, if the Bill unhappily becomes law, will retain the right to bring back the devolved power. If in those circumstances the House is considering whether to bring back the devolved power, how can it do that if it cannot ask questions about how the power is being exercised and if it cannot make a judgment on whether it would be right to bring back the power? It seems to me that the existence of the non-supervision that obtained in relation to Stormont is wholly inconsistent with the proposal that devolution might be drawn back.

Mr. Powell

I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, which is important. I shall not for more than a moment allow my eye to stray to clause 5, but it is true that there we find the words: If it appears to Her Majesty after taking into account any relevant proceedings in the Assembly—". 9.15 pm

Her Majesty is to keep an eye on the proceedings in the Assembly. As we know, this means, when translated, that we are to keep an eye on proceedings in the Assembly. It is no good the Secretary of State saying, "It will be me who will keep an eye on the proceedings in the Assembly". He has to come to the House and say, "I do not like what has been going on in the Assembly". So we are back with this House exercising a surveillance and continuing interest in the administration of Northern Ireland, at any rate under the rolling devolution provisions that hon. Members are considering in this compartment of subsection (2). The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has carried me on more swiftly—

Mr. Budgen

The right hon. Gentleman asked the rhetorical question "What will the Secretary of State do?" The Secretary of State might decide in the circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred that there had ceased to be the necessary confidence within the Assembly. It may be the case that he had ceased to have any confidence in those who led the Assembly or that the Assembly itself had no confidence in those who led its deliberations. There was, for one reason or another, therefore, an impasse that required the Secretary of State to come to the House and ask that the power be devolved back to its origins, namely, to the Westminster Parliament.

We are then left with the extraordinary position in which hon. Members may not ask questions about what is happening in the Assembly and the Assembly may not in any way defend itself through the Secretary of State. We may only read perhaps inaccurate newspaper reports that do scant justice to the difficulties under which the Assembly is working. Yet we are suddenly presented, at the end of the day, with a desperate Secretary of State saying to the House of Commons "You will know, albeit from only the most unreliable and hearsay evidence, that everything has gone wrong in the Assembly. We must now call back the powers."

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

Before the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is tempted to reply to that intervention, may I say that it goes rather wide of this group of amendments. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would confine his remarks to this group of amendments and not be tempted to go wider.

Mr. Powell

I shall endeavour to earn your gratitude, Mr. Weatherill. I was, however, considering, in a manner I think wholly germane to subsection (2), what would happen to X, being a head of a devolved Department, if the Assembly passed a resolution of no confidence in his administration. I must concede, and I hope that I may concede to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that this might constitute part of a situation in which the Secretary of State would use his powers under clause 5.

The Chairman

Order. That is exactly what I was trying to warn the right hon. Gentleman about. We are not dealing with clause 5 at this moment. The right hon. Gentleman is answering an intervention that goes wide of the group of amendments.

Mr. Powell

I am sorry, Mr. Weatherill, that I have failed in my endeavour, but I am strictly considering the nature of appointments of heads of Northern Ireland Departments under subsection (2) and proposals relating to those appointments referred to in the subsection. Other hon. Members as well as myself are struggling to get a notion of what might be proposed about the appointment of such heads of Departments. In the course of trying to understand, we have envisaged a given head of a Department, designated X, who has been so unfortunate as to have a resolution of no confidence carried against him by the Assembly.

Mr. Molyneaux

rose—

Mr. Powell

I shall complete my submission to you, Mr. Weatherill, both in the technical sense of always addressing the Chair, and in the sense of addressing myself to your implicit point of order.

There has to be some way of dealing with the predicament of X. Maybe that way is to be found somewhere else in the Bill, but if we are to understand what the Assembly is to do, in making the proposals as to the appointment of heads of Departments, we must address our minds to the possibility that, let us say, four or five Department heads have been appointed under this section and, yet, the heads of the other Departments are not appointed under this section but are still appointed under the 1974 Act, as at present. At least, they are not appointed under the 1974 Art, their functions are deemed under the 1974 Act, but they are looked after, may I colloquially say, under the 1974 Act. It is that possibility that I am trying to envisage.

It is my submission that it is at this point in the Bill that we are required to envisage the implications of a Government of Northern Ireland who comprise a number of heads of Departments appointed under this section, and the consequentials, and also Ministers who are appointed in a quite different way and with a quite different responsibility. In envisaging that, surely Mr. Weatherill, we are doing exactly what the Assembly is told that it must do to put forward proposals as to the appointment of heads of Northern Ireland Departments.

It appears to me that it will be impracticable to operate the government of Northern Ireland under rolling devolution if the heads of Departments so appointed are responsible to the Assembly, because we shall then have an Administration in Northern Ireland, part of which is responsible to the Assembly, or some parts of which are responsible to the Assembly, but with the rest—including, I notice, but we shall come to it later, the Finance Department—being responsible through the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, to this assembly.

On the hypothesis put forward by the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter), that the heads of Departments would not be responsible to the Assembly, all is well. They are then in the same position as the existing Ministers and junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. However, once we accept, as surely we must, because what else is meant by the expression "devolution", rolling or otherwise, that the heads of Departments are responsible to the Assembly, which means the Assembly can pass a vote of no confidence in them, then we have a constitutional impossibility. We have then, by a different route, the negation of responsibility.

We have negation of responsibility in two forms. These heads of Departments can come to the Assembly and say that they would like to administer their Departments differently, but that they cannot. The Assembly will ask why they cannot, and the heads of Departments will reply that they cannot do so because they are part of a team up at Stormont, the other members of which are responsible, through the Cabinet, to the House of Commons. What is more, however, it is a team that has to take collective decisions upon the financing and other matters affecting the governance of the Province.

Therefore, in his speech defending himself upon a motion of no confidence, X might conclude: "You are firing at the wrong target. It is not me you should be complaining of; you should be complaining of the people who are not responsible to you." We should have created a pretence, a simulacrum, of responsibility, when there is no responsibility. We should have put persons in an impossible position; a position in which, being members of a team collectively governing a province, they are tempted, indeed, they are positively needled, into being bad, rebellious and disloyal colleagues. Those are all matters that the Assembly will have to consider if it is making proposals as to the appointment of heads of Departments.

The word "disloyal" brings me to another question. Can there be responsibility without collective responsibility? That is not a question that it is necessary normally to ask in the House in 1982. That question was decided in the House the best part of three centuries ago. The House understands well that there is no responsibility to it unless there is collective responsibility amongst the members of an Administration. Once let the individual members of an Administration say "Well, I did not agree with it", and the House, or any elected body, has lost its control.

Under rolling devolution we propose to create for Northern Ireland an Administration which, by definition, cannot have collective responsibility, because one part of it is responsible to one body and another part of it is responsible to another body. It is all very well for Her Majesty's Ministers in the United Kingdom to be collectively responsible to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We understand that. However, now we are to have some of Her Majesty's Ministers in Northern Ireland responsible to the Northern Ireland Assembly and some of them responsible to the United Kingdom Parliament. In those circumstances it is a mockery to talk about collective responsibility, and therefore a mockery to talk about responsibility.

It appears to me, and perhaps it will to the Assembly if it ever comes into existence and debates this point, amongst others, at greater length, perhaps with greater eloquence than we are able to command in Committee this evening, that we come to the conclusion that rolling devolution is sham devolution; that it offers a pretence without the reality, and that, like so much else in this proposal, it will be a cause of dissension, discontent and frustration, and not of the prevention of those evils. Therefore, there is a large as well as a small aspect to the second compartment of subsection (2).

I did rather incautiously slap down my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). One does not readily slap down the leader of one's party, but I fear I may have done so. I hope that the moment has not passed when I can respond.

Mr. Molyneaux

Fortunately, I am in a generous mood, and I forgive the offence.

It might help my right hon. Friend if I explain my misunderstanding of the grades of Ministers in the language of the Northern Ireland Office, which one may not hear publicly. There will be two grades of Ministers, British Ministers and native Ministers. It is possible for one native Minister heading one Department to lose the confidence of the Assembly, although not in the sense that a Minister here might lose the confidence of the House. If, for example, cross-community consent were withdrawn in the Department of Education over a controversial issue, the Secretary of State explained in answer to my question that he would have no option but to recommend to Parliament that the native Minister should be dismissed and the power clawed back to the House. That might create further complications for the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), because he would then have to ask the Table Office whether he could table questions on education in Northern Ireland now that the native Minister had been sacked.

9.30 pm

Mr. Powell

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention and am glad to have received his absolution. However, he has taken a rather more extreme—although in a way a simpler—case than the one that I posed. I posed the case that the head of a Department might have given dissatisfaction to the Assembly in a manner that was not expressed and could not be related to the Assembly's sectarian, or party composition. It might have supposed that he was incompetent, or taken him as responsible—as we would take a Minister in this House as responsible—for the deficiencies in his Department, for non-provision, for example, in the schools or for a delay in providing a supply of pure, wholesome water in portions of my constituency. Indeed, I now have to take up that matter with the Under-Secretary of State. In those circumstances—quite apart from the sectarian mechanism to which my hon. Friend alluded—the very notion of responsibility becomes unsustainable.

Mr. Budgen

While I am speaking, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look at clause 5(3). There, the Secretary of State's powers against the native Minister are very wide. He can take back the devolved powers not merely because there has been some injustice in relation to the sectarian divide, but on the wide ground that the continued operation of the Order does not command widespread acceptance throughout the community". If, for example, the native Minister managed a mental hospital and had been clearly negligent in the way in which he had appointed the supervisor, it might well be said that he no longer enjoyed widespread acceptance throughout the community. The danger is that the Secretary of State could constantly blackmail and threaten native Ministers with clause 5(3), and the House would have no means of knowing whether he was justified.

Mr. Powell

The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the fact that the Secretary of State has a big thunderbolt—the thunderbolt that Jove refuses us permission to touch at this stage of our proceedings—and a small thunderbolt, which we are allowed to play with and handle at present. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman has the power to replace the head of a Department, but he also has the power to take away the Department altogether. It is a delicious thought—and perhaps some of us wish only that we could exercise a similar power in this House—that if we disapproved of a Minister, we could abolish the Department altogether. What a wonderful way of dealing with the f—. I suppose that I should not say that. I was going to say the Foreign Office, but I did not. I just managed to stop in time.

I turn to the last subdivision—this.is permissive—which includes the words may include proposals as to the appointment … of a person to assist any person appointed as head of any such department. In the Northern Ireland Office at present we have Under-Secretaries, several of whom answer for several Departments. They are hard-working, able, agreeable and devoted Members of the House of Commons or another place. There must be times when they feel and we feel it on their behalf that they are near to breakdown, but they are doing a double job not merely in the sense that they are heads of several Departments, as for example the Minister of State is head of the manpower, commerce and agriculture Departments, but in United Kingdom terms they are both Ministers and local authorities. Without in any way back-tracking into the debate that was so lamentably curtailed earlier this evening, I submit that it would be wrong to equate those individuals—I hope that as there is only one example in the Committee at the moment he will not take anything that I say personally, but purely by way of example—and their burdens with those who would be appointed heads of Departments of whom, in a complete devolved Administration, there would be perhaps a dozen or more.

Do we really wish to encourage the Assembly to provide a Parliamentary Secretary to a Parliamentary Secretary? "Ah", says the spirit of Stormont, "but that is not what it is. You are appointing a parliamentary Secretary to a Cabinet Minister. These are Cabinet Ministers that you have been talking about in so light and flippant a fashion". It is true that the Bill calls them Members of the Executive. It is true that under rolling devolution they are anything but Cabinet Ministers in that they are not bound by Cabinet responsibility, but these are Cabinet Ministers and therefore each of them must have a Parliamentary Secretary. The Bill appears to be limited to the singular where it says "a person to assist".

There is more in this provision than meets the eye. What does not meet the eye is as difficult to refer to without giving offence somewhere as are most matters that do not meet the eye. Perhaps I may approach my difficulty by recalling something of great interest that was disclosed to the House in the previous debate by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). You may not recall it, Mr. Weatherill, but some Members of the Committee will recall how the hon. Member for Epping Forest read out from the daily notes of the Conservative Party for candidates in the 1979 general election. Those notes contained a remarkable hint or prediction, as it turned out to be. It was that after the election, should the Conservative Party win it, pressure would be brought to bear upon the Government not to implement the clear and plain meaning of what was in the manifesto but to introduce a different and more elaborate structure for the purposes of creating a new relationship with the Irish Republic.

I have not the exact words, but that remarkable prediction in writing is to be found in the document from which the hon. Gentleman quoted. How is it that a structure of this kind is seen by those who have at last got it as far as a Bill as being a means of bringing about coordination and moving towards amalgamation between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? How does it do it?

In winding up the previous debate, innocent as one pleases, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) quoted section 1 of the 1973 Act and, hastily thumbing through the Bill, said that he could find nothing in it which repealed that. There is nothing on the face of the Bill which repeals it, but it is the purpose of the Bill to render it nugatory, just as much as it was the purpose of the Northern Ireland part of the 1920 Act for the better government of Ireland to create a means whereby through a Council of Ireland a Northern Ireland with home rule would amalgamate with a Southern Ireland with home rule.

Therefore, this Bill provides the means of getting the constitution rolling in the direction which is intended by those whose solicitude was anticipated by that remarkable person who wrote the daily notes back in 1979. To some of us who have watched the events of the last three years with increasing puzzlement that was a wonderful piece of documentation. It reminded me of my surprise that the Conservative Party, on coming into office, could in the Northern Ireland Office so suddenly have turned from full comprehension of the Unionist position to what was apparently total incomprehension. The answer was that it was waiting for them there and that among those who wrote the daily notes there was somebody who knew what was waiting for the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins).

I am not in any sense wandering from the content of the last portion of subsection 2, which is about exactly that. It is proposed that there will be an Assembly but it will be an Assembly which will be elected by a Unionist majority. One might ask, what is the good of that for the purpose of furthering a united Ireland? There is an Assembly, elected by Unionists, so presumably it reflects the Unionist point of view and the Unionist resistance to amalgamation with the Republic. Not so. There are 78 or 85 individuals who are in a position to be rendered amenable. No prediction is necessary for me to say that because the history of 1972, 1973 and 1974—

Mr. Molyneaux

And even earlier.

Mr. Powell

—and even earlier—affords sufficient illustration of what is meant. by being amenable if one is in an Assembly thus constituted.

One of the cruder forms of amenability is one to which we are not entire strangers in the House. This House in years gone by placed a limit upon the number of place holders who may sit in this assembly because it realised that the more place holders one has the more this assembly is likely to conform with the wishes of the Government of the day.

9.45 pm

What is relevant for the purposes of the operators is to frame an Assembly which can render itself and be rendered amenable by way of all kinds of inducements to take a point of view that would be consistent with and not diametrically opposed to the desires of those in power. For instance, there might be a proposition that the Assembly should in some way participate in an Anglo-Irish Parliament. I know that nothing is further from the mind of the Secretary of State.

The right hon. Gentleman is a candid and honest man, so that I know from his assurances that the idea of the Assembly being brought to participate—I use the most colourless word—in an Anglo—Irish parliamentary set-up is completely absent from his mind. I assure him that it is present in other minds. It is present in the minds of those who were in the Northern Ireland Office several years before he arrived in the Northern Ireland Office. It is present in the minds of those who foresaw the Bill before the Conservative Party was elected in 1979.

The Bill has been improved during the past two or three years. I do not wish in any way to decry the capabilities of the operators. After all, they work full time on this. Most of us have other things to think about in the world. They work full time on how to get Northern Ireland into the embraces of the Irish Republic. They have certainly dotted the i's and crossed the t's in whatever draft was in the Northern Ireland Office when the present Administration came to power in 1979.

The purpose of the amendment, on which I trust my hon. Friends and I and, indeed, the Committee will have the opportunity of voting, is to ensure that the Assembly is not put into the position of being able to create lucrative posts and thus to strengthen the system of inducement that the Assembly itself, with its salaries, expenses, offices and emoluments of various kinds, will already have. That is already dangerously alive. We do not want to add to it by giving to the Assembly the invitation to multiply offices. I hope that we shall amend the subsection accordingly.

Mr. Scott

I in no sense intend to bring the debate to a close, but I believe that it might be useful, since we have had two substantial contributions, and a number of interesting points have been raised, if I intervene briefly.

Mr. Budgen

rose—

Mr. Scott

With respect to my hon. Friend, I should like to make this point. I shall speak three sentences and then of course I shall give way to him.

The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), in a sense disappointingly, finished his contribution by raising once more the spectre of plots within the Northern Ireland Office and elsewhere, and seeing behind the Bill an aim that is certainly not in the minds of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or any others of us who are involved with the measure. The aim behind the Bill is simple. The right hon. Gentleman paid a tribute, which brought blushes even to my cheeks, to those who are responsible for the administration of the Northern Ireland Office.

Mr. Budgen

Will my hon. Friend please give way now?

Mr. Scott

No one is more conscious than those of us who do the job of the shortcomings of the methods by which it is undertaken.

The right hon. Member for Down, South drew attention to the dual responsibilities that we have. We are seeking in the Bill to provide a form of government for Northern Ireland that will make it possible for the people of Northern Ireland more directly to assume the responsibility for tackling the political, economic and social problems that confront the Province. The sooner that it can be taken back into the hands of the people of Northern Ireland, the better. That is the aim of the Bill.

Mr. Budgen

Will my hon. Friend now tell the Committee whether it is the Government's intention to move the closure immediately after he has resumed his seat? If it is, those of us who have remaining points to make will wish to know, so that we can put them to him.

Mr. Scott

I had hoped that in my introductory sentence I had made it clear that that was not the Government's intention. If I did not, I do so now.

I come to the points made in the two major speeches. The question of the composition of any 70 per cent. majority in the Assembly was raised. Other amendments will deal more specifically with that, and it would be better for a substantial reply to be produced then.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

The difficulty is that we do not know whether those amendments will be selected.

Mr. Scott

They are in the provisional selection.

The right hon. Member for Down, South mentioned the definite and indefinite article in relation to the Executive. The answer is simple and straightforward. Clause 1(2) speaks of proposals for "a Northern Ireland Executive" before it has come into existence. Section 8(2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, as substituted by paragraph 1 of schedule 2 to the Bill, speaks of "the Executive" in the context of the appointments having been made to it. It has therefore come into existence.

All that is at one with the Northern Ireland Constitution Act. Section 2(1)(b) of the Act speaks of "a Northern Ireland Executive" before it comes into existence. Section 8 speaks of "the Executive" once it is in operation. The terms of this measure are exactly in line with the terms of the Act in using the indefinite article before an Executive has come into existence and the definite article once it is in existence. They are both right in their contexts. It is a grammatical rather than a substantial point.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

We are specifically here dealing in terms of section 8 of the Act, and we are stuffing the ribs of an already existing constitution. The Minister may, upon consideration, feel that the relationship of the indefinite to the definite article in the 1973 Act is not the same as the relationship of the proposals here to the use of a pre-existing section 8 which makes provision for the Executive.

Mr. Scott

We are seeing two clear stages—when there is not an Executive and when one has been formed. I shall consider what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I do not see that it is a substantial point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) asked about members of the Executive from outside the Assembly. In the event of partial devolution there would be no power to make appointments from outside the Assembly, but once we had full devolution the situation would be as set out in section 8(5) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, as amended by schedule 2 to the Bill.

Two persons from outside the Assembly could hold appointments under section 8, but only one of them could be the head of a Northern Ireland Department. It is clear what the basis for that would be. Once one had established a full Northern Ireland Executive under full devolution, a greater number of appointments would have to be made, and it might well be desirable to leave open the possibility of bringing into the Executive men and women from outside the Assembly who had special qualities to contribute.

The purpose of the subsection which is sought to be amended in this series of amendments is to provide the House of Commons, ultimately with the necessary information, with sufficiently substantial proposals, so that it can make a judgement on whether those proposals are acceptable and, in particular whether they meet the criterion of widespread acceptance throughout the community.

A number of questions were asked, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, about the detailed way in which the Executive might come into effect. In a sense, those questions are not for me. The whole basis of the Government's approach is to be as flexible as possible. We are not seeking to impose, to foreclose or to promote any particular solutions to the problem. We are putting the ball firmly into the court of the Assembly, which will have been elected, and giving it the maximum flexibility to bring forward proposals which will receive widespread acceptance throughout the community and which will meet the needs that I outlined earlier.

Mr. Budgen

The Minister said that the purpose of these proposals was to give the House of Commons the information that it would need before it decided to grant further powers to a system of rolling devolution. Surely there is a difficulty here. When, for the sake of argument, a third of the powers have been devolved and a question arises whether a greater proportion should be further devolved, it will be possible to decide that second question only by considering how the first third has been used. It will not be possible to consider how the first third has been used unless questions can be asked and debates take place about how the first third is working in terms of the efficiency and justice with which the powers are being administered by the Assembly and whether, therefore, the House of Commons wishes to give a further tranche of powers to the devolved Administration.

Mr. Scott

This House will not lose interest in Northern Ireland affairs. General debates on Northern Ireland will continue. Of course, if the Assembly itself is not working well and the partial devolution already established is not working well, it is very unlikely that further proposals will come back to this House, but I cannot imagine that those hon. Members assembled here today and those who pay particular interest to Northern Ireland affairs will suddenly lose interest and not follow how the Assembly is working and how the partial devolution is working.

Mr. Budgen

Surely the essential difference between a power exercised by a devolved Assembly and a power exercised by a local authority is that a devolved Assembly is not subject to continual supervision and interference in the way that a local authority may be. It is one thing to devolve all powers in the way that all powers were devolved and handed over to Stormont, but if devolution is done on a rolling basis, surely there must be some consideration of how the already devolved powers are operating before further powers can be handed over.

Mr. Scott

When the House came to consider the report from the Assembly for the devolution of further powers, hon. Members here would raise the record of partial devolution—

Mr. Budgen

rose—

Mr. Scott

There is no question but that if hon. Members were debating proposals to devolve further powers to Northern Ireland they would not be able to raise the record of those Departments that had already been devolved—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Archie Hamilton (Epsom and Ewell)

I beg to report that the Committee have made progress and ask leave to sit again.