Sitting of 23 November 1972

Preamble
The House met at half~past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
THE PRIME MINISTER reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
My husband and I thank you most sincerely for your congratulations on the 25th anniversary of our wedding. It gives us particular pleasure on this happy occasion to receive this warm expression of the affection and loyalty which you have always shown towards us. We both greatly appreciate your good wishes for our future happiness.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Student Unions
    Miss Lestorasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has yet completed her examination of the role and status of student unions; and if she will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Thatcher): Discussions with the parties mainly concerned are not yet complete. At present a number of different proposals have emerged but there is little common agreement.
    Miss Lestor: I thank the Secretary of State for her reply. If the right hon. Lady agrees that it is important that good relations are maintained between the student unions and all areas of higher education, does she agree that it was rather unfortunate that her former Undersecretary of State made statements at the end of October in Abingdon about the leadership of the National Union of
    1494
    Students, calling it irresponsible and hypocritical? Does she think that that is unlikely to give the background to the discussions that she needs?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have nothing but praise for my former Under-Secretary of State.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend consider making political organisations within student unions self-financing on the basis of individual subscriptions from the members? This is an area in which there is widespread public concern, and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the matter seriously.
    Mrs. Thatcher: There was a suggestion in the consultative document that certain subscriptions might be on a voluntary basis. That met with a very mixed response, but it is a possible suggestion.

    Teachers and Pupils (Personal information)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will give advice to local authorities on the computerised storage of personal information about teachers and pupils.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Not at present.
    Mr. Huckfield: Does the Secretary of State think that it is time that she consulted not only representatives of local authorities but the teachers' unions? When she does so, will she bear in mind that there are some very strong objections by parents and teachers to surrendering personal information without sufficient safeguards that do not really exist for maintaining the confidentiality of information?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman's question is a little premature. The Local Authorities Management Services and Computer Committee has not completed its consideration of the findings of a feasibility study by using a computer for storing information on pupils and teachers. However, it has already published some notes for the guidance of local authorities on computer privacy.

    Prestwick Oak Lodge School
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will now approve a commencement date for the building of a

    1495
    new school to replace Prestwick Oak Lodge School for educationally subnormal children.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): This project will be considered for inclusion in the Design List 1973–74, which is due to be announced in the spring of next year.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is my hon. Friend aware that many children in my constituency, and in the area adjoining the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler). who are waiting for places at a special school cannot at the moment find a place at the present building at Prestwick? The pressure will be further aggravated by the siting of a junior hostel in Whitefield in the near future. Can my hon. Friend give a further indication than that which he has been able to give so far?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have seen the correspondence which my hon. Friend has had with my predecessor. I know the personal interest which my hon. Friend has taken in this school. In fact, he has visited it. My Department is well aware of the shortcomings of the existing premises, but we have not received any proposals from the Lancashire authority for the inclusion of projects in the 1972–73 preliminary list. When and if we do, I can assure my hon. Friend that my noble Friend Lord Belstead and I will give the matter the most sympathetic consideration.

    11-Plus Examination
    Mrs. Knightasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will issue guidance to local authorities regarding the holding of 11-plus selection examinations in spring, 1973 where proposals for secondary education are being contested by a large section of the local ratepayers.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Until proposals for changes of character of existing schools have been approved local education authorities have a responsibility to operate them without such changes. The details of any selection procedures required are the responsibility of the local education authorities but those procedures must be effective.
    Mrs. Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Birmingham has not made any arrangements for an 11-plus examination to be held for junior school leavers next year, even though her decision with regard to the Birmingham Education Committee's comprehensive plans cannot possibly be known by then? Will she not step in to avoid the educational chaos which seems highly likely to develop in Birmingham?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Again, I think that it might be a little too soon to do that. I have made it clear that Birmingham must run the schools as they are until permission is given to change their character. The period for objections to Birmingham's proposals does not expire until about 13th January, and it seems most unlikely that a decision would follow soon after that because it is a very big plan and big plans of that kind take several months to examine. The objections themselves will take several months to examine.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has said, the present city council of Birmingham was elected on a massive mandate to abolish the obscene 11-plus examination, that it is fully supported in this proposal by the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters, and that, while there may well be argument about the details of reorganisation which the right hon. Lady will wish to take into account, nevertheless, to an overwhelming extent, the parents of Birmingham do not want to tolerate this offensive examination a moment longer?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Birmingham, like any other local education authority, is just as much subject to the law as I am, and the law under Section 13, with provision for objections, must be followed.
    Mr. Sydney Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend look at the very serious point which has been raised and is widely believed in Birmingham—that the local education authority, in instructing the chief education officer to make no arrangements for junior schools leaving examinations next year, is in contravention of Section 13(5) of the Education Act, 1944, as amended?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not believe that it is yet in contravention of the Act. That is my advice. I hope I have made it clear that the schools must continue as they are until permission has been given to change them. The Birmingham education authority issued the notices wrongly in the first instance and did not display them properly. It has re-issued them, and that factor itself has given rise to considerable delay.
    Mr. Marks: What is the right hon. Lady's view about the 11-plus selection examination? Is she for or against it?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have no personal view.

    Nursery Education
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will now make a statement about her proposals for the expansion of nursery education.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will now withdraw Circular 8/60.
    Sir Gilbert Longdenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans she has for the expansion of nursery education; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am not yet ready to make an announcement. Full details of the Government's new priorities in the education service will be given to Parliament in due course.
    Mrs. Renée Short: But does the right hon. Lady not think it high time that she unveiled the promise that she made at the Tory Party conference in October? Will she give an assurance that she will not go back on that undertaking? Can she in the meantime explain why there has been an under-spending of £785,000 on the urban aid programme, which could well be used to provide more nursery classes in priority areas?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I cannot answer on the urban aid programme, which comes under the Home Office. I can only tell the hon. Lady that we have used up our full quota on nursery school places. I have approved an extra 13,124 nursery school places under that programme in
    1498
    England and Wales, which is the larger part of the nursery places provided under the urban aid programme. I assure the hon. Lady that I shall not go back on my promise to introduce a programme of nursery education on the education budget.
    Mr. John E. B. Hill: Although my right hon. Friend is not responsible for the urban aid programme, is she in a position to say whether, in making their bids for the next phase of the programme, local authorities did or did not show marked preference for more emphasis on nursery education and pre-school provision?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I think that they put in for quite a number of extra nursery school places but I could not give my hon. Friend the exact priorities without a specific Question to that effect. But there will be more places under the latest urban aid programme.

    Petroleum Technology
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will seek powers to enable her to finance courses in petroleum technology at postgraduate level.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: The recurrent grants provided by my right hon. Friend through the University Grants Committee can be used, and are already used, to finance postgraduate courses in subjects which are associated with the petroleum industry.
    Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the Question. Does not he agree that with the advent of North Sea oil there is a need to consider allocating greater financial resources for the provision of graduate courses in petroleum technology? Will he bear in mind the areas where the oil is found? For example, if any consideration is given in the allocation of financial resources, will he give consideration to Heriot Watt University in Midlothian?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes great interest in this subject, and I assure him that the Department considers it to be of the greatest importance to the country. The meeting of the needs for new requirements, however, is not a matter for us but

    1499
    for the universities themselves. The Heriot Watt Institute of Offshore Technology has got off to a very good start, thanks to a private grant, and we shall continue our interest in the matter.

    Arts Council
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the operation of the Arts Council; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. David Clark: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there was great pleasure on both sides of the House when, following a letter from one of his predecessors, the Arts Council gave a grant to the National Youth Orchestra? Will he now dispel any suggestion that the Arts Council is biased against workingclass culture and send it a similar letter requesting a grant to the National Youth Brass Band?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: The allocation of individual grants is a matter for the Arts Council. My noble Friend the Paymaster-General cannot do it. He is like Bagehot's constitutional sovereign. He has the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn, but not, himself, to make grants. But I am able to say that he and I are of the view that "culture" should be widely interpreted, and we believe that brass bands give great enjoyment and provide opportunities for participation to a large number of people, and that in its own way a brass band can make as big a contribution to our culture as the Amadeus String Quartet.

    Degree Qualifications (Sale)
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, with a view to ending the practice of selling bogus degrees and other qualifications, she will seek powers to require all educational establishments catering for students beyond the minimum school leaving age to be accredited to the National Council for the Accreditation of Correspondence Colleges, or a similar organisation.
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir: there would be difficulties about any kind of legislation. I am considering how I can best
    1500
    make information more widely available about United Kingdom degrees and other recognised qualifications. At present the Department gives guidance on the validity of specific qualifications when asked.
    Miss Fookes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Robbins Committee of about 10 years ago was adamant that legislation was needed? May I remind her that there are such scandals as the case where someone was given a certificate of competence in estate agency and valuation matters and it turned out to be in the name of someone's cat?
    Mrs. Thatcher: It is easier to pose the problem than to find the precise workable legislative solution.
    Mr. Heffer: Shoot the cat.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Some of us might say, "Shoot the people" as well. We are working on this problem. If there were an easy solution, we would have already found it.
    Miss Lestor: I agree with what the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) has said, and I appreciate the difficulty of framing legislation to deal with the problem. May I remind the right hon. Lady that at the moment there are at least 27 degree mills in this country, and about 200 abroad? They are used by people here, and this often causes acute embarrassment to foreign students? For example, Sussex University is constantly being embarrassed by the Sussex College of Technology, one of the organisations which sells these degrees. The problem is increasing all the time and action is needed quickly to try to protect people from these malpractices.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I agree with the hon. Lady. The problem arises when there is a certificate that looks as if it gives a degree comparable with a degree given by another institution of a similar name. It would be very difficult to get at all these institutions by legislation. The moment we took action against one, another would spring up giving not degrees but associateships, fellowships or licenciateships. I doubt whether, if we named them all, we would ever catch up with others that would then spring up. It must be remembered that there are a number of respectable professional bodies which give a series of letters, not

    1501
    always by examination but often warranted by the experience of the person, which stand very high in the eyes of people here and abroad.

    School Leavers (Intelligence Quotients)
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will set up a further inquiry into the intelligence quotients of those who leave school at or before the age of 16.
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the right hon. Lady aware that merely raising the minimum school-leaving age to 16 will not by itself stop the waste of the national pool of ability, because the Crowther Report and others since have found that a third of the top 10 per cent. by IQ rating leave school at that age anyway? What alternative plans has she that will definitely stop this drastic under-achievement, which neither the nation nor those concerned can afford?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The survey given publicity in the Crowther Report was not an IQ survey, and I know of no purely IQ survey. It was a test of ability of National Service recruits, conducted through the Army's own tests of ability. Since that time—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will know that IQ is not the only measure of ability. For that reason I was a little surprised by his Question. The Government have taken steps to raise the school-leaving age to 16, and I hope that many other young people who wish to do so will continue their education in colleges of further education and through the many facilities available.

    Student Grants
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will set up an inquiry to report as a matter of urgency on the level and arrangement of students' grants and of parental contributions.
    Dr. Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will now undertake a review of student grants.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Arrangements have been settled for the triennium beginning
    1502
    with the academic year 1971–72 and I see no need for an inquiry now.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the right hon. Lady aware that many students—perhaps the vast majority—fear that there will be no real increase in grants before 1974–75? In view of recent price increases and those which are obviously forthcoming, will not the Government, if they act in a mean way, be guilty of a harsh injustice affecting not only students but many parents who pay contributions?
    Mrs. Thatcher: We negotiated the grants for the triennium and the total sum of £76 million was made available. Those round the negotiating table, including representatives of vice-chancellors, students and local authorities, as well as of central Government, decided to allocate that sum in the proportion—this is for provincial universities—of an increase of 13·1 per cent. for the year 1971–72, 3—5 per cent. for 1972–73, and 4·5 per cent. for 1973–74. That was the decision made, and I believe that it should stand.
    Dr. Marshall: Is the right hon. Lady aware that accommodation charges in university halls of residence are now exceeding the notional accommodation element in student grants by over £50 annually? Is this not causing real hardship to many students, and should there not be an immediate increase in grants?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The accommodation charges in universities and polytechnics vary widely. The figure in the grant takes an average of those charges. By doing so there will be some above and some below, but there is an extra amount of about £100, I believe, in the grant, which can be used either to make up the shortfall or, as the students wish, for other purposes.
    Mr. John E. B. Hill: Has my right hon. Friend any estimate of the proportion of students who may not be receiving the appropriate parental contribution? Before the recent increase I believe there was an estimate of about 1 in 5.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I cannot confirm the previous estimate, and there is no current estimate. In 1972–73 we expect student grants to cost about £120 million. The assessed parental contribution should be

    1503
    of the order of £35 million. We have no knowledge of how much of that is actually paid.
    Mr. Pardoe: Can the right hon. Lady say whether it is her intention to continue with parental contributions and the related means test for ever and anon, or at least for the foreseeable future? What studies has her Department made to see whether the means test could eventually be incorporated within the Government's income tax credit scheme?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I doubt very much whether it could be incorporated in that scheme, but the hon. Gentleman will no doubt raise the point when the matter is debated. The value of the parental contribution rises as the numbers of students increase, as does the cost of student grants. It would be very expensive to abolish the contribution, costing £35 million this year and possibly £40 million or so next year and the year after. I have no plans to spend that amount on abolishing the contribution.
    Mr. Kinsey: Will the right hop. Lady look at some of the anomalies which have arisen in the grant system? May I bring one to her attention, namely, that when young girl students get married and pass out of their parents' legal control the parents are still expected to make contributions to the grant?
    Mrs. Thatcher: As my hon. Friend will see, there is probably a good reason for that. If by getting married the young girl saved her parents' contribution, it might be rather a popular thing to do. [Laughter.] A young married woman student is paid the same rate of grant as other students unless she lives at home with her husband who is not a student.
    Mr. Moyle: Is the right hon. Lady telling the House the full story about the negotiations over student grants? Is it not true that the vice-chancellors and principals of polytechnics wrote to her on 28th May, 1971, saying that if the present level of student grants were proceeded with there would be trouble over students meeting board and lodging charges before the end of the three-year period? Will she confirm that this is true and, following the advice of the vice-chancellors and principals, conduct an inquiry?
    Mrs. Thatcher: We have received a letter from the vice-chancellors. It is very easy for anyone to demand an increase for which he does not have to pay. Most of us remain of the opinion that a settlement of £76 million for the triennium was not ungenerous.

    London Teachers (Meetings)
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she last met representatives of teaching staff employed in the Inner London Education Area to discuss matters for which she is responsible.
    Mrs. Thatcher: There have been teachers from Inner London on deputations which have come to see me, but I have not met them separately.
    Mr. Cox: I note that reply. Is the right hon. Lady aware that thousands of teachers are away from school today protesting against her deplorable action in deliberately stopping the negotiations on 20th October? Is she aware that this action, following so quickly after the savage cuts which she imposed on the minor works programme in London, has done more to destroy the morale of London teachers than any other action in recent years? Will she give an assurance to this House and to the thousands of teachers who will be here today that she is prepared to send back to the Burnham Committee the whole question of the London allowance, that she will abide by that Committee's decision and will in no way attempt to interfere with the negotiations, as she has done in the past?
    Mrs. Thatcher: During the Chequers talks, negotiations in Burnham were suspended. When the Chequers talks broke down I immediately saw the Chairman of Burnham, the local education authorities and the teachers. They decided to meet on that day, and an offer was made which was accepted by one of the committees of Burnham, namely the college of education teachers but not by the others. The minor works programme for London is calculated on a formula related to the number of children in the schools—
    Mr. Cox: That is totally irrelevant.
    Mrs. Thatcher: It is not totally irrelevant to a rational person. The number

    1505
    of children in the centres of cities is falling as families are moving outside to the suburbs and counties. Therefore, the minor works programme for the counties has gone up because the counties have more children.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one solution would be for the teachers' London weighting allowance to be on the same basis as that which operates in local government and the Civil Service, that is, inner London weighting and outer London weighting?
    Mrs. Thatcher: That course of action is open to the management panel of Burnham if it wishes to make that kind of offer. The Burnham system is exactly the same as that which was introduced and operated by the Labour Government. I have followed it precisely. The formula is calculated by reference to that which was created in 1967 by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Some have the same London allowance for the whole of the greater London area, as do the teachers. Others choose to have the allowance in two tiers. If the management panel wishes to negotiate in two tiers, it has the majority voice on that issue with the local authorities.
    Mr. Spearing: Will the right hon. Lady deny that on or before 20th October, before the talks had broken down, she made a specific request to the London authorities on the Burnham Committee not to put their offer—as had been promised—on that date? If she made that request, will she explain how it came within the terms of reference of the Government's statement of 26th September, which would have allowed the London weighting to go up by £104 before being affected by the freeze?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Through my representatives on Burnham, I asked the committee not to make an offer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."]—there is nothing new about this—while the Chequers talks were in progress, as did Ministers in other Departments which were concerned with current negotiations. It was reasonable to do that when we were negotiating with the unions, the teachers being represented on the body that was holding voluntary negotiations. Those talks broke down on the Thursday
    1506
    night. On the Friday morning I saw the Chairman of Burnham, the local authorities and the teachers. They had a meeting on that day, so the undertaking to meet after that day was in fact honoured.
    Mr. Cox: In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that reply I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible date.

    Speech Therapy (Quirk Report)
    Mr. John Wellsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she intends taking on the Quirk Report on speech therapy.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The committee's report was made jointly to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Social Services, for Scotland, for Wales and myself. It touches on the interests of many authorities, organisations and professions, either as employers, users or colleagues of speech therapists. My right hon. Friends and I have therefore arranged for the interested bodies to be consulted immediately so that we can take their views into account in reaching decisions on the recommendations of the report.
    Mr. Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the profession faces a number of difficulties which must be remedied rapidly? Pay is inadequate, research facilities are inadequate and divided control of one minute profession between four Departments is absurd.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Unification of speech therapy services under the proposed area health authorities is one of the recommendations of the Quirk Committee. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be consulting on all the proposals made by that committee.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the right hon. Lady aware that speech therapists are scarce, underpaid and grossly neglected by the Government? When does she propose to get a move on.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I agree that speech thereapists are scarce. There are 800 speech therapists, and the committee recommended an increase in the number, and a broader-based training. These matters are being considered now.

    School Transport
    Mr. Terry Davisasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance she has given to local education authorities about the provision of school transport pending the report of the special working party.
    Mrs. Thatcher: None, Sir. The local education authorities are well aware of their duties and powers in relation to school transport.
    Mr. Davis: Is the right hon. Lady aware that Worcestershire County Council has discontinued a school bus previously provided in Bromsgrove under its discretionary powers? Does she agree that local education authorities should try not to make matters worse while we are awaiting the report of the working party on school transport?
    Mrs. Thatcher: That is a matter between the hon. Gentleman and his local education authority. I am sure that he makes very powerful representations. As he has pointed out, local education authorities have discretion, and I must not interfere in the way in which they exercise it.

    Fanfare for Europe
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the co-ordination between Lord Mancroft and Lord Goodman over the arrangements for the Fanfare for Europe; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, Sir. Both Lord Goodman and Lord Mancroft worked closely together to ensure an extensive and varied programme of events over the country as a whole catering for a wide variety of tastes in both the cultural and sporting spheres.
    Mr. Marten: In view of the mounting public amazement at the curious expenditure of this public money in the midst of an economic freeze, will my right hon. Friend tell us what she is doing to monitor the expenditure which is carried on her Vote? Secondly, in view of the vote last night, will she apply for money for a Fanfare for the Commonwealth?
    Mrs. Thatcher: My hon. Friend will have to put the latter part of his supplementary
    1508
    question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government have allocated £350,000 towards the cost of events for Fanfare for Europe, subject in due course to parliamentary approval of the Supplementary Estimates.
    Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. Lady explain what the activities of these two noble Lords have to do with either education or science?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Both of them are very distinguished in almost all spheres.

    Secondary Schools
    Mr. Marksasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many proposals she has received from local education authorities since June, 1970, to convert selective secondary schools to non-selective secondary schools; and how many she has rejected.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Department's statistics do not distinguish between proposals relating to comprehensive schools development and other proposals relating to secondary schools. Of about 2,300 proposals related to secondary schools, I have rejected 101.
    Mr. Marks: Having failed to discourage local education authorities from submitting plans for comprehensive schools, why is the right hon. Lady in several cases insisting on the retention of selective schools in otherwise comprehensive areas, so sabotaging the efforts of Labour and Conservative councils to get rid of 11-plus selection?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Usually because there is a large volume of objection to the local education authority proposals which is catered for in the legislative provisions, or because the physical or curriculum arrangements do not appear to be satisfactory.

    Mentally Handicapped Children (Teacher Supply)
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals she has to increase the supply of teachers specially qualified to teach educationally subnormal children.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the hon. Member will know from the reply to his Question on 15th November, the numbers of

    1509
    students taking three-year courses of initial training for teachers of mentally handicapped children are in fact increasing. My Department is planning further expansion of such provision.
    Mr. Dormand: That is a typically complacent reply from the Department about this seriously neglected sector of education. Is the right hon. Lady aware that of the teachers who are teaching ESN children—which is what the Question is about—only 22 per cent. are qualified and that within the last four years there has been an annual increase of only 13 teachers attending these courses? Is it not abundantly clear that a Plowden-type major investigation into the education of ESN children is long overdue?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department is not in the least complacent about this important section of the educational service, and attaches a great deal of importance to it. There are 400 places available in 17 colleges for three-year courses of initial training for teachers of mentally handicapped children. The intake to those courses in September, 1972, was only 358. Nevertheless, negotiations have been in progress with five other colleges of education with a view to providing a further 100 places in September, 1973. We have encountered some difficulties over this and are now pursuing other means of increasing the number of places.
    Sir D. Renton: Could not places which have not been filled perhaps be quite easily filled if a shorter course of three years were offered to those who already have a good deal of practical experience?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, teachers of educationally sub-normal children are not required to have special qualifications, but as a transitional arrangement, following the transfer of the responsibilities for this form of education from the DHSS to my Department, holders of the Diploma of the Training Council for Teachers of the Mentally Handicapped can take one-year conversion courses. In 1971–72, 464 teachers took one-year courses as opposed to three-year courses.

    Polytechnics (Accommodation)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether
    1510
    she will make a statement on the Government's policy towards residential and working accommodation for students at polytechnics.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Resources are allocated for polytechnic buildings on the basis of the expected increase in student numbers and the proposals submitted by individual local education authorities. The further education major building programme which is due to start in 1974–75 includes some £32 million for polytechnics, of which about £5 million is intended for residential accommodation.
    Mr. Judd: I welcome the news of this increase in public expenditure, but does not the hon. Gentleman agree that polytechnics have a long way to go before they overcome the acute inadequacies in their working and residential accommodation compared with most other universities? Will he note that when, in places like Portsmouth, dramatic plans are announced about increasing the number of students at polytechnics, it can have grave consequences not only for students who are working in overcrowded conditions, but for the local community in terms of driving up land prices and aggravating an already bad housing shortage? Will he instruct those responsible to watch this aspect of the problem.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I, personally, am very concerned about the position of polytechnics and agree that a great deal needs to be done. Next week I shall be attending the designation of the North London Polytechnic. With regard to the college in Portsmouth, in which I know the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest, we have allocated £2,400,000 for building in the two years 1973–75; and, in addition, the building programme provides accommodation for 500 residential places. These figures reflect my Department's awareness of Portsmouth's particular needs. As for the last point made by the hon. Gentleman, I shall bring it to the notice of the appropriate people.

    Old Schools
    Mr. Lambornasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will give urgent consideration to restoring the minor works allocation to its 1971–72 level, in order that the Inner London Education Authority and other

    1511
    education authorities in older urban areas can prevent further deterioration in standards in old and ageing schools.
    Mrs. Thatcher: School rolls in Inner London and many other large cities will be static or declining in the mid-1970s and their reduced minor works allocations for 1974–75 reflect this. I have allocated about £6·5 million in the major building programmes for 1972–75 for the replacement of 47 old primary schools in inner London.
    Mr. Lamborn: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that in dealing with the older urban areas it is no use equating the subject with the movement of population? The minor works allocation for the inner London area in 1974–75 is half the figure that it was up to 1971–72, and in terms of what work can be done for the money it is probably under a quarter. In the inner London area there are still 300 Victorian primary schools, many of which still have outside, unheated toilet accommodation, and many improvements in such schools have had to be postponed as a result of cuts in the minor works programme.
    Mrs. Thatcher: But the capital works building programme is mainly a basic needs programme, and therefore must be related to the increased numbers or otherwise in the area. The older urban parts of large cities benefit very much from the primary school improvement programme, and this has been the case with the inner London Education Authority.
    Mr. Latham: In view of her reply to an earlier question and her declared belief in local democracy, will the right hon. Lady consider giving local education authorities discretion to spend money on what they may regard as more important local educational projects, and, indeed, to divert to such projects money which would otherwise be spent on the proposed Fanfare for Europe?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think that that would get anybody very far. There are pilot schemes in five local education authorities involving block capital allocations for everything except the primary school improvements programme. That number will be increased to 24, and we shall see how a system of block capital
    1512
    allocation works before we go any further with it.

    INFLATION
    Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet representatives of the Trades Union Congress to discuss the economy.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Prime Minister what further discussions he has arranged with the Trades Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry on the second part of his policy for containing inflation.
    Dr. Vaughanasked the Prime Minister when he hopes to renew talks with the representatives of the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry.
    Mr. Ewingasked the Prime Minister what further discussions he has had with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry regarding the economic situation.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): As I told the House on 21st November, I am ready to meet the TUC and the CBI either together or separately at any time.
    Mr. Lamont: Following yesterday's lobby of the House of Commons, is not the most valuable social service that could be provided to elderly people a slowing down of the rate of inflation? If the trade unions want to do something for elderly people, can they not use their influence against inflationary wage settlements and, in particular, against a thoroughly petulant and unnecessary strike action by ASLEF?
    The Prime Minister: In the tripartite discussions the TUC said that it fully agreed that one of the main purposes of dealing with inflation was to help the old-age pensioners and those living on small fixed incomes. We, for our part, said that if we were able to get a voluntary arrangement which dealt with inflation we would, when reviewing pensions in the spring for the uprating next autumn, take this fully into account so that pensioners could share in the increased prosperity which came from it. As a further sign of our good intentions

    1513
    we also said that we would make the lump sum payment for which the House is now making provision.
    Mr. Huckfield: Is the Prime Minister aware that nobody will take him seriously on the subject of inflation while he continues to try to buy off pensioners by £10 donations on polling day, and continues with his hoax of telephone numbers for price increases? Will he not realise that nobody will take him and his sincerity seriously until he introduces a policy of statutory control of all prices and makes the single pension £10 a week immediately?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think the pensioners take the same view of the £10 bonus as the hon. Gentleman takes. This is certainly reflected in their letters to me and, I believe, in what they have said to hon. Members. Any permanent arrangements will depend on the review in the spring, and on the uprating.
    Dr. Vaughan: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the numbers out of work fell by 72,000 between September and October this year, and that the present Government have now put the unemployment figures on to a proper and realistic basis?
    The Prime Minister: The unemployment figures which are published today are set out in a new formula, and I am sure that those who want to make a judgment of these matters will agree that it shows an improvement and is much clearer. The figures show a decrease of 22,510 between October and November, and I am sure that that will be welcome news to hon. Members in all parts of the House. It is the biggest fall for 20 years for Great Britain between October and November, and the biggest fall for the United Kingdom between those two months since the series began.
    Mr. Ewing: Will the Prime Minister explain how he expects the Trades Union Congress to have confidence in him or in any of his Ministers when it sees a Bill passed through this House with complete disregard for the lower-paid, such as farm workers and others? How can the TUC have confidence in the Prime Minister? When the Prime Minister meets the TUC will he continue to honour his promise, given in the White Paper of July, 1971, to protect the pensioner and the low-paid
    1514
    worker from the effects of entry into the Common Market?
    The Prime Minister: That is the whole purpose of the tripartite talks. The agreement reached at the beginning was to help the low-paid worker, and the proposals that we put forward clearly do that. I quite understood if some higher-paid workers said that it was not acceptable to them. But that was its purpose, and it was widely welcomed throughout the country.
    Mr. Wilkinson: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the unemployment figures in Northern Ireland have gone down by about 6,000 in 12 months? Is not this a remarkable tribute to the resilience of the Northern Irish people and the co-operation of the Northern Ireland trade union movement at this especially difficult time?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend—and there has been a further decrease between October and November. This is very welcome and it indicates— as I saw on my visit last week—that many factories in Northern Ireland are working full out and extraordinarily well.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of what happened in the City yesterday and the intervention of the Bank of England in relation to interest rates, which must sooner or later affect mortgage rates, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the Government's policy, during this freeze, to increase interest rates or to keep them stable?
    The Prime Minister: The policy of this Government is the same as that of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government in similar circumstances. Interest rates must be used as a means of managing the economy and the money supply.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question? Does he know the answer? If so, will he tell us? Is it the Government's policy to increase interest rates during the freeze or to stabilise them?
    The Prime Minister: It is the policy of the Government to use interest rates for the control of the economy. The right hon. Gentleman did not stabilise interest rates during his period and he gave no undertaking to do so, either.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that during the statutory freeze there was no increase in interest rates? I simply want to ask the right hon. Gentleman—since he has imposed a freeze and since it will affect mortgage rates and, therefore, millions of families in the country—whether it is the Government's policy, accepting what the right hon. Gentleman says about the money supply, to stabilise interest rates or to increase them during the freeze? Will he answer that question now?
    The Prime Minister: I give the right hon. Gentleman the same plain answer, which is that if it is necessary to change interest rates to control the money supply, the Government, through the banking system, will do it.

    POPULATION
    .Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Minister with special responsibility for Government policy on population.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. It would be premature to reach decisions on this before we have considered the recommendations of the Population Panel, which are due by the end of the year.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are people who take the view that the population is too high, and others—like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—who take the view that it is uncomfortably high? Is not it vital for the Government to discontinue the practice of the last Government of being hazy on an issue which is all-important for the future of the country?
    The Prime Minister: I was responsible for setting up the Population Panel. I think that it would be right to await the results of its activities before taking further action.
    Mrs. Renée Short: If the Prime Minister is not yet willing to appoint a Minister to be responsible for this matter— which the whole House wants, and which has been recommended by a Select Committee of this House—will he urgently consider the possibility of removing charges for family planning, so that it may be provided under the National Health Service? Vasectomies are now available
    1516
    on the National Health Service, and it seems to be appalling sex discrimination to make women pay for their family planning advice and supplies.
    The Prime Minister: I recognise that a Select Committee of this House has twice recommended that there should be a Minister for population policy. However, I do not believe that a single Minister could cope with this problem. Therefore I do not propose to appoint one.
    The second part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question is largely a matter for local authorities. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services expects to make a statement before long on the future development of family planning services under the National Health Service.
    Sir Gilbert Longden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is to be hoped that he will not be influenced by people who foolishly describe as "doomwatchers" those who predict a population explosion if nothing is done soon?
    The Prime Minister: They have been in existence for more than a century—in fact, since the time of Malthus. I do not think that we should pay them any more attention now than was paid to them then.
    Mr. David Steel: Returning to the question of a free birth control service, can the Prime Minister be a little more forthcoming about when we may expect a policy announcement on that?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot give a specific date, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services expects to make it soon.

    CONSUMER PROTECTION
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the activities of Government Ministers responsible for Government policy relating to the protection of consumers of all goods and services; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: There is already close and frequent liaison between Departments responsible for different aspects of consumer affairs. My right

    1517
    hon. and learned Friend will be considering in what ways this can be further strengthened.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Prime Minister tell us how he expects to be able to protect the consumers of all goods and services without a second-in-command? Does not he need someone to prop him up? Who will get the job of Deputy Prime Minister? Is it likely to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Has not the Prime Minister noticed that someone is creeping up on the blind side?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is even more irrelevant than usual.
    Mr. Evelyn King: As every statistical survey shows that food manufacturers and retailers have exceptionally narrow profit margins, will my right hon. Friend accept that whatever other arguments may exist it would be unfair to put the blame on them?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is referring to the standstill period or to normal times. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in close touch with the industry. He recently had a meeting with its representatives about their prices and their margins. When we were discussing these matters in the tripartite talks they undertook that cash margins would remain the same.
    Mr. Paget: Does the Prime Minister regard the Concorde as goods or services? Does not he find it an odd priority that in this situation we should be asked today for another £100 million for the Concorde?
    The Prime Minister: Whether it is goods or services depends on whether one buys it, runs it, or even buys a ticket on it. For the purposes of this House, it is a matter of the further development of the Concorde, which I think is of the utmost importance.

    DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will create a Department of the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to change the existing arrangements, Sir.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is not it the case that there is a Department of the Prime Minister in the Commonwealth of Australia, that that department has been conducting relations with this country, but that a change is threatened in that arrangement? Will my right hon. Friend get in touch with the Prime Minister of Australia to see that relations with him are conducted in the old spirit between our two countries, notwithstanding anything that may have happened yesterday?
    The Prime Minister: This matter is internal to the affairs of Australia. When the Australian Prime Minister visited this country and we had discussions together, he told me his policy, and said that he intended to change from the policy of his predecessors. The change is that the High Commissioner in London will be responsible to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Canberra, instead of being directly responsible to the Prime Minister. We both agreed that this would in no way alter the long-standing arrangement within the Commonwealth that a High Commissioner always has right of access to the Prime Minister in the member country of the Commonwealth to which he is accredited. That is the basis on which we are carrying on our arrangements with Australia. But it was a decision entirely of the Australian Prime Minister when he came to office.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker: Business question, Mr. Harold Wilson.
Hon. Members: Shame. Question No. 6.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no option in this matter: the time is half-past three.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Well, Sir, we sometimes go on with Questions a bit

1519
beyond that. May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not go on with a new Question beyond 3.30 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Land Compensation Bill and of the Housing (Amendment) Bill.
TUESDAY, 28TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Social Security Bill.
Motion on the Post-War Credit (Income Tax) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY, 29TH NOVEMBER—Supply (1st allotted day) when the House will be asked to agree the Civil Vote on Account and the Winter Supplementary Estimates.
Debate on Opposition Motions on Thalidomide children, until about seven o'clock, and thereafter on axle weights and size of lorries.
Motions on the Legal Aid Regulations.
THURSDAY, 30TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Sea Fish Industry Bill.
Motion on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order.
FRIDAY, 1ST DECEMBER—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 4TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill.
Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the thalidomide debate on Wednesday will not be a motion of censure on the Government but a call, which we hope they can accept, for action in this matter, which all parties in the House will find acceptable? Second, may I ask him about the foreign affairs debate? He will recall that this did not take place, as is customary, in the debate on the Address. We took the view that, in the absence of the Foreign Secretary, it should be deferred. It now seems to be being deferred much too
1520
long. It is a long time since the House debated these matters. When does he intend to provide the debate on foreign affairs in Government time which was promised to us?
Third, will he consider the question of statutory instruments? In the last Session, when there was gross overloading of the parliamentary timetable, many statutory instruments were never reached and were out of time before we had a chance of debating them. In the present situation, even in this new Session—and there is no excuse now—we are getting into this position again. Will the right hon. Gentleman have talks through the usual channels and, if necessary, on a wider basis in the House, possibly by a Select Committee if that is necessary, to make sure that the undoubted rights of the House over statutory instruments are accorded to the House as a whole?
Finally, with regard to the events of last night—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—will he inform the House of the Government's intentions in this matter? Will he tell us of any precedent in the lifetime of any of us of a defeat of the Government on a major confrontation on a Government three-line whip, caused by a revolt of their own Members, which has not led to the necessary conclusions being drawn by the Prime Minister? [An HON. MEMBER: "The Cheese Order in 1951."] The Cheese Order of 9th April, 1951 was a very small statutory order which was reversed the next day. It was not a major constitutional issue affecting the rights of millions of Commonwealth citizens. "Cheese off" that one. Could I ask—
Mrs. Renée Short: Tell him to resign. Harold.
Mr. Wilson: He would have done— he should not need me to tell him—if he had any sense of honour. But he will not.
What are the Government's intentions? The Press have been told by the Government this morning that they intend to introduce the same orders again. Will he say whether this is the case?
Mr. Prior: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said on the first subject down for debate on Wednesday, the thalidomide debate, in

1521
which, I gather, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) may take part. I think that the whole House noted what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I hope that we shall have a constructive debate.
I have had informal talks with one or two right hon. Gentlemen opposite about the foreign affairs matter. We obviously must have this debate in the near future —not next week nor, I think, the week after; but I should like to have discussions through the usual channels about whether it could be the week after that or left to the last week before Christmas. Of course, we shall try to meet the wishes of the House in that respect.
On statutory instruments, I recognise what the right hon. Gentleman said. We tried yesterday to give more time for discussion of statutory instruments. There is the Brooke Committee which has been looking at this matter. I hope to bring proposals before the House in the near future which will perhaps give another opportunity for further discussion of statutory instruments, which obviously is required by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
As for the last point, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, except that the rules which the House considered were based on policies which Parliament had already approved in enacting the Immigration Act, 1971 and the European Communities Act, 1972.
Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he answered my first three questions. On statutory instruments, would he take the point that I was not concerned principally with the report of the Brooke Committee: I am concerned that the House should have adequate time, within the normal rules for debating statutory instruments, whether on affirmative or negative resolution, when they are still relevant and "hot", and not, as is the case with some negative resolutions, out of time? I am sure that he will do his best with that.
On the last point, the Prime Minister's words last night, in a very heated situation in the House, have been variously interpreted. Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that the same orders will be placed before the House again?
Mr. Prior: What I am saying is what my right hon. Friend said, that the Government are reviewing the content of those rules in the light of the position and the views expressed in the debate, and will bring amended rules before the House in due course—[Interruption.] We cannot lay the same rules again, because we should be out of order in doing so. They must be amended rules: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.
Mr. Edward Taylor: In view of the hardship and disruption caused today by the railway strike, which appears to be pointless, destructive and endangering the jobs of men on the railways and in railway workshops, and in view of the serious financial position of the railways, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the future of the railways?
Mr. Prior: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate, but I must tell him that I agree very much with his sentiments—
Mr. Heffer: Why? What do you know about it?
Mr. Prior: I know that the public have been grievously inconvenienced by this, and I think it is a great shame.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange an early debate on food prices, so that the House can hold a post-mortem on his record as the Minister of Food?
Mr. Prior: I am not certain whether the right hon. Gentleman was here, but we had a debate on that subject during the debate on the Queen's Speech.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the Government, in addition to doing their best to reformulate the immigration rules in a more acceptable form, within the limit of the constraints imposed upon them, also give urgent consideration to a review of our whole law of citizenship, which is a dog's breakfast?
Mr. Prior: I have noted my right hon. and learned Friend's views. The Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary made comments on this last night, and I will pass on my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks to them.
Mr. Concannon: Is the Leader of the House aware that the non-presentation

1523
of a coal mines Bill will lead to a serious dilemma in the industry? As, in my understanding, such legislation must be completed in the House by the end of March, is he aware that any delay in presentation will create considerable difficulties for hon. Members who wish to participate in the debates?
Mr. Prior: I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in this subject. I can only repeat what I told him last week, and confirm the Government's intention not only to introduce a Bill, but to do so as early as possible.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his two immediate predecessors had hoped to debate and reach a decision on the new parliamentary building before the end of last Session? I appreciate the importance of the legislative programme next week, but could my right hon. Friend be a little more forthcoming in promising a debate before the Christmas Recess?
Mr. Prior: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but it will be extremely difficult to fit in a debate before Christmas, in view of the important topics for debate already before the House.
Mr. David Steel: Reverting to the events of last night, is the Leader of the House aware that the Opposition are very keen that there should be a General Election? Would the right hon. Gentleman do his best at least to assist a move in that direction by ensuring that the writ for Lincoln is moved?
Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is not a question for me.
Mr. Loveridge: Does my right hon. Friend recall the Third Report of the Select Committee on Procedure? Would he now undertake to appoint a Committee to consider the effect on the procedures of the House of business emanating from the European Commission or from the Council of Ministers— or have the wriggles of right hon. and hon. Members opposite led to further deferment?
Mr. Prior: While I think that it is too early to reach a decision on that
1524
issue, it is desirable that progress should be made. I hope, therefore, that the Opposition will shortly make known their intentions in this respect.
Dr. Summerskill: Can the Leader of the House say when he expects the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill to arrive in the House? How can he justify the proceedings on a major Bill, involving the total reorganisation of the health service, a service which spends over £2,000 million of public money and containing highly controversial proposals, being initiated in another place?
Mr. Prior: As the hon. Lady knows, there are two important Bills—the Social Security Bill and the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill—for the Department of Health and Social Security this Session. The Social Security Bill will receive its Second Reading next week and go straight into Committee. We thought that it would be for the convenience of the House that Ministers should be able to sit on that Committee in strength as well as being in attendance on the health service Bill when it was before the House. That being so, it would be wrong that two major Bills involving the same Department should run concurrently in the House. Nevertheless, I hope that the health service Bill will come before this House in ample time for full debate.
Mr. Biffen: Would my right hon. Friend concede the desirability of the Minister of Agriculture coming to the House next week and making a statement on the important decisions taken on the Government's behalf at a meeting of the Common Market Council of Ministers on Tuesday of this week. Since the Minister of Agriculture will not be top for Questions until 19th December, and the House would like to know more about those decisions, and, moreover, the National Farmers' Union felt compelled to issue a statement that the agreements concluded had caused it acute concern?
Mr. Prior: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion together with my right hon. Friend, who, I know, will be only too ready to give all information possible.
Mr. Benn: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he will not ask Parliament to debate the Concorde Bill until a White Paper

1525
has been published? The Bill today, which provides for £225 million for Concorde, ought not to be debated unless the Government are prepared to put all the papers before the House.
Mr. Prior: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I think that he knows perfectly well that we need to obtain the extra money, which has to be voted through the Bill, and I hope that there will not be a great delay. It is a project that has gone forward under more than one Government. It is a great national project to which we are committed.
Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: When does my right hon. Friend expect to make a statement about the Government's intentions regarding a Select Committee on Overseas Development, as called for by Early Day Motion No. 1?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to reconsider its view as set out in its Green Paper on Select Committees of the House of Commons published in October, 1970, and to recommend to the House that a Select Committee on Overseas Development be established, whose functions would include the review and appraisal of British performance in relation to the International Development Strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade.]
Mr. Prior: I must tell my hon. Friend that I have nothing to add to the statements I have made in the last two weeks. I am still considering the matter.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: In view of the large numbers of Scottish hon. Members who want to take part in the Scottish Local Government Bill debate on Monday week, would the Leader of the House consider giving us an extra hour for that debate? Would he also do his best to make sure that we do not have one, two, or even three statements by Ministers at the beginning of the debate, thus robbing us of half an hour or an hour at the outset?
Mr. Prior: I shall do everything I can to see that statements are avoided on the day on which that Bill is presented to the House. It is a large Bill of considerable importance to Scotland, and provided I have the agreement of hon. Members generally, I am prepared to consider an extra hour.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Would the Leader of the House consider the desirability of giving time to debate the need to ease the granting of IDCs to areas expanding under the new towns procedure, for example, Peterborough, where local management is good and energetic but could be frustrated because of the way in which IDCs are being held back by the Department?
Mr. Prior: I cannot promise a debate on that subject in the near future, but I will see that my hon. Friend's views are conveyed to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Heffer: Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the answer he gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) about a debate on the future of railways, especially in view of his statement in which he appeared to state that the rail-waymen were wrong, giving no consideration to their point of view?
At the same time, as the right hon. Gentleman has shown great interest in industrial relations matters, would he arrange for an early debate on safety in the building industry? There are 2,000 workers engaged in bridge building and five are killed in that work every year. Is not that a serious and important matter that the House should debate at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. Prior: It is an important matter and the House should find time to debate it. It would be difficult to arrange such a debate in Government time. It may be a subject that could be raised on a Private Member's motion.
It is the public who should be considered in the railway dispute, and I do not think that they are being considered by the railwaymen in the action that they have taken.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Bearing in mind that there will apparently be no adequate opportunity to discuss the winter Supplementary Estimates on Wednesday, would my right hon. Friend confirm that he will conform with precedent in having a two-day debate on public expenditure before Christmas?
Mr. Prior: We are committed to a two-day debate. I shall check to see

1527
whether it is due to take place before Christmas. I have a feeling that it has to come fairly soon. As my hon. Friend knows, we have to pave the way for a Consolidated Fund Bill, which requires Royal Assent by 7th December, and that Bill would have to come before the House the week after next week.
Mr. Dalyell: From his previous incarnation, the Leader of the House will know that his hon. Friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been saying at monthly intervals since February that widely needed legislation concerning pollution in the North Sea will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits. When is parliamentary time likely to permit the matter to be dealt with?
Mr. Prior: Not in the near future. However, it is important legislation and the whole House would wish it to go through. Perhaps we could consider a Second Reading Committee, in which case it might be possible.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In view of the talks now taking place in Helsinki, is it not time to debate defence in the context of Western Europe? May we have time for that before Christmas?
Mr. Prior: I have already promised the House today that we must have a foreign affairs debate in the period before
1528
Christmas. I cannot go further than that in promising a debate on Western European defence.
Mr. Ross: Monday's business includes the Land Compensation Bill, which affects the law of England, Wales and Scotland. It is not always easy to deal with them all together. This is a dog's breakfast. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is clause after clause of Scots application tagged on at the end, and then the draftsmen gave up? We have a schedule consisting of 12 clauses translated into Scottish legal form. Would he take the example of a former distinguished Leader of the House, extract the schedule, and send it to the Scottish Committee for its Committee stage?
Mr. Prior: I have a feeling that that would be an unlikely thing for me to do, but I shall consider it. Far from its being a dog's breakfast, it is a good Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to be pleased that we are introducing it.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am happy that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) succeeded in asking two business questions today. May those of us who did not get one question today be permitted to have two next week?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, but it is an observation that will be borne in mind.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NORTHERN IRELAND (BORDER POLL) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
  3.52 p.m.
  The Chairman: Before we commence our proceedings, I should inform the Committee that I felt it necessary to make certain alterations in my provisional selections, and a definitive copy of them may be found at the door. The first group of amendments remains unaltered, namely, Nos. 1, 29, 30, 31 and 33.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Sir Robert. In your provisional selection, you have not included my new Clause 1. As it is only a provisional selection and has, as you have already indicated, been subject to some adjustment, I wonder whether you would be prepared to take new Clause 1 into the provisional list or, alternatively, whether you have come to a decision on the manuscript amendments that I submitted to the Table.
  The Chairman: I am sorry, but perhaps the letter I wrote to the hon. Gentleman a few moments ago has not yet reached his hands. I am unable to do as he asks as I cannot bring it within the Long Title of the Bill. I am sorry to disappoint him.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. That applies to the new clause. I wonder whether the manuscript amendments could be taken?
  The Chairman: I am afraid I could not do that, because it would still be beyond the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sorry to pursue the point of order, Sir Robert, but, if a manuscript amendment is to adjust the Long Title of the Bill, I should be grateful if you would say how that puts it out of order.
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is under a slight misapprehension. An amendment to the Long Title cannot be brought in if it materially alters the scope of the Bill.

Clause 1

  HOLDING OF BORDER POLL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
  Mr, Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Black-ley): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, after ' whole ', insert:
  'and in each constituent county'.
  As you have said, Sir Robert, we are considering at the same time the following Amendments:
  No. 29, in page 1, line 6, leave out ' as a whole'.
  No. 30, in page 1, line 23, at end insert:
  ' (d) the votes cast in each polling district shall be counted separately and the results of such counts shall be declared separately for each polling district'.
  No. 31, in the Schedule, page 3, line 3, leave out ' Northern Ireland' and insert:
  'the place where you live '.
  No. 33, in page 3, line 8, leave out ' Northern Ireland ' and insert:
  'the place where you live'.
  Those amendments stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). I should like to say at the outset that those amendments are quite acceptable, and No. 30 adds a useful further dimension to that which I propose with regard to counting votes in individual counties.
  In moving my amendment, I want to make absolutely clear that my purpose is not the repartition of North-East Ireland but to show that a border poll is a misnomer, that this is a poll about status rather than the border, that it is an irrelevance, that it is divisive and that it shirks the real issues in both civil rights and economic progress and development in Northern Ireland.
  The history of the two individual counties and the refusal, if it so be, of the Government to accept the amendment, will serve to illustrate that a poll merely begs the question with regard to the problems facing Northern Ireland. A majority in a poll of this kind depends entirely upon how and where the border is drawn. I recognise that we cannot start 1920–1924 again. I have always

  1531
  accepted that, as my Amendment No. 17, which has not been selected, indicates—
  "The status of Northern Ireland shall not be changed without the freely negotiated consent of the people of Northern Ireland."
  Hiving off two countries from Ulster will not help the situation. Nevertheless, it serves to show that majorities exist according to where borders are drawn. The wishes of the people of at least two counties in Northern Ireland were ignored. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) argued cogently the other day, if the United Kingdom wishes, constitutionally, to alter the position of Northern Ireland, it can do so, irrespective of the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not want to see that happen. Nor is it what ought to happen. Nevertheless, I think that he is constitutionally right. It is a situation that could well arise if some hon. Members opposite, and some of their more extreme friends in Northern Ireland, persist in their obduracy, and persist in the manner in which they have conducted debates on Northern Ireland—certainly in the eight years I have been in the House—telling us that there was nothing to worry about and everything in the garden was beautiful.
  The basic fallacy of this poll is highlighted in the amendment. On Second Reading, I used one quotation from Lloyd George. On that occasion, the quotation was not given in full merely to save time, but it is worth giving it again, and in full, because it covers the point of Amendment No. 30:
  "There is no doubt, certainly since the Act of 1920, that the majority of the people of the two counties "
  —that is, Fermanagh and Tyrone—
  "prefer being with their Southern neighbours to being in the Northern Parliament. Take it either by constituency or by Poor Law Union, or, if you like, by counting heads, and you will find that the majority in these two counties prefer to be with their Southern neighbours— What does that mean? If Ulster is to remain a separate community, you can only by means of coercion keep them there, and although I am against the coercion of Ulster, I do not believe in Ulster coercing other units."
  That was the full quotation, which goes on to deal not only with the question of counties.
  Those who represent those areas surely have a right to know what their constituents
  1532
  feel on this issue, and that alone would be justification for declaring the results. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) would know what the position was in his constituency, and we should know the position county by county.
  4.0 p.m.
  Above all, it illustrates that North-East Ireland was founded on coercion, in order to cover the maximum area with the minimum nationalist population. I do not suggest that the two counties which were coerced into Ulster should now go back. That would merely pander to those who think that the border is the key issue and neglect the social and economic priorities of people of various denominations and political allegiances, but with the same economic interests, working together against those who have oppressed them both. I re-emphasise that issue. Nor do I believe that anyone wants to swallow up those two counties, or Ulster as a whole. It is for that reason that the poll is an entirely irrelevant procedure.
  In the words of Michael Collins in his "Path to Irish Freedom"—this was quoted on the previous occasion and I think it has since become the credo of virtually every responsible person in the Republic of Ireland, apart from perhaps a handful of violent extremists—I can only say:
  "The freedom we have secured may unquestionably be incomplete. But it is the nearest approach to an absolutely independent and unified Ireland which we can achieve amongst ourselves at the present moment."
  He went on to say,
  "Let us not waste our energies brooding over the more we might have got. Let us look upon what we have got,"
  and I entirely agree with those sentiments. That is the view of every party, as I and my hon. Friends who visited the Republic not long ago know.
  There is also the grave danger that the more we talk about the border issue, upon which the poll intends to concentrate the minds of everyone in Northern Ireland, the less we concentrate upon the real economic and social issues that face Northern Ireland and the less people in both communities realise that they have been mutually exploited to the advantage of others who have kept them divided.

  1533
  I know that that view is shared by about 98 per cent. of the people in the Republic of Ireland.
  The holding of the referendum is a gratuitous insult to all who accept that Northern Ireland is not going to be bombed or coerced into becoming an all-Ireland Republic, because it implies that that is the intention of the Republic or of those who oppose the Unionist Party. If that were to come about, it would result in an Ulster in reverse, and I do not believe that anybody in Northern Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland, or here, would want that.
  Contrary to what was said on Tuesday by one hon. Member whose knowledge of Irish history seems to be an example of the failure of our school system, where the only thing we learned about Ireland was something about Mrs. O'Shea, the reason for the Boundary Commission's declaration against the wishes of the people of Fermanagh and Tyrone was that Craig told the Northern Parliament in October, 1924, that if the Boundary Commission wrested territory from the six counties he would resign as Prime Minister and lead the defence of the threatened areas. Belatedly—and I am sorry that the hon. Member for one of the Bradford seats is not here—McNeill resigned from the Boundary Commission when there was an inspired leak which appeared in the Morning Post on 7th November, 1925. I do not understand the point that he made then.
  Apart from the poll being divisive, the whole issue is begged by resorting to a poll of this kind. There is a very good reason for shelving the poll. The declaration of each county would at least have the advantage of giving to one section of the community the same advantage as is being given to the other. We were told last Tuesday that the purpose of the poll was to allow the majority to give a resounding "Yes" to the union. If that is so, let us allow the same right to those who hold a majority in at least two counties to say what they think about the gerrymandering of their area during the past half century.
  We know the principle of making a nationalist majority as large as possible in one seat and the Unionists then having tiny majorities in two seats in relation to Stormont. The same procedure was
  1534
  adopted for Derry and allowed for minority rule in Fermanagh as well as in Derry. A nationalist vote of 2,000 more than the Unionists resulted in that 2 to 1 win. When proportional representation was abolished in Fermanagh, in Enniskillen rural and Irvinestown urban district councils, a majority of Unionists was returned in spite of a majority of anti-Unionists voters.
  In 1967, when a well-known Liberal was Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and in the ascendancy, the elections then produced 35 pro-Unionists and 70 anti-Unionists on the council of Fermanagh, a council which has a slight majority of anti-Unionist voters. That is something I did not read in the autobiography of that noble gentleman. The resultant discrimination and bitterness helps to explain the mindless violence of desperate men who have no regard for human life or dignity and the way in which they have been able to make headway among ordinary, decent people. By accepting this amendment those people will have a chance to declare what the majority have a chance to declare—their disapproval of Unionism.
  The key amendment is Amendment No. 6, because what matters is a new deal on the basis of the White Paper and to take the border issue out of the battle. The Bill refers in its Title to the border. It does not refer to status. There is nothing in the Bill about a border or the alteration of a border or where it should be. I do not object to that. But the public in this country ought to know the sordid facts about Fermanagh and Tyrone because if Ulstermen in the four north-east counties do not understand, or do not want other people to understand, and they do not want to be coerced into the Republic, why did they insist on their right to coerce others?
  The promises that were made in the past to the Irish delegates that the nationalist areas would be restored to the jurisdiction of the nationalist Government were broken. We all know of the terrible things that happened after that and certainly no plebiscite was ever held in either of the two counties to which I refer. No fewer than 10 nationalist councils had to be gerrymandered out of existence before the Boundary Commission

  1535
  was able to place them firmly in Northern Ireland. The backstairs manoeuvring that went on at that time is so sordid as hardly to bear repetition. One promise was made to those delegates who went to the conference and another had already been made to Carson. William Cosgrave said at that time that had these pronouncements been made at the time there would not have been Irish signatories to the treaty.
  That is history, but it is highly relevant in this sense. Northern Ireland was created to give a built-in majority and, if that is so, what is the point of having a poll if one deliberately creates an entity to provide a majority? What is the point of having a poll in that entity, because one could create a different result merely by drawing a different boundary? The inevitable result is devisive because, on the other side of the fence, the Republicans will say, "Ah, but look at Northern Ireland in the context of all Ireland".
  Some are putting forward the idea of having a referendum on the same day. Others, like my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford say, "Let us have a referendum in the whole of the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland forms a small part". That is the sort of morass into which one gets as soon as one talks about a referendum.
  This amendment exposes the fallacy of having a poll. The reason that prevents me, and I think most of my hon. Friends, from going into the Lobbies against the principle is that we believe in a Government sticking to a commitment. The right hon. Gentleman made the wrong commitment, but, having made it, he has to stick to it. That is unfortunate. If he made the commitment and he has to stick to it, and if we are to have a poll, then at at least let us know that the representatives in Ulster at every level know what their constituents think, what the various areas think, and what the various counties think. Let us have a poll on the real issues, which I believe will be dealt with when we debate the second group of amendments, which is the nub of the opposition felt on this side of the Committee to the manner and timing of the poll.
  I accept that history cannot be changed. Promises should not be reneged upon.
  1536
  But I believe that this was a great mistake. This amendment illustrates the fallacy of a poll to decide the status of an area where the area was carved out in order to give a permanent built-in majority to a minority within Ireland as a whole.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I have been provoked by the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) to reply to some of the points which he made. He mentioned gerrymandering. The last time I heard the word "gerrymandering" used was when I was in Cork, where there are many complaints about the gerrymandering alleged in the interests of Fianna Fail. I do not know anything about that, but this is one of the complaints heard in Ireland. When the hon. Member said that the Northern Ireland State was born in repression, it would be as true to say that the Northern Ireland State was born in self-determination.
  When the rule of an external power is removed from a dependency, it is often found that the unity which is imposed by that external power cannot be perpetuated. This happened in Ireland—
  Mr. Maurice Foley: And in Rhodesia.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: All right. It happened in the Indian sub-continent; it happened in Ireland. The Northern Ireland State was created not because that was wanted by a British Government; indeed, the British Government were not keen on that happening. This was the only way in which independence in a part of Ireland could come about. When that happens, when there is self-determination from self-determination, one does not always get the perfect boundary. There are many factors which determine where that the boundary will be placed. The hon. Member made reference to the Boundary Commission of 1925. The result of the abortive Boundary Commission was this. The Government in Dublin at that time recognised as the frontier of the United Kingdom the present boundary of Northern Ireland.
  I agree with the hon. Member that it is desirable that this border should be taken out of politics. It surely is the purpose of the poll to do this and to enable the

  1537
  people of Northern Ireland to decide whether they wish to remain within the frontiers of the United Kingdom.
  At the time of self-determination and the separation of North from South Ireland, many people did not wish to remain under the institutions of the South, but they accepted that they would have to do so. Similarly, those in the North should accept the institutions in the North. The amendment proposes that the poll should not be conducted for Northern Ireland as a whole, but should be conducted in bits and pieces. That is entirely unsatisfactory.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Why?
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Because once one starts that type of poll it could be broken down into almost any units, such as parishes, wards, or streets, and that would make a nonsense of the poll. The question to be decided is whether the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain within the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Michael English: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) for his kind words about my amendments. However, as he correctly pointed out, Amendment No. 30 goes further than his proposal.
  I do not wish to delve into the sordid history of how the Northern Ireland boundary came into being. However, as the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said, Northern Ireland came into existence as an entity after Ireland had fought itself to a standstill in what was the first example of urban guerrilla warfare in modern times. Northern Ireland is Protestant and I do not think that it will ever become part of a United Ireland without its consent. But the border of Northern Ireland was not written into the treaty. What was in that treaty was merely that a commission should be set up to determine the border, and, without going into the sordid dealings behind the scenes and the various constructions that different people put on those words in the treaty, it was plainly intended that the border should be determined by a mixed commission. According to my interpretation that
  1538
  means that the border should have been determined according to the feelings of people living on each side of it, but that was not done because of a deal which gave the British Government certain concessions. What was done was simply that six counties became Northern Ireland.
  In Ulster terms—and this is where I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley—county boundaries have not the sanctity of tradition that they have in this country. If my history is correct, the county boundaries of Northern Ireland were convenient units for James l's planters in the early seventeeth century and did not exist previously. They are not as ancient as their equivalents in this country.
  It is important to determine—
  Captain L. P. S. Orr: There is another important stage to add to the history of Ireland. After the abortive commission the border was settled and agreed and ratified by the Parliaments in Dublin, Belfast and London, and the result was lodged with the League of Nations.
  Mr. English: It was not the commission that was abortive: it was the subsequent decision of the Irish and United King-don Governments that the treaty should not be carried out. We should be quite honest about that.
  Captain Orr: It was subsequently decided by their parliaments.
  Mr. English: The provision of the treaty was that the border should be determined by a commission. The commission met and it was subsequently decided—as the hon and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) correctly said—by the Governments of the countries concerned that it should not be implemented, and their legislatures agreed. I am contending that that subsequent decision was not as good as the original negotiation in the original treaty.
  I am well aware—and I intend no pun—that this might be described as an English solution to an Irish problem. Neither Catholic nor Protestant likes this solution. Neither Catholic nor Protestant wishes to take the border itself into consideration. Since both sides are to a certain extent intransigent, I would suggest that it is

  1539
  possible that in this context, both sides may be wrong.
  I am aware that those who wish the whole of Northern Ireland to be included in a United Ireland feel that simply by moving the border somewhat northward one would postpone for yet another generation the possibility of what is left of Northern Ireland ever becoming part of a United Ireland. That, as I understand it, is the Catholic point of view. Alternatively, the Protestants of Northern Ireland for various reasons have always desired that Northern Ireland should be as large as possible, provided that it contained a Protestant majority. Their view is equally understandable, and may be compared to the Biafrans' wish to be independent of Nigeria, but nevertheless to control the Rivers peoples who were not Ibo.
  However, there is another factor, which might well be considered by somebody a little more objective on this side of the water than anyone in Northern Ireland can possibly be, namely, that while a large number of people in Northern Ireland would like to be part of the Republic an even greater number do not wish to be part of the Republic. There is no clear line of demarcation between them. There will be enclaves from either side, whatever border is drawn.
  One possible solution to be considered—although it is disliked by both Protestant and Catholics—which might be a stage forward to a United Ireland, or a means of achieving a more peaceable Northern Ireland connected with the United Kingdom, is that some of the Catholic population of North Ireland should be enabled, if they so desired, to live in the Republic.
  That is the object of my amendment. However, the Secretary of State may feel that he cannot at present guarantee to hold the poll in this way. I would add that whether or not my amendments are agreed, nothing in the Bill precludes the adoption of the point which underlies them. Under the terms of the Bill, details of the poll are left to the Secretary of State, who can order the results to be counted in whatever way he chooses. Even without committing himself today, the right hon. Gentleman may take time, between the passing of the Bill and the referendum, to reflect upon the point.
  1540
  I would make one further suggestion to the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman, for various understandable political reasons, may feel unable to order the results to be published in this way, either at the time of the referendum or at any other time. Nevertheless, I would strongly suggest that he should order the results to be counted in this way.
  My reason is that if it is ordered that they should only be counted for Northern Ireland as a whole then that is the only result obtainable that can ever be published. If they are ordered to be counted separately, by polling districts as the American custom is, the options are then kept open. I suggest to the Secretary of State that he might do that.
  The total figure would be on record, which would clearly have to be published in the light of commitments given, but also on record there would be a detailed breakdown of the figure which, in the circumstances of the infinite possibilities of what may happen in Northern Ireland, it might be desirable to use.
  I therefore suggest to the Secretary of State that, even if he feels that he cannot accept the amendments or cannot commit himself today, he seriously considers having the votes counted in this way so that they could be used if the need arose. Otherwise, an opportunity would be lost—and too many opportunities have been lost in Irish history. There have been lost opportunities by the score, through the centuries, with the results that we all know. It is difficult enough in this country to get referendum on anything, as we also know, and once this referendum has been held the opportunity will have passed. Therefore, whatever the Secretary of State does, I urge him not to lose yet another opportunity in Irish history.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I have avoided interrupting either of the last two speakers who lectured us on Irish history—to my amusement—but I should not like it to go on the record that all the remarks from the Opposition side of the House are accepted by my hon. Friends and by me.
  I say to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that when he says that these matters have been debated in this House and that we on this side have painted a rosy picture of conditions

  1541
  in Northern Ireland, he must have been very deaf over the last 13 years. Certainly, since I came to the House in 1959, and in debates on Northern Ireland which I attended before then, I have frequently heard hon. Members—and the hon. Member has heard me—complaining bitterly about the unemployment situation and about the unhappy state of affairs in Northern Ireland as a whole. We have asked for many reforms over the past 13 years. We have never painted a rosy picture of conditions in Ulster. If the hon. Member would read HANSARD, I doubt that he would find any speech I have made in which I have painted a rosy picture—
  Mr. Rose: Will the hon. Gentleman recall the occasion when he painted such a rosy picture that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), I think it was, had to ask him whether he was the Member for Harland and Wolff?
  Mr. English: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member's speech, but it is a source of some amusement to me that he attributed to me the words of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. McMaster: I shall not reply in detail to those comments, as I do not wish to spin out the debate, but the hon. Member for Nottingham, West must know that in any reference to Harland and Wolff or any other firm—
  Mr. English: I am the hon. Member for Nottingham, West.
  Mr. McMaster: —I am sorry. I meant the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose)—I have usually cited the need for further assistance for our Ulster shipyards.
  I want to deal briefly with the essence of the amendments. I welcome them and I welcome the fact that they are being debated. That shows at least that the Opposition are now taking a rather different line from that which they did on Second Reading. Apparently, they are in favour of the border poll. They would like to see the details published of the way the people in Northern Ireland feel about the political and constitutional position of Northern Ireland. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackley and his hon. Friends will receive a great
  1542
  surprise when the results of the poll are announced.
  I should prefer—I hope that I shall get the constituencies right this time—the solution suggested by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West to that of the hon. Member for Blackley. The latter hon. Member suggested that the county boundaries would not be appropriate for use in the breakdown of the poll results. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might consider whether it might not be better to publish the results ward by ward. That would have considerable advantages. The Minister said during the Second Reading debate that the referendum was to be taken before the local authority elections and it would perhaps be of advantage if we could see, ward by ward, how the people of Northern Ireland felt about this issue. It might help to remove this issue partly from the local authority elections. To this extent, I feel that the referendum would do some good. I am glad that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West agrees with me.
  My hon. Friends might consider this suggestion. I think they would find, if results were published ward by ward, that, although there may be some wards in Northern Ireland with a Republican majority, they are so scattered it would be impossible to accept the geographical solution suggested by the other side—that is, to cut part of Northern Ireland off and transfer it to the South. It would be clearly shown by the results that there is an overwhelming majority for retaining the present constitutional position of Northern Ireland and that those small pockets that exist not only in Fermanagh and Tyrone—in favour of a Republican solution and against the present constitutional position—are so scattered, and the province so divided that it would be impossible to adopt any surgical solution to the problem which faces Ulster. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friends to consider the amendment carefully, because I think there is some substance in it.
  [Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]
  4.30 p.m.
  Miss Bernadette Devlin: I support the spirit of what has been said by some of my hon. Friends, but I think that the placing of the amendments

  1543
  shows, to some extent, not only the futility of the poll but its consequences. While I should like to see, either as a matter of interest or, as has been suggested by some hon. Members, as possible future policy of some helpfulness to the Government—of a breakdown in polling areas—we have to consider what would happen.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) talked about issuing the results ward by ward. I was happy to see one of his hon. Friends almost faint in his seat at the suggestion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like the results to be issued voter by voter, then we could see where the enemies of the State were. Perhaps we can pick out the wards of the disloyal elements and perhaps some surgery would be carried out by the Ulster Defence Association—not the kind of surgery suggested by hon. Members on this side of the Committee but a much swifter and more bloody surgery to sort out those who voted against unification with the United Kingdom.
  That illustrates the problems of attempting to hold a poll. If a poll were to be held in this country on the Common Market there could perhaps be no objection to either a county-by-county count, or an electoral-division-by-electoral-division count, and one might see where the strength of feeling lay.
  That could not in terms of security be done in Northern Ireland. It would be to the detriment of the lives of the minority, be they the minority in Republican areas voting for the United Kingdom or the minority voting for unification with the Republic of Ireland. Their safety could not be guaranteed if, in the Newsletter and the Irish News and printed on every town hall, were the results of the electoral divisions and wards. Suppose that in my constituency the results in the electoral division of Guladuff were openly displayed and they showed that to a man the people voted against the retention of the link. They are completely surrounded by electoral divisions in which people would make them pay for the impertinence of such a decision. The same is likely to happen in areas west of the Bann where a small loyalist population finds itself equally surrounded.
  Mr. McMaster: The hon. Lady is an expert on this, and I do not want to pursue the matter too far, but has she studied the casualties—650 dead, and more than 7,000 injured? She must realise that a preponderance of them were loyalist people who were either blown up or assassinated by the Republicans.
  Miss Devlin: I am not sure what relevance that has to the point that I was making, except that the figures could be added to. Perhaps he thinks that it ought to be balanced by the death of 600 Catholics. That is the only point that I can possibly see him trying to make.
  The other point that he has made, and which I should like to argue against, is that the areas are so divided that it would not be possible to draw any useful conclusion from a county-by-county division or collection of votes. This is not true. One has only to look at the representation in this House from the North of Ireland.
  Mr. English: I understand the hon. Lady's argument that if the district is too small it might be apparent that certain people have voted for the district the wrong way, and they might be in danger. But is that her only objection? Would she be in favour of some division of this large total for all six counties?
  Miss Devlin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because that is the point to which I was coming. The reason why the division cannot be broken down into small areas like this, and why the way in which people have voted small area by small area cannot be published, is apparent when one looks at the representation in this House. It is a fallacy to suppose that the anti-Unionist population is scattered diffuse in the North of Ireland.
  The River Bann divides the East from the West in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) and I represent, with the exception of the area around the city of Derry, the area west of the River Bann. Hon. Gentlemen may say, "Break it down to an even smaller area. Base it on the Stormont constituencies." If that were done, control of the area west of the River Bann would rest on a knife-edge. But on a county by county basis, there is no doubt that,

  1545
  taking Fermanagh and South and East Tyrone—that is around the border areas—into South Down and round to Newry, by no other division other than by the success of the activities of the Provisional IRA, the feeling in those areas is against the link with Britain.
  Therefore, there is a case for saying that if a blanket vote is not taken there will be a clear breakdown. The majority of the people west of the River Bann, on a simple head count, do not want to belong to the United Kingdom. I am not suggesting that they be taken out of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: This is an important point to which I have put my mind. If the people west of the Bann were to vote to opt out of the Six Counties, does the hon. Lady think that that would solve the problems in Northern Ireland? Would it not possibly make the situation much worse?
  Miss Devlin: That is the point I was making. I am not saying—and this again points out the complete futility of this poll—that if the people west of the Bann decided, even on a 50·1 per cent. of the vote, to vote against remaining in the United Kingdom or, as is more likely, that the majority of the people west of the Bann stayed away from the poll, the solution of the problem would then be to hive them off to the mercies of Jack Lynch. I live west of the river and sometimes one is inclined to feel that the blackguard one knows is better than the blackguard one is being threatened with from the other side of the border. Sean MacStiofain certainly does not want to make a decision about which is worse—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the special courts of Mr. Jack Lynch.
  The Bill has no relevance. The Government are taking a poll to decide what the majority want. They know in advance what the majority want and yet they are clearly seeking to do nothing but find the majority. They are therefore doing something for no reason other than, as I have said, that the Prime Minister can keep one miserable promise. Nothing will be gained from it.
  Coming to the other side, to the east of the River Bann, we shall find that the vast majority of the people want to be in the United Kingdom. We shall
  1546
  find areas like that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West. It would be impossible in practice to allow people to follow their vote into the country of their choice. It would be ridiculous to take the people of West Belfast and make them citizens of the Republic of Ireland, sitting up there on their own.
  The stupidity of this poll is shown by the fact that the only possible outcome is the irrelevant outcome of proving what is already known, at a cost which the Secretary of State has yet to see paid, and I warn him again in advance what that cost will be, in terms of legislation, in terms of the amount of money to be spent, the amount of fear and intimidation, and the amount of bloodshed which may be caused by it. I cannot see why we must go through this farce, balancing on a knife-edge and not daring to break down the overall count of votes. The Government not only do not want but dare not discover any more than we already know. This is the price to be paid just so that the Prime Minister may say that he kept his promise. I speak on this amendment to show the stupidity not only of the poll but of the people who thought of it and the "twit" who promised it.
  Mr. Foley: I want to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and particularly to say that the amendment is important. It may not be the most important on the Order Paper, but it is the means of discovering the mind of the Government more than we did on Second Reading.
  It is important to say clearly that the motivation behind the amendment is not to argue that by dismembering Northern Ireland as it exists, we solve the problem. It is not to argue that if we take away the two counties—Fermanagh and Tyrone—and the areas of Derry and Newry, the problems of Northern Ireland will fade into insignificance. Anyone who argues that has misread history and has misread the past few years, too.
  Rather, the opposite is the case: if the Government are determined to go ahead with the poll, at least they should do so in the kind of way that will discover something of value both to the Government and to hon. Members. It is suggested that one should discover something of value, not merely the global

  1547
  figures in the north. In essence, that is what the argument is about. The Government have drafted their question to discover, "Are you Unionists, or Republicans?"
  4.45 p.m.
  Having embarked upon that exercise, at least they should see it through and try to define the volume of the majority and the geographic locations by consent or dissent. It would be helpful to hon. Members, who will probably long continue to discuss the affairs of Northern Ireland, to be made more aware of realities there. It might also be helpful to the Government, in terms of the deployment of British troops, to discover who needs to be protected, and from whom.
  If the Government are determined to embark on this exercise, they should at least try to identify, county by county, the volume of support for Republicans and Unionists. In that way, they would do something, as a by-product of their exercise, that would be helpful to hon. Members. It might also be helpful to the Army, which is carrying out an almost impossible task in Northern Ireland. It might then know at least whom it had to defend.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: My attitude to this legislation is well known. The Bill having been given a Second Reading, and the principle of the border poll having been accepted, it is the duty of those who know Northern Ireland—not particularly the Northern Ireland representatives in the House—and who know of the terrible tragedy that has beset the area for the last few years, to try to improve the Bill.
  There are a few questions which I should like to ask the Secretary of State. When it was first announced that there was to be a plebiscite in Northern Ireland its purpose was said to be to give an opportunity to the people of Northern Ireland to decide whether they wished to remain part of the United Kingdom. The interpretation being put on that is that we are giving the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland the opportunity for an overwhelming victory over their opponents. That is how it is regarded in Northern Ireland.
  1548
  The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said that unity that was imposed could not be perpetuated. He was speaking, I understand, in relation to the island of Ireland. The same conditions apply within the boundaries of Northern Ireland as applied within the boundaries of the island of Ireland. There is now an imposed unity in Northern Ireland. It is imposed by 21,000 British troops, who are in danger of their lives every day, and they impose it in favour of one political party in Northern Ireland. I agree that it cannot be perpetuated.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that British troops are perpetuating the rule of a party in Northern Ireland? Are not the British troops engaged in attempting to defeat an urban guerrilla movement?
  Mr. Fitt: The British troops, when first brought into Northern Ireland by the Labour Government, were brought in to keep the two communities from tearing themselves apart. What has happened since, particularly in my area of West Belfast and other areas, such as Mid-Ulster and Tyrone, has been that many people living in those constituencies have come to regard the security forces as acting on behalf of the powers-that-be. It is seen in this way by the people.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Would the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether he is in favour of British troops remaining in Northern Ireland in an attempt to preserve peace under the impartial direction of Her Majesty's Ministers? Or is he of the opinion that it would be better in the interests of Northern Ireland that they should be withdrawn?
  Mr. Fitt: I have no hesitation in answering that question. I would say that the security forces, the British Army, should be kept in Northern Ireland, particularly in the city of Belfast, and that those troops should be seen to be acting in an impartial way. In the past few days, we had 65 priests signing a letter calling into serious question the activities of some regiments and troops in Northern Ireland.
  What I was illustrating was that the solution imposed on the island was

  1549
  imposed by the sheer weight of British military might and presence in Northern Ireland. It is now accepted by a minority of the people in that area that the British Army is there trying to bring about an imposed solution. I accept, along with most hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, that there is a great affection for the concept of democracy as we know it within the boundaries of the United Kingdom.
  But what is now proposed is that a plebiscite is to decide something which was determined 50 years ago, when the boundaries were drawn. It may be, and I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster, that the people in Tyrone and Fermanagh are not avowedly Republican. It could be that they just detested the Unionist Tory Government in Northern Ireland and that is why they consistently voted against them. It could be that because of that Unionist Tory Government in Northern Ireland they had to gerrymander the areas to make certain that they would be returned and their political opponents defeated.
  If we are asking for a true reflection of how the people in the various districts in Northern Ireland think, the people living in Tyrone and Fermanagh, two border counties, have an ideological and emotional allegiance to the eventual reunification of the island of Ireland. In the circumstances in which this poll is being conducted, they know the result, I know the result, and everybody else in the United Kingdom should know the result. So, knowing the result, they could say, "All right, we will vote against, because we know we are going to be beaten anyway; we will vote for inclusion in a united Ireland, because we know we have nothing to lose, for the majority in Belfast will vote the other way round." One will not have a true result.
  If the people in those counties were given the option in a plebiscite to vote for inclusion in a united Ireland the result of which would be taken into consideration by the British Government and if they were told their wishes at some time in the future would be met, most people now labelled Republicans in Tyrone and Fermanagh would think that their vote was going to mean something, not be just a minority vote. They would say,
  1550
  "It may mean that sooner or later I shall have to go into a united Ireland and I now have to decide whether I want to do so". There would be a much truer result, there would be an enormous vote cast.
  But on the contrary, the people in those two counties can say, "We are going to be beaten. There are 1 million people east of the Bann, and those people will determine the result of the election. So, just for the record, I shall vote the other way".
  This plebiscite will not be a true reflection of the views of the people in Northern Ireland. Purely for the sake of democracy, if there are two counties adjacent to the Republic of Ireland which say that they want inclusion in the Republic, their wishes should be given some consideration. On the one hand, we are saying to the people in the other four counties, "You have voted to maintain the link and we shall support your decision by whatever means are necessary"; but to the other people would say, "You have voted the other way round and whether you like it or not, you are going to remain part and parcel of the United Kingdom and of the Unionist State of Northern Ireland". That is bound to cause serious disaffection throughout Northern Ireland, particularly in the border areas, and I cannot see that this poll will achieve anything.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster was correct when she said that in Belfast or other areas east of the Bann a different set of circumstances prevailed and that it would be unthinkable if one part of the city of Belfast were included in the Republic, even though it had an overwhelming vote for inclusion. But that would not apply in the other areas. We are dealing only with Tyrone and Fermanagh. There are other counties in Ireland, such as Derry, South Armagh and Newry all of which were brought into the Six County State much against our will by the sheer force of the British military presence at that time.
  I am sure the overwhelming mass of the British people would be against this form of diktat. They must be sick to death of hearing every morning that another young British soldier has lost his life in Northern Ireland, as I am sick to death of hearing every morning on the

  1551
  radio that another Catholic has been assassinated in Northern Ireland.
  The first shot in the Secretary of State's armoury would be to say, "Now we have the results of the plebiscite I shall be able to go ahead and impose a solution on Northern Ireland." No more solutions can be imposed in that way on either Northern or Southern Ireland. That has been tried for the past 50 years and one can see the total tragedy that has accumulated as a result.
  I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), but in doing so I am not advocating that if there were an overwhelming majority in favour of Northern Ireland being included in the Republic of Ireland that it should be granted immediately. To do that would only lead to further death and destruction. But I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that the votes should be counted so that the British Government in the future can consider them.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: The more one listens to the clash between the parliamentary representatives of Northern Ireland, the more one reads letters that are now received in ever-increasing numbers to Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland and the hard brutal opinions that are often voiced in those letters, the more one reads literature that emanates from Northern Ireland, the more one boggles at the statement by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) that the purpose of the Bill is to take the border out of Northern Ireland politics. Nothing could be more devoid of reality than that belief. In my judgment there is nothing that the Government can do in Northern Ireland which would take the border out of politics. The only way the problem of Ireland can be solved will be by the actions of the people of Ireland as a whole.
  The amendments give us a chance between two courses by which the poll can be conducted. It is important that we carefully consider these two courses. Clearly for the time being at least, the British people will not have an opportunity to decide or make known their wishes on the future composition of the
  1552
  boundaries of the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore when we decide on the boundaries of our country we shall need to utilise whatever evidence the poll reveals in making our judgment.
  Therefore, when I look at Amendment No. 30, which calls for the votes cast in each polling district to be counted separately and the results of those counts to be declared separately for each polling district, I take the view which has been expressed by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), that that would be an invitation to extremists on both sides to exact retribution at some time in the future if they could analyse to that degree the opinions expressed in the poll. Therefore, I believe that the amendment would not help the situation.
  Mr. English: I thought that I made it plain when I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) that I accept that polling districts vary greatly in size. I accept that there would be small districts, particularly in country districts, where it would be inappropriate. The amendment is phrased to allow the general principle to be discussed. I accept that where areas are too small or so small as to make it dangerous to declare the results, we should unite them with other areas in the declaration.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Even with that provision, I should be very much against supporting Amendment No. 30. We would be pinpointing by our selection of areas the polling districts which are the most sensitive and where the personal danger to individual lives is the greatest.
  When the British people eventually get the opportunity to decide the future, it will be better for them to do so on the basis of Amendment No. 1, which calls for the poll to be conducted and to be declared for each constituent county. I believe that is the correct way for the poll to be conducted and I urge the Secretary of State to conduct it in that manner.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster has made it obvious that she will advise as many of her supporters and as many people as she can influence not to participate in the poll. Therefore, it is essential that we should be able to take into account, in our judgment of the

  1553
  views of the people of Northern Ireland the activities of the hon. Lady and her friends. The only way we can do so is to have the poll conducted in the constituent counties so that when the result is declared we can take into account the strength of the hon. Lady and her supporters in those areas. We would know that the hon. Lady's support would be expressed by abstention, which could be taken as emanating largely from that source. Otherwise, what is the purpoes of the poll if it is not to do what the hon. Lady has alleged, merely to confirm the known fact that there is a built-in overall majority in Northern Ireland for the continued union with the United Kingdom?
  As I have said before it is not that majority with which the United Kingdom must be concerned primarily. The Government must be concerned with the views of the United Kingdom as a whole. We already know about the majority which exists in Northern Ireland. I reluctantly support my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), because I think the poll is far too restricted in being applied only to Northern Ireland. But I am offered only these two choices for an unsatisfactory poll.
  During the speech of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) a point arose in support of the British troops in Northern Ireland. I have letters and literature from Northern Ireland which reinforces the point of view which my hon. Friend expressed. However, he clarified himself very clearly and courageously, if I may say so. But many of his supporters, and many of the supporters of hon. Members opposite from Northern Ireland, are continually and increasingly making allegations and criticising the presence and the action of United Kingdom forces in Northern Ireland. If it is becoming clear that the majority and the minority are hostile to the presence of our forces, let us get the hell out of it. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House and my correspondents in Northern Ireland will start to make it clear whether they want us to continue to provide a peace-keeping force. I think that we will be prepared to continue to provide that force so long as we consider it to be our duty and to be expedient.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): It has been a useful debate. I will try and go through the various amendments because we have gone fairly wide of the mark. We have had a little bit of history and a little bit of legal argument. Various views have rightly been expressed. We have had a little bit about Biafra and we have had something about "twits". A wide variety of subjects have been discussed.
  First, I repeat what my right hon. Friend said during Second Reading although many hon. Members may disagree with him. My right hon. Friend said:
  "Our aim in proposing plebiscites was to take the border out of the day-to-day political scene, and to reassure the people of Northern Ireland that there would be no change in the position of their Province as part of the United Kingdom without the consent of a majority of its inhabitants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1972; Vol. 846, c. 1089.]
  It is important that that should be stated at the outset.
  The effect of Amendment No. 1 would be to have the result of the poll declared county by county. It is implicit in the proposal that if the majority of the population in some counties declare themselves in favour of joining the Republic, the border should be redrawn accordingly.
  Mr. Rose: The Under-Secretary of State obviously did not hear my speech. The Committee will recall that I said on at least three occasions, and every one of my hon. Friends echoed me, that that is precisely what we are not asking for. I merely put that forward as an illustration of the futility of the poll.
  Mr. Mills: The hon. Gentleman has not let me finish my speech. I will mention exactly what he said. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. But it is not only in this House that people are listening to what we are saying. They are listening in Northern Ireland and many other places.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Throughout the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Mills: That is right. And that would be the cry of some people in Northern Ireland. Obviously there are hon. Members who do not take that view. Of all the solutions to the problem which have been suggested, a re-partition of the country is one of the

  1555
  least acceptable to all parties in Ireland. It would surely be a final admission of defeat, an end to all the hopes of all people of good will on both sides for a reconciliation of the true traditions in Ireland.
  Mr. Foley: I hope the hon. Gentleman will recall that I explained clearly and precisely that the motivation behind my case was not to suggest that there should be this kind of re-drawing of the boundaries. I do not think that has ever been suggested in the House. If the hon. Gentleman is inferring, therefore, that this is the motivation behind the amendment it is important that it should be made clear that it is not.
  Mr. Mills: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman still does not see what I am trying to get at. All I am saying is that this is what is thought outside the Committee and that it is my duty to point it out. I freely acknowledge that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley and other hon. Members do not believe in that theory, but it is what is believed outside the Committee in some quarters. Indeed, the hon. Member for Mid Ulster (Miss Devlin) mentioned it in her speech very clearly on Second Reading. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who is not here, answered her clearly by saying that the people would be voting as a province.
  Miss Devlin: I accept the point which the hon. Gentleman is making, that, while hon. Members on this side of the Committee may not have the idea of severing parts of Northern Ireland as a result of the poll, that is implicit in Amendment No. 1. But by the same token the whole referendum, working on the same implications, is ridiculous. It is not what is behind the putting forward of a referendum that counts, so that the Prime Minister may keep his promise or can say that it has been carried out, but the implications within Northern Ireland itself, which are clearly different. The point the hon. Gentleman is making against the amendment is the same point by which the referendum falls.
  Mr. Mills: That may be the hon. Lady's view. I am entitled to put forward what I feel some people may think about this and she is entitled to put forward
  1556
  what she feels. The Committee and the country must draw their own conclusion.
  This proposal could, as it were, go down an even more slippery slope. If one talks of redrawing boundaries, there is is no reason why that should be confined to county units. One could go on to the problem of pockets and the rest. I believe that the consequences are not acceptable and I therefore reject Amendment No. 1.
  I turn to Amendment No. 29. Again I make it clear that the purpose of the Bill is to ascertain the wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole—the key phrase—with regard to their remaining in the United Kingdom or joining the Republic. I do not believe that there could be any useful purpose in ascertaining the wishes of people in particular areas of Northern Ireland. It would be undesirable to do so in that the impression would be created once again that there was the possibility of some readjustment of the border. I believe that this could create a great deal of unnecessary alarm in the areas which might fear that they would be affected. That is the last thing we want to do. The wrong impression could be created.
  The effect of Amendment No. 30 would be to count and declare the vote for parts of each constituency—that is, for each polling district. Once again, one must repeat the stated purpose of the Bill. It is not the Government's intention to have anything other than a central declaration. The rules for the poll will be contained in regulations made by order under the Bill. One must realise that there would be political and security problems if the vote were known by areas.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman cannot simply wash away the argument as easily as he is doing. It was supported by every hon. Member who spoke in the debate and they included my two Irish colleagues who sit on this side of the Committee and a representative of Ulster sitting opposite, and also all my Labour colleagues. In the context of Irish politics, a suggestion which meets with that degree of approval cannot be washed away that easily.
  Mr. Mills: I am not trying to wash anything away but to state the Government's position, views and fears.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) talked about ward-by-ward. The hon. Lady again spoke of a "bloody surgery". Again, this is the kind of fear that we believe could be created if a vote were taken by areas.
  I turn to Amendment No. 31 and Amendment No. 35. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West would insert the words, under Amendment No. 31,
  "the place where you live".
  That is a vague description of any subdivision of Northern Ireland as a whole. If one accepted the principle, one would have to be far more definite. Again, it is against the stated purpose of the Bill which is to enable the people of Northern Ireland to make known their wishes. Both these amendments simply go over the same ground and arguments again.
  For these reasons, I am afraid that the Government cannot accept any of the amendments.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 9, after 'date', insert:
  'not being earlier than the 15th February. 1973'.
  The First Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this Amendment it would be convenient to consider the following Opposition amendments:
  No. 4, in page 1, line 9, after 'date', insert:
  'after the publication of a White Paper and a Bill of Rights'.
  No. 5, in page 1, line 9. after 'date', insert:
  'contemporaneous with local government elections'.
  No. 6, in page 1, line 13, at end insert:
  '(b) The Secretary of State shall not direct that the poll be held until a date not less than 28 days after the publication by him of a statement of intent relating to the matters specified in the second schedule to this Act'.
  No. 18, in Schedule, page 3, line 4, at end insert:
  'on the conditions set out in the White Paper including a Bill of Rights'.
  No. 26, new Schedule:

  'STATEMENT OF INTENT
  The statement of intent shall specify any proposals of the Secretary of State, in the event of Northern Ireland's remaining part of the United Kingdom, for ensuring to all the people of Northern Ireland by means of a Bill of Rights or otherwise:

  (1) Equality between all sections of the community in the exercise of political power.

  (2) Equal opportunity for social and economic advancement.

  (3) Those civil and political rights accorded by law elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  (4) Provisions facilitating co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland for the benefit of the people of Ireland as a whole'.

  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I shall speak in particular to Amendments Nos. 3, 6 and 26.
  Hon. Members will recall that the new Schedule embodied in Amendment No. 26 is the core of the reasoned amendment we moved on Second Reading. It is concerned with equality between all sections of the community, equality of opportunity, and civil and political rights and co-operation between the North and the South.
  The case which I have to put has been heard before. It was made in the debate on the discussion paper and again on Second Reading. I make no apology for it because, in the wide spectrum of political views on this matter of Government policy, we regard it as probably the most important part of our argument because it is concerned with the timing of the White Paper. There is to be a poll, conducted on the lines of an election to this Parliament, and for this Parliament, as indeed for the local elections, there is to be a register.
  This is to be published on 15th February, 1973. Can the Secretary of State tell us what will happen on that date? I was under the impression that, in this part of the United Kingdom, 15th February was the date on which the new registers are published. I think it was in 1951 that the Attlee Government published the new registers on 16th February and the General Election was held on 28th February. I was a little concerned when, during the Second Reading debate, the Minister talked about corrections having to be made to the register and said that the earliest date for an election would be 28th February. If that is the case it makes the situation in Northern

  1559
  Ireland different from that in this part of the United Kingdom.
  In our view it would be good sense and equitable to have the poll conducted on a register compiled as late as possible, in other words after 15th February. On this side of the water there are very few changes in the rural areas during a year except for deaths and those who have come on to the register. There are other parts, in London and our other great cities, where with the best will in the world it is extremely difficult to get everyone to the poll in an election because of removals.
  In parts of Belfast during the last year there have been forcible removals, when people have moved for their safety. Unless we have the latest possible register there will be an element of disenfranchisement involved. If it were six months ago, if we were at the time when the Prime Minister promised the poll, then our arguments for leaving it until after 15th February on the grounds of the timing of the register would not be very powerful. We may have sought then to give other reasons but we could not have used the argument about 15th February. We do so now because it would be equitable and sensible to have the poll after that date. It would also give time for the White Paper to be issued.
  Last time there was some doubt in the mind of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). The right hon. Gentleman said clearly in HANSARD that he had not made up his mind on the timing of the White Paper, that he had an open mind. If he is to hold the poll before 15th February, with all that has to go into the publication of the White Paper, then he will not have the chance to have much of an open mind because it gives about eight weeks in which to hold the poll.
  Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman is arguing that my right lion. Friend must keep an open mind on this issue. If the hon. Gentleman's argument is accepted it would be impossible for my right hon. Friend to do that.
  Mr. Rees: I am not arguing that the right hon. Gentleman should have an open mind, I am saying that he said that he would have an open mind. The fact
  1560
  that the poll would be after 15th February would make it much more certain that he could have that open mind which we all know he would want.
  If there is a poll the people of Northern Ireland must know what sort of Northern Ireland they are to be in before they vote. It would be wrong to tell the people in Northern Ireland to make up their minds on the link and then, two or three weeks later to reveal that there are to be all sorts of new things such as a Bill of Rights, a new Assembly, a link between north and south—some of the points made in the Green Paper. This would be putting the cart before the horse.
  I am reinforced in this by the views of the Northern Ireland Labour Party quoted in column 1102 of HANSARD of 21st November. I also quoted other parties, and the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said that we did not know the strngth of these part-ties. That is right. We do not know the strength of the Unionist Party any more. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) confirmed this in her own case. I do not argue in terms of strength. The Northern Ireland Labour Party, which has been active in Northern Ireland politics for the last 50 years, has this link with the trade unions and has written to us all saying that we must insist that the poll follows the publication of the White Paper so that the people of Northern Ireland are aware of their responsibilities and obligations in continuing to live in the United Kingdom.
  There was an interesting view on the purpose of the poll in the Daily Telegraph on the morning following our Second Reading debate. I will not seek to follow what it called by logical argument but it finished up by saying:
  "All this impeccable logic, however, founders on the fact that the real function of the prebiscite is to give the majority in Northern Ireland the opportunity, which it has been clearly promised, to demonstrate emphatically its determination to maintain the British connection. To withdraw or postpone this opportunity would be to risk the total alienation of the Loyalist community."
  Precise constitutional details are better settled afterwards, it added. The point that the Daily Telegraph makes is that this is not concerned with the constitution but with putting at rest the minds of the majority in Northern Ireland. It is no good putting a person's mind at

  1561
  rest by saying that all is well and then two or three weeks' later to give him some really stiff medicine that makes him sit up and alters the situation. It may be logic, but it is not the sort of logic that the people of Northern Ireland appreciate.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that people who have been subjected for years to a bitter, sectarian, terrorist campaign will need to have their morale restored? Should not the White Paper, which I am sure will be reasonable, be presented to the people of Northern Ireland after their morale has been restored? That is why I support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Rees: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the morale of the majority in Northern Ireland. We all understand that their morale was given a great bruising when the Government, in our view correctly, took direct rule. No one wishes to force the people of the North into the South, but it is a curious way of building up morale to ask, "Do you want the link to remain with the United Kingdom?" and not to reveal the terms until afterwards.
  On Second Reading the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) made some remarks which I will quote. As he was criticising me, it would be fair for me to read two or three lines which are not necessarily germane:
  "I was not quite convinced that the hon. Member for Leeds, South shared my view that the White Paper may bring us to a more difficult stage than the reception of the Green Paper may have led us to suppose. It may confront my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with the most critical moment which has occurred since he inherited this office in March. We do ourselves no service at this stage in pretending otherwise. It will be miraculous if we get the White Paper accepted without a crisis of gravity. It is right to say that now and not later. No one will be offered—no one can be offered—all he wants. In the nature of things, the disappointment will fall most heavily on those who hitherto, for 50 years, have represented the majority. Who have had the monopoly, if one likes, of government in the province. Even the Green Paper, its wording, what it excludes, and the reception accorded to it, can leave us in small doubt about that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1972; Vol. 846, c. 1108.]
  Mr. Kilfedder: Will the hon. Gentleman read the last part of that speech?
  Mr. Rees: I am quite prepared for the hon. Gentleman to tell me what his right hon. Friend said.
  Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman has a copy of HANSARD, I have not. My right hon. Friend went on to say, as I said earlier, that if the people had their morale and confidence restored they would be more receptive to the White Paper. It is essential that there should be a receptive mood for the White Paper.
  Mr. Rees: I stick to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman that there will be a difficult time for us all when the White Paper is issued, Nevertheless, he has argued and I agree, that the risk should be taken. As he said, it will be a difficult time, not just for the Secretary of State but for us all, because of the responsibility we all have for the problem in Northern Ireland. It will be difficult for the people of Northern Ireland to stomach the White Paper even though it contains what to many of us here seem to be marginal changes. To them they will seem fundamental.
  All we argue is that it is better for the people of Northern Ireland to know what is involved in their future before they decide what to do. We all understand that whatever the Secretary of State does may result in extra bloodshed, and no one burkes that issue. It is the Secretary of State who ultimately has to take the decision. It is easy for us here to say that this, that or the other should be done, but we are not saying this just for the sake of saying something. Protestants in the North often write to me and ask why we do not support the Northern Ireland Labour Party because it is a moderate party. What we are saying supports the view of the Northern Ireland Labour Party and other parties which hold a similar view.
  Mr. McMaster: Has the hon. Gentleman no confidence in the democratic process? Once the White Paper is published it will be debated in the House of Commons and suggestions will be made which may or may not receive general acclaim. Some time will elapse between the presentation of the White Paper and the drafting of legislation. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should wait not only for the White Paper but for the subsequent legislation before holding the

  1563
  plebescite—in which case there would be no use in having the plebescite?
  Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman's last remark is revealing. I repeat that we shall have to face a difficult situation when the White Paper is issued. We are simply saying that we should face the difficulty at an earlier date.
  On the question of what we want to see in the White Paper, equality speaks for itself. In recent years there have been changes in the voting rights. Had the local elections been held they would have been the first in that province under the system of one man one vote. That is one reason why we wanted local elections. Civil and political rights bring in the question of the Bill of Rights. Before the General Election the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, had ideas about a Bill of Rights for this country. In Northern Ireland a wide variety of people believe that a Bill of Rights is the appropriate step to take. Within the context of a Bill of Rights, I hope that the Government will be able to move from the Special Powers Act, the "Special" part of which we find obnoxious. Every community in the Western world has to take steps to deal with terrorism. Even under the European Convention on Human Rights a State must be able to do that.
  In the debate of August last year we were for internment within the rule of law—
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: My hon. Friend would be doing a service by explaining that internment within the rule of law means evidence being produced and the public being able to judge the evidence for a person being sent to prison, in which case it is imprisonment within the law and not internment as it is popularly known.
  Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend makes an important point—I was talking in shorthand. We were concerned that internment should be carried out within the rule of law, and my hon. Friend will recall that debate. A Bill of Rights is a way in which this can be done. We are anxious to see the Special Powers Act ended. We have put forward a reasonable approach to the matter of co-operation between North and South because we
  1564
  believe that something of this sort must happen; this is not a device for forcing the Protestants into the south.
  These are the sort of points which we should like to see in a White Paper. We are asking for that White Paper to be published before a plebiscite is held. This is our major argument against the Bill. The Secretary of State will have to come back to the House for approval of the date of the plebiscite, and we shall seek to alter the Parliamentary method by which this is done. We want to be sure that this plebiscite will not be held until the people of Northern Ireland know what is involved.
  We have all had to face up to the realities of Northern Ireland. Many of us in the last two or three years have had to modify our views because we have seen the impact of what has happened there. Both the majority and the minority in the North are facing up to killings and shootings. It would be as well if the people of the North also faced the reality of what the Government are doing. They can do this only if they have before them a White Paper and if that document is published before the plebiscite.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for the difficulty which would arise if the plebiscite came before publication of the White Paper, and the hon. Gentleman appreciates that if the situation were the other way round there would be a great deal of controversy. Does he not agree that if a vote resulted in rejection of a link with the United Kingdom, we should then have to face the problem of an independent Ulster, in which case the Secretary of State's task would be very much more difficult?
  Mr. Rees: That is certainly a situation which must be faced and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) is being very fair. I am arguing that it would be better to face up to that situation when the people know what is involved than to do so shortly after any decision on the link with the United Kingdom. These are the realities of the situation.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Rose: I am sure that all my hon. Friends will endorse the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) on Amendment

  1565
  No. 3. Amendments No. 4 and No. 5 are very much in line with Amendment No. 3 and indeed are complementary to it. I gather that Amendment No. 6 is entirely acceptable to the Opposition Front Bench, and we shall defer to that Amendment when it comes to a vote. We shall take it together with Amendment No. 26, an Amendment which sets out in excellent form the kind of changes we want to see in Ulster and which also cover the question of Bill of Rights.
  The more the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and the hon. Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) give the impression that this vote is an important one from the point of view of morale—and certainly morale at the moment is particularly low—the more I am convinced that a poll would be futile and divisive and would give a symbolic victory for one side of the community over the other. It is known in advance by those hon. Gentlemen what the result of such a poll would be. The rejection of Amendment No. 1 is an indication that not even a sop is to be given by those who in parts of the community will be in a majority.
  The people will face a stark choice of realities, with no guarantee about the future. The vote in Northern Ireland will be a vote for or against the Unionism of the past, and not for or against the Unionism which we now have with a human face—namely, the face of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. When the people of Ulster vote "Yes" or "No" to a British link, it will be against the back ground of experience of Unionism which people have had over the past 50 years. It is a stark choice between Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Craig on the one side and Mr. Lynch on the other. There will be no opportunity at that point in time to consider a White Paper or a Bill of Rights.
  I cannot understand how people can be asked to cast their votes ahead of the declaration about the future institutions of Northern Ireland. There are many in Northern Ireland who would opt for the British connection if it meant having the same rights and obligations as we have in this country—the same local government system; the same legislation against discrimination on grounds of race; the same social and economic
  1566
  opportunities, and a continuation of the £200 million subsidy which Northern Ireland is now receiving. There are many people who would vote for the link in those circumstances, but who would not vote in such a way if it meant living in a continually divided country, a country governed by the kind of clique which has been motivated by historic and religious ties and which has ruled over the last 50 years. Until those who will be voting know what future is in store for them, it is impossible for them to declare themselves one way or the other.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Would my hon. Friend elaborate on how he sees a Bill of Rights guaranteeing equality between all sections of the community in the exercise of political power, and could he say how that aim is compatible with a form of representative democracy?
  Mr. Rose: Forms of representative democracy vary according to conditions. The kind of political system which I envisage for Northern Ireland is a system in which there is participation at all levels in decision-making by the minority as well as by the majority. We all know that a similar system has been pursued in Cyprus. In a divided community there often have to be representative institutions to provide a Bill of Rights so that the minority may participate in government with the majority. That has happened in many cases.
  Mr. Kilfedder: Would the hon. Gentleman advocate that for the poor unfortunate Arabs in Israel so that they have a say in their country, especially in view of the fact that at the moment one of their shrines—
  Mr. Rose: If the hon. Gentleman insists on bringing that issue into the debate, I might remind him that the Deputy Prime Minister and several Ministers in that Parliament are Arabs. They have equal rights—[Interruption.] Obviously the hon. Gentleman knows nothing about the subject.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not think that it is appropriate in this Committee to hear any more about it.
  Mr. Rose: I agree entirely. But the hon. Member for Down, North, who is an Orange bigot, is equally bigoted against those who do not share his form of

  1567
  Orangism, whatever else they may share—
  Mr. Kilfedder rose—
  Mr. Rose: It seems that the hon. Gentleman is intent upon dragging in this red herring—
  Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member, even the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), to make such an offensive and completely false allegation without giving way to the hon. Member whom he has attacked?
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Chair will judge what is offensive. I have made it plain that we have ranged far from the amendment under discussion. The sooner that we return to it, the better.
  Mr. Rose: During the election campaign of the hon. Member for Down, North in 1964 a leaflet was issued asking his potential constituents whether they wanted Catholics to live—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. This is not contained in the series of amendments that we are discussing.
  Mr. Rose: I believe that a Bill of Rights would outlaw that form of propaganda and therefore that it is within the scope of the amendment. The hon. Member for Down, North insists on bringing issues into the debate which are no more pertinent to Northern Ireland than the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland happens to be a Protestant.
  These are not the points with which we are dealing. We are dealing with the timing of the poll and with what is most appropriate for Northern Ireland. All that the hon. Member for Down. North has achieved by his repeated interventions has been to show what it is that many of my hon. Friends have to face every day in Northern Ireland from those who are more concerned with bigotry than with trying to get the two sections of the community to live together.
  The hon. Member for Down, North has missed most of the debate. He has come into it at a late stage and injected into it a new note of bitterness. He has illustrated only too well what divides the
  1568
  community and gives rise to violence in that community. It may be that the debate will proceed on a lower key if the hon. Gentleman remains silent.
  Many people would favour other options rather than the Yes/No vote that is put forward by the Government in the Bill. Yes/No votes are notoriously difficult to decide upon. If one takes issues like capital punishment or the Common Market, there are other options than a simple Yes/No, and it is only when one knows what the options are that a vote has any real validity.
  Without taking sides on it, if one considers an argument like Britain's entry into the Common Market, there are many who accept that this House did not vote until we knew the terms of entry. In the same way, one cannot vote on this referendum until one knows the terms of a continued link with the United Kingdom. Until the people of Northern Ireland know those terms, it will not be possible for them to give a vote which has any validity. Ultimately, when they read the White Paper and discuss the terms, they may find that although they have voted "Yes", many of those terms are unacceptable. It really is putting the cart before the horse.
  We are saying to the people of Northern Ireland, "You had a one-party State for 50 years, your living standards are at least £100 per head below those of the worst area in the United Kingdom, you are at present divided one against the other, and the gunmen of both the IRA and the UDF are terrorising you daily. Do you want to remain part of the United Kingdom?" At the same time, we are saying, "The Republic of Ireland has not expunged Article 44, nor has it changed its laws with regard to personal conduct covering everything from contraception to censorship. Do you want to belong to the Republic? Will you choose between Tory unionism and Fianna Fail republicanism?".
  It is a false dichotomy, and we can do something about it. We can provide the other half of the equation by saying, "In Northern Ireland you are now to have a system where, irrespective of your religious creed or your political beliefs, you will now participate in decision-making." That is what is dealt with in the Amendment. We are saying, "You will now

  1569
  live in a part of the United Kingdom where there will be better job opportunities, where there will be a guarantee of civil rights for all and where there will be the substance of good neighbourliness with the Republic, rather than the shadow of what turned out to be an abortive All-Ireland Council. On those terms, do you wish to remain in the United Kingdom?"
  I am sure that if those terms were given first to the people of Northern Ireland a larger number of people from the minority community would be prepared to say that whatever their ultimate aspiration might be they would want to remain part of the United Kingdom. That is why the third question, although it cannot be debated now, becomes related with this and of supreme importance. It is that there are no doubt an overwhelming majority of people who wish to retain the link with the United Kingdom but who do not wish to give up their ultimate aspiration given free negotiation and the consent of the people.
  Basically the people of Northern Ireland want to know what kind of Ulster they are voting for in those circumstances. There will have to be changes in Northern Ireland of the kind foreseen by the White Paper so that those who go to the poll to vote on the link know precisely what that link will mean. What matters meanwhile is the kind of Ulster that they will be voting for, otherwise the result of the referendum will be merely to put the border back at the centre of politics in Ulster as the central issue rather than making the issue of economic, social and political changes of prior importance.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South that the Government are putting the cart before the horse. I hope that he will divide the Committee on this matter. One cannot say, "There will be an a priori vote for the link and only then can you decide what kind of link this will entail and, for example, whether Stormont will be resurrected"—we have heard about by-elections for Stormont—"whether the Special Powers Act will go, and whether a Bill of Rights will be enacted". Only when one knows those facts will any vote be valid.
  For those reasons, I ask those of my hon. Friends who put their names to my amendment to defer to the excellent amendment moved by my hon. Friend
  1570
  the Member for Leeds, South in conjunction with the Second Schedule which sets out in detail some of the matters which would have to be altered before it would be possible for any valid vote to be given in a referendum, with the stark choices which have been placed before the people of Northern Ireland.
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. McNamara: I regard it as somewhat unfortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) should have used the phrase "internment within the law". I was sorry that, after I had pointed it out to him, he continued to use that form of legal shorthand.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: When we talked about it a year ago, the phrase that we used was "internment without trial" and that is the phrase that I was seeking.
  Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have come to admire his work on this issue over the past year and I should hate to start disagreeing with him now over a purely semantic term.
  On Second Reading, I said that my great fear was that, if this poll took place without our knowing what would be the future government of Northern Ireland, without our knowing what the Government's intentions are as regards the new assembly, the sharing of political power, civil and political rights, future co-operation between the North and the Republic, then what someone believed the first question to be would be a matter of individual interpretation.
  The Secretary of State and the Minister of State tried to say that the question was simple and stark as it stood. But as was said in the debate, Mr. Craig could well vote for that question as it now appears, and his opinions are not, I hope, held by anyone in this House. We also know that, if the question goes forward in its present form, it can be quite easily interpreted. If one asked people in different parts of Belfast, "What do you understand by the British connection in Loyalist areas, and what does the link with the United Kingdom mean?", they would interpret it not only in the attitude of the Prime Minister

  1571
  on Thursday of last week when he was there but also in terms of Stormont, the old political power, the old social power, the old economic power.
  If we have a poll on the border under those circumstances, there may well be another great betrayal, to their minds, of the Protestant working class in Belfast and other areas. Those people have over the past 50 years, been betrayed by the very people who lead them. They were betrayed because, whatever happened in those Six Counties, their leaders, the landed gentry or the captains of commerce, would come out on top; the people they led, whose support they sought, were misled by myths and false ideas.
  If the poll is held and if the result is in support of union—we can all confidently predict that that will be the result, by at least two to one—if a fresh constitution emerges, with all those provisions enacted in my hon. Friend's new schedule, they will have been betrayed again, as they felt they were betrayed when the "B" Specials were disbanded and we had the Hunt Committee Report. It is because I see that there might well be further trouble, much worse and much bloodier—I regret to have to say this—if the poll is held before publication of the White Paper that I urge the right hon. Gentleman to think again.
  People must know, when the poll is held, what sort of Northern Ireland they are voting for. It is not enough to say that it will be a Northern Ireland where British standards are applied. Until 1969, whenever we raised this question, when we were on that side, we were told that British standards applied there. It is not enough for them to be given a vague and woolly phrase. It is important that they should know in clear, precise terms, what are the Government's intentions for the future of the Province. If the right hon. Gentleman is hoping to get some support and some votes from minority areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said on Second Reading—he has a later amendment to deal with this point—it is important that the minority should be aware of their rights and aspirations.
  When we were in Government and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was Home
  1572
  Secretary, I mentioned the Flags and Emblems Act and said how it had created great annoyance and was a grave affront to people who lived in the Six Counties. We are now saying that it is legitimate and right for people to work peacefully towards a union of the Six Counties with the 26, yet the flag, the emblem, of the 26 counties is not one that they can wave in their streets, show in their windows, have in their election rooms. Yet we are applying British standards. One can see that flag flying in many parts of the United Kingdom on this side of the water, outside the holiday camps and on top of hotels. But to fly it in the Six Counties can be a cause of offence under the Flags and Emblems Act.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is going to seek to secure not the acquiescence but the positive support for his proposals—but let us be honest: it will be acquiescence at the start, even if it is that from either the Protestant working class or the minority groups, they must know what their future will be. We have had all sorts of reassuring statements from the right hon. Gentleman and from his leader, but he knows that the more often one repeats these promises, the more they are doubted. This is regrettable, but it is a fault of the situation.
  But if we had more than mere words, if it were spelled out what these things will be, as they are outlined in the Schedule, we shall be in a far better position to appeal to all sections of the community.
  I know that the right hon. Gentleman is hoping to start discussions with all parties in the North and that he has not ruled out the possibility that we will know the Government's intentions before the border poll, but we want to know precisely what will be entailed.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the date and the need to ensure that we have the most up-to-date electoral register. He said that if we had it later in the year—although late February is on balance probably no better than early January in terms of security—there might be better chances of security and a more up-to-date register. These are powerful points which the Secretary of State should weigh very carefully in reaching his conclusions on how to treat these amendments.
  Mr. Foley: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke about the timing of the poll. The abnormality of the situation in Northern Ireland has been referred to. No one would question that it is abnormal. We have only to think of the amount of intimidation that has forced people to move. They have lived in fear and have been burnt out of their accommodation. Therefore, we would expect a poll to be carried out on an up-to-date register. As the Secretary of State said that the next register would come out in February, we are entitled to ask him to make a commitment that the poll will not take place until that new register is published. I do not press him for a precise date.
  My second point relates to the whole series of amendments. We are all in a dilemma. I should not like the Secretary of State to imagine that anyone is motivated by malice in questioning his proposals. The dilemma is the juxtaposition of the commitment to have a poll, the commitment to have local elections, the commitment to have the talks at Darlington, and the commitment to produce a White Paper as a result of those talks. All those things must happen, but in what order? The question for us is one of judgment and emphasis. I do not think the Secretary of State would consider it impertinent if Opposition Members have their own interpretation of the correct timing.
  Hon. Members on both sides are locked into the problem, and cannot escape from it. There is no running away. Those who handle the day-to-day responsibilities deserve the consideration of the House, but from time to time—not very often—they must listen to the strictures of the House.
  In this important debate it is sad, to put it mildly, that the Government benches are so sparsely occupied. Only one representative of the Unionists from Northern Ireland is present. That is a particular pity, as this is the first time in 12 months that I have discovered the Unionist representatives in agreement. Perhaps the Secretary of State should be disturbed that they are in agreement on what he proposes, because the logic of that may well be that what he is advocating is wrong.
  1574
  I want to address myself now to Amendment No. 5. In the mind of the Secretary of State the poll is to be seen on its own, and not related to anything else. He says that that must happen and will happen. I think that he is wrong. When there is a series of murders and assassinations night after night in Northern Ireland, and we see the deployment of so many British troops, the most important thing is that those who want to coalesce, to come together and think about the future and new structures, should be encouraged to do so.
  I do not expect that that will happen on a grand scale until the right hon. Gentleman reveals the mind of Government in a White Paper. But we in this House have debated the reform of local government in Northern Ireland and talked about building on middle ground. If the right hon. Gentleman is to hold the poll along the lines he has suggested, the way to blur the edges, the way to smother the animosities and hostilities resulting from the stark presentation of two brutal questions, is to involve people in another exercise at the same time. The way to get away from the extreme polarisation of Republican and Unionist, to build on middle ground, to overcome intimidation, and to have the voice of moderation raised, is to have people voting in the same polling booths on the same day for their candidates in local government elections.
  6.15 p.m.
  It has been said on both sides, by the Sinn Fein and by the Vanguard movement, that they will contest those elections. So they should. In that way we shall discover the extent of moderation and extremism. The poll will not advance that discovery.
  Holding the poll and local government elections on the same day could be the beginning of the production of two things —the reassurance needed by the people and a degree of normality, some discussion on political issues that affect people in their own locality, albeit in a modest way.
  Therefore, I urge the Secretary of State to consider Amendment No. 5 carefully, and see whether lie can go some way towards understanding our fears. This is not the first time the issue has been raised. To hold a poll on its own along

  1575
  the lines advocated might do more harm than good. It would be far better for the right hon. Gentleman to hedge his bets and at the same time do something else that involves people in the normality of political activity for the first time in a long period of hard years in Northern Ireland.
  Captain Orr: The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) was kind enough to refer to my presence. He put a reasoned case, and it should be answered by someone representing my party.
  The hon. Gentleman argued, to some extent persuasively, that it would make for a clearer poll, a clearer result, if the White Paper came first. I believe that it is the purpose of the group of Amendments to see that the White Paper does come before the poll, because they try to put my right hon. Friend in the position of having to decide here and now. In other words, if he accepted the Amendments his mind would have to be closed on the very question of timing to which the hon. Gentleman pointed as being the dilemma. In the inexorable course of events, he would have to produce the White Paper before the referendum.
  Mr. Foley: In effect, I did not speak to the Amendment on the White Paper.
  Captain Orr: I understand that.
  Mr. Foley: I addressed myself to something the House has already debated and decided, that there shall be local government elections. We have even determined how they shall be conducted. I said that, having agreed that matter, we should use the occasion of a poll to carry it out. I did not address myself to the White Paper per se.
  Captain Orr: No, but I think I am not doing the hon. Gentleman an injustive when I say he did refer to the total dilemma about timing. If these Amendments were accepted, the Secretary of State would be deprived of the chance of being flexible and making a judgment on them in the light of events. Either the poll should be taken in conjunction with the local government elections or it should await the publication of the White Paper. When the White Paper is produced, as the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), who leads for
  1576
  the Opposition, said, it will be highly critical.
  Mr. A. W. Stallard: How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know?
  Captain Orr: I suggest—and I think that all hon. Members understand—that it will be the critical issue in Ulster. At that moment, it will be in the interests of some people, on both sides of the political fence, to misrepresent the White Paper. Suppose my right hon. Friend manages—and it is not impossible—to produce a White Paper commending itself to the majority of decent reasonable people on either side of the divide in Ulster. Suppose it is important to avoid one piece of misrepresentation, which would undermine one's confidence in one's future citizenship within the United Kingdom. Would it not avoid that misrepresentation if the border poll had taken place beforehand so that citizenship within the United Kingdom was not in doubt, so that what the White Paper did—in the light of the fact that Northern Ireland, by the overwhelming wish of her people, taken by plebescite, was to remain within the United Kingdom—was to determine the structure of government within that part of the United Kingdom and its relationship with the rest of it.
  Surely it would be better to do that than to try to compel the Secretary of State to postpone the border poll until the White Paper is published. In that case we ought to resist this amendment and leave my right hon. Friend freedom of action.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall be brief and pay particular attention to the new schedule and Amendment No. 26. I shall direct my attention wholly to the Secretary of State. Does he propose to accept any amendments to the Bill? Are we to go through the dreary process that seems to be characteristic of this Government, to accept no amendments to Bills?
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): If the hon. Gentleman can stop going forward on that course, he may get a happy surprise before the end of the evening.
  Mr. Douglas: I am always willing to have surprises, particularly from a fellow

  1577
  Scot—as long as they are surprises and not shocks.
  Perhaps the Minister will accept Amendment No. 26. I hope that he will. What we are discussing is not the border —and I speak with a degree of sorrow because two of my constituents have been killed there in recent months, one in the past week. The parents of those constituents wish to know what they are defending and whether it is worth while. Where is the border? It is not a particular piece of geography that is being defended. We are defending the constitution on behalf of the people in Northern Ireland.
  The House is being asked to accept a process of legislation which reassures people in Northern Ireland not about a line but about citizenship. It has been said time and again in the House that that reassurance is not necessary on the part of the Government. What will happen is that the people of Northern Ireland, rightly or wrongly, will reassure themselves. If they reassure themselves they will not embark on a process of self-delusion, because the people to whom I spoke are representative of the more extreme elements among the Protestants —particularly Protestant working-class in the UDA. They need this reassurance. I was worried lest that reassurance to them meant the next test—the process of self-delusion about their being returned to the status quo ante.
  That is why a White Paper, or some other form of thinking on the part of the Secretary of State, should make public what the Government's longer-term view is about the future of Northern Ireland. If the people who vote for the continuance of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom are not to embark on the process of self-delusion it ought to be made clear by the Government what kind of Northern Ireland they wish them to have. That would be beneficial not only for them but for the United Kingdom and for Ireland as a whole. Peace in Northern Ireland would not be divisive. It could mean peace in Ireland as a whole. That is important because, in order to achieve the co-operation of Southern Ireland in solving the problem of Northern Ireland the people must know what is in the Government's mind.
  1578
  Before the border poll takes place it is important to make clear that we want to remove the power that the Northern Ireland Government had—and which the United Kingdom Government now have —to impose internment without trial. The Special Powers Act ought not to have been made part of United Kingdom legislation. There is no sense in saying that that legislation was drafted by a Northern Ireland Government. It is part of United Kingdom legislation. We cannot have it both ways. We should not tolerate that here. It would not be tolerated in Scotland, so why should it be tolerated in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend says that we should not tolerate that sort of thing in the United Kingdom. Is he aware that, although there is not the same atmosphere of internment in this country, members of the Angry Brigade have been held in custody awaiting trial for many months. It is not correct to say, therefore, that we have nothing similar to what happens in Ireland.
  Mr. Douglas: My hon. Friend is making the point that in this part of the United Kingdom we protest about that type of legislation. What is wrong with the situation in Northern Ireland is that this policy has the support of the political processes that are peculiar to that country. I doubt whether the misapplication of legislation here has the support of the political processes in this House. That is essentially the point that I am trying to make.
  If Northern Ireland is to remain part of the United Kingdom the standards that will prevail, in election terms and in terms of governmental subvention, must be stated. There is little point in the Prime Minister's going to Northern Ireland and compelling the people to concentrate their minds—like a condemned man—on the issue of their future without the Government themselves taking on board what that future will be.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who has left his place—and I am sorry to refer to him in his absence—indicated that we were denying the Secretary of State flexibility. I have known the Secretary of State some time and I do not believe anybody could deny him that flexibility. He has a very astute sense of the political processes and

  1579
  great flexibility in approach. If he produced a White Paper he would not necessarily be denying himself flexibility. He would be indicating to the people of Northern Ireland what sort of Northern Ireland they would be voting for, and the flexibility of political processes that ought to flow from the enactment of the legislation proposed in the White Paper.
  6.30 p.m.
  The White Paper cannot solidify a situation. In view of the nature of the situation, it must be a fairly flexible document. If the Secretary of State produces a White Paper he is increasing the flexibility. More important, for the ultimate peace of the community as a whole and for the United Kingdom, the people of the United Kingdom have a right to know now—before this legislation is enacted—what the proposals are. If this Bill fails—if it does not give reassurance, and embarks on a further process of self-delusion, while we regret this, people in the United Kingdom will say, "We have had enough". That would be a very dangerous situation, because the procedures might force us into a situation where we would have to abdicate the responsibility of government—that is, maintaining civil order—and I would regret this very much. We must be very careful. It is a question of a balance of judgment.
  The Secretary of State said that his balance of judgment is to have the border poll without the proposals being disclosed. I hope he will say that he will produce a White Paper and his proposals before the poll. I give him great credit for being flexible, but he is being much too flexible. This will not do. If he produces a White Paper before the poll, that will be fine, but if he says, "I am going to hang on and wait and see", and produces the date—we hope some time after 15th February—in keeping with the amendments, that is another matter.
  I suggest that the people of the United Kingdom have a right to know the Government's long-term proposals. This Bill is not the first of many. I suggest that it is the first of few. It is a one-off Bill. It cannot be repeated. This political exercise must succeed, and I hope that it does. In my view, the balance of judgment would give it a greater prospect of success
  1580
  if the Government produced a White Paper and set out some of the proposals suggested in Amendment No. 26.
  Mr. Stallard: I, too, shall be brief. I want to apply my few remarks to Amendments No. 4 and Schedule No. 26, with particular reference to that part which mentions the Bill of Rights. My interests have already been made known on the question of the Bill of Rights during debates, and I hope that I need not spell out in detail what I mean.
  I was just as pleased as my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) to hear the Secretary of State say that he would be flexible and that we may have some surprises If he has been listening to this debate and the debate that took place the other day, he should be aware of the feeling on this side of the House, and I think among many of his hon. Friends, that the essential point at this moment—and these are probably the most crucial amendments before us this afternoon—is on the question of timing and the importance of that exercise.
  What we are saying is that while we recognise—and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) mentioned the possibility of misrepresentation if we did this or that wrong—that if we accepted, this proposal the majority would be afraid of misrepresentation, there is also a minority to be considered in this equation. I am concerned that in this exercise, which in the main is to protect the majority and to give in to the demand of the majority that they remain a part of the United Kingdom, the minority get some assurances, to which they are entitled after 50 years of being second-class citizens in the six counties. There are two parts to the equation and the essential feature in that second part is the introduction of a Bill of Rights.
  When a few of us in this House, and in another place, attempted to introduce a Bill of Rights early in 1971 and again in 1972 and many other dates, we argued for proportional representation, amongst other things. We were told it was not possible, that it was undesirable and that there was nothing in the constitution of this country or in precedents or anything else which would allow proportional representation and that it was not on.

  1581
  Then we found suddenly that everyone was converted to proportional representation because the strength of the argument had gone through and there was no case left against it. We were delighted when the Government accepted the principle and the arguments in favour of proportional representation in the six counties. We were also told, those of us who argued against the oath of allegiance, that it had to be, that that was how it had always been and that there was nothing to be done about it. I am pleased to say, from written replies and from correspondence with the Secretary of State, that there appears to be some chink in that objection and that some moves have been taken to do something about that oath of allegiance.
  We are still left with what is possibly the biggest objection from the minority side. The only thing that would make any real difference and help to create circumstances where the minority might consider participating in this plebiscite—and I would remind the Secretary of State that at this moment they would not consider it—would be if the Secretary of State were seriously to consider introducing a Bill of Rights. The atmosphere might then be created in which they could consider participating in this plebiscite. That means, of course, the ending of the Special Powers Act. This is not a one-off emergency Act; this is a permanent ongoing Act which has been in existence since 1922. If there were time I should like to read out and spell out everything that can happen under it, but it would take the rest of the afternoon. There are things which cannot be tolerated, and I certainly do not intend to tolerate them anywhere, which exist under this Special Powers Act and which militate against one side of the population, and that is what has to be got through to all of those who oppose this kind of approach.
  The Special Powers Act at the moment seems to apply only to the minority, and as long as it exists in that form, there will never be the co-operation which is needed to make inroads into the problems of the six counties. We have the Special Powers Act authorising arrest without warrant, imprisonment without charge or trial, no recourse to habeas corpus, the searching of homes without warrants at any hour of the day or night —and many of us have had personal
  1582
  experience of the kind of tragedies that followed those searches, the arrest of persons wanted as witnesses and the compulsion to answer questions under penalties for refusal. The regulations deny trial by jury and they prevent any access of legal representatives or relatives to a person in prison without trial. They prohibit an inquest after a prisoner's death. After all that, there is still another provision which can imprison, or arrest, people who do anything calculated to be prejudicial to the preservation of peace, or to the maintenance of order in Northern Ireland, and which is not specifically provided for in the regulations.
  As we have said a thousand times, it is no wonder that the Prime Minister of South Africa said that he would welcome the opportunity to use the Special Powers Act and show how he could use it in South Africa. Yet we have tolerated it in the United Kingdom; we have tolerated it here, and we have operated it against one side of the community in Northern Ireland, as has been seen blatantly since 1969. Until we do something serious about the repeal of the Special Powers Act, I submit that we do not even begin to seek the co-operation of a minority population in participating in this plebiscite.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has drawn the parallel of South Africa, some 6,000 miles away. Would it not be a parallel to look at the legislation which is being brought forward, some of it already in existence, in the Republic of Ireland? If his hon. Friends are exhorting us to change our way of action and to unite with the Republic of Ireland, surely the legislation there should be condemned. Would he recognise that Ireland, North and South, is a very different problem from the rest of the British Isles?
  Mr. Stallard: I do not want to get into that argument. What a lot of rubbish it was for an intervention. The comparison between Southern Ireland and South Africa, to those who know both States, does not even stand up. I am arguing about the operation of a Special Powers Act in the United Kingdom. That is what I am responsible for, and I am saying that it ought not to exist, certainly not in the form in which it has existed since 1922 in the six counties—nor it should be operated in the way it is against the

  1583
  minority population. That is nothing to do with the point that was raised.
  One has to begin to work on both sides in order to obtain co-operation for this plebiscite, referendum, or any other piece of legislation that we intend to introduce in the six counties. One way in which to do this would he the immediate repeal of the Special Powers Act—and that includes the end of internment. I suggest, therefore, that we should have a Bill of Rights, based on the repeal of the Special Powers Act, together with the extension of the Race Relations Act. I give the Secretary of State credit that the process has already begun.
  As mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) in the Second Reading debate, we must be much more serious in our approach to the unemployment problem. We know there is always mass unemployment in Catholic areas. We know this, and we know the reasons for it. At the last count there were 59 nearly-new factories in the Protestant part, as it were, of the six counties, as against 15 in the Catholic part. It can be divided roughly in that kind of shorthand.
  We know that the kind of discrimination in employment that has gone on for 50 years still exists. We can check it and relate statistics to positions in the Civil Service and the National Health Service, and in all the main boards, to prove that there has been this kind of discrimination. Serious attempts must be seen to be made to do something about these injustices, to create much more equality, especially amongst the minority population, before we begin to get these two communities together to solve a common problem.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: It is always possible to draw conclusions from these figures of the representation of the community in a given service. The hon. Member will reflect that we Roman Catholics feel utterly under-represented in this House in proportion to our population. But it is no injustice; there is no complaint to be made of that. One should not read too much into these figures.
  Mr. Stallard: If things were exactly in the six counties as they are here, I would accept it, but they are not. I am asking the hon. Member to recognise that if a Bill of Rights existed which put
  1584
  into the six counties the same conditions as exist here, his argument would be valid. But first of all let us make sure that the discriminations that have operated against the minority are removed. We then begin to talk about the kind of United Kingdom that the people of Northern Ireland would be joining when they cast their vote. Therefore, as an essential part of any attempt to bring these two communities together we must introduce a Bill of Rights, a White Paper spelling out the kind of United Kingdom that we belong to—and that they would belong to as well—and at some later stage seriously discuss, if necessary—and I doubt whether it would be—the question of a referendum or plebiscite.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: If the Secretary of State is going to accept some amendments he should accept Amendment No. 3 in the first place as a simple, non-controversial proposition that since the poll is going ahead—we are not arguing about that, although perhaps we are not altogether sure about its effect or whether we should have committed ourselves to it—it should be held on the fullest possible register.
  Secondly, regarding the various propositions about the statement of intent and the White Paper, it is a fact that the poll, in the first instance, was agreed to to assure the known majority that they would not be forced to do anything they did not wish to do, or be deserted. The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) said that that was not necessary but the Government deemed it to be necessary, and for that reason the Prime Minister committed us to it, and we are therefore stuck with it.
  We have to ensure that the poll is held in the least explosive circumstances. It was sad to hear the short but strong altercation between the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). It does not matter which side of the argument one supports; a sure way of losing it is to say to the other side, "You must be moderate you Orange/Papist bigot". It is a pity to see that attitude emerging in the House, but it makes one realise how much more passionately these views are held where the actual bullets are flying.

  1585
  It will be difficult to achieve the poll without more violence than already exists. Given that the poll is designed to assure the majority that they will not be deserted, surely there should be, as part of a package—and the poll originally was part of a package—an assurance to the minority that whatever happens we shall not revert to the position as it was before. Looking at it in that way the Secretary of State could with every reason agree either to the publication of the White Paper first, or, alternatively, to the statement of intent in the schedule. Unfortunately I was unavoidably absent from the Chamber at the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and consequently might have missed something that was relevant. In either case one is seeking to assure people of the general direction of civil rights that are guaranteed.
  That is a very reasonable request. Liberals in Northern Ireland have for a long time argued passionately for a Bill of Rights, and I am in complete agreement with the remarks that have been made about it.
  Essentially, the Opposition amendments are fair and reasonable. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, rose in rebuttal of the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire and argued that the publication of a White Paper or statement of intent would end the Secretary of State's capacity to manoeuvre and render his position more inflexible. I do not accept that argument. After all, White Papers are not definitive statements of policy, nor are they intended so to be; they are rather intended to suggest, for discussion, the intended general lines of Government policy.
  Following publication, a White Paper may be considered, argued and discussed. The Government may well change it. Thus, I cannot agree that a White Paper would remove the right hon. Gentleman's powers of manoeuvre. On the other hand, it might well allay many of the fears of the minority, which might otherwise lead them regrettably to boycott the poll.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: We are delighted that the Secretary of State has at least given an indication that he might be prepared to mend the Government's way of dealing with legislation and accept an amendment. This is one of the first signs
  1586
  of humility following from the lesson that was taught to them yesterday evening. Acceptance of Amendment No. 3, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and calling for the poll to be conducted
  "not earlier than the 15th February 1973"
  would, in my view, be the first step in bringing Northern Ireland towards the standards of the remainder of the United Kingdom, by allowing them to hold a poll upon a live register.
  To conduct a poll on any basis other than a new live register would merely add to the fears expressed by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends that the poll would prove a futile exercise. Thus, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make that concession.
  While I congratulate my Front Bench on their tabling of Amendment No. 3 I am rather puzzled by the question of the Bill of Rights and the schedule, contained in Amendment No. 21. I suppose that if we in this country are to embark on the exercise of solving the problem of Northern Ireland, a Bill of Rights is worth a try. After all, we have tried practically everything else. We tried integration, and we tried partition, both of which failed. We tried military might, which also failed. If we are intent once again on pushing under the counter the historic and inevitable tragedy of violence in Ireland, by all means let us try a Bill of Rights, if do so we must, before achieving the real and only solution, which is to allow the people of Northern Ireland and of the Republic to solve their differences as two independent States.
  Mr. Whitelaw: Oh!
  Mr. Wellbeloved: The Secretary of State says, "Oh!" I will forecast a day. Whatever we do now, in a generation's time we shall be faced with similar eruptions. We shall never solve the problems of Northern Ireland until we recognise that the people of Northern and Southern Ireland themselves, by economic necessity, must come to an agreement, based upon their desire to reach an understanding, rather than that any solution should be imposed from here.
  I want to return to the question of a Bill of Rights, because I believe that it typifies our self-delusion. On Second

  1587
  Reading my Front Bench proposed a reasoned amendment calling for a White Paper giving a definite undertaking to ensure that all the people of Northern Ireland would have an equal opportunity to exercise political power. In the context of that debate I found no difficulty in supporting that amendment.
  Whatever solution is arrived at, it must be based upon the exercise of political power and the opportunity to exercise that power by the people concerned. But that is not what is set out in the statement of intent for inclusion in a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. Although many of my hon. Friends have said that they support the statement of intent, what is the meaning of subsection (1)? I do not understand what it means, and I am sure the people in Northern Ireland would not. It reads:—
  "Equality between all sections of the community in the exercise of political power".
  That is not what was said in the Second Reading debate. Does that mean that if I am a citizen of Northern Ireland I can set up a political party with two or three of my neighbours and say, "Now I constitute a section of the people of Northern Ireland, and I have the right to equality in the exercise of political power"?
  Mr. Douglas: My hon. Friend would probably accept that that is not political power. Surely political power exists within an agreed constitutional framework, whether that framework be written or unwritten. My hon. Friend is talking about the abrogation of the absence of political power.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: That leads me to the question which I had hoped to develop on that part of my hon. Friend's statement of intent. If when we talk about a Bill of Rights, we leave it in those vague terms, all is well, because we need not spell out what we really intend. But the moment anyone attempts to set out in writing what would be in a Bill of Rights—
  Mr. Peter Archer: Does not my hon. Friend appreciate that what is set out here is not a statement of intent but an invitation to the Secretary of State to deal
  1588
  with these matters and specify his intentions?
  Mr. Wellbeloved: That may be so, but I return to the point that I am endeavouring to make, namely, that it is no use to talk in a loose way about a Bill of Rights without giving the Government some clearer indication of what the Opposition want to see in such a document. The only clear statement before us at the moment is Amendment No. 26 which, in subsection (1), illustrates the difficulties which the Government, the Opposition and everyone else would face in trying to set out a Bill of Rights to deal with the situation.
  Subsection (2) refers to
  "Equal opportunity for social and economic advancement."
  That intent can be clearly expressed. It applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. If, therefore, the laws of the rest of the United Kingdom were applied to Northern Ireland that subsection would be properly dealt with. The same applies to subsection (3).
  But it is no use saying to the Government that as part of the poll there must be a White Paper available to the voters in Northern Ireland and the people of this country. We would be interested in the White Paper, too, because the future boundaries of the United Kingdom will be a matter upon which the British people as a whole will decide and not just the majority in Northern Ireland.
  [Mrs. LENA JEGER in the Chair.]
  7.0 p.m.
  It is no use telling the Government that they must have the White Paper published and ready before the poll if we do not say precisely what we want the Government to put in it.
  Mr. Fitt: Each set of amendments is designed honestly to ask the Government to spell out its intentions and attitudes to the future of Northern Ireland. It is also asking the Government to ensure, before they express those intentions, that they will have the support of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
  As I have listened to the speeches this afternoon, I have concluded that there

  1589
  may be a considerable advantage to be gained if the Secretary of State will listen to the pleas put forward by my hon. Friends. They have asked for a statement of intent. This can be allied with the publication of the White Paper. We hope that it would be published before the plebiscite was taken, and that it would spell out clearly what the Government intended to be the future of Northern Ireland. I am convinced that many elements in Northern Ireland will not agree with the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State time and time again—that he wants to bring justice and equality to everyone in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has already announced his intention to have discussions on the Green Paper with the major political parties in Northern Ireland next week. I hope that those discussions will be successful.
  I have no doubt that when he discusses the Green Paper with, for example, the Vanguard movement, if they are true to the statements they have already made they will say to the Secretary of State, "We want the return of Stormont as we have known it for 50 years. We want the return of security to Northern Ireland." Naturally, the discussions that the Secretary of State will be having with the Vanguard movement and the UDA elements—perhaps not direct consultations with them; they will be there in different guises—will not be made available to everyone in Northern Ireland. Everyone will be in considerable doubt about what has taken place, what attitude has been adopted by the Secretary of State what has been conceded and what withheld from the various elements.
  Would not a considerable advantage be gained by someone living in Northern Ireland? I think that it would have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). At the moment we have the official IRA saying, "We do not want a united Ireland under the present constitution of the Republic". We have the Provisional IRA saying exactly the same thing—"We do not want a united Ireland under the present constitution". The SDLP, both in North and Southern Ireland, have had many disagreements about the present constitution of the Republic. It would appear that no one wants to jump overnight into the 26 counties pit.
  1590
  If the Westminster Government were to spell out in a White Paper what were their intentions towards the retention of that link with the people of Northern Ireland it might force the Government of the Republic to publish a White Paper or a Green Paper, or some form of paper, and say, "These are the terms under which we would offer you citizenship. If you like them, vote for them in the plebiscite. If you do not like them put your mark on the other part of the ballot paper".
  That would give people a real choice, and it would also tell the Government of the Republic that they would have to give serious consideration to what would happen if and when the people of Northern Ireland were taken into the new all-Ireland State. At present there are people in the Republic of Ireland—and some people in the North of Ireland support them—who would accept a Republic on any terms, but I think that they are in the minority in Northern Ireland, because most of the people there are realists. Those who have opposed unionism for all these years in Northern Ireland will not join the Republic overnight on any terms.
  If the Government were prepared to put their ideas in a White Paper or a statement of intent I should, with any influence that I may have—and no doubt with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster and other political figures in the minority in Northern Ireland—ask the Taoiseach of the Republic to spell out exactly what they would do for the minority in Northern Ireland. But that can be done only if the Government are prepared to declare their intention.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I start by thanking the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and, indeed, all other hon. Members who have spoken, for the important contributions which they have made and for the moderate and careful way in which they have presented their views.
  To the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), I would say that I am certainly prepared to listen. No one who has done my job for seven months could be other than prepared to listen. I cannot but be reminded of the man who, having

  1591
  talked to me for 2½ hours one day at Stormont, left my office and said, "The trouble with the Secretary of State is that he is not prepared to listen". During that time, surprisingly for me, I had said very little. I genuinely mean that I am most anxious to hear all views, but at the start I ought to make clear where I stand. We can then consider carefully some of the detailed points against the background of what I believe must be my position at the moment.
  During the Second Reading debate I said that Her Majesty's Government did not believe that it would be wise to commit themselves at this stage to the order in which the border poll and the White Paper would come. We take that view because I have learned from bitter experiences that in Northern Irish affairs to commit oneself specifically, too long before any particular date has great dangers. My worry is that, having committed myself to a date for the local government elections and changes, I am in the position that once it is decided on what dates the border poll and the local government elections are to be held, they must be held on those days. The dates cannot be changed again.
  In my judgment it is most important to preserve the options and not to close them at this stage. For that reason I could not accept the amendments, but I meet them in the spirit in which they have been made and I do not at this stage rule out some of the arguments that have been made.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, South very fairly said that the opportunity to disagree by vote with what I am seeking to do will come with the publication of the order under the Bill, if it is passed, actually naming the date. There is a clear opportunity to say that the Government have been wrong in their choice of a date, but I shall not commit myself now.
  It is against that background that I want to look at some of the arguments. I accept at once that it is a desperately difficult situation to make. I have not lacked advice. The hon. Member for Leeds, South quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who said that there would undoubtedly be a critical time when the White Paper
  1592
  was published. Many other hon. Members made the same point. I believe that it absolutely correct. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) made the same point.
  The conclusion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford came to as a result of that belief was that it would be right to have this poll before publication of the White Paper. One must put that on one side of the argument. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that if it were done that way round there might be much bloodshed. I am equally conscious that there may be bloodshed if it is done the other way round. I do not think that one can be sure either way. That is why it is a very difficult decision to make.
  Therefore, when I am told—I think by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose)—that I must change my mind, it is only fair to say that I have not made it up at this stage, and that I am deliberately preserving the option, and believe it correct to do so.
  The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) said that it was most important that people did not delude themselves. That is immensely important, I agree. The dangers of delusion are inevitably always great in the affairs of Northern Ireland. Quite reasonably, people tend to believe what they wish to believe, and that makes self-delusion a very important factor. But when considering the publication of the White Paper and its impact one must also take into account a point which I do not make often but which I believe to be important. The White Paper itself cannot bring certainty about the future; the only thing that can bring certainty is legislation passed by this Parliament. Therefore, while the White Paper may be a guide as to what that legislation will be, it cannot of itself bring certainty. I do not make too much of that point because a White Paper put forward as a statement of intent goes a considerable way; but it cannot of itself bring certainty. One must appreciate that.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, South by his amendment, said that it would be wrong to hold the poll on the old register. He questioned the matter of distributing the documents and checking them. I think that my hon. Friend, in saying

  1593
  "checking" them, after 15th, was not quite correct, but in speaking of "distributing" them he was absolutely correct. The result is exactly the same. The poll could not be held until 28th February if it were held after 15th. Therefore, if it has to be on the new register the poll could not be held before 28th February at the earliest. It is important that that should be clearly brought out.
  Mr. Foley: Has the right hon. Gentleman made up his mind whether the poll will be conducted on the new register? Has he quantified the extent of movement, since the last register, of intimidation—people fleeing from one place to another—and the implications of holding the poll on the old register; or has he made up his mind to have it on the new register?
  Mr. Whitelaw: No, I am deliberately preserving the option. I have made it clear that the local elections will take place on the new register. That is a clear and complete commitment.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Secretary of State's answer has sparked a point in my mind regarding the rules—Stormont or Westminster—on which the election is to be fought. It occurs to me, arising out of the point that my hon. Friend has just made, that many people will have moved in Belfast for normal as well as for abnormal reasons. In our national parliamentary and local elections there are significantly different sets of rules regarding postal voting as between the two. Whatever be the result of any changes which may be made in the questions, and so on, I hope that the whole question of postal voting, and the terms on which people can vote, will be looked at, because many people will have to move around the cities of Belfast and Derry in order to vote.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I think that those problems arise more on the next set of Amendments, on some of the regulations I said on Second Reading that the Stormont election franchise, would be conducted under the Westminster rules, and I think that my hon. Friend said in his winding-up speech that that meant that poll cards would be issued as under the Westminster rules. As regards postal
  1594
  voting I note what the hon. Gentleman says. We shall do our best in the regulations.
  I turn to the various points that have been made about the statement of intent, the Bill of Rights, to which a number of hon. Members—the hon. Members for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), for Leeds, South and for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), among others have referred.
  I have no quarrel with the sentiments set out in the statement of intent. I think they are important and must be carefully considered, and I should have thought would be very likely to form part of any constitutional set-up that finally came into effect. But I do not think that they are appropriate to this Bill and that is why, while I do not in any way dissent from the sentiments, I should not wish to put them in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North made a strong point about the Special Powers Act. I have already made it clear that we are anxious to get away from the Special Powers Act as fast as we can. That is why we have set up the Diplock Commission to look into legal procedures for the future. That is why I have set up, temporarily, the tribunals which are working at the present time and which, although some hon. Members may consider that they have deficiencies, I believe are much better than internment by the signature of a single Minister. I am convinced that they are better and that the working of them, as has been seen so far, will lend weight to that argument. We are seeking to get away from the Special Powers Act, and that is the purpose we have in mind.
  The hon. Member for Blackley suggested that the poll would be a choice between a Unionist Government in the North or Mr. Lynch's Government in the South. I do not see how, basically, he can justify that argument. I do not see how the poll on the border can mean that in any future constitutional set-up any particular form of government is inevitable.
  Eqaully, to those who say that they would be in doubt if it were decided to hold the poll before the White Paper, I reply that I do not think anyone is in any doubt that membership of the United Kingdom means recognising the sovereignty of this Parliament. Ever since

  1595
  the 1920 Act, the House of Commons has had sovereignty over Northern Ireland. It has had powers to reject Northern Ireland legislation, which it never used. Although it did not use them, it had the powers, and no one should doubt that Westminster had the sovereignty, has it today, and would have it in future. Therefore, if one decides to maintain the United Kingdom link, one is accepting that the sovereignty is here in the Westminster Parliament. Of that there can be no doubt.
  Mr. McNamara: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, though the theory of what he is saying is correct, after nearly 50 years this Parliament was unable to ask any questions about the Government of Northern Ireland? That was the problem of the convention, which we have had to battle against for four years before we made any headway.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I was merely making the point that anyone in Northern Ireland who votes to remain part of the United Kingdom knows perfectly well that it means accepting the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. Whatever may be the arguments about direct rule, it is clear that it was brought about by the actions of this Parliament, which, if it had not had the sovereignty, could not have done it. No one can doubt that.
  Mr. Foley: The Secretary of State must be aware from his experience since taking office that there are people in Northern Ireland who claim that they want to preserve the union with Britain. In order to demonstrate this, they put on uniforms, acquire rifles and shoot British soldiers. Is there any doubt in their minds about what they are voting for? They are voting to preserve the union and to preserve their position in the North. That is the weakness of the argument that the right hon. Gentleman is adducing.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I might be led into other arguments if I followed that. I must stick to the argument. I was making the simple point that—
  Mr. Stallard: On the simple point; would the Secretary of State accept that ruled from here under the sovereignty of this Parliament means no Special Powers Act? It is not enough to say that there is a Diplock Commission and tribunals.
  1596
  We do not have them here. It should mean the same conditions there as here. It means no Special Powers Act, no tribunals, no Diplock Commission—just as in Manchester, Cardiff, Glasgow or Bristol.
  Mr. Whitelaw: One might be led into arguments about the Emergency Powers Act, which we have in this country and which may be invoked from time to time, and what one might do in any future constitutional set-up. One is entitled to say—as my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) has said —that it is impossible to pretend that conditions are exactly the same in Northern Ireland as they are in the rest of the United Kingdom, bearing in mind what has been happening and the terrorist campaign that has been going on for three years. No one can pretend that circumstances are exactly the same.
  The Diplock Commission has been set up to see how one can move from the Special Powers Act to the sort of emergency legislation that we have here, which was the desire, it is fair to say, of the Labour Government. Stormont made clear its desire for precisely the same thing.
  Mr. Peter Archer: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that what is troubling many of us on the Opposition side is that the people of Northern Ireland want to know whether, if they opt for the retention of the sovereignty of this Parliament, it is proposed to revert to the convention that this Parliament does not legislate about domestic affairs in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I see the validity of that argument. I am not sure that it becomes conclusive in the timing of the White Paper and the border poll. But it is a fair argument and I accept it as such.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich proposed that the border poll and the local elections should be held at the same time. That proposal has been made before. It has been considered and it can be considered again. There is no doubt from the advice that I have received that it is administratively more complicated. It is undoubtedly more complicated for the electors. It may be argued that it has security advantages, for the security exercise is done at the same time.

  1597
  Whether it would help is arguable. To have both at the same time might bring the border more into the local election rather than taking it out. It could be argued both ways, but I do not think that in the end it is the best course, although I understand the basis on which it has been put forward.
  I have dealt with most of the issues put before me. I am convinced that this is a difficult decision of timing. I do not seek to disguise from the Committee that there are arguments both ways. People can honestly hold differing views. To differ does not mean that our aims are not the same, for we differ honestly about the best way of achieving it. I cannot be sure, and that is why I do not believe it would be right to commit Her Majesty's Government at this time. I want to keep the options open. When I present the order it will be possible to vote against it if the date which I have chosen is wrong.
  I hope that the Opposition will not press their amendment. If they decide to do so, I must ask the Committee not to accept it, because I am convinced that it is right at this stage to keep the options open.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: We have listened carefully, as we always do, to the Secre-
  tary of State. He has told us that he has an open mind on the date, and we shall return to that when we debate the order.
  I realise that Amendment No. 3 affects the timing, but we were concerned that the poll should be conducted on the new register to allow the maximum number of people an opportunity to vote. It has been a feature of recent years that all of us who participate in these debates try to push in the right direction. In Amendments Nos. 3, 6 and 26 we have put our views on these significant matters, especially those relating to the length of time which should elapse between a poll and the publication of a declaration of intent.
  I understand the right hon. Gentleman's views. I recommend that we vote on Amendment No. 3 but that we do not vote on Amendments Nos. 6 and 26, because Amendment No. 4 subsumes the arguments contained in them. That will enable us to have two Divisions for the price of three.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 68, Noes 91.

  Division No. 20.]

  AYES

  [7.30 p.m.

  Allen, Scholefield

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Orme, Stanley

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Grant, John D. (Islingon, E.)

  Pardoe, John

  Atkinson, Norman

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Harper, Joseph

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Bradley, Tom

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Roper, John

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Rose, Paul B.

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Healey, R. Hn. Denis

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Horam, John

  Silverman, Julius

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Small, William

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  John, Brynmor

  Spearing, Nigel

  Deakins, Eric

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Devlin, Miss Bernadette

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Tinn, James

  Dunnett, Jack

  Latham, Arthur

  Torney, Tom

  English, Michael

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford. E.)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Evans, Fred

  Marquand, David

  Whitlock, William

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marsden, F.

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

  Meacher, Michael

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mendelson, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Foley, Maurice

  Millan, Bruce

  Mr. J. D. Concannon and

  Golding, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Mr. J. Kevin McNamara.

  NOES

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Benyon, W.

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Biffen, John

  Clegg, Walter

  Fowler, Norman

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fox, Marcus

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Fry, Peter

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Goodhaw, Victor

  Green, Alan

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Moate, Roger

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Havers, Michael

  Molyneaux, James

  Soref, Harold

  Hawkins, Paul

  Money, Ernie

  Speed, Keith

  Holland, Philip

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Spence, John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Mudd, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Murton, Oscar

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Neave, Airey

  Tebbit, Norman

  Jopling, Michael

  Normanton, Tom

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Kilfedder, James

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Kirk, Peter

  Percival, Ian

  Warren, Kenneth

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Pounder, Rafton

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Knox, David

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Lane, David

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)

  Raison, Timothy

  Wilkinson, John

  Loveridge, John

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  McMaster, Stanley

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mather, Carol

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Mr. Tim Fortescue and

  Maude, Angus

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Scott, Nicholas

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed: No. 4, in page 1, line 9, after 'date', insert:
  'after the publication of a White Paper and a Bill of Rights'.—[Mr. Rose.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 66, Noes 91.

  Division No. 21.]

  AYES

  [7.36 p.m.

  Allen, Scholefield

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Orme, Stanley

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Pardoe, John

  Atkinson, Norman

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Harper, Joseph

  Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Bradley, Tom

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Roper, John

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Rose, Paul B.

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Horam, John

  Silverman, Julius

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  John, Brynmor

  Small, William

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Devlin, Miss Bernadette

  Latham, Arthur

  Tinn, James

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Torney, Tom

  English, Michael

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Wellbeloved, James

  Evans, Fred

  Marquand, David

  Whitlock, William

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marsden, F.

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)

  Meacher, Michael

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mendelson, John

  Mr. John Golding and

  Foley, Maurice

  Millan, Bruce

  Mr. J. D, Concannon.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  NOES

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Green, Alan

  Mather, Carol

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Maude, Angus

  Benyon, W.

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Biffen John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Holland, Philip

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Moate, Roger

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Molyneaux, James

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jennings, J. c. (Burton)

  Money, Ernie

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jopling, Michael

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Mudd, David

  Clegg Walter

  Kilfedder, James

  Murton, Oscar

  Cormack, Patrick

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Neave, Airey

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Normanton, Tom

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kirk, Peter

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Knox, David

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lane, David

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Fowler, Norman

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Percival, Ian

  Fox, Marcus

  Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Fry, Peter

  Loveridge, John

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Goodhew, Victor

  McMaster, Stanley

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Speed, Keith

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Raison, Timothy

  Spence, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wilkinson, John

  St. John Stevas, Norman

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Scott, Nicholas

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Mr. Tim Fortescue and

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke

  Soref, Harold

  Warren, Kenneth

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Rose: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 18, leave out ' the poll shall be conducted and ' and insert:
  'polling booths shall be provided in such locations as will limit the risk of intimidation and the poll shall be conducted under the supervision of persons responsible to the Parliament of the United Kingdom'.
  The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment it will be in order to take the following Amendments:
  No. 27, in page 1, line 10, after 'direct' insert:
  'which shall be a public holiday with all licensed premises closed'.
  No. 10, in page 1, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
  No. 11, in page 2, line 1, leave out from 'expedient' to the end of the subsection.
  No. 13 in page 2, line 8, after 'influence', insert:
  by intimidation or other unlawful means'.
  No. 16, in page 2, line 15, at end add:
  '(4) For the duration of the campaign and poll the Public Order Act, the Flags and Emblems Act and the Special Powers Act will be suspended'.
  No. 28, in page 2, line 15, at end add:
  '(4) The Secretary of State shall produce a report on the conduct of the poll and present it to Parliament as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the poll".
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Rose: I shall not detain the House for long, because this matter was discussed at length during the Second Reading debate. However, there are grounds for concern, which have been expressed by Members for Northern Ireland on both sides. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will be with us, so that he can tell the Committee about his experiences in his constituency.
  Because of the siting of polling booths it has been difficult, if not dangerous—even in conditions of comparative peace —for persons to vote in ordinary elections
  1602
  in Northern Ireland. A poll which is conducted on the border issue can therefore be calculated to excite the most extreme passions among extremists on both sides. That situation will be rendered even more dangerous during the border poll, and it is felt that some special protection is needed for those who are to vote.
  The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) cited during the Second Reading debate instances of Protestant voters in his constituency who had been intimidated. Similarly, the Member for Belfast, West referred to the position of Catholic voters in his constituency who had met with the same problem. Given the so-called peace lines and barricades, and the fact that many polling booths are sited in the heart of areas composed of only one section of the community, it might be highly dangerous for persons to vote.
  It is the intention of the amendments to ask the Government to provide means whereby the maximum safety can be guaranteed to those who decide to participate. If that is not done there may be even greater feeling among those who will vote that apart from any political principle it might be safer to abstain.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: I also hope that the poll will be operated in an atmosphere of dignity so that the people of Northern Ireland can have an opportunity to say whether they wish constitutional developments to proceed. Through the ballot box they can give their answer to violence and to the gunmen. That is why I welcome the Bill.
  I recognise that any election will take place in immensely difficult circumstances. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the constituency of West Belfast, but most constituencies will have equal problems. Therefore, there are some matters which the Government should bear in mind. I hope that we can have sufficient army personnel and police in Northern Ireland

  1603
  to deal with any tensions which may arise. I hope that there will be sufficient numbers available so that there are not to few men trying to do an impossible job. That is my first request.
  Many times today speakers have suggested that this is an exercise in pointlessness. I do not believe that. I am particularly keen to see the poll operating in a dignified and low key fashion because I want to ensure that a wide cross-section of the public is given the opportunity to cast their votes without fear and without intimidation.
  One of the mistakes of hon. Members opposite is to assume that the bulk of the Catholic community wish to join Southern Ireland. The figures in the recent public opinion poll published in Fortnight magazine show that only 24 per cent. of the Catholics wish to do so, while 41 per cent. wish to remain with the United Kingdom; 26 per cent. abstained and 9 per cent. did not know. This is why I think it particularly important to have the poll operating in a dignified low key fashion.
  I want to appeal particularly to the Social Democratic and Labour Party. The men of violence, the IRA, will call for a massive boycott of the poll. I hope that the SDLP will not add political respectability to the voice of the gunman by joining them in a call for a boycott. I think that this is a vital opportunity for the SDLP to exercise statesmanship and to say that it recognises the right of the Westminster Parliament—I am sure the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will agree with this—to take the decision to have a border poll and that therefore people should not abstain but should play a positive role in it. The SDLP certainly should not give political respectability to the demand which the IRA will make for a massive boycott.
  I hope that I can put the same appeal to Mr. Lynch. There have been noises from that direction suggesting that he would run a simultaneous poll or would join in creating an atmosphere of boycott or of messing the whole thing up. That would be a serious error of judgment. I appeal to him to bear in mind that he, too, might be giving a psuedo respectability to the IRA when it obviously called for a boycott.
  1604
  What about the date? This is the key to the whole question of a peaceable atmosphere for the poll. I hope that there will be no massive campaigning by the political parties—no monster rallies and no high key type of political activity. The people of Northern Ireland will not have to be driven out to the poll. Many of them are eager to have an opportunity to take part in it. I think that they themselves will wish that there should be no massive campaigning. There is much merit, therefore, in considering whether it would be practical to have the poll at the beginning of January. There could not then be a massive build up campaigning because of Christmas and the New Year—and perhaps a little of the spirit of Chirstmas and the New Year might spill over into the poll.
  Mr. McNamara: If I may say so, the Chair has been wise in its selection of amendments in that it has distinguished between the general constitutional amendments, which are of importance to the body politic as a whole of Great Britain and to the constitutional position of this Committee, and those which deal with the plebiscite. I congratulate the Chair on following the splendid example I set in my speech on Second Reading.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) appealed to Mr. Lynch concerning a poll below the border. That appeal would be far more opportune if we had had a clear statement from the United Kingdom Government that Mr. Lynch had been asked about the poll in Northern Ireland. If we decide to have a poll north of the border, in the six counties, I am sure that Mr. Lynch, the Republic being a sovereign power, can decide to have a poll, if he so wishes, in the 26 counties. If, by some queer quirk of fate, the result in Northern Ireland were a majority for joining the Republic, we would be saying to Mr. Lynch, "Here are the six counties; here are 1½ million people". He could reply, "I never asked for that". It would be our decision to shove them into the Republic, which would not have been asked whether there was room for them. The British Government did not discuss with Mr. Lynch the wisdom or otherwise of having this plebiscite. Moreover, they did not discuss with him what should be

  1605
  the direction of the questions put in the poll.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: The constitution of the Republic lays claim to Northern Ireland. One assumes, therefore, that the door is for ever open as far as Mr. Lynch is concerned. My point is that if Mr. Lynch were to engage in a simultaneous poll the sole purpose of it would not be constructive but destructive.
  Mr. McNamara: If there were a poll in the Republic at the same time, at least we should have the voice of all the people of Ireland being raised on the problem. One of the problems here is that we have never heard the voice, united or disunited, of the whole of the Irish people together. If we did, we might have an overall majority in favour of the six counties being united with the 26 counties. The hon. Gentleman must bear that in mind. On the question of the constitution of the Republic and what it lays claim to or does not lay claim to, the hon. Member of all people will surely not seek to intervene in the affairs of another sovereign State since he opposes strongly any suggestion that the Republic should interfere in the affairs of Northern Ireland.
  If a poll is to be held in Northern Ireland, it is important to have adequate provision and protection for those seeking to vote or not to vote. They have to have adequate protection. That means that polling booths must be sited in areas where intending voters are not likely to be subjected to intimidation of any sort and are not likely to be driven away from the poll. That will create all sorts of difficulties which the Government will have to consider when drawing up the various regulations. The Secretary of State may have to split up whole districts, perhaps sides of streets, and establish new polling stations in new areas which can be adequately protected so that members of various communities can feel that they can go in safety to vote if they so desire.
  There is the question of the Flags and Emblems Act. How are people who seek to advocate support of the second question in the Schedule going to be able to show or demonstrate their attitudes? Are they going to be able to wave their flags and their emblems, which they regard
  1606
  as being important and symbolic? Surely this is something we should accept as being symbolic for the peace we all want, because the whole symbolism of that flag is peace between Orange and Green. It is something we should welcome instead of regarding it as a sectarian symbol.
  These are some of the problems—the security of the voter, the suspension of legislation which either of the communities feels to be repressive, hindering them in the free exercise of democratic choice and in trying to persuade people to adopt their views. We have a further duty. We have so to arrange this poll as to ensure that the security forces, particularly members of the British Army, are not placed at risk. The task is difficult enough but we do not want it worsened through the poll. The security arrangements to be made on that day for the protection of voters, officers and polling booths must be carefully considered. We do not want the Army to be too much at risk from either side.
  [Mr. C. M. WOODHOUSE in the Chair]
  Mr. Fitt: This is one of the most important amendments that we shall be discussing because unless adequate protection can be given to intending voters, whether they are in favour of the maintenance of the present link or in favour of a link with the Republic, then the whole plebiscite will have been not only a wasted exercise but a dangerous experiment. In that event we shall be called to account by those who will have lost their possessions, who have been intimidated and who may even have lost their relatives by death.
  It would not be the first time in the history of Northern Ireland that people have suffered grievously on such emotive issues because of their voting intentions. Many people have lost their homes and possessions because they lived in a certain area. When the results of elections were declared their homes were attacked and burned. I do not say that this will happen only to Catholics. It can happen to Protestants living in certain predominantly Catholic areas. With passions aroused and the escalation of tension that will undoubtedly accompany this plebiscite they, too, could suffer.

  1607
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has pointed out the dangers inherent in this plebiscite. The Falls Road and the Shankhill Road are both in my constituency. Some people will have to traverse the side roads between the Falls and the Shankhill to go to the polling stations. People who want to vote may decide not to go up the Shankhill because they will be intimidated. If they do go up that street they may be shot at by a sniper. What do the Government have in mind? Will they have members of the security forces on every street leading to a polling station? Will security forces be outside polling stations? Will the cars carrying voters from the Falls Road area be allowed to travel through the Shankhill Road area displaying a Tricolor? The Tricolor is the symbol of those who will wish to cast their votes for some form of unity with the Republic.
  If the Government take the view that the Union Jack is the national flag of Northern Ireland as at present constituted and that the other flag must not be given any preference or recognition, then the whole reason for the plebiscite falls to the ground. We are trying to get the plebiscite carried out in a peaceful way so that we may determine the attitudes of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. It appears that the Government are intent on forcing through legislation to allay the fears of the majority Protestant population.
  The Government must know that there is also a minority population with real fears, held for good reason. For 50 years they have lived under the domination of successive Unionist Governments. They have been the victims of this repressive legislation. For example, in replying to the last debate the Secretary of State said that the Government would be spelling out their intentions. He said that since the inception of the Northern Ireland State the United Kingdom Parliament had always been sovereign. He could have fooled me! When I came over here in 1966, together with my hon. Friends I repeatedly tried to raise questions about Northern Ireland but we were told by the Table Office that a convention existed and that it was not a matter for the House but for Stormont.
  1608
  Yet Stormont was the very Parliament that brought to the Statute Book the Flags and Emblems Act making it illegal to fly the Tricolor if someone took offence and objected to it. This kind of legislation was not passed in London and does not apply in any other part of the United Kingdom. While there were many people suffering because of that Act I was able to go to Hyde Park on Sunday afternoons and see hundreds of Tricolors. No one took offence and no one was imprisoned. [Interruption.] They may have been IRA supporters or supporters of a United Ireland but they were not sent to gaol or fined. It is impossible to do this in Northern Ireland.
  It is worthwhile repeating the case I mentioned on Second Reading. In 1964 an election was held for the Westminster Parliament and a Republican candidate named McMillan was fighting for a seat in this Parliament. Outside of his headquarters he had the Tricolor because that was the symbol of his party. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who is not here today, was at that time just becoming known. He threatened the Northern Ireland Government, the police, the Judiciary and the security forces, saying that if the flag were not taken down he would lead an army of militant Protestants into the Catholic area and remove the flag. Under that threat the police force and the Government surrendered.
  They went in. I was in the vicinity on that evening when they used a good deal of force and succeeded in taking down this flag. Is that likely to happen in this poll? If people are to be given the opportunity to vote one way or the other they must be allowed to use their symbol. As a Socialist I object to nationalist flags being used as symbols. I do not think that the Union Jack should be the property of any political party, particularly in Northern Ireland. I certainly do not think that the Irish Tricolor should be the property of any political organisation in Ireland.
  We have to face facts. Will Republican organisations in Northern Ireland be allowed to display even the colours of the Tricolor during the course of campaigning?

  1609
  I am not talking only about the flag. Even the display of green, white and orange colours is an offence under the Flags and Emblems Act. Will the people who support the establishment of a connection with the Republic be allowed to wear a Tricolor lapel badge? That is an offence.
  A person who wants to vote for the maintenance of the connection between Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be allowed to go into a Catholic area and display any number of Union Jacks and it will be an offence for anyone in that area to raise an objection. One can see how lopsided the law will be. I hope that the poll will be carried out with the intention of trying to arrive at the opinion—
  Mr. Stratton Mills: In the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman has described, the criterion is whether the act of a person is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and it therefore depends very much on the surrounding circumstances.
  Mr. Fitt: Exactly. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that if anyone were seen with a Tricolor on the Shankill Road it would lead to a breach of the peace, but if anyone were seen with a Union Jack in Ballymurphy it would not lead to a breach of the peace. It is not an offence to fly a Union Jack in Ballymurphy but it is an offence to fly a Tricolor in Shankill Road.
  Mr. Rose: Does my hon. Friend accept that the legal position is that the display of that flag would immediately become a breach of the peace as soon as someone said that he took offence at it and would try to take it down?
  Mr. Fitt: I agree with my hon. Friend. A reporter of the Belfast Telegraph took a photograph of a flag hanging in the window of the election headquarters in 1964. Most people did not see the flag hanging, but many people saw the photograph and said that they would take the flag down because it offended their susceptibilities. That will be the position in the election, and it will lead to a great deal of trouble.
  There are not enough security forces to carry out an election in these circumstances.
  1610
  There are 21,000 troops and there are the UDR men. I can imagine what would happen if a UDR man were asked to give an unbiassed opinion of a Tricolor which is being displayed. That man was probably originally a member of the "B" Specials but he is now wearing a different uniform and is better armed than he was under the Unionist Government. We cannot expect an impartial opinion from a UDR man. The British Army will have to carry out their normal duties and there will simply not be enough of them to carry out this extra duty.
  8.15 p.m.
  The Public Order Act puts great power into the hands of the local sergeant or inspector of the RUC. Many allegations of gross partiality have been levelled against those officers and I would not expect them to act with any impartiality in this situation. Passions will be aroused. We cannot put a citizen of Northern Ireland into the uniform of the RUC, the police reserve or the UDR and say to him, "From now on you are a member of the security forces and you are not allowed to have opinions of your own". We have to take into account his background, the background of his parents, whether his father was a member of the "B" Specials and how he became a member of the security forces in the first place.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I know that the hon. Gentleman may not pay much regard to my views, but does he not accept the testimony of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) to the impartiality of the RUC when she said that at election time a wagon load of them rescued her in her constituency?
  Mr. Fitt: I happened to be there on that occasion.
  Miss Devlin: Since my hon. Friend was there himself does he not remember that it was not due to the impartiality of the police but to the fact that at two o'clock in the morning, following the antics which took place, the Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Porter, looked in at the Apprentice Boys Club in Derry and ordered them to stop drinking and get the police into mid-Ulster?
  Mr. Fitt: Yes, I remember that occasion. I am not saying that every member of the RUC and the UDR is a sectarian bigot, but there are certain individual members of the UDR who cannot be expected to act with impartiality in the situation I envisage because of their traditions and background.
  There is on the Statute Book the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Act. Any person who says anything to any member of the security forces—be it the police, the Army or any other element —can be immediately sentenced to a mandatory six months imprisonment. That Act has caused untold trouble. It would undoubtedly be a factor in what is likely to happen during election meetings, either indoors or outdoors.
  The Public Order Act puts tremendous power into the hands of the police. For example, if notice is given to the police that a meeting is to be held on the question of unity with Ireland, a policeman can say that if the meeting is held there will be trouble. The Secretary of State will have to accept that advice because he will not know whether trouble can be expected in a particular district of Northern Ireland. He will have to depend on the advice lie is given by Ministry of Home Affairs officials or the RUC. They could give wrong advice to the Secretary of State because of their political attitude or their past history. If an RUC man says that a Tricolor should not be allowed to be carried into a certain area, the people who are trying to persuade voters to vote in a certain way will not be given all the privileges that are afforded to their political opponents who carry the Union Jack. How can we expect a true result when such restrictions are placed on one section of the electorate and no restrictions are placed on other sections of it? This is why I have been opposed to the poll from the very first. I cannot see an election such as this taking place without a very real danger of communal troubles and, possibly, loss of life.
  Why have a poll at all? Will it do us any good if, after the poll has been declared, we find that many members of the security forces have been killed, many houses wrecked, many people sent to prison, with the result that we shall know only what we knew before a single
  1612
  vote had been cast—namely, that the majority in Northern Ireland have once again said that they wish to maintain the link with the United Kingdom? If that is the situation at the end of the poll, then this House will not have brought any credit upon itself.
  I turn to the question of security for electors. Be those electors Catholics living in Protestant areas or Protestants living in Catholic areas, they are entitled to vote, to be given every facility, and afforded every protection to enable them to register their opinion one way or the other.
  What will happen if Protestants living in Catholic areas are afraid to go to the polls because of intimidation? And what will happen in the case of Catholics living in Protestant areas who feel they may be intimidated if they go to the polls? I think at once of East Belfast where many Catholics will be fearful of going to cast their votes in the afternoon. If they go to the security forces—to the Army or to the police—and say, "I want protection while I go to the polling station and cast my vote", will it be given to them or will the situation be as it was following internment in September, 1971, when the Unionist extremist mobs burnt Catholics out of their homes in Springfield Park, Dunboyne Park and the Ardoyne area? The police then said to many people who approached them, "We cannot do anything". That is why there are now so many burnt out properties and vacant homes in the city of Belfast.
  The Government cannot with any degree of credulity give an undertaking this evening that such protection will be afforded to intending voters. Therefore, if the Government want to conduct a plebiscite—and I do not believe that they should have one at all—they should say, "Every voter must have some opportunity to cast his vote so that we may be able to determine the real attitude of the people. In those circumstances we shall not use the Flags and Emblems Act". It would mean that people would be able to go anywhere with their flags. People with Union Jacks could take them into the Falls Road, and I think that they should be given the opportunity to go into the Falls Road to try to influence voters. It also means that Catholics

  1613
  should be able to go to the Shankill Road with the Tricolor to try to influence voters there.
  This is what this debate is all about. The poll is supposed to represent a democratic franchise. It is taking place under Westminster legislation, the 1949 Act, which guarantees the system of election to this House. I concede that that legislation is a fair piece of electoral law, but it should be made to apply to the plebiscite which is to be held.
  I shall listen with interest to the Government's reply. If I could be convinced that the security forces will act impartially, that the Flags and Emblems Act will not be used against one section of the population in Northern Ireland, that the Public Order Act will not be used to stifle any voice being heard in the campaign and in the run-up to the election. I might be prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. But if those guarantees are not given, then—knowing full well what the outcome would be—I must ask the House to support me in the Lobby.
  Miss Devlin: Before the Committee there are nine amendments, many of which are important enough to have been considered separately. I propose to speak only briefly on the amendments tabled by other hon. Members but I make no apology for the fact that I propose to speak at length on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and myself.
  Amendment No. 16 asks that at least for the purpose and for the duration of the campaign, and during the poll itself, such repressive legislation as now exists in Northern Ireland shall be repealed. That is not to say that we support the present or future existence of such legislation, but even in the Government's own terms it is completely impossible for them to declare that they are holding a democratic and free poll in the North of Ireland on the issue of unity with the United Kingdom or with the Republic of Ireland while there exists in Northern Ireland the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act, the Public Order (Amendment) Act, the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and the Special Powers Act.
  1614
  Many hon. Members are familiar with the Special Powers Act, but it is quite probable that there are some who have never before heard of the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act. In view of that, I do not consider it out of order to inform hon. Members about the legislation that we are discussing. Therefore, with the permission of the Chair, I propose to read the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act in order to show hon. Members how it is impossible for those people who are opposed to unification with the United Kingdom to be empowered legally to campaign for that in which they believe.
  Section 1 of the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act deals with the display of the Union Jack. It reads:
  "Any person who prevents or threatens to interfere by force with the display of a Union flag (usually known as the Union Jack) by another person on or in any lands or premises lawfully occupied by that other person shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
  Then comes the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), dealing with the removal of provocative emblems:
  "Where any police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any emblem is being displayed, apprehends that the display of such emblem may occasion a breach of the peace, he may require the person displaying or responsible for the display of such emblem to discontinue such display or cause it to be discontinued; and any person who refuses or fails to comply with such a requirement shall he guilty of an offence against this Act."
  Before reading further, let me point out the difference between that and legislation existing in the rest of the United Kingdom. When one talks about emblems one is not talking about the flag of the Irish Republic—the Tricolor; one is talking about any other emblem apart from the Union Jack. That can be and has been the Red Flag. It can be the Starry Plough. It can be the banner of any trade union. It can be the wearing of a lapel badge in the form of the Tricolor. It can be and has been the wearing of a James Connolly Socialist badge. It can be the wearing of anything which is not the Union Jack. It can be almost the existence of a person who might be construed to be a political emblem.
  We come, then, to a situation not only in which can any such emblem be declared illegal but in which it is not necessary for a breach of the peace to take

  1615
  place; if a flag or an emblem is displayed it is not necessary for a breach of the peace to ensue before a police officer acts. In the course of his duty any police officer espying any emblem which in his personal opinion he may construe to be a breach of the peace in the present or in the future may immediately demand that it be removed.
  One is not talking solely in terms of Tricolors in the Shankill or Union Jacks in the Falls Road; one is talking about Tricolors displayed in the streets or the homes of people in the Falls Road.
  One is talking about emblems—possibly posters—urging people either not to vote in the poll or to vote for a United Ireland. They would legally constitute emblems which, if they were posted in any public place, might—and, knowing the Royal Ulster Constabulary, certainly would, in the eyes of 99 per cent. of its officers—constitute a possible breach of the peace. How, when that kind of law exists, can anyone in any way campaign for a vote against the link with the United Kingdom, or even campaign against voting?
  We then come to what happens to people who do not comply with the orders. We have the powers of the police:
  "Where

  (a) a requirement under the preceding subsection is not complied with; or

  (b) the person responsible for such display is not readily available; or

  (c) no person, or no person responsible for such display and capable of complying with such a requirement, is present on or in any lands or premises whereon or wherein such an emblem is being displayed;

  a police officer may, without warrant, enter"—
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Marsden: This is incredible. I have a relative who has a motor car with a United Nations emblem on it. If he took this car on a ferry to Northern Ireland on holiday, and if some copper in Northern Ireland took offence at it, is the hon. Lady saying that he is likely to be in trouble under this Act?
  Miss Devlin: That is exactly what I am saying—and given the level of political awareness among the Royal Ulster
  1616
  Constabulary, he is likely not to know that it is a United Nations flag, and is liable to construe it as some Republican symbol hitherto undiscovered by his colleagues.
  Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend also aware that the symbol of the European movement, which some hon. Members support, is a number of stars which can be taken at first glance to be the Starry Plough?
  Miss Devlin: My hon. Friend had better not take that symbol when he goes to Northern Ireland the next time.
  Hon. Members should hear the kind of legislation that went through Stormont. The passage that I was quoting goes on:
  "a police officer may, without warrant, enter any such lands or premises, using such force as may be necessary, and may remove and sieze and detain such emblem.
  It shall be a good defence to any proceedings (whether civil or criminal) against a police officer or constable in respect of anything done or omitted to be done for the purpose or in the course of carrying into effect the provisions of this section, to prove that anything in respect of which the proceedings have been instituted was done, or as the case may be omitted, in good faith for the purpose or in the course of carrying into effect any of those provisions."
  That simply means that any police officer—granted, first, that he is likely to see something that he himself does not like and thus declare it a possible breach of the peace—can without warrant, without any proper authority at all, immediately go on the individual rampage or, if there are several of them, on the collective rampage, and remove all emblems.
  If, in the course of this, he breaks a few skulls, wrecks a few windows, breaks and destroys some property, happens to arrest the wrong person, it shall be a good defence for him that what he intended to do was to prevent the display of an emblem. Therefore, he can more or less do what he likes in getting this emblem, as happened in 1964 in the case of the Divis Street flag.
  Hon. Members may not know that in the process of removing one flag from one window there was one week's solid rioting in that area, and it was a good defence for the police that all they intended to do was remove the flag which, incidentally, they did by breaking the window. It did not occur to them to walk through the door and take it from the inside.

  1617
  The passage continues:

  "(1) Any person guilty of an offence against this Act shall be liable—

  (a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months;

  (b) on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or in any case to both the fine and the imprisonment hereinbefore respectively provided.

  (2) A court before which a person is convicted of an offence under section two of this Act may order any emblem in respect of which he is so convicted, and which has been seized and detained under that section, to be destroyed or otherwise disposed of."
  The only protection afforded to the community is in Section 4, which says:
  "Where any person is charged with any offence against this Act the court may, if it thinks fit, order him to be remanded in custody or on bail …"
  The record for the past three years of people in the Catholic community receiving bail—the position is commonly referred to as internment by remand—shows that it is almost impossible, even on the ridiculous charges with which a person might be charged under that Act, to obtain bail in a Northern Ireland court at present.
  Just to put a polite front on repression, the Act finally tells us:
  "This Act may be cited as the Flags and Emblems (Display) (Northern Ireland) Act 1954."
  That is one piece of legislation already at the disposal of the Secretary of State. Yet, with either the naivety of a fool or the impudence of a Stormont Minister, he asks the House for further powers. The right hon. Gentleman also has the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and the Special Powers Act, which should give him power to do almost anything. He has yet another piece of legislation, bits of which should be read in the Committee to show hon. Members the kind of law that exists in Northern Ireland. They should apply their minds to the facts of Northern Ireland and see how the law applies, where it applies, and to whom.
  We come to the Public Order (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland), 1970, where we are told that:
  "It shall be an offence under section 1 of the Public Order Act … for any person knowingly
  1618
  to take part in a public procession in respect of which notice required by that section has not been given or which is organised or conducted otherwise than in accordance with such a notice and, accordingly, in subsection (2) of that section after the words 'attempting to conduct' there shall be inserted the words 'or knowingly taking part in'".
  The amendment to that preceding Public Order Act goes on to change the period of notice. Hon. Members interested in United Kingdom laws and democracy will note that we can march to our hearts' content around Hyde Park. The Irish, unfortunately, seem to be distinguished by the fact that they are not allowed to march around Trafalgar Square, but we are at least allowed the odd Sunday jaunt to the Embankment without serving prior notice to the police. In the North of Ireland 72 hours' notice is required of any public procession or demonstration that moves from one place to another. That does not mean that permission is automatically given to conduct that procession or demonstration. It means simply that without notice being given there is no question of the procession's being allowed. When notice is given, the chances are that if those concerned are likely to be displaying any emblems other than the Union Jack—we return to the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act—they will not obtain permission.
  The Public Order (Amendment) Act goes on to deal not only with the holding of processions but to provide for orders made by the Minister for Home Affairs. It gives him powers which are presumably now in the hands of the Secretary of State. Therefore, the Secretary of State already has power to make an order permitting the public procession but prohibiting
  "for such period not exceeding one month as may be specified in the order, the holding of any other public procession or any public meeting in that place or any other place so specified."
  Does that mean that if the Loyalists head for City Hall no one else will be able to get near it for one month? By that time no doubt the poll will already be over. Does it mean that if they hold to ransom the centre of every town and city in Northern Ireland, as they have in the past, no one else will be allowed to assemble there for one month? Those powers are already in the Secretary of State's hands, but still he asks for more.

  1619
  How does he propose to conduct a democratic poll with legislation like that?
  We have seen how the legislation works. The Loyalist Association of Workers can lay down tools and march on the city hall, and the security gates will be open for them. The security forces will stand back, and through they will march. But, should anybody else try it, those gates will be firmly shut in their faces, and any attempt to proceed further will constitute a breach of the law for which people will receive mandatory gaol sentences.
  The Secretary of State also has power to make an order prohibiting
  "for such period not exceeding twelve months as may be specified in the order, the holding in that place of all public processions or of any class of public procession so specified."
  By the time we get around to receiving permission to hold some of the meetings it may be time for the next poll. And still the Secretary of State requires further powers from the House, and still the British Government tell us that we are to have a democratic referendum in the North of Ireland.
  The Act continues:
  "Any person who knowingly takes part in any public procession or meeting held in contravention of an order under this section shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
  Therefore, those prosecuted will be not only those who organise meetings, those who serve notice on the police that they may take place, and perhaps those who propose to speak at them, but every man, woman and child old enough to be prosecuted who actually present themselves at such a meeting. That is the kind of legislation that we are dealing with.
  As was pointed out when that law was brought into effect, there are sections dealing with people endeavouring to break up public processions; there are measures to deal with people who sit in at public places, and measures to deal with the protection of buildings. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West will testify, we have too often seen how those pieces of legislation work. To take a hypothetical situation—if we hold a demonstration or meeting urging people not to vote or, possibly, as other people in the anti-Unionist section of the community would do, urging people to vote
  1620
  for union with the Republic of Ireland, it simply requires one flag-waving Unionist to arrive on the scene to constitute—according to the Act—an attempt to break up a lawful meeting. That is the situation if he and his mates arrive and start to make trouble.
  I see Unionist Members nodding disagreement. Of course, to them it means no such thing. But in law it means that we have held a meeting which has been provocative and is a breach of the peace, and we are immediately asked by the forces of law and order to cease our meeting and cease our procession, because it constitutes a breach of the peace. Unionist Members need not shake their heads. I have been in the situation, and they have never had their two feet on the ground except on 12th July.
  8.45 p.m.
  We continue with the same kind of legislation dealing with the wearing of uniforms. That legislation may not be well known to hon. Members, or even to members of the public here, who have repeatedly seen on their television screens the mass of the UDA marching up and down the streets. But the House is not unaware of the incident at the Shankill Road, where the UDA assembled what they claimed to be 8,000 men and the British Army moved back. There should not have been a military confrontation on that evening, because it would have led to a blood-bath on the Shankill Road. But there existed the law under which Mr. Herron, who appears regularly on television, could have been prosecuted.
  The law states:
  "Subject as hereinafter provided any person who in any public place or any public meeting place or in any public meeting wears uniform signifying his association with any political organisation or with the promotion of any political object shall be guilty of an offence."
  What of the sash wearers? What of the mask wearers? What of the uniforms of the UDA? People wearing them have never been prosecuted; but let those who want a united Ireland turn out with their regalia. I am not saying that I support it; there is too much flag-waving, too much sash-wearing, too much uniform-wearing on the streets of Northern Ireland. Let the Hibernians turn out. If the anti-partitioners turn out with their uniforms, the law says that they are guilty

  1621
  of an offence against the Act. The law says that they are guilty of an offence and are liable to at least six months' imprisonment. The law says that some of them are liable to possibly five years' imprisonment. Yet we are told that this is an opportunity for people to put forward their views without fear.
  I have not yet come to the question of fear on the streets. I am talking of the fear of the law and order that is supposed to protect us. It is said, "Obey the law; respect order". With laws and order like that, how can people obey? What would the Labour movement do on May Day if the Tories decided that it would be against the law for working class people in Britain to carry their trade union banners on the 1st May and to wear the Red Flag?
  Mr. McNamara: Move an amendment.
  Miss Devlin: My hon. Friend says "Move an amendment". I regret to say that undoubtedly the Opposition Front Bench would decide not to vote on it.
  Mr. McMaster: What would the hon. Lady think of a proposition that the swastika should have been worn and displayed in Britain during the last war?
  Miss Devlin: The hon. Gentleman makes a mistake when he cites emergency legislation in force in this country at a time of war and attempts to fool people into believing that he is dealing with similar emergency legislation and similar conditions in Northern Ireland. The Flags and Emblems Act was passed in 1954. We will soon be approaching 1974. Any Government who, after almost 20 years, are still trying to deal with an internal situation of emergency ought to have resigned long ago. If a Government cannot, within 20 years, sort out an internal emergency, they should have resigned.
  I have pointed out the powers already in the hands of the Secretary of State. How can a free poll on the question of the border be held when many repressive laws have already been passed which prevent an expression of view on the point that he is asking people to go to the polls on.
  How can people be asked to cast an "X" for unity with the Republic of Ireland when the legislation of Northern
  1622
  Ireland—and now, since Stormont is defunct, let this House not shirk its responsibility—is on the Dispatch Box. How can people be asked to make a free decision when law after law, Act after Act, can be cited to show that the expression of those ideals is made illegal by existing legislation? Therefore, if that legislation is not to be abolished immediately and for all time, I cannot see how the Minister can hold a referendum and maintain the use of current legislation.
  I come now to Amendment No. 10, in my name. For the life of me I cannot see what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wants with Clause 1(2). What powers does he not already have? Unless he proposes to implement the death penalty. I cannot see why he needs that provision. He has every bit of repressive legislation he needs already on the Statute Book.
  If people attempt to influence the result of the poll by any public display, he may clap them in irons for five years under the Flags and Emblems Act. If people attempt to assemble and hold meetings or processions to influence the poll, he may use the Public Order Amendment Act. If people attempt to persuade other individuals by word of mouth, or assemble in public buildings, or attempt to persuade the police, or members of the UDR, to vote one way or another in the poll, he may use the Criminal Justice Act. I should like to hear one reason for the clause.
  The Minister may well say that the Government are frightened of intimidation, perhaps from the Provisonal IRA, perhaps from the UDA. Let me not hear from the Minister that he will use that provision to do anything against the UDA, because, armed with the legislation he already has, he has not lifted a finger against the UDA.
  But if he intends it to deal with the Provisional IRA, what else does he need? Cannot he do as he is already doing—picking up every potential member of the Provisional IRA, that is, every male over the age of 16 in Belfast, interrogate him and have him thrown into Long Kesh to be interrogated further by three hacks of judges? There is no power under the sun that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does not already have, and the

  1623
  only reason that I can see for Clause 1(2) is that the Tories are hoping that some evil-minded genius will develop, or invent, yet another means of repression hitherto undiscovered by the rest of us and to be implemented in time for the poll.
  Could the Minister tell me—and this is a subject which I have often taken up at Stormont level and with the returning officers in the North of Ireland—how anybody will be able, without fear of intimidation, without fear of reprisal, to vote in an Orange hall for a United Ireland? How is a person to be asked to walk into an Orange hall to vote for an Irish Republic? The hall would probably fall down around his ears at the very thought of a vote being cast for a United Ireland inside such hallowed walls.
  But that is the situation. The polling stations in Northern Ireland are often in Orange halls. It is not as it is here. Could anyone imagine Tories voting in Trades Union Congress headquarters? Could anyone imagine a polling station lodged in the centre of Transport House? I should not like the Prime Minister's chances of getting a vote out of it. But people are to be asked, none the less, to vote in Orange halls.
  Whatever the Minister may decide, my position is clear. I am opposed to a poll and I will unrge people to stay away from it. But my task will be a lot easier than that of the Minister's because, armed with his legislation and the fears that the poll will bring about, it is not urging people to stay away from the polls that will be the hard task, but urging people to them, making them believe that they will be safe.
  Everything is against them. There is fear on the ground and fear in the community. Legislation institutionalises that fear and makes it technically illegal in the north of Ireland for people to walk into a polling station and vote for a Republic of Ireland. If they do so, they might find themselves "lifted" under the Public Order Amendment Act for behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
  Mr. Douglas: I apologise to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) for not taking up her remarks, although I appreciate the sensitivity with which she has illustrated the wearing of badges and emblems in Northern Ireland.
  1624
  I address myself to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, in her closing remarks, illustrated the responsibility on this Parliament. Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are probing amendments. It is not that I eschew strong drink—my constituency is a very large producer of whisky, a very important export—but in the situation which exists in Northern Ireland we have a responsibility, having conceded the poll, to ensure that the maximum number of people are capable of going to the poll on the day chosen.
  I should appreciate some indication from the Minister about what is in the Government's mind regarding the arrangements for that day, which he ought to choose with great care. I have thought about it a great deal, and I suggest that a Saturday might be an appropriate day, if it were a public holiday. This is a consideration which must be borne in mind for a maximum turn-out. An ordinary working day might not facilitate the turn-out that we all desire. We must ensure that the people who go to the poll can do so with the least possible hardship or impediment.
  The second amendment asks the Secretary of State to present a report on the conduct of the poll. I hope that the Minister will not resist the amendment because the drafting is not correct. I hope that the sentiment is clear—that the Secretary of State, or some other official named by him in an order, should have the responsibility of seeing how the poll was conducted and reporting the conduct of the poll to this Parliament.
  Mr. Foley: I should like clarification from the Minister in connection with Amendment No. 16, particularly on the Flags and Emblems Act. I do not know whether the Minister has been in Northern Ireland during an election campaign. It certainly is an experience.
  [Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]
  9.0 p.m.
  On Second Reading, I said this was the wrong moment and the wrong way to have such a poll. The logic of the Government's decision—the Prime Minister said it, and therefore it will happen—is to ask two simple questions, easily

  1625
  worded, easily understood. In effect they ask people, "Do you want to preserve the Union; or do you want to be part of a Republic of United Ireland?".
  If the Minister is saying that we want people to have the chance to talk and to persuade each other on these two matters, he must address himself to how they can do it, given the backcloth of legislation relating to political activity in Northern Ireland. Will he say that those who want to campaign for a "Yes" vote to question 2—"Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland, outside the United Kingdom?"—are to be allowed without let or hindrance to organise public meetings, to demonstrate, to wave the Tricolor? Does the Secretary of State require powers for that? Or will he announce that he is taking powers, or is asserting powers that he has, so that it may be seen that there is open discussion about what the people of Northern Ireland want?
  If the Minister ignores the whole history and background and reason for current legislation and pretends that there are no such limitations or restrictions on what people may say, what they may argue for, what flag they may carry, how can he talk about a poll to test opinion? The logic of bringing in this miserable little Bill is that people in Northern Ireland must be protected if they are to campaign openly to belong to a Republic of a united Ireland.
  I expect the Minister to say whether that is so, whether there will be a repeal of legislation, whether legislation will be put in cold storage during the election campaign, whether people will be protected from harrasment if they campaign for either result. I hope that he will answer that clearly and decisively.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: It will be no surprise to the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) if I indicate that her general political philosophy has no support from me or my hon. Friends, but the case that she has put today is weighty and I am appalled that not one Member of the Ulster Unionist Party challenged any of her statements. As an Englishman with little first-hand experience of the grassroots of Ulster, I express no opinion as to the accuracy of her case. It is the duty of hon. Members
  1626
  opposite who represent constituencies in Ulster to put a contrary case, if a contrary case exists.
  Mr. McMaster: The hon. Member can hardly have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) and myself, We both put vital questions about what is a minor point. The essence is clear at law. It is simply that anything likely to provoke a breach of the peace in any part of the United Kingdom must be resisted. Whether it provokes a breach of the peace is purely a question of fact in the circumstances.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Is it a fact, as claimed by the hon. Lady, that anybody flying the Union Jack in a minority area would be legally entitled to do so, but anybody flying the flag of the Republic of Ireland in any part of Northern Ireland would be committing an offence?
  Mr. McMaster: No.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Member must put it on the record and the Minister of State must clarify this matter.
  The speech of the hon. Lady carries great weight with Opposition Members—and, I hope, with Government supporters, for it has not yet been repudiated.
  Captain Orr: The Irish Tricolor is constantly flown in Ulster now. The criterion is still whether that is calculated to produce a breach of the peace.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: We shall wait to hear what the Minister says.
  Opposition Members have expressed grave doubts about whether the polling stations can be made secure. It is recognised that the only way in which the polling stations could even begin to have a chance of being secure for a free poll to be conducted is by the activities of the forces of the British Crown, the British troops.
  I point out again to all those interested in Northern Ireland that the only forces preventing a blood bath, the only forces giving people a chance to think, to ponder, to consider what should be done in the long run, are those sent there by this Parliament and under the command of this country. It is a matter of deep regret that both communities in Northern Ireland make these continued attacks, verbal attacks, as well as physical attacks,

  1627
  on forces on which we place this responsibility.
  It is no good hon. Members here supporting those who are continually critical of our troops. In the preservation of law and order during the conduct of this poll our troops will be subject to great provocation by both sides, not least by the—
  Captain Orr: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: —side represented by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who says, "Hear, hear", because those causing greatest concern to the British Army are those who are breaking every law of Ireland and of the United Kingdom by parading in the streets in paramilitary uniforms, contrary to the Public Order Act, 1936.
  Captain Orr: Not my side.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Of course it is the hon. and gallant Gentleman's side. It is to those people that this argument is addressed. If they have the audacity to parade and to carry the Union Jack, yet involve British Forces in confrontations, let them know that they do not do so with the consent of the British people as a whole.
  Mr. McMaster: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not deliberately intend to malign the police in Northern Ireland or undermine their authority. He must be aware that the police withstood extremists on both sides, have frequently been attacked and have suffered heavy casualties as a result. The Army's job is to root out the gunmen, the Republican terrorists who are armed—in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: The Army seem to be doing a lot more than just rooting out gunmen, and certainly while the poll is taking place, the soldiers will be called on to undertake other duties.
  I hope that the Minister of State will tell us why troops transferred from service in Germany to perform these difficult duties will lose their overseas allowance immediately they arrive in Northern Ireland. It is a matter of considerable concern to the British forces and should be to Members of Parliament who are about to put yet another responsibility
  1628
  on them, while at the same time withdrawing extra pay to which they have been accustomed.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Listening to this debate makes me feel that we are back on the Anglesey Marine Terminal Bill, because it seems to be taking place under water. Rarely have I listened to a debate—and this has continued for more than five hours—less related to reality. On the one hand there is a situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) in which the battered inhabitants of Northern Ireland and our own forces there are exposed to danger and death. At the same time we have this piffling little Bill, utterly irrelevant to the situation, with its absurd Schedule dragged in which will decide nothing at some little expense, but which will create danger to our forces which will be there, and others which will participate, and danger to those who will refuse to participate.
  I have enormous admiration for my hon. Friends the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) and the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), who can move amendments such as those now under discussion as though they were dealing with a logical situation in which amendments of this irrelevant and unnecessary detail on a Bill itself an absurdity would clarify or improve anything. [Interruption.] When my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley interrupts, I wish to reassure him that I meant that in no derisory way. I admire him for trying to import what my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich has desperately described as logic into a situation that is totally illogical.
  Of all the amendments that we are disussing in this group—and I shall, if I catch your eye, Mr. Mallalieu, return to this theme when we discuss the Schedule; "Alice in Wonderland" would be a better description for it—the only one that seems to have any validity of all those that my hon. Friends have painstakingly worked out, with the best intentions, is Amendment No. 10, tabled by the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster to delete a subsection. I favour

  1629
  amendments which would consecutively delete all the subsections until no Bill remained, because that is the only logical way in which one can deal with a Bill of such extraordinary lunacy.
  On this amendment it seems that the hon. Lady, with that devastating logic which marked her maiden speech, has hit upon the nub of it—that although the Bill is a nonsense—and, in so far as it has any meaning; is a dangerous nonsense—the one definite thing that it does is to provide the opportunities for the regime in Northern Ireland to create new criminal offences. This is something dear to the hearts of those who rule Northern Ireland, whether Stormont or the Secretary of State. Here is an opportunity for criminal offences—the only reality provided by the Bill.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: The logic of my hon. Friend's argument is leading him closer to the point of view which I have sought to put, namely, that the problems of Ireland as a whole will not be settled by this Parliament, or by Englishmen in particular. Would he not agree, therefore, that the only meaningful poll would be a poll of people of the United Kingdom as a whole which would provide the groundwork for a peaceful transfer of powers to an independent Northern Ireland?
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Kaufman: I have a great deal of sympathy for the reasoned amendment which my hon. Friend put down on Second Reading, and for which, had it been selected. I should have voted. While I do not accept that that is the only meaningful poll, I believe that given the two alternatives in the Schedule—without "Have you stopped beating your wife?" as a third, equally sensible possibility—we are faced with a Bill which is a patent idiocy. I intervene at this point, as I might at any stage have intervened, in order to ask, "Am I the only person in this Committee who sees that the Emperor is wearing no clothes?".
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I wish to ask only one practical question arising from the interesting contributions that we have heard about the problem of the location of polling booths. By "interesting" I mean that they provided information
  1630
  hitherto unknown to many of us, since this kind of thing does not occur in the elections in which we participate. We have heard that some polling booths are situated in Orange halls—a fact which, considering the situation in the North of Ireland, seems odd.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) spoke of the problems of people in the Catholic community who have to walk through a Protestant community in order to vote; and, of course, similar difficulties occur in the opposite case. This situation has arisen during many Northern Ireland elections. Indeed, from what I have seen and heard from those involved, it would appear that undoubtedly people in some parts of the province need to be brave to venture out to vote.
  When considering proposals for local elections in Northern Ireland on 6th December, and considering the question of the new boundaries, I think that as a result of an order the House appointed a chief electoral officer. I have no doubt that, had the elections taken place next week, he would have ably performed his task. However, will the Minister explain whether that officer would have any say in the siting of polling booths for local elections? I suspect that he does not, and that the responsibility for the location of the polling booths lies with the under-sheriff. This is a job which is unknown to electoral law in England and Wales, although there may be a connection with Scottish procedure. Certainly in this country the returning officer plays a part through the local authority.
  Assuming that I am correct, and that the under-sheriffs are charged with this duty, can they be given advice or instruction, or can they be asked merely to read what was said in Parliament? What can be done to ensure that they take carefully into account the siting of the polling booths?
  Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that in many areas—particularly country areas but also in the town, as far as my constituency is concerned—the only hall available is one which, unfortunately, is used by both sides. It is used by both Catholics and Orangemen. It is, in fact, the only hall available.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that, in elections in which I have played a part, in one instance the local authority supplied metal huts which were brought in for the purpose. I should not have thought that it was beyond the wit of man to do something about the matter. The short quesion is: has the Secretary of State any power at all, or does he just have to sit back and hope that these under-sheriffs will read what we have said?
  The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William van Straubenzee): We have had a long, and very properly a long discussion, because this is an important series of amendments, dealing as the Committee will recall, with certain aspects of the conduct of the poll. I shall attempt to deal as fully as possible with the questions raised and to answer all the comments made in the speeches to which we have listened.
  What I shall not do is to argue again, in effect, the case for the bill. The position of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), is a perfectly fair one, but if we are to have any kind of Committee procedure, he must not expect me to re-open the Second Reading principle or the question of timing which was the purport of the previous series of amendments. I fully understand that he and other hon. Members are dead against the whole issue.
  When the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) began his remarks by saying, "This is the most curious debate I have listened to", I wondered where the hon. Member was, because he only joined us at a comparatively late stage in the debate.
  Mr. Kaufman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. van Straubenzee: Naturally I shall give way to the hon. Member, as I have made a personal reference—but I had a feeling that perhaps when I came to the Dispatch Box, it was me without the clothes that he had in mind—
  Mr. Kaufman: My imagination stretches a good deal, but not as far as that. I have been attending this debate in what might be described as an intermittent manner, because whenever I have entered the Committee the sheer fantasy
  1632
  has overwhelmed me so much that I have had to go out to have a drink and come back again.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: That is clearly in order, because we have discussed an amendment about drink—but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in Committee at the time.
  I return to the debate, because it is a serious matter. Let me establish that as a principle it is my right hon. Friend's intent that anyone who wishes, within the law, to express a view one way or the other as a result of the poll, shall be enabled to do so. That is the way we ourselves got here, and that—as far as can conceivably be managed—is my right hon. Friend's intent in Northern Ireland.
  Both sides of the Committee are only too painfully aware that there are certain regrettable conditions in Northern Ireland affecting both communities. Members of both sides in Northern Ireland are affected by fear. In those circumstances it may be that certain restrictions, of a kind which in the remainder of the United Kingdom we should not find acceptable, are still necessary. Naturally, I hope that that situation will not exist for long, but such conditions exist at present. I think, therefore, that it would help the Committee if I dealt consecutively with the amendments, though not necessarily in the order in which they have been put down.
  Dealing first, as the lead amendment, with Amendment No. 9, the short answer is that the under-sheriffs are returning officers. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) raised a question on this matter which is not unknown to us in England. I should not dream of venturing any view about Scotland; I think that the House knows that my family came to this country in 1745 in order to suppress the Scots. I have therefore always had to be careful when talking about Scotland—partially because I have felt that we were never very successful in what we attempted to do.
  In English counties the sheriff is the returning officer, and the working returning officer is his deputy. This Is normal procedure. We have established the important point that this poll is to be run on what I might call, in brief, the Westminster rules.

  1633
  The answer to the hon. Gentleman's very important question lies in the Representation of the People Act, 1949. As he, with his extensive Home Office experience, will know, in Schedule 2 there are extensive parliamentary elections rules. The question of the provision of polling stations is in Rule 26—an important point. The returning officers will be responsible. But it is perfectly acceptable that they should have consultations and advice from the security forces. They are not in law bound to accept a polling station scheme which is already prepared by a local authority. They may, for security reasons, find a building unacceptable in a particular area; they may wish to make alternative arrangements.
  This Act and these rules apply to a parliamentary election. A parliamentary election has a nominated candidate, questions of deposits, with which we are all familiar, but none of those questions will arise. That is why it is necessary for my right hon. Friend to have the additional powers which are contained in subsection (2) and to which exception has been taken by the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and others, because we have to do something which has not been done before. This answers an interjection on Second Reading by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer). So far as I know there is no precedent and my right hon. Friend must have certain additional powers.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) was very properly concerned about extensions of postal voting. He made the point that communities may move, and they may be uneasy to return to their former dwellings where their vote is registered if the poll is to take place before the new register. My right hon. Friend was very outspoken in the House about the timing question. [Interruption.] Yes, he was, indeed. He was perfectly straight as to why he was keeping his options open.
  It may well be necessary, by regulations made under this subsection, for my right hon. Friend to widen the provisions for postal voting, which would assist the very point that the hon. Gentleman was making.
  Miss Devlin rose—
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I will give way; I think I know what is in the hon. Lady's mind. Let me try to be a mind-reader, if that is an accurate description of what goes on with the hon. Lady.
  It is true that the subsection ends with certain additional words. I have evidently read the hon. Lady's mind. I ask the hon. Lady to understand my predicament. There is an amendment in the next group of amendments which deals specifically with those words. I should be out of order and would incur your wrath, Mr. Mallalieu—which would be a terrible experience—if I were now to discuss the next series of Amendments. Perhaps the hon. Lady will be patient with me and wait till we get there. Apart from anything else, it would be discourteous to hon. Gentlemen who will be moving those Amendments.
  9.30 p.m.
  In principle, the reason behind subsection (2) is that we need the additional powers to make appropriate adjustments, basing ourselves on the fact that the Westminster regulations are for a parliamentary election. I hope that even the hon. Lady may feel that there is nothing more sinister in it than that. I think that she was pulling my leg when she talked about the death penalty—
  Miss Devlin: In Northern Ireland, we would never be surprised at anything the Government introduced. In fact, we always imagine that they are pulling our legs when they tell us they are governing the country.
  I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman has said with regard to the Clause. If he is saying that he had nothing sinister in mind—they may be admirably worded ideals that he put forward—could it not have been within the ability of whoever drafted the Bill to take a leaf out of the hon. Gentleman's book and draft it as he has explained it at the Dispatch Box, leaving out all the sinister words like reference to criminal penalties? Nobody ought to have a criminal penalty imposed upon him because he does not use the postal vote.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Lady is not being fair with me. I have quite expressly not stated a view on the words dealing with criminal penalties, and I

  1635
  have not done so because of the procedures of the Committee. I am not being unstraightforward with the Committee. An Amendment is to follow later, and I must, out of courtesy to the mover, wait till we reach that point. But I am telling the hon. Lady that, in principle, subsection (2) is intended to do the sort of things that I have explained.
  If she will reflect for a moment, it would not make sense to seek in an Act of Parliament to draft every small additional power one would need, in order to make the adjustments that I have described, particularly when there may be some arising out of this debate. There might be certain further additional powers by regulation which it is necessary to have.
  Mr. Rose: Could the hon. Gentleman assist me? The poll is to be conducted as at a General Election in the United Kingdom, and there are specific powers granted to the Minister to modify the method in which it is held. Could the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is possible for the Minister to make the sheriff responsible to this Parliament in a way there would not otherwise be, and himself provide for the siting of the polling stations? If that be done, he can meet Amendment No. 9 in that way through the orders that he will lay. If that is not so, and it is left to the sheriffs on the spot, he will not have met the point in Amendment No. 9. It is important that he deals with it.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I have gone as far as I can properly go. I shall study what the hon. Gentleman said. It is important to be accurate in matters of this kind. If he will do me the goodness to look at the regulations in the 1949 Act under which the sheriffs will be working as returning officers, under Westminster rules, he may feel, upon reflection, that the matter is much more closely supervised than, perhaps, at first he realised.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Can the Minister clarify two matters? As the poll will be conducted under the Westminster rules, does this mean that a citizen of Northern Ireland who is temporarily living in this country, but registered in Northern Ireland, would be entitled to a postal vote? Second, can the Minister confirm that the persons appointed to
  1636
  act as presiding officers and polling clerks will have the same duties and responsibilities as they would in this country in an election, particularly in respect of impersonation and other matters which they have a duty to oversee?
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I hope I am giving the correct answer to the hon. Gentleman—if I am not, I shall write to him—I believe that the answer to his first question is "Yes", and to the second certainly "Yes".
  The hon. Member for East Stirling-shire (Mr. Douglas) raised a very reasonable question about licensed premises. Is is not an easy matter to make a judgment about. There are arguments both ways and, of course, the very considerable change in drinking habits, as the hon. Gentleman will know—I am sorry, I say, "as the hon. Gentleman will know", and he looks unhappy. I mean that he knows third-hand about other people's drinking habits—that there is consumption at home and that kind of thing. It is a reasonable point, though I think there are grounds for wondering whether it might be counter-productive to do this as he suggests. There is already power under the existing law of Northern Ireland to close licensed premises in the interests of public order. I undertake that we will consider carefully whether it might be a wise provision. I only want him to appreciate that there are arguments on both sides of that particular fence.
  I have dealt with the reason for the subsection, which I hope is acceptable to the Committee, and I have dealt with the regulations. I want now to deal with the important series of amendments on existing—what some hon. Members consider repressive—legislation. This is not easy.
  As the Committee knows I am but an inadequate lawyer, but all lawyers have a sense of the rights of other people, and I am sure that it is widely shared. There are real difficulties here.
  For example, I take the Public Order Act, 1951, to which there have been two subsequent amendments, as the House knows. There are important provisions in that Act about endeavours to break up public meetings. I wonder whether it would be to the benefit of a well conducted poll, and campaign leading up to

  1637
  a well conducted poll—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but there are certain important provisions in the statute law which I think it important to have available. We have to recognise the facts of the situation in Northern Ireland, which none of us wishes were there.
  To take one example, while in most of the United Kingdom we feel that, within the law, people should be able to demonstrate and process. I think that one of the few exceptions is the immediate environs of this Palace. Other than that, we wish always to have the broadest amount of freedom.
  The facts of the matter are—they have come out frequently in discussion of the amendments—that there are parts, particularly of Belfast, where if one group processed from one side through the territory—if I may use that word loosely—of the other, or there were a counter-demonstration, there might be bloodshed.
  I was faced with this—under my right hon. Friend's direction—on Sunday. It is most distasteful for anybody—and I think that even the hon. Lady will accept my personal bona fides in this matter—actually, physically, to sign an order preventing a procession going to certain parts. But faced with conflicting processions, and faced with the strongest evidence from reputable and reliable sources that there may be resultant bloodshed, where does the duty of Ministers lie? Ministers of all parties have faced this kind of problem. I think it would be questionable whether, at a time like this, it would be wise for the Government to release themselves from use of these powers.
  Miss Devlin: While I am not questioning the hon. Gentleman's bona fides in the matter, the point that I am attempting to make is that although we have common law, and legislation to deal with people who cause breaches of the peace, who disrupt orderly meetings, in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, the Public Order (Amendment) Act was necessary. I should like the hon. Gentleman to look through the case history of the working of that Act since 1970. He will undoubtedly think that a loyalist demonstration, faced with the prospect of a counter-demonstration from
  1638
  the anti-Unionist population, will be given protection under that Act from those likely to disrupt the march or procession.
  However, if the shoe were on the other foot and the anti-Unionists attempted to hold a similar procession, the workings of the Public Order (Amendment) Act are such that instead of protecting them under the provision outlawing attempts to break up a meeting, the meeting would be prohibited under the provision which guarantees the security of the peace. It is this one-sided working that leads me to say that in the event of campaigning on a poll, there is no reason for the Catholic population to see things any differently. The city centre of Belfast is always open to Vanguard, the Loyalist Association of Workers and the Ulster Defence Association while—
  The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Lady must not make a speech when making an intervention.
  Miss Devlin: With respect, Mr. Mallalieu, I am trying to impress on the hon. Gentleman the way that Act has worked and the way we believe it will continue to work in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I think that the hon. Lady has made her point. She was kind enough to accept my bona fides in the matter, for which I am most grateful. She will know that my right hon. Friend, during the period when he has had the heavy burden of making decisions—and ultimately it is he, of course, as the senior Minister, who does—has banned Protestant marches. It is not an easy matter on one side or the other, and I am not blaming either side. I am simply saying that I am well aware of the counter-demonstration threat to stop the demonstration. This is exactly the sort of difficulty in which a Minister finds himself and I can only say that, as long as my right hon. Friend has authority in this matter it will be our intention to try to operate powers which are distasteful absolutely without discrimination.
  I cannot expect that we shall not sometimes be accused of discrimination, but I can say with some strength of feeling that it will be our intention so to avoid it. It must mean that I must spend a few moments on what I understand is an Act

  1639
  which causes intense irritation and perhaps I may say that I think it unlikely that an Act of this kind—the Flags and Emblems Display Act—would have been passed in this House. But it is fair to say that when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) and other hon. Members interpreted the law, they were, with respect to them, giving the House accurate information, and that is the answer to the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). It is the display of an emblem which may occasion a breach of the peace. I was not there and I do not know, and so I am forming no judgments about the way in which in every case the provisions of the law may or may not have been enforced.
  9.45 p.m.
  Quite obviously, no Minister in this House can change the law without the authority of the House, or interfere with the administration of the courts in any part of the United Kingdom, but it will be my right hon. Friend's intention that, within the law, the greatest freedom shall be given to be able to express points of view and to do so freely.
  That is a reasonable undertaking for a Minister to try to give and it would not, in those circumstances, he wise for us in dealing with a limited Bill, dealing with a limited matter, to start altering other laws. For all I know there must be change of laws generally. I am not taking my stand, I am not making a great pretence of an Act, I am talking about it in relation to this Bill.
  Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand it, subsection (2) states that
  "The Secretary of State may by order make such further provision as to the conduct of the poll and matters connected therewith as may appear to him to be expedient, including provision modifying or excluding for the purpose of the poll any enactment or statutory provision that would by virtue of subsection (1)(c) above apply …"
  Surely there is power within that Clause to suspend the operation of the Flags and Emblems Act.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I think not. I hesitate to cross quill pens with the hon. Gentleman, but he will recall that he is
  1640
  limited to Section 1(1)(c). I will study this point, but, with respect, I think that he will find that that limitation would not give the necessary width in the matter.
  Mr. Orme: May I press the Minister on this point? Taking the argument that the Flags and Emblems Act was brought in for previous elections that have taken place in Northern Ireland, the important point is that a plebiscite is being held on the issue of either joining or not joining the Irish Republic. This issue has never been posed in previous elections and, in consequence, the Government must look very closely at this issue; if they are able to assist by any direction or amendment, I think that steps should be taken to do so, in order to give a clear indication that if people want to show their flags or their emblems on this occasion it will be permissible.
  Will the Minister give that undertaking?
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I certainly undertake to consider the matter. One of the difficulties is that the flag commonly and, indeed, actually identified as a Union Jack in legislation, is and has a very special position. I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Member for Belfast, West, who said earlier in our discussion that he was always sorry that anybody anywhere used the flag of the United Kingdom as a political symbol.
  I say quite sincerely that when I go to Conservative Party meetings and find a table, for example, draped with the Union Jack, I am always genuinely regretful. I like to think that members of all parties have a common allegiance to it, and I prefer that it should not be done.
  I must take facts as they are. I cannot just alter the circumstances of Northern Ireland overnight; even my right hon. Friend cannot do that. We have to take account of reality. I need not say this to Northern Ireland members. I will see whether any further steps can be taken, but my general thesis is that in a Bill dealing with a poll like this it is not appropriate to take suspensionary powers, or powers of amendment. It would be better to proceed in a total way.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: While I understand his response to the comments from the Benches opposite, would my hon.

  1641
  Friend remember that it is the essential aim of such legislation to deal with provocative behaviour and prevent breaches of the peace?
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I am much obliged. I attempted to say that, but I did not put it so well. My hon. Friend is quite right. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible and proper for Ministers to give guidance about matters of this kind, certainly on the limited period of a poll.
  Mr. Foley: I should like the Minister to address himself to the question that I raised earlier and which he has not adequately answered. We are in a unique position with this proposal—the Minister conceded that it was unique. We have had this backcloth in Northern Ireland over the past 50 years and we should like to know whether the Government genuinely intend that this poll should be carried out in such a way that people who want to express themselves and campaign in favour of a United Ireland will not be restricted from doing so.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: So long as it causes no breach of the peace on either side. The hon. Gentleman is as much an upholder of the law as he knows that I am. After all, that applies to hon. Members here and to the remainder of the United Kingdom. None of us would be prepared to see a breach of the peace, and so long as it is not such, I believe that I can give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking in good faith.
  What he is not entitled to ask from me, and what I am not prepared to give him, is an undertaking that all forms of expression, however outwith the law they are, shall be permitted. That would be a negation of responsibility by Ministers charged with the not easy task of the Northern Ireland office. With that explanation, I hope that I have given a categoric assurance.
  The last thing that I am required to do is to deal with the comparatively small but important amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire about the report. The answer is in principle, yes, it is my right hon. Friend's intention to report to the House and to keep the House informed about the outcome of the poll. Perhaps I could have freedom as to the form of the report, but there is no intention on the part of my right hon.
  1642
  Friend to be other than absolutely frank with hon. Members.
  I hope for those reasons that I have shown that, with the exception of the last words of subsection (2), as to which I am not allowed to speak on these amendments, I have shown sympathy towards the spirit of a number, but I have shown why it would not be in the interests of the Committee to accept the actual wording. I hope, therefore, that the issues will not be pressed to a Division. If they are, I must advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Amendments.
  Mr. Rose: Before the matter is put to the vote, I should like to explain to the Committee my reasons for not pressing the matter to a vote. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) rightly said, this is a farce and the purpose of these amendments, and indeed the result of the argument on them, has been to show that without doubt all that the Government have done has been to add a burden to the security forces, endanger the lives and property of all those people in Northern Ireland who may well vote in this referendum and conduct it in circumstances in which it is impossible to conduct the normal political process fairly so that voters may equally participate and display their emblems.
  In those circumstances, the debate itself suffices to deal with those matters. The Minister has gone as far as he can to answer individual objections. On that basis, I feel that there is no purpose in pressing an amendment to a Division. It will serve to show the Government that the day they promised this poll they made a grievous error and they will probably rue the day.
  Mr. Fitt: Amendment No. 16 stands in my name and in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). I had hoped that it would not be necessary to press this matter to a Division. I recognise that by taking such a step, I shall have alienated some of my hon. Friends, but this is a matter of such deep concern to my constituents that I will ask the Committee to divide on the issue.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member's Amendment is not selected.
  Mr. Fitt: With respect, Mr. Mallalieu, it is.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Yes—selected for discussion, but not for a Division.
  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Jopling.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided:Ayes 25, Noes 86.

  Division No. 22.]

  AYES

  [9.58 p.m.

  Atkinson, Norman

  Latham, Arthur

  Rose, Paul B.

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Booth, Albert

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Stallard, A. W.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Marquand, David

  Torney, Tom

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Marsden, F.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  English, Michael

  Meacher, Michael

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Horam, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Miss Bernadette Devlin and

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. Gerard Fitt

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roper, John

  NOES

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Kirk, Peter

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Benyon, W.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  St. John Stevas, Norman

  Biffen John

  Knox, David

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Lane, David

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Loveridge, John

  Soref, Harold

  Carlisle, Mark

  McMaster, Stanley

  Speed, Keith

  Chapman, Sydney

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Mather, Carol

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Clegg, Walter

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Crowder, F. P.

  Moate, Roger

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Eyre, Reginald

  Molyneaux, James

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Money, Ernle

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Mudd, David

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Fowler, Norman

  Murton, Oscar

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fox, Marcus

  Neave, Airey

  Warren, Kenneth

  Fry, Peter

  Normanton, Tom

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Green, Alan

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Hawkins, Paul

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Wilkinson, John

  Holland, Philip

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Howell, David (Guildtord)

  Perclval, Ian

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Mr. Michael Jopling and

  Kilfedder, James

  Raison, Timothy

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  NORTHERN IRELAND (BORDER POLL) BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. There was some confusion about the last vote and we seek your advice. If you recall, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) asked leave of the Committee to withdraw Amendment No. 9. He gave his reasons. That Amendment would have had considerable support, on this side of the Committee at least—certainly the argument underlying it received much support. At that point, however, my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Ulster

  1645
  (Miss Devlin) and Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) attempted to move Amendment No. 16. In the confusion which followed, and because it seemed that Amendment No. 16 could not be moved, the vote on No. 9 took place, although not for reasons connected with the merits. This led to more confusion.
  Could it be explained to the Committee why it was that Amendment No. 16, sponsored by hon. Members who have not been concerned with the arrangements of the Amendments, should not have been allowed a Division? This would not have led to the confusion on Amendment No. 9.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: It is open to any hon. Member to oppose the withdrawal of an amendment. That is what happened in this case.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. I think that it is clearly within the recollection of the Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) withdrew his Amendment without dissent. It was at a later stage—after my hon. Friend had withdrawn the Amendment and no objection had been taken—that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) raised the question of his Amendment No. 16. It was at that point that any confusion, if indeed there by confusion, arose. There is no question in the recollection of the majority of hon. Members in respect of the action of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I never had any intention of saying that the hon Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) did not wish to withdraw his Amendment. What I said was that afterwards other hon. Members rose and prevented that from happening.
  Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Will you cast your mind back to the second part of the point of order put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), when he asked about the situation of an Amendment put down by hon. Members who had no part in the arrangement of the business of the Committee—to wit, Amendment No. 16, standing in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast, West
  1646
  (Mr. Fitt) and Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin)? It was the opinion and hope of many of us that there would be an opportunity to divide on that Amendment. I understand that you said that it had not been selected for a Division, but at the start of the debate no indication was given as to which Amendments had or had not been selected for Division. In an earlier debate, when we divided on an Amendment which had been taken with another Amendment, when my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South said that we were having one for the price of two, or two for the price of three, we had no indication then of what the Chair was doing. We reasonably thought that we should be able to divide, if we wanted to, on Amendment No. 16.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I understand the difficulty in which the Committee finds itself and it will probably meet the case if I were to say that I shall select Amendment No. 16 for Division in due course.
  Mr. Rose: Further to that point of order. Mr. Mallalieu. If Amendment No. 16 is to be selected the position remains that I sought to withdraw Amendment No. 9, but a vote then took place ostensibly on that Amendment when we were voting on the principle of Amendment No. 16. To vote on Amendment No. 9 was the only way in which we could vote on Amendment No. 16. If we can now vote on Amendment No. 16 that is all very well, but in the Division only 25 Members voted because they thought they were voting on the principle of Amendment No. 16. Therefore, because of the decision the amendment which I sought to withdraw was voted upon but it was not voted upon by a large number of people. [Interruption.] It is a farce and it shows perhaps what a farce the Bill is.
  Mr. English: Further to the point of order. May I make clear that the confusion is even worse than my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) thinks. A large number of Members who came in from outside the House for the Division were voting, as everyone has to vote, on the text of the Amendment. The supporters voted for it because they believed in my hon. Friend's amendment. There is therefore utter confusion. I can only suggest—and it is

  1647
  feasible within our rules of procedure—that the last Division should be declared void, and that we should have the whole thing ab initio.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I cannot permit taking the Division again. It is not for me to say what hon. Members voted on, but I am prepared to permit a Vote on Amendment No. 16, in due course if that is desired.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Further to the point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. We are in a serious difficulty because many of us were quite clearly under the impression that Amendment No. 9 had been withdrawn. If it had been clear to the House that Amendment No. 9 was being voted upon many hon. Members would have supported it. Now we are in a ridiculous position because of the advice tendered to you. Amendment No. 9 was withdrawn and we voted on it unknowingly. That vote must stand and we can now return to what was said before for a vote on Amendment No. 16. It would be better if you could reconsider and allow Amendment No. 9 to be taken again so that those who wish to vote for it can do so. In the absence of that I can see this argument going on for some time and that would be a most unfortunate waste of time.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I have already ruled that I am unable to take again a Division which has already been held. If the Committee wishes to vote on Amendment No. 16 it can do so.
  Mr. English: Further to the point of order. Mr. Mallalieu. If you cannot hold the Division again, although I am in some doubt as to the position, I know that provided the matter is raised immediately after the Division, if hon. Members declare that for various reasons they voted under certain misapprehensions, within our rules of procedure there are provisions for the voting record to be adjusted. May I suggest that if you cannot take the Division again, in this state of utter and absolute confusion that you ask hon. Members whether they wish to adjust their vote accordingly.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: If hon. Members were under a misapprehension, I am sorry, but there was no misapprehension here. The amendment was not withdrawn, a vote was taken and I can do nothing about that now.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. It is quite unacceptable for it to be recorded that the amendment was not withdrawn. It is clearly within the recollection of all who were in the Chamber that my hon. Friend did withdraw it and, because of the advice tendered by those sitting beside you there was a mess-up. If you cannot put the matter right, Mr. Mallalieu, should not the Committee be adjourned, and Mr. Speaker called back to the Chair in the hope that he can sort out the unholy mess we have been allowed to get into because of incompetence?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: There is no misapprehension whatever on the part of the Chair. If the hon. Member wishes to make a charge of incompetence against the Chair, he may do so—there are proper procedures for that—but he should not go on asserting that the amendment was withdrawn when it has been ruled that it was not withdrawn.
  Mr. F. P. Crowder: On a point of order. Would it not be right for those in opposition who are unable to resolve their difficulties to be given an opportunity to do so? After all, it is quite understandable that they have their difficulties and the sooner they can sort themselves out the better. Why not adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes so that they can decide where they stand and then we shall know where we are.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: It would be very much better if the Committee proceeded to discuss Amendment No. 12 and carried on with the business.
  Miss Devlin: Further to that point of order. Perhaps it would assist the Committee, and the farce of the procedures of this Committee could be resolved, if two Divisions could be taken on the one set of amendments. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and I, who in protest forced the Division on the group of amendments

  1649
  as a whole, having first been refused permission to divide on Amendment No. 16—you, Mr. Mallalieu, have now changed his mind—are happy that we have made our point and, if the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) can reconsider his position, we are willing either to accept a decision to divide the Committee
  1650
  now if it is desired or to let the matter drop.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I understand what the hon. Member is saying, but I am afraid that I cannot allow the decision on the Division to be undone.
  Mr. Peter Archer: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 6, leave out from 'elections' to the end of line 9.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: It will be convenient to take also Amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 9, at end insert:
  'Provided that no such provision shall modify or exclude any enactment or statutory provision specifying the qualifications governing entitlement to vote'.
  Mr. Archer: We have reached the debate for which the Minister of State gave such a kind "commercial" a few moments ago. The amendments relate to Clause 1(2). On the Second Reading I asked the Secretary of State whether he knew of any precedent for giving to a Minister in a Statute such wide powers as those in this subsection. Non-committally, but fairly, he replied that he would see that someone was carefully briefed to answer the point in the course of our debates. I misheard him, and thought that he was undertaking to give a reply during the Second Reading, so I settled down to await an answer, hoping that my own store of knowledge would be augmented in the process. No answer came. When the Minister of State replied to the Second Reading debate, I reminded him of the promise, and asked again for an answer. Again, alas, no answer was forthcoming.
  The Department has now had time to do its homework, and a few moments ago the Minister of State, fairly and with commendable honesty, gave us the answer, namely, that no precedent exists. These powers, as I suspected, are unprecedented. This clause is reminiscent of a series of clauses which were fashionable a few years ago and which came to be known as "Henry VIII Clauses"—recalling the Statute of Proclamations passed by that authoritarian monarch which authorised him by proclamation to alter the law. It was perhaps rather less than fair to Henry VIII, since the Statute of Proclamations made it clear that no proclamation should alter common law, nor should it affect an existing statute,
  "nor estates offices, goods, or lives nor yet any lawful and laudable customs of this realm".
  By comparison with the draftsman of this subsection, Henry VIII was a pedantic constitutionalist. I looked at
  1652
  the list of Henry VIII Clauses contained in what used to be the bible of the laissez faire lobby, Lord Hewart's "New Despotism". There are 66 pages of them.
  I looked, too, through the list of Henry VIII Clauses contained in the Report of the Donoughmore's Committee on Ministers powers. By comparison with this subsection they are a milk and water lot not one was as all-embracing in its scope, not one so absolute in its terms, not one so subservient to the executive, as this provision.
  There was a time when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were wary of the increasing power of the executive and mindful of the dangers of delegated legislation. Perhaps it is understandable that their enthusiasm has waned while they are in Government, but as the Minister of State said, this is a narrow Bill and far reaching regulations are wholly inappropriate.
  I have no doubt that we shall be reminded that these powers are subject to annulment by resolution of either House. Perhaps I should warn the Government benches that we in Opposition are unconvinced by this argument. I say this for three reasons. The first is that we do not accept that that would offer adequate parliamentary control, and I propose to enlarge, if required, in subsequent debates, on the seductive fallacies entailed in that apparent concession.
  Secondly, even if there were adequate parliamentary control, we believe that matters as wide and as vital as this which require attention should be dignified by inclusion in a statute. If there are matters in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman which ought to be dealt with, there seems to be no reason why they should not be included at this stage, so that the House may vote on them.
  Thirdly, I ask for pity for the lawyers. It is highly desirable that we should be able to go to a statute and find our law written in it. We should not be driven to a series of statutory instruments, hoping that we have not overlooked one, and then proceed to see what they all say individually about the subject.
  Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 refer to specific powers which are not suitable for ministerial legislation. Amendment No. 12 relates to a power to alter the

  1653
  criminal law, actually to create criminal offences. I accept that some criminal offences rest on statutory instruments, but they are usually strictly limited and carefully defined.
  There is no limit here to the practices which the Secretary of State may penalise, nor to the penalty that he may impose. He may decide to make canvassing a criminal offence. We believe that the Committee has a responsibility to retain careful control of the criminal law, and especially to ensure that rights practised in democratic election processes are not prohibited by the criminal law. These, admittedly, are one instance of a few words in one Bill. But I find it shocking that they were ever included and, having been included, that they did not evoke an immediate storm of protest.
  Amendment No. 14 seems to be wide enough to give power to the Secretary of State to amend the law relating to the franchise—actually to decide who shall be included in the election register. If that interpretation is correct, I cannot believe that that was the intention. But it is a matter of great concern to the people of Northern Ireland, as I have no doubt the Committee has not failed to notice. Certainly they would not be content to allow that kind of power to depend upon a statutory instrument procedure, even if there were an effective control.
  Having said that, I hope that neither the Secretary of State nor his colleagues will take it personally. We do not suggest that any of them would deliberately do anything improper. If the matter rested on confidence, I say at once that we would repose a greater proportion of confidence in them as a team than in certain of their ministerial colleagues in other Departments, and certain other figures concerned with Irish politics.
  That is not the issue. Two reasons prompt us to move the Amendment. The first is that we believe that, while as students some of us smiled at the hysteria of comments then fashionable about delegated legislation, suggesting that all our liberties might be endangered by a single statutory instrument, we wonder whether the process has not gone too far. Surely Parliament should keep some
  1654
  control, retain some principles for inclusion in statutes, and impose some conditions at which the courts can look and by which they can exercise some control over the Executive. It may be that recently the legislative function of this House has diminished relative to the importance of other functions. But even now the House should not wholly renounce the legislative function.
  Secondly, the people of Northern Ireland look to this Parliament to safeguard their interests, and specific groups look to specific hon. Members. We cannot evade that responsibility by transferring it in total to other shoulders.
  [Mrs. LENA JEGER in the Chair]
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: It might be for the general convenience of the Committee if I intervened at this stage though, of course, not in any way to prevent further discussion. The Committee will have appreciated from what I said during our last debate that I wanted to have an opportunity to express some views on these two amendments.
  Let me deal with them in reverse order, taking Amendment No. 14 first. Obviously it was not the intention, but I am advised that the inclusion of these words would be more restrictive than those who drafted the amendment intended. In Clause 1(1)(a) there is defined those entitled to vote on the poll. Subsequent words cannot detract from that. In the event of any proceedings arising out of the words that the amendment seeks to insert, a court would be bound to question the object of those words and it might be argued that they referred to such matters as the power to modify or exclude, and that might refer to the absent voting facilities.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State desires to have power by regulation to extend, if he thinks fit, the absent voting facilities for reasons which have been adduced already. I think this is common ground between both sides of the Committee. We should like the Secretary of State for the time being to have these powers in respect of the poll for all the reasons pressed upon me by both sides.

  1655
  If the advice I have received is correct, may I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider not pressing those words upon me, simply because of the unforeseen results of so doing, the definition of those entitled to go to the poll already being set out?
  Mr. Archer: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comment, but one matter is troubling me. If the Secretary of State is given power to modify any statutory provision, would not that normally include any provision in this Bill?
  Mr. van Straubenzee: Yes, I think it would.
  Mr. Archer: That is inconsistent with what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I think not. I am saying this is not a position of absolute certainty, because it is not easy to see what decision a court might come to. But, there already being in the appropriate subsection a clear definition of those who are entitled to go to the poll, these words clearly cannot refer to that.
  Mr. Archer: Why not?
  Mr. van Straubenzee: Because surely the court would hold that Parliament, having made its intentions clear by virtue of Clause 1(1)(a), would not then give power in the same Act to take away or alter the group of those who are entitled to vote. At any rate, there might be a very real point of doubt. The hon. and learned Gentleman and I am perhaps rather closer than we thought at first. If what I have stated is a correct view, the court might well cast around for what other reasons there were for Parliament's inserting those words. I only state it as a danger that we see, that it might then look at some of the other powers vested in the Secretary of State.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman was kind enough to refer to the Government team. I have no sinister motive. I am anxious only to give my right hon. Friend the widest powers, which I think is the wish of the Committee.
  Mr. McNamara: I have referred in particular to the constitutional implications of the Bill. I appreciate the Minister's point. Could he help the Committee by saying that he will reconsider
  1656
  the immediate advice he received on the importance of the words—we appreciate that he has had only 24 hours to consider that advice—and that he will deal with the matter in another place, to meet our mutual wish on the subject?
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I willingly give that undertaking. My noble Friend, the Minister of State, will deal with it in another place. I shall draw it to his attention. It is common ground between both sides of the Committee that we do not want to be restrictive in this constitutional matter.
  It may be of assistance if I move to Amendment No. 12. I was previously inhibited by our rules of procedure, but I must not be taken as accepting all the hon. and learned Gentleman's strictures. In particular, I hope that he will find on reading my words that they related to the Bill rather than to the limited words we are now discussing in Amendment No. 12. There are some analogous provisions in parts of the Representation of the People Act, 1949. My right hon. Friend made very clear on Second Reading that he wished to listen closely to the arguments. There are undoubted anxieties, which were raised on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and other hon. Members. They feel that the concluding words of subsection (2) are too widely drawn and that they might be misused. Certainly my right hon. Friend has no wish to give cause for anxiety in that respect. Therefore, I am happy to accept the amendment. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will feel that it will be an improvement to the Bill.
  Mr. Archer: We are most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about Amendment No. 12. We accept that what is being said in Committee is being heard and making an impact.
  It was the intention of my hon. Friends and myself, if necessary, to ask at the Amendment No. 14. However, I do not appropriate stage for a division on advise my hon. Friends to take that course for three reasons. First, I accept that there is a doubt about the possible construction of the words, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated. Secondly, I am impressed by the undertaking that he gave in response to my hon. Friend the

  1657
  Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Thirdly, we accept that, whatever may be the width of the powers, it is not the Secretary of State's intention to use them in that way.
  In those circumstances, we shall not be making that request.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Peter Archer: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 2, leave out lines 12 to 15 and add
  'shall not take effect until a draft thereof has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
  I have a feeling that I have been here before. This is the third time during the course of this Parliament that I have moved amendments on behalf of the Opposition seeking to subject ministerial rule-making power to parliamentary control by affirmative resolution. I have always done so with a feeling of some confidence, because traditionally right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have been mindful of the dangers of delegated legislation when it is not properly controlled by the House. On previous occasions I have enlarged on the deficiencies of the negative procedure, and I do not propose to take up a great deal of time doing so now.
  What concerns us about the procedure proposed in the Bill is that, as we understand it, if an hon. Member wishes to annul rules he must set down a prayer to annul for a particular day. Whether that prayer is debated depends on two factors: first, whether the business of the House is terminated by 11.30; and, secondly, whether the Government choose to set it down, according to the rather curious process which the right hon. Gentleman wearing his former hat will understand much better than I do, above the line.
  Certainly 10 years ago if a prayer of that kind were set down there would be a reasonable prospect that time would be found to debate it. Then if the House were persuaded in the debate that the rules should be annulled, time would be found for a Division. Now an hon. Member is fortunate indeed if time is found even to debate, let alone to divide on, a prayer of that nature. We had an example, not so long ago, of time being found to debate a prayer on condition that no Division was called upon the debate.
  1658
  This matter was dealt with in the Special Report from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, 1970–71, in paragraph 14 where it said:
  "Your Committee do not consider that the present practice of the House regarding instruments subject to negative procedure and general instruments is satisfactory. Until fairly recent Sessions, it was the practice of the House that time was found for a debate in the House on all motions praying that statutory instruments be annulled; if for any reason time could not be found within the forty days' praying time, it was the convention that time would be found for a motion in similar terms to be debated (these motions are called ' out-of-time ' prayers). In recent sessions the practice of the House has changed. It is now not uncommon for prayers to remain undebated either 'in time' or 'out of time'."
  The people of Northern Ireland look to this House to safeguard their interests. As I said a few moments ago, there is a special relationship, because particular groups in Northern Ireland look to certain hon. Members here. Some hon. Members do not have access to the consultations behind the Speaker's Chair, which sometimes ease the relations between the major parties; they do not have access to the usual channels. Therefore, there is a real need to ensure that backbench Members can obtain a debate when the Secretary of State introduces a principle which has not previously been debated. For that reason, the negative procedure is not enough.
  The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): It may help the Committee if I indicate at this stage the Government's thinking on the amendment and the objective behind it as outlined by the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer). The Government are in sympathy with the aims of the amendment, although we believe that as drafted it has a defect in that it would deprive my right hon. Friend of all power to revoke or vary an order, which he would have to do by a further order once it has been made. The Government are willing to accept the affirmative resolution procedure in place of the negative resolution procedure in the circumstances of the Bill, but we believe it essential to retain the power to vary or revoke as a precaution. The deletion of this additional power would be unacceptable to Government.

  1659
  In those circumstances, the Government have prepared a manuscript amendment to substitute the affirmative Resolution procedure—in page 2, line 11, leave out from "instrument" to end of line 15 and insert:
  "but no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
  (4) Any order made by the Secretary of State under this section may be varied or revoked by a further order made by him."
  In these circumstances I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mrs. Lena Jeger): Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I state that I have been authorised to accept the manuscript amendment.
  Mr. McNamara: Will any order made under the new subsection (4) also be under the affirmative procedure?
  Mr. David Howell: Yes. All orders will be under the affirmative procedure.
  Mr. Archer: We are grateful to the Minister of State and fully accept the point he makes about the draftsmanship. You, Mrs. Jeger, having indicated that the Chair is prepared to accept the manuscript amendment which meets the case advanced by my hon. Friends and myself, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Manuscript Amendment made: In page 2, line 11, leave out from "instrument" to end of line 15 and insert:
  "but no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
  (4) Any order made by the Secretary of State under this section may be varied or revoked by a further order made by him."— [Mr. David Howell.]
  10.45 p.m.
  The Temporary Chairman: Is it the wish of hon. Members to press for a Division on Amendment No. 16?
  Mr. Fitt: I should clarify the position. It is not my intention to divide the Committee on Amendment No. 16, but perhaps we can revert to what happened on an earlier occasion.
  I had intended to divide the Committee on Amendment No. 16 because of the matters which have already been referred to—the Flags and Emblems Act, the Public Order Act, and the Special Powers Act. As yet, I have not received an adequate answer to the questions which I posed. It may be that some of my hon. Friends feel that at this time, in these circumstances, the Committee should not be divided because of the complications of the Public Order Act. But as yet I am not entirely convinced that I am doing the right thing in the interests of my constituents, many of whom are deeply concerned, particularly about the application of the Flags and Emblems Act.
  [Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]
  The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Gentleman is re-opening the whole question. He said when he rose to his feet that he was going to explain his position about a Division.
  Mr. Fitt: Then, knowing the concern of my constituents about this matter, I ask for a Division on Amendment No. 16.
  Amendment proposed: No. 16, in page 2, line 15, at end add:
  '(4) For the duration of the campaign and poll the Public Order Act, the Flags and Emblems Act and the Special Powers Act will be suspended '.—[Mr. Fitt.]
  Question put. That the Amendment be made: —
  The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 69.

  Division No. 23.]

  AYES

  [10.48 p.m.

  Atkinson, Norman

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Stallard, A. W.

  Deakins, Eric

  Marsden, F.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Horam, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rose, Paul B.

  Mr. Gerrard Fitt and

  Latham, Arthur

  Skinner, Dennis

  Miss Bernadette Devlin.

  NOES

  Atkins, Humphrey

  McMaster, Stanley

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Benyon, W.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Soref, Harold

  Biffen, John

  Mather, Carol

  Speed, Keith

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Spence, John

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Molyneaux, James

  Tebbit, Norman

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Money, Ernie

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Clegg. Walter

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Mudd, David

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Neave, Airey

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fortescue, Tim

  Normanton, Tom

  Warren, Kenneth

  Fowler, Norman

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fox, Marcus

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Green, Alan

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pounder, Rafton

  Wilkinson, John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Jopling, Michael

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Kilfedder, James

  Raison, Timothy

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Kirk, Peter

  Rossi. Hugh (Hornsey)

  Mr. John Stradling Thomas and

  Knox, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Mr. Oscar Murton.

  Lane, David

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  [Mrs. LENA JEGER in the Chair]
  The Temporary Chairman (Mrs. Lena Jeger): The Question is, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Foley: On a point of order, Mrs. Jeger. I wanted to speak on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  The Temporary Chairman: The Question has already been put. The hon. Gentleman was not perhaps quick enough on his feet.
  Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mrs. Jeger. With great respect, you had not properly read the Question when my hon. Friend was on his feet. He was trying to attract your attention.
  The Temporary Chairman: What I saw of the hon. Gentleman's movements must be a matter for me.
  Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

  FORM OF BALLOT PAPER
  Mr. Orme: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in the Schedule, page 3, line 11, at end add:
  1662
  'Do you want eventually to live in a United Ireland brought about by free consent of the peoples of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?
  If so, put an X in this box ‥'.
  The Temporary Chairman: I hope that with this Amendment it will be convenient to deal with the following Amendments:
  No. 32, in line 4, at end insert:
  "under the sovereignty of its Parliament at Westminster'.
  No. 19, in line 6, leave out:
  'If so, put an x ' and insert ' Write yes or no '.
  No. 34, in line 9, at end add:
  'and governed in accordance with the constitution and laws of that Republic'.
  No. 21, in Schedule, page 3, line 11, leave out:
  'If so, put an x ' and insert ' Write yes or no'.
  No. 22, in page 3, line 11, at end add:
  'Either or both questions may be answered '.
  No. 23, in page 3, line 11, at end add:
  'Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the United Kingdom with an all Ireland Council regulating relations between and common problems of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland?
  If so, put an X in this box ‥'.
  No. 25, in page 3, line 11, at end add:
  'OR
  Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with both the Republic of Ireland and (he United Kingdom in a condominium?
  If so. put an X in this box ‥'.
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Orme: Amendment No. 24, which could be termed "the third question", is of major importance. In this plebiscite poll Bill the issue of timing and all it entails, linked with the questions themselves with which the electors will be faced when the plebiscite takes place, is of major importance. It has been said earlier that there has not before been a vote of this nature in Northern Ireland.
  People are going to the polls for the first time to answer two questions: whether or not they want to remain with the United Kingdom and whether or not they want to join with the Irish Republic. The question with regard to the Irish Republic is crucial and I read the proposed words from the Bill:
  "Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland, outside the United Kingdom?"
  If the electors were to vote "Yes" to that and "No" to the first question, it would mean, as it were overnight, that the question of a United Ireland would not only have been posed but accepted. That is a stark choice for the electors to be asked to make. They are asked to take a decision and following that, virtually, to see its implementation.
  Those of us who have followed the Irish question closely and who have been in touch with many people in the North and in the Republic who are in favour of a united Ireland, know that hardly any responsible people on this issue who have supported a united Ireland for a lifetime, believe that it can be achieved overnight. We had the experience of what we were told by the Irish Labour Party when they visited the House last week. We talked to people in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) would probably take a similar view. Therefore, to pose the questions in the manner in which they are posed, to my way of thinking, means that they are almost totally negative. We believe that there should be a third question which would leave the door open and allow people to think whether in the long term a united Ireland was achievable perhaps under a different constitution in the Republic and under different economic and political conditions.
  1664
  We believe that the third question should be:
  'Do you want eventually to live in a United Ireland brought about by free consent of the peoples of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland? '
  and that is what we are moving.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: Surely the second question meets the hon. Member's point in that it does not say either that the result would be immediate or on a time-scale? It could be taken to have either interpretation.
  Mr. Orme: The fact that it is not spelt out means that it can be interpreted—and the interpretation being put on it by many people, including the New Ulster movement in the North, is that it is a stark question and that people are voting for almost immediate unification. If the hon. Gentleman were right, there would be no harm in this third question being posed as an alternative.
  Amendment 20, which would leave out the word "or" would have to be implemented if this third question were put on the paper.
  I make the simple point to the Secretary of State, who has heard the views expressed on Tuesday and before that about the holding of a plebiscite: he understands that a tremendous gamble is being made. If there were violence during the plebiscite it could be disastrous. I do not believe that one can have bullets and ballot boxes at the same time. It will be extremely hard to carry out the plebiscite.
  The Secretary of State has heard the arguments about polling booths, about polling hours and about how people will get from one community to another. He has also heard the very definite pledge which the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) made about threatening to recommend a boycott of the poll. If the plebiscite is held and there is a boycott by a large section of one community so that the returns show a clean slate on one side, it will be quite disastrous, because it will only harden the divisions which exist already.
  The third question is designed to get the minority to the poll. The intention is to make people participate by putting them in a position where they can say, "We can vote, and vote for an eventual unification." If all three questions

  1665
  appeared on the ballot paper, many people facing the present stark choice might still vote for the link with the United Kingdom. But given an opportunity to look to the future with a united Ireland based on a much higher economic standard of living and political development, they might adopt an entirely different approach.
  The second question brings into play the Republic, because it asks:
  "Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland, outside the United Kingdom?"
  It is an extraordinary question when one considers that the Republic has not been consulted about it. We are asking people in a section of the United Kingdom whether they want to join a foreign country. We have had no consultations with that foreign country. I appreciate that it is not a foreign country in the full sense of the word, because its citizens have special rights here. But it is a unique situation.
  I do not mean this to sound like a threat, but has it occurred to the Secretary of State that if he proceeds with the plebiscite and it looks like going wrong because the questions are considered to be too narrow by a section of the community, pressure may be applied in the Republic to have a referendum on the same day posing the question of a united Ireland? I do not think it would be helpful, and certainly I do not advocate it. It could lead to a great deal of trouble. One effect might be to show that a majority of Irishmen north and south wanted unification as opposed to the six counties.
  Most right hon. and hon. Members, even those who want a united Ireland eventually, agree that it must be done with the free acceptance of the people of Northern Ireland when they have taken account of the problems that exist. To achieve that, we have to secure a very different economic and political base where, eventually, Irish men and women themselves can resolve these problems. At the end of the day, I believe that that cannot be done here. However, that does not concern us at the moment, though the question has been posed in the ballot paper which will be presented to the people in the north.
  1666
  This is an exceedingly serious situation. Talking to people of all shades of opinion in the Republic, I find a great deal of pessimism even about the proposed plebiscite itself. Even those who welcome it do not believe that it will be an easy ride. If things go wrong, if the questions appear to be too narrow, there could be great difficulty. Bad as the situation is now, it could deteriorate much further after the plebiscite.
  The Secretary of State has probably received a great deal of advice about additional questions. I read an article by John Whale in the Sunday Times where he said that there were 100 answers to the right hon. Gentleman's two questions. But there is a growing body of opinion which feels that the questions must be widened. The Opposition have deliberately not tried to amend the two original questions because we know that it is exceedingly difficult to re-write them after they have been drawn up. We ask the Secretary of State, however, to accept a third question, and if he cannot accept it we want a good explanation why not.
  I do not know what hon. Members feel can be done at this late stage to influence matters, but I believe that the Secretary of State must do something urgently on the problem of the questions. I have therefore kept to the central issue throughout my speech and I have refrained from developing the many other arguments which occur in a debate of this nature. We attach the utmost importance to this third question. It could save this country, Northern Ireland and the Republic a great deal of disaster. It is in that spirit that I move the Amendment.
  Mr. Rafton Pounder: At this late hour I intend to be brief. I know that that is the standard opening for many speeches, but I mean what I say.
  I wish to take up the couple of points raised by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). I share his anxiety about a boycott. Everyone agrees that we want the highest possible turn-out for the plebiscite. We are deceiving ourselves if we imagine that by altering the questions or by providing a third question within the terms set out in the amendment we shall encourage to vote those who might be inclined to boycott

  1667
  the poll. It does not matter what concessions are made there will be those who are determined to boycott.
  We have seen the ante raised far too often in recent years. We delude ourselves if we believe that the amendment will achieve the hon. Member's objective of preventing the possibility and danger of a boycott. I do not doubt the hon. Member's good faith or his desire to help. I was apprehensive about the wording of the questions in advance of the publication of the Bill. Having, for amusement, on more than one occasion tried my hand at drafting suitable questions, I realise how difficult it is. I therefore warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend and those who drafted the Bill on putting down such simple, straightforward and clear questions. The Government must resist the well-meaning changes which those who contribute to this discussion will seek to make.
  The hon. Member for Salford, West referred to the choice being stark, but the issue is stark. The issue is the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, and there are those who take the view that if the answer to Question No. 2 about joining the Republic of Ireland is in the affirmative this could happen tomorrow. Bless my soul! There are people who for 50 years have wanted it to happen tomorrow, so to speak. Their choice is simple.
  What does the word "eventually" in the amendment mean? If someone were trying to inject a word which could mean almost anything it would be difficult to imagine one more suitable for the purpose. How does one categorise "eventually"? Are we talking about 5, 10, 15, 20 or 50 years? Goodness only knows. What we have to consider is the position in Northern Ireland on polling day, when people will be asked to state whether they want to stay as they are or join the Republic of Ireland.
  This is not a matter of fussy nuances. The questions are first-class, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist any change.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The Secretary of State knows that he is surrounded in this debate by hon. Members
  1668
  who have given him their full support ever since he undertook the heavy burden of his present office, and therefore the issue is the achievement of the policy that is supported by both sides of the House.
  A number of hon. Members have indicated, even if they have not used these words during the debate, that this is a symbolic occasion. As I interpret their speeches, they feel that perhaps one can pay too much attention to the details of the operation, and that the poll is designed mainly to respond to the feelings of a number of citizens in Northern Ireland who have lived through a great deal of tragedy in the last three years by giving them the opportunity to assert some of their fundamental beliefs. If that is so, then the spirit behind the amendment falls into the same category, but it applies to another section of the people of that area.
  It need not be in contradication of that aim to accept what my hon. Friend suggested because, if it is a good case to offer an opportunity for one section of the people to get this reassurance, it must follow that it is also a good case to offer others in Northern Ireland an equal opportunity to get some reassurance about their deeply held beliefs.
  Captain Orr: I take the point made by the hon. Gentleman, who always speaks with reason and sincerity, but surely the second question meets his case.
  Mr. Mendelson: That is not immediately obvious. I think that the first two points are more immediately obvious, but the point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman makes is not. I am not here referring to the immensely important detailed points which have been argued throughout the debate relating to what might happen technically on polling day. That will be difficult enough. But my party has decided not to oppose in principle the operation which the Government are undertaking, and I would not, speaking for myself, argue that the technical dangers are such that we should then advise the Government not to proceed.
  We take the principle of the Government's operation as right. On the other hand, we are entitled to urge, and we have a duty to urge, that, while the Bill is still before the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman ought seriously to consider

  1669
  whether he could gain a great deal, and lose nothing, by saying that not only will he offer an opportunity to large numbers of people to make a public affirmation and assurance but, on the same day, by the additional question, he will offer an opportunity to people who wish, by perfectly law-abiding means, to affirm their view that, in the long term, they believe in a united Ireland. That is all that the amendment asks.
  There is no need for any change in the Government's original intentions.
  Mr. Orme: Perhaps I should emphasise —I did not do so in moving the amendment—that the third question could apply also to the majority community, and there might be quite a number who would be prepared to look at the prospect of eventual unification while not being prepared to contemplate it in any immediate sense.
  Mr. Mendelson: We cannot speak about that with certainty. I note what my hon. Friend says, but I recall that on polling day my agent in South Yorkshire always says, "You must not try to know too much about what has happened in the ballot box". We cannot be certain how different groups of people may use one opportunity or another. But what we can say with certainty is that, if the argument be that there should be opportunity for reaffirmation of an attitude, it holds equally good that that opportunity should be offered to the largest possible number of citizens of Northern Ireland.
  That is the burden of my case. I take it as common ground, and as the spirit of the Secretary of State's administration ever since taking office. We want to remove any feeling of dominance of any group over another. We want there to be no occasion for saying, "We have shown them". I do not know whether I carry all hon. Members with me, but that is the spirit in which we on this side decided to support the principle of what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. Had there been any doubt about that, I should have argued among my hon. Friends that we should not accept the Government's proposals. I would not have given my support to any intention harboured in any quarter that this could be an occasion for, say, a demonstration
  1670
  showing that people still believe in the success of those who won at the Battle of the Boyne or anything like that.
  None of that is in the spirit of what the Secretary of State is doing. He has no such intention. But, once the campaign is joined, whatever the date, it will not be in the right hon. Gentleman's hands. Those who want to argue for a "Yes" reply, will make their own campaign and create their own spirit. That is where the danger lies. It would, therefore, be in the best interests of the sort of campaign we want to see, affirming a certain political point of view, that the amendment should be accepted. We do not want the occasion to be used for an attempt to reassert a domination which we here—at least the large majority of us—do not approve and cannot support. If the right hon. Gentleman were to look for means to make more likely a campaign in the spirit which I am advocating, he has his opportunity here in the amendment.
  I do not see why the Secretary of State should feel that, at this stage, having announced his two questions, he ought not to do what I am urging upon him. He has consistently told the Committee that he is not committing himself on the timing of the poll. In spite of the blandishments of many hon. Members to get him to say something more definite about the time that the poll will take place, the right hon. Gentleman has refused. Therefore, he is still open to accept amendments to the actual document to be put before the electorate. If he were to argue that this form is not one that he is prepared to favour there is a duty upon him to tell the Committee whether he can find another means of making sure that the third view can also be expressed.
  The right hon. Gentleman must accept that on this and on previous occasions the Opposition have done everything they could to make it possible for him to get the legislation that he thinks necessary within a reasonable time. That is an additional reason why he should respond in the most co-operative way to the amendment.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: I was glad that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme)—speaking with increasing authority—went out of his way to make it clear

  1671
  that there was no question of the Opposition's giving any encouragement to those people who would try to persuade a section of the community to boycott this poll. I very much welcomed his words, and I hope that it will be widely recognised that they are based on considerable wisdom.
  I oppose the amendment because I believe that a third question is unnecessary, and that it also blurs the issue, I have two reasons for saying that. I believe—as I said in an interjection in the hon. Member's speech—that the second question on the ballot paper,
  "Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland, outside the United Kingdom?"
  could be answered in the affirmative both by the person who wants a united Ireland immediately and by the person who wants it eventually—the person whom the hon. Member for Salford, West was describing.
  Mr. Rose: Is not the hon. Member's logic that if these two groups together formed the majority they would be opting for an immediate move to join the Republic, whereas many people on the Government benches would want that only in the long term? If the hon. Member regards that as a method of achieving a meaningful referendum, that could be the result.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: One has to make an assessment of it. I have no doubt that there will be a majority for the first question.
  It is important to see exactly how the land lies on this matter, by way of the border poll. My argument is that both for the person who wants a united Ireland now and the person who wants one eventually there is nothing in the second question to debar him from putting his "X" against it. Therefore, I say that the third question is entirely unnecessary.
  My second reason for opposing the proposal is that I believe that to put in a third question would be bogus, because it would be asking people to makea choice in a vacuum. The word "eventually" is used in the amendment. A citizen being asked to vote on this long-term point would be asking people to make a choice I want to see how Northern Ireland develops in the next few years ", and he would also say, "Before I put my 'X'
  1672
  down I want to see how Southern Ireland develops in the next few years."
  That point was argued when we debated the second group of amendments. It was said that before people voted in this ballot they would want to see the White Paper. There is a certain aspect of this proposal that makes it highly hypothetical, because the answer depends very much on how life develops in the two parts of Ireland.
  I know what my answer would be. I would obviously disagree, on political grounds, with the person who puts his "X" in the second box. But that person would have a perfect right to put his "X" in the second box. My view is that the arguments that we have heard this evening are unconvincing. Because the position of the person in respect of whom the hon. Member for Salford, West, was arguing is entirely covered by the second question, I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist the amendment.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Kaufman: I regard this debate as being profoundly tragic. The speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), were deeply moving. When I look across at the Secretary of State and see his face lined by the tragedy which he has seen since he took up his post, and when I consider the physical risk which he has to endure in carrying out his task, I am appalled that he has to sit in this Chamber late at night and waste his time in pushing through this piffling and pointless little Bill.
  It strikes me as almost an abuse of Parliament and of the desperately tragic situation in Northern Ireland that the Committee should have before it a ridiculous Amendment Paper which looks like a football pool form, full of idiotic alternatives—idiotic because the basic premise is idiotic. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), notable for his many hours absence from the Committee, has put forward such suggestions as "Write" Yes ' or ' No ' "; "Either or both questions may be answered ". All that seems to be missing from the Amendment Paper is an instruction such as "Write on one side of the paper only"; or "Do not attempt to answer more than two questions at any

  1673
  one time"; or "Perm any two out of three"; or "Is your journey really necessary?"
  This is one of the most tragically farcical debates which I have had to sit through. It is tragically farcical that a senior Minister who shoulders burdens more intense and wearing than those of any other member of the Government must give the appearance, and perhaps convince himself, that he believes that this idiocy is important. Everybody knows what the answer in the poll will be. Everybody knows what the answer would be if the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West were accepted or if any of the other amendments were accepted, because there is a majority only for one question.
  It is extraordinary that those who are deeply and sincerely embroiled in this problem should delude themselves into believing that the outcome of this exercise can be anything other than an even greater tragedy than the one we are witnessing, because those who are part of the majority to what is being asked of them will be no happier than they have been since the position will be unchanged for them. But those who are part of the minority, whether they vote or not, seeing themselves voted down by an overwhelming majority, as they will be, will be that much more desperate and ready to run to the arms of the extremists who woo them.
  That is what upsets me about this Bill and that is why, looking at this fatuous schedule and the absurd amendments to it, I believe that the pity of the tragedy of Northern Ireland has been set in a context of almost obscene farce. It is impossible to ask the Minister to withdraw the schedule, but I tell him that, despite the deep sincerity of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West in moving the amendment, I do not think that it makes a penn'orth of difference whether he rejects or accepts it.
  Mr. McMaster: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said. The Committee has landed itself in an absurd position, because it will not face up to reality. Both Labour and Conservative Governments have continued to treat the minority in Northern Ireland as though they were a majority.
  1674
  The case is clear. The people who have disturbed the peace in Northern Ireland—and I agree with the implications of the hon. Gentleman's speech—are a tiny and seditious minority.
  Mr. Kaufman: I should not like to go on record by implication as believing that the Catholic population is a tiny and seditious minority. First, it is not a tiny minority, and certainly only a very tiny part of it is seditious.
  Mr. McMaster: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have even more sympathy with him now, after that intervention, than I had to start with. Of course, the great majority of the Catholics in Northern Ireland do not want to set up a republic, either now or at any time, in the North of Ireland. This is for economic reasons, and because their sympathies lie very much more with the United Kingdom. They want to be part of the United Kingdom rather than be with the South of Ireland, with which they have little in common.
  Mr. Kaufman: I am being misinterpreted. Sedition is a crime, and I do not believe the minority are seditious. But I believe that they are deeply and rightly discontented with their lot, and the wish of a great many of them not to be part of the United Kingdom is not a seditious wish but a wish that I strongly support.
  Mr. McMaster: It might have been better if I had not given way to the hon. Gentleman a second time, because he is trying to destroy his own argument. If he will only think carefully where his initial argument was taking him, he will realise that this whole exercise is a nonsense. Why? Because those we are asking to put an "X" in one of the two boxes on the ballot paper represent on the one hand the great majority of the population of Northern Ireland, both Protestant and Catholic, and on the other those who will put their "X" in the second box. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) suggests that their numbers might be increased by a third question:
  "Do you want eventually to live in a United Ireland brought about by free consent of the peoples of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?"
  Does that add anything to the two questions in the schedule? I am in complete agreement with what my hon. Friend the

  1675
  Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) said, that if a proportion of the people in Northern Ireland want eventually to live in a republic of Ireland, a fortiori they would prefer the process to start straight away.
  Mr. Rose: No.
  Mr. McMaster: Does the hon. Member for Salford, West suggest that there are a substantial number of people in Northern Ireland who in the distant future—and they do not know what will happen in between—are prepared to put an "X" in the third box who would not be prepared to put it in the second box?
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  Mr. Orme Mr. Orme indicated assent.
  Mr. McMaster: If the hon. Gentleman does suggest that, he and those hon. Members who say, "Yes" should explain what will happen in the course of the years to come to make those people change their minds.
  Mr. Orme: This is a vital matter. I want to make the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has made on a number of occasions, that many of his constituents do not necessarily want to go into the Republic of Ireland as its constitution now is, but want eventually to go into a united Ireland, perhaps with an entirely different constitution. That is what we should be posing: the eventual possibility. That would leave people the choice.
  Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman has only further underlined the point that has already been made. The third question that he suggests should be put on the ballot paper is completely hypothetical. We cannot possibly forecast what another independent country will do with respect to its own constitution. That is totally outside our control. Therefore, this third question does nothing to improve the ballot paper; it does nothing to improve the proposal which we are considering that we should immediately —I stress the word "immediately"— ballot on the simple question:
  "Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom? "
  Mr. Fitt: Having just heard the closing remarks by the hon. Member for Belfast,
  1676
  East (Mr. McMaster) I am driven to the conclusion that he has possibly not heard the arguments which have been advanced from this side of the Committee.
  Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman was not here. He missed them all.
  Mr. Fitt: Even this afternoon we had made our attitude clear, particularly the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and myself.
  On several occasions since my entry to the House of Commons I have repeatedly said that a certain number of people in Northern Ireland, possibly a minority, espouse the ideal of eventual reunification of the whole country. This is accepted in Northern Ireland for many reasons. For ideological, emotional and historic reasons, these people hope to see the day when they will live in the island of Ireland under a sovereign Government. However, many of the people I represent would not accept the reunification of Ireland tomorrow.
  As a Socialist I have many times voiced my objections to the constitution and Government which have existed in the Republic of Ireland over the past 40 years. As a Socialist I recognise that the imposition of partition was a great disaster for the people of Ireland, because it led to the formation of two civil war parties in the South and a monolithic Unionist Party in the North which prevented the coming into being of a Socialist Government which would have acted in the interests of working-class people both north and south of that monstrosity of a border.
  I recognise the pressures to which the Secretary of State is subject in Northern Ireland and I have a great deal of sympathy for him; but only weeks, months or perhaps years will prove whether he is right at this time or whether we are right in the advice we are tendering to him today.
  We are faced with a ballot paper containing two stark questions. First, do we want to live in Northern Ireland with a link with the United Kingdom? or, secondly, do we want to break that link immediately? The word "immediately" is not written in, but that is tantamount to what it means.
  The people of Northern Ireland talk about realities and what they think will

  1677
  happen there, not what is happening in the rarefied atmosphere of Westminster. This evening I saw an instance which proves how unrealistic the atmosphere within the confines of Westminster can be when it is related to what is happening in Northern Ireland, particularly in the city of Belfast.
  We hear about the Unionist extremists, Vanguard and the UDA, and the minority extremists, the official IRA and the provisional IRA. I should like to restate my position. I have no time for any of these extremists. As a Socialist I have consistently opposed the use of the gun and the bomb which have brought death and tragedy to all constituencies in Northern Ireland.
  These two questions will play into the hands of the extremist elements in Northern Ireland. I know what the people in Northern Ireland are thinking, and it should be stated in this place now. The Secretary of State, acting under severe provocation and great pressure from the Unionist Party, has agreed to the plebiscite.
  11.45 p.m.
  The Unionist extremists, the Vanguard and the UDA, are not fooled by the holding of the plebiscite. They believe that, if they vote for the maintenance of the link with Great Britain, once the Secretary of State has secured the overwhelming majoritiy he needs he will say to the Unionists, "You have voted for the maintenance of the link. Now you accept my terms". That is not diplomacy. It is tantamount to putting handcuffs on to someone and saying, "I will take them off when you tell me to".
  Such an approach is not appropriate for Northern Ireland. The very people who will vote "Yes" on this issue will, when the Secretary of State introduces his White Paper, say "No". Although they may have said "Yes" twice or three times on the plebiscite, they will say "No" 10 or 20 times to the proposals in the White Paper if they do not contain everything they hope for.
  The Government by holding the plebiscite are saying to the extremists, "You vote ' Yes ' "; and they are saying to the Provisional Irish Republican Army and to the rabid republicans, "You vote ' No'".
  1678
  The proposed ballot paper does not provide the opportunity to say, "Yes". A voter is required to put an "X". In some psychological way it might be better if it were possible to put "Yes". The people of Northern Ireland should not be treated as fools who are incapable of putting "Yes" or "No".
  I want at this stage to pay tribute to the deep and abiding interest which my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has had in what is happening in Northern Ireland. This goes back to a time long before many hon. Members espoused such an interest. In 1967 my hon. Friend, together with my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) and for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller), accompanied me on a visit to the Bogside, at a time when very few hon. Members had even heard of the Bogside. We also visited West Belfast and other areas which were suffering from severe unemployment, bad housing, and oppression. The report which my hon. Friends presented to the House, at the time of the then Labour Government, a report which was drawn up by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley, was subsequently confirmed almost word for word by the Cameron Report.
  The people referred to in that report are those who are now being put into the category of rabid, mad republicans, gunmen and murderers. All that those people wanted was social justice, better housing and improved employment prospects. It is from this point of view that I support the Amendment.
  No room is being given for moderate opinion to express itself. The door is being left wide open for extremists from both sections to pronounce their conclusions. Those who do not accept the extremist views run the risk of being gunned or bombed or being intimidated into accepting such views.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East said that people were being asked to vote on something which might happen in 10 or 15 years time and how were they to know what would happen. How does the hon. Member know? How does the Secretary of State know? How do I know? Because of what is happening internationally, for instance with the United Kingdom's entry into the Common

  1679
  Market, there is room for optimism that conditions will so change that people in the north of Ireland will forget their insularity and isolationism and be prepared to live in the context of a much wider world.
  The inclusion of the question put forward by my hon. Friends would leave the door open. Many people in Northern Ireland, including Protestant and Catholic working-class people—if given an assurance that they would not be left jobless and homeless or be victimised or oppressed in an all-Irish State—would want to proclaim something which up to now they have not been given the opportunity to proclaim.
  As a Belfastman, I say that the tragedy of the Protestant working class people is that they are suffering a crisis of identity. They are not sure whether they are Irish, Northern Irish, Ulster, Scots-Irish or what. That is an awful dilemma. If a working-class man came from my constituency to London to seek employment, he would be immediately identified by Londoners as an Irishman. Although these people may not admit it, they are desperately seeking an identity to which they can give their allegiance. That is why the inclusion of this question would mean so much to them.
  The Catholic minority does not want to be a minority; the Protestant majority does not want to be a minority in the context of Ireland. For psychological reason no one wants to be a member of a minority group. The question would give moderates the opportunity to break down the polarisation that has arisen. Protestants, for purely mercenary reasons, because of the welfare services which are paid for by Britain, may not want to belong to the Republic because of the lower standards there. I am the last to advocate that any Protestant in Northern Ireland should accept lower standards of welfare benefit. I would support them in resisting any attempt to force them into the Republic with its lower standard of welfare benefits. The same with the Catholics, many of whom have suffered unemployment. They may not be much better off in the Republic.
  Protestants are afraid that they may be taken over by the 26 counties. There is no question of that. I envisage an entirely new Ireland. if people were
  1680
  given the opportunity to enter a united Ireland by consent, and did so, Ireland as we know it would no longer remain, and the people of Northern Ireland would be a dominant feature in any future Irish Government.
  I recognise the difficulties of the Secretary of State. He has to placate the Unionist leaders and, 50 years later, to give them the opportunity of securing an overwhelming majority as they did in 1922. But that in itself will not bring an answer to the Irish problem.
  I believe that now the Secretary of State should take his courage in his hands—he has tremendous courage—and say, "We will include this third question." What possible objection can there be? If he accepts the amendment because it seems reasonable to him and because it seems reasonable to the British people, which is even more important, what possible objection could the people of Northern Ireland have? They would still have the opportunity to vote on questions 1 and 2 and they could ignore the third question if they wished. The people of Britain would be in a position to say, "One set voted one way and the other set voted the other way and all ignored the third question."
  Inclusion of the third question would prove to the British people and this Committee exactly what the feelings of the people of Northern Ireland are. There is everything to gain and nothing to lose. It would be a bold and courageous political gesture by the Conservative Government. I have been opposed to the Government because of my Socialist ideology, but in this situation, in which my constituents and others are being murdered daily and where tragedy is a daily occurrence in Northern Ireland, I would give my wholehearted and vehement support to the right hon. Gentleman, as would many other people who are sick to death of killing and tragedy, if he included this third question. No one has anything to lose except those intent on bringing death and destruction to Northern Ireland.
  Mr. English: I wish to refer to my Amendments No. 32 and No. 34. If I do not refer to Amendment No. 24 it is because of the lateness of the hour. There is no conflict between that amendment and my own in the sense that mine

  1681
  are simply relevant to the two questions which are already in the schedule. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), who accused my hon. Friends of blurring the issue by putting in a third question, will recognise that the object of my amendments is to make the existing questions clearer. I am concerned because the existing questions, in the context of Ireland, blur a certain number of issues.
  The first question is
  "Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom?"
  Amendment No. 32 would add the words,
  "under the sovereignty of its Parliament at Westminster ".
  Anyone who knows his Irish history realises that it is not only the Catholics who have desired autonomy from Britain. On the contrary, there is an ancient and honourable Protestant tradition in Ireland desiring as much power as possible to lie in Ireland and not at Westminster, and that tradition continues.
  One should make it plain that in this day and age, in the light of all that has happened, one can never totally go back to Stormont, with all the powers that it had. What must be made plain is that anyone voting "Yes" to the first question cannot think in his own mind that "Yes" means that Northern Ireland gets Stormont back and everything back as it was before. He must realise that, although there may be some different form of local government in Northern Ireland, if he votes "Yes" to that question the ultimate sovereignty will always lie here.
  12 midnight.
  My other amendment, Amendment No. 34, is relevant to some of the things which have been discussed. Anybody who votes for the alternative question:
  "Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland, outside the United Kingdom?"
  must in the context of the referendum realise that what is envisaged is the existing republic with its existing constitution and its laws. I have simply suggested adding
  "… and governed in accordance with the constitution and laws of that Republic ".
  There have been many arguments about changes; changes have even been suggested in the constitution of the
  1682
  Republic. But it should be clear in the question that if people vote to go outside the United Kingdom into the Republic, they are voting to do that as of now—not in some hypothetical situation where the laws of the Republic or its constitution were different from what they were at the time of the poll. Those are the two suggestions I put forward in my amendments.
  Mr. McNamara: I shall not detain the Committee long. I merely want to make a number of points arising from the Second Reading debates on these questions, and to answer specifically points made by the various Conservative Members from Belfast.
  Those hon. Gentlemen have deliberately chosen to misinterpret the way in which the third question was put. They asked whether it would mean a sort of never-never land. They forget that the most important element in the question is whether the people eventually will want to live
  "in a United Ireland brought about by free consent of the peoples of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland ",—
  in other words, that when the decision is taken, it is taken by free consent, with full knowledge of the circumstances which exist at that time. All the ballyhoo hon Gentlemen were speaking about will have gone. It will give time for the Government's proposals to come into operation, it will give time for whatever alterations are made by the Republic to come to light and to be judged; and it will give time for whatever progress is envisaged to make itself felt so that people will know where they stand. This is why that question was chosen.
  Conservative Members may not appreciate the situation, but I would tell them that a great deal of time went into trying to frame a third question which would be able to hold out hope to people who live in the North of Ireland. We have tried to get something at which the moderates in all the communities can clutch.
  Mr. McMaster: This is a most interesting line of argument, but surely it leaves a totally unbalanced situation. The hon. Gentleman's question is on the following lines: "If there is free consent in Ulster to the reunification of Ireland, will you object to it"—or, in other words, is the

  1683
  person concerned a dyed-in-the-wool Orangeman? Surely one would have to ask a fourth question: "Do you agree eventually to remaining part of the United Kingdom if this is brought about by the free consent of the people of Northern Ireland?" That is the implication of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman should be the last person in the world to talk about lack of balance, because in the six years I have been in the House I have found it hard to discover anybody more unbalanced in his judgment than the hon. Gentleman.
  I come to the hon. Gentleman's fourth suggested question. If contained within the" question is the phrase "brought about by free consent", there will never be free consent of the people of Northern Ireland on the basis on which the hon. Gentleman argues. Therefore, he has nothing to fear.
  In many ways this debate is a little farcical since we know what the result will be. Many of us did not vote against the Second Reading because we wanted to show a degree of co-operation and to try to improve what in many ways was a very bad Bill.
  I now come to what I regard as a very important matter in the context of the Bill. I repeatedly tried to get from the Secretary of State and the Minister of State a statement of the situation about the second question in the Bill:
  "Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined by the Republic of Ireland, outside the United Kingdom?"
  I asked whether there had been consultations with the Government of the Republic on the plebiscite; on the form of the questions and on what would happen if a decision were taken to join the Republic.
  The Minister of State replied that his right hon. Friend had had frequent meetings with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. That did not answer any of my points and I suggested that the answer was "No" and that there had been no consultation on these important points.
  I think I am right in saying that that is the situation, and it is hard to imagine anybody negotiating with the Prime Minister. He never Seems to negotiate,
  1684
  but to state his proposals and then not to shift from them. The Prime Minister, at the Oxford Union Society this evening, dealing with these proposals said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Of Ireland."] The Prime Minister of Ireland. It is all one to me and always will be. He said:
  "I must be frank about the plebiscite proposals. Certainly my Government could never accept that it is a valid or useful exercise to consult only the people of Northern Ireland by a plebiscite on the subject of Irish unity."
  —with which presumably he did not agree—
  "Such a plebiscite, conducted on the basis of questions as stark as those which are proposed,"
  —the very criticism which has come from this side on the starkness of the questions—
  "can contribute nothing, is completely predictable"
  —we all know the result—
  "and can only widen the rift between the two communities."
  —the very point we have been most concerned about.
  'Indeed, its result could create most harmful illusions. It might even create the impression that a return to simple majority rule in the North is feasible or justifiable".
  That turns to the principal argument from this side, because we feel that the first question could result in just that conclusion being drawn. If the promises of reform hinted at are in the White Paper and are to come after the plebiscite there would be a betrayal of the Protestant community looking for its own identity.
  The Prime Minister continued:
  "Of course, we reject completely the extraordinary notion that a plebiscite could 'take the border out of politics'. We reject too the idea that there could be a meaningful vote on the question of whether the North and South should be reunited when there has been no negotation of any kind about the terms and the time-span of the reunification process. In our view, the holding of a plebiscite on the basis of the most divisive question imaginable must seriously hinder the development of dialogue between the elements of moderation on both sides and progress towards new arrangements in Ireland. No responsible Irish Government could endorse such a procedure ".
  Mr. Rose: We approach the end of the Committee stage on a futile Bill which has been shown by my hon. Friends to be futile. Many of my hon. Friends have not opposed the Bill in principle. We have adopted that attitude because we

  1685
  have been counselled by people who have shown great moderation. When it was suggested that we ought in principle to oppose the Bill, it was pointed out that there was another option, and that was to seek to introduce a third question on to the ballot paper. It is for that reason alone that many of us have shown the moderation that we have.
  The proposed two questions are calculated only to create a greater polarisation and to bring into play the very issue which is the most divisive in Irish politics, rather than trying to bring people together on the basis of economic and social issues where there can be co-operation.
  The options proposed in my Amendments Nos. 23 and 25 show merely that there are other options which people in Northern Ireland may wish to support. Today, I received a document which supports the idea of a condominium. I do not believe that that is a practical solution to the problems of Northern Ireland, but there are people who do.
  When a referendum poses in these stark terms two alternatives which many people may find not to be real alternatives or which they may regard as unacceptable alternatives, it is not a referendum or plebiscite in the real sense. It is dictated by the questions that it asks. This is always the weakness of the plebiscite, which is so often the instrument of tyranny because those who frame the questions very often get the answer that they want. That is not always the case, but it can be, and it is very dangerous.
  In this case, we have two extreme groups. On one side we have the IRA provisionals who are willing to terrorise and bomb people into joining overnight a republic which has no wish to absorb them in that way and which understands the danger. On the other side we have the UDA, UVF and other groups who assault innocent women and children and who were using terror eight years ago. I myself have received many threats from that quarter. All these people are willing to use violence to achieve their ends, and we all know that the very State of Ulster was conceived and born in violence.
  It cannot be right to pose these two stark alternatives without giving the
  1686
  people of Ulster the chance to say whether they accept the status quo because that is the only way that they can live in peace together, and that they also accept the right of people to put forward their views about the kind of Ulster that they want or the all-Irish solution that they want ultimately.
  This stark dichotomy of "Yes" or "No" rules out moderation. All that it does is ask people what are their tribal loyalties today. What it does not try to do is lay the foundation for a constructive dialogue with a view to an ultimate solution. In fact, it does the opposite, because it presents the extremist forces with the opportunity once again to step into the centre of the arena.
  12.15 a.m.
  The point that I made on Monday that I could vote for both of the questions—we were told that that would be an invalid vote—is of some consequence. It is possible for me to say that I am in favour of the link with Britain, that I want Northern Ireland to remain a part of the United Kingdom, but that in the long term I recognise that the ultimate destiny of Northern Ireland is elsewhere, that it must revert to being part of what it was historically, namely a part of the whole geographic entity of Ireland. I could say that that was a long-term process which could come about only through reconciliation. But that is ruled out. The possible question which could avoid violence has been excluded. The Secretary of State must pay attention to that.
  Our debates have lasted many hours. They have shown that for the first time since the Minister's initiative when there was a bipartisan policy and when we supported him in his efforts, sometimes critically but with great admiration for what he has achieved and for his personal courage and integrity, the House is divided. If the poll divides the House, how much more will it divide Northern Ireland? Surely it has become crystal clear to everyone from the kind of division which exists in the Committee that this will be a highly divisive plebiscite. A warning should be seen in the debate. It is a gentlemanly and pale introduction to what will be far less gentlemanly if the poll goes ahead as planned.

  1687
  It is a great tragedy that the right hon. Gentleman in his efforts to try to get the Unionist majority to accept his correct measures on the ending of Stormont should have thrown this proposal out to them as a sop. I am glad that he has not committed himself entirely on the timing, but we would be even happier tonight if he refused to commit himself on the questions that are to be asked and if he accepted instead that there is an alternative. That alternative will cater for those people who believe that for the present Ulster must remain part of the United Kingdom, and no sensible person could quarrel with that, and that if there is free consent between the North and the Republic there can be no objection to a change in status.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, the operative words are "free consent." Those who oppose the proposed third question are as opposed to free consent in their way as the IRA provisionals are in their more violent fashion. They are saying that there must not be free consent to think of Northern Ireland becoming part of a united Ireland. That is the nub of the matter and the Minister must realise that for the first time a divisive factor has entered the issue. If it is divisive on the Floor of the House where we are free from the terror, the bombs, the burning and the attacks on wives, how much more divisive will it be in Northern Ireland?
  Will the Secretary of State think again about this and will he at the very least accept the amendment? We have put it forward because it is the only alternative to our dividing the Committee on the principle. Will he at least make a concession on this so that it will be unnecessary for us to spend hours during the night on a wasted and wasteful Third Reading?
  Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) says that the key to the long debate on this group of amendments is to be found in the words "free consent". We have spent a lot of time talking about a question on unification between Northern Ireland and the Republic being included in the poll, such unification being based upon the free consent of the
  1688
  peoples of Northern Ireland and the Republic.
  Has anyone given any consideration to the fact that there is another question which should be posed in precisely the same setting? Union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain can come about only with the consent of the peoples of Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and yet that issue is not to be raised in the plebiscite. It makes a mockery of the whole thing that the people of this nation as a whole, for whom the Secretary of State is also responsible, are not to be asked for their views.
  The Committee should be indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for bringing to our debate the reports of speeches by the Prime Minister of the Republic because, by doing so, he has shown that the whole exercise and the matters that are being raised in this Chamber—such as direct rule, and so on—are absolute nonsense. The problem will not be solved—and I say this again to the right hon. Gentleman—until the Government, this parliament and our people come to the conclusion, and act upon that conclusion, that only Irishmen will solve the problems of Ireland, and that to transfer power to an independent Northern Ireland will not put an end to this tragic and terrible story.
  Mr. Whitelaw: In answer to the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) one is bound to say that this country and this Parliament have a duty to the people of Northern Ireland which they must discharge. If anyone thinks that there is some wonderful way in which the people of Ireland, North and South, if left to themselves, will solve all the problems, he has to face the fact that history has not shown that to be possible.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Nor has any other solution.
  Mr. Whitelaw: Having said that, J should like to continue by telling the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that I am grateful to him for the great care with which he put forward his third question and also for the immense amount of thought, which I fully recognise, that has gone into devising the question.

  1689
  The hon. Gentleman said—and others have made the same point—that he has doubts about the plebiscite because it might lead to violence. One has to accept that that is a danger, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that, having weighed all the arguments carefully, my view is that there is grave danger of violence if there is not a plebiscite. One has to take both those factors into account, and I should not like anyone to run away with the idea that I have not weighed them both before coming to my conclusion.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) began by having great sympathy for me, for which I am grateful, but which I do not think I need. He thought it was a tragedy that I had to be bothered with the Bill because it is no good and will not do any good. If I had taken that view I should not have sat here all day, or previously, trying to get the Bill through the House. The hon. Gentleman may be right and I may be wrong—I am not saying that I am right—but I believe that the Bill is necessary.
  Even if I did not believe that, there is another reason for the Bill. A plebiscite on the border was promised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in March, and that is a promise to which the Government are committed. Indeed, on many occasions people in Northern Ireland have told me that it would be a breach of confidence and faith to go back on that promise. That is a very import ant factor, because confidence and faith are essential in all our efforts to deal with this problem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) seemed to agree somewhat with the hon. Member for Ardwick that, on the whole, the exercise was a nonsense. I can only say that that is not the view which has been expressed very forcibly and sharply either to me or to various members of my ministerial team by many of his constituents. They have said precisely the opposite.
  Mr. McMaster: The view expressed to me by many of my constituents has been that, the promise having been made, it must now be implemented rather than, that it is basically, a good idea to have a plebiscite.
  Mr. Whitelaw: They have said to me quite simply, "You have got to have a plebiscite". They have said it in stark and determined terms, and I believe that that is what they feel.
  One comes back, therefore, to the question: how should the poll be expressed? On what should it be based? I am the first to say that one of the great problems—this has been said on both sides—is the devising of questions. I admit freely that a great deal of time and thought has gone into the devising of questions. The more one looks at questions, the more difficult the task becomes.
  When I tell the Committee that I rest on the belief that the simpler the questions are the better, I want hon. Members to recognise that, although one can always argue that other questions might be better or easier, the moment one enters upon that one runs into further difficulty. That has certainly been our experience. Therefore, while fully understanding the arguments which have been put, I keep coming back to the worry I have that the more questions one has the more one is then driven to have.
  It has been argued that a further question would avoid a boycott. I agree here with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder). If people are determined to boycott a poll of this kind, other questions will not, I am sure, stop them doing so. I hope very much that they will not boycott it, and I believe that the second question as it stands in the schedule gives them a perfectly good opportunity to cast a vote, without boycott. I am sure that that second question gives such an opportunity, and I cannot for the life of me see why it should be thought otherwise.
  If people genuinely wish to take part in the poll, the second question gives a clear opportunity. If they are determined to boycott it, I believe it would not matter how many questions we put; they would still boycott it. I greatly hope that that will not be their view, although I know that some say that it will be.
  Mr. Orme: But it is those of us who want to recommend that there be no boycott who will be limited in what we can do if we cannot say, "First, you have had the White Paper, and second, you have a choice of questions". That is the

  1691
  difficulty. There are some people who will boycott all the questions, whatever they are, but we believe that there are a large majority who, given the opportunity, would go to the poll. That is the central issue.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I absolutely accept the hon. Gentleman's sincerity in that. I know that he wants people to take part in the poll, as I do. I entirely accept that he puts his proposal on that basis, and I accept the sincerity of his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) that he wants to see people take part in the poll. That is our purpose. But the burden of my argument remains—this is where a basic difference lies between us—that I genuinely and honestly believe that the second question on the schedule now provides an opportunity—[Interruption] I believe that it does. Other hon. Members believe that it does not. I am entitled to my view. I may be wrong. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) says that, up to now, there has been a broad measure of support, and I trust that that broad measure of support on the principle will continue. There are bound to be differences of emphasis from time to time. The hon. Member may be right, and I hope that if I say, in a sufficiently humble manner, that on the question of Northern Irish affairs it is hard to know just what is right, and that he may prove to be right, he will, in the same sense, admit that it is just possible that I may be right. I am saying that he may be right; I cannot prove it. I ask him to agree that I may be right.
  12.30 a.m.
  Mr. Rose: I accept the Minister's sincerity, but does he appreciate the dilemma that many of us will now have to face if the third question is not in? Those of us here who ask people to vote, and those in Northern Ireland who think the same way, will no longer be able to put forward a choice. We shall have to tell the people that if they vote both ways their ballot paper will be null and void, and as the third choice does not exist they will feel compelled to boycott the referendum.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I believe that the questions as put provide that opportunity;
  1692
  the hon. Member does not. Many people tell me that they do.
  Mr. Stallard: This is an important point. As I understand it, moderate opinion in Northern Ireland—the Northern Ireland Labour Party, the New Ulster Movement, the SDLP, many trade union representatives, and the Alliance Party—has recommended the very change that we suggest, or one very similar to it. On what does the right hon. Gentleman base his judgment? We base ours on the large area of moderate opinion that says, "Change that question", and we are convinced that if the question is changed the people will find it possible to vote.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I accept that some people take the Opposition view. I can only base my judgment on a great many consultations with different individuals and parties. I am entitled to take the view that since I have probably discussed these problems with more people than anyone else in the House, it is fair to say that, although I may be wrong in the end, as I am the first to admit— [Interruption.] That is not enough for the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), because he does not agree— but I am convinced that this is the best way to proceed.
  Mr. John Mendelson: It doles not matter that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman; I am arguing that a great deal of the area of moderate opinion to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is opposed to his view, and it is not good enough for him to say that he has had all sorts of consultations. He has to meet the body of opinion quoted by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Whitelaw: It is a remarkable statement that one has to meet one body of opinion. When many different views are put to one it is clear that one cannot meet all the views. One is bound to accept that. But I believe that this is the best way of doing it.
  Mr. Fitt: Will the Secretary of State accept that on the first of the two questions—
  "Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom?"
  I have made my position clear? Faced with the stark reality of the choice provided by the ballot paper I cannot vote

  1693
  for the maintenance of the link, because in my view it means a return of a Unionist Government in some other guise. But I shall have difficulty in putting my cross on the second box, because I want to see a Socialist Ireland—a new Ireland. But I am faced with a black-and-white situation. There is no room on the ballot paper for me—as the leader of the SDLP and as one who wants a Socialist Republic—to make known my opinion.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I still believe that this is the best way of doing it. If the hon. Member reflects on the matter he will find that if we put in another question we shall get into greater difficulties. If we decide to include the word "eventually"—which is a perfectly good word; it has been criticised, but I do not criticise it—it does not give any indication to the voter as to what else would have to be done to bring about the situation that he would wish at the time. I do not think one can tell. One would be putting to him a question which was extremely difficult to answer.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) quoted various remarks made in the speech of the Prime Minister of the Republic. He also asked me about the question of consultations with the Prime Minister of the Republic. As I said on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had various discussions with the Prime Minister of the Republic and has fully informed him of what we are doing. My right hon. Friend has told him what we are doing about the plebiscite, which he does not like, as he has made clear in his speech.
  Consultations and discussions have taken place. It is recognised on both sides that the responsibility must rest with Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. McNamara: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government and that in the long run the decision
  must be theirs. But there is a question on the ballot paper asking people, "Do you want to be part of the Republic?". The Government are completely disregarding the opinion of the Republic and saying, "We will go ahead and put a question in a plebiscite", which people do not want to be held, "about the future of the country", which people do not want to be discussed in this way. It is quite mad.
  Mr. Whitelaw: That may be the hon. Gentleman's view; but the Republic has said for a long time that it desires a united Ireland. I do not want to go into detail, but it has consistently made that clear. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that if the answers to the question showed that there was a majority for the second, it could not happen overnight; there would have to be negotiations to see how an orderly transfer could be made. No one can pretend otherwise.
  I think that a third question is unnecessary because the two proposed questions give the options and set out a simple and straightforward choice. Hon. Members opposite do not agree. To add another question would further complicate the issue. Therefore, I must advise the Committee that the right answer is to leave the position as it is. Much as I appreciate the ideas behind the amendment, I cannot accept it.
  Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State's explanation was completely unsatisfactory. The Opposition feel extremely concerned about this issue. We have put the case for the amendment in the strongest but most reasonable manner. The right hon. Gentleman is not on our wavelength on this crucial issue. Therefore, I must advise my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made: —
  The Committee divided: Ayes 26, Noes 66.

  Division No. 24.]

  AYES

  [12.40 a.m.

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Evans, Fred

  Latham, Arthur

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Foley, Maurice

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Deakins, Eric

  Golding, John

  Marsden, F.

  Devlin, Miss Bernadette

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  English, Michael

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Mendelson, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Orme, Stanley

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. J. D. Concannon and

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Tom Pendry.

  Rose, Paul B.

  Stallard, A. W.

  NOES

  Atkins, Humphrey

  McMaster, Stanley

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Benyon, W.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Soref, Harold

  Biffen John

  Mather, Carol

  Speed, Keith

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Spence, John

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Molyneaux, James

  Tebbit, Norman

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Money, Ernie

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Clegg, Walter

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Eyre, Reginald

  Mudd, David

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Neave, Airey

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Normanton, Tom

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fowler, Norman

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fox, Marcus

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Green, Alan

  Pounder, Rafton

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Jopling, Michael

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Kilfedder, James

  Raison, Timothy

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Mr. Paul Hawkins and

  Kirk, Peter

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Mr. Oscar Murton.

  Knox, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Lane, David

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  12.45 a.m.
  Question proposed, That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: I should like to put a number of short technical questions about the marking of the ballot paper in the schedule. I understand that earlier an indication was given that a ballot paper would automatically be invalid were there to be crosses in each of the two boxes. Under what statutory requirements can it be determined at this stage that such a ballot paper would be invalidated?
  Is there any existing statutory commitment which would of necessity invalidate any qualified answer that a voter might give to either of the questions on the ballot paper?
  Is the Minister of the view that the conduct of the ballot, the marking of the ballot paper, and the circumstances in which the ballot paper would be declared spoilt and therefore invalid are governed by any existing electoral regulations, or whether those provisions will form part of the rules which the Bill enables the Secretary of State to introduce? If the latter, may I inquire whether the door might still be slightly open?
  We know the Secretary of State to be a man not only of sincerity and integrity,
  1696
  but of courage—the courage to stand by his convictions and, in the light of evidence and further consideration, to revise his view and to take account of any additional factors and evidence brought before him. Therefore, in the introduction of the rules that the Secretary of State will prescribe, will it be open to him even now, if he is convinced that some people will not in those circumstances boycott the election, to permit voters to answer "Yes" to each of the two questions on the ballot paper? Might it even be possible for the Minister to indicate that it would not be out of order for a voter to choose to answer "Yes" to the second question and to add "Eventually"?
  If there is a high proportion of spoiled ballot papers, will it be possible under the regulations which are likely to be made for it to be declared how many ballot papers have been invalidated as a consequence of voters answering "Yes" to both questions or by their giving qualifying answers? If this poll is not governed by existing electoral regulations, and in view of the powers the Secretary of State will have under the Bill, will the Government consider making some modification in the rules which will be made? That might make the poll more acceptable to those who will otherwise boycott the plebiscite.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: These are technical points on which I would not want

  1697
  to give the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) wrong answers. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that I should like to check the accuracy of the information I will now give him, although I believe this information to be correct.
  My understanding is, first, that the hon. Gentleman is right that the matters of which he speaks in general will be the subject of regulations made under the Bill when enacted. The Bill as amended provides that the House shall have the opportunity of scrutiny.
  Second, my immediate answer to the hon. Gentleman's question whether the regulations permit an affirmative answer to both questions is "No", because the schedule contains the word "or" and it would not be open to the Secretary of State to make regulations under the Bill when enacted which defeated the purpose of the Act.
  Third, I will consider the question of a declaration of the number of spoiled papers. I think that the regulations can cover the question of the declaration of the poll.
  Fourth, it will not be permissible to make comments on the ballot paper. If the Committee approves the schedule, it will not be open to my right hon. Friend, by regulations made under the Bill when enacted, to permit people to amend the ballot paper which has been approved by Parliament. Therefore, a ballot paper with written-in words would be the equivalent of a spoiled ballot paper, as over here. We are working under on what we have loosely termed the Westminster rules.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  12.55 a.m.
  Mr. McNamara: Some of us will be dividing on the Bill with tremendous regret. There has been a great deal of talk about there being a bipartisan policy, both parties having regard towards the problem of Northern Ireland—a wish not to make party capital out of it, a wish not to put people's lives at stake, a wish not to inflame the situation. I choose my
  1698
  words with care, because it is not my intention to do any of those things.
  When one seeks to maintain a bipartisan policy one accepts that there are certain responsibilities laid upon the Secretary of State and his team and that in the end they must take decisions that they think are right—that is what they were elected to do. There comes a time when people who have gone along with the Government, sometimes gradually, sometimes faster, sometimes seeing the Government catch up with them and doing what was urged on them a long time ago—and being grateful to them for eventually doing it—must say to the Government, "We are sorry; we cannot support you in this."
  Many of us felt that the idea of the poll was wrong from the beginning and were upset about it when the Prime Minister first mentioned it. Some felt that we were taking up too much time in recording our opposition to the idea and that opposition to the Bill would be divisive. We thought, if we put down a reasoned amendment to the Bill and some of our ideas were accepted it would be possible to go forward largely in agreement with what was being done, even though we had misgivings, but realising that the responsibility was the Government's.
  That situation has not now arisen. A number of amendments have been accepted by the Government but they were concerned with mechanics, important issues of constitutional principle and not with the substance. Although we are grateful to the Government for accepting those amendments, our attitude to the principal matters is not affected. One almost had the feeling that the original provisions were included so that amendments could be made to satisfy the Opposition.
  In moving the reasoned amendment we were arguing three main things—that the timing was wrong, the questions were wrong and that the Government held out no hope of co-operation between the two parts of Ireland. The amendments we put forward in Committee were on the timing, the contents of the White Paper and relations with the Republic—and the reply of the Secretary of State on that important issue was lamentable.

  1699
  If indeed the Republic has claimed in its constitution the control or eventual jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland, if we were to pose questions which would bring about that eventuality, the time to talk of the consequences would be before the vote was proposed, and the matter should not be flicked off in a cheap way as if we know already what the vote will be but if it goes in a way we do not expect we can talk about it then.
  These are the reasons why I will divide against Third Reading. I do it with regret and with a certain amount of sadness, because I had hoped that the Government could have been persuaded, particularly on the point about the timing and on the questions. The problem about relations and discussions with the Republic has always been difficult because it takes two to talk. But on these first two issues we hoped for something and the Government gave us nothing. If that is bipartisanship, I will have nothing of it.
  1.2 a.m.
  Mr. Maurice Foley: These debates in Committee have been of value because we have attempted to probe each other's minds and arrive at some conclusion. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I am disappointed in so far as the basic substance of the Bill has not been amended. For this reason I, too, shall be voting against Third Reading.
  Having said that, however, I think that the question to which we need to apply our minds—this is particularly true for the Government, whose Bill this is—is the letter and spirit in which the Government interpret the decisions taken tonight. I want to remind the Secretary of State of a point I raised earlier—that this is something unique in the context of Northern Ireland. It is unique because a British Government are setting out to try to test what the people of Northern Ireland want.
  Therefore, the first questions we must ask are, "Will that test be fair? Will the restrictions and trappings in terms of so-called political freedom over the last 50 or more years be lifted sufficiently within the context of a peaceful and orderly establishment to allow a free expression
  1700
  of views either on belonging to a united Ireland or maintaining the constitutional links with Britain?" The Government must apply themselves to these matters because the House will want to satisfy itself that what takes place is not a sham and charade but something genuine.
  In this context, I want the Secretary of State to explain, if this is to be on Westminster lines, the extent to which people will be given time on radio and television in Northern Ireland to speak freely and frankly in favour of one or the other question. Who will determine who speaks? Will the political parties be invited? Will they be given equal time? How will it be determined? All this is of considerable importance if we are talking of the Westminster rules and pattern.
  We are talking about two communities with two cultures. Will it be sufficient to send out ballot papers in English, or should they also be in Gaelic? What thought has been given to that? How important is it? These are some of the factors which are part of the demonstration by the Government in terms of the letter and spirit of what they are attempting to do. There must be no hindrance in reaching out to the people of Northern Ireland in ways they can read and listen to and see and in a way in which they can express themselves. I have grave doubts about this whole exercise, but I shall want to know the extent to which the Government are intent on making it a genuine exercise, not a mockery.
  1.5 a.m.
  Miss Devlin: I do not intend to detain the House for very long on what I believe is a farcical discussion of a farcical piece of legislation.
  I have already made my opinions clear on the holding of a poll. This is nothing more than an opinion poll. The Government of Ireland Act, whatever may have been said in the Downing Street agreement, deals with the changing of the position in Northern Ireland as having regard only to the Parliament of Northern Ireland. We all know only too well what may or may not be said inside or outside this House. We know, too, what promises have been made in the history of my country to one section of the people at the same time as other contradictory promises have been made to other sections of the population.

  1701
  The only safeguard for the people of Northern Ireland lies in legislation. The legislation clearly states that the situation regarding unity with the United Kingdom or unity with the Republic of Ireland is vested in the decision of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. And that Parliament does not exist. Since that Parliament at present does not exist, the decision rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of this Parliament.
  I feel justified in saying that the people of Northern Ireland are being fooled, and at a fearful price, because what they are about to have is a Gallup poll. I suggest that the holding of Gallup polls is a function of Gallup and not a function to be undertaken by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the British Government. There is nothing in this legislation to make the decision which is arrived at, however it is arrived at, binding on the British Government. It is merely testing opinion in the North of Ireland. The opinion which is being tested is already well known to us. The overwhelming majority of the people in the North of Ireland will take a decision between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. There is nothing in the legislation which says that that decision will even be taken into account by the British Government, whether it be Tory or Labour. The price we shall pay for this referendum or opinion-gathering in the North of Ireland will be something that is totally unenvisaged in the House.
  Time after time I have been accused in this House of being consistently wrong. I suggest that time after time, destructive or negative as I may have been, I have been consistently right in this House. I said in this House that the Downing Street agreement would not work. At that time every moderate in creation said I was wrong—and six months later, after the event, admitted that I was right. It is my prediction that the Government will have their majority tonight—because I will certainly divide the House on Third Reading. They may have their majority, and their Bill may become an Act, but it may be a long time before their Act becomes an opinion poll. I predict that they will never actually reach the stage of carrying out the opinion poll.
  1702
  I predict that hopefully because we shall then be saved the agony, fear, prejudice and bloodshed which would result from proving the obvious to a Government who may not care what the obvious is because that would make no difference to Government policy. There is nothing in the Act which will turn the opinions registered into action by the Government. For that reason, I address the remainder of my remarks, not to the Government, but to this side.
  We have in Northern Ireland—and here I declare my interest in the tourist trade—the sham fight of Scarvagh. This is invariably conducted between members of the Orange Order. People dress up, some pretending to be the forces of William and the others the forces of James. A most realistic battle is held. It is entertaining and colourful and worth the journey to Northern Ireland to see it. The people dress up in green and orange and one can distinguish one side from another. When it is over everybody gets—
  Mr. Fitt: Drunk.
  Miss Devlin: Precisely. All repair to the nearest pub, they pat themselves on their backs in a friendly and convivial manner and get drunk together and go home.
  In this House, time after time when I look at the Government Front Bench and that of the Opposition, it reminds me of the sham fight of Scarvagh. It is an interesting fight, but nobody dresses up. At least if the Opposition Front Bench wore red ties we might distinguish between the forces of William and of James but that does not happen.
  Tonight we are likely to witness the sham fight of Westminster with the Opposition Front Bench. I am not involving those hon. Members who are my hon. Friends and colleagues who have consistently put up a fight in this House, but I cannot understand how they make a stand in principle on so many amendments tonight and yet can still say that they will not break the bipartisan policy by voting against Third Reading.
  I ask my colleagues of the Labour Party: are they to be paid off by the sops of the amendments we have got, by the addition of a few lines to say that the Secretary of State will not be able

  1703
  to take criminal proceedings against people when, as I have already pointed out, that is unnecessary because those powers are in existing legislation and he has power enough to deal with that in that legislation? Other amendments have not been accepted and the third question has not been put in. We got an affirmative procedure instead of a negative one, but that makes little difference.
  In all honesty, the Labour Party Front bench has made its sham stand. We have spent from four o'clock to this hour debating the issues and perhaps the Labour Chief Whip and Shadow Cabinet feel that they have done duty and raised their whips.
  I may be wrong. I may be described as some kind of lunatic idealist, but it is not a matter of debating points. It is not a matter of the sham fight at Scarvagh. It is not a matter of entertaining the masses in the public gallery. It is not a matter of fooling the population of Britain or that of Ireland that there is a fundamental difference between the Labour Party and the Tory Party. It is a matter of principle. Either the Bill is right or it is wrong. If it is wrong, it could be put right by incorporating a number of amendments. But those amendments have not been accepted. Therefore on the basis of their argument, the Opposition Front Bench and certainly my colleagues in the Labour movement have no choice on principle—not on the basis of what has gone on here this evening—but to safeguard the lives and futures of the people of Northern Ireland which depend on them.
  It is not merely a deal between the two Front Benches. It reflects something much deeper. It reflects the way that trade union militants fight. It reflects the fight over the rent issue and over the Industrial Relations Act. In this House, both Front Benches exchange debating points and score off each other in the manner of the sham fight at Scarvagh. But this is an important matter of principle. The very lives of the people of Northern Ireland depend on it.
  I ask my Labour colleagues and the Opposition Front Bench especially how they can argue in favour of amendments and then, having had the greater part of them rejected and being offered the
  1704
  sop of Scarvagh, refuse to divide the House? In the interests of my people and in the interests of my principles, I shall divide the House.
  1.17 a.m.
  Mr. Fitt: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), I have no intention of keeping the House overlong. I hope that my colleagues will advise me if I appear to be breaking that promise.
  I agree with almost every word said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster. With the support of many of my hon. Friends, we have fought hard on Second Reading and in Committee. We have fought a parliamentary battle, trying to amend a Bill which will be a disaster for the people of Northern Ireland whom we represent here.
  I have been a Member of this House since 1966, and I understand the polemics of politics here. I understand the battles which are fought on the Floor of the House and, more important, those fought in the corridors. I also understand how the Press reports will reflect the attitudes of the Government Front Bench or the Opposition Front Bench. But in Northern Ireland it is not a battle of semantics or a battle about words. It is not a battle about whether the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davidson) is a Conservative and a Catholic, or about whether many of my hon. Friends are Jewish, Protestant or Non-Conformist, but supporters of the minority in Northern Ireland.
  The people in Northern Ireland are concerned about what is happening at the moment. They want to stop the death and destruction and in some way to guarantee the future for everyone in Northern Ireland. Far from taking any steps to do that, this Bill will only exacerbate existing tensions. It saddens me to have to say that the Bill and the campaign leading up to the poll may well lead to further death and destruction in Northern Ireland.
  The confusion earlier this evening over the Division on Amendment No. 9 was a silly charade. In that confusion only 25 hon. Members voted for the amendment and later, when Amendment No. 16 was brought to the vote, only 13 voted for that. Twelve or 13 people suddenly

  1705
  disappeared I do not know whether they had taken the advice of the whips. By British standards those results will be described by the political correspondents of The Times, The Guardian and the other "heavies" to be derisory figures. But those correspondents are not living in Northern Ireland where the killings and bombings and explosions continue night and day. The people who support the stand I have taken will not say that there were only 13 in the lobby. They will ask where were the other 610. They will ask why so many hon. Members were absent on such an important constitutional issue. I would have thought that this issue would be of such importance and of such concern to all hon. Members that there would be a far greater attendance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) spoke of his constituents and of other hon. Members constituents who are soldiers and who are being killed and blown up in Northern Ireland. In not attending the debate hon. Members on both sides of the House have done a signal disservice to their constituents who are losing sons and husbands. This is an important constitutional issue which affects not only the constitutional position of Northern Ireland but the lives of their constituents. That is why I oppose the Third Reading.
  I will not go back to my constituents tomorrow with any apology and say that I secured only 13 votes. I shall tell them that I tried to do what I could to make the Bill a better piece of legislation, much as I opposed it, and my constituents will certainly support the stand I have taken tonight. This charade of a Bill, this farce of a Bill and what will ultimately be proven to be a tragedy of a Bill will not have my support on Third Reading.
  1.24 a.m.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: In the long, tragic entanglement of Great Britain with Ireland, the people of this country have tried practically every conceivable means of solving the problems of that tragic entanglement. We have tried starvation, we have tried bloody brute force, we have tried integration, we have tried partition and now we are trying something else. All the things we have tried have failed
  1706
  to bring peace and unity and failed to solve the problems.
  Every generation, both in Great Britain and in Ireland, has paid a price in blood, and I am aware of the tragedy of what is happening in Ireland to the people whom my hon. Friend represents. As the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said, the big disgrace tonight is that many of those who have been elected to this House and who are responsible for sending their constituents, or the sons of some of their constituents, to die in Northern Ireland, have not been here to participate in the debate.
  Every generation, both in Great Britain and in Ireland, has been called upon to pay this bloody price, and it must end. The sham fight is not what the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) said it was. The sham is that we are trying to solve a problem that we cannot solve. In the long ran, the only way in which peace, decency, civilisation and basic decent behaviour can come to Ireland is by people in the North and South appreciating the reality of the economic situation, and they will never do that while we in Great Britain pretend that we have some part to play in Ireland, that we have some solution to offer.
  The best service that we can do for Ireland and for the people of our own country is to state a date and say that on that day we shall relinquish our responsibility, and then pray to God, and put our hands in our pockets to provide the money to go with our prayers, that there will be reconstruction and reconciliation in the country.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: We have today again gone over the question of the border and the next step in dealing with the problems of Ireland. We did not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. Our arguments have been based on the reasoned amendment which was designed to appeal to the moderate view in Ireland which many people affect to sneer at but which we believe is there and must be unlocked.
  The Secretary of State has accepted a number of technical amendments, and they matter, but we still feel strongly about the question which, though it may have been slightly different from that put forward by the new Ulster Movement,

  1707
  was designed to appeal to those in the minority community who were prepared to look forward, rather than at the existing situation.
  We still feel strongly about the timing, and on that the right hon. Gentleman has said that he has not closed his mind and that we shall be able to return to it when the order is introduced. We have expressed our views on this issue, we have voted against it, and we have made our feelings clear. We stick by our reasoned amendment. We regret that no change has been made.
  We have expressed strong views on this issue, but it may be that we are wrong. We hope that the Government are right because, after hearing views from Northerin Ireland, it is borne in on me that if the Government are wrong then, in the words of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who explained to many of us why he was unable to be here tonight, the crunch point will come at the time of the issue of the White Paper.
  If these are the best questions which the best statisticians—if they are the people who devised these questions—could think of, there is still a grave danger of everything going wrong and the situation getting worse than it is now. We are all aware of that. We are aware, too, that the right hon. Gentleman has made a considered judgment. We have put forward a different view and tried to push him towards our line of thinking.
  I assure the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) that there is no sham fight. I have no doubt that there are sham fights at times in the Oxford Union-type institution in which we operate, but I assure her that there is no sham fight here on our side. There cannot be a sham fight when people are approaching the problem with the humility that is borne in on us every day by the realisation that we do not understand the Irish question. But, equally, I say to her that, in the same humility, she should realise that she does not understand the English question.
  The hon. Lady talks about the Labour movement. She may well represent it in Ireland. When I talk to my people, I know that they are not changing towards her, and when their view is expressed,
  1708
  it is not one of concern for the people of all Ireland but, rather it is, "A plague on both their houses". That is not a feeling which I am willing to accept, because, in many respects, it is as unthinking as that of those who think they know the solution in Ireland.
  There is no sham fight. This is not a matter on which to fight. I know that the hon. Lady has expressed feelings for both sides in Ireland about the problems which face them in their struggle there. I can only say—I say it in no jingoist way—that the soldiers who go to Ireland, by reason of their being infantry, tend to come from the Labour areas, from Nottingham, from Derbyshire, the West Riding, Scotland, Manchester, Erith and Crayford—my hon. Friends know it well. Many hon. Members, I am sure, will join me in the point I am making, that they tend to come from areas which we on this side represent. All of us have to go and talk to parents about these things. There is no sham fight.
  I know that many of my hon. Friends feel strongly, but my advice to them is this. We have put our reasoned amendment, and we stick by it. It was prepared in no sham battle. We felt strongly about it. If we do not vote tonight on the Third Reading, that will be no evidence of sham. We hope that the Secretary of State is right. We have differ-views on various aspects of the Bill, but —I say again—we hope that the Secretary of State is right. He may well be wrong. We may well be wrong.
  We hope that in the coming weeks and months, the Secretary of State will most seriously consider one point which has come out of our debate, which, perhaps, is the politically possible, namely, that the White Paper will be published before the questions are put. That will then be a reality, a harsh reality, and perhaps it is only in the face of harsh reality that all of us will face up to the correct next step.
  1.33 a.m.
  The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William van Straubenzee): We have traversed, at least in outline, a number of the arguments raised in Committee, and they fall, broadly, into three main categories. I realise that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) would not have accepted a Bill

  1709
  of this kind, holding the views he does, if it were limited to the franchise. That is a perfectly proper view to express. I simply say to him, in language not as eloquent as that of the hon. Member for Leeds South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), that I believe that in personal life and in corporate life one sometimes has responsibilities, disagreeable responsibilities, stemming from one's corporate past as part of one's corporate inheritance; and it is not necessarily open to an individual or a group to wash one's hands of that inheritance. Either as individuals or as groups, we have to take up those responsibilities and seek to find a solution.
  I entirely follow why the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) would not accept a Bill of this kind. They have been perfectly consistent. Since we are, rightly, talking of serious matters, I must say that all those of us who do not hale from Northern Ireland enjoyed the hon. Lady's account of the sham fight at Scarvagh, but there was one significant point about it which she would do well to think about. The hon. Lady told us that in that sham fight William invariably won. Let her remember that lesson.
  Miss Devlin: Will the Minister accept that William fought in 1690, when neither my hon. Friend nor I was around?
  Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Lady must remember my Dutch origin. We are a determined people. I quite understand the view that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Belfast, West, put forward, but I am sure that I can say to both of them—and I hope and believe that they will respond—that if, as I trust will be the case, the House gives a Third Reading to the Bill and Parliament eventually decrees that it shall become an Act, they will do everything they can, from their point of view—as we shall from ours—to ensure that death and destruction—I use the words of the hon. Member for Belfast, West—shall not come about, if we can all of us, together, prevent it, when the poll takes place.
  Mr. Fitt: The hon. Member expresses the hope that if and when Parliament gives a Third Reading to the Bill I will be prepared not to take any action to exacerbate the existing tensions in
  1710
  Northern Ireland. I tell the Minister that I do not believe that Parliament has given a Second Reading, or a Committee stage or a Third Reading to this Bill. There are fewer than one-third of the Members of this Parliament in the House at the moment. It is on that point that I have serious objections. I do not believe that the British people are aware what is happening here tonight.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I take the hon. Member's point. He made it effectively earlier, and it has been echoed by others. But assuming that Parliament so enacts, I feel sure that across our differences about the measure we can join and unite in saying that no bloodshed should arise out of the operation of the poll.
  We had the moving speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the speech by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) and the winding up speech by the hon. Member for Leeds, South. Perhaps even now it is not too late for us to recall what my right hon. Friend said, in opening, on the whole question of timing. This is not an easy matter. My right hon. Friend explained the position. He put his options openly and quite frankly to the House, and the reasons he put forward seemed to me to be regarded by many hon. Members as being of considerable strength, if not persuasive. My right hon. Friend explained the problems that arose on the questions, and I feel sure that hon. Members will agree that he has conducted this whole matter, so far as the South is concerned, on the basis that friendly countries do not interfere in the internal affairs of each other on a matter of mutual interest, but that this does not preclude them working together in a friendly manner on matters which are increasingly of common interest and concern.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for West Bromwich will agree that the matters that he raised must be the subject of study in the regulations to be laid by my right hon. Friend. I can only express my belief that the combined effect of the Bill and the regulations will be to provide a fair test, which will enable all the people to express their views freely, as they would wish. I believe that the poll will turn out to be a genuine exercise of the wishes of the

  1711
  people. Certainly every effort that can be made to that effect will be made.
  I simply echo what the hon. Member for Leeds, South said in conclusion. He was absolutely fair when he said that there was no sham fight about this matter. Nobody who has been on the end of his probing interrogation on detailed as well as broad matters in Ulster would accuse him of conducting a sham war.
  In the end the Government must take the responsibility for decisions. We understand that. In matters of this kind, it must be right for the Government to seek to reach as wide a measure of agreement as possible. It was genuinely in
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
  Miss Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for legislation of paramount importance to the people and security forces of the United Kingdom and to the lives of the people of Northern Ireland to be passed by a total vote of 70 hon. Members in a House in which there are at least 600 representatives?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): There is nothing out of order in what has happened.
  that spirit that two amendments, which were rather more than technical amendments, were accepted. I am sorry that that was not sufficient for two hon. Members opposite. I hope that the House will agree that we should move forward from this stage so that every effort can be made to secure success for the poll as part of the process of bringing to a most valued part of the United Kingdom the peace and prosperity which we all wish to see.
  Question put, That the Bill be read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 62, Noes 8.

  Division No. 25.]

  AYES

  [1.45 a.m.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Lane, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Benyon, W.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Biffen John

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Soref, Harold

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Mather, Carol

  Speed, Keith

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Spence, John

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Chapman, Sydney

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Clegg, Walter

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Molyneaux, James

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Money, Ernie

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Mudd, David

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Fowler, Norman

  Murton, Oscar

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Fox, Marcus

  Neave, Airey

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Normanton, Tom

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Green, Alan

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Jopling, Michael

  Pounder, Rafton

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Kilfedder, James

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Kirk, Peter

  Raison, Timothy

  Mr. Hugh Rossi and

  Knox, David

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke

  NOES

  Devlin, Miss Bernadette

  Latham, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Mr. A. W. Stallard and

  Foley, Maurice

  Rose, Paul B.

  Mr. Kevin McNamara.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Skinner, Dennis

  NORTHERN IRELAND (APPROPRIATION)
  1.51 a.m.
  The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move,
  That the Appropriation No. 3 (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.
  When presenting the Appropriation No. 2 Order to the House, I explained that since the preparation of the Northern Ireland Estimates for 1972–73 there had

  1713
  been pay and price increases along with a greatly expanded cost of compensation and a number of measures designed to assist the economy.
  These various factors have predictably combined to require substantially increased expenditure for the year. The autumn supplementary estimates, which form the basis of the order now before hon. Members, total £53¾ million. Although this is a very much larger total than is usual in Northern Ireland, it must be remembered that the original estimates to which we are now making additions were prepared in the late autumn of 1971, since when a great deal has happened.
  The supplementary estimates volume has been published and made available to hon. Members, but it may be of help if, even at this late hour, I give a broad indication of the main features.
  Pay and price increases represent a total of about £8 million and obviously arise across a large number of votes. The pay increases in the public services reflect pay settlements in Great Britain.
  On the law and order front, a further £15½ million is required for compensation, sadly, and £2·4 million for the police and prisons services which are under great pressure. Again, sadly, it is not possible to make accurate forecasts of expenditure on compensation. Quite apart from the unpredictability of destruction, changes in the speed with which claims are dealt have an important bearing on the amounts required and therefore to be appropriated. We have had considerable success in speeding up payments, with the inevitable result that more money is required in the short run. Indeed, it is possible that a further supplementary will be needed in due course to reflect further acceleration in compensation payments since this estimate was prepared.
  New economic measures announced during the summer months account for a total of about £20 million. These are measures introduced since or shortly before direct rule commenced. They include the measures that I announced on 27th July—assistance to Harland and Wolff and the acquisition of shares in what was then ICL, now International Engineering Ltd.
  1714
  Perhaps I might put on record a correction of something that I said on Friday last when I told the House that the IEL shares were purchased under the Industrial Development Act. In fact, the expenditure is covered on the industrial development vote, not under the Industrial Development Act.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Would not the vote be granted under the Act? The hon. Gentleman quite properly bothered to make the distinction, but what does the difference add up to?
  Mr. Howell: The purchase was made out of money voted for industrial development in Northern Ireland and not out of money voted for a particular scheme arising out of the Industrial Development Act.
  The only other substantial category is £4·6 million for supplementary benefits, attendances and family income supplements. This is partly for increased numbers on the register and partly for the upratings which were made in parity with Great Britain.
  I have dealt so far with the main categories. I turn now to a small number of separate items to which special attention should be drawn. The sum of £88,000 is included under Class 11(7) for a contribution towards the acquisition of the Girona treasure which was recovered from the sunken Spanish galleon off the coast of Ulster and which now forms such an attractive possession of the Ulster Museum.
  The sum of £204,000 is provided under Clause 111(8), for expenses in connection with local government elections. Since the estimate was prepared, the elections have been postponed but no new date has been fixed. However, a large part of the provision will be required this financial year even if the elections do not take place until next year.
  The supplementary of £200,000 under Class VI(3) represents an unexpected increase in the cost of brucellosis eradication resulting from increases in both the numbers and the cost of cattle requiring to be slaughtered.
  In Class VII(2) almost £140,000 is provided as a grant to the Finance Corporation to meet administrative expenses. The money used by the Corporation to assist industry is made available as loans to the Corporation, not as grants.

  1715
  Finally, I should make it clear that in the normal pattern of things a further spring supplementary estimate for Northern Ireland will be required before the end of the financial year. Work has already started on preparing these estimates, but it will be some time before a figure will be available. Meanwhile, I can fairly say that the figure will be a great deal less than the figure in the autumn supplementaries with which we are now dealing.
  I have intentionally been brief in my introduction so as to leave time for discussion of the order. Some questions were raised in our debate on other legislation last Friday which I undertook to try to answer and I will gladly do so if I have the opportunity at the end of our short debate.
  1.58 a.m.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The order must be seen in the context of the first and second draft appropriation orders. Combined, they give the total Northern Ireland expenditure for the financial year 1972–73. The first order was for nearly £141 million and the second was for nearly £251 million. The amount authorised in this order is nearly £54 million, making a total expenditure of £445 million which, together with the appropriations in aid of 38½ million, make a grand total of £484 million. Account must be taken of taxation raised in the North of Ireland. Last week in Ulster the Prime Minister talked about an expenditure of £200 million by this country.
  Those who talk about unification should put their minds to the question of money. Those with the most to say about the principle may be the least concerned about the detail they must eventually face up to. We have had two previous debates on appropriation orders, and debates on an order and a Bill to do with loans. Therefore, most of the points on finance and the economy of Northern Ireland have already been raised.
  I wish to refer only to the fire services. The Belfast Fire Brigade is wholly financed by the city rates, and the Northern Ireland Fire Authority is partially financed by contributions from all the local authorities within its territory. It also receives a substantial grant from
  1716
  the Northern Ireland Government, and on that score I hope I am in order in raising this matter on this appropriation debate.
  In none of the three appropriation orders can I find specific mention of funds for the fire services, although money comes from the central authority to the fire authority. Under what heading is such expenditure allocated, and what is the value of the grant in aid for the financial year 1972–73?
  A Fire Services Bill was going through Stormont at the time of prorogation and had reached a fairly advanced stage. A similar Bill has not yet come before the House, and I understand that extensive revision is needed before it is laid as an order. It would help me with my work for the fire service, in which I have a particular interest, if I could be told when we may expect to debate this matter.
  The order—when it comes—will essentially be concerned with organisation. It will amalgamate the Belfast Fire Brigade and the Northern Ireland Fire Authority into an Ulster Fire Authority. I want to keep in order by discussing the financial implications of that reorganisation.
  Without considering any improvement to the fire services, the Northern Ireland Government will be financially involved to a greater extent. When introducing the Fire Services Bill in Stormont the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs said:
  "Probably the most important change which the Bill would introduce would be that the new authority's funds would be derived from moneys provided by Parliament."
  What will be the increase in the Government's expenditure upon this reorganisation of the fire services, and has it been allowed for in these appropriations?
  I contend that the fire service in Northern Ireland needs a substantial increase in manpower. In addition to expenditure on reorganisation, extra money will be required for extra staff. The establishment of the Belfast Fire Brigade provides for 310 whole-time men. The Northern Ireland Fire Authority has an establishment of 100 whole-time men and 700 part-time retained men. Most of the whole-time men work a 56-hour week on a three-shift system.

  1717
  The establishments of the brigades are based on the rate of incidents in normal times, and they were under review before the present situation arose. Yet the Belfast and the Northern Ireland fire brigades have each attended more than 6,000 emergency calls in the past year. Furthermore, many calls subject the men to extreme danger which goes beyond conventional firefighting to include explosions and shootings.
  An urgent and substantial increase in the personnel of the fire services is required to bring relief and to allow the men to be given more special leave. I hope that the Minister will ensure that a detailed survey of the realistic manpower requirements of the fire services is conducted, and that he will feel able to announce a significant increase in establishment before the new Ulster Fire Authority comes into operation on 1st April, 1973. It is that date that has prompted me to ask these questions, because it is imminent and the expenditure, I presume, is being considered.
  I think I can speak on behalf of us all when I say that I have the highest regard for the men of the Belfast and Northern Ireland fire brigades. I take this opportunity of paying tribute to their outstanding service and courage under exceptional conditions. I think that we should also send our condolences to those injured and otherwise in the performance of their duty.
  There are many other questions I was prepared to ask. We have had other financial debates and we all have other means of getting the information. I have raised only the question of the fire services at this time of night and if there are matters on which the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me I should be satisfied. The main point I am concerned about is where the money for the fire services appears in the order, because I understand that the money comes from the central Government. The method I should be glad to learn about at a later date.
  2.6 a.m.
  Captain L. P. S. Orr: At this hour and after a long day it would be tempting simply to say "Let us call it a day and go home." On the other hand, as the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has
  1718
  pointed out, we are dealing with a fairly substantial appropriation of expenditure on certain public services which one should take the opportunity to discuss. The hon. Gentleman discussed the fire services and paid a tribute to them which we entirely endorse. We are very proud of the work they do.
  I think it would be right to take another group of public servants for commendation—the Royal Ulster Constabulary. What is owed to the RUC in the present circumstances of Northern Ireland passes all praise. I wonder whether the House is fully aware of the contribution which the RUC has made over the years to the stability of Northern Ireland. For 50 years the RUC and its auxiliaries served to do the job which now requires almost the entire reserve of the British Army. However, one must look at the last three years to comprehend in full what the RUC has been up against.
  One would have imagined that in the tragic history of these last few years not only the morale but the loyalty of the RUC might have been seriously affected but that is not the case. In a document issued by their central committee this year, the members of the RUC said:
  "We shall continue to do our duty to the utmost of our ability in the cause of restoring peace to Northern Ireland. We are deeply conscious of our obligations to the Community and we pledge ourselves to the service of all people."
  The pledge has been honoured. The figures speak for themselves—28 men dead and 1,991 injured since 1969. If there is any one piece of expenditure in this order which should not be grudged, it is the £1,760,000 additional expenditure on the police.
  It would be out of order if I were to attempt to look back to the Hunt Report and the effect of the implementation of that report on the Ulster Constabulary. None the less, I must point out that the RUC was disarmed in the middle of what has turned out to be an appallingly violent revolution. After the disarmament of the RUC and following disbandment of its paramilitary reserve, the violence did not cease. Indeed, the violence continued, escalated, and became worse in every way.
  One of the expressed aims of the terrorists has been to kill policemen, and they have not hesitated to do so in the

  1719
  most unpleasant, ruthless and savage way. The consequence is that it has been necessary in certain circumstances to arm police officers with side arms and in some cases with automatic weapons—not all officers or on every occasion, but sufficient to enable them to do their duty.
  The extraordinary thing to bear in mind—this is relevant to the question of expenditure—is that conditions which in any other society would be considered extraordinary and abnormal are now the normal conditions in which the RUC works. The difficult and highly dangerous conditions which exist are the normal conditions of work for the RUC.
  From 1969 to the end of September, 625 people in Ulster have died, and there have been countless riots, demonstrations and other breaches of the peace. In 1971 there were 1,033 explosions resulting in hundreds of casualties and millions of pounds worth of damage. In the first six months after direct rule, there were 973 explosions alone. In the whole of 1971 there were 437 armed robberies—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will confine himself to expenditure in the current year.
  Captain Orr: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am preparing a case to show not only that the expenditure that is proposed in the current year is justified but that there is a very good case for greater expenditure. It is essential to understand that the sort of conditions which in the rest of the kingdom would be thought to be highly abnormal are the normal conditions in which the RUC now works. I am proposing to advance the cause that the RUC should be paid more in accordance with the danger that its members now face.
  In order to advance that argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must paint the background of the danger that they face. In 1971 there was a staggering total of 437 armed robberies, and in the first six months of 1972 there were no fewer than 760 armed robberies. These are the normal working conditions of the RUC.
  We have all paid tribute to the Army and the difficult job it has to carry out, but the Army is armed and trained to
  1720
  deal with a violent situation of this sort. The RUC members are police who, for the most part, are unarmed but have to work alongside the Army. Surely the House should concern itself with members of the RUC as well, because they are servants of the Crown as much as are members of the Army.
  The RUC has suffered 28 dead, and the number of injured is increasing daily. The present total, as I have said, for the whole period is almost 2,000 injured. The combined figure represents about 50 per cent. of the force. If this were projected into terms of the United Kingdom, it would make police casualties of more than 500 dead and 40,000 injured. Can one imagine the impact in the rest of the kingdom if police forces had suffered casualties of that order?
  One should bear in mind the injuries suffered by individual members of the force. Case histories could be produced one after another of serious brain damage and of officers losing limbs and being disfigured for life. Of the 551 attacks on police stations, 231 have occurred this year. The police are not safe off duty. Five police homes in Lame were petrol-bombed on 17th October. What does one say to an 18-year-old constable who is shot in the leg four days after leaving training school and the leg has to be amputated?
  One could give any number of cases showing what the force has to put up with. There has been intimidation of families; the wives and families of policemen have to suffer appalling anxiety. Many have to live under military guard. As to the simple matter which ordinary human beings have to deal with of insurance of their lives, policemen have had to pay 10 per cent. extra on the premiums to get the same kind of insurance cover as that which is available to others.
  There has been a considerable effect on recruitment. I will not go into all the figures, but recruitment is not satisfactory and wastage has been slowly increasing. The RUC is hopelessly undermanned for the kind of job it has to do and for the kind of job it will have to do in future, because if one wants the military commitment reduced one has in the long run to substitute the police. The tragedy is that they are hopelessly overworked.

  1721
  I turn to the financial provisions. The police have made a pay claim based on the simple proposition that they should have more money because of the conditions under which they work, which are so distinct from the conditions in which police in any other part of the United Kingdom have to work. They claim, with justification, that other public service employees are receiving what amounts to danger money.
  The prison officers have been awarded an allowance of £1 per working day to compensate them for the element of extra danger they are facing. That allowance became operative on the date that internment was introduced. It is well-known in Ulster that the allowance was not granted after lengthy negotiations. It was granted simply because the prison officers threatened to strike. Five men have been receiving a special allowance of £2 per week extra since the beginning of the year, and after the so-called ceasefire by the Provisionals earlier in the year an effort was made by the employers' side to withdraw the allowance, without success. The conclusion can only be that the allowances are awarded for abnormally dangerous conditions.
  Ambulance crews receive an availability allowance of £2 extra per week because of abnormal working conditions during the civil unrest. They are all overworked, essential, dedicated workers to whom we pay considerable tribute, and I am sure no one begrudges them anything.
  All these examples illustrate that there are three principles. The principle of abnormal danger has been established. The employer in each case is a public authority subject to the Government. Money is being paid as compensation or reward for facing additional danger. My argument is that in considering the extra expenditure, surely members of the RUC come under the umbrella of those three principles and are entitled to be rewarded in the same way.
  I know that long arguments have gone on in the discussions. I do not want to go into all the details of how pay claims are negotiated, but I understand that the next meeting of the Police Council is to be held in January, 1973. The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Police Federation is of the opinion that throughout the RUC this suggestion that there should be
  1722
  danger money paid and reflected in the pay scale is to be preferred to the proposal of the employers' side, which is that they should receive additional leave by way of compensation.
  The idea of additional leave is regarded by the Police Federation as a derisory and ridiculous proposition. There are already arrears of leave due to almost all the members of the force resulting from the job that they have to do and the way that they are over-worked. They say rightly that anything other than a straight pay settlement to meet the abnormal conditions in which they work will be considered derisory and will be damaging to morale.
  I agree. Of all the public servants that we have in Ulster facing grave and real personal danger, of all the public servants upon whom Ulster will have to rely for the future, whatever be the result of our discussions today and whatever be the decisions of Governments, the people who will ultimately have to uphold the law are the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, with their long and proud history.
  It is tragic that we should have to discuss these matters in this way on this measure at this time of night, with a practically empty House. But I hope that the message will go out from here that this House is proud of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, is determined to see its members well treated, and will express its gratitude to them in due course in every way that it can.
  2.24 a.m.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I, too, wish to discuss Class III, Appropriation for Police Services, because I remember that recently we approved something similar in another appropriation, and if we are spending £1¾ million more on police services in Ulster it is not unreasonable to ask exactly how the money is being spent.
  The weakness of this sort of document is that there is a statement of expenditure simply for police services, without any attempt to fill in the details. In view of that, I think that I am entitled to ask my hon. Friend whether he can fill in some of the details, because I for one have certain misgivings about how the RUC is to be able to fulfil the task which

  1723
  Lord Hunt saw it as having—that of being a civilian police force designed to keep down and ultimately to defeat the crime wave in Northern Ireland.
  Yet we have not decided what rôle we want the RUC to play, and the net result has been an unprecedented crime wave in Northern Ireland. There is also the violence. The RUC is trying to do two jobs, and, not unnaturally, it is failing between the two tasks required of it. I should like the Minister to tell me, if not tonight then by letter, how the money will be spent. I should like part of the £1,750,000 to go towards increased pay and towards making the job generally attractive. The money should be spent first on recruiting policy, and that policy should have underlying it a definition of the RUC as we now see it.
  The Minister will remember that very recently I asked him a question about the likely establishment of the RUC in 1975, and why the figure of 5,000 men had been selected. He told me honestly that the figure had been selected as being a likely and reasonable figure that could be attained with the present rate of recruiting. That is one way to reach establishment but it cannot be the correct way. Surely the task of the force must be decided, the establishment settled accordingly and then that establishment recruited.
  We are talking of an increase of only 803 in the force over the present figure during the next three years. There is some reason to wonder whether an increase of 803 in the RUC will enable it to fulfil the tasks which look like lying ahead of it in the years to come. It would be a brave man who would forecast that by 1975 the incidence of violence in Northern Ireland would have been depleted to a point where the Army could be withdrawn in any large number. Therefore shall we be told that the RUC will try to beat the crime wave and play some part in curbing terrorism, and that the great burden of the security task will fall on the shoulders of British troops? If that was the case, it would be an unsatisfactory answer, because we have a duty, particularly as we are spending these large amounts on the RUC, to define its role. If we do not think it will be able to meet that role we must see
  1724
  whether there is some other way to meet it.
  It may be that we shall be looking at the UDR as a means of achieving the additional strength of the internal security forces, and that, instead of seeing the UDR as a military force, we should see it much more as a gendarmerie on the lines of the French system. In France the gendarmerie acts as a country police force. The UDR could be used as valuable assistance to the RUC and could allow it to concentrate its efforts in the cities and the towns.
  There is also the question of pay and recruitment. I had hoped that the figure we are being asked to agree tonight would be spent on increasing the salaries of the RUC. The question of danger money has been raised. The figures which have been read out suggest that this force cannot be compared with any other police force in the country. It is running great risks, and these risks must be a deterrent to people wishing to join the force.
  What about promotion prospects for Ulster Constabulary policemen? Do they have a bright future to look forward to? Are we considering whether promotion prospects can be improved, and have we sufficiently borne in mind the words to the chief constable, in his report in 1971, that there was a need for more attractive career prospects by way of increased pay and better conditions if the right type of person was to come forward, and his rather sad comment that although there had been a number of people coming forward, 982 had had to be rejected because of poor educational standards? Clearly, something needs to be done, and I suggest that some part of the £1¾ million that we are spending on police services might be spent on a marketing exercise to discover how we can make that force attractive to the community in Northern Ireland.
  May I now ask whether some part of the proposed £8,000 for secret services is to be spent on a special force to tackle the wave of political assassinations which have become such a daily feature of life in Northern Ireland? They seem to echo the gangland killings in America before the war. Lord Hunt in his report thought that more inter-communication between the RUC and the police forces of England and Wales would be

  1725
  helpful. Has Scotland Yard been asked to assist in discovering how these assassinations are occurring? Is any of the money to be spent on a special squad to look into the problem? I should be grateful for any answers that my hon. Friend can give tonight.
  2.32 a.m.
  Mr. Rafton Pounder: I, too, propose to concentrate the bulk of my remarks on the RUC, but before doing so I should like to join in the tributes paid by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) to the fire and ambulance services in Northern Ireland. Having had some experience during the emergency of the speed, effectiveness and efficiency of those two institutions, I cannot praise them too highly.
  Reverting to the expenditure envisaged on the RUC, and accepting that morale and increased recruitment are the two most urgent subjects to be tackled, I wonder how much can be done by means of monetary inducements. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), by inference, spoke in terms of danger money, and I accept that there is an overriding case for it in view of the exceptional and emergency situation.
  As I understand it—perhaps my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—overtime rates operate only to a certain level in the force, to either inspector or chief inspector. Above that rank no overtime is paid or is payable. That seems to be an unreasonable distinction, because overtime is overtime. In an emergency the work has to be done, and it seems unreasonable that senior officers appear to be penalised.
  Obviously, finance can play a part in encouraging recruitment, and it can play a part, therefore, in building the RUC of the future which, I believe, all hon. Members regard as essential. But it should be remembered—I blame neither my hon. Friend the Minister of State nor any of his ministerial colleagues—that uncertainties about the future of the RUC still linger, and recruitment is for that reason inevitably adversely affected.
  The other side of the coin is resignations, to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred. In terms of English police forces, it may seem no great matter
  1726
  that only 24 men with under five years' service resigned in 1969. But by 1971 the figure had climbed to 68, and in the first half of this year it was 44. Small figures, perhaps, but set against recruitment—in any case, the man with less than five years' service is not the sort of person one expects to leave the force—they represent, in a sense, abnormal wastage. They do not entirely nullify the recruitment figures, but they reduce substantially the overall increase in the force. I do not know the reasons for the resignations; they may well have been monetary in part, with better jobs being offered outside.
  I yield to no man in my respect and admiration for the courage and devotion to duty of the RUC, and, indeed, of the whole security forces. The tragedy—one does not want to go into history on an occasion such as this—is that there was an infamous report produced two or three years ago which knocked the heart out of the RUC, and it is that heart which must be restored.
  My hon. and gallant Friend spoke of the life assurance loading of 10 per cent. What he did not say is that the average policeman is jolly lucky if he gets life assurance cover at all, let alone at a loading. I consider that it would be a proper charge on public funds to make a contribution towards that loading, which arises not from the policeman's state of health but from the ghastly situation in which he has to work at this time.
  Where life assurance is totally refused, there are certain organisations which run their own form of insurance, and I wonder whether it would be feasible for that method to be adopted for the RUC.
  Captain Orr: I think that the Police Federation itself would prefer, instead of that method of meeting the difficulty, that it be reflected straight in the pay.
  Mr. Pounder: Certainly. Either way, we agree that some financial assistance should be given.
  Captain Orr: Yes.
  Mr. Pounder: I come now to the problem of house property. I am sorry to seem always to be harking back to house property, but I know from experience—I should declare my interest in a building society—that where we have made loans to policemen and for one

  1727
  reason or another they have wished to move house, the disposal of the property at a reasonable price has presented a great problem.
  Here again, assistance could be given over a short time, for the period of the emergency. We are not speaking here of the natural depression of house prices generally, which, heaven knows, is bad enough—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to bring himself more closely to the order.
  Mr. Pounder: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought that I was in order, because I was about to plead for assistance from the Appropriation Fund for the extra short-fall in the sale of a policeman's property over and above that experienced in the generally depressed state of the market. The policeman suffers, one might say, a secondary loss by virtue of his occupation.
  I come now to the state of the RUC reserve, and I have three questions to put. What is the present state of recruitment to the reserve force? What is the scope of the duties which its members are asked to undertake? What plans have the Government for improving the pay structure and thereby improving recruitment to the reserve force?
  2.40 a.m.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I want to add a word to what my hon. Friends have said already in pleading the particular case of the police service in Northern Ireland. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to bear in mind that it is not only the appropriations which we are considering tonight—there is a large sum involved; over £53½ million—but the morale of the police, which has been affected by their reduced position in Northern Ireland.
  As a result of the Hunt Committee's report we have seen our police disarmed and the other body—the B Specials, who assisted them in performing special duties—disbanded, so that the burden has had to be shared by the Army and the police; we have also seen—as a result of the political initiative taken in March—the control of the police taken away from Stormont and their status reduced.
  1728
  I want my hon. Friend to pay a little attention to this aspect of the matter. Unless some assurance can be given that the control of our police will be restored to whatever body is set up in Northern Ireland when the White Paper is published, the wastage to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Capt. Orr) referred will continue, and perhaps even increase. In other words, I feel that, besides the appropriation of £1,760,000 for the police service which we are considering, the Government should pay some attention to the long-term situation by transferring, as far as possible—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon Member is not dealing with the order at all.
  Mr. McMaster: I hope that I shall keep in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not seek to go any further in dealing with this problem of the police service than anyone would in an appropriation debate on the general affairs of this country. It must be remembered that this is an opportunity to debate the police service in this House—a service which is now under the control of this Chamber—a matter which may not in other circumstances be debated. The Parliament which normally debates these affairs has been suspended as the result of the action of this Government. I hope that I may be allowed briefly to deal with matters relating to the police service, which is covered by the Vote. I know that the hour is late. I had hoped that this debate, which is concerned with matters of such importance for Northern Ireland, could have been taken at a more convenient hour. We have already had an exhausting debate on other important Northern Ireland matters.
  I want to say a few words on this most important matter, which is relative to this Vote. I hope that the sums involved will be increased dramatically if it is not the intention of the Government to give some indication to the police that will otherwise restore their morale. I hope that some contribution will be made to attract the numbers of people needed for the police service and also to cut down the wastage, which has been increasing substantially over the last three years in Northern Ireland.

  1729
  The wastage figures have mounted from 24 men with less than five years' service in 1969 to 37 men in 1970, 68 men in 1971, and already, in the first half of this year, about 44 men. That shows a threefold increase in wastage in three years. We have already heard how the services of these men are required to meet the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. I look to a transfer from the Army to the police of some of the functions being performed by the Army and a build-up of the police force to enable it to take over such functions.
  Class IV in the statutory instrument deals with substantial appropriations for the hospital services in Northern Ireland. As the amounts covered run into many millions of pounds, the Minister should say a little more about the provision being made for the hospital service and the manner in which the money will be spent. We are very proud of the advanced work which our major and minor hospitals do in Northern Ireland, but more money is needed to enable them not only to meet the present emergencies but to improve the valuable service which they are rendering to the community.
  Class V deals with the question of expenditure on education. I do not need to remind the House of the terrible effects which the past three years of disturbances have had on the children of Northern Ireland. The future lies with the children. I should like to have an assurance from my hon. Friend that the money spent will be adequate to provide for the education and rehabilitation of the children, particularly of the younger children in the primary schools who have been specially affected by the disturbances.
  I should like more money to be spent on nursery schools and on children whose parents go out to work and who have been victims of the rioting which I have seen in my constituency and which has occurred throughout Northern Ireland. Because of the emergency, their need is even greater than that of children in the rest of the United Kingdom. The children must be taken off the streets and provided with the type of educational guidance which will help to turn them into good citizens, despite all the problems which, unfortunately, have arisen in the past three years.
  1730
  I could deal with the order at greater length, but I shall restrain myself because of the hour. However, I echo the complaint that we should be compelled at this late hour, when hon. Members are weary, to deal with such important matters as this order. With the suspension of Stormont, this is the only assembly in which they can be considered. I know that other of my hon. Friends would have liked to deal with the subject of agriculture, but, unfortunately, they have not been able to do so.
  I refer briefly to Class VII, which covers the Ministry of Commerce and the question of industrial development. It has been frequently acknowledged in Northern Ireland debates that this goes to the heart of our problems in Ulster. High unemployment has been one of the root causes of the disturbances, but I wonder whether adequate provision is being made for rehabilitating the province when the violence ends, which I hope will be soon.
  The sums covered in the Class VII Vote amount to between £14 million and £15 million. Can my hon. Friend say something about how that money is being spent? How much of it is being allocated to erecting advance factories, attracting new industry to Ulster from abroad? How much is being provided for existing factories that seek to expand, and how much is being provided to those traders whose businesses have been so badly affected by the disturbances of the past three years? I have come across businesses in my constituency which have suffered directly as a result of their customers' reducing and spreading their orders, perhaps understandably. The customers feel that in the prevailing circumstances it is unwise to have all their eggs in one basket. I have seen some of the letters explaining that they are now seeking alternative sources of supply in case the factories are damaged and they are left without an adequate alternative to make up for the loss of the goods. How far is that being taken into account?
  What steps are the Government taking through the Class VII Vote to make good the loss so that companies will not be forced to go out of business and thus add to our problems in Northern Ireland?
  2.51 a.m.
  Mr. David Howell: I am grateful to hon. Members for their constructive comments, at what is admittedly a late hour, on the funds to be appropriated under the order. I shall answer as many of the questions as I can.
  I start with the point on which the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) laid great emphasis, concerning the fire services. I must begin by immediately echoing the high regard he expressed for the Belfast fire brigade and other fire brigades throughout Northern Ireland for the magnificent and brave work they do in appallingly difficult circumstances. That is something on which we are all heartily agreed. Although the fire services are not specifically mentioned, they come under item No. 8 within Class III. That is where the grant-in-aid for the Northern Ireland fire authority comes. The amount for 1972–73, the current financial year, totals £311,500. As a matter of statistical precision, £12,000 of that is included in the current Supplementary Estimate. This is not the authority's total expenditure, but just the grant element.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about reorganisation of the fire service and its financial implications. Reorganisation will not come within the present financial year. Therefore, any grant to the new authority will not figure in the Estimates until 1973–74.
  I hope that is clear to the hon. Gentleman. If there are points he would like me to expand on, I shall gladly do so in correspondence.
  Captain Orr: Has my right hon. Friend any information on when the fire services order might come?
  Mr. Howell: I cannot give my hon. and gallant Friend a precise date. It is going forward. It is one of the aspects of Macrory reform that my hon. and gallant Friend knows about. I shall write to both the hon. Member for Leeds, South and my hon. and gallant Friend if I can ascertain a precise date. As soon as we know it we shall try to let hon. Members know.
  I turn to the subject of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which occupied much of the rest of the debate, very understandably, as it is an immensely
  1732
  important aspect of life in Northern Ireland. Again, no one need have the slightest hesitation in joining in the tribute and high praise that must be paid to the Royal Ulster Constabulary which does magnificent work in appalling and often frightening circumstances. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise the great difficulties under which that force operates.
  This is not the time, at this late hour, to go into some aspects of the history of what has and has not been done and past policy regarding the RUC, but I should like to try to deal with some of the specific questions which have been put about the police.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) asked whether he could have more details of what the £1¾ million represented. In the autumn Supplementary Estimates he will find the details showing that the £1¾ million arises from police overtime. There is an additional £150,000 which does not appear in the appropriations, because the money is already appropriated, for travelling and subsistence expenses. Strictly speaking, it is probably true that, although the appropriations in the Estimates do not always match, the bulk of the money being appropriated is for police overtime, reflecting in part—one can argue this either way—the considerable burden which falls upon the RUC.
  I cannot comment in detail on additional claims for pay. The Royal Ulster Constabulary shared with other police forces of the United Kingdom the recent pay increase which preceded the freeze. I ought to say, and, indeed, must say, that any further changes in pay levels would have to be looked at in the context of the pay freeze which now prevails. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Capt. Orr) pointed out the particular conditions under which the police have to operate. However, like other police forces, they have had a pay increase, and we would have to judge any changes in pay levels within the context of the pay freeze. We all recognise some of the horrific and heavy pressures under which the Royal Ulster Constabulary has to operate.
  On recruitment and the future expansion of the force, the general aim, which

  1733
  I am sure is widely shared, is to expand and strengthen the police force and, looking forward to a happier future in Northern Ireland, to enable the necessary normal police services of upholding law and order to be sustained by an effective and fully manned force, which we would all like to see.
  Establishment is more a reflection than a cause of the situation. Establishment is the figure upon which is based the indent for the necessary equipment, the building of barracks, and so on. The important figure is the actual recruitment which must be and is now happily moving upwards. There has been an upturn after a not very encouraging period, and that figure must continue to go up. Of course, as that goes up, naturally having obtained more recruits into the police forces, more barracks and a larger establishment becomes justified. I cannot give a precise target for the number in the Royal Ulster Constabulary two, three, or four years from now, and such targets are not useful. The aim is to expand the force. That is why we have had a major advertising campaign. The generally recognised and desired aim is the development of the force, bearing in mind that there are always problems of recruitment, of maintaining standards, and of finding people of the right quality willing to serve.
  I cannot give much detail about promotion prospects, except to say that in an expanding force promotion prospects increase. I believe that the members of the force recognise that the prospects for promotion are good, that the service will be maintained and strengthened, and that there will be plenty of room for talent with the opportunity of a good career.
  Overtime in the police does not extend into the senior management levels. This applies to forces throughout the United Kingdom and throughout all levels of senior management. Above certain levels, management responsibility is supposed to be exercised without resort to overtime.
  I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) giving precise figures of the RUC reserve. The one success story has been the expansion of the intake of women, which is widely welcomed.
  The question of the secret service vote has been raised again. It will not surprise
  1734
  hon. Members to learn that my answer will on this occasion be no more helpful than it has been in the past. I do not wish to be unhelpful, but it would be inexpedient in the public interest to disclose the purpose for which the money is required.
  I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) on the subject of our hospital expansion and equipment programme.
  I share in the recognition which has been expressed of the great importance of nursery school expansion. My noble Friend the Minister of State has been able recently to announce an encouraging expansion in this field. It is of the greatest importance that we should expand these facilities thus enabling children to grow up and live better and less divided lives in the community.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East mentioned industrial development. He has an unerring skill in moving to the point in our debates where the name of Harland and Wolff occurs. He is right in guessing that within these figures are the current payments which are part of the programme of assistance to Harland and Wolff. Also included are payments to the Industrial Development Board for the purchase of shares of International Engineering Limited, and payments related to new factories, capital inducements to firms, improved security, better surroundings, expansion, new investment, and so on.
  I am tempted, as it is a matter to which I give a great deal of time, to go into our industrial development policy, but the hour is uncivilised. The situation is not a discouraging one. Ulster industry has held up with remarkable resilience. Ulster business has proved to be well worth backing and output is continuing to rise. We have moved forward to a major programme of new factories, particularly in high unemployment areas. Our training programmes are expanding. There has been a continuing interest from overseas investors, despite the troubles.
  To end on an optimistic note, we have had news that once again the unemployment figures in Northern Ireland are falling. On that cheerful note, I ask the House to approve the order.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Appropriation No. 3 (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

  BEDFORD (RAILWAY SERVICES)
  3.7 a.m.
  Mr. W. Benyon: I am fully supported in raising this subject by my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings).
  As the hour is late I will dispense with the background, which is well-known to the Minister. Suffice it to say that the proposal is to remove the passenger rail link between the established city of Bedford and the new expanding city of Milton Keynes—a line which serves one of the fastest growing areas in the country. The service is reputedly losing £173,000 per year.
  The main point is that British Rail claim to have looked into the future and to have found no substance for the increased viability of the line that many of us consider will occur as a result of the massive development which is taking place in the area. Yet they are keeping the line open for freight traffic, which would seem to indicate that they see a future requirement here—particularly as it necessitates retaining the track, level crossings and signalling. However, there are so many uncertainties surrounding the whole traffic picture that no crystal ball, however sophisticated, can show the true position. In the case of the Colchester-Sudbury railway line, the Minister of Transport announced a two-year delay before closure to give those concerned plenty of time to make the necessary adjustments and to allow local authorities time to decide whether to support the service. Such a policy would seem to be even more necessary here.
  Consent to the closure was given in June this year on condition that certain
  1736
  bus services were provided instead. The hearings before the Traffic Commissioner are scheduled for 29th November, yet the discussions between the consortium of local authorities covering the area served by the line and British Rail have only just begun. Therefore, I was sorry to receive on Tuesday a letter from my hon. Friend saying that the Department was not prepared to vary the directive under which the bus company has made this application. These hearings may prove to be totally unnecessary if a satisfactory formula for continuing the service can be achieved, and it seems unfortunate, that they cannot be delayed. But I accept what my hon. Friend has said.
  In this connection, I submit to my honourable Friend that the local authorities concerned have acted with considerable despatch and efficiency considering the difficulties facing them. They could not know before the Minister's decision was announced whether he was contemplating closure, or a deferment for a number of years; nor could they enter into negotiations with British Rail to make an offer of grant aid until this decision was made. This brings me to another aspect of the present situation. The impending reorganisation of local government will make the county councils transport authorities for their areas, and it does seem somewhat short-sighted to take a major decision like this without giving these new authorities a chance to consider the matter.
  I now turn to the so-called Cooper Brothers' formula used for determining the savings to be made by such closures. In a letter to me in August, my hon. Friend referred to
  "… the considerable difference between the financial figures quoted in the decision letter of the grant cost of retaining the service on the one hand and of the savings to be achieved by closing it on the other".
  He went on:
  "Of course, the two figures are not com parable. The grant cost includes an allocation for fixed cost and provision for long-term replacement liabilities, while the other figures are concerned with the rail resource savings in the next few years."
  Of course, this is so—the first figure is £173,000, and the second £59,000, rising to £82,000—but when it comes to deciding how much local ratepayers should or

  1737
  should not pay towards keeping a service such as this open, the latter would appear to be the correct figure. It seems grossly unfair that local authorities should be asked to bear a share of the cost of, for instance, Euston Station and other overheads incurred by British Rail on a national basis. I hope I can have my honourable Friend's assurance that an offer on this basis will receive favourable consideration.
  It is my contention that the viability of this service can be improved over the next few years, particularly if certain operating changes are made which will make the service more attractive to travellers. As I say, the whole area is expanding rapidly and this must have an effect on traffic receipts. But even if this were not so, I urge my hon. Friend to look carefully at certain local environmental factors—the great difficulties, for instance, of replacing this service by buses and the fact that, even if this were done, the service would be grossly inadequate to many of those who use the rail link at the moment and, indeed, could not serve certain communities at all. But, even more important, the inadequate roads between the two centres are already heavily congested. It will be years before improvements can take place and a further traffic burden in these circumstances is unacceptable.
  This brings me to the wider question. Obviously, a major review of the whole rail network is in hand. A number of speeches in this House recently have questioned the cost benefit comparisons between road and rail, and nowhere is this more significant than in the case we are discussing. I am not appealing for this line to be kept open as some last link for a dying community, but rather as a holding operation in an area of exceptional growth. It would be a tragedy if a premature decision were made in this case before the full national review is completed and local requirements become clearer.
  To sum up, I would prefer the Secretary of State to rescind his decision to withdraw grant aid and allow the line to continue in operation for two years. Failing this—if the traffic commissioners grant a licence to the bus company, he should delay a decision on the inevitable appeal until discussions between the consortium
  1738
  of local authorities and British Rail are complete.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend will make it clear whether he accepts the actual cost savings as an appropriate charge for local authorities to bear.
  3.15 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) for raising this matter as it enables me not only to deal with this particular closure proposal but also to explain some of the processes which we have to undertake before reaching a decision on rail passenger closures generally.
  Every proposal by the Railways Board to withdraw rail passenger services from a particular station or from a line is published in two local newspapers on two successive weeks, and any user of the line affected or any body representing such users can object in writing, within the six weeks objection period, to the appropriate Transport Users Consultative Committee. The Committee considers these objections, usually by holding a public hearing, and reports to the Secretary of State on the hardship, if any, which it considers the proposal would cause and also any proposals for alleviating the hardship. At the same time it is open to local authorities, the railway trade unions and others to make representations to the Secretary of State on matters other than hardship.
  We also consult other Government Departments for their views on the proposed closure, and ask the appropriate Economic Planning Council for their opinion of the economic consequences which closure would entail. When all this information has been received, it is considered very carefully before a decision is finally given and we pay particular attention to the real savings in national resources which would be effected if the service were to be withdrawn.
  As far as the rail service between Bedford and Bletchley is concerned, the closure proposal has a long history. In 1964 the Railways Board published a proposal to withdraw rail passenger services between Oxford and Cambridge, and the section between Bedford and Bletchley forms the middle part of that line. Consent to the complete closure

  1739
  was given in 1965, subject to the provision of rail replacement buses. But although bus services were provided between Oxford and Bletchley and between Bedford and Cambridge, the road service licences for the central section were refused because the bus operators could not provide the necessary crews and an appeal to the Minister of Transport by the bus company against the refusal of the road service licences was unsuccessful. As the Railways Board was unable to fulfill completely the conditions attached to the consent to the closure proposal, it was unable to withdraw the Oxford-Cambridge rail passenger service, and in 1967 the conditions of consent were varied so that the two outer sections between Oxford and Bletchley and between Cambridge and Bedford could be withdrawn.
  Late in 1970 we were advised by the bus operators that the staffing position was likely to have improved sufficiently by the spring of 1971 to allow provision of a rail replacement bus service between Bedford and Bletchley, without detriment to existing bus services. However, in view of the long interval which had elapsed since consent to the previous closure proposal was given, it seemed inappropriate for that consent to be implemented even if the special rail replacement bus services could be provided. Accordingly, in December 1970, the Railways Board was notified in the usual form that it was unlikely that grant aid would be renewed at the end of 1971 unless a closure proposal had first been refused. The Board published a proposal to discontinue all passenger train services between Bletchley and Bedford involving the closure of Bedford St. Johns and nine intermediate stations.
  As the rail service crosses the boundary between the East Anglian Transport Users Consultative Committee and the East Midland Transport Users Consultative Committee, objections were received by both. The two committees held a joint hearing to consider these objections, and later reported jointly that the withdrawal of the train service would cause hardship to some passengers and inconvenience to others, but the committees felt that the hardship could in the main be alleviated by the provision of the proposed additional bus services.
  1740
  Other representations were received, mainly on the grounds that improved east-west transport facilities were needed, rather than a reduction of these facilities. I note that my hon. Friend stressed that. This was given the most careful consideration before the eventual decision on the closure proposal, as were the observations of the South Eastern Economic Planning Council.
  The Government were of course aware of the fact, which my hon. Friend properly stressed, that this area contains rapidly expanding communities which must be provided with adequate public transport facilities. But the evidence was that only some 450 regular travellers were involved each day, although total usage in each direction was about 900. By providing no less than 15 extra buses in each direction from Monday to Saturday it was felt that the needs of these travellers could be met, and at the same time a useful saving made. From all the advice received it did not seem that the future development of the area would be significantly affected by the closure.
  In actual cash terms the rail service was being subsidised to the extent of £173,000 per annum from public funds. The costs that would actually be avoided in the future if the rail service was discontinued—as opposed to those assessed for the purposes of grant—are estimated at £82,000 per annum of which £59,000 would be saved in the first year after closure. Additional costs for renewals estimated at £46,000 between 1972 and 1976 would also be saved. So the closure of this rail service would represent a considerable saving in public funds and real resources without imposing hardship on the existing users.
  However, before the eventual decision was reached, the local authorities who were concerned with this rail service wrote to the Railways Board in March of this year to initiate discussions on the possibility of providing grant aid themselves to retain the service. These discussions were however somewhat protracted, and did not seem likely to produce the quick result that was hoped for. Meanwhile the Railways Board was continuing to bear the full cost of the service. Consequently it was decided that it would not be right to delay the decision on the proposal any longer. Consent to the

  1741
  proposal was accordingly given on 22nd June, subject to the provision of a limited stop bus service of 15 buses each way between Bedford and Bletchley. I note my hon. Friend's comments in this connection.
  This did not preclude the negotiations between the local authorities and the Railways Board continuing. Before the train service could be withdrawn the alternative bus service would have to be provided, and this meant that the statutory applications for road service licences would have to be made and determined. These applications have now been submitted and the Traffic Commissioners for the Eastern and the East Midland Traffic Areas will be holding a joint public inquiry into them on Wednesday and Thursday of next week. I cannot, of course, anticipate what the decision of the commissioners will be, but even if the bus licences are granted it will still be some little time before actual bus services are provided and the rail service withdrawn. I know my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear this because of the arguments he has advanced about the timing.
  There should, therefore, be time for the local authorities concerned to conclude their discussions and make an agreement with the Railways Board, should they wish to do so.
  It has been suggested that owing to the absence of a key British Railways official these discussions have been delayed. However I am assured by the Railways Board that other officers are available who are fully qualified to carry on the negotiations.
  It has also been suggested that it is unfair to the local authorities that they should be asked to pay a grant which exceeds the savings which could be made if the service were withdrawn. However this grant, like others for unremunerative passenger services, represents the actual long-term costs. It covers, in addition to marginal costs, a fair contribution to the inescapable overheads of the service.
  1742
  My hon. Friend has also commented that when the new counties come into being in 1974 they will be better equipped to consider the merits of rail services. I hope that the effect of the relevant provisions which the Government have enacted through the Local Government Act will show that this is true, but decisions on railways and for that matter in other areas of the public sector cannot be set aside until the new local authorities have established themselves and been able to take a view on a subject about which the Government already have full knowledge. The Government are, in fact, entirely persuaded that further support for this service at the taxpayers' expense would not be justified.
  It has been pointed out that closure of the Colchester-Sudbury service was deferred for two years. However the circumstances here were very different both as to alternative bus services and also in respect of the findings of the TUCCS concerned. The decision in each case was taken on its merits.
  I think it fair to emphasise that whatever difficulties of co-ordination there may have been the local authorities have already had some eight months since the discussions began, and indeed it must have been clear to them long before that the service would be in danger unless they were prepared to save it. I think my hon. Friend can hardly claim that they have been unduly rushed. If they can now conclude a satisfactory agreement they will have our good wishes. But I do not think it would be right to delay the normal processes to allow yet further time at the taxpayers' expense.
  I have noted carefully the points made by my hon. Friend, and I appreciate his concern in the matter, which I know is shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and Bedford (Mr. Skeet).
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Three o'clock a.m.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Secondary Classes (Size)
  Secondary Classes (Size)
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
  Museums and Galleries
  Museums and Galleries
  Local Authority Associations (Meeting)
  Local Authority Associations (Meeting)
  Comprehensive Education (Warwickshire)
  Comprehensive Education (Warwickshire)
  Ugandan Asians
  Ugandan Asians
  Nature Conservancy
  Nature Conservancy
  Village Halls and Community Centres
  Village Halls and Community Centres
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools
  Urban Stress Areas
  Urban Stress Areas
  Violence
  Violence
  Swimming Pools
  Swimming Pools
  North Sea Gas and Oil (Research)
  North Sea Gas and Oil (Research)
  Secondary Reorganisation
  Secondary Reorganisation
  University Entrance
  University Entrance
  Neuropsychiatric Research Unit
  Neuropsychiatric Research Unit
  Handicapped Pupils
  Handicapped Pupils
  Secondary Schools (Sub-standard Buildings)
  Secondary Schools (Sub-standard Buildings)
  Student Places (Cost)
  Student Places (Cost)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  London Teachers (Meetings)
  London Teachers (Meetings)
  Teachers (Unemployment)
  Teachers (Unemployment)
  Degree Qualifications (Sale)
  Degree Qualifications (Sale)
  London Allowance
  London Allowance
  Trade Union Education
  Trade Union Education
  School Beginners
  School Beginners
  Building Costs
  Building Costs
  Fanfare for Europe
  Fanfare for Europe
  Merchant Navy Cadet Training
  Merchant Navy Cadet Training
  Teachers' Superannuation
  Teachers' Superannuation
  Computers
  Computers
  Teachers' Pay
  Teachers' Pay
  Newham
  Newham
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
DEFENCE
  Proof and Experimental Establishment, Eskmeals
  Proof and Experimental Establishment, Eskmeals
  Headquarters Staff
  Headquarters Staff
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Republic of Ireland
  Republic of Ireland
  Census Statistics
  Census Statistics
  Retirement Pension (Review)
  Retirement Pension (Review)
  Doctors and Dentists (Pay)
  Doctors and Dentists (Pay)
  Welfare Milk and School Meals
  Welfare Milk and School Meals
  General Medical Council
  General Medical Council
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Competition Policy
  Competition Policy
  Industry Act
  Industry Act
  Recommended Prices
  Recommended Prices
  Scrap Metal (Export Licences)
  Scrap Metal (Export Licences)
  Nuclear Substances (Security)
  Nuclear Substances (Security)
  Leather
  Leather
  Business Turnover
  Business Turnover
  Car Ferry Service (Scotland— Northern Ireland)
  Car Ferry Service (Scotland— Northern Ireland)
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Cammell Laird Shipbuilders
  Cammell Laird Shipbuilders
  Textiles (Imports)
  Textiles (Imports)
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  THALIDOMIDE CHILDREN
  THALIDOMIDE CHILDREN
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER)
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER)
  NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE
  NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE
  PERSONAL INJURIES (COMPENSATION)
  PERSONAL INJURIES (COMPENSATION)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECHES)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECHES)
  BBC (CHAIRMAN OF GOVERNORS)
  BBC (CHAIRMAN OF GOVERNORS)
  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES
  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES
  LIBYA
  LIBYA
  NORTHFIELD
  NORTHFIELD
  PRICE CONTROL
  PRICE CONTROL
  NEWHAM
  NEWHAM
  HOUSING FINANCE ACT
  HOUSING FINANCE ACT
  INFLATION
  INFLATION
  LAND PRICES
  LAND PRICES
  PRESIDENT NIXON (MEETING)
  PRESIDENT NIXON (MEETING)
  NORTHERN IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  NORTHERN IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Inshore Fishing
  Inshore Fishing
  Dutch Elm Disease
  Dutch Elm Disease
  Trees (Pennines)
  Trees (Pennines)
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
ENVIRONMENT
  National Library
  National Library
  Draycote Reservoir (Public Access)
  Draycote Reservoir (Public Access)
  Drainage and Sewerage
  Drainage and Sewerage
  Duke of Edinburgh's Award (Exhibition)
  Duke of Edinburgh's Award (Exhibition)
  Parking (Disabled Persons)
  Parking (Disabled Persons)
  Traffic Signals
  Traffic Signals
  Ugandan Asian Resettlement Camps
  Ugandan Asian Resettlement Camps
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Turkey (Aid)
  Turkey (Aid)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Hurricane Bebe
  Hurricane Bebe
  Irish Republican Army (Training Areas)
  Irish Republican Army (Training Areas)
  Republic of Ireland (Human Rights Application)
  Republic of Ireland (Human Rights Application)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Royal Commission on the Constitution
  Royal Commission on the Constitution
  Lotteries
  Lotteries
  Uganda (British Passport Holders)
  Uganda (British Passport Holders)
  Ugandan Asians
  Ugandan Asians
  Parking Offence Tickets (West Ham)
  Parking Offence Tickets (West Ham)
  Police Officers (Law Enforcement)
  Police Officers (Law Enforcement)
  Stateless Immigrants
  Stateless Immigrants
  Offences of Violence (Sentences)
  Offences of Violence (Sentences)
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
  Housing
  Housing
  Commonwealth Citizens (Entry Refusal)
  Commonwealth Citizens (Entry Refusal)
  Police (Allegations)
  Police (Allegations)
  Non-Metropolitan Districts (Warding)
  Non-Metropolitan Districts (Warding)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Northern Ireland (Taxation and Expenditure)
  Northern Ireland (Taxation and Expenditure)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Take-Home Pay
  Take-Home Pay
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Unsolved Crime
  Unsolved Crime
  Government Proposals (Publicity)
  Government Proposals (Publicity)
  Members of Parliament (Visits)
  Members of Parliament (Visits)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Telephone Kiosks (Northern Ireland)
  Telephone Kiosks (Northern Ireland)
SCOTLAND
  Gaelic Language
  Gaelic Language
  Fish Landings
  Fish Landings
  Burgh and Justice of the Peace Courts (Report)
  Burgh and Justice of the Peace Courts (Report)
  Sheriff Court, Glasgow
  Sheriff Court, Glasgow
  Rents
  Rents

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.
The Lord Shaughnessy—Took the Oath.
The Lord Armstrong—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYEEBONE): My Lords, I have to report to your Lordships, in the absence of the Lord Privy Seal, that in accordance with the Order of the House of Thursday last, November 16, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and I waited upon Her Majesty the Queen this morning at Buckingham Palace and presented your Lordships' Address of Congratulation upon the twenty-fifth Anniversary of the wedding of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. Your Lordships will be sorry to hear that the Leader of the House, the Lord Privy Seal, who is unwell, was unable to present the Address with us.
Her Majesty was graciously pleased to make the following reply, signed by her own hand:
"My husband and I thank you most sincerely for your congratulations on the twenty-fifth Anniversary of our Wedding. It gives us particular pleasure on this happy occasion to receive this warm expression of the affection and loyalty which you have always shown towards us, and we both greatly appreciate your good wishes for our future happiness."

AIR FARES AND ADVANCE BOOKING SCHEME
3.8 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has now been made in IATA discussions on the matter of an advance booking scheme for air travellers, by which individual members of the public, prepared to book three months in advance, may be able to reserve seats on scheduled flights anywhere; and if such a scheme, together with other cheaper flights, will be available as from April 1, 1973.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): Limited progress, my Lords. I understand that it was proposed at a meeting last week of Presidents of IATA airlines that new low fares for individual passengers prepared to book in advance should be introduced on North Atlantic routes from April 1 next. Details have yet to be agreed within IATA and are subject to the approval of Governments. As the noble Baroness knows, for the United Kingdom the Civil Aviation Authority will need to consider and approve any such proposals before they can come into effect.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that while the actual details for these new low scheduled fares have yet to be worked out, this is to be done at a special North Atlantic Tariffs Conference to be held early next month? While this is so, is it not also correct that a decision in principle has been taken that such fares shall be introduced? If that is correct, might I ask the Minister whether it would not be possible to have a similar tariffs conference dealing with European fares, so that such fares could be introduced in Europe as well as across the North Atlantic?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, to deal with the first question that the noble Baroness asked, the agreement

1037
remains subject to Government approval, as I said in my first reply. As regards the extension of these arrangements to Europe, this has to start somewhere. The negotiations are necessarily complex. The main abuses and the problems have been on the North Atlantic, and it is there that a start has been made. Within Europe special promotional fares are in existence—APEX and IPEX and the like—which cover an appreciable percentage of the traffic.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sorry, but that answer is not satisfactory. While I appreciate that a start has to be made somewhere, would the noble Earl not agree that if the North Atlantic route is the place where such fares have to start (if it is agreed at the meeting which is to be held, I believe, on December 8 that such fares should be promulgated), it would be possible for similar discussions to take place with regard to Europe? Is the noble Earl aware that the fares such as he has mentioned are fares of a specialist type that do not apply to everybody? Is he further aware that I wish such low fares to be available to everybody in Europe who applies three months in advance?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I am certainly aware of the last fact. The Civil Aviation Authority has encouraged British airlines to introduce matching facilities on their scheduled services on those routes where other carriers will be able to operate an advanced booking charter scheme, and the view of Her Majesty's Government on this subject, as expressed by the Prime Minister at the TATA annual general meeting, I think is well known. These are matters that are being discussed, and they are being discussed with a view to making progress.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, but what was not said by the Prime Minister, and is not said, is what is the view of Her Majesty's Government. Are they in favour, and thereby giving a lead, or are they just hiding behind this euphemistic phrase that it is open to all Goverments? May I press the noble Earl: what is the view of Her Majesty's Government?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, the view of the Government was given
1038
by the Prime Minister at the IATA meeting and it was quite unambiguous.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: Yes, my Lords; but what was it?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, the Prime Minister said that he was in favour of these promotional schemes.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I did not think that the Prime Minister said that, but would the noble Earl now assert from that Bench that the Prime Minister said that, so far as the British Government are concerned, we regard ourselves as committed to them?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I think that the British Government, and indeed British airlines, have taken a lead in these matters. On the North Atlantic, it is B.O.A.C. and British Caledonian who have pressed for these new arrangements.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Earl really put the House out of its misery? A question was put in regard to Europe, but he now goes back to the North Atlantic. Will he be quite specific and reply to my noble friend's question, which clearly referred to Europe?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, in so far as I have been talking about the North Atlantic, that is specific to the North Atlantic. Other schemes have been put forward and will be discussed in relation to Europe. There is no immediate prospect of such a scheme coming into Europe; in Europe there are many other schemes.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, if the House will permit me, may I just ask the Minister whether the Government will press the airlines—because I think he is quite right in saying that they are in favour of such cheap fares—for the introduction of a European Fares Conference, immediately following the one to be held on December 8 concerning North Atlantic fares?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I think that is another question, but I shall most certainly bring it to the attention of the Civil Aviation Authority.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that even if there

1039
is a slight ambivalence in the Government's attitude on this matter, there is no ambivalence in the minds of its supporters on these Benches or in another place?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House why he is not prepared to ask for another conference?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, that is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority.

EUROPEAN REGIONAL FUND
3.15 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of what transpired in the debate on the E.E.C. Budget for 1973 at the European Parliament at Strasbourg, they would wish to modify the statement made by the Minister Without Portfolio on November 15, 1972 on the European Regional Fund (Hansard, col. 592).
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I apologise to the House for the length of this Answer. The answer is not "to modify" but, I hope, clarify. There have been two quite separate proposals to which the term Regional Development Fund has been applied. The Council of the Six, in their resolution of March 21, 1972, on economic and monetary union, agreed in principle that a Regional Development Fund should be set up and asked the Commission to make proposals. One of the proposals made was for a modest fund to give interest rebates on loans for regional development purposes and this became known in the Six as the Regional Development Fund. The Council of the Six failed to reach agreement on the proposals by the October 1 deadline which they had set themselves and postponed the deadline to December 15, 1972. This postponement was criticised at the European Parliament of the Six. Then came the Summit at which the Nine agreed that a Regional Development Fund should be
1040
set up by the end of next year. This is quite a separate proposal for a fund the form and priorities of which are to be worked out next year. It is not the interest rebate fund. Thus the Summit communiqué was not related to the previous proposal of the Commission.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clarification, which was very timely after his first reply. May I ask him why he does not now modify the statement that there has not been a postponement? The Finance Ministers of the Six failed to agree on the establishment of the Regional Development Fund proper in September, and thereupon this matter was again taken up and the establishment of the fund was postponed from December 31, 1972, to December 31, 1973.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me on November 14,
"… whether the cornmunique of the meeting of the Heads of State or of Government of countries of the enlarged Community means that the date of the implementation of resolutions"
that we are talking about has been postponed. What I am trying to point out is that it does not mean that. The resolution in question will be considered, anyway, on December 15.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the Minister has said that there are two separate decisions in connection with the Regional Development Fund. Is he suggesting that the first one is a comparative tiddler and that the one that emerges from the Nine will be a slightly bigger fish?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the first was devised by the Six for the Six; the next one will be devised by the Nine for the Nine. I admit that I said that the first proposal was modest. The amount of the fund suggested by the Commission was £20 million. There is no doubt at all that the second one will be very much larger than that.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, is it not quite clear that if the Finance Ministers could not agree on the small fund, they are much less likely to agree on the large fund which they have to prepare? Therefore, my question was very pertinent indeed.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords. It is not a question of agreeing on a small

1041
fund or on a large fund; it is a question of agreeing on the purposes for which that fund should be set up. I would hope that once the Community has been enlarged we may be able to act as a catalyst in some of the differences which have existed within the Six.

ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE
3.19 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have made, in association with six other NATO Powers, for discussions with the Soviet Union and Communist Governments on the reduction of armed forces in Central Europe and whether any reply has been received to this invitation.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government, in association with the Governments of the United States, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, the Federal German Republic and Canada have recently proposed to the Governments of the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary that exploratory talks on mutual and balanced force reductions in Central Europe should begin on January 31, 1973, in a place to be agreed through diplomatic channels. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany have communicated this proposal to the Government of the German Democratic Republic. The intention is that the Governments of Denmark, Greece, Italy, Norway and Turkey should also be represented at the talks. No replies have yet been received.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that very full reply, and welcoming it, may I ask him this question? What is the relation between this conference about a reduction in arms in Central Europe and the wider conference on mutual and balanced reductions between the East and West, which is to be held in Vienna? May I also ask him whether, within the terms of reference, there will be a proposal for a nuclear-free region in Central Europe, as first proposed by Sir Anthony Eden, later Lord Avon, and developed under the
1042
Rapacki Plan, supported by Mr. Hugh Gaitskell; and, if such a proposal is in the terms of reference, whether Her Majesty's Government will support it?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot anticipate for the noble Lord precisely what will be within the terms of reference of this conference. As I think he knows, the prime aim, of course, is to secure a reduction in conventional forces in Central Europe; but this is only an exploratory conference to prepare the way for a full conference later next year, and I have no doubt that these other matters which the noble Lord has mentioned will be discussed at this meeting.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, will my noble friend hear in mind in any such discussions, which I personally welcome, that the intentions are more important if they are measured by the deeds and not by the words? Is it not true that Russia's military might has expanded, and is continuing to expand, so that they have been able to deploy one million men against China without reducing their military strength in the West by one jot? Therefore, will the Government bear in mind the need for the rigorous inspection which should follow if any agreement is reached?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords; I will certainly bear in mind what my noble friend has said. This is a very important conference preparing the way for, I think he will agree, an even more important conference.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he can explain the difference between this proposed conference so far as the proposals are concerned, or what is in the mind of the United Kingdom and other Governments about the reduction in forces, and the European security conference? Are we not having too many conferences and getting nowhere?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I do not think so, my Lords. I think that both these conferences are of extreme importance.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am sorry to come back on this, but I may be misinformed. What I wanted to know from the Minister was the relationship

1043
between this particular conference on Central Europe and the other conference on the wider sphere of mutual and balanced reductions between East and West. Can the Minister give us an assurance that this matter will be pressed forward in order not to delay any agreements which may be reached at Helsinki, at the conference on European security and co-operation?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Lord the assurance that we for our part will press forward with these conferences with the greatest possible vigour. I should like to have notice of the other question he asked me, about the precise relationship between this conference and the one he mentioned as being held in Vienna, and if I may, will write to him.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, may I ask a question? The noble Marquess says that this will be pressed on with great vigour on our part. Am I not right in thinking that we have little to give here in terms of conventional forces, because the Eastern Powers are far ahead of us? Our great defence (unhappily enough, but it is so) is the nuclear weapon. May I therefore ask the noble Marquess to be a little easy about giving away such strength as we have in order to get a success at a conference, because it might leave the West pretty bare.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that that point is well understood by Her Majesty's Government.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, is it not a fact that the conference to which the noble Marquess has referred to-day is a conference to discuss mutual and balanced force reductions throughout the whole of Europe; that it is not confined to Central Europe and that there is no other conference on mutual and balanced force reductions but the one mentioned in his original Answer?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that point. I rather thought that that was the case, but, as I said, I required notice of the question.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would it not be true to say that a demili-
1044
tarised zone in Central Europe would act as a kind of pilot scheme for a greater demilitarisation between East and West Powers in Europe and, therefore, would be a very good thing for peace in Europe?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Certainly, my Lords. I am sure that this is what we all hope.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: No.

PENSIONERS AND FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENT PAY- MENTS BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read la, and to be printed.

COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]
3.26 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a pure Consolidation Bill. It consolidates what remains of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1952, the relevant provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the Courts Act 1971 and the Criminal Justice Act 1972, and certain minor amending provisions. A Bill in substantially the same form was referred to the Joint Committee last Session, but the Committee deferred their examination of it in order that certain relevant provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill then before Parliament might be included in a new Bill this Session. The Bill will of course go to the Joint Committee in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 22, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
SCRABSTER HARBOUR (VEHICLE FERRY TERMINAL ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

APPROPRIATION (No. 3) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1972
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on November 8, be approved.—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the Motion is agreed to, may I say that under present arrangements it is not really possible to discuss these Orders effectively. I am very conscious of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who is always extremely conscientious in seeking to help the House, is also occupied elsewhere and that this was the most convenient time to take this Order; but may I ask the noble Earl one question? If he does not have the answer to-day because he was not expecting the question, perhaps he will note it and when we debate Northern Ireland, which we shall be doing in a fortnight's time, he can come back to it. It concerns the reasons for the decline in the expenditure of the Ministry of Education. Since we agreed that we should not pursue the matter because we did not want to bring Lord Windlesham back, perhaps the noble Earl could note that matter and answer us at a later date.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has flattered me by promoting me to "noble Earl", and I therefore cannot deny him anything. However, I cannot in fact give him the answer straight away, but I will see that it is sent to him.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords. I apologise. We are very sorry that the real noble Earl, the Leader of the House, is away sick.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COUNTER-INFLATION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
3.30 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, whose indisposition we all
1046
regret—and none more than I—I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. My noble friend explained to the House in his speech during the debate on the Address on November 7 the circumstances—which we all regretted—which had led to the breakdown of the tripartite talks between the Government, the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. In the debate on the Address, those circumstances and the underlying causes were fully discussed and I do not think your Lordships would wish me to go over the ground again this afternoon. What I think there was general agreement about was the need that had arisen, because of the breakdown of the talks, for the Government to take immediate action.
It is, as my noble friend said then, the Governments firm intention to bring forward as early as may be possible proposals which will be designed to work towards objectives on which all were agreed in the tripartite talks. Let me remind the House what these objectives are. First, faster growth in national output and real incomes; secondly, an improvement in the relative position of the lower paid; and thirdly, moderation in the rate of cost and price inflation. My noble friend also explained then why in the circumstances a standstill was urgently needed to provide a breathing space for the Government to prepare and bring before Parliament the longer-term measures that will be needed to achieve those objectives. Hence the need for this interim Bill to which I ask the House to give a Second Reading to-day and which provides for a short standstill period for prices, pay, rents and dividends. The standstill is to be as complete as is practicable, but for reasons to which I shall refer later it cannot be absolutely all-embracing.
I emphasise the temporary nature of the legislation because I believe that this justifies us in seeking wide powers to ensure that the standstill is to operate fairly during the short period for which it is to be applied. May I make one further point here. We are confident that the standstill will operate firmly and fairly, but of course we recognise—as previous Administrations have had to recognise—that no standstill can be absolutely comprehensive. The White Paper pointed out that certain prices, especially those for fresh food and for

1047
imported raw materials, are subject to fluctuations arising from external or seasonal causes. The United Kingdom economy is not a closed system, and the prices of many of our raw materials are determined on world markets. The Government have therefore recognised from the start that in some cases there may be increased costs which it is impossible to avoid. It is open to enterprises in such cases to approach the relevant Department and to seek consent for an increase. But this practical recognition of the economic realities is wholly consistent with the general principle that all concerned should do everything possible to avoid any increase in prices. In particular, no fluctuations in costs are regarded as a justification for any increase in cash margins.
I believe that the fact that this is a measure of strictly limited duration—for in no circumstances can the standstill for which it provides run for more than 150 days—is an added reason, along with the urgent need to end the inflationary climate in this country, for getting this Bill through quickly, so that we can then proceed with our longer-term measures. The Government are very grateful to the Opposition for agreeing to take the various stages of the Bill in eight days.
The standstill had of necessity to operate from the date of the Prime Minister's statement and the publication of the White Paper (Cmnd. 5125) on November 6. The alternative to that would have been widespread forestalling in any or all of the fields of prices, pay, dividends and rents to which the Bill applies. If that is accepted, and I think that in the debate last Wednesday it was generally accepted, in principle at least, it is obviously sensible and reasonable that Ministers should have the powers to back up and if necessary to enforce the standstill as soon as possible. It would moreover be unfair to those many firms and individuals who have demonstrated clearly their readiness to observe the standstill if we were to prolong any uncertainty about the legal position.
I come now to the Bill itself. The general effect of the Bill is to give Ministers powers to impose the standstill described in the White Paper A Programme for Controlling Inflation; The
1048
First Stage (Cmnd 5125) for 90 days from the passing of the Act, subject to possible extension for up to 60 further days beyond that.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the Minister will forgive me for interrupting so early in his speech. He used words which would indicate to those not as familiar with the Bill as he is that the freeze, to put it shortly, applies as from the passing of the Act. Surely the case is that it applies in fact as from November 6 and the number of days are the days from the passing of the Act; so that the total period of freeze that we are considering is virtually the period mentioned plus the number of days (the three weeks) from November 6 to the end of November.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I would not altogether demur from that The situation is that, so far as enforcement is concerned, the acts of enforcement, as I shall be showing in the course of what I have to say, date from the passing of the Act, because there are no powers before that. But the Government expect that there will not be increases in prices at the present time, and if there should be increases in prices that it would be possible after the passing of the Act to make orders or to give notices requiring those prices to revert to what they were before November 6. That is the situation. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am sorry there was any misapprehension but the very next sentence that I was about to say might have clarified the position. I was about to say that during this period, Ministers will be able by notice or order to require those concerned to reduce prices or pay to the levels at which they stood before November 6, and to prevent increases in dividends and rents.
Clause 1 sets a limit on the period of operation of the Bill. This is to be 90 days in the first instance. There is also a power to extend this for not more than a further 60 days by means of an Affirmative Resolution order. But an extension order must be made not less than 30 days before the 90-day period ends, and such an order will lapse if Affirmative Resolutions to both Houses have not been obtained within 28 days of the making of the order. The Government believe

1049
that 90 days is the absolute minimum needed for the purpose in view and that it is sensible to provide for an extension of 60 days should this prove to be necessary.
Clause 2 is the main operative provision of the Bill. It deals with prices, pay, dividends and rents. It provides that once the clause has been applied to any price, pay level, dividend declaration or rent, the level of payment may not exceed the level before November 6. And it empowers the appropriate Ministers to apply the clause, either by order or by notice. I may say at this point that it is our intention to make certain orders as soon as the Bill becomes law. In particular, a general order will be necessary to apply Clause 2 to dividends; and various orders about rents will also be made. As to the distinction between orders and notices, it is intended, broadly speaking, that orders will be made to cover a general class of case, whereas notices will be given to individual persons or firms.
The clause also provides, however, in subsection (3). that there can be no contravention of the law in relation to prices, pay or dividends if what has been done is authorised by order or notice applied under the clause or by the written consent of a Minister. I am sure it is right to expect that in general there will be voluntary compliance with the standstill without there being any necessity to make orders to apply the mandatory provisions of the clause. But Ministers will, of course, be ready to use the powers if this proves to be necessary to protect the standstill.
Clause 3 is required to relieve employers of any contractual obligations to increase rates of remuneration. Without this clause it might not be possible for them to observe the standstill voluntarily. While employers could of course have been relieved of their obligations by order, it seemed right to the Government to make the point clear in the Bill itself at the outset. Clause 3(3) excepts from this relief certain pay increments relating to age and service which may be paid during the standstill.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government have made any estimate at all as to the number of people who will be affected by subsection (3) of Clause3?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said. I am not aware of the answer to his question, but I am sure that my noble and learned friend who is to reply will be able to deal with the matter.
My Lords, it is the Government's intention that agreements subject to deferment under the clause should operate in full from the end of the standstill. But it would be inconsistent with the objectives of the standstill, and unfair to those who would normally be expected to negotiate increases during this period, to allow increases under staged agreements to proceed during the standstill. Clause 4 empowers the appropriate Minister to require the information that he needs to establish whether a price pay level, dividend or rent has been unjustifiably increased.
Clause 5 gathers together in one part of the Bill a series of provisions dealing with offences. There are provisions for fines for contravening a notice or order under Clause 2 of the Bill, and corresponding provisions for similar fines for anyone who tries to compel or influence someone, by threat or otherwise, to contravene Clause 2. There is provision for a smaller fine for wilful failure to produce information under Clause 4 of the Bill or for producing false information or documents.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, again may I interrupt the noble Lord?—and I am grateful to him for giving way. I know that he is keeping an eye on the clock, but is he not going to say any more about the meaningless word, "influence"? The Bill is here providing for a fine not exceeding £400 on summary conviction, or to an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment, for one person influencing another to do a certain thing. What exactly is meant by this term, "influence"?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should have thought that was self-explanatory. I do not want to give my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack too much to do in replying but he will be replying to legal questions and I should have thought that this was eminently a legal question.

1051
My Lords, there is provision in subsection (6) of Clause 5 for proceeding against a responsible officer of a corporation, as well as against the corporation itself, where it can be proved that an offence under the Bill permitted by the corporation has occurred with the consent of connivance of that responsible officer. In subsection (8) there is a reference to the Industrial Relations Act. The effect of this subsection is that there shall be no "double liability" for offences under this Act. In other words, if a person charged under one Act, he cannot be charged under another as well. There is a self-explanatory safeguard in the clause, in that proceedings for an offence under the Bill will require the consent of the Attorney General. It is fair to say that no offence under the Bill need lead to imprisonment unless someone is quite determined to flout the authority of the courts. But that does not mean that failure to comply with the Act or notices or Orders made under it would not be a very serious matter, appropriately punishable under the law.
Clauses 6 and 7 make the necessary provisions for the Bill to apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland, in order to accord with the legal provisions which apply there. Clause 8 contains various definitions and technical provisions, and Clause 9 enables administrative expenses incurred by Government Departments in administering the Act to be met out of Annual Votes.
My Lords, the Schedule contains various provisions, a number of them of a technical nature, supplementing the main clauses of the Bill. Broadly speaking, the Schedule sets out to provide the means whereby the standstill can be applied in such a way as to take account of the circumstances and practices of particular cases. In particular, it allows a good deal of flexibility in the framing of orders, which will be subject to Parliamentary control by the Negative Resolution procedure. No doubt your Lordships will wish to seek clarification of the more detailed provisions of the Schedule, and indeed in the main body of the Bill, on the Committee stage, and I do not propose to-day to go into detail.
Bearing in mind the specific, temporary purpose of the Bill, its provisions are
1052
well designed for their purpose. They are stringent; but they are also fair. They are necessary if we are to halt the expectation of a steadily accelerating inflation which had begun to take a hold on the country. I am sure that all sections of the community will welcome the breathing space that it will afford. The Government, for their part, are determined to use the period of the standstill to prepare and to bring into operation our longer-term measures for achieving faster growth, for improving the relative position of the low paid and for moderating the rate of inflation.
My Lords, this is a short Bill to cover a short period and I have introduced it in a fairly short speech. There are most encouraging signs that the spirit of the Bill is already being observed. The more people who act voluntarily in the spirit of the Bill the more chance there will be of us reaching the Government's objectives, which experience has shown are shared by both sides of industry and the country at large. Nobody likes this kind of Bill, but we strongly believe that it is necessary and urgent, and I therefore commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
3.47 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I share the regret that his noble friend and Leader is unwell and therefore unable to be with us. I hope I may say that my motivation is at least as Christian as his in regretting that absence. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, need have no fear in coming here, as he so regularly does these days, to apologise for the past efforts of the Government. He does it with such charm and courtesy. He comes forward with, "Peccavi! peccavi!" on his lips. He puts his head with such distinction on the chopping block that we fail to take the necessary action and this I dare say will be another occasion when we shall discipline ourselves in the same way. But I am afraid that I must go into this Bill and what lies beyond it a little more closely than did the noble Lord. I can well understand the reasons why he thought it convenient to deal with the matter very shortly indeed.

1053
My Lords, I want first to discuss the background and the purpose and the defects of the Bill itself and, perhaps much more importantly, where the Bill is leading and what the Government have in mind, and to what they call "Phase B". I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will be able to tell us a great deal of what is in the mind of the Government for the consultations and for the content of the legislation and the measures which they are preparing on a longer term basis.
First of ail, so far as the Bill itself is concerned, and in particular so far as the background is concerned, I think it right that I should say that, notwithstanding that the Government have for many months put the whole blame for inflation on to increases in wages, it has now become quite clear that that is not the cause in any substantial measure. In fact, there are several causes which have been made clear and I would list them very shortly. First, there are import prices of food, to which the noble Lord referred. That is the fact that during the course of this year alone the price of Australian wheat has risen by 56 per cent., New Zealand lamb by 41 per cent., and wool by 110 per cent. That is some indication of the food import prices; and, as the noble Lord said, there are all kinds of imports other than food the prices of which have risen, and are rising, as a result of the effective devaluation which recently took place.
Then, at home, there are the increased profit margins which we see resulting in improved trading results week by week. There has been a most extraordinary increase in the money supply—and I am delighted to see the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, in his place, because I am going to quote him as one of the accepted authorities on this topic. The noble Viscount referred to this matter of the money supply in our debate on November 7, and said at col. 320:
"… I understand that we are now increasing at the rate of 25 per cent. A noble Lord says 'More'. Surely not! Good Heavens! The noble Lord leaves me speechless. I thought I might be exaggerating. We appear to have thrown overboard all the well-tried economic theories and economic laws."
The noble Viscount will be delighted to know that he was not exaggerating; that
1054
this fantastic figure of 25 per cent., which he thought was overstating the position, was understating it, and the figures that we have had since show that on the M3 basis, with which all your Lordships are familiar, the figure increased by some 8 per cent. in the three months to July, which is four eights, approximately 32 per cent. per anuum during that period: considerably more than the 25 per cent. I can now disclose that the noble Lord who caused the noble Viscount to be more or less speechless was myself, when I indicated that it was more than 25 per cent. So I think the noble Viscount and I have served a useful purpose in drawing the attention of your Lordships' House to the fact that, not only was the money supply allowed to get out of hand, but it got so to an extent which was }not believed even by the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the reason why Her Majesty's Government have to increase the money supply is that if there are excessive wage claims, with no increase in productivity, the money supply has to be increased to pay the wages? The Government have no option. You cannot have the position of a factory going on Friday to draw the wage cheque and, if they are late in the queue, the bank perhaps not having the cash to pay them.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Viscount must learn, as I am equally slow in learning, that sometimes the less one says on these matters the more are we thought to be knowledgeable and wise. To answer his question, I am afraid I cannot agree that that has not much to do with it, and I do not think the noble Viscount was listening as carefully as he normally does to what I was saying about the rise in wages. In fact, in our earlier debate I demonstrated that the increase in wages in the first year in office of this Government was no greater than the increase in prices; and in the second year it was no greater than the increase in prices, plus increase in productivity. Those are the figures, and if the noble Viscount has any doubt about that he will see the whole of the argument set out in previous speeches. These took up a fair amount of time, and I imagine that the House would not wish me to repeat them.

1055
Those, my Lords, are some of the reasons. But there are two more which I must mention. First, we have the soaring prices for land and land speculation. These are not limited to capital profits, because, as your Lordships know, the price of the land, and the property when built on it, gradually spills over into the rent; and it is a regular experience now, particularly in the City, to find a lease coming to an end and the lessee being required to pay sometimes ten times as much rent as was provided for in the previous lease. That of course affects his overheads, his charges and so on. This is now becoming a regular experience, and many people are having to move out. Then there are council rents, which are directly attributable to the Government, and which accounted for one-half of the phenomenal increase in last month's increase in the cost of living. These are the main causes of the inflation, and they result largely from deliberate Government policies, and partly from the Government when they assumed office having deliberately destroyed our defences against inflation.
So much, then, for the background of the Bill. As to its purpose, one can deal with that quite shortly. It is, as has been said, to provide a breathing space: and unless that breathing space is made use of and is followed by some longer term arrangement, then of course the Bill serves no useful purpose; it merely allows a head of steam to be built up which will burst upon us when the days of restraint come to an end.
As to the defects in the Bill, there are many, but I can categorise them shortly. It was admitted by the noble Lord, and has been by others of his colleagues, that this Bill involves rough justice. It involves a good deal worse than that: it involves grave injustice. It involves grave injustice between the haves and the have-nots (and this is our main complaint); between those who have wealth and means of spending and those who have income only, which when frozen means that they have no means of keeping up with the increasing cost of living while the freeze is on. In the one case their spending power is frozen, and in the other case it is very liquid indeed and totally unrestricted. There is grave injustice as between the lower paid and
1056
the well paid. Many of the lower paid will suffer hardship as a result of this Bill. Those who are well paid will not. There is great unfairness as between tenant and tenant: some rents are frozen and some are not. And, above all, there is great unfairness between prices and wages—prices being allowed to rise for a variety of reasons to which the noble Lord referred, and wages being frozen. We shall do what we can in Committee stage, having regard to the shortness of time and the difficulties involved, to improve some of these matters and remove some of these injustices: and we hope that the Government will listen with greater care having regard to the history of this Bill in the other place. When a Bill is railroaded through the other place under the guillotine, so that more than half of it has not been considered in Committee, I suggest that your Lordships' House has a special responsibility for seeing that the democratic processes prevail.
So much, my Lords, for the Bill. I want now to turn on to what I regard as a far more important aspect; that is, phase B, what will happen when the restraint period comes to an end. I am hoping that the Government will be able to tell us that they are shortly having discussions with the two parties involved, and that those discussions will prove fruitful. Perhaps I can put before your Lordships, and in particular the Government, the way in which I think the Government might proceed in order that agreement can be reached and that the discussions should prove fruitful, which I am sure is what we all desire.
First, I want to make the point that the choice before the Government is not simply between a voluntary and a compulsory arrangement; it is between a voluntary arrangement which is acceptable to all sides, on the one hand, and a compulsory arrangement which is broadly acceptable to all sides, on the other hand. It is just not possible for the Government by legislation to impose a system which is not broadly acceptable. It will not work: and the Government have had plenty of opportunity of learning about that. One recognises that there are many occasions when a Government have to accept the responsibility, and perhaps the odium, of legislating for something which, although

1057
broadly acceptable, the parties concerned cannot admit to be acceptable. This is the necessity which frequently arises for Governments to take responsibility in their own hands. But I am not talking about that; I am talking about the Government's attitude of describing their choice as being between a compulsory and a voluntary arrangement. Where you have, as here, many millions of citizens involved, the Government cannot escape their responsibility for discussion and negotiation and thereby arriving at some measure of agreement with all concerned. I say this because I read with some disappointment what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on this point in another place on November 8, 1972, at column 1007 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He said this:
"The purpose of the present interim Bill is to make it possible for there to be a short standstill on prices and incomes so that the agreed objectives will not be prejudiced while the main legislation is being prepared and brought into operation."
There is nothing there about consultation or about an endeavour to reach broad agreement, but simply that it is to be a breathing-space to enable the main legislation to be prepared. So I hope that the learned and noble Lord will be able to tell us that part of the purpose and the preparation of the main legislation will be the holding of discussions and the earnest seeking after broad agreement with all the parties concerned.
Again, I do not take much joy from such indications as we have so far regarding what is in the Government's mind for Phase B. On November 20, in winding up the debate in another place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this, at column 927:
"I think it right also that I should explain our approach to negotiations during the standstill. The White Paper makes it clear that if negotiations take place during the standstill, the implementation of any settlement must be deferred until the end of the standstill and will then be subject to the second stage of the policy.
"The Government recognise that a number of negotiations were already in train when the standstill began and that others would in the normal course of events have begun shortly afterwards. I must emphasise again that the outcome of such negotiations will have to conform to the requirements of Stage 2. It can therefore be in no one's interest to take the negotiations very far until the guidelines for the second stage are known."
1058
So there is the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying, with the full authority of his office, that certainly so far as wages are concerned, there is very little point in having discussions or negotiations during the standstill period until the Phase B policy is known. These warning noises are exclusively related to wages. Nothing is said about prices or about dividends; nothing is said about boards meeting to declare dividends during this standstill period for payment after the expiration of the period—nothing is said about that at all. This is purely directed to wages and it is warning those who negotiate wages that it would not be in their interests to take negotiations very far
"until the guidelines for the second stage are known."
I hope these were words which were loosely used and not very carefully considered, and I hope also that it is still the intention of the Government to have regard to the interests of all the parties concerned and to bear in mind the need for reaching broad agreement.
I think there are three necessary conditions to be fulfilled before that agreement can arise. I believe there must be, first, the background of social justice which is absent at the moment. The vast increase which is taking place in realised wealth—in particular regarding the Stock Exchange—and the vast redistribution in favour of the well-to-do which has resulted from measures taken since the Government took office do not create the conditions necessary for a sense of social justice. I am asking once more, as the noble Lord did not refer to this point in his speech, how the Gini co-efficient has moved. That is a very simple and straightforward question. The Government have the answer in the Box, or they can ring up the Treasury and find it within 30 seconds: how has the Gini coefficient moved as a result of Government measures since the Government came into office? This is "Gini"—I am being fairly precise about this because the previous request has met with no answer at all. So I hope we shall be told the answer to my question. The reason I want it is because this is the best indicator of social justice and fairness that is known to exist. It is well known. It is prepared within the Treasury every time there is a Budget or a major alteration in social legislation; so all one is asking is that somebody

1059
should be kind enough to get on the telephone and give us the answer. It is a very relevant answer and we are not going to be satisfied until we get it. I am putting that as clearly and as courteously as I can to the Front Bench opposite.
So the first condition is a sense of social justice. The second condition is that there should be basic agreement on the moral attitude of helping where help is needed most. Again I should like to quote from a speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on November 8, 1972, in another place at column 1009, where he said:
"The greater the co-operation, the quicker we can replace this standstill by a fair and just longer-term policy designed to share the benefit of growing prosperity among all sections of the community."
We have no complaint about that phrase, so long as it is understood that the sharing of benefit means fair shares—and fair shares on any moral basis, as I have already indicated, means giving more to those whose needs are greatest. That means, in turn, improving the lot of the lower-paid in relation to the higher-paid—which is accepted by the Government—and it also means improving the lot of the average worker in relation to the average rentier, which I do not think the Government have yet fully understood. But the moral standard is the same, and we are pressing it. We see no reason why the worker should not enjoy, especially after completing a day of dangerous and often very dirty work, his fair share in the sun as much as the rest of us.
The third condition which I think is essential is a willingness to discuss all the relevant issues as between partners; and I emphasise "as between partners". We now know why the tripartite discussions broke down. They did in fact peter out—I think that is the best phrase which has been used about them by one of those present—because there was nothing left which the Government were willing to discuss and negotiate about. I know this has been put forward as a very difficult problem vis-à-vis Parliament: it is said that it is a delegation of Parliament's responsibility. I do not share that view. I believe this is exactly similar to many other negotiations which are held by Governments, by trade unions and by the C.B.I. The negotiations are ad referendum, each negotiating party having
1060
to get confirmation of its decisions and recommendations. The Government come to Parliament and Parliament then has, or should have, a full opportunity of discussing and approving, or otherwise, what the Government are recommending. Therefore I do not see that there is any difficulty, so far as Parliamentary privilege, prestige or responsibility is concerned, in the Government's discussing, as partners, all the relevant issues with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C.
While I am on this topic, it is far better that we should be frank and recognise that the situation has changed. There has grown up a new, powerful estate in the realm: the organised worker. Previously power was effectively shared in varying proportions among Monarch, Church, Parliament and big business—big business represented by the City, the Governor of the Bank of England, the financial institutions, and so on. They were all co-operating, no doubt in a very useful way, and sharing power. Now the organised worker is there as well and the Government must recognise that. They have tried so far to avoid this recognition. They have tried confrontation over the past two years and all they have secured for themselves is a bloody nose. They have tried legislation; they have tried to legislate for a vast reduction in the power of the organised worker, and have failed to get acceptance of it. It is far better that we should now recognise that here is a power and we should clothe it in responsibility, because naked power is a very dangerous thing indeed.
These are the conditions upon which agreement could be reached for a longer-term policy and arrangement which could result in what I might call self-disciplined growth, prosperity and industrial peace. I am bound to recognise that the Government have moved a considerable distance along this path, but they have to move somewhat further. I want to encourage them in moving a good deal further. If they are unwilling to do that, then all I suggest to them is what was suggested to them by their own numerous rebels: that they should move out.
4.13 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, much of the subject matter of today's debate was dealt with in the economic debate on

1061
the Queen's Speech, and I shall be brief in speaking from these Benches. But I will attempt to add one or two points to the matters that were then raised. As we have said, we accept the necessity—regrettable though it is—for this period of standstill. We are primarily interested, as was the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in what is to come after the standstill. May I make one or two points which were not made either in the earlier speeches this afternoon or in the debate on the Queen's Speech?
The first, I have no doubt, is a minor point to most Members of your Lordships' House, but it is one that I should not like to go by default while these discussions with regard to pay are taking place. Your Lordships will not be surprised that I am raising this point. It is known that under the Equal Pay Bill the Secretary of State for Employment has power to say that by the end of 1973 the basic rate in women's pay shall be not less than 90 per cent. of that for men. It is also recognised that if the Secretary of State decides to use his powers in this regard he will have to say so in a few weeks' time, at the most, because it will be necessary for employers to prepare themselves for the change that will be involved. I hope that in the sacrifices which everyone is being asked to make at the present time it will not be a case of "Ladies first", and that it will not be considered desirable to overlook the Secretary of State's powers at the present time merely because he would be called upon to make this decision during the period of the standstill.
I would point out to those who are concerned, and rightly concerned, about the position of the low-paid that the overwhelming proportion of the low paid are in fact women, and that the degree of lowness of pay among women is vastly greater than that which afflicts men. The bringing forward of the improvement will not take place until the end of 1973, so that this change will take place after the standstill has ended; but, as I have said, it is necessary that the decision should be made at this time. I directly and specifically ask the Minister to give attention to this point, about which a great many women are very much concerned.
1062
In addition, I should like to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said on the question of property prices. We from these Benches have for a long time urged the advantages of site value taxation. It has surely been demonstrated beyond peradventure during recent months that if that policy had been adopted, although it would not have been a total cure, it would have modified very substantially the evils arising from the fantastic property price increases which have taken place; and to a very considerable extent the community as a whole would have benefited accordingly. We also believe that the time has come to look again very seriously at the tax advantages given for mortgages for, at any rate, second houses, and for the more expensive levels of property. There can be no question that the availability of a mortgage is in itself an incentive to a price increase in a property area. It is very hard indeed to see why tax advantages should be given to the better off section of the community in order to enable them to encourage these dramatic increases in property prices.
Having said that, my Lords, may I turn to the second phase and the conditions under which we can move into a more satisfactory method of dealing with the fixing of pay at all levels? The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said that a condition for a future satisfactory settlement is fairness. The only difficulty with this concept is the difficulty of definition. I would wager that we could argue for a long time in this assembly as to what we mean by fairness when, as is always the case in matters of pay, concepts of fairness have to be translated into differences of cash, differences which are often in themselves quite small. I suggest that while the concept of fairness is something which must always be taken into account in terms of pay, many of the problems of the lower paid—although level of pay is of course an important aspect—are best approached for certain sections of the lower paid through the proposals that the Government have in their tax credit scheme. For example, the low-paid young man aged 20 or 21, with no family responsibilities, is not to me an object of the greatest concern. The rather better-paid family man of 35 with

1063
three or four children to look after, is of concern.
I am suggesting that many of the worst problems at the lower levels are problems that are better dealt with through improvements in social benefits, rather than by attempting to deal with them, either in their entirety or to any large extent, through changes in pay. After all, it is a principle of pay that we pay basically for the value of work carried out. Equal pay for work of equal value is a slogan much acclaimed; but it means that we are paying for the value of the work done. It would be a great mistake to move too far away from that concept. On the other hand, the Government's tax credit proposals as they stand do not appear to deal adequately with the need to improve social benefits for those groups of people most in need. The question of pay and the question of changes in the tax credit scheme and in social benefits must surely be considered together. It is in this area that the problem of fairness is best dealt with.
As we move to the next phase there is before us a choice. We can either go forward to the idea of far more detailed control of pay at the centre or we can reject that idea and look to new institutions for settling the problem of pay. My "enemy" has written a book—I say that in quotation marks because the "enemy" in question is in fact a much respected academic acquaintance of many years standing: I refer to Professor Clegg, much concerned with questions of pay and who was deeply involved in the Prices and Incomes Board. He has endeavoured to tell us how a new incomes policy should operate. He, as a result of his study and experience, has been forced into saying that there should be one central body to which all pay claims should be submitted; that this body should give the decision and explain the reasons for the decision, and that it should be backed by law. I ask the House to reflect on the amount of power that such a body would be given and the enormous difficulty of carrying out such a mandate with anything that begins to approximate to accuracy and fairness.
Secondly, Professor Clegg says a great deal about fairness. He does not at any point define it. Indeed, at one point he uses the curious expression that a certain
1064
settlement was "more than fair". I should dearly like to discuss with him what concept one has of fairness when one can have something which is "more than fair". Then, he goes on to say that, in the interests of fairness, the better paid must be required to receive no increase at all. He gives us, courageously, a list of those who should not receive any further pay increases. It includes doctors, dock workers, car workers and workers in the newspaper industry. Well, that is his shopping list. But anybody else can produce another, and I ask your Lordships again to reflect on the kind of argument that will go on if we attempt to produce a list of people of this kind who are to be excluded from pay increases. However, he is a kind man and proceeds to say that, although they must not be given an increase, they must suffer no reduction in their standard of living. Therefore, they are to be given an increase to keep their standard of living in line. I would simply point out to your Lordships that this means percentage increases widening the gap between those whom he wishes to control and those at the lower level.
I am giving these points from this study of a much respected academic in this field to underline the difficulty, I would say the impossibility, of a scheme of this kind. If such a scheme is out—and, if Professor Clegg cannot put up a better case for it than that, I submit to your Lordships that it is out—then what is in? I attempted in a previous debate to suggest an approach. I believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that we must put the responsibility where the power is. It is perfectly true that organised labour is, in my view rightly, extremely powerful to-day. But it does not at present carry the responsibility; nor are our institutions designed to give it that responsibility.
I am not going through the suggestions I made last week, but will elaborate one very briefly. I am sure that we need something along the lines of a Grand Council of Industry—not just the C.B.I., the T.U.C. and the Government, but bringing together into a more august assemblage the main personalities, both on the employers' side and on the trade union side, who are in fact going to make the decisions. At this assemblage there must be representatives of Government speaking for the public interest. The

1065
facts must be available and intelligently interpreted. We are all too short of facts. The facts must be given to this body and they must be confronted with the choices—the very narrow choices as in many cases they are—and must make up their mind what it is right and proper to do. At the end of the day the Government must, if necessary, and if things go wrong, have a veto. But I believe that far more authority must be given to this body, made up of people who have then to go out and make the deals at the different levels inside industry—at the industry-wide level and at the level of the company. I do not believe that there is any other alternative than to build institutions which match the realities of power to-day. I will not proceed further, my Lords, but merely say that time is running out; tempers are exacerbated, and we cannot go on like this. We must establish new ways of meeting these old and intractable problems.
4.27 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I always thought that I was by far the worst offender in bringing before your Lordships' House academic discussions, but after the speech of the noble Baroness I concede pride of place to her. I will not follow her in the academic discussion about Professor Clegg, who changed his views several times so that one would have to discuss him as "Clegg Mark I", "Clegg Mark II", et cetera. Nor do I want to follow the noble Baroness in discussion of the implications of "Women's lib." on the wages question, which is not the subject of to-day's debate. My Lords, we have assembled here, so to speak, in front of a grave, and in that grave is the lacerated body of the Government's main economic policy. The fact that no one from the opposite side is speaking on this occasion, except the two unfortunate Ministers who have to, is no surprise to me.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that this was a short Bill. It is a short Bill and it is a short-term Bill. However, I fear that it is a short-term Bill with a difference: that is to say, it has been influenced very much by the long-term past and it will influence the long-term future. It is from the viewpoint of how we regard this Bill as a preliminary to a more permanent arrangement
1066
that we have to discuss it. I have been on my feet on this sort of business ever since I joined this august House. I criticised my own Party for failing to live up to their duty in 1969 and 1970 in this matter; and I criticised this Government for, first of all, not at all believing in it. After all, it is but yesterday that they put out a Manifesto in which they relied on general pressures and wanted to hand back the job of dealing with this question to where it belongs. That was not at all the sort of responsibility which we have now in the hands of Ministers.
I have always thought that full employment and stability could not be combined unless there were a consensus on prices and incomes, and that there could be no consensus on prices and incomes if we did not have a general social consensus—if there were no firm basis on which one could ask people to overlook minor difficulties and injustices; because there would be minor difficulties and injustices. No matter whether we decentralise, as the noble Baroness wishes, or whether we centralise, whenever there is a systematic way of dealing with incomes there will always be anomalies. It is obvious: all the people will expect there to be anomalies. They will be passionate in maintaining and equally passionate in narrowing wage differentials. Therefore we must have a situation in which people can be asked for this sort of sacrifice.
The problem before us is a complex one. It is complex because our situation is a complex one. It is complex because although certain food prices have risen very much, wages have gone up very much more. The terms of trade have not worsened; they have improved. I do not know how the latest devaluation will affect them, but at the moment I fear that we are again very much on the knife edge so far as the international productivity and competitiveness of the country is concerned.
That brings me to a theme which was completely omitted by the Minister. Of course we have been in these difficulties because there have been two devaluations, and these two devaluations have caused some prices to rise. The prices had to be put up, but the explosive character of this has been caused by the fact that the higher incomes have been to a large

1067
extent compensated and that through the monetary policy of the Government (or the absence of it) we have been confronted with a situation in which assets have risen very much further than prices and thereby released purchasing power where it should not have been released. This is a problem with which this Bill does not deal, and so far as I could make out when the Prime Minister made his earlier manifesto about the package, that package did not deal with any of these problems. So we have been asked to give our blessing to past and present mistakes on the assurance that mayhap in the future a better policy will be followed. But there was no guarantee of that and there is now no guarantee of that. Neither in the Lower House nor in the Minister's speech have we had any indication whatsoever as to what the Government are going to do in order to get the consensus that they want.
The injustices which are perpetuated in this Bill are of various characters. In the first place, some incomes are exempt. For instance, I was one of the "profiteers"; I received an income increase of 7½ per cent. on October 31, just before the gates closed. So assets are completely out. What about dividends? The Government say that dividends will be frozen, but we have seen the case of Unilever. They have frozen the dividends which they would normally pay out now but they have already voted a dividend to be paid as soon as the freeze ends. How does one negotiate with Unilever's manpower in an attempt to get them to mitigate their wage demands when, at the moment when everybody is speaking about moderation and restraint, there is a large advance voted in dividends? It seems to me that the Government will have to consider the establishment of some fund by which the workers can benefit with postponed dividends, because if dividends are frozen obviously ploughed back profits will accumulate, and those ploughed back profits ought to belong partly to the workers.
It is very easy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, "Ah!, Budget secrets—we cannot go into Budget secrets now". But the take-home pay is influenced by the Budget. Our criticism of last year's Budget was that it exacerbated social differences and social diffi-
1068
culties. Social services come into the picture because obviously they are part of the income, especially of the lower-paid workers. But what have we seen? We have seen a systematic increase in charges, to be compensated by social services which are means tested, and we know very well what "means tested" means. On all these things nothing has been said.
I am very much distressed because, after all, we are all in the same ship. Somehow or other all possibility of an agreement on a permanent basis is now being prejudiced by one step after another of the Government, and we need to have a permanent arrangement. Let there be absolutely no mistake: the changes in the structure of industry, in the structure of society, have brought about a situation in which automatic market forces cannot possibly maintain balance. The balancing mechanism of the old type has vanished. It could be re-established, but only at a cost which would be absolutely prohibitive from the social point of view. What you would have to do would be to shoot pickets, stop benefits to the strikers' wives and children, and so on. Nobody could contemplate that. I am generous enough to assume that nobody on the Government side would want to do that.
But if they do not want that, then they will have to have some conscious policy which establishes the bare conditions of a consensus on which we can build. How that machinery should be arranged is a secondary question. We must first reestablish the sentiment of trust between the various parts of the economy. We must do that quickly, because with our entry into the Common Market we must at all costs increase our investment, which is not increasing. What is increasing is consumption, and especially luxury consumption. We must increase our investment because otherwise we shall be naked in a very perilous situation indeed.
4.38 p.m.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, we have just listened to a very sincere and thought-provoking speech. In the course of my professional career I have often felt myself to be the victim of the controversial severity of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, but I have seldom listened to him, or read what he had to say, without being stimulated to new thought,

1069
and I am sure that those who have listened to him this afternoon have had a similar experience. I, too, wish to make my contribution to this debate, which will not be a long one, concerned as much with the general background as with the minutiae of the different clauses.
It is the tradition in this House that we should seek so far as possible to establish a consensus—that we should not only brings out points of difference but points of agreement. I take it that we are all convinced at the moment that the value of money has been diminishing, is still diminishing and that that diminution must be arrested, if not completely stopped. In this connection, I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to whom I always listen with respect and interest, base his indictment in this context entirely on what has happened in the last two years. If one takes the retail price index for 1963 as 100, the price in August of this year was 165, and although I should be the last person to wish to defend what has been allowed by Ministers in the last two years, I should have thought, speaking with the utmost friendliness and deference, that those who sit on the Opposition Benches would feel no reason to be altogether proud of what happened while they were in control. After all, the tremendous increase in the rate of increase of money supply began before the last General Election.
Returning to the point of consensus, I hope we agree that the recent rate of change, which would reduce the purchasing power of the £ by 90 per cent. in 30 years, is something which we should not put up with. Disagreement begins to arise when we discuss causes. I listen with interest to the diagnoses of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, sometimes with agreement, sometimes with neutrality and sometimes with a little eyebrow raising. My feeling in this respect is that if at the point of a pistol I had to choose between falling in behind the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, or behind the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, I should find myself in the Baloghian ranks, so to speak.
These personal differences apart, I wish to comment a little further on the question of property prices and the price of land. In recent debates I have noticed a growing tendency on the Labour Benches
1070
for noble Lords to pick out extraordinary cases of vast increases, which no one in his senses would deny, and to suggest that these were not only indicative of something wrong in the economy, which again no one would deny, but also that they constituted as it were one of the main causes. I have no doubt that the spectacle of the rising prices of land and real property is a cause of irritation and disquiet and may contribute to the general atmosphere of mutual distrust which makes grown-up and amicable discussion of these matters very difficult. I have no doubt also that there may be elements in the tax system favourable to an increase of demand in certain parts of the market for real estate. But, in the main, I suggest that to diagnose the rising prices of real property, or indeed of durable goods in general, as being one of the origins of the recent acceleration of the decline in the value of money is an absolutely classic case of mistaking effects for causes.
There is, of course, a certain amount of speculation in the narrow sense of the word—professional people cleverly attuned to the tendencies of the market making a "bob" or two now and then—but I would be so hold as to say that, viewing the economy as a whole, the effect of this speculation in the narrow sense is quite negligible when compared with the effect of the surge into goods caused by the expectation of still rising prices. The fact is that one cannot fool all the people all of the time and that although at the beginning of the post-war period the decline in the value of money was not so perceptible, except to people living on fixed incomes, as to cause serious alarm—one shrugged one's shoulders and said, "It all comes out in the wash and a little of that does not do much harm"—people are now aware that something serious is happening. This inclines men's minds, be they rich or poor, to seek some more stable repository for whatever they have.
What the Government have been doing—perhaps I should not refer solely to the Government but should widen the indictment and say what those who rule over us have been doing—in the last decade is to turn most of us into "bulls" in real things and "bears" in money; and to indicate the results of this sort of market movement as being one of the causes of what is happening seems to be as futile as if, when sticking a

1071
thermometer into a bowl of boiling water, one says, "What a wonderful heater it is!"
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, began with what I understood to be a defence of what is happening to land prices. He then suddenly left that subject for a number of others, and the last thing I heard him say about land prices, if I remember rightly, was that they are not the cause of other things happening. Knowing much about the noble Lord and how he began, may I ask him to return to the point at which he lost himself in his notes and explain why what is happening to land prices is not a major factor in what is happening to other prices?
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, it was extremely kind of the noble Lord to suggest that I had lost my way in my argument. In fact, although as noble Lords can see I am speaking without great reference to notes, I have followed quite closely what I intended to say. If the noble Lord wishes me to expatiate a little further on that point—
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: Yes, please.
LORD ROBBINS:—I will give him an example. I know a youngish couple who came into a very few thousand pounds only a month or two ago. What did they do? Did they buy Savings Certificates or Savings Bonds? No. Did they go to some sober stockbroker and ask for a selected bunch, even of equities, which would perhaps maintain the value of the money they had come into? No. At the weekend they got into a car with their young family and they sallied forth into a part of the country where they thought that land prices had not risen as much as elsewhere because they felt confident that there, at any rate, they would have something which, in default of a total social revolution, might have some chance of keeping its value. That is what I am saying. The general bearishness with regard to money that is driving us all into goods and land is simply the leading species of a large genus.
What then can I say regarding the causes of inflation? As the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, has said this is a very com-
1072
plicated matter indeed. Inflation can come on the demand side from increased spending by individuals or, what is much more likely, by Governments. It can come, too, on the cost side as a result of demands for increased emoluments at a high or low level, such demands influencing costs and eventually influencing prices. In the last twenty years many influences have been operative and I am sure that, if we were to get down to details, those of us who, like the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, and myself, have devoted a good deal of time to studying these matters would still find ourselves in some state of disagreement about the interpretation of particular phases. There certainly was a time when Lord Balogh was insisting—perhaps rightly—more on the cost-push element when I was insisting on the existence of forces on the demand side. That is still a matter for detailed investigation, and I know of only one book that I would recommend to your Lordships—and it is now many years out of date—which, to my way of thinking, represents a scientific investigation of the problem.
But, my Lords—and this is the point I want to make—none of these influences could operate as they have operated unless there was undue elasticity of the credit base. Spending would not increase for long unless the money supply was increasing at a rate disproportionate to the increase in productivity. Firms could not put up prices effectively in order to meet increased costs unless there was plenty of money about; and that has been the state of affairs during the last few years. To explain the contemporary rates of inflation without mentioning that is to get one's explanation completely out of perspective. When I hear minute discussion of this and that social evil—and there is usually something wrong somewhere, even if it is only the weather—adduced as explanations of the main evil from which we are suffering on this side, without mentioning the increase in the credit base, I am reminded of the parable of the American who could see the fly on the barn door but could not see the barn door itself.
I suggest that what I am talking about now is something that is very serious. How increases in the money supply affect prices is clearly a matter of great difficulty, and one about which professional

1073
opinion is by no means united, even at the present day. But confronted with the vast increases of the last few years, these differences are nothing—they are dust in the balance. Since the last months of the Labour Government the increases of the credit base have been such that it would be a miracle if there were not inflation. Over 20 per cent., as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, reminded us, with present growth rates is just a recipe for trouble; and when the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, the other day, in a question to the noble Earl, the Lord Privy Seal, pointed out the rate at which the present deficit is running (which may easily amount to £4,000 million, or something like that) it is very difficult to understand the frame of mind which questions it as a cause, or the frame of mind which continues to permit it. It is no exaggeration to say that at the present time present measures are not successful. We are in a position reminiscent of the beginning of the great Continental inflations of this century. To my way of thinking it is incredible that Ministers are not more alarmed than they allow themselves to appear in public.
If that is so, my Lords—and I am putting this question dispassionately at the moment and not as necessarily representing my own view—is not the obvious cure to stop the excess increase, to decree forthwith that the rate of increase of money supply shall not be greater than the anticipations of increased productivity; or, perhaps to allow just a little elbow room for such degree of secular inflation as may relax the grip of the rentier and not do a great deal of harm to anybody within the lifetime of any person who is now aged, let us say, 35. That rhetorical recommendation is of course the serious recommendation of some, the serious recommendation of the extreme monetarists, the sort of overtone which emerges when Mr. Enoch Powell makes one of these monolithic pronouncements on the principles of economic liberalism, which, I will confess to your Lordships in this House, usually make me want to stand on a chair and sing "The Red Flag". Alas! I do not think that things are as easy as the Powellite pronouncements would suggest. I do not deny—and I believe that in this I could carry the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, with me—that inflation might be stopped by violent measures of this sort; but much else would be stopped as well.
1074
These are controversial matters, but, speaking personally, I have no doubt at all that, with so many expectations in the economy geared up to continuing inflation at rates which have been prevalent in recent years, to put on the brakes as suddenly as that, with no other accompanying measures, would precipitate unemployment and stagnation of a kind not witnessed since the war. I suggest that all economic history bears out that view. When has a great inflation been stopped by purely monetary measures without precipitating difficulties of that sort at the same time? This is, if you like, a middle-period judgment. In the end one might hope that the machine will start again. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. But in the meantime, how much suffering, how much social division and how much chaos will be engendered! It is for that reason, my Lords, and not because I have very great enthusiasm, or indeed confidence, that I support the Bill now before your Lordships' House. I have no illusions about freezes. I have no illusions about more complicated measures operating directly on prices and incomes. Freezes tend to disintegrate; people find a way round. Orthodox prices and incomes measures tend to be ineffective in the long run. But in the situation in which we find ourselves now, these measures, I submit, are the main hope of a diminution of the rate of increase of money supply without an undue check to growth and employment. If nothing is done, either we get catastrophic depreciation or we get catastrophic unemployment. The justification for the measure which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has laid before the House this afternoon, with all its possible imperfections, is that it affords a breathing space in which to think out better ways of procedure.
I will conclude with this point. I do not think that this policy is going to be at all easy. I have little hope myself that 90 days will be sufficient to devise measures which will lead us into the new Jerusalem, or even perhaps 150 days. The frame of mind of some people—some of them friends of mine—who believe that after this period of freeze it will be possible just to relax into a free-for-all, much as I should like to agree with them, unregenerate economic liberal though I may be, seems to me to be an entirely unreal one. There is too

1075
great a head of inflationary steam in the economy for us to get out of our troubles as quickly as that. So I personally am convinced that when the freeze comes to an end there will still need to be some measures of control for some time. I retain the view that in a more rational atmosphere control of aggregate expenditure via some combination of control of money and the Budget, such control being directed to maintaining the increase of aggregate expenditure more or less in line with the increase in anticipated productivity, is the ideal. But I doubt whether a state of affairs which would permit reliance alone on that kind of policy is likely to come quickly.
So what is to happen? I confess that at this stage I become very puzzled. I listened with great respect to the speeches which preceded mine. I agree in principle, needless to say, with the sentiment expressed by Lord Diamond, that we must create an atmosphere in which it is felt by a sufficient number of people that there is fairness and justice all round. But we are a very long way, even among ourselves, from agreeing on what degree of fairness and justice can be expected at this time in history in this imperfect world. Take, for instance, the proposal of the Prime Minister which was unacceptable in the negotiations, that there should be just a flat rate of increase so far as all incomes are concerned. I doubt very much whether a proposal of that sort, or a proposal perhaps permitting a slightly easier position for the higher incomes, would be immediately acceptable to, let us say, Mr. Clive Jenkins. The fight for relativities is quite as strong a social force as the fight on the part of more disinterested people for fairness and justice. And in the main I must say I am inclined to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that when it is a question of helping the lower paid (apart from the question of abolishing structural imperfections such as the abominable restrictions on women's employment, with which she knows I am heartily in favour of what she has in mind) the best way is through revision of taxation rather than overmuch distortion of the labour market itself.
My Lords, I must not go on. I conclude that we have to do a lot of open-minded thinking on Stage 2, and that
1076
most suggestions which have been made up to date, particularly the suggestions to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, drew our attention, of totally centralised wage fixing, à la Clegg Mark IV, to use Lord Balogh's phrase, are not the most hopeful way. The one thing of which I am certain is that if steps are not taken to reduce deficit spending and the rate of increase of money supply no policy, however ethically enlightened, is likely to succeed; the money will get out somehow. The second point on which I am also clear is that if there is no restraint on the increase of incomes then a reduction of expenditure will lead to a degree of unemployment which will cause us all grave anxiety. Therefore, if this Motion is pressed to a Division, which I hope it will not be, I shall vote for the Bill with the melancholy with which one votes for a pis aller.
5.8 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, this debate has become rather alarmingly professional; I am following a former Chief Secretary of the Treasury and three distinguished economists, and I am tempted in a kind of defensive frivolity to say that I hope the Government have rubbed their Aladdin's lamp and before this debate ends the Gini co-efficient will arrive, speeding along the M.3, and we shall have the benefit of his wisdom. This Bill itself is of limited importance; it is a stop-gap measure with a very brief expectation of life, and like all stop-gap measures its justice is a pretty rough justice. The cries of disappointment and frustration extend from the farmworkers to the provincial journalists who are members of the trade union to which I belong. And the answer to these cries, of course, perhaps a fairly satisfactory answer, is that if the Government had continued on the path along which they were going it might have meant even rougher justice for a larger minority who lack the bargaining power or the resources to hedge themselves against inflation. I think that the real importance of this Bill is largely symbolic—symbolic of the Government's complete change of front. The analogy used by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, from the other side, was that a U-turn has been made by the Government, and often in politics such turns are an excuse for ribald comment among the Opposition. But not to-day.

1077
Throughout most of the two and a half years this Government have held office noble Lords in all parts of the House have been urging them to take a different economic and industrial course. For it was obvious long ago, if not to the Government, that the direction in which they were travelling at ever-increasing speed was leading them inexorably to a minefield. It is months, however, since it became obvious that the Government were cautiously applying the brakes—not to the inflation itself but to the harsh policies of confrontation, on which they had so rashly embarked at the beginning of their spell of power. Now there is an attempted return to consensus politics, and we must welcome it, even if we can achieve only the kind of wry smile which perhaps Mr. Macmillan and the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, must now be wearing—and they are two of the wryest smilers that I know.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? Surely it would not be quite true to say that the Opposition Peers have, ever since June, 1970, advocated an incomes policy on the lines which they themselves abandoned at the end of 1969. It would not have been logical to start advocating that six months after they had abandoned it.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, collectively they have not done so; but I have a distinct impression that from time to time there have been individual voices from that side of the House which have been advocating some kind of voluntary incomes policy.
We must welcome the change, first because we must be concerned with the national interest, and secondly because the next Labour Government do not want to spend their period of office dealing with either of the legacies they might have inherited—the burning chaos of inflation, or the cold chaos which would result from the alternative remedy, the savage remedy of severe deflation. Labour spent too many anguished years in their last period of power coping with the legacy left by the Sir Alec Douglas-Home Administration, engaged on the ungrateful task of getting the balance of payments right and so having to forgo many of the things that a Socialist Government want to do. Once
1078
in a lifetime is enough of that kind of experience. But we should be happy if our next legacy were only half as good as that which we bequeathed the present Government and which they have largely squandered.
Of course, my Lords, the outline of the Government's new policy is one which many of us would find it very difficult not to accept: the pursuit of growth, full employment and stable money, with special concern for the poorly paid. What one doubts, however, is the Government's capacity to achieve all this. It is extremely difficult in itself, formidably difficult; but in addition they are carrying the burden of their own past, and they are carrying a Party which is by no means united in the means which the Government have decided to employ and of which this Bill is a precursor. As the debate in the other place showed, and as the elections to the offices of the 1922 Committee also revealed, there is something like a "True Blue" backlash at hand, and perhaps last night's vote in another place may be only the first of a series of policy revolts which could involve the prices and incomes policy on which the Government are now embarked.
The national dilemma which the Government are beginning to face was very well described only yesterday by Sir Frank Figgures, the Director-General of the National Economic Development Office. He said that for years we have had three economic objectives: a more satisfactory rate of growth so that we can improve living standards; reasonable stability of purchasing power because without it confidence will be destroyed; and a satisfactory level of activity—which means a satisfactory level of employment—because we cannot achieve a higher standard of living for everyone if a large part of our resources are idle. But everything that has been tried to achieve these gaols has had only the most limited success. We have been unable to obtain all three objectives at the same time. We can stabilise money, but at great cost in terms of employment and growth. We can get growth and high employment, but at great cost in terms of inflation. Now we are beginning to recognise, as Sir Frank said, that in our society it is beyond the power of Government to achieve, in the long term, all these three objectives without the co-operation of

1079
those who have the power to fix the level of incomes and prices. I do not, however, go so far as Sir Frank in saying that this requires,
"a move towards tripartite management of the economy."
"Management" is a very strong word. We are still, and we must remain, a Parliamentary democracy. Indeed, it would be putting far too great a strain on either the C.B.I. or the T.U.C. to involve them in anything so formal or so rigid as "management", but what we certainly need is some kind of tripartite consensus. Can the Government get it?
This is a rather odd Bill. It is an emergency Bill which has been made necessary because an emergency agreement could not be reached at the Downing Street talks. But what is to happen next? Sometimes, as my noble friend said, the 90-day period of grace which the Bill is designed to give is described as the time needed to work out new legislation. One hopes that it is a good deal more than this; that the Government are not simply getting the draftsmen to work on the final offer—if offer there was—in those rather mysterious Downing Street talks. I hope that their energies will be spent in getting the policy right rather than on the problems of legislative form.
The accounts of a disappointing meeting of the T.U.C. yesterday are rather varied, but I should be astonished if the T.U.C. were to refuse a further invitation from No. 10, if sent at the right time and in the right spirit. It looks as if the T.U.C., though reluctant to enter tripartite talks, might be happy to talk with the Government alone. This is not to suggest that there is any bad blood between the T.U.C. and the C.B.I.; but there is a substantial difference in outlook, and it might be more easily resolved by the Government's talking separately to the parties. It is perhaps too much to hope that even in the end the three parties will be able to reach a meaningful agreement, but what might be hoped for is the next best thing—a meaningless disagreement. Because if it is to work, as my noble friend said at greater length, a prices and incomes system, even when backed by law, must not be totally unacceptable to large masses of people.
1080
If there is to be a consensus, the Government have to do a lot more hard thinking about prices, about rents, about taxation, and about land. I am sorry that my noble friend who assumed the leadership of the Liberal Party is not here to back me up on that. Fortunately, however, 90 days brings us nearer to the time of the Budget, and will give the Chancellor of the Exchequer a natural opportunity to show that the Government have turned their backs on the past. For example, even after the concessions that he made last year, there are still many people, poor by the rather high average standard of to-day, who are paying income tax. They ought to be taken out of the direct taxation system. In fact, the first step towards tax credits should be to stop levying income tax on the comparatively poor.
My Lords, if this harsh, rather crude Bill can be accepted, it is simply because, in the end, the present Government had left themselves no alternative way of getting out of difficulties which they ought to have tackled long before. Although there may be joy in Heaven more over the one sinner that repenteth than over the famous ninety "just" persons which need no repentance, the Government must not expect too much from us here below. If they want to know why our trumpets are a little muted to-day and our harps are silent, all they have to do is look at what they have said and done over the past two and a half years.
5.20 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long, but I want to make a brief intervention on only one point. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, quite rightly pointed out that this Bill is solely a holding operation, working for 90 days or, at the most, 150 days, and during that time it is essential that the correct atmosphere should be created so that the right policy can then be implemented—two things: think out the policy and create the atmosphere to make it possible. I want to talk only about the atmosphere. Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Beswick in a notable speech a short while ago, have pointed out the overriding importance of creating a feeling of fairness and social justice before this problem can in any way be solved. Before there can be

1081
any form either of voluntary restraint which is effective, or legislated restraint which is effective, the people of the country as a whole must be in favour of it. I think there is common agreement that the people who are hardest hit by our present inflation are those who are economically the weakest; in other words, the pensioners and those who receive the lowest wages. The pensioners have been helped in a meagre way, but at least they have received some help, by the £10 Christmas Box—not sufficient in the view of many of us, but at least it is a gesture.
Prominent among the lowest paid are the farm workers of this country. Their present wage—£16·20 for a 42-hour week—is way down at the bottom of the scale. It is not very easy to live on a wage of that sort at the present time, and the recent rise in the cost of food falls heaviest upon the farm worker and his wife and family. Not only that, my Lords; although the farm worker is down at the bottom of the scale when it comes to wages, he is way up at the top of the scale when it comes to increase in productivity, and right at the very top of the scale when it comes to his record of strikes. No farm worker strikes at all. Yet these people, having been granted by the Agricultural Wages Board a rise of approximately 20 per cent.—something over £3 a week—bringing them up to about £20 a week to take effect from January 22, are caught by this wages freeze. An action of that sort cannot lead to a feeling among workers as a whole, among the country as a whole, that this policy is being pursued with fairness and with justice.
Just look, without going into enormous detail, at some of the figures. What would this 20 per cent. rise mean, in terms of the country as a whole, to the cost of food and to the cost of living? By and large, one can say that the cost of home food production is divided into various sectors of which wages take up about 15 per cent. Therefore, a 20 per cent. rise in wages would result in somewhat less than a 3 per cent. rise in the cost of food at the farm gate, if it were passed on entirely. But the price of food at the farm gate is less than half the price of food in the shops, so that, when it gets into the shops and the housewife has to "fork out" for it, instead of the rise being 3 per cent. it would be something under 1½ per cent. But
1082
home-grown food is only about 60 per cent. of our total food purchases, so the figure of between 1 per cent. and 1½ per cent. is further reduced to something between ½per cent. and 1 per cent. That is the effect that the rise would have over a whole year on the cost of food to the consumers of this country, and although I do not know exactly what proportion the cost of food is of the total cost of living, I have it in mind that it is something of the order of 20 per cent. So one can say that although this rise to the farm worker is minimal in its effect upon the cost of living, it is, if not maximal, at least extremely important in its effect upon people as a whole, to show that the Government are trying to pursue a policy of justice and compassion.
There is one further point, my Lords. As I said, this increased wage awarded by the Agricultural Wages Board to the farm worker is due to come into effect on January 22; in other words, if it were allowed by the Government, it would pre-date the end of the freeze by a matter of only a few weeks. Surely, for that insignificant effect upon the country as a whole, it is worth allowing it. It would create an enormous fund of good will, not only among farm workers but throughout the whole country, and would give a real earnest of the intention of the Government to treat those with lowest pay in a fair manner. I have talked only about farm workers, because they are the ones I know best, but I know that there are other workers whose wages fall below £20 a week. I would strongly urge upon the Government that in the passage of this Bill through this House very serious attention is given to the exemption from this restraint of all workers' wages which fall below the £20 limit, so that all of them can at least go up to that low level to enable them to meet the great hardships which the present sharp rise in the cost of living as a whole, and in the cost of food in particular, is having upon those poorest paid families.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I take up something the noble Lord said? I think it is a point which I have taken up with him earlier. I quite agree that we should do everything we can to help the farm workers, but it is not strictly fair

1083
to say that they have only £16·20 a week. As the noble Lord knows perfectly well, if you are prepared to pay your farm workers only £16·20 a week you will not get any farm workers. Furthermore, they have the advantage of a free house, they have all sorts of other perquisites, they usually get free milk, and they get free potatoes and free fuel. It is always the minimum wage which is quoted, but very few employers—and, certainly, no employers in my experience—ever pay the minimum wage. I just wanted to make that point, but I quite agree with the noble Lord in his sentiments that we should help the farm worker.
5.28 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is possible to argue that the sooner this Bill gets on to the Statute Book, the sooner we begin to tick off the 90 days, the sooner we get down to a real policy, the better it will be for Britain. That is the argument, as I understand it, which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, put forward at the beginning of his speech. But there are also arguments for the proposition that even a temporary piece of legislation ought to have regard for the human beings that it affects, and ought to make more than a little effort to observe principles of fairness.
This legislation will have a life that is nasty, brutish and short, and I do not believe that it is sufficient excuse for the first two of those qualities that it also includes the third. Moreover, its short existence can so sour the atmosphere that agreement on a longer term policy will be made more difficult, if not impossible. That is probably the biggest single criticism that can be made against this Bill. What matters is not only the substance of the Bill but, as my noble friend Lord Diamond said, the manner in which it is being pushed through the Parliamentary processes. The guillotine was brought out again in the other House. Here we have more sophisticated but equally effective means of stifling constructive discussion. Again, as with the European Communities Bill, we have a Government timetable which means that no Amendments can be accepted, and I should be interested to know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would challenge that statement. I say that the
1084
timetable which has been laid down by the Government for the passage of the Bill will not enable us to amend it in any way.
I wonder whether the Lord Chancellor realises the damage that is being done—the deep damage that is being done—to our Parliamentary institutions. It may well be (and I hope some of my very good friends will excuse me if I put it in this way) that there are some who believe that Parliament has fulfilled its historical role and that now we have to leave decisions to some elitist bureaucracy in a suitably removed capital on the Continent. But they may well be mistaken. It may well be that Parliament will have the last say in this and in other matters. As my noble friend Lord Ardwick said, the decision of yesterday can be a very significant decision. I refer to the defeat which the Government experienced in the other place. That was on a particular issue, but I do not believe that it was that issue alone which caused the revolt in the other place. There is beginning to simmer a feeling that we are being asked as a Parliamentary institution to push through legislation without proper consideration, and that goes for this important, even if temporary, little Bill.
My Lords, I do not wish to go over the ground which we covered in the economic debate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, but one point was made in that debate which the Lord Chancellor sought to answer but which I submit he failed to answer, and which I think the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who was called in aid by the Lord Chancellor on the previous occasion, raised again to-day. I We have said, and said repeatedly—and we have advanced a certain amount of argument to support our case—that you cannot pin the blame for inflation upon a single factor, and it is certainly wrong to try to pin it upon wage claims alone. We have said that it is wrong to seek a solution on the wages front alone, and we have referred to other inflationary elements, including increased rents and land prices. In the previous debate, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor excused himself from dealing with this issue alone because he said that no specific reference was made to it in the Amendment to the humble Address, which

1085
I moved. He further said, I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, that in any case I had devoted only a paragraph to it, although to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, says it appears that we are pinning our whole case upon the problem of land prices.
My Lords, we have never said this. But we do say that it is wrong when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack says that the land price problem would be cured if inflation could be curbed, as if the speculation in land can be separated from the problem of inflation. The noble and learned Lord actually said, and the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, comes very near to saying it, that you have to curb inflation first. We would say that at this stage all the factors detailed by my noble friend Lord Diamond are both causes and effects.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I do not wish to enter into argument with the noble Lord on that point, but I should like to put this question to him. Would he assert that, if the general level of prices had behaved in such a way as to maintain a fairly constant value of money, there would be any likelihood at all that land prices would have risen by a fraction of the amount by which they have risen?
LORD BESWICK: Of course they would not, my Lords. But we have now reached the stage when we do not have anything approaching a constant value of money, and one reacts upon the other. It is rather like the story I once heard of hounds chasing a fox round a coppice. It was said that they were chasing round so fast that at times, said an observer, it was impossible to determine whether the hounds were chasing the fox or the fox was chasing the hounds. All these factors now react one upon the other. That is what we are saying; and we are saying it is wrong to isolate one, as this Bill does—and it does not even isolate it very efficiently, as I shall endeavour to show—and say that it is this factor which we have to cure.
I would say further to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and I say it with some feeling because I get a little—I was about to say "a little tired" of it at times, but at any rate a little exasperated at times when we have these lectures from economists who do not appear (and I say this to him as kindly as I can) to understand
1086
human nature. They do not seem to understand that all these economic factor, are affected by the necessarily unpredictable behaviour of human beings, and unless we take this human factor into account we shall not solve this problem of inflation.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I certainly would not pretend to understand human nature in all its amplitude, but before I made my remarks on certain respresentations which had been made from his Bench I said that I fully appreciated that the spectacle of rising prices of real property caused irritation and aggravated the atmosphere in which other questions were discussed. I am sure that if the noble Lord will look at Hansard he will see that, and then perhaps his feelings towards me will resume their normal level of kindliness.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have no need to refer to Hansard because I remember very clearly what the noble Lord said. He did, I agree, make this reference, but the burden of his speech was that one had to turn to other factors. "Something called inflation" is how the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack put it in the last debate; and what I am trying to say is that we cannot accept that the money supply alone, and certainly not the wage demands alone, can be isolated from other manifestations of the problem with which we have to deal. As the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, said, an incomes policy is needed, but it is only feasible if we deal with a wide range of other social factors. That is what I believe, and that is what we are trying to put over to the Government.
My Lords, there is a good deal of evidence which suggests that if these other factors, including land prices, had been brought into the Downing Street discussions we might well have got a voluntary agreement. It is a sad fact that the goodwill which was there on the trade union side has been dissipated or frustrated by the Government. No one can say that the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress has not shown himself ready to be constructive. It is said that there are others among the leaders of the big unions who are less cooperative than Mr. Feather, but I doubt whether this is fair. Consider what Mr.

1087
Jack Jones has said. He is reported in the Financial Times of November 9 as saying that,
"The T.U.C. had gone into the talks 'warily but not cynically … '",
and that
"The unions had wanted an understanding …"
Then, again, when he was addressing the Press Gallery here, he said:
"We are as concerned as anyone to grapple with inflation,"
but he explained that
"if it involves further talks about package deals, certainly it must be understood that the trade unionists cannot negotiate about wages or even prices in isolation"—
and this is a factor which will have to be driven home and which will have to be taken into account on phase two.
I quote one other remark which Mr. Jack Jones made in that same speech on November 8. I was rather moved by this, because I thought it gave an indication of the sort of forces which could be liberated if we had the right policy from the Government. He said, among other things, that something more decisive had to be done on pensions. Then he went on to say:
"I would have been ready to tramp the country asking for sacrifices to meet that demand and I believe responsible, ordinary working men and women would have been overwhelmingly in favour."
That is the kind of spirit that we must generate in this country, the kind of spirit shown by the leader of one of the biggest trade unions when he says that he is prepared to mobilise the working people of this country to make sacrifices if they believe them to be in furtherance of a policy which shows signs of being fair.
My Lords, I go on record as saying—I have made this speech before, and will not enlarge upon it—that so far it seems that the Government are not capable of understanding the importance, if not the overriding considerations, of the human factor as against the narrower economic theory. I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack even understands the economic theory on some of these matters. I come to that judgment on the basis of what he said in the last debate. I said that I would return to it. In the last debate he
1088
made the case—and I listened with great interest—that in the lifetime of the present Government there had been a considerable increase in the disposable income of the ordinary wage-earner in this country. He argued in some detail—and he was good enough subsequently to send me the statistics on which he based his argument—that the average income had gone up far faster under the Conservative Government than under the previous Labour Administration.
Then, having convinced himself that this was true, that the disposable income (and therefore, presumably, the standard of life) of the average wage-earner had gone up in this way, in another part of his speech he argued with equal conviction that the real trouble was that wage demands had been going up so much faster in recent years and had become intolerably high. But, my Lords, it was precisely because these wage demands had gone up that he was able to claim that the disposable income was higher. It seems to me that if that is the basis of the economic judgments of this Government there is something left to be desired.
My Lords, may I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, that we do not say, and have never said, that land prices are the main cause of the current inflation. There are a whole range of social and economic factors. Our criticism of this Bill is that, crudely and unfairly, it seeks to deal with too limited an area of trouble. It deals with some prices; but not with all. It does not deal with the range of prices with which the housewife is most concerned; namely, food prices. It does not deal with council house rents. It deals with some incomes; but it does not deal with all incomes. It does not deal with the incomes which go to the better-off section of the community. Clause 3(3) enables most of the comfortably off to escape the consequences of the freeze; and I hope we can do something to deal with that subsection. The Bill does nothing to touch those who live on capital appreciation.
It is true that while it is limited in the main body of the Bill—and this is a point that I tried to raise with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—it gives extraordinary powers to the Government "in the small

1089
print" of the Schedule. Paragraph 1(1) states:
"An order or notice under section 2 of this Act may be framed in any way whatsoever, may prescribe any method of comparing prices, charges, rates of remuneration, dividends or rents …"
I repeat that it states:
"An order or notice under section 2 of this Act may be framed in any way whatsoever, …"
That is an extraordinary range of powers to give to a Government—almost as an afterthought in the Schedule to the Bill.
Again, in paragraph 4(1) it is stated:
"This Act, and any provision made under this Act, shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other Act or statutory provision passed or made before this Act."
May I ask the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack whether he will be good enough to tell us if this really means what it says? Is it really the case that in a Bill which is being rushed through in a few days in the other place under the guillotine, and here in a week or so, that we are being asked to give power to the Government to make a provision under its quite wide powers that will upset anything in any other Act or statutory provision passed or made before this Act? A little while ago we spent a certain amount of time discussing the European Communities Bill. May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether the power in paragraph 4(1) of the Schedule really gives authority, legal power, to the Government to upset any provision which is included in the European Communities Bill? I cannot really think that this kind of legislation should go through in this kind of hurry.
We shall not vote against the Second Reading because our practice is not to vote against Second Readings in this House; but we shall invite noble Lords (including the noble Lord, Lord Robbins) to join with us in amending it on Committee stage. I hope that on this occasion, as against earlier occasions, the Government will be ready to listen to the arguments that we put forward.
5.47 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, when it was discussed who would reply to this debate all my colleagues said that this is a Bill which will raise a great number of legal problems. This was not my view; and I think I may claim that I
1090
have turned out to be right. However, they were so convinced that it would raise a great number of legal problems that they insisted that the Lord Chancellor should reply to the debate; so he is replying to the debate in his own fashion and with the limitations of knowledge that he possesses.
As a matter of fact, I have been asked only two legal questions. The first was addressed to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, and was about the meaning of the word "influence" in Clause 5(2). The question was put by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I can only draw his attention to what the draftsman has evidently been doing. The great art of draftsmanship is plagiarism. If the noble Lord will look at subsection (4) of Section 16 of the Act of 1966, which was passed by the Government of which he was an ornament and in which the meaning of the word "influence" must have been at least apparent to them then, he will see that the draftsman has mutatis mutandis quoted the clause exactly. I suggest that the word has its dictionary meaning. Its ultimate meaning will be for the courts to decide.
The fact is that most of this debate has really been, if not a repetition, at least a prolongation of the debate we held only ten days ago on the Opposition Amendment to the Queen's Speech. I think that I said on that occasion everything I was disposed to say about the matters that were then raised. We are now faced with a Bill which imposes a standstill, a standstill that we believe to be necessary in the national interest and a standstill that we believe it to be necessary to put upon the Statute Book in the national interest at the earliest possible moment in order for it to be effective. If it is not put on the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment it will not be effective; the mice will get at it; and we are determined that that shall not be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, suggested that we were doing a great deal of harm to Parliamentary government by legislating in this way. But he failed to suggest any alternative to what we were doing, and I venture to put before him the view, which I myself hold rather strongly, after 35 years experience in Parliament—even longer I think than his very long experience in

1091
Parliament—that Parliamentary institutions do themselves more harm by dithering than they do by acting. And on occasions of national danger, and danger to the national interest, dithering is a far more dangerous fault than acting quickly and firmly. My view, for what it is worth—and it is held sincerely—is that national interest and the urgency of the matter takes precedence over legislative perfection, the ideal for which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, with his customary force is doubtless contending. However, that is a matter of opinion. I hold it strongly, but I would go there with the noble Lord, Lord Robbins.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord, are we to deduce from this that he is saying that it would not be possible to contemplate an amendment of this Bill because of the time factor?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am prepared to contemplate anything, even including Amendments, if they will assist the national interest. But any Amendments proposed by the noble Lord in the national interest must be judged by that standard, and they will be judged by the standard which I have endeavoured to state.
Now, my Lords, it being the case that nobody has suggested an alternative, and nobody has suggested that the matter is not urgent, I suggest it is not merely a question of not voting against the Bill because, as a matter of high constitutional principle the Labour Party do not vote against Second Readings; it is a question of not voting against the Bill because they know that it is necessary, and that is a very different reason from that which the noble Lord adduced at the end of his speech. There is one thing that the noble Lord forbore to say. I agree with him that a standstill of any kind causes injustice between man and man. Some people just get through the gate; the gate shuts without any justice in it at a particular moment of time and excludes other people. But what the noble Lord did not say was that we have chosen, very much against our will, to utilise a weapon as part of our ad hoc legislation which was enacted permanently on the Statute Book by the Statute of 1966 of the Government of which he was a Mem-
1092
ber. And if it was right for them, in a moment of national danger, to make permanent provision for a standstill, I do not think that they are really doing themselves justice by uttering too many ululations about the hardship which a standstill imposes between man and man.
My Lords, I debated the question of fairness in the Amendment to the Queen's speech. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, debated the question of fairness in the Amendment to the Queen's speech. He made no attempt whatever either to refer to, or in any way criticise, my argument. We all agreed that during this period of standstill we must look for a consensus which is fair. But we must take account of each other's ideas of fairness, and I could see not the smallest trace in what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said that he was willing to take the smallest account of any conception of fairness except his own. Nor did he refer to the fact, nor would anyone, I think, infer from his speech or from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that, as I pointed out during the last part of the debate on the Queen's speech, the earnings of the average wage-earner have risen very much more quickly, in terms of real income, than they did during the Labour Government; and if one chooses to take the lower-paid worker—that is to say, the lowest-paid worker trying to live on £15 a week—I am told that the figure has been going up twice as fast in that period as for people with a more comfortable income.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord realise that his Government also "blued" £1,000 million pounds export surplus, and that, on that basis—"blueing" in a year £1,000 million export surplus—anybody can produce a little prosperity?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to know exactly where I stand in this matter. I was answering the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. He was not arguing, as the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, seems to be, that this was all done by the mirrors of export surplus. That is another general subject which again has nothing to do with this Bill. What the Front Bench of the Labour Party was seeking to do was to accuse us of not benefiting the lower paid worker; and that is factually incorrect. That was

1093
the only point I was on; it was the only point, I think, which has immediate relationship to the subject matter of this Bill.
Perhaps I should answer one or two of the other points made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I do not think that this particular member of the Government is the person to let the "Gini" out of the bottle: my second name is not "Aladdin". I cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, if he wants this particular piece of esoteric information, cannot put down a Question; when no doubt he will be given an Answer. If the matter has not been published that is the right way to do it in relation to Treasury information. If it has been published, perhaps it is that he is only trying to catch me out. If so, the noble Lord succeeded, because I had never heard of the Gini coefficient until he told me about it, I think last time. At any rate, what I am told about it by those who know more about it than I do is that this is a very crude statistic since very different distributions between groups are consistent with the same value of the coefficient. Nevertheless, what I am told is that, for what they are worth, the latest figures show that the inequality of wealth, measured on this basis, has declined steadily since 1961, and the figures for wealth are published annually in Social Trends.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord again, but the Gini coefficient does not refer to wealth at all; it refers to incomes—a very different matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that only goes to show how foolish I was to try to answer Lord Diamond's question. I shall have to refer the noble Lord to my advisers. I do not intend to indulge in a dispute with him about matters which I am not fully equipped to handle. But I have given him the best information at my disposal, which evidently does not meet with his approval. I will only say that, as a matter of fact, there is a substantial body of informed opinion which does not agree with him and then I will stand down.
My Lords, I do not think we intended to say that inflation has only one cause.
1094
I do not think anyone has suggested that. I do not know how many noble Lords read the rather remarkable speech (I may not quote from it, owing to our rules of order) of my right honourable friend and former colleague, Mr. Reginald Maudling, on Second Reading of this Bill in another place, but he seemed to argue on these lines. You have to make up your mind in relation to a particular bout of inflation whether it is a cost push or a demand pull. He said that it was cost push, and I fancy, without committing myself to another bout of exchanges with the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, that I am in the same camp as my right honourable friend. He went on to say, as indeed The Times (which I think is slightly independent of him, even now) had also said in its leading article, that the cause of the cost push inflation, in so far as it might be said to be a major cause, was the monopoly powers of the unions. Again I expressed my own opinion about that last time. There is at any rate a respectable body of opinion that would say that the speeches from the Front Bench opposite, in which this fact was either obscured or denied, were really nothing more than a smokescreen if those be the true views they hold.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said—and I agree with him absolutely—that people have to recognise that organised labour is one of the main Estates of the Realm. But I think organised labour must realise, as this House has had to realise at one time or another in its long history, that you cannot have it all your own way all the time. If you are going to ask to enter into discussions—and there is nobody who wants that more than the Government—you must be prepared some of the time to make concessions of your own; to recognise that there are other Estates of the Realm besides yourself; and to recognise that the immense inconvenience and damage to the public which can be imposed by a relatively small group of people is something which other people have to bear, and is a weapon which should be invoked only when the gain to be gained is commensurate with it. I think that a number of people who had to walk to work this morning might well be reading Lord Diamond's speech tomorrow with rather a wry smile.

1095
One must recognise, my Lords, that in this world there has to be a little give-and-take. So far, I have not seen from the Opposition Bench the smallest recognition of the fact that we speak for a very large number of people; that we are very eager to enter into discussions again; and the reason why the discussions were broken off some days ago—a result which we deeply regret—was that it was said by one party that our proposals, which had originally met with the warmest praise from Mr. Victor Feather, were not even worthy to be treated as a basis for further talk. That being so, I do not know that I need say much more in reply to the speeches about the freeze. No case has been made against this Bill. Few, if any, legal points have arisen on its draftsmanship, and those, I feel, can be dealt with in Committee. I think that the House ought to be in a position to be ready to come to a conclusion.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING (PAYMENTS FOR WELL MAINTAINED HOUSES) ORDER 1972
6.3 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON rose to move, That the Housing (Payments for Well Maintained Houses) Order 1972, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this instrument, when in force, will double the amount payable when an unfit house, being proceeded against by a local authority, has been well maintained. The increase was heralded in the White Paper Development and Compensation—Putting People First. It has been a long-established principle, supported by every Government since 1919, that the structure of a house condemned as unfit is worthless, and that consequently when such a house is compulsorily acquired for demolition, compensation should be restricted to the value of the site cleared of buildings.
Over the years, however, we have seen the introduction of additional payments when unfit houses have had action taken against them. First, because the site value rule bore harshly on many owner-occupiers who had sunk their savings in the provision of a home for themselves
1096
and their families, virtually all owner-occupiers now receive a supplementary payment, so that in practice, when their house is acquired, they receive the market value of the property. If it is the subject of a demolition, closing or clearance order, they receive only the supplementary payment, as in these circumstances the land remains in their ownership. Secondly, where there is no entitlement to such a supplement, a payment may be made for good maintenance. This recognises that, notwithstanding the inherent unfitness of the house, there are many instances where people have spent money on maintenance and repair works. The Order that we are now considering seeks to increase the amounts payable in these circumstances.
Currently, the amount payable is four times the rateable value of the house where the whole house has been well maintained, or one-half of that amount if either the interior or the exterior has been well-maintained. The sum payable, however, cannot exceed the difference between the site value and the market value of the dwelling, for it would make a nonsense of the normal compensation code if in the aggregate more than the market value of the property were paid. The payment may be made to whoever has been responsible for the maintenance, be it the landlord of the tenant, or in part to both, the apportionment being a matter for the local authority.
This Order seeks to double the maximum amount payable by increasing the multipler from 4 to 8. By this means we hope further to encourage owners of houses which are approaching the end of their life to keep them in good repair. The recent National House Condition Survey estimated that there were 1·2 million unfit houses in England and Wales, 700,000 of which were in existing or potential clearance areas. The Government see no reason why these should not be cleared in 10 years. But 10 years for the occupant is a long while, and will certainly be more pleasant if the house is well-maintained. Anything that can be done to achieve this is to be welcomed, and I invite the House to approve this Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Housing (Payments for Well Maintained Houses) Order 1972, be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
6.8 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the House will be appreciative of the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, of the purpose of this Order. On this side of the House we give it a warm welcome, and I should like to express the hope that it will be eminently successful in the achievement of the objective stated by the noble Lord; that is, the objective of keeping houses in as good a condition as possible, having regard to the fact that they are technically unfit, judged by modern standards. The Order carries a stage further something that was started by my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale in 1969. We are delighted that the Government once again are continuing and extending something that was started by the previous Administration.
The noble Lord referred to the one million-odd houses that are deemed to be unfit in certain respects but which will continue to be occupied for many years to come. The Minister, when the Order was before the other place last Friday, suggested, I think, that some 700,000 of the houses may qualify over the next ten years for compensation; that is, houses in existing or potential clearance areas. We are well aware of the nature of the problem—growing obsolescence. The improved compensation that this Order provides should do much to encourage the keeping of these houses in as good a state of repair and maintenance as possible, keeping them as places that can be reasonably maintained as good homes for those who for the time being live in them. It is important that the provisions of this Order should be widely known to the owners and occupiers of these houses, for it is not only the owners but also the tenants who may claim compensation for monies spent in maintaining the houses. Here, my Lords, I think we ought to recognise the great contribution that tenants can themselves make in this respect.
When the Order was before the other place a number of questions were asked. I do not intend to repeat them all, but the Minister was then unable to reply to one or two of them. I am wondering whether the noble Lord is to-night able to provide information that was then lacking and whether he is able to tell
1098
us the extent to which tenants have availed themselves of the grants available to date and also what percentage of the grants have been given to tenants as distinct from landlords. Such information would indeed be most useful. Last Friday the Minister in the other place indicated that the figures ought to be available, and gave it as his impression that tenants were not taking advantage of the scheme as they should. There is the important matter of publicity to be considered, since the value of this Order will depend so much upon its contents being made known to tenants and owners. They need to be made aware of the method of applying for a grant and they need to understand the way in which entitlement to a grant is determined—particularly tenants, since they are so intimately affected.
There is one further question I should like to ask the noble Lord. It concerns paragraph 3, which reads:
"In relation to a house which might have been the subject of a demolition order but which has …"
I should like to ask him, in whose opinion might it have been such a subject? I hope the noble Lord is in possession of the information asked for in the other place last week. I hope there has been sufficient time for the Department to get the information together, because if it can be made public I am certain it will have a beneficial effect. My Lords, I repeat that we welcome this Order and wish it every success.
6.13 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord. Lord Garnsworthy, for the welcome he has given to this Order. With regard to some of the questions he has asked me, I regret that we are not able to give him the full details for which my right honourable friend was asked last week in another place. I myself inquired this morning whether figures were available, and was told that they were not. If they become available, I shall of course see that the noble Lord gets them; and we will also circulate them. Perhaps I may say that they are not grants, as such, but rather compensation payments, which is a slightly different matter. As regards the numbers likely to qualify, I think the noble Lord will appreciate that they are higher than the 700,000, a figure that

1099
relates merely to the number in clearance areas. It will be 70 per cent. of the 1·2 million—
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that in point of fact I was using the figure that his right honourable friend gave in the other place.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: But it will in fact, my Lords, be a higher figure than the 700,000: 70 per cent. of 1·2 million. Just to put the record straight. I should like to say that the first payment for compensation was started under the Housing Act 1935. It had an earlier history than one might imagine. Once Parliament has approved and passed this Order, publicity will follow. I am sure we are all well aware of the point made by the noble Lord. It has been a matter of great worry to many people in the Department that compensation payments and grants which are available are not being fully taken up. I assure the noble Lord, however, that we shall do our best to make sure that these payments are available to all the people concerned.
As to the apportionment of payments between landlords and tenants, I regret to say that details of this have not been kept among the figures of the Department. I think that demolition orders are at the discretion of the local authority, but I will look into the question and reply, if the noble Lord will permit me to do so, by letter. I hope that, after those few words, your Lordships' House will now approve this Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  R.A.F. MUSEUM: LOANED EXHIBITS
  R.A.F. MUSEUM: LOANED EXHIBITS
  PADDINGTON DAY HOSPITAL
  PADDINGTON DAY HOSPITAL
  UNITED NATIONS DEBT AND BRITISH CONTRIBUTIONS
  UNITED NATIONS DEBT AND BRITISH CONTRIBUTIONS