HC Deb 23 June 1982 vol 26 cc308-32

4.8 pm

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. You will recall that when the Committee last sat it dealt with the first of a group of three amendments. It was put to the Chair, reported in column 1025 of the Official Report, that a Division would be desirable upon the other two amendments that were grouped with it as they were essentially separate matters on which it might be desirable for the Committee—and some members of the Committee did desire—to mark a decision.

I therefore ask you, Sir, to permit the Committee to come to a decision on amendment No. 44, which is on a distinct and important point, and for which a separate Division was requested when that group of amendments was entered upon.

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

It is perfectly true that when we debated this matter last week I said that the Chair would consider a Division on amendment No. 44. However, in view of the subsequent guillotine motion, I thought that it might be the desire of the Committee to get on with discussing the Bill. Therefore, I did not have that amendment put on the provisional selection. If it is genuinely the wish of the Committee to have a Division on this amendment, I shall, of course, allow it, despite the guillotine motion.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

I am obliged, Mr. Weatherill. That was indeed the desire of a number of members of the Committee on that occasion, and I hope that you will test that desire by putting the Question.

Amendment proposed: No. 44, in page 3, line 19, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.—[Mr. J. Enoch Powell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 20, Noes 132.

Divison No. 232] [4.10 pm
AYES
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Budgen, Nick Murphy, Christopher
Dunlop, John Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Farr, John Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Stanbrook, Ivor
Gorst, John Walker, B. (Perth)
Kilfedder, James A. Winterton, Nicholas
Knight, Mrs Jill
Lawrence, Ivan Tellers for the Ayes:
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Mr. William Ross and
Molyneaux, James Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.
NOES
Alton, David Macfarlane, Neil
Arnold, Tom MacGregor, John
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne) Major, John
Beith, A. J. Marland, Paul
Berry, Hon Anthony Marlow, Antony
Best, Keith Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Bevan, David Gilroy Mather, Carol
Biffen, Rt Hon John Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Blackburn, John Meyer, Sir Anthony
Boscawen, Hon Robert Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W) Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Moate, Roger
Bradley, Tom Montgomery, Fergus
Bright, Graham Moore, John
Bruce-Gardyne, John Mudd, David
Buck, Antony Neale, Gerrard
Cadbury, Jocelyn Needham, Richard
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) O'Halloran, Michael
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R' c 'n) Onslow, Cranley
Cartwright, John Osborn, John
Chapman, Sydney Page, John (Harrow, West)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Cope, John Patten, John (Oxford)
Costain, Sir Albert Pawsey, James
Crouch, David Penhaligon, David
Dorrell, Stephen Pitt, William Henry
Dover, Denshore Pollock, Alexander
Dunn, James A. Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Durant, Tony Prior, Rt Hon James
Eggar, Tim Rhodes James, Robert
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Fisher, Sir Nigel Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Fookes, Miss Janet Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman Roper, John
Fry, Peter Rossi, Hugh
Goodlad, Alastair Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Grant, John (Islington C) Sandelson, Neville
Greenway, Harry Scott, Nicholas
Grimond, Rt Hon J. Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Grist, Ian Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Gummer, John Selwyn Silvester, Fred
Hamilton, Hon A. Sims, Roger
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Smith, Dudley
Hampson, Dr Keith Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Haselhurst, Alan Speller, Tony
Hawkins, Sir Paul Stainton, Keith
Hawksley, Warren Steel, Rt Hon David
Heddle, John Stradling Thomas, J.
Hill, James Temple-Morris, Peter
Holland, Philip (Carlton) Thompson, Donald
Hordern, Peter Thornton, Malcolm
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) Trippier, David
Howells, Geraint Trotter, Neville
Hunt, David (Wirral) van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas Wainwright, R.(Colne V)
Jessel, Toby Waller, Gary
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Warren, Kenneth
Kershaw, Sir Anthony Watson, John
Knox, David Wellbeloved, James
Lang, Ian Wells, Bowen
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Wells, John (Maidstone)
Lee, John Wickenden, Keith
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Wigley, Dafydd
Lester, Jim (Beeston) Wolfson, Mark
Loveridge, John
Luce, Richard Tellers for the Noes:
Lyell, Nicholas Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson Mr. Peter Brooke.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 151, in page 3, line 29, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

The Chairman

With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 152, in page 3, line 31, leave out from 'section' to end of line 33.

Amendment No. 148, in page 3, line 33, leave out 'a specified period' and insert 'one month of the request being made'. Amendment No. 138, in page 3, line 33, after 'period', insert 'and such report for the greater convenience shall be in the form of the Official Record of proceedings.'. Amendment No. 139, in page 3, line 33, after 'period', insert 'and in any event within 4 weeks of the conclusion of the relevant Assembly discussion.'. Amendment No. 140, in page 3, line 35, after 'section' insert 'and shall do so at once by placing copies in the Vote Office.'. Amendment No. 155, in page 3, line 35, at end insert 'within seven days'.

Amendment No. 156, in page 3, line 38, at end add— '(6) The Assembly shall ensure that its proceedings and its decisions are recorded in writing and a copy of the proceedings is submitted to the Secretary of State.'. Amendment No. 157, in page 3, line 38, at end add— '(6) The Secretary of State shall place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the minutes of the proceedings of the Assembly.'. New Clause 24—Television— 'The proceedings of the Assembly shall be televised for transmission by the British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television companies.'.

Mr. Farr

Will it be possible, Mr. Weatherill, to have a separate Division on amendment No. 139, which covers a fundamental point? It relates to the time limit of four weeks within which a report must be submitted.

The Chairman

I should like to consider that without giving an answer at the moment.

Mr. Farr

In the group of amendments which we are discussing, there are four with which I should like to deal—Nos. 151, 138, 139 and 140. This group of amendments gives the lie to the criticisms made yesterday that a series of time-wasting and destructive amendments without substance had been tabled. These nine amendments are all designed to make the Assembly a better, more effective and more efficient working place than it would otherwise be.

Amendment No. 151, the first one in the name of some of my hon. Friends and myself, relates to the desirability of changing the word "may" to "shall" in the first line of subsection (3). It is essential that the Assembly shall have a duty to make a report to the Secretary of State. It is not good enough to leave the subsection in its present rather haphazard form under which the Assembly may make a report or it may not. Amendment No. 151, along with the other three amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends, suggests that the best way of making the official report to the Minister by the Assembly is by keeping an official record similar to Hansard in the House of Commons.

This is outlined specifically in amendment No. 138 which says that an official record of proceedings shall be kept. As I said, all these amendments are designed to be helpful and to streamline the procedure. They are constructive and in no way can they be construed as time-wasting.

The Assembly officers would be well advised to try to emulate the feats of our Official Reporters in the Gallery. The accuracy, speed, efficiency and exactitude of our official reporters in the Hansard Gallery, working often in difficult conditions, are such as reporters of any official proceedings throughout the world would wish to emulate. Those of us who tabled the amendments can think of no better way of going about it than for the Assembly officers to try to establish an official record of proceedings on the lines of our Hansard records.

Amendment No. 139 is of significance inasmuch as it desires to maintain the relevance of any report by the Assembly to the Secretary of State. If my right hon. Friend accepts some of the amendments—he has not been very co-operative so far—it will not be necessary to have this four-week time limit. An official report, as compiled by Hansard here, comes out overnight; the official report of proceedings in the Assembly could be made available to the Secretary of State overnight.

On the other hand, if my right hon. Friend does not feel inclined to accept amendment No. 138, which suggests that an official report should he kept, then it is strongly desirable that reports of proceedings should be up to date. It is no good an Assembly report being prepared, then delayed perhaps for one reason or another and not coming to the Secretary of State for an indeterminate time.

Many of the matters which the Assembly will be discussing, as outlined in clause 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b), will be of considerable gravity and importance. There is no reason why a four-week deadline could not be put into the Bill, assuming that the Secretary of State does not accept the amendment about having an official report, so that the reports of the Assembly are not withheld indefinitely for a known or unknown reason.

Amendment No. 140 relates to the placing in the Vote Office of the House of Commons of copies of the proceedings in the Assembly. I hope my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are listening occasionally because so much destructive criticism has come from the Front Bench to the effect that the amendments are all time-wasting and designed to wreck the Bill.

Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)

Where are the hon. Member's Friends this afternoon? There are not too many here.

Mr. Farr

These amendments are designed to improve the working and the machinery of the Assembly and to make sure that reports are produced rapidly and made readily available to Members of the House. The House of Commons is supreme in these matters. The best and recognised channel for making reports available to all Members of Parliament on both sides of the House is via the Vote Office. We can see no reason why, first, an official report such as Hansard cannot be kept by the Assembly, and, secondly, why that report cannot be made available at the earliest opportunity in the Vote Office to Members of Parliament who are interested, so that they will know where to go in the same way as they go there for all other important documents.

The Vote Office has been specified for another reason. A few weeks ago we were seeking from the Secretary of State notes on the proceedings of the Bill in Committee. We had the greatest difficulty in getting the notes. When they came they were helpful. They were voluminous. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was not to be seen during the week; I am glad to see him now.

We had a frightfully difficult job getting the notes. They were not available in the Vote Office and there was only one copy in the Library. I photocopied them, but as they totalled more than 50 pages it was a laborious and time-consuming job. A much more efficient and effective way of informing hon. Members about the critical proceedings of the Assembly would be to put documentation in our Vote Office.

4.30 pm
Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

I do riot oppose the amendments, which raise a number of matters that have concerned me previously about the nature of the Assembly.

As the Assembly will be in charge of its own procedures, I thought that it would have powers to keep a record if it desires. I am surprised that it should be considered necessary to write such a provision in the Bill. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will clear up that matter.

If a record is kept by the Assembly it should be available to hon. Members. We keep the proceedings of all sorts of subordinate bodies and I should not have thought that it was necessary to write such a provision into the Bill. Once again, I should like the Government to confirm whether it is necessary.

The main question is whether the Assembly will be compelled to report its views to the Secretary of State or will merely be given the power to report if it so wishes. Leaving the decision to the Assembly should be reasonably satisfactory, and nothing that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said convinced me that it should be compelled to report to the House. It should be for the Assembly to decide whether views are worth reporting to the House.

The hon. Member for Harborough seems to think that the Assembly will not have powers over its own proceedings unless we give it specific authority to record them and report them to the House or the Secretary of State. The Bill would not prevent the reporting and recording of proceedings and it would allow the Assembly to report to the Secretary of State any views that it wished to convey to him. So far, I have not been convinced that that is not reasonable.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor (Basildon)

I support some, if not all, of the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Fan), and there are three amendments in the group in the names of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body).

Clause 3 deals with the pre-devolution Assembly. The title of the Clause is: Matters for consideration by Assembly pending general suspension of direct rule. Much of the work of the Assembly during that period will be debates in which Members will air their views about Northern Ireland matters. The Secretary of State and this House should know the feelings of the Assembly and I support amendment No. 151, which would require the Assembly to report to the Secretary of State views expressed on any matter that it had considered and rot just the views on matters on which the Secretary of State had asked for its opinion.

My amendments Nos. 155 to 157 go a little wider than those of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough. No. 155 applies to subsection (4), which states: The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament any report received by him under this section". My amendment proposes that a seven-day time limit should be placed on the Secretary of State in the exercise of that function. Other time limits are proposed by other amendments, but I believe that one week should be sufficient for the Secretary of State to make the necessary arrangements for a report to be laid before the House. Barring administrative and technical difficulties, there should be no delay before the House is informed of the views of the Assembly.

There are no provisions in the clause to enable the Assembly to record its proceedings and decisions and no duty is imposed on it to pass a copy of its proceedings to the Secretary of State. There may be occasions when the Assembly would rather that the House and the Secretary of State did not know its views, but we and my right hon. Friend should know all about the proceedings and the decisions taken by the Assembly.

As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, the Assembly's Standing Orders may allow it to agree the manner in which it will record its proceedings, but that will be no substitute for imposing duties on the Assembly to report its proceedings and to ensure that the Secretary of State knows what decisions are being taken. I ask the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to reflect on that.

Amendment No. 157 would ensure that a copy of the minutes of the Assembly's proceedings—not merely a record of the proceedings on matters referred to the Assembly by the Secretary of State—was placed in the Library of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough suggested that the minutes could be placed in the Vote Office and I look forward to hearing the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on this group of amendments, which are intended to close substantial gaps in clause 3.

The amendments are varied. They are almost a step-by-step approach to improving clause 3. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough made caustic comments about the briefing notes and their availability. I was principally responsible for asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether he would make the briefing notes available at a very early stage in our proceedings, in fact, on the first day of our Committee proceedings. I have to acquit the Secretary of State of any discourtesy. My right hon. Friend was swift to respond to my suggestion that the briefing notes should be made available. He made it clear at the time that they would be available on request to his Department. I have to say that the briefing notes were promptly supplied to me. I believe that the criticism by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough of the Secretary of State and Ministers is, on this occasion, misplaced.

Mr. Farr

I should like to point out to my hon. Friend that I am not part of the gang of people who are alleged to have it in for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I was not criticising my right hon. Friend. I was merely suggesting that the best means of making the notes available was through the Vote Office, which is the normal procedure.

Mr. Proctor

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I acquit him, of course, of any blanket condemnation of the Secretary of State. My remarks are strictly related to the briefing notes on the Bill. The notes are not normally made available by Ministers at the Committee stage. It was because of my experience on the Standing Committee on the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill, where such notes had proved useful, that I thought they would be useful to hon. Members considering this Bill. I believe that, as our debates have progressed, the notes have turned out to be very useful indeed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough mentioned criticism of the Secretary of State on a personal basis or on a basis other than that related to the subject before the Committee. I fully supported my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on employment matters and on the step-by-step approach that has been followed through by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Employment.

There is, however, a clear disagreement within the Tory Party over the best approach to the problems of Northern Ireland. There are those who profoundly disagree with the establishment of this Assembly. They wish that some other approach had been adopted to tackle the many problems of Northern Ireland rather than saddle it with an unnecessary Assembly that will come to naught and will create many more problems than it will solve.

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry)

A considerable number of amendments in the present group cover a small but important point related to the manner in which the Assembly is to conduct its business and make known the results of its deliberations to the world at large. The amendments standing in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself are simple and straightforward. They have been expanded by amendments tabled by other hon. Members. We simply ask that the Assembly shall report to the Secretary of State and, through him, to Parliament on any matter that it considers.

4.45 pm

Amendment No. 156, in the name of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), goes further. The hon. Gentleman seeks what I also consider is essential—a permanent, full record of the proceedings of the Assembly, as well as reports, to be placed in the hands of the Secretary of State.

In amendment No. 157, the hon. Members for Basildon and Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) are asking that the record should be kept in the Library, like the records of the former Northern Ireland Parliament, where they can be consulted at any time. Under subsection (3), as it stands, it seems that no action need be taken by the Assembly other than to debate the matters put before it. In other words, the Assembly is expected to be powerless not only in action but after it has spoken. It simply speaks words that fade away in the Chamber and that is the end of them.

I believe that we must write it into the Bill that a proper record be kept and a proper report made of the Assembly's proceedings. There can be no doubt that the Assembly will discuss anything under the sun that it considers necessary. A permanent written or printed record of the proceedings should be kept and made available to the news media generally, the public, the Secretary of State, the House of Commons and Members of the Assembly.

The Assembly may not fulfil any useful role in its preliminary stages—I believe that it will never get beyond that preliminary stage—but if its views are not to be put to the Secretary of State in a sensible and reasoned fashion, its whole existence is useless. It will be even less than a powerless talking shop. If the amendments are not accepted, how are the conclusions of the Assembly to be put to the House and to the other place? How will they be conveyed to the Secretary of State? Will there be an equivalent of Hansard for the Assembly? Will hon. Members be expected to wade through every dot and comma, cough and bark to discover the result of the Assembly's deliberations? Hansard itself is not all that accurate, even in this place. That was demonstrated only yesterday evening in the remarks of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who, in column 204, is reported twice in the same paragragh as referring to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) when he was quite evidently looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and the whole context of what he was saying referred to my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State will no doubt take steps to have the record corrected. Unless the Members of the Assembly are given the same facilities as exist in this place to correct mistakes in Hansard, I see no point in asking hon. Members to wade through the acres of printing which no doubt will come from the Assembly, as there will be nothing else for it to do.

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

I have just looked at column 204. It is clear that I was referring to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). I shall certainly see whether the change can be made in the Official Report.

Mr. Ross

I thank the Secretary of State for taking up the point. However, it is not every day that we discuss previous business and have the responsible Ministers present on the succeeding day so that matters may be brought to their immediate attention and corrected. Therefore, it is necessary that amendments such as ours are accepted.

Mr. Proctor

Surely the interchange that has just taken place shows the need for the Assembly's proceedings to be set down in writing and for a duty to be placed upon the Assembly to set them down in writing, so that such corrections can be made. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the interchange has given added weight to the amendments standing in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends?

Mr. Ross

I thank the hon. Member for Basildon for his support. Certainly, the interchange that has just taken place illustrates, as no other argument on the Floor of the committee could, especially as it involved the right hon. Gentleman, the necessity for such changes in the Bill.

After the Assembly's views and conclusions have been decided and put down in Hansard, which is now to be written into the Bill, and brought to the House, what will happen? Will the decisions be binding? We covered some of this ground earlier, but there is no good reason to let the matter pass again without drawing it to the right hon. Gentleman's attention. If the Assembly reaches a consensus agreement, a majority agreement, or a unanimous agreement, what will happen when it comes to the House of Commons? This shows the foolishness of having a body which is without power and which can, at best, make recommendations. When that information comes here and reaches the hands of the Secretary of State, what will the Government do? How will the Assembly's conclusions and deliberations be put to the House? Will a number of resolutions be put down on the Order Paper? Will those resolutions embody the Assembly's conclusions? Will the right hon. Gentleman, or his successor, stand at the Dispatch Box and ask the House to pass or reject the conclusions reached by the Assembly? What will be the procedure?

It is ridiculous to ask Members of the Assembly to spend hours considering matters, which may be of great importance, and then quietly to forget the conclusions that are taken by those who live close to the people involved. That raises the problem of the colour of the majority who arrive at conclusions in the Assembly and how it affects the subjective view of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. How can he judge whether there is widespread support or—as the Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) corrected my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) the other day—acquiescence? I think that was the word he used. The Secretary of State could give much greater weight to that word if he used it instead of "widespread acceptance", "cross-community support", or all the other nonsense that he has used up to now. "Acquiescence" is an acceptable word to the Under-Secretary, but in my mind it does not mean quite the same as those other terms.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten)

The hon. Gentleman is quoting me in a quite different context. I had a semantic debate with the right hon. Member for Down, South, (Mr. Powell), when he kindly gave way to me, as to whether people in the Province accepted or acquiesced in direct rule.

Mr. Ross

This matter could be discussed in greater depth before the debate is concluded. To be consistent, the same attitude could be held throughout this whole matter.

If no full and accurate record of the votes, such as is kept in our own Official Report, is available to the Secretary of State, he will have no way of knowing the complexion of votes in the Assembly. Unless he knows, he has no way of reaching a conclusion. Therefore, there must be a permanent, accurate and detailed record of all that is said and done within the walls of the new Chamber.

My final point relates to new clause 24—the idea of allowing television into the Assembly. I have consistently voted against that idea in the House of Commons. However, I am not so sure that I would vote against it in the Assembly. If people could see their elected representatives in action, they might change their views, and change them considerably. We all know what happens now. The gentlemen of the press, who are present in all Assemblies of elected representatives, tend to pick the most spectacular and newsworthy items—the most outrageous statements. If all the world could see what was going on, people would see those who really do the work.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is perhaps fortunate that we do not have television to reveal to the world the fact that the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), who tabled the new clause, is not even here to defend it?

Mr. Ross

I know the view that my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South takes on these matters, but I do not want to be too hard on the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), who has been most helpful to date in these matters. He has exposed many of the weaknesses and much of the foolishness in the Bill. The fact that the Secretary of State does not yet wish to acknowledge those weaknesses and that foolishness is unfortunate, but I have no doubt that, in the fullness of time, he will understand that the criticisms voiced about the Bill are well founded. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is going down a path which will cause much damage and sorrow in Ulster.

As the hon. Member for Basildon said earlier, we are dealing with the pre-devolution stage. The question of a permanent record, reports, and so forth, will arise. If we are proved wrong—which is unlikely—and the Assembly moves to full devolution, what will the procedures then be for keeping a permanent record?

At that point, it is believed that the Assembly will talk only about those matters that have been devolved. However, if the Secretary of State is of that view, he is labouring under a grave misapprehension. The people of Northern Ireland will not be satisfied with a system which will, for instance, deny them the right to discuss security. No doubt, they will wish to make their views known and the Secretary of State will wish to hear them.

5 pm

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East)

The hon. Gentleman is putting the case forcefully, and rightly so, that the proceedings of the Assembly should be recorded. That there are amendments to this effect shows that those hon. Members who tabled them believe that this is not one of the procedures that the Assembly is permitted to organise for itself. Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the fact that some of the former Hansard writers at Stormont have already been asked whether they might be interested in returning to carry out that function for the new Assembly?

Mr. Ross

That is a most interesting piece of news. No doubt the Secretary of State will tell us precisely what other steps he has taken for the reopening of Parliament. If he is taking steps in one direction, he must be taking steps in many other directions. We look forward with great interest to the detailed statement that the Secretary of State will no doubt shortly make.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

Under the guise of amendments which are superficially little more than procedural, some substantial and difficult points are raised regarding the Assembly.

The Committee is waiting with some eagerness to know whether it will receive advice on the amendments from the official Opposition or whether their sturdy custom of non-participation in the debates on the Bill is to be continued even into these declining and truncated stages.

The intervention of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—I regret that he has, perhaps temporarily, left the Chamber—was very much to the point. He inquired whether such matters as might be covered by the arrangements and Standing Orders of an Assembly were not proper to be left to the Assembly; indeed, whether it was not implicit in the nature of such an Assembly that it would decide itself what arrangements of this kind it would make.

If the right hon. Gentleman had allowed his eye to fall upon the page on which clause 4 appears, he would have seen that the Government have thought it necessary to secure in the Bill that certain arrangements shall be made by the Assembly. Had he pushed his researches further, into the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, he would have found a whole section—section 25—which sets out the minimum provision for its procedure and proceedings which the Assembly is to make. One can assure the right hon. Gentleman, even in his absence, that there is nothing untoward, unprecedented or derogatory to the character of the proposed Assembly in the amendments.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, in reply to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and others, that we should have a ready means of access to any printed proceedings of the Assembly. He added that we were accustomed to receiving the proceedings of subordinate bodies.

I cudgelled my brains to recall what subordinate bodies the right hon. Gentleman had in mind. I am particularly at a loss in his absence. The only subordinate bodies that I can think of, the proceedings of which are accessible, but with great difficulty, and not necessarily always in our language, are those of the Council of Europe and European Assembly. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, who has not always been with the angels in such matters, regards the latter as a subordinate body. I do, where the sovereignty of the House is concerned. I hope that if he reads these proceedings he will let us know whether he is a recruit to the good old cause.

By that observation, the right hon. Gentleman raised the essential matter which is at issue in clause 12 and in the amendments. There is no analogy to the relationship that will subsist between the Assembly and the House. As far as I know, we do not receive the proceedings of the Estates of the Channel Islands, nor the proceedings and decisions of the House of Keys. However, those bodies debate and discuss matters for which the House is not responsible.

The essential fact about the Assembly in the period to which clause 3, by definition, refers, is that it will be debating matters for which the House is responsible and for which hon. Members elected to the House are responsible to their constituents. That puts the relationship of the Assembly and its proceedings to the House in an entirely new light, which fully justifies the amendments.

It would be worth the while of the Committee to look at the wording of clause 3(3) to which the amendments relate. It says: The Assembly may report to the Secretary of State the views expressed in the Assembly". I pause at that point, because those are remarkable words. I am not so much concerned for the moment with the permissive "may". I shall come to the argument for amendment No. 151 in a moment. I am concerned with the expression: the views expressed in the Assembly". That is by no means accidental phraseology. It is remarkable phraseology.

When the House comes to a resolution, what emerges is not a report of the views expressed during the debate, but the view of the House. From the simplest to the grandest procedure in the House, the result issues on behalf of the House. No external body has any right to open up what happened in the course of our arriving at that decision or to pick and choose between one or another point of view. No judge sitting on the Bench, construing an Act of Parliament, is entitled to consider what the Conservative Party said on the one hand and what the Labour Party said on the other. He is concerned, not with the views expressed in the House or in Parliament, but with the decision.

We are here deliberately writing in as that which has to be reported to the Secretary of State if he requires it, and by him laid before the House, what is described as the views expressed in the Assembly". Surely there is some significance in the fact that it is not the Assembly's decisions that are given that prominence and treatment. There is no reference to the Assembly's decisions and no suggestion that they should be called for by the Secretary of State or placed before the House. If we receive all the views, we may, as a matter of grace, receive the decision as well. We might even receive the Division List and the results of the Division. I am glad that the Secretary of State is taking an interest in the drafting of the clause. It was not drafted in that way unintentionally. It is the views that are expressed in the Assembly that are to be brought to the Secretary of State's attention and to that of the House.

Who will do that? Who will report to the Secretary of State? Who will say that this or that view was expressed in the Assembly? In time gone by it was the custom for an exalted Minister, normally the Prime Minister, to sit on the Front Bench at about 5 pm or 6 pm, writing out for the Sovereign, in his best handwriting, what had been going on in the House. Later, a much more humble functionary, in the shape of the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, undertook that task. Her Majesty's Ministers are not merely entitled, but are duty bound, to convey exclusively to the Sovereign their view of opinion in the House.

Should that be the relationship between the Assembly and this House? Who will summarise the views that have been expressed? Will the President say that one party said one thing and that the other party's argument were not as strong? Will he say that this or that argument was put forward? Would it be satisfactory for the President to perform the function that used to be performed by Mr. Gladstone when he penned his missive to go down to Windsor? If we want to know the views expressed in the Assembly, there is only one way to secure them legitimately.

We must be able to know all the views that have been expressed and be able to arrive at our own opinions. The Secretary of State, along with the rest of us, must be able to decide the weight and importance to be attached to the respective views. Therefore, it would be unsatisfactory, in any case, for the subsection to remain in its present form. Whoever intends to report—"report" is the word—the views expressed in the Assembly, the concept remains unsatisfactory. It is right that those who have tabled the amendments should demand to know in what form the views that have been expressed are to be made available to us and to anyone else. There is only one proper way of making them available, and we should ensure that they are made available in that way. There must be a full record of what has been said in the Assembly. In that case, there should be no "may" about it. There should be no picking and choosing. No one should say that one debate was important, while another was not, or that the Secretary of State asked to have this debate, but that the other debate was held on our own initiative and so there will be no report of it.

If we are to set up an Assembly which will in some ways duplicate the functions of the House, by enabling elected persons to express views on a range of matters—the Secretary of State has properly accepted an amendment and enlarged that range—for which the House is responsible, and be responsible to the people of Northern Ireland, the House must have a record of what the Assembly has done, said, thought and decided. If we are left with a catch-as-catch-can, hearsay method of finding out, the situation will be intolerable. Perhaps we shall have to look up the News Letter and the Belfast Telegraph to see whether we can glean from their columns what went on.

5.15 pm

The Government cannot possibly leave the subsection as it is. Whatever view they may take about the amendments, they must tidy up the provision before they can expect the House to deal with the Bill on Report. It will be unsatisfactory to have an indeterminate gap between what is done in the Assembly and making knowledge of that available to the Secretary of State and the House. I can imagine many circumstances in which the House might not need to debate—perhaps for months—a matter that has been debated in the Assembly. That could easily happen. However, I can equally envisage circumstances in which an important matter, with tension at its maximum, is debated in the Assembly and is then debated in the House, not a week or two later, but shortly or immediately afterwards.

Having established the concurrent representation of the people of Northern Ireland it would be intolerable if the House did not insist on the views expressed in it, the conclusions reached and how those conclusions were reached, being made known to the House. Several major changes need to be made to the subsection. It needs to be precise, instead of vague; mandatory, instead of permissive; and it should have an urgency and a time limit written into it. The time limit and the urgency should exist anyway, and not just if the Secretary of State thinks that it should be written into the Bill.

I should mislead you, Mr. Dean, if I were to suggest that the improvement of the subsection and the possible easing of the relationship between the House and the putative Assembly, if the improvements adumbrated by the amendments are accepted, will bring an end to the conundrum of dual representation of the same electorate on the same subjects. That is the nature of the monstrosity of the Assembly. Those of us who oppose the Assembly in this form do so not because we do not wish the people of the Province to have an elective voice. Indeed, it was principally due to the initiative of my hon. Friends that the people of the Province are to have an elected voice in this House on a par with the other parts of the United Kingdom.

It is not that we do not wish the electorate to have an elective voice in those matters which the House decides should be dealt with elsewhere. If the House decides—by Order in Council under the Bill, or otherwise—that certain matters should be removed from it and entrusted to other hands, that is all well and good. We shall all know where our respective responsibilities lie. However, the subsection creates an overlap, not of responsibility, but of representation.

Responsibility will remain exclusively vested in the House and will be seen to be vested in those hon. Members who are elected to the House by Northern Ireland constituencies. However, representation will be seen, particularly in the Province, to be vested in an Assembly that has no responsibility. Again I should mislead you, Mr. Dean, and the Committee if I were to pretend to think that any amendments, even on Report, would remove that particular inherent vice.

I agree that that is no excuse for our not remedying what can be remedied within the ambit of the Bill. Because I think that a limited remedy can be applied by the amendments, I hope that either they will be accepted by the Government or that we shall hear from the Government Front Bench that the principle and intention is accepted and that they will be met at a subsequent stage.

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith, North)

We shall intervene when we think it appropriate. I have followed the right hon. Gentleman's argument with care. It is a reasonable argument, but why does he say that the provision should be made so much tighter, because the Assembly can report to the Secretary of State if it wishes? Why not leave that flexibility alone?

Mr. Powell

I am not only delighted, but flattered, that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) has been following the debate. It must have been difficult for him to follow preceding parts of the Committee stage, because it is not easy to concentrate when one knows that one is prevented from participating. It blunts one's interest in other contributions to know in advance that, as a matter of principle, one is not allowed to participate or comment. I welcome the hon. Member's liberation and intervention.

If we in the House take a decision on a matter on which views have been expressed and decisions arrived at in the Assembly, it should not be chance whether we can find out what those views were or what the decision was. We should know. Let there be no doubt that the people in the Province will expect us to know. They will expect us to be aware of what their representatives have said there, not only about everything referred by the Secretary of State, but generally. That is not an unreasonable expectation.

Mr. Soley

If a matter is not referred by the Secretary of State, it does not necessarily have to come back here.

Mr. Powell

The hon. Gentleman has not grasped that the Assembly will be able to debate and arrive at resolutions on a whole range of matters not referred to it by the Secretary of State. We are talking of matters on which this House, from time to time, will hold debates and come to decisions. It is not good enough that we should have to depend either upon the chance of that matter being referred to the Assembly by the Secretary of State or upon the chance of the Assembly saying "That was a good debate, let us send it to Westminster", for our knowledge of what went on there.

Sir John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

The Northern Ireland Assembly of 1973, upon which this Assembly is based, had its Official Report. It was difficult to obtain copies of it because of administrative difficulties, but it could be in the hands of hon. Members the following day. There was a proper procedure for that. Hon. Members knew what the views were and what the votes and resolutions were. I am puzzled by the clause.

Mr. Powell

I do not need to remind hon. Members of the difference between the 1973 Assembly, let alone the 1922 Parliament, and this Assembly in the stage to which the cause refers. The 1973 Assembly took responsibility for a range of matters. Its debates related to those matters.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

The clause relates to views expressed. I assume that there will be an Official Report.

Mr. Powell

We should not take it for granted that we shall have an Official Report of an Assembly which has no powers or responsibilities. After all, hitherto Assemblies had responsibilities, in some cases far-reaching responsibilities, entrusted to them by this House. At this stage the Assembly would be correct to say that it is a talking shop and there only to debate. It would be justified in deciding that it did not require a procès-verbal like an Assembly with responsibility attached to what is said and to its divisions.

I am not sure that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has attended to the construction of the subsection. Line 31 refers to "under this section," which imports the definition in clause 3(1) of non-devolution. We are dealing with the Assembly in its pre-devolutionary stage. We are dealing with an Assembly which the House has decided to permit to "consider any matter," including a reserved matter. There is a big difference, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept, between the former elected bodies, in themselves and in relation to this House, and the Assembly as it will be under the circumstances to which clause 3 relates.

Mr. Fitt

Yesterday afternoon, during the debate on the timetable motion, many doubts were expressed about the sincerity of hon. Members, mainly on the Government Benches, who had prolonged debates on the amendments. I am inclined to cast doubt again on their sincerity because they are not here this afternoon.

Yesterday, we heard vociferous protests about the timetable motion. Hon. Members argued that important amendments had to be discussed and that the Government were wrong to apply the timetable. I could be forgiven if I believed that the filibuster was still taking place, particularly in the speech by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and, to some extent, in the speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). We do have important amendments to debate. Yesterday the right hon. Member for Down, South said that he had taken an interest in Northern Ireland affairs since 1972.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

I did not say that.

Mr. Fitt

The right hon. Gentleman must have a short memory about what happened between 1972 and 1982. The right hon. Gentleman talked about what the Assembly would do, whether or not it had devolved powers. An Assembly was elected in June 1973. From then until the Executive was set up and took office in January 1974, it was a talking shop. There was a full press gallery. There were reports of every debate that took place between July and 1 January. There was no question of meetings being held in secret.

During that time, Assembly Members danced on the table in Stormont. Professor Kennedy Lindsay and members of the Democratic Unionist Party spat in the face of the late Brian Faulkner, the incoming Chief Executive. There were many other unrewarding scenes. If the television cameras had been there, we might have been able to decipher the dance by Professor Kennedy Lindsay. No secrecy was involved and the press was not kept out of the press gallery.

The hon. Member for Londonderry must have read the all-important subsection: The Assembly may report to the Secretary of State the views expressed in the Assembly on any matter considered by it under this section and shall do so if the Secretary of State so requests". The protection is written into that subsection. The Secretary of State shall demand that the Assembly reports to him.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

Is this a filibuster?

5.30 pm
Mr. Fitt

We have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman filibustering all afternoon.

Does anyone here believe that in the Assembly the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will make a speech lasting for one or two hours and then say "We shall keep it a secret"? Will the press not report it in the Belfast Telegraph and the News Letter the next morning? Will he say that he will not talk to journalists within the confines of Stormont? I have experience of that. The hon. Member for Antrim, North does not frequent some parts of Stormont that I might frequent, but I have often seen him in consultation with the doyens of the press there.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) will recall that, when the Assembly was sitting, no sooner had a speech been made than the person who made it was outside hailing a taxi to take him to the studios of Ulster Television or the BBC to tell everyone what he had just said in the Assembly.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Dean. Is this a debate on the capacity of a Member to get publicity or on the accuracy of the reporting of the House?

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Paul Dean)

The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is going rather wide, although I realise that he is probably still on his preamble. The amendment is fairly wide, but not as wide as he is now going.

Mr. Fitt

I was provoked by some of the claptrap that I have heard this afternoon. For example, the hon. Member for Londonderry queried a misprint in yesterday's Official Report when the Secretary of State obviously referred to a Member from a different constituency. I did exactly the same yesterday. I referred to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but I understand now that I was mistaken.

Rev. Martin Smyth

rose—

Mr. Fitt

The hon. Gentleman has been asking for accuracy. If one wishes to consider accuracy in the reporting of proceedings—

Rev. Martin Smyth

On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I did not query the Secretary of State's statement. I queried the accurancy of the Hansard report. There was no query about the Secretary of State using the wrong constituency.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. That point has been dealt with.

Mr. Fitt

I am convinced that this is another filibuster and that hon. Members are trying to involve me in it.

I remember a classic misprint in Hansard. In 1969 I referred to a speech made by the then Taoiseach of the Republic, Mr. Lynch, in Tralee. Lo and behold, in Hansard the next morning it was reported that a speech had been made by the tea shop in Tralee. I deliberately did not use the 24 hours available to have it changed. One can check that in the Library. Since then, many people have got to know what the word Taoiseach means.

Mr. Proctor

At the outset of his remarks the hon. Gentleman said that there were important matters to be discussed, presumably in this group of amendments. The guillotine falls at 6.30 pm. If the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat now and there is a Ministerial response, there will still remain 11 amendments in this group and four further groups to be debated. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind and consider whether he is indulging in a filibuster to stop us debating the detail of the other four groups of amendments.

Mr. Fitt

I was castigated roundly yesterday by many Conservative Members for not helping to perpetuate yesterday's filibuster. Now, having spoken for only five or 10 minutes, I am told that is too long. I have no intention of being dictated to by Conservative Members. That is the prerogative of the Chairman.

We are making heavy weather about nothing in this amendment.

Mr. William Ross

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fitt

I shall not give way. It has been rumoured that the right hon. Member for Down, South will he a Member of the Assembly. It has certainly been rumoured that the hon. Members for Londonderry, Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) will be contesting seats. One cannot question the veracity of those hon. Members. They will bring back reports to the House, whether there is an Official Report or not. One can depend upon the right hon. Member for Down, South, if and when he is elected to the Assembly, to present in the House his interpretation of the proceedings of the Assembly.

The subsection clearly gives the Secretary of State authority to demand the publication of any debates in the Assembly. With the experience of the Northern Ireland Parliament, the Assembly and the Constitutional Convention, no one in his right mind can possibly believe that restrictions will be placed by the major political parties on what happens within the confines of the Assembly.

Mr. John Patten

We have nine amendments and one new clause to consider. Bearing in mind the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), I shall deal with them as quickly as possible, but I do not wish to be discourteous to the Committee by skating over the detailed points that have been raised, and I do not intend to do so.

Clause 3 provides for the Assembly's functions pending full devolution. It is important to keep that firmly in mind. The Assembly will be empowered to discuss a wide range of matters, either of its own volition or those referred to it by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his successors. Subsection (3) enables the Assembly to report its views on any matter to the Secretary of State and obliges it to do so should there be a request. Subsection (4) provides that the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament any report that he receives from the Assembly under clause 3.

I listened with great care to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Fan). He and I differ on our basic and underlying philosophy for the workings of the Assembly. The Government believe that we should provide a basic framework for the Assembly, after which the Assembly should, in a grown-up way, decide in detail how it will work out its future within those guidelines. That is very much in keeping with our general philosophy of allowing locally elected representatives the greatest possible freedom over their procedures. That philosophy underlies clause 3 and is the import of it.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

Does my hon. Friend conceive of the possibility that the Assembly will not have an official verbatim record and that we must rely on those methods to extract the Assembly's views?

Mr. Patten

I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) to wait until a later section of my speech, when I shall deal fully with that issue. My hon. Friend is ahead of me.

Consideration of the amendments falls, in my view, into at least four separate parts. First, I direct the Committee's attention to amendment No. 152. If the amendment were carried, the power of the Secretary of State to require the Assembly to submit a particular report to him would be removed. We believe it sensible that the Government should be able to take the initiative and to ask for advice on both transferred and reserved matters by calling for the Assembly's views on a specific topic. This fits in well with the scrutinising and deliberative and consultative functions which it is intended that the Assembly should have from the first happy day when it meets.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

I am sure that the Minister understands that amendments Nos. 151 and 152 hang together. It was not the intention to eliminate the mandatory part of the clause without making the clause itself mandatory.

Mr. Patten

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, the right hon. Gentleman is slightly ahead of me. I was about to come to amendment No. 151, which is one of a group of amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough and Basildon, together with amendment No. 148, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), whom I do not see in the Chamber. These amendments together seek to tighten the procedure by which the Assembly reports to the Secretary of State and then to Parliament. Amendment No. 151, which stands in the names of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and his hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and Londonderry (Mr. Ross), would ensure that the Secretary of State automatically received reports from the Assembly on every matter that it had discussed under clause 3.

The Government believe that that would be an unnecessary provision. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is already empowered under clause 3(3) to receive such reports as he wishes. Moreover, it is surely right that the Assembly, which will be an independent elected body in the way in which it conducts its affairs within the terms of the Bill, should not be obliged to report to the Government on topics that it chooses to consider.

Mr. Proctor

Is what my hon. Friend has said a rather convoluted way of giving the Committee an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will request from the Assembly every report that is discussed by it and will request a copy of the proceedings each and every time it sits?

Mr. Patten

My aim is not to be convoluted. I was not suggesting what my hon. Friend has put in his question. As I have said, my right hon. Friend is already empowered under clause 3(3) to receive such reports as he wishes.

Amendments Nos. 148, 139 and 155 would impose a mandatory time limit for the submission of reports by the Assembly to the Secretary of State. Such time limits, whether one month or one week, are unnecessary for two reasons. I shall leave aside the question of what form the reports should take. I shall come to it subsequently in answering the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest.

5.45 pm

If the Assembly had to report on some especially contentious and difficult matter—it is clear to me that a number of the issues that the Assembly will have to consider will be contentious and difficult—a rigid statutory time limit could be counter-productive. We must give the Assembly adequate and sufficient time in which to consider the nature of the reports.

Secondly, it is important that any reports submitted by the Assembly reflect its considered views and are drawn up after mature consideration and not in any undue haste. Should it prove necessary, the Secretary of State can, under the existing provisions of the Bill, require a particular report to be submitted within a specified period. This period can be stipulated by my right hon. Friend and can be varied to suit particular circumstances.

I suggest that that facility is far more flexible than those that have been suggested in various amendments. That might give my right hon. and hon. Friends cause to consider whether they wish to pursue their amendments.

Mr. Proctor

Will my hon. Friend address himself to amendment No. 155, which deals with subsection (4) and the time limit between the Secretary of State receiving the report and laying it before Parliament? I have suggested that it should be seven days. Has my hon. Friend any observations to make on that amendment?

Mr. Patten

This is an issue on which my right hon. Friend will have to use his discretion and judgment. When, for example, a report from the Assembly concerns what we have grown to regard as a devolution package—I accept that that is not a felicitous phrase—it may include details that will have to go back for further consideration. In the pre-legislative phase, with which we are dealing by analogy, there may be a need for the Secretary of State to consider a report before laying it before Parliament. There is no need to specify seven days, two weeks or one month.

An issue that has excited considerable interest is the form in which the Assembly should report to the Secretary of State. It is an issue that has prompted the right hon. Member for Down, South to ask a number of specific questions.

As I understand it, amendment No. 138 proposes that reports should be in a Hansard-type format, while amendment No. 156 seeks to ensure merely that the Assembly records its proceedings and decisions in writing and that a copy of the record is automatically submitted to the Secretary of State. The current provisions in the Bill are designed to supply a basic framework within which the Assembly can operate and decide to operate. The Government believe that the Assembly itself, in the first important weeks and months of its life, should be left to determine the form of its reports. Clearly it will be preferable if the reports reflect the range of opinions expressed in the Assembly and do not exclude minority views. However, this is a matter for the Assembly to decide and is not one for the House of Commons.

In 1973 and 1974 the Northern Ireland Assembly decided to keep a verbatim record of its plenary sessions both before and after devolution. I suggest that there is no reason to suspect, perhaps for the reasons to which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has alluded, that the Assembly will not follow that precedent. Indeed, in 1973 and 1974, the Assembly followed many precedents of the Northern Ireland Parliament before it. I do not see why the Assembly should attempt to depart from this well-established precedent.

These are matters that are properly for the Assembly to determine, as is the question of who should draw up the report. Should it be drawn up by the Presiding Officer or should it be done by a committee of the Assembly? We do not believe that the Government should attempt to lay down rigid details within the framework of the Bill. As I have said, these are matters for the Assembly to decide.

I shall endeavour to correct the memory of the right hon. Member for Down, South on what went on during the 1973–74 Assembly. I believe that the Assembly produced Official Reports of its proceedings only for matters for which it had legislative responsibilities. Legislative responsibilities were not devolved until 1 January 1974. However, before then, while the Assembly was, by analogy, in its pre-legislative discursive phase—for example when it was drawing up rules of procedure, deciding who should preside and debating general matters—it produced daily verbatim reports.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the expression "proceedings in the Assembly" occurs also in clause 5(3), where it is in an important constitutional and legal context. Do the Government regard it as satisfactory to leave it to the Assembly to decide what shall be the meaning and the effective content of a report of what happens in the Assembly? After all, the reversal of devolution will be triggered in some cases. That surely cannot be a matter which the Government think should be left to the discretion of the Assembly.

Mr. Patten

At some time between 6.30 pm and 9 pm I hope that we shall have a chance to discuss in greater detail matters connected with clause 5. I shall not attempt to pre-empt that debate and the important point that the right hon. Gentleman has made.

It would be wrong for us to lay down in detail any specific forms to be followed. In addition, amendment No. 156, like amendment No. 151, would appear to require the Assembly to send the Secretary of State copies of its proceedings. I have already said that we believe it to be unnecessary, and perhaps even offensive to the Assembly, which is, after all, an independent elected body—or it will be, should the Bill become law—and not the creature of the Secretary of State, to require that body to send reports.

Mr. Proctor

rose—

Mr. Patten

I have given way twice to my hon. Friend. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give way this time.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), with his usual clarity married to brevity, raised a number of points, all of which I have dealt with in my discussion of the amendments in the third part of my speech. I hope that the explanation that I have given of why we are doing what we are doing and, more importantly, why we desire to give maximum flexibility to the Assembly, is acceptable.

It would be otiose for me to do anything more than mention the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe, as he is not in the Chamber. It would be wrong to impose upon the Assembly the requirement that its proceedings be televised. At a later stage, should the Assembly wish to have its proceedings televised, videoed, or made known to the people of the Province in any other form that it sees fit, for their greater information, it will have the right to do so after due consideration. However, any decisions should await that consideration.

Mr. John Dunlop (Mid-Ulster)

In view of the graphic description by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) of some of the things that happened in the 1974 Convention, it is a thousand pities that we do not have a video record of some of the proceedings in that Assembly. It would be illuminating to see the self-satisfied smirk on the faces of Front Bench Members when they were constantly telling us that the Assembly was the vehicle that would soon trundle Northern Ireland into an all-Ireland Republic. There should have been a recording of the expression on the faces of that ill-assorted gang, some of whom should not have been there at all, because they were not elected. It is a pity that we do not have a video account of those proceedings.

Mr. Patten

I am glad, as always, that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will forgive me if I do not follow him down the road of passing value judgments on the behaviour of politicians in that Assembly, of which I was not a member. I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland, like the people of the United Kingdom with regard to the House of Commons, would expect Members of the Assembly to behave in a due and meet fashion.

Amendments Nos. 140 and 157 seek to have copies of the Assembly's reports placed in the Vote Office or the Library. It would not be suitable to do that before the report is formally laid before Parliament, but, of course, Assembly reports will be laid as soon as possible—I hope that this answers some of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon—after they are received from the Assembly, and once laid the Government will, as usual, be ready to meet the requests of hon. Members on such matters.

I am of course aware that, taken together, the groups of amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough and Basildon respectively would considerably tighten parliamentary monitoring of the Assembly's proceedings. I have already suggested to the Committee why each should be rejected on its individual merits. The Government's view is that the Assembly must be given the maximum flexibility and freedom for the conduct of its affairs. To sum up, clause 3 combines flexibility with the appropriate parliamentary control of the Assembly's proceedings.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim, South)

We have long recognised that the central weakness in the Assembly is that, for all practical purposes and for all time, it will have only the power to talk. That is a big enough weakness. We are now dealing with clause 3, which deals with the extended period when the Assembly will do nothing and will have no power to do anything other than talk. That is disastrous. Unlike other parties, we have not been impressed by the argument that the Members of the Assembly can earn their keep by talking, scrutinising and debating endlessly matters that it may or may not be within their powers to debate.

The second weakness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, lies in the method by which the reports of the proceedings will be submitted. Was it a slip of the tongue when the Minister said that the body that is being set up under the legislation will, for all practical purposes, be independent? He said that it would be an insult to that body to hedge it with restrictions and tell it what to do. He concluded that section of his remarks by saying that the Secretary of State, in view of that possible insult, could not require the Assembly to lay its reports before him. However, the clause gives the Secretary of State the power to do so. He can ask for those powers. In fact, he can require them. That is laid down strongly in the wording of the clause. Therefore, was that a slip of the tongue?

Mr. John Patten

On the issue of independence, I was speaking, as I have throughout the Committee, within the terms of the Bill as it is written. I was referring to the independence of the Assembly, for example, to decide how to have its verbatim reports transcribed, who is to take them and in what circumstances, but that is within the control of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, more importantly, of the House of Commons.

Mr. Molyneaux

With respect, that does not square with the words in clause 3(3), which states that the Assembly may report to the Secretary of State and shall do so if the Secretary of State so requests". Records and the recording of discussions fall into two stages. There would be the Hansard style of record of the proceedings, which would be provided for the light reading of hon. Members, if they had the spare time to engage in that occupation. That record would give the views, as opposed to the decisions and conclusions, of the Assembly. If the 1973 Assembly is anything to go by, it would give a full verbatim account of everything that was said and done, including sedentary interruptions. It would all be recorded in the peculiar way of the old Stormont Hansard, which had the effect of making even the best speeches unintelligible.

6 pm

I said there would be two stages, but there is a third stage that deals with what happens after the Assembly has surmounted the 70 per cent. weighted majority hurdle and the cross-community hurdle. It will never do that, so we need not worry about it.

The second stage relates to the resolutions and conclusions of the Assembly. That will be vital. The Minister stressed that the Secretary of State—having invited and obtained the Assembly's decision on some matter—will be bound by the Bill to lay that proposal before Parliament.

This is not a hypothetical matter. If the Assembly, after discussing some of the matters that are within its legitimate province, came to the conclusion that it had no confidence in the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State read that in the News Letter, would he hasten to require the Presiding Officer to furnish him with a copy of the resolution, knowing that he had to table that resolution in the House? The White Paper suggests that he should give his view on such a conclusion. Will the Secretary of State—after all, he is bringing the Assembly into being—come to the House and say that he agrees with that conclusion and that the Assembly is right in expressing no confidence in him and his team of Ministers? I am sure that he would be reluctant to do that.

Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield)

That would be madness.

Mr. Molyneaux

The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) says that would be akin to madness. I agree with him.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) suggested that there was no great hurry for the conclusions of the Assembly to reach the House. He seemed to feel that they could be produced in a leisurely form and be made available to hon. Members later. A problem would arise if the Assembly came to a conclusion on some vital matter on the eve of a debate in the House of Commons. Will the Minister then say "This is the Government's view"? Will he give way to the intervention "Has the Minister not read the News Letter this morning giving the decision of the Assembly?" The Minister will have to reply "We have not yet received any account of what took place in the Assembly". If you were in the Chair, Mr. Dean, you would probably rule it out of order since the report would not have been received by the House of Commons. It is important that the decisions and resolutions of the Assembly should be made available immediately to the House, because the House has to carry the can for them.

The Assembly may talk, but the House of Commons is responsible to the people of the United Kingdom for the good government of Northern Ireland. The House of Commons has to take decisions. Therefore, it must have adequate, speedy knowledge of what has taken place in that body of 78 or 85—whatever it will be—freshly elected Members representing the people of Northern Ireland. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that the Presiding Officer and his staff—in the course of time he will collect a large staff—should not have the power to edit or summarise the views of the Assembly. Under the Bill the Presiding Officer has been given too much power of patronage. It would be regrettable if he were given the power to suggest that he was the best person to know the minds of the Members of the Assembly.

The Under-Secretary of State was not clear about the form that the reports would take. He said that the Government believe that it is the job of the Assembly to determine the nature of the report and then, by implication, to decide what goes into such a report. You will remember, Mr. Dean, that the Northern Ireland Convention was denounced, and its report rejected, because the report reflected the majority views of the elected Members. If the Government are now saying that they will accept the majority view of the Assembly and the Assembly comes to the conclusion that the report represents accurately its decisions and feelings, that is good news to us and we welcome it. That ought to be spelt out very clearly. For that reason, we cannot accept the Minister's explanation.

Mr. Julian Amery (Brighton, Pavilion)

There is a difficulty here. If I understand the Bill correctly, the Secretary of State will remain responsible to the House of Commons for several aspects of the Assembly—for example, whether to devolve certain Departments or whether to refuse devolution. On what basis will the Secretary of State make up his mind? Will he have his own full transcript of the proceedings prepared by his officials? If he does, is there any reason why that report should not be made available to all hon. Members in the Library? We could be in danger of acting in the dark, as would the Minister, unless there was a full and accurate transcript of the proceedings.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 19, Noes 147.

Division No. 233] [6.08 pm
AYES
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Murphy, Christopher
Budgen, Nick Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Cryer, Bob Rees-Davies, W. R.
Dunlop, John Skinner, Dennis
Farr, John Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Stanbrook, Ivor
Gorst, John
Kilfedder, James A. Tellers for the Ayes:
Knight, Mrs Jill Mr. K. Harvey-Proctor and
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Mr. William Ross.
Molyneaux, James
NOES
Alton, David Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Arnold, Tom Fry, Peter
Aspinwall, Jack Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne) Goodlad, Alastair
Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E) Grant, John (Islington C)
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Greenway, Harry
Beith, A. J. Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Benyon, Thomas (A'don) Gummer, John Selwyn
Benyon, W. (Buckingham) Hamilton, Hon A.
Berry, Hon Anthony Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Bevan, David Gilroy Hampson, Dr Keith
Biffen, Rt Hon John Hawkins, Sir Paul
Blackburn, John Hawksley, Warren
Boscawen, Hon Robert Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W) Hill, James
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Bradley, Tom Hordern, Peter
Braine, Sir Bernard Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Bright, Graham Howells, Geraint
Brocklebank-Fowler, C. Hunt, David (Wirral)
Brooke, Hon Peter Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Butcher, John Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Cadbury, Jocelyn Jessel, Toby
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n) Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Cartwright, John Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Chapman, Sydney Kitson, Sir Timothy
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Cope, John Lee, John
Costain, Sir Albert Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Crouch, David Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Dorrell, Stephen Loveridge, John
Dover, Denshore Luce, Richard
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Lyell, Nicholas
Dunn, James A. Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford) Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Eggar, Tim Macfarlane, Neil
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) MacGregor, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel Major, John
Fitt, Gerard Marlow, Antony
Fookes, Miss Janet Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Marten, Rt Hon Neil Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Mather, Carol Sandelson, Neville
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Scott, Nicholas
Mellor, David Shaw, Sir Michael (Scar b')
Meyer, Sir Anthony Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mills, Iain (Meriden) Silvester, Fred
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) Sims, Roger
Miscampbell, Norman Smith, Dudley
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen) Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Montgomery, Fergus Speed, Keith
Moore, John Speller, Tony
Mudd, David Stainton, Keith
Myles, David Steel, Rt Hon David
Neale, Gerrard Stevens, Martin
Needham, Richard Stradling Thomas, J.
Newton, Tony Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Onslow, Cranley Thompson, Donald
Osborn, John Thornton, Malcolm
Page, John (Harrow, West) Trippier, David
Page, Richard (SW Herts) Wainwright, R. (Colne V)
Patten, John (Oxford) Waller, Gary
Pawsey, James Warren, Kenneth
Penhaligon, David Watson, John
Pitt, William Henry Wellbeloved, James
Pollock, Alexander Wells, Bowen
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg Wells, John (Maidstone)
Prior, Rt Hon James Wheeler, John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy Wickenden, Keith
Rhodes James, Robert Wigley, Dafydd
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Wolfson, Mark
Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Robinson, P. (Belfast E) Tellers for the Noes:
Roper, John Mr. Ian Lang and
Rossi, Hugh Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 135, in page 3, line 35, at end insert 'which relates to a transferred matter considered by the Assembly under subsection (1)(a) above or to a matter which has been referred to it under this section by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. John Patten.] Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Back to
Forward to