PROPOSALS FOR GENERAL OR PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF DIRECT RULE.

HC Deb 09 June 1982 vol 25 cc214-63

Amendment proposed [8 June]: No. 15, in page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (4) and insert— '(4) The Assembly shall not submit any proposals under this section unless the proposals have the support of a majority of the members of the Assembly.'.—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

3.49 pm

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

I remind the Committee that we are at the same time debating the following amendments:

No. 16, in page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (4).

No. 17, in page 2, line l3, leave out paragraph (a)'.

No. 18, in page 2, line 13, leave out from '(a)' to 'at '.

No. 19, in page 2, line 13, leave out 'the proposals

have,' and insert 'every such proposal at that time submitted has'. No. 20, in page 2, line 14, after 'Assembly', insert 'who have taken their seats and voted on the proposals'. No. 21, in page 2, line 14, after 'Assembly', insert 'voting thereon'. No. 22, in page 2, line 14, after 'Assembly' insert 'have voted for those proposals'. No. 98, in page 2, line 14, after 'Assembly', insert 'present and voting'. No. 117, in page 2, line 14, after 'Assembly'. insert 'drawn from all sections of the community'. No. 23, in page 2, line 15, leave out from beginning to first 'the ' in line 16. No. 24, in page. 2, line 15, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 25, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'the proposals

have.' and insert 'every such proposal at that time submitted has'. I have a statement to make. Last night, I was asked whether I would consider allowing separate Divisions on a number of amendments grouped with amendment No. 15. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say at this stage, that if amendment No. 15 is negatived, I am willing to call separate Divisions on amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20 and 24. I am also willing to call amendment No. 68 for a Division when the Committee reaches that point in the Bill.

Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield)

rose—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I apologise for forestalling the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), but I think that some hon. Members understood that the Secretary of State intended to mike a statement at the outset of today's proceedings on the Boundary Commission's report on Assembly seats. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding, but I wonder, Mr. Weatherill, whether you can guide the Committee about t when the statement will be made and the circumstances in which hon. Members may be able to put questions to the Secretary of State that strictly relate to the statement, in a manner that is similar to that adopted when a statement is made, by leave of the House, at the end of Question Time.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Since the matter is relevant to this debate, I thought that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I spoke after the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and dealt with matter during my speech. Although I cannot see how questions on my statement can be organised in the usual manner for statements—and although I do not think that is necessary—I am prepared to give way a reasonable number of times if hon. Members wish to question me.

Mr. Powell

Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. No one would accuse the Secretary of State of being unwilling to give way to hon. Members during one of his speeches. However, it is obviously difficult for hon. Members to clarify points, as they might find necessary, during interventions. In view of the Secretary of State's remarks and as the statement is important and contains material that is necessarily new to Committee members, those who have control over such matters might be willing to allow an appropriate number of subsequent contributions to the debate. Clearly those speaking after the Secretary of State may wish to include this matter in their speeches.

Mr. Prior

I do not think that my statement will add anything that is particularly new, but that will come out during the course of my speech.

The Chairman

Since a point of order has been raised, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are in Committee and that it is open to hon. Members to make further contributions.

Mr. Concannon

We are debating, among other amendments, No. 17, which seeks to leave out paragraph (a) in page 2, line 13. Apparently, every hon. Member has tabled an amendment to clause 1. They have done so for different reasons. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) yesterday wanted to alter the group in order—as they say in Northern Ireland—to return to straight majority rule. Our amendment seeks to achieve an objective that we set out at the end of Second Reading. It seeks to strengthen the words: widespread acceptance throughout the community". If our amendment is accepted, clause 1(4) will read: The Assembly shall not submit any proposals under this section unless the proposals have the support of a majority of those members and the Secretary of State has notified the Assembly that he is satisfied that the substance of the proposals is likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community. I have already made two speeches. A sizeable chunk of those speeches on the White Paper and on Second Reading dealt in detail with this aspect of the Bill. Therefore, I shall not weary the Committee by going over all the points that I then raised. However, yesterday or this morning—it does not seem very long ago—I listened to the debate and I had the feeling that some Committee members had forgotten the words in the White Paper about the two identities.

We are trying to look at Northern Ireland as if it were a nice, quiet, gentle area of Dorset or North Yorkshire. However, we must accept that Northern Ireland is different. Indeed, paragraphs 14 to 16 in the White Paper acknowledge that. Yesterday, I did not hear any mention of the most important factor—the politics of the border. We cannot wish that away. It exists; that should be understood when dealing with such problems and proposals.

There is a difficulty of acceptability. I well understand the Secretary of State's problem with the Bill. Any major concessions either way will cause the tightrope of acceptability great difficulty. Any major concessions either way could make it difficult for either of the major groupings to accept the Bill. When the Secretary of State published his proposals in Northern Ireland, everyone was apparently against them. In Northern Ireland, that is the norm. We expect that. At the same time, everyone apparently wants to stand for the Assembly. Again, that is the accepted norm in Northern Ireland.

The Labour Party accepted or took note of the White Paper and decided not to divide the House on Second Reading. We said that we would try to match the Bill to the fine words of the White Paper. Hon. Members should consider paragraphs 13 and 21 as well as our policy document, which I quoted, as reported in Hansard of 10 May, at c. 479.

Sir John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

I have listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman. Can he make available copies of that policy document to those who are interested in Northern Ireland?

4 pm

Mr. Concannon

There are copies in the Library. I have done my best to ensure that they are distributed to all organisations and embassies that have asked for them. It is a good document and well worth reading. Ex-Ministers, an ex-Secretary of State and many others worked hard for two years interviewing representatives of all the political parties in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman might not agree with every dot and comma or with some of the conclusions, but it is one of the best in-depth considerations of the problems of Northern Ireland that has been published.

It is clear that the Government intend to implement the devolution proposals that have demonstrable cross-community support. That aim is both good and realistic. The only problem is that 70 per cent. support in the Assembly will not guarantee cross-community support. The reason for stipulating that only those proposals with the support of 70 per cent. of Assembly members can be debated automatically in Parliament is to ensure that only those proposals with demonstrable cross-community support get as far as the Floor of the House of Commons.

I do not wish to rest my case on the figures, because, whether it be 70 per cent. of 78 Members or 85 Members, the proposal is possibly wrong in principle and will not achieve what the Secretary of State wishes. I applaud his reasons for proposing it. He wishes to have the broadest view of cross-community support. However, I rely on the figures for the Assembly general elections and the Constitutional Convention, which were remarkably equitable. I would not expect that a future election to the Assembly would produce different figures. In 1953 the Unionist Party and its associates took 52 of the 78 seats, the Alliance Party took eight, the SDLP took 17 and the Northern Ireland Labour Party took one. The only difference in the Convention was that the Loyalists lost two seats and the SDLP gained two. It is possible to have a 70 per cent. majority even if all the SDLP members vote against or abstain on proposals. It is futile to pluck a figure out of the air and hope that it will guarantee cross-community support.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)

The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the desirability of cross-community support and is interpreting that to mean support from political parties. Is he interested in Catholic Unionists or Protestant Republicans, or just in the political parties which represent cross-community support only if they all agree? Without political parties there would not be a problem.

Mr. Concannon

I explained my position on Second Reading. I wish to delete this clause and leave the matter in the hands of the Secretary of State. I know that some people say that the Secretary of State should not have authority, but I disagree with that. We pay the Secretary of State fairly and I wish to see him doing his job.

I also said on Second Reading that I do not believe that "acceptability" means acceptability to the 78 members of the Assembly. There are other organisations which, because of the politics of the border, do not interest themselves in straight politics. For example, the CBI and the trade union movement do not play their full role in the politics of Northern Ireland, as they would be expected to do in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State, with his knowledge of Northern Ireland, could achieve the cross-community support for which he is looking. It is not a matter of choosing figures.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that, if the Secretary of State has a proposal that has cross-community support in the Assembly, he must test that in the context of cross-community support in the United Kingdom? Is that what he is arguing with regard to the trade union movement, the CBI and other organisations?

Mr. Concannon

No, but the hon. Gentleman knows that in Northern Ireland those organisations are much closer to Ministers and the Secretary of State than in Britain and they can make their feelings known. If I were asking for the removal of the 70 per cent. proposal, I should come close to his amendment and the Secretary of State would consider every proposal that has over 50 per cent. support. However, the added rider would be cross-community support and the only person to judge that is the Secretary of State.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim, South)

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that what he has said does not introduce a new factor into the debate? I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who does not fully understand that the real issue is cross-community support. No matter how figures are juggled and no matter what the percentages are, it comes back to the Secretary of State's requirement of cross-community consent. As the Secretary of State knows, at our previous meeting on 8 March that was the bombshell that put an end to any conversation between my party and the Secretary of State and his officials.

The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) is accurate when he talks about widespread acceptance throughout the community, because that is precisely what the Bill says in subsection (4)(b). It does not necessarily mean widespread acceptance in the Assembly. That is another fatal flaw that we saw from the beginning.

Mr. Concannon

The hon. Member sees it as a fatal flaw. That is the difference between us. I see it as the Secretary of State trying to get as much cross-community support for his proposals as he possibly can.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

That touches on a point about which I tried to ask the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) yesterday, but I did not get a reply. Does the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience of Northern Ireland, know the answer? We are told by the Government that the Bill has the support of a majority of interests and organistions, both political and quasi-political, in Northern Ireland. [Hon. Members: "No."] We are told by others that the Bill has no support from any of the institutions or organisations that would be required to support it. With his wide understanding, knowledge and experience of Northen Ireland, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the position?

Mr. Concannon

I started by saying that everybody in Northern Ireland was against the Bill, and that if one of the three main parties had been for it the Secretary of State would have been in trouble from the start. That is the norm in Northern Ireland. The three main parties will not accept that the Bill is good for Northern Ireland. If one of the leaders of those parties were in favour of the Bill, the other two would be up in arms.

None of the three major parties has said that it will not stand for election. If everybody in Northern Ireland is against the proposals I fail to see what we are doing here. There is no reason for us to have sat last night, to sit again tonight or to continue sitting in two weeks' time.

Mr. Nick Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-west)

rose—

Mr. Concannon

I knew that the hon. Gentleman would wish to intervene, but I should like to finish this point. If the Bill is to be killed off, it need not be killed off here. The hon. Member for Antrim, North has the means to do it at the snap of his fingers. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) can kill it with the snap of his fingers. If the leader of the SDLP were here, I should say the same to him. However, they do not want to be blamed for killing it off. They want somebody else to be blamed for that. That is why my party has taken the stand that it has. The Labour Party is not going to be blamed for killing the Bill off. Hon. Members must do their own dirty work.

Mr. Budgen

Is not the Labour Party condemned for something much worse than that—for taking no interest in the Bill and not exercising its proper responsibility to consider legislation as it goes through the House? Is not the right hon. Gentleman arguing that it ought to be decided by the parties in Northern Ireland and that it is not a United Kingdom matter?

The Chairman

Order. Before we get rather off the track early in our debates, I should say that I believe that that intervention will tempt the right hon. Gentleman to go beyond the scope of these amendments.

Mr. Concannon

I did not say that I was not interested in the Bill. In fact, I have been rather disgusted at the light-hearted throw-away attitude to the people of Northern Ireland that has been shown in the Chamber. If hon. Gentlemen want to play games like that with the people of Northern Ireland it will be done without the help, the votes or the assistance of the Labour Party.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that if he wants the leaders of the parties in Northern Ireland to deal with the Bill the only way that they can deal with it is by standing for election and getting their parties in the Assembly to say "No" to its power-sharing content? There are two parts to this subsection. There is the part that contains 70 per cent.—straight off—and the other part which contains the requirement for cross-community support. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) is being misled. The first part deals with 70 per cent. without any cross-community support. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is against that because he wants cross-community support. The other part deals with power sharing as it stood in the previous Act.

Mr. Concannon

I am pleased to have the hon. Gentleman's support. He seems to be saying that he is prepared to go along with seeking cross-community support as the main plank of acceptability. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that, I am pleased with his intervention. He did not contradict my statement that, with the support of his party, which he obviously has, he could kill the Bill stone dead without any of the machinations that are taking place here.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Only by standing for the Assembly.

4.15 pm

Mr. Concannon

The hon. Gentleman is still not contradicting my view that if he wished he could kill the Bill without going through these procedures. The Official Unionist Party and the SDLP could also do that if they wanted to. Those are the political facts of life of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux

It may be of some help to the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) if I read from the notes on clauses: Should 70 per cent. support be achieved without the support of the minority, the proposals would still have to secure the approval of Parliament before a devolution Order could be made under Clause 2. Presumably when Parliament was invited to approve the proposals the hon. Member for Antrim, North and his friends would object.

Mr. Concannon

That is the next point that I am coming to. I believe that the Government have probably underestimated the symbolic effect of a vote of 70 per cent. or more in the Assembly. The Government have set up that majority as something to be worked for. That majority would be significant if it were achieved. A 70 per cent. majority could easily be obtained without the votes of the SDLP. That majority will undoubtedly be more symbolic and important than proposals which have the support of between 50 per cent. and 70 per cent. of Assembly Members.

The Secretary of State and his successors could be placed in a most invidious position if devolution proposals obtained 70 per cent. or more support of the Assembly but did not have cross-community support. That is not an impossible position. The Secretary of State would have to come to Parliament and recommend that such proposals be turned down. That would be difficult to justify in Northern Ireland since Parliament would previously have set so much store by such a majority. I could not conceive of a more difficult position for the Secretary of State. The figure of 70 per cent. will have been set, but if that figure is reached without cross-community support and the House has to decide on the proposals the Secretary of State, under the Bill, would have to recommend rejection.

The danger that we see in subsection (4)(a) is that it will lead to two types of report coming from the Assembly. Inevitably, any report that has 70 per cent. support in the Assembly will have a certain status, regardless of the party affiliations of those supporting it. It will be difficult for Parliament to reject devolution proposals that have fulfilled the superficial criteria of support laid down by Act of Parliament. Subsection (4)(a) will cause more trouble than it is worth, especially if the Government are compelled to reject devolution proposals that have a 70 per cent.-plus majority, but obviously lack support across the community.

It is clearly the intention to introduce into Northern Ireland only those devolution proposals that have cross-community support. It would be wise, in our opinion, to dispense with subsection (4)(a) and to allow any report with over 50 per cent. support in the Assembly and backing from both sides of the community to be debated in Parliament. It is important that Members of the Assembly, Members of Parliament and the people of Northern Ireland and Great Britain understand any reasons that the Secretary of State may have for refusing to lay an Assembly devolution report before Parliament.

We could either establish the precedent of a statement in the House when the Secretary of State reaches a decision on an Assembly devolution report or we could go much further and ask that every Assembly devolution report with the support of 50 per cent. of Assembly Members should be laid before Parliament, which, under the guidance of Ministers on the spot, could decide whether such proposals had the all-important cross-community support. We should like to see that in place of the arbitrary 70 per cent. figure.

I am sure that the 70 per cent. figure was proposed honourably by the Secretary of State in his search for cross-community support, but I believe that that is the wrong way of going about it. There may be other reasons for the 70 per cent. and the weighted majority, but I have not heard them. If there are other reasons, I shall be pleased to hear them so that we can reconsider our amendment. At present it seems to us that the deletion of subsection (4)(a) is a sensible alteration to prevent undue attention and status being afforded to devolution reports that do not command cross-community support.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

It would help us if the right hon. Gentleman would reply to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). What exactly does the right hon. Gentleman mean by cross-community support? Is he referring to support from two main political groupings or from two main religious denominations?

Mr. Concannon

Cross-community support will obviously have to start within the Assembly, but the Secretary of State and his Ministers spend a considerable time in Northern Ireland and they will have a part to play in the process. Ministers in Northern Ireland meet individuals and organisations much more than do Ministers in the rest of the United Kingdom and they have a feel for such matters. That role, coupled with the views of the elected Members of the Assembly, will have to be taken into consideration and explained to the House. We shall then have to decide whether to accept the advice of the Secretary of State. We would be presented with reports that had the support of 50 per cent. of the Assembly, but there would be the added dimension of an assurance from the Secretary of State on proposals that had cross-community support.

Mr. Stanbrook

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the wildly undemocratic nature of the proposals, including that in his amendment? He is saying that, no matter what support there may be in the Assembly for any proposition, the Secretary of State should have power to refuse his sanction, perhaps because of a subjective idea about what constitutes cross-community support. That is the antithesis of parliamentary democracy as we understand it.

Mr. Concannon

Yes, as we understand it. However, the House took note of the White Paper, which included some very good introductory remarks, including the reference to two identities.

We are dealing with the historical facts that Northern Ireland had devolution for 50 years, the country was arbitrarily divided and there are two separate identities. We are not dealing with sleepy Dorset or North Yorkshire, which I would not describe as sleepy. We are dealing with something different. I accept that democracy as we know it in the rest of the United Kingdom seems to be stood on its head, but there is a difference. If hon. Members do not accept the difference, they will not accept my arguments. If they accept that there is a difference, they have to accept that there must be different solutions.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The right hon. Gentleman has said that if a report got the support of 70 per cent. of the Assembly and came before the House the Secretary of State would have a duty to recommend its rejection. That is not what is said in the notes on clauses, which make it clear that the basis of the Bill is that power sharing is neither required nor ruled out.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the leaders of various parties in Northern Ireland could do certain things, but when we met the Secretary of State he told us that power sharing was not ruled in and not ruled out. We were told that the Assembly would have the choice.

There will probably be Assembly Members who would vote for devolved powers, but who would not take part in the administration. Should they have a say? For example, the Workers Party says that there should be devolved government for Northern Ireland, but its principles would not allow it to go into a coalition with Unionists. Would the Workers Party be part of the cross-community support?

Mr. Concannon

I am merely pointing out what is in the Bill; it is not my Bill. Under the Bill it will be possible to get not only 70 per cent. but 75 per cent. acceptance in the Assembly and still not have an SDLP or minority vote in favour of a report. The Secretary of State would have to bring that report to the House, but if it did not have cross-community support he would either have to do some pretty fast footwork or lose the minority group in the Assembly, in which case the Assembly would he put at risk.

I know that everyone is walking a tightrope. If we upset the balance we shall lose the DUP or the OUP or the SDLP. It is important to keep them all together. It may be difficult, but I have been involved in Northern Ireland matters for about [0 years and I shall keep on having a go. Surely we can keep on trying.

If we cannot get cross-community support and the Secretary of State has to argue against the proposals in the Bill, the exercise will not be worthwhile. Cross-community support is the only way to judge devolution reports. However, it will be possible to get 70 per cent. support in the Assembly without a member of the minority voting for a report. If such a report were accepted by the House without any examination of whether it had cross-community support, members of the minority in the Assembly would be irritated.

The Secretary of State can answer for himself, but I expect that he may have to explain to the House that although a report has 70 per cent. support in the Assembly the House should reject it because it does not have cross-community support.

4.30 pm

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not think the actual figures in the Assembly when broken down would vary very much. He put forward an interesting argument when he pointed out that he thought it would remain at about the 75 per cent. level. Does he agree that one of the difficulties in discussing the matter now is that we are still not certain of the total number of Members who will be in the Assembly? We do not know whether there will be 78 or 85. If it is the larger number, the percentage might break down in a substantially different way. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the difficulties is that we do not know what the total membership of the Assembly will be?

Mr. Concannon

The proposals are for five seats in each of the 17 constituencies. Having considered the boundaries of those 17 constituent parts of Northern Ireland, I stick to my argument. We are talking about 70 per cent. then of 85, not 78. The percentage would probably not vary by more than 1 per cent. I do not think that there will be any disagreement about those figures.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be implying in a dangerous manner that the SDLP is the only representative of the minority. That is not right. He has referred to 70 per cent. apart from the SDLP. If candidates representing workers' clubs are elected and vote for the Government's proposals for devolved government but do not join the Government, is that cross-community support? This seems to be a religious issue. If Alliance Members, who are Roman Catholics, vote for devolved government, are they to be regarded as part of the minority? The question is: who are the minority? If everybody in the Assembly agrees except the SDLP, is that cross-community support?

Mr. Concannon

All I am saying is that a sizeable proportion of the minority support would be out of that 70 per cent. In Northern Ireland parlance, when one refers to the SDLP, one is talking about minority representatives. In regard to these figures I was talking almost about the same thing, because I noted that there were others. I have counted the others in with the SDLP vote. That will not unduly affect the minority representation. We can settle this argument later when we know the figures.

Cross-community support is the best arbiter. We want this left in the hands of the Secretary of State and his Ministers. At the end of the day Parliament will have to take into account the wider spectrum of opinion.

Mr. Prior

Before responding in detail to the various points raised so far in the debate—

Mr. Budgen

rose—

Mr. Prior

I will not give way. Before responding to the points raised on this group of amendments or to the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), I should like first to remind hon. Members of what the Government are seeking to do in the Bill and to draw attention to some of the background to it. I believe that this has a direct bearing on the provisions of clause 1(4) which we are now considering.

The two main themes which I ask hon. Members to bear in mind are set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the White Paper, which were mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. In paragraph 3 the Government said: Political stability, economic recovery and the defeat of terrorism go hand in hand. We went on to say two more things. First, political instability discouraged the domestic and international investment which the Province so vitally needs if it is to become more prosperous and if something is to be done to reduce the rate of unemployment. Secondly, we said that there is a direct link between the creation of a durable and fair system of government and the ending of violence from which members of both sides of the community have suffered so much. I doubt whether many would disagree with those broad propositions.

We then went on to point out in paragraph 4 that nothing in the Government's proposals required any group in Northern Ireland to compromise its deeply held beliefs. The proposals were designed to provide an opportunity for both sides of the community to establish a workable form of government, but it is for the people elected to a Northern Ireland Assembly to decide whether they are prepared to adopt that approach. That came out clearly last night in the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) when he said that he liked, as it were, the early phase of the legislation—the Assembly—but he objected strongly to the second part. That is at least an option which is open to the Assembly once it is elected.

I hope that hon. Members will keep these points in mind. Many of those who have expressed opposition to the Bill have said that they do not doubt the genuine nature of the Government's motives in bringing these proposals forward, and for that I am grateful. But there is more to it than that. The themes to which I have just referred contain, I think, the essence of what, for want of a better term, is described as the Northern Ireland problem—namely, a community divided within itself and political institutions lacking, for whatever reason, the confidence of a sizeable minority. It has come out time and again in the debates that that is the kind of confidence that most of us here take for granted.

The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) yesterday referred to some of these underlying factors, but I fear that, in our eagerness to examine the various amendments, they have for the most part been lost sight of during the Committee's proceedings.

This leads me to turn in more detail to the provisions of clause 1(4) which we are now considering. Let me first explain briefly what they are. Under the first test, in clause 1(4)(a), if not less than 70 per cent. of the membership of the Assembly agrees on devolution proposals, then those proposals automatically go to the Secretary of State. Clause 1(4)(b), the alternative test, provides that if a majority of the Assembly, but not 70 per cent., can agree on devolution proposals which, in the Secretary of State's view, appear to command widespread acceptance throughout the community, the Secretary of State could ask for those proposals to be sent to him.

Clause 1(5) provides that the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament any proposals submitted to him, by whichever route they reach him, whether it is through the 70 per cent. route or by the 50 per cent. plus one route, but always, of course, provided they have widespread acceptance throughout the community.

I assure hon. Members that the Government have not simply plucked the figure of 70 per cent. in the first of the two tests from the air. Nor have they lightly embarked on a measure which is, as we all recognise and as we have been reminded on a number of occasions during the debate, different from the principles of the simple majority to which we would normally expect to subscribe. I ask my hon. Friends sincerely to take this point.

These proposals are different from what is normal because, in the crucial respects to which I have just referred, Northern Ireland is different. We have to find something suited to the circumstances of Northern Ireland and designed to overcome some of the problems which have bedevilled the Province for so long. The task in Northern Ireland is essentially to create political institutions which, at least to a greater degree than hitherto, attract the confidence and the loyalty of the mass of the community. Without that confidence and loyalty, institutions in a democracy, as we all know as parliamentarians, will not prosper or flourish.

Viscount Cranborne (Dorset, South)

rose—

Mr Prior

I will give way shortly.

If the institutions receive no more than the acquiescence of a sizeable proportion of the population, they cannot do their jobs properly. In Northern Ireland this is particularly crucial when it comes to the forces of law and order.

I think that it is widely recognised—but hon. Members have not taken this on board sufficiently—that the terrorists can be finally isolated only if the forces of law and order attract in Northern Ireland the kind of support and loyalty that they attract automatically in Great Britain. If we do not recognise this, we fail to rise to the challenge with which Northern Ireland presents us. That is the crux of it all, and I beg hon. Members who have spent so much time on so many issues over the past few days just to take on board what is happening in Northern Ireland, the security situation there and the real grief and distress that so many people suffer and that we in the House have a duty to face. We do not face it just by saying that there are problems of the past that cannot be dealt with because people have got themselves into compartments from which they cannot move. We as politicians and as people who are trying to improve the lot of a part of the United Kingdom have a duty' to try to put forward proposals that will have some chance of success.

Mr. Budgen

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Prior

No, because I am getting very worked up, and I want to get on a little further before giving way.

As I said a moment ago, however, the 70 per cent. test is only one of the ways in which proposals for devolution from the Assembly can be submitted to the Secretary of State and, as a result, debated in the House. If proposals have the support of the majority of the Members of the Assembly—that is to say, the 50 per cent. plus one to which there has been repeated reference—they can come forward so long as the Secretary of State is satisfied that they are likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community. I shall return in a moment to what it is that might constitute such widespread acceptance.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that—

Mr. Prior

Let me just—

Mr. Budgen

Why give way to the hon. Member for Antrim. North (Rev. Ian Paisley)?

Mr. Prior

I shall give way to whoever I choose, but I am not at the moment giving way to anyone. I shall give way in a moment. Let me first respond, however, to two challenges that have been made. The first is that the Government have approached this matter in a colonial frame of mind—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) last night.

I have been accused of many faults during my political career and I have no doubt that I shall be again in the next few hours, but I have never come across that one before. The Government have not said to themselves that the people of Northern Ireland are less worthy than the people of the rest of the United Kingdom. On the contrary, they have sought to analyse the situation existing in the Province and to produce proposals suited to it.

During our debates there has been remarkably little attempt by a number of hon. Members who have expressed their views at length to start by seeking to identify the true nature of the situation in Northern Ireland and then to make proposals suited to it. Nor under the scheme put forward by the Government in the Bill is Northern Ireland being offered a lower standard of democracy than obtains in the rest of the country. It is being offered the opportunity, which it has never had during its history, to participate in the process of creating for itself political institutions that will be fair and durable and that will win the confidence of the community as a whole in a way which we must all recognise frankly has not happened so far.

I now give way, first to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), and then to the hon. Member for Antrim, North.

Mr. Budgen

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. The only preliminary point that I want to put to him is to ask him to say at this stage, so that we know whether we should interrupt him later, whether he intends to move the closure immediately after his speech, because some of our discussions have been interrupted in that way.

Mr. Prior

The answer to that is "No."

Mr. Budgen

I am grateful.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The right hon. Gentleman has made a very moving plea on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, and no one in the House, other than those hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, knows exactly what is happening in the Province and feels so deeply about it. But the right hon. Gentleman is telling the Committee that to get support for the police, we have to do a deal with a political party that does not support the police. I was in the European Parliament the other day when the leader of the SDLP put his name to a motion that said that the police in Northern Ireland were killing women and children in Northern Ireland with plastic bullets. How can people who give their support to the police he asked to enter into an alliance with a party which says that it cannot and will rot support the police? If the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that in any way the proposed Assembly should have security powers, that party would have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Prior

Let us wait. Let us not always draw conclusions about the future from what has happened in the past, although regrettably all too often that is precisely what happens not only in Northern Ireland but in other places, too.

All that I say to the hon. Member for Antrim, North is that I believe that if we can seek to create some local form of parliamentary democracy that enables the people of Northern Ireland to have a bigger say in their own affairs, and if that can stretch wider than it has done up till now and embrace some form of coalition that is entered into voluntarily between the various political parties—I do not name any political parties, but if it is to get over the hurdle of the different religious views that tend to be reflected in the political parties it must include a wide spectrum of the political parties—there will be ample opportunity and a good chance for ail the political parties and all the people of Northern Ireland to support the forces of law and order. If we accept that that will never happen, we are reconciling ourselves to an intolerable situation persisting for all time. We have to make an effort.

4.45 pm

While we are dealing with the 70 per cent. point, it might be worth considering whether it would be 70 per cent. of a 78 or 85 seat Assembly. This matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Fan) and others, including the right hon. Member for Mansfield. This is a good deal simpler than hon. Members appear to have grasped or as I thought at first.

Provision for the conduct of elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly is made in the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973 as extended by the Constitution Act. The Bill before the Committee does not amend the number of constituencies from which Members are to be drawn or the total number of Assembly Members, which is currently 78. All that paragraph 11 of schedule 2 does is to adjust the number of Members to be returned by each constituency to take account of changes in population distribution throughout the Province since 1973. The figures are based on the 1982 local government register, which is the most up-to-date record of the distribution of the Northern Ireland electorate.

In line with United Kingdom practice for parliamentary elections, section 28 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 makes provision for the Boundary Commission to make recommendations from time to time on the number of Assembly Members to be returned from each parliamentary constituency. The fact that the Boundary Commission is allowing a further month for representations on the revision of its provisional recommendations makes it even more important to include the demonstrably fair provision in paragraph 11 of schedule 2. Until I have received the Boundary Commission's final recommendations, it will not be possible to consider whether the Assembly elections should be held on the basis of those recommendations. Any changes arising from its report will be brought into force in time to affect the proposed Assembly election only if there will be a reasonable period for the Northern Ireland parties and for the chief electoral officer and his staff to reorganise on the basis of new constituencies.

When the Boundary Commission final report is available any changes in the existing arrangements will be effected by Order in Council under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 as extended by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which deals with the Assembly seats. Thus, no amendment to the Bill either before or after it is enacted will be required.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

I was following the right hon. Gentleman very closely until his last sentence. His last sentence threw me because I did not see how it followed from his clear explanation up to that point. The political parties in Northern Ireland are at this moment organising upon the new constituencies.

Mr. Prior

Yes.

Mr. Powell

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to contradict what I have just said. If that is so, the right hon. Gentleman is not correctly informed. At this moment, the Northern Ireland political parties are reorganising on the basis of the 17 constituencies and in many cases that reorganisation is approaching completion. All the more so because the right hon. Gentleman, with great candour in our debate yesterday, affirmed with an explicitness that could not be misunderstood that he anticipates a report reaching him in the next few weeks, that he will act on receiving it in accordance with his constitutional duty and will place before the House an order against which he will not vote to implement those recommendations. What I did not understand in the last sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's exposure is how, since the new Assembly's seats are to be recommended and those recommendations are to come into force within the next few weeks, he can possibly contemplate that an Assembly election could be held in the autumn— whenever that is—on constituencies that will no longer exist nor any organisational purpose for the vast majority of the party structure in Northern Ireland and that are obsolete in every sense of the term.

I am conscious of the patience of the right hon. Gentleman and the Chair but perhaps I might make one further point. If the right hon. Gentleman had said that he would introduce into the Bill a form of words—I am sure that it could be drafted—that would enable automatically, without further amendment of the Bill, the new Assembly seats to be effective for the purposes of the Bill, all would be well. It is the automatic conclusion that all is well with the Bill as it stands that did not seem to me to follow from the clear statement that the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give to the Committee.

Mr. Prior

I am sorry if I was wrong about all the political parties being organised now into the new constituencies. That is not the information that I have had up to now. In a number of cases, some of the parties have been busy selecting their candidates for the Assembly elections—perhaps rather prematurely—on the basis of 12 constituencies. That is what the Democratic Unionist Party and the Alliance Party have been doing, so I was not as wrong as the right hon. Gentleman made out. I want further time to discuss this matter—although it does not affect the Bill in terms of further amendments or anything of that nature—to see how quickly the final report from the Boundary Commission will be made available and whether, therefore, it would be possible for the parties and for the chief electoral officer and his staff to organise on the basis of the new constituencies. That is important. But as it does not require any change to the Bill and as it can be effected by an Order in Council, it is the right way to proceed.

I shall be taking further soundings with the political parties to find out whether they are properly organised or could be properly organised. I shall have to take further soundings from the chief electoral officer to find out whether he could be organised. I shall then have to find out when the Boundary Commission is likely finally to report. The Boundary Commission has changed its mind considerably since a month ago. Therefore, it may change its mind again and that may add another period of time. At a suitable moment—not necessarily in Committee—I shall make a statement—it would be to the House at that time—about the Government's intentions in the light of the considerations I have just referred to.

Rev. Ian Paisley

It would be better for everyone concerned for the election to take place on the 17 constituencies. As the right hon. Gentleman has well said, he introduced the Bill; a date was leaked to the press concerning an election in September. July and August are not good political months for organising in Northern Ireland. The only thing for the parties to do is to go ahead on the 12 constituency basis. It would be better if we could have the 17 seats, if that is possible, but with the representations made to the Boundary Commission and with the change made by the Boundary Commission it will need another month to examine this. It would be unfair to the people and the political parties of Northern Ireland if the election comes in September and we are notified only at the end of August that there will be 17 constituencies.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

Was I right in understanding the right hon. Gentleman to say that he could, by Order in Council, for the purposes of an election under the Bill, alter the seats and constituencies prescribed for that election in the schedule to the Bill? He appeared to say that. It would help us if he could clarify that matter.

Mr. Prior

Under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, it can be done by Order in Council. I can change the number of seats to reflect the 17 constituencies. It does not have to be done in the Bill. It can be done by Order in Council because it is not legislation relevant to the Bill. I hope that my legal knowledge on that point is correct. Unless I hear to the contrary I shall presume that it is.

Mr. Stanbrook

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He did say that he would be liberal in his attitude to interventions on this point. Schedule 2(11) amends the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 so as to provide specifically for 12 constituencies and for the numbers of seats per constituency. Surely, therefore, the schedule will have to be amended. Is the Secretary of State saying that it can be amended by Order in Council under the Bill?

5 pm

Mr. Prior

Yes. The schedule is then superseded. The only purpose of having a new schedule in the Bill, compared to that in the 1973 Act, is that since 1973 the constituencies have changed and we thought it right to bring them up to date, otherwise we should have been accused of gerrymandering. For example, West Belfast has more seats than it is entitled to and North and South Antrim have fewer seats than they are entitled to. That is why we made the change. The change will not have to be made in the Bill. Existing legislation provides powers for an Order in Council.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

Perhaps it would help the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) if I point out what I had not perceived when putting questions to the Secretary of State. What we have been describing as the schedule to the Bill is not a schedule to the Bill, but an amendment to the 1973 Act and the schedule thereto, and therefore it lies within the mischief of the order-making powers which apply to the 1973 Act. I hope that that puts the matter right.

Mr. Prior

That is precisely and exactly right.

A good deal of attention has been paid in Committee to the possibility of reforming local government in Northern Ireland. The Government have been accused of disregarding the undertakings in the Conservative Party manifesto three years ago and of dismissing suggestions for the reform of local government simply because they would be too contentious. I hope that by now hon. Members will not accuse me of ducking contentious issues because if I did I doubt whether I would be in the Chamber this afternoon.

I have recognised from my earliest days as Secretary of State that the existing powers of local authorities in Northern Ireland are derisory. I referred to that in my speech to the Conservative Party conference in October last year—a month after assuming office. I have not changed my mind. I still think that the powers of local authorities are derisory. But—and this is the most important point—what matters is not simply whether the powers are too restricted, but whether enhancing them, no doubt as part of some wider scheme of local authority reform, shows any prospect of getting to the heart of the real difficulties facing the Province. I simply do not believe that, taken in isolation, local government reform brings any nearer a solution to the kind of difficulties to which I have already referred—that is, the difficulties created by a divided community and the absence of political institutions holding the confidence and respect of people right across the community.

It is of course true that changes to the structure of local government, even of the most minor kind, would be highly contentious within Northern Ireland, and we know why that is. Whatever hon. Members may feel about the history of local government in Northern Ireland—and we do not want to examine that history here—it is enough that there is a deeply held belief that abuse of local government was the cause of many injustices in the past and that the restoration of powers might see the return of those injustices. I do not believe that that would happen, but it is the belief.

It is a factor, but as I have said it is not the whole story. Any kind of change in Northern Ireland must be tested against the question "What does it do to help overcome the Province's long-standing difficulties?" After a lot of detailed examination, which I initiated because I wanted to go into this vital matter personally and with care, I am wholly satisfied that the local government route does not advance solutions and in some respects will make them more difficult to attain. That is my conclusion after much advice from a wide cross-section of people who agree that the powers are derisory but who still have a hang-up about the past. I have to take that into consideration. It would be unwise of me at this stage not to do so.

Mr. John Dunlop (Mid-Ulster)

Does the Secretary of State agree that since 1973 and the reorganisation of local government when the introduction of one man-one vote produced 26 councils in Northern Ireland, quite a few councils in the Province have become controlled b). the so-called downtrodden minority? Does he agree that that has created a new set of circumstances? Such people now have a majority on many councils and are exercising power in their own way. Does he agree that the same local government circumstances no longer exist in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Prior

The past has a habit of raking a long time to die. If I went for changes in that way now, I should make it difficult to attain the support of many people whose support we need if we are to achieve acceptance of a change of spirit in Northern Ireland. It is better to concentrate on the main issues and for the Assembly, as and when it takes devolved powers, to take what action it considers right at that time.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Prior

I am taking a long time.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

Perhaps if I can ask a question it will save me introducing some remarks into a future speech. The future of local government is important. I was not aware that my right hon. Friend was conducting an inquiry. It is of the greatest importance. I do not know whether the political parties were aware of the inquiry. Some hon. Members might have liked to contribute to the inquiry which my right hon. Friend is so properly making. Will my right hon. Friend allow us a sight of the report following his inquiry? Perhaps we could then debate it, either here or in the Northern Ireland Committee.

Mr. Prior

Ministers are entitled to make their own inquiries in any way that they like without having to make it an official inquiry. As I said at the party conference, I genuinely believe that there is a case for more reform and more powers for local government. I have asked each delegation that has been to see me, the churches and many other bodies, for their views. I must say to the House firmly that at this stage I believe that those who think that the answer to Northern Ireland problems is to have more local government do not understand what is happening in the Province.

Mr. Molyneaux

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way.

Mr. Prior

If I can move on a little, I shall give way later.

I shall first deal with those amendments, Nos. 15 and 16, which seek in essence either to remove clause 1(4) in its entirety or to substitute in its place, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) wishes, the lesser requirement that the Assembly shall not submit any proposals under this section unless they have the support of a majority of the Members of the Assembly.

The Committee will immediately see why such amendments strike at the central purpose of the legislation. If carried, either ensure that the Assembly would no longer be constrained in submitting proposals to the Secretary of State, either by the requirement that they have secured the support of no less than 70 per cent. of the membership of the Assembly, or by the alternative test provided for in clause 1(4)(b). Neither amendment would do anything to make it more likely that the proposals of the Assembly would command an acceptable degree of cross-community support nor, I am afraid, are they meant to. Indeed, given the nature of Northern Ireland politics, it would make it positively unlikely that such proposals would command the kind of support that is essential if just and durable political institutions for Northern Ireland are to emerge from the Bill. Both should accordingly be rejected.

Much has been said about the 70 per cent. provision. Hon. Members wish to amend the clause in similar ways, but for totally opposite reasons. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) wants to amend the 70 per cent. provision because he wants us to rely entirely upon clause 1(4)(b) rather than clause 1(4)(a)—the cross-community support proposal. The hon. Member for Antrim, North wants us to take out the 70 per cent., because he believes in a straight majority. Although the two want the same thing, they want it for totally opposite reasons.

The next amendment is No. 17, which proposes that clause 1(4)(a), which provides what I may call the "70 per cent. test", should be deleted from the Bill. I know that the right hon. Member for Mansfield and his colleagues are unhappy with this test, but I hope to set their minds at rest. It might be convenient at this point to take also amendment No. 117, under which clause 1(4)(a) would be retained, but, before proposals could be submitted under that provision, they would require the support of at least 70 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly drawn from all sections of the community. The facts are these. If not less than 70 per cent. of the membership of the Assembly agrees on devolution proposals, those proposals will automatically go to the Secretary of State. The figure of 70 per cent. should ensure that any proposals which enjoy that degree of support in the Assembly are acceptable to both sides of the Northern Ireland community. I recognise—and this is at the heart of the right hon. Member for Mansfield's concern—that it might be possible for the 70 per cent. to be achieved for proposals which do not meet this criterion. Therefore, it is important to be clear that 70 per cent. support for any proposals simply guarantees that they will be sent to the Secretary of State, who will lay them before Parliament. At that point, the proposals will be debated, and the Government will have to give a clear view on whether those proposals meet the essential criterion of acceptability to both sides of the community.

That is written into the White Paper. In paragraph 42, we make it clear that the crucial requirement is that the Assembly's proposals should be likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community. Only if that criterion were met would the Government ask Parliament to approve the Assembly's recommendations so that devolved government could be restored. It will be for Parliament, and Parliament alone, to decide whether powers should be devolved. Nevertheless, I emphasise that the Government fully understand the depth of the concern of the right hon. Member for Mansfield and others on this point. I shall return to that matter at the end of my speech.

The next set of amendments with which I propose to deal represent various adjustments to the operation of the 70 per cent. principle. I understand why hon. Members have tabled amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 98. But, even apart from the reasons which I have already given—that the 70 per cent. does not in fact represent a necessary hurdle which any devolution proposals must surmount—I fear that I cannot recommend the Committee to accept any of them. The Government's proposals recognise that no system of devolved government is likely to get off the ground, let alone prove durable and stable, unles it enjoys support in both parts of the community. The object of the figure of 70 per cent. of the whole Assembly in clause 1(4)(a) is accordingly to provide a broad indication that any proposals have that degree of acceptability. Amendments, such as this, which could enable the Assembly, if necessary, to make such proposals without having that support are accordingly inimical to the spirit of the Bill. What the Committee—and, in due course, the Assembly—should be concentrating on is how the Assembly might evolve proposals for devolution that command broad cross-community support. We should not allow ourselves to be diverted by questions of political arithmetic.

I now turn to a group of amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and his colleagues—Nos. 18, 22, 19 and 25. They fall into two categories. The first appears to consider that the "70 per cent. test" is expressed in insufficiently exact language. Clause 1(4)(a), as drafted, provides that the Assembly shall not submit any proposals unless they have the support of at least 70 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have tabled an amendment which seeks to make it explicit that no less than 70 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly have voted for such proposals. I am grateful for their suggestion, but I believe that this provision is already sufficiently clear. I do not see how clause 1(4)(a) could be satisfied unless 70 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly had voted for any proposals.

Nor have the same right hon. and hon. Gentlemen convinced me by their arguments in favour of amending clause 1(4)(a) and (b) so that references in both to "the proposals have" should be replaced by references to every such proposal at that time submitted has". As my hon. Friend made clear last night, a report proposing devolution would comprise a package of proposals. That package would stand or fall as a whole. These amendments would seem to break down any devolution package into discrete units, and consequently make the possibility of reaching an agreement considerably more remote.

5.15 pm

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

My hon. Friends and I, in these amendments, had in mind the rolling devolution operation. It seemed a pity that if two or three specific rolling proposals were put forward, although they might not be inherently connected, they would have to stand or fall together and suffer the same fate. For example, the proposals for devolving the Department of the Environment might be more acceptable and more likely to pass these criteria than those involving education and health. It therefore seemed to us a pity, and inconsistent with the theory of rolling devolution, to insist, where two or more are rolled at the same time, that they should be rolled together or not at all.

Mr. Prior

We considered this matter carefully. We reached the conclusion that, in cases where more than one Department is rolled at the same time, there may have been some form of deal which enabled the two or three parties to be intertwined in the deal. Therefore, one would not wish to unravel that stage. That is why we thought that the process should be contained in one order, not in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggested. We considered his method, but decided that the form in the Bill was much better. However, if the right hon. Gentleman would like me to have a further look at the matter, without giving any commitment at all, I shall certainly do so, because I am trying to be as helpful as I can.

Mr. Powell

As the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to undertake to look at the matter again, in the light of the exchanges between us, before Report, I have the agreement of my hon. Friends not to move the amendment in our names.

Mr. Prior

I can give the right hon. Gentleman no commitment of any sort in this respect, but I will look at the matter again. Clearly, if I felt that a change should be made, I should table an amendment on Report.

Finally, I turn to the proposed amendments to clause 1(4)(b). Amendment No. 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, would cut out the second test provided for in clause 1(4)(b). Yet this is one of the most significant features of the Bill. It has been included to ensure that if workable proposals for devolution were devised by the Assembly and commanded cross-community support, they could still be submitted to the Secretary of State and thus automatically go before Parliament even if, for some reason, they have not obtained the support of 70 per cent. of the Assembly, provided that they have still obtained the support of a majority of its Members. To remove that prospect from the Bill would reduce the room for manoeuvre of all the parties in the Assembly, limiting their scope for constructive negotiation and compromise. In the Government's view, it is essential, subject to the central principle of cross—community acceptability, to give the local parties as much flexibility as possible. The Government believe that it is essential to retain clause 1(4)(b) and we urge the Committee not to close an avenue of approach to devolution which may prove useful when the Assembly convenes.

The last amendment with which I wish to deal, No. 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Antrim, South, to whom I have not given way, although I shall certainly do so after I have finished these comments if he wishes, will substantially alter the second test for the submission of devolution proposals to the Secretary of State. The effect of his amendment would be that, if the Secretary of State had notified the Assembly that he was satisfied that the substance of the proposals was likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community, then the Assembly would be empowered to submit them, whether or not they have the support of the majority of its Members. This amendment would gravely, and unnecessarily, diminish the role of the Assembly. In particular, once an Assembly had been elected, it would, in my view, be quite improper for the Secretary of State to consider proposals for devolution that did not command the support of at least a majority of its Members. The test of widespread community acceptance is, as I have repeatedly emphasised, fundamental, but it is surely a necessary condition of such acceptance that a proposal has at least the support of a majority of the Assembly. Clause 1(4)(b) ensures that they must have this opportunity.

In any case, the amendment, as drafted, seems contradictory. Subsections (1) and (4) envisage that the Assembly as a whole should submit its proposals to the Secretary of State. I find it difficult to understand how this could happen if at least 50 per cent. of its Members were not in favour of these proposals. We therefore trust that right hon. and hon. Members will not press this point.

The amendments proposed to clause 1(4) appear, in the Government's view, to suffer from two particular defects. Either they would make it more difficult for the Assembly to submit to the Secretary of State proposals for devolution that would command widespread acceptance throughout the community, or they would make it easier for the Assembly to submit proposals that did not enjoy such support. On neither ground, therefore, do they accord with the fundamental principle of the Bill—to enable the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to devise a scheme of administration that has the support both of a substantial majority of the Assembly and is acceptable to both sides of the community. Accordingly, I urge the Committee to reject them.

I should like to assure the right hon. Member for Mansfield and the right hon. Member for Crosby that the Government fully understand those whose doubts about the provisions of this clause are based on the quite different grounds that they might—contrary to the Government's intentions—lead to insufficient consideration being given to the views of one of the communities.

I do not believe that an amendment to clause 1(4) would be right, but, having heard the arguments put forward, I shall consider carefully whether specific provision should be made elsewhere in the Bill to make it quite clear that there can be no question of a devolution order being made unless and until Parliament has satisfied itself that the provisions of that order, which will require the approval of each House of Parliament by affirmative resolution, are likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community. We are prepared to consider whether we can give greater resolution to that issue.

I am aware that I have spoken for a long time, but there are many amendments and many issues have emerged. I hope that our proceedings in Committee will be reasonable. I have Tied to take this debate extremely seriously. We are dealing with a difficult and, in some respects, dangerous problem. We have a duty to express our views, but we also have the duty—the Government see it in this way—to seek to make progress so that the measure is put on the statute book and the people of Northern Ireland are given the opportunity once more to form local democracy of their own making.

Mr. Concannon

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he will consider carefully what we have said and that he is prepared virtually to accept our argument in principle? Is he also saying that subsection (4)(a) is not the appropriate part of the Bill in which to lay stress on our argument—cross-community support is the main plank—and that he will consider whether it is necessary to introduce an amendment on Report? If that is what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, he is going a long way to meet our argument.

Mr. Prior

Broadly speaking, that is what I am saying. I think that it would be a mistake to remove clause 1(4)(a). If we are to give greater credibility to the need for widespread acceptance throughout the community and to give greater force to the 70 per cent. provision, we can consider an amendment to clause 2 along the lines that I have suggested. If that will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, I ask him to withdraw the amendment. If he takes that course, I shall introduce an amendment on Report.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

I count myself fortunate, Mr. Weatherill, in not catching your eye sooner. We have now had the advantage of hearing the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). It is quite like old times to hear someone addressing the Committee from the Opposition Front Bench. More importantly, we have been able to follow the extraordinarily valuable speech which has been delivered by the Secretary of State. His speech exposed some of the thought processes which have underlain the Government's proposals and baffled those who have sought to study them. I do not feel that it has solved the basic conundrum for those of us who are opposed to the Bill, but it has illustrated how our procedures in Committee are capable of providing mutual enlightenment, as happened in the unhappily relatively minor case of the manner of dealing with the constituencies in which the elections under the Bill may be fought.

Perhaps I can best illustrate what I mean by the "basic conundrum" by referring to the greatest of all our satirists, Jonathan Swift, who devoted a good deal of his writing to the endeavours and absurdities of England in its attempt to cope with Ireland. It is a thousand pities that his spirit has not been available to continue the series of satires after contemplating the events of the past 10 or 15 years and the successive attempts of Parliament and Government to produce what for shorthand purposes I describe as a rigged constitution to deal with a partially misunderstood problem.

Had Jonathan Swift intended to satirise the experience of those years, I imagine that he would have taken his traveller Gulliver to a land in which the inhabitants were engaged in attempting to alter by legislation the theorems of Euclid. In much of this proposed legislation we have been attempting to say "Parliament says so and Parliament has provided in an Act of Parliament a piece of machinery. Although it defies political mechanics and the principle of democracy, it will work because it should work and we want it to work."

I was struck by a leading article in The Times of Tuesday. It was an article that slashingly exposed the improbability of a Bill constructed on these lines functioning successfully. It stated: Experience since 1974 teaches that a basis for such an unusual arrangement does not exist"— that is definite enough— that politicians who are passionately divided on the most fundamental of all civil issues will not enrol or cannot survive as working colleagues in the administration of public affairs. 5.30 pm

But the Thunderer, having thus stated in lapidary fashion the probability which the Bill, like its predecessors and the preceding attempts that have not got as far as legislative form, defies, follows it up with a typical observation. It occurred to the leader writer that, after all, his principal duty as a leader writer for The Times was to sit upon the fence, so from that editorial seat there situated he hastened to resume and wrote: But first Mr. Prior deserves to get his Bill. That is a remarkable sentence, remarkable in its implications and remarkable in its choice of words. Knowing the Secretary of State, we would all say that if an individual's qualities, merits and admirable traits of character could deserve to be able, by legislation, to change the laws of mechanics or, in my analogy, to alter the theorems of Euclid, we would all be hastening to declare the deserts of the right hon. Gentleman so that he could perform this magical act. However, of course the leading article has just stated that deserts will not do it, for it is not a matter of deserts. It is a matter of facts, which are as intractable as the laws of mechanics. Indeed, in a sense it is a kind of law of mechanics with which we are dealing.

Perhaps I can illustrate most readily what I mean by a brief historical excursus, permission for which was contained in an expression that the right hon. Gentleman used. In the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century the House legislated to confer upon the island of Ireland, as such, wide powers of self-government through a Parliament, comprising powers not just of administration but of legislation. For the great majority of the inhabitants of the north-east of the island, that clearly meant that they would find themselves legislated out of the country to which they belonged. It was not the fear of maladministration under a Dublin Parliament which rendered the 1912 Act unacceptable to the people of Ulster. It was the fact that the powers contained in the legislation, the powers of home rule and making new law in the island of Ireland, were bound, so they saw—and events proved them correct—to be used so as to deprive them of what they regarded as their national heritage and birthright.

When that became clear beyond the possibility of denial, this Parliament performed what would have been a judgment of Solomon if Solomon, instead of dividing the baby in the middle, had divided it higher up or lower down. It divided the Irish home rule into, roughly speaking, one-third and two-thirds—not quite one-quarter and three-quarters.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Hemel Hempstead)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Powell

I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I wonder whether he would permit me to complete this portion of my similitude so that he may more effectively intervene. In performing this act of Solomon, it was the same baby, portions of which were attributed to the two claimants. The House said that there would be home rule, and the home rule which it had enacted, in the island of Ireland, but for the time being, as the people were unreasonable and not agreed, they would each have their own piece of it.

Therefore, there was conferred upon Ulster the same home rule, but limited to Ulster, which the Ulster people had seen would deny them everything that would make life worth living if it was applied to the whole island of Ireland. It followed from that that they would be bound to use the legislative powers of home rule in order to secure and make certain that thing which was above all to them the most important. Since there was a majority and an unquestioned standing majority, that did not involve any grave malpractices or malapplications of the legislative power. Nevertheless, the legislative power—the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) correctly implied this in something that he said in yesterday's debate—entrenched the majority and therefore the Union under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as applied to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Lyell

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He used the simile of the judgment of Solomon before in his opening speech on this matter, which was most impressive. When one considers the judgment of Solomon, is not the problem of Northern Ireland the fact that no way has been found to find a mother who will put the interests of the baby first? Is not the object of the Bill to create a situation in which that can happen?

Mr. Powell

I do not think that that is the object of the Bill. I gave way perhaps a little too early, after all. I am in the course of explaining why the Bill cannot do what it sets out to do. It is much more likely to produce, if there is an opposite, the opposite effect.

When the structure which we call "Stormont" for short was destroyed in 1972—I choose a neutral word, merely descriptive of an historical fact—the House and, I think, this country concluded that they did not wish to recreate in any part of the United Kingdom a system which would be severed from the system of the rest of the United Kingdom, in this vital respect. There would be parliamentary—that means democratic majority—Government in circumstances in which, unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, there could not be an alternation of the essential differences and party allegiances. Therefore, there would be something contradictory to the nature of the United Kingdom's parliamentary democracy—that is, a permanent majority. Moreover, they apprehended that the party differences in Northern Ireland which since the 1920 Act had made the maintenance of the Union the critical factor for the politics of the Province, turned upon something even more fundamental than the difference between Socialist and Conservative, the difference between would-be national allegiance one way or another.

There were two ways in which the House and country could go from that point. They could either recognise that it was not practicable on that basis, given that that was their will, to confer legislative powers upon a Parliament in part of the United Kingdom—in Northern Ireland that was for a reason that was more fundamental than the West Lothian theorem—or they could start a series of fiddles and arrangements whereby, through fudging the principles of parliamentary democracy, they would seek to solve the insoluble and to deal with that insolubility so accurately described in the passage that I quoted from The Times leader. So they said "You have to have uniquely in Northern Ireland a structure that is only allowed to work if the two parties will agree. Since the two parties cannot alternate, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, we will make it the precondition that they must agree, at any late that they must sufficiently agree." But that was an impossible requirement. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that we are really talking about parties when we discuss will and opinion in this context.

The measurement of opinion and the judgment of opinion in our system, which we understand better than any nation on earth, is done by means of parties. The parties of which we are talking and to which we apply the misleading and—I state it impersonally—the lying word "communities", are divided by a view of what the State itself ought to be. They are divided by the ultimate incompatibility. To construct any constitution, any devolution and any Parliament on the basis that it is only to function if people will agree about that over which they were elected to disagree is a fool's errand. It is the fool's errand on which we have been engaged these last 10 years and—I say this in no abusive sense—still are.

If we insist on attempting to establish a legislative system in a part of the United Kingdom and make it a condition of that legislative assembly that it shall only be exercised by people who were elected to do opposite things, to grab the machinery of power in order to use it in oppose directions for conflicting purposes, then we simply fasten upon the Province the incubus of an inherent impossibility.

Mr. Lyell

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Is there not a fundamental illogicality in his argument? I say that with some trepidation. The right hon. Gentleman has argued that the parties can come together on local government matte:—s, that matters can be solved by restoring local government powers and that local councils work well together. Yet he argues that if there is any sort of legislative devolution to deal with education and health and transferred matters under the Bill and the previous Act, they will never agree. Is there not an illogicality in saying that they can agree on local government but that they will always be divided on the matters dealt with by the. Bill?

Mr. Powell

It is uncanny—I say this in no carping spirit to the hon. and learned. Gentleman—how often one gives way immediately before coming exactly to the point that the intervention raises. There must be some reason somewhere. I was about to refer to what I found the most remarkable part of the speech of the Secretary of State and what I believe was the most hopeful part for myself and my hon. Friends. This was the revelation that on matters deeply important to us his opinions were not as we had supposed nor his observations nor his values different from ours. They were closely the same. The right hon. Gentleman stated, in many cases I think for the first time, with clarity, candour and eloquence, that the present powers were derisory and that he personally did not think that if powers of local government and local administration were increased they would be misused. His expressions showing that he saw the anomaly that we feel so painfully and that he wanted, as we want, to remove it, threw into all the sharper relief what the true barrier was. 5.45 pm

The reason why local government in Northern Ireland carries with it this load of largely mythical hostility and bad names—myths are some of the greatest political realities—is paradoxically that it was local government within a legislative system local to the Province that I have just described. It is an interesting fact and cross-checks the proposition I have made that the allegations of electoral malpractice, of rigging of boundaries, and so on, derive from legislative powers and not from the administration of the government of Ireland under the 1920 Act. If, of course, one gives people powers of legislation—this is where the argument reunites—then they will use the power of legislation for their political purposes. But if one is conferring upon them the power, the duty and, indeed, the necessity, therefore, to administer the law that they do not make except in so far as they contribute to making it in this House, then one has taken the sting, the fons et origo of the whole problem, out of the scene and left them with matters over which they will contend.

The SDLP and the Unionist Party on the Newry and Mourne district council will not desist in the foreseeable future from occasionally passing resolutions totally irrelevant to the subjects they are administering which express the notions that caused them to be elected and which they reflect on the part of those who sent them there. But when they administer a law that they cannot alter in order to serve their ultimate political purposes, they are found to be behaving remarkably like members of local authorities in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Most commonly, they are found to be making common cause within the existing law in getting the benefits that it can yield, not, I assure the right hon. Gentleman—I know my people—for one section or the other of the inhabitants of the district of Newry and Mourne but for the places in that district where the perceived need exists.

Mr. Budgen

The right hon. Gentleman says that the undoubted problems that occurred in local government over a decade ago arose from the legislative function that was performed by Stormont. Were there not also some allegations about the way in which local government in Northern Ireland ran its affairs in relation to housing and employment? Did those problems not arise from the administrative surveillance that Stormont exercised over those organs of local government in Northern Ireland? Would they not be less likely to occur if the surveillance was transferred from a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland to this House?

Mr. Powell

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the word "surveillance" because—here I again utilise the point made yesterday by the hon. Member for Antrim, North—the power for surveillance of Ministers responsible to the House, if we should examine it acidly, derives from the ultimate power of the House to use the weapon of the law. It was an Administration that was armed with the full puissance of a legislative as well as an administrative authority under which it was believed, often not correctly, that administration was biased.

Therefore, I conclude that, for reasons that are nothing to do with the intentions of the Secretary of State, this proposal will not work and cannot work, but we are now discussing it after three days in Committee with more common comprehension than we had even when this stage of the Bill started.

This is the central debate about the Bill, which, as is proper in Committee, each amendment of any consequence throws up once again, although with the crystal turned through a few degrees to a different light. I suggest, for our future advantage, that we forswear the words "community" or "communities", that we do not hide the reality from ourselves by irrelevant references to religion, and that we deal, as we deal in any other part of the United Kingdom, with party and with the purpose of party.

It is in that context that it is not grotesque, but perfectly logical, for hon. Members of my party to ask the occupants of the Government and Opposition Front Benches how they would feel if they were told that they could only legislate and administer, and could only be trusted, if right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, who have been elected to do opposite things, would come together. The opposite things that hon. Members in the isolated Ulster are elected to do are different, alas, from the opposite things for which right hon. Gentlemen have been elected, but the analogy is nevertheless perfect.

As politicians, let us talk in terms of political purpose because it is political purpose with which we are dealing. The ultimate truth is that within the United Kingdom political purpose can only be dissolved and held in equilibrium, deprived of its dangers, and given beneficence, force and the power of improvement, within the single parliamentary legislative structure of the United Kingdom, and with that panoply of administrative devolution—devolution of management—that we enjoy throughout the realm, with the slight exception of Northern Ireland.

Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

Like the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I am pleased to make a contribution to the debate after hearing the explanation and assurance given by the Secretary of State. He used his words wisely, and while I do not share the joy of following the Secretary of State on a similar basis as the right hon. Member for Down, South, I took note of the strong logical arguments that have once more been placed before the House by the right hon. Member for Down, South.

I have always recognised, and I respect this view, that the right hon. Member for Down, South wants integration with the United Kingdom. He has never sought to disguise that. He argues it with precision, and with a command of language and an enthusiasm that can, in its own way, have a great impact on the discussions of the Committee. It engenders only respect because he has never varied from the path that he has set himself. On the other hand, there are those of us who believe that it would not be possible at the moment effectively to implement what the right hon. Gentleman seeks without causing tremendous problems for the population of Northern Ireland.

I return to what the Secretary of State said, and the way that he answered the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and his hon. Friends, and amendment No. 117 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams), and other hon. Friends.

The idea behind our amendment was to take account of what was said on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) who made a telling contribution. He said that any Assembly required an unalienable right to bring before the House the recommendation of members of that Assembly, although he did not go overboard on the 70 per cent., 65 per cent. or 80 per cent. majority specifically laid down. He was forewarning us that if the Assembly became a talking shop, and if recommendations were made that were not automatically brought before the House because they had serious import, there could be problems for him, and for others who were willing to give the Bill their general support and to see how it worked before making final decisions upon its outcome.

I and my colleagues thought upon this deeply. I agree with the Secretary of State that in general 70 per cent. would be sufficient to mean that there should be the support of other than one or two political parties of similar identities. However, this might not be the outcome if, on any one election to the Assembly, the majority of seats were taken by one sector of the community.

My party tried to find a way that would give the guarantee sought by the hon. Member for Armagh, which would also take into account the advice of the Secretary of State, but would add a protection that would give some widespread cross-community support. I do not hesitate to use the word "community", because it means different things to me perhaps from those it means to the right hon. Member for Down, South.

If there is not general support in the community, the purposes of the Assembly will not be realised easily. They may never be realised if they give to the majority an automatic and unchecked right. I should be churlish if I proceeded to press amendment No. 117 on the basis of the broad-based explanation and illustration given by the Secretary of State of his approach to the Bill when he gave us the benefit of his thinking on subsection (4)(a) and (b) of clause 1.

I am taken by the assurance that later in the Committee proceedings, or on Report, an amendment would be found that would meet the needs of amendment No. 117, and of amendment No. 15 and the other amendments grouped with it. In essence, they seek to give a qualification that anything that comes from the Assembly should have more than single sector support. Under those circumstances I do not intend to press the amendment. However, I ask the House, either in Committee or on Report, to take account of the amendments that the Secretary of State may propose after he has given due weight and consideration to what has been said in the debate on this group of amendments.

6 pm

I hope that the House will bear it in mind that if there is not broad-based support at the end of the day, if a substantial part of the Northern Ireland community feels that it is being thwarted, and if the right of veto is not given to any part of the community, the difficulties for an Assembly will be immeasurable. I want to see an Assembly. I want to see it quickly. I want to see transferred powers. I hope that the Assembly will be able to find a way to re—institute local government to serve the local needs of many parts of the Northern Ireland community. However, until such time as that arrives, and the Assembly has an opportunity to make recommendations, we should ensure that it will not fail even before it starts.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The Secretary of State has made an important speech. As far as my party is concerned, it is a complete breach of faith. In all our conferences with the Secretary of State, we were told that he stood by the Northern Ireland proposals for further discussion as issued by the Government in July 1980. Nevertheless, we put before him the statement: The Government believes that the holding of executive seats is not the only way:'or minority representatives to participate in and influence the process of Government in both the legislative and executive forms. The Secretary of State said that he still accepted that and he made the point that is to be found in the notes on clauses at page 3: There is no requirement for a Northern Ireland administration to be composed in a particular way. These are matters for the parties in the Assembly to determine. Power sharing is neither required, nor ruled out. There are two (alternative) tests for the submission of devolution proposals. Such proposals can be submitted to the Secretary of State if they are accepted by 70 per cent. of the members of the Assembly;— that, of course, rules out the power sharing concept; it requires the acceptance of just 70 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly— or, when they are supported by a majority but less than 70 per cent. of members, if the Secretary of State has notified. the Assembly that"— on this second way of doing it— he is satisfied that their substance is likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community. Therefore, we were told that the 70 per cent. was straightforward and that power sharing was not required or ruled out.

Now the Secretary of State has told us that he will write a new proviso into the Bill, that even under the 70 per cent. proposal Parliament must be satisfied that there is widespread community support. One can well understand how the people whom I represent feel. After various conferences with the Secretary of State they were under a mistaken impression, as the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said in the speech that has just been referred to by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), the spokesman for the Social Democratic Party.

There will now be a radical change in the Bill in a proviso that we have not yet seen. We do not know exactly what it will contain. However, as far as the 70 per cent. proposal is concerned, it will specify that there must be cross—community support. That has been said clearly by both the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member far Mansfield, (Mr. Concannon), whom the Secretary of State is responding to by saying that if the amendment is withdrawn the Government will write this undertaking into the Bill. That means that the 70 per cent. must include those who support the SDLP.

Mr. Prior

I should like to put on the record exactly what I did say. I think that the hon. Gentleman has not quite understood. I said: I can assure hon. Members that the Government have not simply plucked the figure of 70 per cent., the first of the two tests, from the air. Nor have they lightly embarked on a measure which, as we all recognise and have been reminded of on a number of occasions during the debate, differs from the principle of the simple majority to which we would normally expect to subscribe". I then went on to say that the 70 per cent. is only ore of the ways in which devolution proposals from the Assembly can be submitted to the Secretary of State, and that stands. At the end, I said that I thought that the figure of 70 per cent. had teen chosen because it constituted what we would think automatically has cross-community support, but that I recognised that it could be that it did not have cross-community support. Therefore, I suggested a possible amendment that would ensure that the cross-community element was taken into account in the 70 per cent. when the House was asked to make a decision.

That is the change that I recommend. It does nothing more than confirm what was contained in paragraph 42 of the White Paper. It is what we have said all along. It is not power sharing as such because it is totally open. We do not know how that 70 per cent. could be made up or how the cross-community support could be made up. Therefore, we are not insisting on power sharing or imposing anything. As the hon. Gentleman has said on several occasions, if he does not like these proposals it would be for the Assembly to say that it would not accept them. That is the only point that I am trying to make.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I heard exactly what the Secretary of State said and I am under no misapprehension about it. When we met him to discuss the White Paper this was the very point that we put to him. We produced the Government document of July 1980 and asked him if he still stood by the paragraph that says that the Government believe that the holding of Executive seats is not the only way for minority representatives to participate in and influence the process of government in both the legislative and executive forms. He said that they were standing by that. Then we come to the note on this matter: The Bill places responsibility for making such proposals on the Assembly. There is no requirement for a Northern Ireland administration to be composed in a particular way. These are matters for the parties in the Assembly to determine. Power sharing is neither required nor ruled out. There are two (alternative) tests for the submission of devolution proposals. Such proposals can be submitted to the Secretary of State if they are accepted by 70 per cent. of the members of the Assembly". There is no qualification. However, the Secretary of State now says that he will write into the Bill the qualification that the 70 per cent. must have cross-community support. That is exactly what he did not tell us. Indeed, that point was made by the hon. Member for Armagh. That is why we discussed the White Paper with the Secretary of State and faced him with his proposals.

Mr. Bill Walker (Perth and East Perthshire)

rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley

The notes continue: or, when they are supported by a majority but less than 70 per cent of members, if the Secretary of State has notified the Assembly that he is satisfied that their substance"— that is in the second proposal— is likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community.

Mr. Molyneaux

I apologise for not being in the Chamber earlier, but I was called out to deal with an urgent matter. Perhaps I can help by reading the minutes of the meeting that a delegation from my party had with the Secretary of State on 8 March. I have already referred to the fact that the Secretary of State dropped a bombshell on that occasion. I differ from the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) not because I want to, but because he seems to have been mistaken all along. I say that not in an aggressive spirit, but because it is a fact. The words that triggered things off were: if the Secretary of State was not satisfied that the weighted majority of 70 per cent. contained a sufficiently large Roman Catholic Republican involvement, he would be unable to recommend the formation of that department to Parliament. That mentions one Department, but the principle is the same. The previous page contains the double requirement that there must be 70 per cent. and that it must contain cross-community support. When the hon. Member for Antrim, North discussed this point earlier, I believe that the Secretary of State agreed with my view rather than with that of the hon. Gentleman.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I faced the Secretary of State with that minute. It appeared in the press, in a scathing attack made on my party and me by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). The Secretary of State said that that minute had been put out by the Official Unionist Party and that he did not accept it as a minute of the meeting. The hon. Member for Londonderry said that he was reading from a copy of the White Paper, but the Secretary of State said that no one at that time had a copy of the White Paper and that he could not have been reading from it.

I am not in any way mistaken about what took place at the meetings, or about the undertakings that were given to me. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) had his own meetings and drew his own conclusions. He wrote his own minutes, made his own interpretations of what was said. However, when we faced the Secretary of State with his "Proposals for further discussion"—a vital document—and asked him whether he was departing from that, in view of the statement made in the White Paper, he said that he was not. He said that the 70 per cent. proposal would be in the Bill. It is clear from the notes that that 70 per cent. was a 70 per cent. vote, full stop. At that meeting I asked whether a religious or political alliance was needed. I asked what sort of community support it had to be. The answer has been given that it must include the SDLP. That is clear from this debate.

6.15 pm

One issue is vital. The House is entitled to be told the nature of the new provision to be written into the Bill. We should know now. The right hon. Member for Mansfield asked what was the point of being here. As soon as I have seen the provision, I will ask myself what is the use of wasting time in the House when there has been a breach of faith on such an important matter. As the hon. Member for Armagh said, some of us were prepared to work to attain that 70 per cent. and then to discuss that 70 per cent. in the House. Of course the House has the final say, but if the House is to be tied down by the statement that widespread support must include the support of the SDLP we may as well not proceed any further.

The SDLP has a vested interest in ensuring that nothing works in Northern Ireland. Its members believe that our problems can be solved only by getting Northern Ireland into the Republic. Therefore, they have a vested interest in destroying anything that could work. We are apparently being asked to get over an impossible hurdle and to make some sort of alliance with those who have vowed not to allow things to work. I shall not waste my time, or that of my party, when we were assured that there were no qualifications to that 70 per cent. We now find that something is to be written into the Bill. We do not yet know what it will be. I have already had word from home that the people are flabbergasted by what the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box today. They say that there must be some deal between the Secretary of State and the Labour Party and that that is why the Labour Benches are empty, with the exception of two Labour Members. The Labour Party has got exactly what it wants. In my first speech I caused quite a stir because I wondered whether the Secretary of State had a deal about the Council of Ireland. We pushed the right hon. Gentleman about that. Before the end of the day, the Secretary of State may have something else for us.

Mr. Budgen

rose—

Mr. Prior

When the hon. Gentleman reads what I have said, he will find that I have been consistent throughout. If he is not satisfied that I have been consistent, he should wait until the amendment has been tabled. We can then argue the matter out again.

On Second Reading, I said: If 70 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly agreed on devolution proposals, I would be required to lay those proposals before Parliament, where they would be debated. The Government would give their view on whether the scheme was acceptable to both sides of the community."—[Official Report, 28 April 1982; Vol. 22, c. 859.] I have always made that clear and have never sought to gloss over the issue. The Opposition have attacked me for not making things clear enough. They wanted me to go further. If there has been a misunderstanding, I shall try to put it right. I do not want to negotiate from a basis of mistrust. However, there has never been any doubt in the minds of those with whom I have dealt that that would happen.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I have pressed the Secretary of State today, as on other occasions, to explain what he means by the support of both sides of the community. Does he mean that if there is to be a 70 per cent. majority vote in the proposed Assembly Roman Catholic Members of the Assembly may be included in that 70 per cent.? If that is what he means, it is acceptable, but if he means that one Republican party only must be associated with the 70 per cent. majority it is not acceptable. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has given an assurance that both sides must agree, but the key issue is who should discern the composition of the two sides.

We have been told in Committee that Roman Catholics vote for Unionists. Are Roman Catholic Unionists on the other side or not? We must be perfectly clear on that point. To fob us off, as the Secretary of State is now doing, by saying that on Second Reading he said "provided both sides agree" will not do. He knows perfectly well that he cannot get entire agreement from both sides. That is impossible. Does he mean that the IRA, Sinn Fein or another Republican movement such as the INLA should agree?

Mr. Budgen

Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that there are almost no members of the Labour Party here today? Did not the Labour Party know all along that some, admittedly limited, concession would be made to them?

Rev. Ian Paisley

I disagree that this is a limited concession. It goes to the heart of the negotiations that my party has had in good faith with the Secretary of State. He emphasised to us over and over again that there were two ways in which the devolved proposals could be made. The first is the 70 per cent. proposal. At the conference the Earl of Gowrie said that the Government had told the SDLP that it may not be included in the 70 per cent. I see that the Secretary of State agrees with that.

The contention of the right hon. Member for Mansfield was that the 70 per cent. was a dangerous proposition, because the Secretary of State might have to come to the House and say that 70 per cent. plus—he even said that it might be 75 per cent.—would show that the people of Northern Ireland wished to have devolved government. The Secretary of State would find himself in a most difficult position, because he would have to say "No" to that proposal.

I tried to intervene and to point out to the right hon. Member for Mansfield what the document said, because it is a vital provision. The Committee is entitled to examine a draft of the undertaking. We must know what we shall have to discuss and agree because an addition will be made to this Bill which cuts at its very heart. I wish to see a simple majority vote in the Assembly. That is democracy and that is my principle.

If there is to be a 70 per cent. provision, as is evident, that 70 per cent. must be 70 per cent. and the House has no right to analyse the political colour of the vote. Everyone in this House could analyse a vote and say that it was not a majority because someone had a different religion or a different political complexion. The Government are in power today because of the principle of one Member, one vote. Now we are forced to talk about the political complexion of a vote, which is an impossible position.

The other proposal in the Bill is 50 per cent. plus one. That gives the minority a decided advantage over the majority. It puts a far more powerful weight upon a Republican vote than on a Unionist vote. The Government wish to push through such a proposal, but we must find out exactly what is in the Secretary of State's mind. He should tell us precisely what the amendment will be. I, my party and the people of Northern Ireland will feel very disillusioned if we discover that, no matter the wishes of those who believe in the Union—whether they be Protestant or Roman Catholic—they are overridden by those in the alliance who wish to destroy the State altogether.

The Secretary of State must face the fact that it is impossible. It puts a new complexion on his Bill and my party must now consider carefully the undertaking. We did not have any response from the Secretary of State in the previous debate about the amendment to be moved by the right hon. Member for Mansfield on the Council for Ireland. That is equally serious. Will the Secretary of State, when that amendment is moved, say "I shall go along that line as well"? That is another matter that causes me anxiety.

We have always had a strong vocal response from the Labour Party about Northern Ireland. Many members of the Labour Party have spoken in such debates and disagreed strongly with Ulster Unionist Members of every political persuasion. Now there is no debate from the Labour Benches and I wonder whether what the hon. Member for Wolverhapton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said is true and that there has been an agreement. The right hon. Member for Mansfield said that the Labour Party is behind him anyway and that he does not need their support. I, too, would not wish to come here if someone told me that all my amendments would be accepted. I would go to bed tonight and not sit here until the morning.

Mr. Concannon

This is the first time during the progress of the Bill that I have asked my party for a Whip. It is rather stupid to say that there has been collusion between myself and the Secretary of State over the amendments. If there had, I would not have put my party on a Whip. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] Hon. Members may be assured that they are around the House. As the Secretary of State said, the Labour Party is not against the Bill. The opposition comes from other quarters, so it is not necessary for my colleagues to be here. They are quite happy with the way in which I and my hon. Friend are handling the matter.

Mr. Budgen

The right hon. Member for Mansfield—

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

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene in an intervention.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I do not challenge the integrity of the right hon. Member for Mansfield. We have had many disagreements both in Northern Ireland and here, but I respect his word. I suggest that those who are under the Labour Whip are in the same place as the rest of the Tory Party. It has been useful to put the Labour Members on the Whip because it means that the right hon. Gentleman has got what he wishes and that the Secretary of State has given way to him. We should congratulate him on the fact that he can bring in his battalions.

Mr. Budgen

It was asserted that I had made a stupid observation about the Labour Party. Does the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Paisley) see many Labour Members in or around the House today? While the right hon. Member for Mansfield might at first sight have given the impression that he would press for a Division, he had no troops to back that resolution. I suggest that he had no troops because he knew that a battle would be unnecessary.

6.30 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley

I can make no comment on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. During my 10 years' experience in the House, there have always been lively contributions from the Labour Benches on issues relating to Northern Ireland. I was here when the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973 and the Northern Ireland Act 1974 were discussed. We have not had similar contributions in this debate and hon. Members will draw their own conclusions from that.

I should like to press the Secretary of State to tell us exactly what the amendment will be. We have a right to know what it will be and we can then make up our minds and comment on it. The Secretary of State must tell us, as it will bind the House to this strange concept of cross-country support. We have a different-definition on that. We are not talking about the Assembly.

The right hon. Member for Mansfield says that we should go outside the Assembly and talk to the CBI and the trade unions. The only way that cross-community support can be decided is by the ballot box. We are getting further and further away from the ballot box, which is the only discipline of democracy. We are to take soundings here and there and then the Secretary of State will make the decision. The people of Northern Ireland should decide by the ballot box what they want and what is best for the government of that part of the United Kingdom.

I hope that the Secretary of State will soon be able to tell us what wording he will use and that there will be no need for clarification and explanation. There is now no difference between 70 per cent. and 50 per cent. plus one. That is just something that was used—I use the words carefully—to con the loyalist population. We now find that the 70 per cent. is meaningless and we might just as well have had the 50 per cent. plus one. It is a serious matter and I never thought that I would hear the Secretary of State make such a statement. He can say "I said this that and the other thing", but the fact is that it was made clear to my party in the same way as it is in the notes on clauses. That is what the 70 per cent. meant. The Secretary of State should give us details of the amendment that will meet the wishes of the right hon. Member for Mansfield and we will know where we are going.

Mr. Lyell

I am glad to have the opportunity on this important clause and these critical amendments to say briefly that I support what the Secretary of State seeks to do in this Bill. There have been complaints in Committee that there has not been much opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members who support the Bill to say why.

Mr. Budgen

There has been plenty of opportunity. It has not been taken.

Mr. Lyell

I am now taking that opportunity. The Secretary of State, in one of his dramatic horse-riding episodes, stood at the Dispatch Box, got the whip out and explained in the profoundest terms his anxiety, which I am sure is shared by all hon. Members, about the problems of Northern Ireland. To that extent he was on common ground with every hon. Member in the Chamber. We need to find some way in which the processes of democracy can be restored in Northern Ireland in a way that will receive the support not only of the majority but of the significant minority of the population; that will approximate with the way in which democracy works in the rest of the United Kingdom. Those ideas expressed in the Bill in this part of the clause are the 70 per cent. majority and cross-community support proposals. They have been debated in detail for the past several hours. The minutiae are obviously important, as the forceful and impressive speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made clear. That motion of cross-community support has a great deal of support in the Committee. I do not suggest that it has complete support but many of my hon. Friends who have worries about the Bill do not have worries about that aspect of it.

It has been suggested that the local government route would provide an acceptable alternative to the partial devolution route that the Secretary of State seeks to follow. I agree with him, although my view comes from much less knowledge of the problems of Northern Ireland than that of many other hon. Members. If the local government route provided the easy answer to the problems as a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested it does, I find it difficult to believe that we would not have solved the problems of Northern Ireland long ago.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

It is because those promoting the measures—I am not referring to the Minister but others elsewhere—will have a vested interest in ensuring that the trouble goes on.

Mr. Lyell

I take careful note of what the right hon. Gentleman says. It seems unlikely that the simple local government route will provide a sufficient answer. If we ever have to return to this problem I shall reread the speeches of my hon. Friends and see whether this route is promoted should the present worthwhile initiative of the Government not succeed.

I want to deal with what I believe are the underlying fallacies of what is known as the West Lothian question in the context of Northern Ireland. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), whom I deeply respect, what was meant by the West Lothian question. It was obviously not convenient for him to provide me with an answer.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

It would have been more sensible and easier to have asked the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) or to have read the reports of the debate.

Mr. Lyell

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It would have been more sensible, but I had hoped that it could be put succinctly. It was not, so I have indeed read the debates going back to the Scottish devolution debates which took place when I was not a Member of the House and had no knowledge of the matter. I shall not weary the Committee with all the details, but the West Lothian question seems to have been put in about five different ways and not always consistently.

Mr. Budgen

It can be put in 55 ways.

Mr. Lyell

I have no doubt but that, for the legitimate purposes of doing what some of my hon. Friends are seeking to do to the Bill, they would like to explore all 55, but it is a fallacy to suggest that the West Lothian question, put in a correct form, provides an overriding or fatal flaw to the Bill.

I was interested to go to the fountain head. Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) said, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) created the West Lothian question, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) iterated the soubriquet and gave the name to that bundle of varied concepts. I found in 1977 perhaps not the earliest but certainly one of the most authoritative statements of the West Lothian question. The right hon. Gentleman said: But behind there looms the much larger question not of the function of Scottish Members in this House in regard to Scottish affairs, but of the whole functioning of this House, when 71 of its Members come from a part of the United Kingdom where the responsibility for a great range of legislation, and consequently of policy, is borne by elected representatives elsewhere. That was one of the early statements of the West Lothian question. At that time, the Government were seeking to shrug off the West Lothian question by reference to the history of Stormont and Northern Ireland. That was in the days of the Lib-Lab pact, when there was no majority for the Government, except through the assistance of the Liberal Party. The right hon. Member for Down, South said forcefully that the West Lothian question did not function in relation to Northern Ireland. He said it was de minimis and added: Northern Ireland has been de minimis" in this matter over the last 50 or 60 years. From 1977 that took us back over the history of Stormont and up to the days of the smallest majority that any Government had had, certainly in this century. If it was de minimis then, why is it not de minimis now? I do not invite an intervention, but I look forward with interest to hearing the answer to that question.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

The answer is twofold. First, we are now to have 17 seats and there is a considerable difference, even in a House with 635 Members, between a group of 17 and a group of 12. Secondly, it is one thing to live with an anomaly for fear of worse, but it is quite a different thing to recreate that anomaly when we no longer have it.

Mr. Lyell

I have read both those aspects in the succeeding debates but it is illogical to argue, as the right hon. Gentleman did in 1977: It is one thing for 71 Members, or half that number—especially in Parliaments where majorities may be narrow—to hold the balance on great issues of policy. It is quite a different thing, during decades in which such narrow majorities have been unusual, for a very small number of Members to have been tolerated in this House and for the adherence of the majority of them to one of the great parties to have been overlooked, not without criticism, by those who belonged to other political parties. However, after that preamble the right hon. Gentleman said: But I will not rest upon the matter of scale, though in itself the de minimis rule applies".—[Official Report, 14 November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 87–88.] The difference between 12 and 17, at a time when there was no majority for the Government and when 12 votes would have obliterated it, does not sufficiently answer the point that I have put.

6.45 pm

This is a profound constitutional matter and I turn to another illogicality that has arisen from time to time over the West Lothian question. I pick up again a point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South—no one puts these matters with greater clarity—not in 1977, but about 10 days ago. The right hon. Gentleman put the West Lothian question in a slightly different way, although it is some of my hon. Friends and not the right hon. Gentleman who would like to use the 55 different explanations. The right hon. Gentleman referred to an anomaly that could be lived with but not recreated—I recognised that expression when he intervened—and he went on: There is no answer, and there will shortly in practice he found to be no answer, to the question addressed to those 11 hon. Members: 'How come you here to debate and to vote with us on a whole range of subjects for which you are not responsible to your constituents as we are responsible to ours?' More than that, 'How come you 17 Members, whatever may be the majority among you one way or the other, of one inclination or the other, to decide, perhaps on the Address upon a Queen's Speech, what form of government there shall be in the United Kingdom, when the subjects on which the election was conducted in Great Britain were very largely not the subjects on which the election was conducted in your own part of the United Kingdom?'."— [Official Report, 27 May 1982; Vol. 24, c. 1147.] I see the force of that point, but I fail to see why it has any less force whether the Bill is on the statute book or not. Elections in Northern Ireland are always decided on matters that are substantially different from those that decide the election in the rest of the United Kingdom. The logical solution to the conundrum posed by the right hon. Gentleman is that Northern Ireland Members should not be allowed to have any part in the Assembly.

Mr. Budgen

That is what the Secretary of State wants.

Mr. Lyell

We know that that is not what the Secretary of State wants.

Further, the right hon. Member for Down, South picked up from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) the suggestion that his argument was reinforced by the French system in Martinique and the concept of metropolitan France going far beyond the seas.

if that were the fatal flaw to the Bill that it is claimed to be, one must wonder how the French Government can exist.

The election in Martinique, which has no local government electorate—I have checked on that—is likely to be decided on issues that are personal to Martinique, but the island's representatives could hold the balance in the French Parliament. If the West Lothian question were the fatal flaw that it is claimed to be by those who do not give it careful thought, one must ask why the French Government do not collapse.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

Is not my hon. and learned Friend making a mistake in assuming that electors in all constituencies vote for their representatives only on the basis of national issues? Sometimes personalities count for something—perhaps not much, but quite a lot in some places and even more in remote places. In addition, local factors are the reason why some people are sent to Westminster. Surely he cannot take this line of argument because in Martinique and Guadeloupe there will be local issues, even if Mitterrand's face or Giscard d'Estaing's face appears on the posters during the general election campaigns. I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend has made his point with this argument.

Mr. Lyell

I apologise for failing to get the point across to my hon. Friend. I fully understand what he says. It is not I who have set up a West Lothian question or a West Falklands question or any other question under a soubriquet as a fatal flaw to the Bill. I agree that election issues cover a great diversity of matters and that they do not provide fatal flaws to the working of democracy. The simple point I make is that the West Lothian issue does not provide a fatal flaw to the Bill.

We are dealing with a matter of the most profound difficulty for the nation—a Province that is torn for reasons of history that we all understand, more or less, and which many in the Chamber understand in detail better than I. We are seeking to find what has to be admitted to be an unusual and unique solution to an unusual and unique difficulty. We are right to make the search. The way that the matter is being approached by a diversity of interests properly represented here gives reason for hope, rather than reason for despair, that it might carry us through to an improvement in the Province.

Nobody should be over-optimistic. I know that the Secretary of State is not over-optimistic, but I am happy to go along with him for those reasons and I wish the Bill well.

Mr. Prior

Several points have arisen in the debate this afternoon. When I spoke some time ago I tried to deal with some of the points which arose last night.

The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised with me a point about amendment No. 19. I have been looking into this matter. I said that I would consider it between now and Report. I have taken further advice on the way that clause 1(4) operates. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that it would be sensible if, in rolling devolution, it was possible to have separate proposals for each Department. I argued that one might want to put them all together as a package because a package might laboriously have been sewn together.

I am told that the wording of clause 1(4), when it talks about "the proposals", enables the proposals to be put either separately or together. As the Bill permits the Assembly to adopt either course and therefore to recommend either course to Parliament, the point that amendment No. 19 was seeking to cover is already covered by the Bill. I do not think that there is anything between us now on this matter. Therefore, there is no need for further consideration to be given to it.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

I have followed the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I am not sure whether we may not have to return to it on clause 2. The question involved in some of the amendments of the official Opposition is as to whether it should be possible for the orders to be made separately for each devolved Department. Unless they are, the considerations, the application of which has given such grave, if not mortal, offence to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), cannot be applied to them.

Mr. Prior

Perhaps we might leave this matter until we come to clause 2. There are several amendments on this matter. It is a question of whether we want to have a separate order on each. We will listen to the arguments that are adduced at that time.

I suggest to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that there must have been some misunderstanding. I have looked again at the notes on clause 1. Paragraph 10, on subsection (4), says: The figure of 70 per cent. should ensure that any devolution proposals are acceptable to representatives of both sides of the community. Should 70 per cent. support be achieved without the support of the minority, the proposals would still have to secure the approval of Parliament before a devolution Order could be made under Clause 2. I remind the hon. Gentleman of an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) in my speech on Second Reading: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is possible that the House might not agree to a proposal, even though it has the 70 per cent. approval of the Assembly? Can my right hon. Friend envisage such circumstances occurring and what a possible subject might be? I answered: That would be a matter for the House. The figure of 70 per cent. was struck because it should, under normal circumstances, ensure that there is cross-community support. All that it actually does is to ensure that there is a discussion by the House. It does no more nor less than that. I must make it absolutely clear that the House is not likely to grant a transfer of powers unless it is satisfied that there is cross-community support, otherwise there will not be the political stability that we are aiming to achieve."—[Official Report, 10 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 476.] I thought that I had made it clear there. Paragraph (vi) of part 6 of the White Paper also makes it clear.

The hon. Gentleman also asked me what "cross-community support" meant. That is something that the House will have to decide from its soundings and from the attitude of the Assembly towards it. Naturally, the Government in making up their mind would have to have regard to the nature of the support for the proposals in the Assembly. The Assembly will be the primary means of articulating the views of the people of Northern Ireland.

Given the nature of Northern Ireland politics, it is a fact that most of the parties draw the bulk of their support from one side of the community or the other. It will thus be possible to make an assessment, difficult as this may be, as to whether the devolution proposals enjoy substantial support from elected representatives drawn from both sides of the community. I must emphasise that what really matters is whether there is sufficient support from both sides of the community for any devolution scheme to be viable. That would be the issue on which Parliament would have to make a judgment.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) made an outstanding speech. I am glad in some ways that we have not had too many supportive speeches, because that would have taken too long, but it is nice to have one occasionally.

We have had an important series of debates. I hope that my hon. Friends will do me the credit of believing in this measure as being in the interests of Northern Ireland. No one doubts that there are great difficulties. One has only to listen to the hon. Member for Antrim, North and to the right hon. Member for Down, South to know how easy it is to create and to express the difficulties that there are. We have more to do than that.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor (Basildon)

Does my right hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members acknowledge his good intentions in that this is, in his view, in the best interests of Northern Ireland? Does he also accept that many of his hon. Friends honourably believe that it is not in the interests of Northern Ireland?

7 pm

Mr. Prior

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that view. However, I have already made that clear.

In the interests of what I hope will be reasonable debate, I trust that we shall try to make a little more progress than we have, because I do not think that we are getting on fast enough. I know that there is a lot to do, but we have been sitting for long hours—

Mr. Budgen

My right hon. Friend has dealt with the Committee very fairly in this extremely important debate, and he has disposed of all the issues very well, but I remind him that he is now on his second speech and that in his first speech he spoke for 52 minutes. No criticism is made of that, because it is plain that this matter has to be debated fully and properly.

Mr. Prior

All that I can say to my hon. Friend is "Come off it".

Rev. Ian Paisley

I am under no illusion about the need for this proposal to come to the House. It must come to the House, and we all know it. There is no misunderstanding about it. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he intends to write an amendment into the Bill which will tie the House of Commons in that any 70 per cent. proposal must have cross-community support, although he has not decided what cross-community support is and he says that it will be a matter for the House. Despite that, the amendment will tie the House to that issue. I read all that he said with great care. I understand exactly what he said.

However, I hope that he will apply himself to one matter. What is the use of this 70 per cent. mechanism if it is the same as 50 per cent. plus one with cross-community support? We do not need it at all. However, the Unionists and the people I support took it as being in line with what we were told by the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends, which was that this was an opportunity for them to do something along lines which would be useful to their constituents.

Mr. Prior

I make two comments in reply to the hon. Gentleman. The first is that he had better wait and see what the amendment is. It will seek merely to confirm what we have said all along, but will substantiate it perhaps it a rather more satisfactory manner, and certainly it will have to be debated on Report. I suggest that he waits for that amendment.

Secondly, I believe that the 70 per cent. has value. It is a target at which to aim. Provided that it can be reached and provided it has that cross-community support, I think that it ensures that the debate upon it must take place in the House. That has value, too.

We have had an interesting debate generally. I hope that we can make progress—

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry)

I heard the Secretary of State say just now that 70 per cent. was the target at which to aim. Will he concede that from the other side of the question the opposition has to aim at only 31 per cent.?

Mr. Prior

Yes. There are infinite ways in which a Northern Ireland Assembly can cease to make progress if it wishes to do so. In the light of what we have been trying to suggest, there an overpowering need for the House and the Committee to seek to produce some political initiative for the Province which will enable the people to play a greater part in the political responsibilities for their own affairs. On that basis, I ask the Committee to be generous and to recognise what we have said about certain of the amendments and the reasons why we cannot accept them, but not to go to the extent of dividing the Committee.

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 168, Noes 23.

Division No. 185]	[7.5 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Crouch,David
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Dorrell,Stephen
Alton,David	Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
Arnold,Tom	Dunn, James A.
Aspinwall,Jack	Eggar,Tim
Banks, Robert	Elliott,SirWilliam
Beith, A. J.	Eyre,Reginald
Benyon,Thomas(A'don)	Fairgrieve,SirRussell
Benyon, W.(Buckingham)	Faith, Mrs Sheila
Berry, Hon Anthony	Fookes, Miss Janet
Best, Keith	Forman,Nigel
Blackburn,John	Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Blaker,Peter	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)	Goodlad,Alastair
Boyson,Dr Rhodes	Gower, Sir Raymond
Braine,SirBernard	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Bright,Graham	Greenway, Harry
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon	Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Brooke, Hon Peter	Hamilton, Hon A.
Brotherton,Michael	Hamilton,Michael(Salisbury)
Bulmer,Esmond	Hampson, Dr Keith
Butcher,John	Hawkins,Paul
Butler, Hon Adam	Hawksley,Warren
Cadbury,Jocelyn	Henderson,Barry
Campbell-Savours,Dale	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Carlisle, John (LutonWest)	Hogg, HonDouglas (Gr'th'm)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)	Hooson,Tom
Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Horam,John
Cockeram,Eric	Hordern,Peter
Colvin,Michael	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Cope,John	Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Crawshaw, Richard	Howells,Geraint

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Irvine, BryantGodman	Ridsdale, SirJulian
Jessel, Toby	Rifkind, Malcolm
JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Kaberry, SirDonald	Roper, John
Lang, Ian	Rost, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Royle, SirAnthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Loveridge, John	Sandelson, Neville
Luce, Richard	Scott, Nicholas
Lyell, Nicholas	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
MacGregor, John	Shersby, Michael
MacKay, John (Argyll)	Silvester, Fred
McNally, Thomas	Sims, Roger
Magee, Bryan	Skeet, T. H. H.
Major, John	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Marten, Rt Hon Neil	Speed, Keith
Mather, Carol	Speller, Tony
Mawby, Ray	Steel, Rt Hon David
Mawhinney, DrBrian	Steen, Anthony
Mayhew, Patrick	Stevens, Martin
Mellor, David	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Meyer, SirAnthony	Stradling Thomas, J.
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Tapsell, Peter
Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)	Thompson, Donald
Moate, Roger	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Montgomery, Fergus	Trippier, David
Morgan, Geraint	Trotter, Neville
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Myles, David	Viggers, Peter
Neale, Gerrard	Waddington, David
Needham, Richard	Wall, SirPatrick
Nelson, Anthony	Waller, Gary
Newton, Tony	Warren, Kenneth
O'Halloran, Michael	Weetch, Ken
Onslow, Cranley	Wells, Bowen
Patten, John (Oxford)	Wheeler, John
Pawsey, James	Whitney, Raymond
Penhaligon, David	Wickenden, Keith
Percival, Sir Ian	Wiggin, Jerry
Pollock, Alexander	Wigley, Dafydd
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)	Wolfson, Mark
Prior, Rt Hon James
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Tellers for the Ayes:
Rathbone, Tim	Mr, David Hunt and
Rhodes James, Robert	Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 23, Noes 233.

Division No. 185]	[7.5 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Crouch,David
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Dorrell,Stephen
Alton,David	Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
Arnold,Tom	Dunn, James A.
Aspinwall,Jack	Eggar,Tim
Banks, Robert	Elliott,SirWilliam
Beith, A. J.	Eyre,Reginald
Benyon,Thomas(A'don)	Fairgrieve,SirRussell
Benyon, W.(Buckingham)	Faith, Mrs Sheila
Berry, Hon Anthony	Fookes, Miss Janet
Best, Keith	Forman,Nigel
Blackburn,John	Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Blaker,Peter	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)	Goodlad,Alastair
Boyson,Dr Rhodes	Gower, Sir Raymond
Braine,SirBernard	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Bright,Graham	Greenway, Harry
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon	Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Brooke, Hon Peter	Hamilton, Hon A.
Brotherton,Michael	Hamilton,Michael(Salisbury)
Bulmer,Esmond	Hampson, Dr Keith
Butcher,John	Hawkins,Paul
Butler, Hon Adam	Hawksley,Warren
Cadbury,Jocelyn	Henderson,Barry
Campbell-Savours,Dale	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Carlisle, John (LutonWest)	Hogg, HonDouglas (Gr'th'm)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)	Hooson,Tom
Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Horam,John
Cockeram,Eric	Hordern,Peter
Colvin,Michael	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Cope,John	Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Crawshaw, Richard	Howells,Geraint

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Irvine, BryantGodman	Ridsdale, SirJulian
Jessel, Toby	Rifkind, Malcolm
JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Kaberry, SirDonald	Roper, John
Lang, Ian	Rost, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Royle, SirAnthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Loveridge, John	Sandelson, Neville
Luce, Richard	Scott, Nicholas
Lyell, Nicholas	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
MacGregor, John	Shersby, Michael
MacKay, John (Argyll)	Silvester, Fred
McNally, Thomas	Sims, Roger
Magee, Bryan	Skeet, T. H. H.
Major, John	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Marten, Rt Hon Neil	Speed, Keith
Mather, Carol	Speller, Tony
Mawby, Ray	Steel, Rt Hon David
Mawhinney, DrBrian	Steen, Anthony
Mayhew, Patrick	Stevens, Martin
Mellor, David	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Meyer, SirAnthony	Stradling Thomas, J.
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Tapsell, Peter
Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)	Thompson, Donald
Moate, Roger	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Montgomery, Fergus	Trippier, David
Morgan, Geraint	Trotter, Neville
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Myles, David	Viggers, Peter
Neale, Gerrard	Waddington, David
Needham, Richard	Wall, SirPatrick
Nelson, Anthony	Waller, Gary
Newton, Tony	Warren, Kenneth
O'Halloran, Michael	Weetch, Ken
Onslow, Cranley	Wells, Bowen
Patten, John (Oxford)	Wheeler, John
Pawsey, James	Whitney, Raymond
Penhaligon, David	Wickenden, Keith
Percival, Sir Ian	Wiggin, Jerry
Pollock, Alexander	Wigley, Dafydd
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)	Wolfson, Mark
Prior, Rt Hon James
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Tellers for the Ayes:
Rathbone, Tim	Mr, David Hunt and
Rhodes James, Robert	Mr. Selwyn Gummer.
NOES
Biggs-Davison, SirJohn	McQuade, John
Body, Richard	Molyneaux, James
Brown, Michael (Brigg&Sc'n)	Murphy, Christopher
Budgen, Nick	Paisley, Rev Ian
Cranborne, Viscount	Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Dunlop, John	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Farr, John	Skinner, Dennis
Goodhart, SirPhilip	Walker, B. (Perth)
Gorst, John	Winterton, Nicholas
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Kilfedder, James A.	Tellers for the Noes:
Knight, MrsJill	Mr. William Ross and
Lawrence, Ivan	Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.
McCusker, H.

Division No. 186]	[7.15 pm
AYES
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Colvin, Michael
Biggs-Davison, SirJohn	Dunlop, John
Body, Richard	Fairgrieve, SirRussell
Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)	Farr, John

Goodhart, SirPhilip	Paisley, Rev Ian
Gorst, John	Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Kilfedder, James A.	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Knight, MrsJill	Walker, B. (Perth)
Lawrence, Ivan	Winterton, Nicholas
McCusker, H.
McQuade, John	Tellers for the Ayes:
Molyneaux, James	Mr. William Ross and
Morgan, Geraint	Mr K. Harvey Proctor.
Murphy, Christopher

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Allaun, Frank	Goodlad, Alastair
Alton, David	Gower, Sir Raymond
Arnold, Tom	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Aspinwall, Jack	Greenway, Harry
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Griffiths, E. (B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Banks, Robert	Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Beith, A. J.	Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN)	Hamilton, Hon A.
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Berry, Hon Anthony	Hampson, DrKeith
Best, Keith	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Bevan, David Gilroy	Hawkins, Paul
Bidwell, Sydney	Hawksley, Warren
Blackburn, John	Haynes, Frank
Blaker, Peter	Henderson, Barry
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)	Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Braine, SirBernard	Home Robertson, John
Bright, Graham	Homewood, William
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Hooson, Tom
Brooke, Hon Peter	Horam, John
Brotherton, Michael	Hordern, Peter
Buchan, Norman	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Buck, Antony	Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)
Bulmer, Esmond	Howells, Geraint
Butcher, John	Hoyle, Douglas
Butler, Hon Adam	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Cadbury, Jocelyn	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)	Irvine, Bryant Godman
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Jessel, Toby
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	John,Brynmor
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey
Cockeram, Eric	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)	Kaberry, SirDonald
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	Kerr, Russell
Cope, John	King, Rt Hon Tom
Crawshaw, Richard	Lang, Ian
Crouch, David	Leighton, Ronald
Crowther, Stan	Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)	Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Loveridge, John
Dewar, Donald	Luce, Richard
Dormand, Jack	Lyell, Nicholas
Dorrell, Stephen	Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.	McCartney, Hugh
Dubs, Alfred	McDonald, DrOonagh
Dunn, James A.	McElhone, Frank
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	MacGregor, John
Eggar, Tim	McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Elliott, SirWilliam	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)	MacKay, John (Argyll)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Maclennan, Robert
Evans, John (Newton)	McNamara, Kevin
Ewing, Harry	Magee, Bryan
Eyre, Reginald	Major, John
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Marks, Kenneth
Field, Frank	Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)
Fisher, SirNigel	Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Fookes, Miss Janet	Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Forman, Nigel	Mather, Carol
Foster, Derek	Mawby, Ray
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Mawhinney, DrBrian

Mayhew, Patrick	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Maynard, MissJoan	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Mellor, David	Silverman, Julius
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Silvester,Fred
Millan,Rt Hon Bruce	Sims, Roger
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Mills, Peter (WestDevon)	Skinner,Dennis
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)	Smith,Tim(Beaconsfield)
Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)	Soley,Clive
Moate, Roger	Spearing,Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus	Speed, Keith
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)	Spriggs,Leslie
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Steel, Rt Hon David
Morton,George	Stevens,Martin
Myles, David	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Neale,Gerrard	Stoddart, David
Needham, Richard	Stradling Thomas,J.
Nelson,Anthony	Tapsell, Peter
Newton,Tony	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
O'Halloran,Michael	Thomas, DrR.(Carmarthen)
Onslow,Cranley	Thompson,Donald
Page, Richard (SW Herts)	Townend,John(Bridlington)
Palmer,Arthur	Trippier,David
Patten, John (Oxford)	Trotter,Neville
Penhaligon, David	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Percival, Sir Ian	Viggers,Peter
Pollock,Alexander	Waddington, David
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Wainwright,E.(Dearne V)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Wall, SirPatrick
Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)	Waller, Gary
Prior, Rt Hon James	Watkins, David
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Weetch,Ken
Rathbone,Tim	Wells,Bowen
RhodesJames, Robert	Welsh,Michael
Rhys Williams,SirBrandon	Wheeler,John
Ridsdale,SirJulian	Whitney,Raymond
Rifkind,Malcolm	Wickenden, Keith
Roberts,Albert(Normanton)	Wiggin,Jerry
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Wigley,Dafydd
Robertson,George	Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)	Williams,D.(Montgomery)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William	Winnick, David
Roper,John	Wolfson,Mark
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.	Woodall,Alec
Sainsbury,HonTimothy	Woolmer,Kenneth
Sandelson, Neville	Young, David (Bolton E)
Scott,Nicholas
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Tellers for the Noes:
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)	Mr, David Hunt and
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.	Mr. Selwyn Gummer.
Shersby,Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

The Second Deputy Chairman

We now come to the other amendments in the group on which Divisions can take place if requested.

Mr. Concannon

In view of what the Secretary of State has said in response to our representations, I am prepared to wait until Report. I shall not move amendment No. 17.

Mr. Molyneaux

I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 13, leave out paragraph (a)'.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 161.

Division No. 187]	[7.30 pm
AYES
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Kilfedder, James A.
Biggs-Davison,SirJohn	Lawrence, Ivan
Body,Richard	McCusker,H.
Brown,Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)	McQuade,John
Budgen,Nick	Molyneaux,James
Dunlop,John	Morgan,Geraint
Farr,John	Murphy,Christopher
Goodhart,SirPhilip	Paisley, Rev Ian
Gorst,John	Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

Rees-Davies, W. R.	Tellers for the Ayes:
Walker, B. (Perth)	Mr. William Ross and
Winterton,Nicholas	Mr. K. Harvey Proctor

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Jessel, Toby
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey
Alton,David	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Arnold,Tom	Kaberry,SirDonald
Aspinwall,Jack	King, Rt Hon Tom
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Lang, Ian
Banks,Robert	Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Beith, A. J.	Lewis,Kenneth(Rutland)
BenyonJhomas(A'don)	Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)
Benyon,W. (Buckingham)	Loveridge,John
Berry, Hon Anthony	Luce,Richard
Best, Keith	Lyell, Nicholas
Bevan,David Gilroy	MacGregor,John
Bidwell, Sydney	MacKay, John (Argyll)
Blackburn,John	Magee, Bryan
Blaker, Peter	Major,John
Boscawen,HonRobert	Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W)	Mather,Carol
Boyson,Dr Rhodes	Mawby, Ray
Braine,SirBemard	Mawhinney,DrBrian
Bright,Graham	Mayhew, Patrick
Brocklebank-Fowler,C.	Mellor,David
Brooke, Hon Peter	Meyer,Sir Anthony
Brotherton,Michael	Mills,Iain(Meriden)
Buck,Antony	Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Bulmer,Esmond	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Butcher,John	Moate,Roger
Butler, Hon Adam	Montgomery, Fergus
Cadbury,Jocelyn	Myles, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Neale,Gerrard
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Needham, Richard
Cockeram,Eric	Nelson,Anthony
Colvin, Michael	Newton,Tony
Cope,John	O'Halloran,Michael
Crawshaw,Richard	Onslow,Cranley
Crouch,David	Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Dorrell,Stephen	Patten, John (Oxford)
Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.	Penhaligon,David
Dunn, James A.	Percival,Sir Ian
Eggar,Tim	Pollock,Alexander
Elliott,SirWilliam	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Eyre,Reginald	Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell	Prior, Rt Hon James
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Fisher,Sir Nigel	Rathbone,Tim
Fookes, Miss Janet	RhodesJames, Robert
Forman, Nigel	Ridsdale,SirJulian
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Rifkind,Malcolm
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Garel-Jones,Tristan	Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Goodlad,Alastair	Roper,John
Gower, Sir Raymond	Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Sainsbury,Hon Timothy
Greenway, Harry	Sandelson,Neville
Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)	Scott,Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Grimond,Rt Hon J.	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Hamilton, Hon A.	Shersby, Michael
Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)	Silvester,Fred
Hampson,Dr Keith	Sims, Roger
Hawkins, Paul	Skinner,Dennis
Hawksley,Warren	Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)
Henderson,Barry	Speed, Keith
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Steel, Rt Hon David
Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)	Stevens,Martin
Holland,Philip(Carlton)	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Hooson,Tom	StradlingThomas,J.
Horam,John	Tapsell, Peter
Hordern, Peter	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Thompson,Donald
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)	Townend,John(Bridlington)
Howells,Geraint	Trippier,David
Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)	Trotter,Neville
Irvine, BryantGodman	van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Viggers, Peter	Wiggin,Jerry
Waddington, David	Wigley,Dafydd
Wall,SirPatrick	Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Waller, Gary	Wolfson,Mark
Wells,Bowen
Wells,John(Maidstone)	Tellers for the Noes:
Wheeler,John	Mr. David Hunt and
Whitney, Raymond	Mr. Selwyn Gummer.
Wickenden, Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 20, in page 2, line 14, after 'Assembly', insert 'who have taken their seats and voted on the proposals'.—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 214.

Division No. 188]	[7.40 pm
AYES
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Molyneaux,James
Biggs-Davison,SirJohn	Morgan, Geraint
Body,Richard	Murphy,Christopher
Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)	Paisley, Rev Ian
Budgen,Nick	Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Dunlop,John	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Farr,John	Walker, B. (Perth)
Goodhart,SirPhilip	Winterton, Nicholas
Gorst,John
Kilfedder,James A.	Tellers for the Ayes:
Lawrence, Ivan	Mr. William Ross and
McCusker,H.	Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.
McQuade,John

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Dubs,Alfred
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Dunn, James A.
Alton,David	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Arnold,Tom	Eggar,Tim
Aspinwall,Jack	Elliott,SirWilliam
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)
Banks,Robert	Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Beith, A. J.	Evans, John (Newton)
Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN)	Eyre,Reginald
Benyon ,Thomas (A'don)	Fairgrieve,SirRussell
Benyon,W. (Buckingham)	Faith, MrsSheila
Best, Keith	Field, Frank
Bevan, David Gilroy	Fisher, Sir Nigel
Blackburn,John	Fookes, Miss Janet
Blaker,Peter	Forman, Nigel
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)	Forrester,John
Boyson,Dr Rhodes	Foster, Derek
Braine,SirBernard	Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Bright,Graham	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Brotherton,Michael	Garel-Jones,Tristan
Buchan,Norman	Goodlad,Alastair
Buck,Antony	Gower, Sir Raymond
Bulmer,Esmond	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Butcher,John	Greenway, Harry
Butler, Hon Adam	Griffiths, E.(B'ySt.Edm'ds)
Cadbury,Jocelyn	Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Callaghan,Jim (Midd't'n & P)	Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Campbell-Savours,Dale	Gummer, JohnSelwyn
Carlisle,Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hamilton, Hon A.
Clarke,Kenneth(Rushcliffe)	Hamilton,Michael (Salisbury)
Cockeram,Eric	Hampson,Dr Keith
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Colvin, Michael	Hawkins,Paul
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	Hawksley,Warren
Cope,John	Haynes, Frank
Crawshaw,Richard	Henderson,Barry
Crouch,David	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Crowther,Stan	Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)	Holland,Philip(Carlton)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Holland,S.(L'b'th,Vauxh'll)
Dewar,Donald	HomeRobertson,John
Dormand,Jack	Homewood,William
Dorrell,Stephen	Hooson,Tom
Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.	Horam,John

Hordern,Peter	Raison,Rt Hon Timothy
Howell,Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)	Rathbone,Tim
Howells,Geraint	RhodesJames, Robert
Hoyle, Douglas	Ridsdale,SirJulian
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Rifkind,Malcolm
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Roberts,Albert (Normanton)
Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Irvine, BryantGodman	Robertson,George
Jessel,Toby	Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
John,Brynmor	Roper,John
JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey	Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Jopling,Rt Hon Michael	Sainsbury,Hon Timothy
Kaberry,Sir Donald	Sandelson, Neville
Kerr, Russell	Scott,Nicholas
King, Rt Hon Tom	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Lang, Ian	Shaw,Michael(Scarborough)
Leighton, Ronald	Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Shersby, Michael
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Loveridge,John	Silverman,Julius
Luce,Richard	Silvester, Fred
Lyell, Nicholas	Skeet, T. H. H.
McDonald,DrOonagh	Skinner,Dennis
MacGregor,John	Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)
McGuire,Michael(Ince)	Soley,Clive
McKay, Allen (Penistone)	Spearing,Nigel
MacKay, John (Argyll)	Speed, Keith
McNamara, Kevin	Spriggs,Leslie
Magee, Bryan	Steel, Rt Hon David
Major,John	Stevens,Martin
Marks,Kenneth	Stewart,Ian(Hitchin)
Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)	Stoddart,David
Marten, Rt Hon Neil	StradlingThomas,J.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy	Tapsell, Peter
Mather,Carol	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mawby, Ray	Thompson, Donald
Mawhinney,DrBrian	Townend,John(Bridlington)
Mayhew, Patrick	Trippier,David
Mellor,David	Trotter,Neville
Meyer, Sir Anthony	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Millan,Rt Hon Bruce	Viggers,Peter
Mills,Iain(Meriden)	Waddington, David
Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Wall,SirPatrick
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)	Waller, Gary
Moate, Roger	Ward,John
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)	Watkins,David
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Weetch,Ken
Morton,George	Wells,Bowen
Myles, David	Wells, John(Maidstone)
Neale,Gerrard	Welsh,Michael
Needham, Richard	Whitney, Raymond
Nelson,Anthony	Wickenden,Keith
Newton,Tony	Wiggin,Jerry
O'Halloran,Michael	Wigley,Dafydd
Onslow,Cranley	Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)	Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Palmer,Arthur	Winnick,David
Patten, John (Oxford)	Wolfson,Mark
Penhaligon,David	Woolmer,Kenneth
Percival,Sir Ian	Young, David (Bolton E)
Pollock,Alexander
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Tellers for the Noes:
Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)	Mr. Robert Boscawen and
Prior, Rt Hon James	Mr. Peter Brooke.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 24, in page 2, line 15, leave out paragraph (b).—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 20, Noes 208.

Division No. 189]	[7.55 pm
AYES
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Brown,Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)
Biggs-Davison,SirJohn	Dunlop,John
Body,Richard	Farr,John

Goodhart,SirPhilip	Paisley, Rev Ian
Gorst,John	Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Kilfedder, James A.	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Lawrence,Ivan	Walker, B. (Perth)
McCusker,H.	Winterton,Nicholas
McQuade,John
Molyneaux,James	Tellers for the Ayes:
Morgan, Geraint	Mr. William Ross and
Murphy,Christopher	Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Gummer,John Selwyn
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Hamilton, Hon A.
Alton,David	Hamilton,James(Bothwell)
Arnold,Tom	Hamilton,Michael (Salisbury)
Aspinwall,Jack	Hampson, Dr Keith
Baker, Nicholas (NDorset)	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Banks,Robert	Hawkins,Paul
Beith,A.J.	Hawksley,Warren
Bennett,Andrew (St'kp'tN)	Haynes, Frank
Benyon,Thomas (A'don)	Henderson, Barry
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Best, Keith	Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Bevan,David Gilroy	Holland, Philip(Carlton)
Blackburn,John	Holland,S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Blaker,Peter	HomeRobertson,John
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)	Homewood,William
Boyson,Dr Rhodes	Hooson,Tom
Braine,SirBernard	Horam,John
Bright,Graham	Hordern, Peter
Brotherton,Michael	Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Buchan,Norman	Howells,Geraint
Buck,Antony	Hoyle,Douglas
Bulmer,Esmond	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Butcher,John	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Butler,HonAdam	Hunt,John (Ravensbourne)
Cadbury,Jocelyn	Irvine, BryantGodman
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)	Jessel, Toby
Campbell-Savours,Dale	JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Jopling,Rt Hon Michael
Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Kaberry,SirDonald
Cockeram, Eric	King, Rt Hon Tom
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)	Lang, Ian
Colvin, Michael	Leighton,Ronald
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Cope,John	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Crawshaw,Richard	Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)
Crouch,David	Loveridge,John
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)	Luce,Richard
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Lyell, Nicholas
Dormand,Jack	McDonald, DrOonagh
Dorrell,Stephen	MacGregor,John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Dover,Denshore	MacKay, John (Argyll)
Dubs,Alfred	Maclennan, Robert
Dunn, James A.	McNamara, Kevin
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Magee, Bryan
Eggar,Tim	Major,John
Elliott,SirWilliam	Marks, Kenneth
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)	Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Evans, John (Newton)	Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Eyre,Reginald	Mather,Carol
Fairgrieve,SirRussell	Mawby, Ray
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Mawhinney,DrBrian
Field, Frank	Mayhew, Patrick
Fisher,Sir Nigel	Mellor,David
Fookes, MissJanet	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Forman, Nigel	Millan,Rt Hon Bruce
Forrester,John	Mills,Iain (Meriden)
Foster, Derek	Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	Moate, Roger
Garel-Jones,Tristan	Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Goodlad,Alastair	Morris, Rt HonJ. (Aberavon)
Gower,SirRaymond	Morton,George
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Myles, David
Greenway, Harry	Neale,Gerrard
Griffiths, E.(B'ySt.Edm'ds)	Needham,Richard
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)	Nelson,Anthony
Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Newton, Tony

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Spearing,Nigel
O'Halloran, Michael	Speed, Keith
Onslow,Cranley	Spriggs, Leslie
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David	Stevens, Martin
Page, Richard (SW Herts)	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Palmer,Arthur	Stoddart, David
Patten, John(Oxford)	StradlingThomas,J.
Penhaligon, David	Tapsell, Peter
Percival,Sir Ian	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Pollock,Alexander	Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Thompson,Donald
Price,SirDavid (Eastleigh)	Trippier,David
Prior, Rt Hon James	Trotter,Neville
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Rathbone,Tim	Viggers, Peter
Rhodes James, Robert	Waddington, David
Ridsdale,SirJulian	Wall,SirPatrick
Rifkind, Malcolm	Waller, Gary
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Ward,John
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)	Watkins,David
Roper,John	Weetch, Ken
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.	Wells,Bowen
Sainsbury,Hon Timothy	Wells,John(Maidstone)
Sandelson, Neville	Welsh,Michael
Scott,Nicholas	Wheeler,John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Whitney, Raymond
Shaw,Michael(Scarborough)	Wickenden,Keith
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.	Wiggin,Jerry
Shersby,Michael	Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Williams,D. (Montgomery)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)	Winnick,David
Silverman,Julius	Wolfson,Mark
Silvester, Fred	Young, David (Bolton E)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Skinner,Dennis	Tellers for the Noes:
Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)	Mr, Robert Boscawen and
Soley, Clive	Mr, Peter Brooke.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Gorst

On a point of order, Mr. Dean. May I seek your guidance on the validity of the Division that has just taken place? I understand that a Minister was locked in the Lobby. I believe that for some reason he was unable to get out. I wonder whether 20 or 21 should have been the vote for the Ayes.

The Second Deputy Chairman

If the hon. Gentleman or the right hon. Gentleman concerned did not pass the Tellers, he cannot have been counted.

Mr. Proctor

Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. I can confirm that he Minister in question did not come out of the Division Lobby.

Mr. Farr

I beg to move amendment No. 101, in page 2, line 19, at end insert— (4A) A referendum shall be held of the electors of Northern Ireland on any proposals under this section which have been submitted by the Assembly, and the Secretary of State shall not lay before Parliament any such proposals which have not been approved by a majority of the electors.'

The Second Deputy Chairman

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

Amendment No. 102, in page 2, line 21, at end insert 'which have been approved by a majority of the electors of Northern Ireland in a referendum as provided in subsection (4A) above'. Amendment No. 26, in page 2, line 21, at end add— (6) Before laying before Parliament any proposals submitted to him under this section the Secretary of State may by order direct the holding of a poll or polls for the purpose of obtaining the views of the people of Northern Ireland on any matter contained in or arising out of such proposals or otherwise concerned with the future Government of Northern Ireland.'. New clause 11—Referendum (No. 1). ' .—(1) A refendum shall be held in accordance with Schedule [Referendum] to this Act on the question whether effect is to be given to the provisions of this Act. (2) If it appears to the Secretary of State that less than 40 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted "Yes" in reply to the question posed in the Appendix to Schedule [Referendum] to this Act or that a majority of the answers given in the referendum have been "No" he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of this Act. (3) If a draft laid before Parliament under this section is approved by a resolution of each House, Her Majesty in Council may make an Order in the terms of the draft.'. New clause 12—Referendum (No. 2) ' .—(1) A referendum shall be held in accordance with Schedule [Referendum] to this Act on the question whether effect is to be given to the provisions of this Act. (2) If it appears to the Secretary of State that a majority of the answers given in the answers given in the referendum have been "No" in reply to the question posed in the Appendix to Schedule [Referendum] to this Act he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of this Act. (3) If a draft laid before Parliament under this section is approved by a resolution of each House, Her Majesty in Council may make an Order in the terms of the draft.'. Amendment No. 65—