HL Deb 17 March 1986 vol 472 cc816-27

4.38 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 13th February be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 13th February.

Your Lordships may be aware that the order was made at a meeting of the Privy Council on 12th February this year under the urgent procedure as provided for in Schedule 1, paragraph (1)(4)(b), to the Northern Ireland Act 1974, by reason of urgency and without a draft having been approved by this House. The urgent procedure requires the order to be approved by resolution of your Lordships within 40 days after the date on which the order was made, if the order is to remain in force.

Your Lordships will be aware of developments in Northern Ireland during the past few months and that since September 1985 Unionist-controlled district councils in Northern Ireland have been adjourning or even suspending business, firstly, in protest about the presence of Sinn Fein members on councils, and now because of the Anglo-Irish agreement. By the end of January, or even early February this year, it was clear that the adjourning of councils would put at risk the making of district rates for the financial year 1986–87.

Perhaps I should explain to your Lordships that, under the provisions of local government legislation in Northern Ireland, there are three specific functions which must be exercised by councils themselves and cannot be delegated to either officers of councils or to a committee of the council. These functions relate to the making of a district rate, the borrowing of money and land transactions. The failure to make a rate is a clear indication that Unionist-controlled councils wish to intensify their action against the Government's policy. In such circumstances, the Government's first priority has to be the protection of local authority services and jobs, and it was for this reason that on 12th February this year the Privy Council was asked to make the order before us this afternoon.

My honourable friend the Northern Ireland Minister responsible for local government made clear at that time that (I quote shortly): this precautionary step is being taken because the Government is not prepared to allow citizens and ratepayers in any district council area to be deprived of those services and facilities to which they are entitled, nor to allow the jobs of council employees to be put at risk through the actions of councillors". That is what my honourable friend the Minister responsible for local government in Northern Ireland made clear earlier this month.

There are default powers already existing in local government legislation in Northern Ireland. However, these powers are cumbersome as they require a failure to exercise a function or a breakdown in service before action can be taken and, as your Lordships will be aware, such action may take several weeks to complete. Such powers are therefore insufficient to ensure an uninterrupted delivery of local services. The new powers by contrast will provide government with the ability to respond flexibly and in a measured way to disruption of local government.

As it has been indicated by some Unionist councillors that they wish to cause maximum disruption to local government and as the Unionist-controlled councils which have been refusing to meet normally are responsible for providing services to approximately 80 per cent. Of the total population of Northern Ireland, it would be a negation of duty by the Government not to take these necessary additional powers to minimise the damage that could be done either to the public or to the employees of councils. That is the main reason why the Government are seeking the approval of your Lordships to the order before us this afternoon.

Despite the assurances by the leaders of the main political parties involved that protest action against the Anglo-Irish agreement would be constitutional and within the law, noble Lords should be aware that we now have a situation where a majority within Belfast City Council has deliberately defied the rulings of the High Court; where 18 councils including Belfast have deliberately defied a direction from the Department of the Environment to make a district rate, having earlier already decided to break the law by not making a rate by the due date; and where these same councils continue to adjourn or suspend meetings thereby putting at risk services in these council areas.

I now turn to the main provisions of this order. Article 3 provides that, if it appears a council has failed or is unable or unwilling to exercise duly and effectually any of its functions, then the Department of the Environment may make an order which would suspend that council and appoint a person or persons to assume responsibility for its functions. It is important to emphasise that, since this is a measure of last resort, the Government would also want to ensure that any application of these powers would not necessarily be permanent. Your Lordships will therefore see that there are provisions for any order so made to be revoked if circumstances subsequently changed and councillors were willing to resume normal business.

4.45 p.m.

It is also important to draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 2 of Article 3, as this will give the power for the suspension from all other public bodies to which a councillor has been appointed or elected by virtue of his membership of a district council. It would be anomalous to suspend district councillors from their council activities and not at the same time consider their suspension from those other public bodies on which they purport to represent local interests. The remaining provisions in Article 3 are consequential to the suspension of councillors and their replacement by other persons. These consequential provisions will ensure that those persons appointed to look after the councils's interests have the full authority of the law to continue to exercise all functions previously exercised by the council.

Paragraphs (7) and (8) of Article 3 are designed during the period of direct rule to preserve the position of the Assembly if legislative powers were devolved to it. While direct rule continues, they are modified by Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 which suspends the requirement to lay such orders before the Assembly in its present consultative form. Your Lordships will see from Article 4, at the foot of page 3 and over the page, that the legislation shall remain in force until 31st May 1988 but could, if necessary, be extended for periods not exceeding one year until 1991: that is, for a five-year period in all.

The Government will not be diverted from their objective of safeguarding those services in Northern Ireland which are a fundamental entitlement in any society. The Government have been patient over a period of months during which local councils have not been meeting, but the stage has now been reached where it has proved necessary to seek these additional powers on a contingency basis in order to be in a position to secure the provisions of local authority services and to protect jobs. I hope that these powers will not have to be used, but as a measure of last resort the Government are prepared to do so.

It is worth reminding Unionist councillors that the services provided by their councils, such as health inspection, burials, building control, refuse collection and the operation of leisure facilities, are for the benefit of all sections of the community. It is the Government's wish that these important local services should remain under the control of local elected representatives, but if this proves to be impossible the Government must be certain that they can take steps to protect innocent members of the community.

I have explained the background against which the Government found it necessary to introduce these new powers and I have given a brief summary of their intent. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the Government's action is justified in the circumstances and will recognise that the powers would be used only if absolutely necessary. I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the order laid before the House on 13th February be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, regrettably the choice has been made by the Unionist-controlled district councils to adjourn meetings of their councils and to refuse to strike a rate for 1986–87 in protest against the Hillsborough agreement, although that agreement has been overwhelmingly supported by Parliament. We have heard from the Minister—indeed, we have read in the newspapers—how councils were directed by the Department of the Environment in Belfast to carry out their functions and to strike a rate. They defied the directive. This policy of defiance and obstruction is unlawful. Not only is it unlawful, but it is extremist and irresponsible—irresponsible because it puts important services (which the Minister has mentioned) and jobs at risk. Given this situation and this escalation, we agree that the Government have no alternative but to introduce this order, which will give them the statutory authority to take over all the functions allotted by law to the district councils should this become necessary. That caveat has been entered more than once by the Minister in the course of his speech this afternoon.

If the policy of opposition to central government policy which has been adopted by the opposition should lead at some future date to the implementation of this order, that would be an ironic consequence for Unionist councillors to impose upon their communities. I understand that the functions of the disctrict councils in Northern Ireland are relatively modest, and are far fewer than those discharged by the district councils in England and Wales. Nevertheless, the services carried out by the district councils are important and cannot be allowed to break down. The dead have to be buried; refuse has to be collected; drains have to be cleaned; and streets have to be swept. They are the requirements of a civilised community.

If one day in the future the district councils have to be run by commissioners appointed by the Department of the Environment and without accountability to the local community instead of by democratically-elected representatives who have walked out on their councils, that would be the choice of the Unionist councillors. In those circumstances, the Unionist councillors cannot fairly complain of dictatorship by the Department of the Environment, and yet this accusation is already being intemperately hurled by the councillors and others at the department. This is sheer propaganda, whether consciously or otherwise, to mislead the public.

It is sad that councillors who have served their wards and have been prominent in public life for years should now walk away from their councils. One would have thought that to remain in control of their councils, watching local expenditure and the quality of local services, would at least ensure accountability of government at district level to the local community. But this decision to defy the department, the decision to adjourn their councils, suggests deep-seated frustration, or possibly trauma, felt by the Unionist leaders. That I certainly acknowledge. We would not from this side of the House underrate the frustration or the trauma. But to the Unionist leaders we would say that they do not best serve their cause by taking the law into their own hands and effectively suspending the councils which were entrusted to their care by their electorate.

For all those reasons we approve the order. Indeed, this is the only practical answer available to the Government if services and jobs are to be protected. We know only too well that some 150 jobs with the community groups in Protestant areas are already seriously at risk. This is the cause of anxiety in the Protestant community. Is it possible, as it becomes clearer that the policy of non-co-operation puts jobs at risk, that the Unionist councillors will have second thoughts?

The Minister has explained to your Lordships' House that the decision to introduce this order has not been hastily approached. Councils were stood adjourned generally in September last, but it is only now that the Government bring the order before the House. This may be an indication—I think that the noble Lord hinted at this—that the order will not be hastily implemented. But this is not to suggest that the Government should wait until the point of breakdown of services is reached before they exercise the powers which this order gives them. With those few comments, and with a certain degree of sadness, we approve the order.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, speaks of sadness. That is what I feel intensely at the moment. This seems to me to be the first sign after the general strike, which was an explosion, of something which may be very bad indeed for all of us—so much so that I feel impelled to pause for a moment to look at what has happened to the loyalty to this country of the loyalist majority in Northern Ireland: our friends and compatriots who are now deliberately trying to reduce their part of the United Kingdom to anarchy.

They are doing this because they feel unable to accept a minimum step towards treating the minority community as citizens with equal rights to their own. I think it is worthwhile trying for a moment to explain—I say to explain to them, but I think it may be too late—the logic of the intense disapproval of their attitude on the part of so many British citizens on the mainland. I shall give my own version of this, but I think it is widely shared in the Alliance Party, the Labour Party, and in many parts of the Tory Party.

I believe that what is important for Northern Ireland in the long run is not whether it finally consents to join the South, but whether it can manage its own affairs so that the whole population turns against the senseless years of brutal and often cowardly killing by the IRA. Only with the help of the whole population can this be achieved, and it will take years of determined government. To obtain this consensus we must put right the most obvious of the many complaints made by the minority community of unequal treatment; of no say in government; of secretarianism in the RUC; of discrimination over housing, employment, and so on. The Unionists freely admit the existence of these complaints, though they claim that they are mostly unfounded. We on the mainland do not agree. We think there is a great deal which must be altered if the Province is to remain a part of the United Kingdom.

During the last year both sides have agreed in writing in the New Ireland Forum and The Way Forward that they must live peacefully together, which means respecting the views and aspirations of the other side even while not agreeing with them. I believe that the only way forward is through devolved government with both sides sharing power, which they showed in 1974 they could do very well if they could be protected from the attacks from the hard men on the Unionist side. The Government are pledged to work for this and we shall support them, but first agreement must be found on the manner of partnership in the new Assembly.

The SDLP sadly failed to come in at the last attempt. They insisted that certain points must be conceded first. One—and for the Unionists the most difficult—was some recognition of what has been called the Irish dimension. The demand was for joint sovereignty, or at least joint authority between the British and Irish Governments. Our Government, in my opinion rightly, refused firmly to agree to either. The most they would concede was joint discussion to take place in the standing conference, with no powers of action at all. All powers would remain with the British Government, but clearly they could be influenced in their action by such a conference. The concession was so small that Dr. FitzGerald was bitterly attacked by Mr. Haughey for agreeing to it.

It is to destroy this function of consultation, which to me seems entirely harmless, that the Unionists called the one-day strike. They failed to prevent their supporters from acting with brutal violence, much to their shame, and are now proposing to paralyse local government by refusing to do their duty as councillors. Their intention, openly stated, as the Minister said, is to produce such anarchy that government is impossible and to do it by imposing real hardship on the people by stopping, or trying to stop, many services on which so many depend not only for their comfort but for their living, and, indeed, as the noble Lord said from the Front Bench, for their dying.

5 p.m.

It seems to me to be unforgivable to behave like this over an issue which involves no transfer of authority from the Government and which was conceded to encourage Mr. John Hume to persuade the SDLP to discuss terms for joining the assembly. If it could have been accepted, we should by now have had a devolved government and with it the gradual transferance of subjects to it from the conference terms of reference. This, in my opinion, is the key to all future progress.

As it is, we are confronted with legislation to deal with the councillors' strike.

There is a gleam of hope. The Unionist leaders have, it seems, suggested further talks, though I am not sure how firm this suggestion is. Certainly the Prime Minister has made it clear that she wants them. Mr. Hume, none too soon, has said that he will talk to anyone at any time, though I beg him to be generous, having achieved so much of what he wants, and to help the Unionists to co-operate by not sticking on detail. Something therefore may happen. But those of us who, like myself, have always sympathised with the determination of the Unionists to remain British are deeply shocked. I believe that this agreement, far from being a step towards a united Ireland, could be the last chance for the Unionists to maintain their present position as full British citizens.

I turn at last to the order before us. Though I have spoken for myself up to now, I speak for the Alliance parties without equivocation in supporting it.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, it is an indication of British insensitivity to the Irish situation that we are discussing these orders on St. Patrick's Day. One would have thought that there could have been a more appropriate time, but perhaps there was an emergency situation. However serious the first order may be, it will be even more insulting that on the next order we shall be discussing the mental health of Northern Ireland, which, I think it would be conceded, has been seriously affected by the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

I have been a Member of this House for a few years now; I was a Member of another place for many years. I recall when the boot was on the other foot, when I was the leader of the minority population. As I have said on occasions in this House, the great ability of the English has for many years been to compromise: an Ireland that does not exist, an Ireland where there are victories and defeats. I recall vividly in 1971 when Irish nationalism met the total opposition of the Northern Ireland Parliament, supported by the British Government on the introduction of internment. What did the Irish nationalist population do? They withdrew from all the local authorities on which they were represented. They called on the nationalist members of local authorities, as they were then constituted, to absent themselves. They called on the nationalist population to boycott and abstain from the institutions of government because the Catholic nationalist population saw in those days that they were being victimised by the institutions of government.

In 1986, 14 years after, we find that the wheel has turned full circle and the Unionists now feel how the nationalists felt then. The history is that the Unionists in Northern Ireland have no real history of rebellion. Throughout the centuries, particularly in these last 100 years, they have succeeded in imposing their will on a succession of British governments by threatening what they would do: in 1886, 1903, 1910, 1912, 1914 and 1974. But now they are faced with a British Government who have decided, rightly or wrongly, to have the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Unionist or Protestant in Northern Ireland does not know what to do in this situation. He gets out his newspaper cuttings or goes to the library and asks, "What did the Nationalists do when they were in a situation such as this?" He sees that Gerry Fitt was leader of the nationalist party. When things were not going the way that Gerry Fitt for the SDLP wanted them to go, he advised his councillors to withdraw from the local authorities. That is what I have repeatedly said in this House.

There are two sections of the community in Northern Ireland. They are motivated by the same impetus in their opposition to what they feel to be an injustice. When the nationalist minority felt that they were being unjustly treated, they withdrew from public life. Now the Unionists feel that. Whether I agree that what they feel is right or not, they feel that they are being unjustly victimised.

This order is before the House because the Unionists are in a majority in Northern Ireland. When the nationalists withdrew their councillors from the local authorities in the 1970s, the Unionists—the British Government since 1972, since direct rule—did not have to take any real action such as this, with the exception of one case. The withdrawal of the nationalist councillors from local authorities did not have the devastating effect that the withdrawal of the Unionists will have, because the Unionists hold 18 out of 26 seats. The nationalists, being a minority, did not have that punch.

This is not the first time that this has been done. There was the famous, infamous or notorious Deny city council (Londonderry city council, as it then was) which over the years had gerrymandered itself in favour of the Unionists against all the laws of natural justice, and the overwhelming majority of the people living in the city of Derry were Nationalists and opposed to unionism. But because of the vicious system of gerrymandering, the Unionists had totally unjustly controlled that town. The British Government had no hesitation then, and I applauded them for it at the time, in abolishing the Londonderry city council and putting in commissioners. The commissioners received the support of the overwhelming population, even of the Unionist population, in the city of Derry when this happened. If the Government are forced to act in this, people in local authorities may feel that they would rather have commissioners then councillors.

One has to take into consideration the psychology of local authority councillors. I was one for 25 years, and so I have half an idea of what it is all about. There is nobody in political life in this country who feels himself to be more important than the local councillor. When they are fighting elections in Northern Ireland, you would almost think it was a presidential election, and particularly under PR. You get the strangest candidates, the strangest elections and even more strange results. And these people are now—or, are they? I ask them through this House—prepared to put their positions of importance into jeopardy. Would the Government, for example, consider taking action against those councils in Northern Ireland who have refused to strike a rate, to surcharge them and to disqualify them from serving for five years? Would it be possible for the Government to do that? They have done it in Lambeth and at Liverpool. Would the Government consider doing that in the 18 councils throughout Northern Ireland?

How many men would you disqualify in that situation? So far as concerns the Unionist councillors who have been elected, it has already been said here by the Front Bench on this side of the House that many of them have given what they consider to be and what their own community considers to be sterling service throughout the years. But because of their deep-rooted feelings of insecurity and opposition to this agreement, they have withdrawn their services from the local authorities.

Having said what I have, I think it is right that the Government should take these emergency powers. I am not a representative of West Belfast now; I am not an elected representative. But over the past number of days I have received numerous requests from the community organisations in West Belfast, the constituency which I formerly represented and which is now allegedly represented by a pseudo-IRA man. He cannot make any plea to this Government. So the people who rejected me at the polls—and I have no doubt that they are some of the people who are writing to me now—are asking for me to put forward their point of view on what may happen before the end of this month. They fear that there will be many people in the community associations, in the graveyards, in the cleansing departments in the city and constituency which I formerly represented who, unless emergency powers are taken, will find themselves out of a job with no guarantee as to when and where their jobs will be reinstated.

I say to the noble Lord that I do not think that anyone in his right mind could oppose this legislation because it is taken in an emergency situation. But while saying that, I go along with what has been said by my noble friend, Lord Donaldson. He perhaps cannot see as readily as I do the fear that exists among the Unionists, but he recognises that it is there. He has made an appeal here today, and I would reinforce that appeal, that to allay the fears and the suspicions that exist in the minds of the Unionist population, and in this case in the minds of their local authority representatives, the SDLP should make a further reciprocation. They should keep trying to do something to allay the fears that exist within that Protestant community.

There are two sides to the conflict in Northern Ireland and I have seen the two sides. That is perhaps why I was not the most successful of politicians in Northern Ireland. It is very easy to see one side and guarantee your own success. Incidentally, my Lords, just think of the term "emergency"! How many emergency legislations have we had since the advent of direct rule in 1972? How many emergency legislations did we have since 1922 in the form of the Special Powers Act in Northern Ireland?

It is necessary to bring forward this legislation. But I say do not implement it too hastily. Do everything that you can to bring those councillors back to what they have been regarding as their duties; because it is only by doing that that you will make this type of legislation unnecessary in the future.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, we are immensely grateful for the interest shown by noble Lords who have spoken and to other Members of your Lordships' House who have listened to what I believe has been a very succinct summing up of the entire political scene in Northern Ireland by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and certainly, all the very worthwhile and valuable contributions that have been made by both the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson.

Perhaps I may first of all thank the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his forthright support for the measures which we have outlined in the order. I think that this is a common theme, certainly in the preliminary remarks that I made and in the entire debate this afternoon, that these powers which we have in the order before us are to be used very much as a last resort.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned this defiance of councillors in showing their defiance of the Anglo-Irish agreement and the noble Lord also stressed the importance of the functions of local councillors in Northern Ireland. I think he mentioned the word "dictatorship"—the cry of "dictators" and "dictatorships" that came towards the Government and to the Northern Ireland Office. Your Lordships who are acquainted with Northern Ireland will realise that that is particularly mild. When people call me a dictator, I tend to think that they have been off their food or are ill because we expect much stronger meat than that. Nevertheless, I take the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. Nobody who is interested in Northern Ireland, who visits there or who lives there, as does my noble friend behind me can fail to be aware of the very strong feelings in regard to the Government and to the political situation which exists in Northern Ireland at the moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised one particular point which has caused concern here, in another place and in Northern Ireland. He touched on what we call the voluntary groups or voluntary bodies. I shall try to reassure the noble Lord and your Lordships who are interested in these groups. I understand that a meeting of Belfast City Council has been called for 27th March when the matter of grants to voluntary bodies will be included in the agenda. I am afraid that this is very conditional and hypothetical; nevertheless perhaps it might be hopeful.

The Government will be monitoring closely what decisions emerge from that meeting. Therefore, it will be premature for me to comment in advance upon what measures the Government might consider to ensure continuity of support for all those bodies who might be at risk. Of course, that does not just mean those bodies in Belfast. It would also cover the voluntary groups in other council areas.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, I have sent him a copy of a letter today. I see that the noble Lord indicates that he has received it. Will he keep me advised as to what action happens as a result of these meetings and let me know whether it applies to the letter I have sent to him?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, the noble Lord, as always, is lightning fast, rather like the Irish threequarters on Saturday afternoon, and I am pleased that the noble Lord is keeping up their momentum. I have received his letter. I am afraid that I have read it but I cannot comment yet. I shall certainly look into it and shall be in touch with him. If there is any specific point, then we shall be able to cover it when I reply and keep the noble Lord informed. But the thought that I had about our understanding that there will be a meeting of Belfast City Council is hedged, as the noble Lord of all people will be aware, with the usual Government caution. However, I take note that I have received a very valuable letter from the noble Lord and we shall deal with it expeditiously and in detail.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I reaffirm what I said about voluntary groups. Any appointment of a commissioner would be only as a measure of last resort, and the grant-aiding of local community groups is in itself a permissive power available to councillors. These issues, in the first instance, would be for local councillors to consider, and of course commissioners are very much a long stop.

We are grateful for the forthright support of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for the measures in the order. Your Lordships will be aware that the noble Lord was a distinguished precursor in my present office and he is fondly remembered in many parts of the Province. Wherever I go people keep on asking after him and hoping that he is in good health. I have to remind everybody that those of your Lordships who come to speak on Northern Ireland matters here are in very good health.

The noble Lord referred to the sad events of 3rd March. All that I would wish to do this afternoon is to reiterate what I said then. The pictures sent by electronic media and also in printed form throughout the world showed what the noble Lords, Lord Donaldson and Lord Fitt, and my noble friend know, that that is not the true face of Northern Ireland. This was an aberration. It was particularly sad, and I would hazard a guess—if one is allowed to do that from this position—that what happened on that day is slowly being recognised as most unhelpful to everything that all of us want in Northern Ireland. I am of course very grateful for the support that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, gave to the order.

The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, speaks with considerable authority, since he has had a long history of service to Northern Ireland, and all your Lordships will appreciate everything that he did in Northern Ireland and continues to do in your Lordships' House. He mentioned that the Unionists would rush along to the public library and might be tempted to follow the boycotting events of 1971 and 1972. I would hazard something stronger than a guess that the Unionists would be very foolish if they did that. What they probably should be doing is reading the newspapers and perhaps following the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in his other, more profitable, activities which will be familiar to your Lordships. Perhaps if the Unionists were to follow the noble Lord's record in that way, they might be a great deal healthier. However, I do not think the Unionists need any lessons in obstruction or foolish tactics from what happened in 1971 or 1972.

The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, mentioned the word "surcharge". The law in respect of surcharge in Northern Ireland is quite specific. A local government auditor may apply to the court for a declaration that any item of account is contrary to law, and if the court makes such a declaration the person or persons responsible for authorising or incurring such expenditure shall be liable to repay the amount in question. Also, where it appears to a local government auditor that a loss has been incurred or a deficiency caused by the wilful misconduct of any person, he shall certify that the amount of the loss or deficiency is due from that person.

Certainly it would not be proper for me to speculate on whether the present action by councils will result in penalties of this nature. The law demands that these are matters for the local government auditor, in his quite independent capacity, to consider. I would stress to your Lordships that there is no clear parallel with the events which took place in Liverpool. We hope that this question of surcharge will not arise, but it is not something that we could help with, especially this afternoon, because it is a question for the local government auditor in his independent capacity. His duties and powers are laid down by statute and I think the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, would agree that we should leave it there.

I think I have said enough. We are all immensely grateful for the support that has been received for this order. I stressed to your Lordships that it is a long stop power, but we feel that it is prudent and indeed necessary to have the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.