Sitting of 16 April 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of William Griffiths, Esquire, Member for Manchester, Exchange, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
HUMBER BRIDGE BILL
Lords amendments considered and agreed to.
DERBY FRIAR GATE CHAPEL BILL [Lords]
Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    North Sea Oil and Gas
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the progress made in implementing the recommendations of the IMEG report.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): The Offshore Supplies Office has been established. It is pursuing a number of major initiatives and is currently dealing with about 200 inquiries a week from firms interested in the offshore market. It is taking effective and necessary action to ensure that British contractors receive a full and fair opportunity to secure off shore business.
    Mr. Strang: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that any controversy in Scotland about North Sea oil developments relates only to the siting of such developments? The people of Scotland are absolutely united on the need to maximise the number of North Sea oil jobs. Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that it is felt that the Government's response to the IMEG report is both tardy and inadequate? For example, will the hon. Gentleman take the initiative and enable Scottish industry to acquire a major stake

    3
    in these developments and, in particular, to establish a new and indigenous technology for exploitation in deep waters?
    Mr. Emery: I object to the words "tardy" and "inadequate ". On the whole, Scottish industry welcomes the steps that we are taking and believes that it can benefit greatly from them to achieve the results which the hon. Gentle man and the Government wish to achieve.
    Mr. Skeet: What are the Government doing to build up an offshore drilling capacity? That is mentioned in the IMEG report and is very important.
    Mr. Emery: My hon. Friend will recall that last time I was at the Dispatch Box I mentioned that certain considerations and discussions were taking place on the matter. They are proceeding.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the recent speech of the Chairman of the Scottish Tory Party, Sir William McEwan Younger, in which he strongly criticised the Government's current North Sea oil development policies? Will the Government take any notice of their own boss in Scotland?
    Mr. Emery: I happened to be present in Glasgow when Sir William made his speech, and I believe that the interpretation of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is entirely incorrect.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of the Scottish Tory Party said that some Tory Members are unfamiliar with the industrial facts of life? Did not the hon. Gentle man hear him say that? Do the Government propose to ignore some of the main recommendations of the IMEG report? Is underwater technology to be left to the University Grants Committee? Must the University of Heriot-Watt, for example, suffer because the Department of Trade and Industry does not know the industrial facts of life in Scotland?
    Mr. Emery: I do not accept the suggestion that the Department of Trade and Industry is not aware of the industrial position and the need for industrial expansion for offshore development in Scotland. I accept that there is a need for considerable thought on the develop-
    4
    ment of long-term technology for deep-water drilling. Full consideration is being given to that matter.
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on pending discussions between his Department and the British Petroleum Company regarding the price of North Sea crude oil and gas.
    Mr. Emery: No such discussions are yet in progress.
    Mr. Douglas: Is it not time that such discussions took place, in view of the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee by leading officials of the hon. Gentleman's Department? Will the Government take steps to ensure a firming-up of this company's oil refining capacity in Scotland, because it is urgently needed before the North Sea oil comes ashore in 1974?
    Mr. Emery: We will ensure that discussions take place in good time before the oil begins to come ashore. The question of refining capacity in Scotland is under full and continual consideration.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at this moment there is a proposal to build a refinery in Shetland which would have drastic effects on the life and economy of the islands, and that it is urgent that the terms and conditions on which such development may proceed should be laid down? The Shetland County Council Bill has been blocked, which means extra expenditure and delay. In the meantime, however, this type of development is in the air and there is grave need for an urgent decision about where the refinery should be put and on what terms and conditions.
    Mr. Emery: The decision is a planning matter, which is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Eadie: But if the hon. Gentleman should manage to get involved in the negotiations on the question of price, and so on, he may find that there is an attempt to ignore what one might describe as "energy potential ". Will he comment on the allegations that every thing seems to be cent red on oil exploration and that it is nearly a crime to find gas?
    Mr. Emery: I do not think that that is correct. Obviously, there is bound to be associated gas in many of the oil discoveries, and the position more often than not is that oil companies are drilling for hydrocarbons in the hope of finding either gas or oil.

    General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
    . Mr. Jayasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether in the GATT negotiations on liberalisation of international trade this autumn he will put forward proposals for freer trade in agricultural products and foodstuffs in particular.
    The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): We are at present considering with the other members of the EEC the Community's position on subjects to be covered in these GATT negotiations. The Community has already stated that these should cover agricultural as well as industrial products.
    Mr. Jay: Is that not a quite inadequate answer to give the House of Commons at this stage, now that President Nixon has sent to Congress a Trade Bill which will give him power to move towards either freer trade or greater protection according to the response he gets from other countries? Is it not essential that there should be a British initiative for much freer trade in agricultural products, which both British and American interests require?
    Sir G. Howe: British initiatives in this matter are taken within the context of the EEC. The enlarged Community will speak with one voice for all member nations in the actual negotiations. Within that context, we are able to put forward our viewpoint and we of course accept the commitment to liberalisation of trade set out by the summit meeting.
    Mr. Biffen: Does that mean that the Commission will conduct the negotiations. or the Governments, or both?
    Sir G. Howe: The enlarged Community will speak with one voice for all member countries in the actual negotiations, but of course this country will be putting forward its own proposals in the
    6
    context of the Community s performance on our behalf.
    Mr. Shore: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the dumping of agricultural produce is ruinous to international trade in agriculture? Does not he look upon the butter deal last week as an appalling example of dumping in the world food trade? In view of the reports over the weekend, will he tell us whether the butter will be resold to Chile?
    Sir G. Howe: I am not able to comment on the last point. The Community accepts, as much as other parties to the negotiations accept, that multilateral negotiations will include an agricultural content in which questions of that kind can no doubt be taken into account.
    . Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a further statement on preparations for the forthcoming GATT negotiations.
    Sir G. Howe: The EEC Commission has made a statement of position and the United States Trade Bill has been published. These are important steps to wards a negotiation.
    Mr. Marten: Although one is forced to conclude from the answer to Question No. 2 that the Government appear to have lost their sovereign voice in these matters, can my right hon. and learned Friend be a little bold and tell us whether the Government agree to the abolition of export subsidies in agriculture, in terms of these negotiations?
    Sir G. Howe: I have already explained that Her Majesty's Government are put ting forward their view on the contents of the forthcoming negotiations within the context of the Community. The Commission's preliminary statement on the position has already made it clear that although it would resist any attack on the principles of the common agricultural policy it must equally be prepared to apply the instruments of that policy in such a way that its broad objective of expanding world trade is achieved.
    Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the answers he has given to this Question and to Question No. 2 constitute a total abdication of ministerial accountability to this

    7
    House, in that unless Parliament knows what are the negotiating objectives of the British Government it will have no way of knowing whether they have been met by the Common Market when it enters into these negotiations? Is he telling us that from now on the Government will not give any indication of their view until a compromise has been reached with the other members of the Community?
    Sir G. Howe: I am telling the House no such thing. I have already referred to the statement made by Sir Christopher Soames on behalf of the Commission and have noted the liberal and constructive approach proposed. I believe that these proposals will provide a useful basis for the formulation of a common Community approach.
    Mr. Powell: In what form will Her Majesty's Government's views on this subject be made known to the House of Commons?
    Sir G. Howe: Arrangements can be made for them to be canvassed by the House as they come to be put forward. The House is already familiar with the arrangements made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for in forming the House of matters as they come up on the agenda of the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Regional Incentives
    3. Mr. Horamasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to make any changes in regional incentives, in the light of the recent OECD report.
    The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): No, Sir.
    Mr. Horam: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the OECD report specifically accused Her Majesty's Government of diluting investment control and said that, combined with the abandonment of the regional employment
    8
    premium, it would mean a progressive drift to the South-East just at a time when we have an excellent chance in regional policy?
    Mr. Chataway: I have read the report and I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman has said as a fair summary of its findings. Our intention is to pro duce self-sustaining growth in the regions and not have a situation in which many industries have to be permanently subsidised.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Is it not the case that when officials of the right hon. Gentleman's Department gave evidence before the Select Committee on Expenditure recently, they said that they expected a job loss of between 20,000 and 50,000 as a consequence of the withdrawal of the regional employment premium? Does the right hon. Gentle man agree that, far from withdrawing it, the Government should be lending all possible aid to Dr. Hillary, who, speaking as an EEC Commissioner, has said that this is one of the incentives that ought to be retained for development areas?
    Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when the regional employment premium was introduced in 1967 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), said that he thought it should run for seven years and then be phased out. That is the present Government's position, also.

    Licensed Trade (Tenant-Manager Relationship)
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with the Brewers' Society about the tenant-manager relationship in the licensed trade.
    Mr. Emery: My Department is in touch with the Brewers' Society about the proposed code of practice on tenant security which the society is preparing.
    Mr. Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hundreds of tenants are being kicked out of the best houses and re placed by managers, by greedy brewers, simply because they want two lots of profit and that they have no protection in

    9
    law and are looking to the hon. Gentle man to intervene? Does he think it in the public interest that brewers should have a total monopoly of the production, wholesaling and, through the managerial system, retailing of their own products?
    Mr. Emery: The decision whether to install a manager or to lease a public house is a commercial one for the brewer concerned, but the House will recall that the Monopolies Commission found that in the last quarter of 1967 76·4 per cent. of brewer-owned public houses were tenanted and 23·6 per cent. managed. The latest available figures are 74·9 per cent. and 25·1 per cent., respectively.
    Mr. Ridley: Will my hon. Friend investigate the amount of soft drinks and other non-beer products which were sold before the acceptance of the Monopolies Commission's report and the amount sold now, to show the extent to which there is genuine competition in those products in the pubs and the extent to which the brewers have maintained their under taking to allow free competition in those products?
    Mr. Emery: I do not have the figures on soft drinks. I was concentrating on beer. But I note what my hon. Friend says, which I find of considerable interest.
    Mr. Mason: Is the Minister aware that hundreds of licensees are now being driven out, and that the members of the Brewers' Society are not waiting for the code of conduct? Are not the brewers re placing the licensees with managers be cause they suspect that they will then escape the strictures of the Common Market Commission, which has already decreed that the tied house system in beer supply is contrary to its regulations? If the Minister refers to the Monopolies Commission's report at the end of 1969, and not 1967, he will find that the tied house and beer supply system was then condemned. The situation has worsened considerably since then. When will he act upon it?
    Mr. Emery: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look at the figures I quoted, which are not for 1969 but for 1971. The Brewers' Society is concerned about the matter and is producing a code of conduct to safeguard both the pension and employment position of tenants and the fair rents and arbitration procedures.
    Miss Joan Hall: I hope that my hon. Friend also realises that, although the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) talked about the brewers' profits, both tenants and managers want profits because they then have a better living. May I emphasise particularly the question of security for tenants? It is my belief, and that of many other people, that there is a much happier pub atmosphere for drinkers when the pub is run by a tenant as opposed to a manager.
    Mr. Emery: I do not disagree very much with my hon. Friend. I have particular sympathy with tenants who face redundancy. That is why I hope that the code of conduct dealing with fair compensation will be produced quickly.
    Mr. Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's various answers, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Rolls-Royce
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the present board of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited.
    The Minister for Aerospace and Ship ping (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Whitehead: We appreciate that the recent management upheaval in Rolls-Royce was a matter of personalities as well as policies, but is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern in Derby over recent developments, not merely the removal of Mr. Fawn and the head of the Rolls-Royce Far East office after only five weeks in the job but also the possible transfer of work and management from Derby? Was the hon. Gentleman consulted in advance about the removal of Mr. Fawn? Will he now give the House an assurance that there will be no transfer of RB 211 work from Derby, and that if the company head quarters moves to North-West London those concerned will be properly consulted and not left to glean what they can from the trade Press?
    Mr. Heseltine: I was in China at the time of Mr. Fawn's resignation. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has

    11
    already told the House that my Department was informed as a matter of courtesy, but Mr. Fawn was not a member of the main board, and therefore I should not expect to be consulted. I realise that there have been rumours about the future of the Derby plant. The management of Rolls-Royce is entirely a question for the board of directors, and I can assure the House that there is no foundation for those rumours.
    Mr. Rost: Why has the board of Rolls-Royce (1971) offered only £31 million for assets taken over two years ago which the liquidator of the old company values at £162 million? Why is the new company contesting the tax liabilities which should belong to the old company and its creditors?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will appreciate that buyers and sellers often take different views about the price that assets are worth.
    Mr. Walter Johnson: Does the Minister realise that the managerial changes taking place in Rolls-Royce are disturbing and are affecting the morale of the staff? Therefore, will he give a categorical assurance today that no work on the RB 211 engine now being performed in Derby will be transferred elsewhere?
    Mr. Heseltine: That is a matter on which the board is responsible for fulfilling its contracts with the Government. I am not aware of any major changes that could imply that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to have the doubts that he has.
    Sir R. Cary: My hon. Friend should be more than satisfied with the board of Rolls-Royce Motors. I know of no other great company coming to the market for a bid which can charge £5 for its prospectus.
    Mr. Heseltine: Regrettably, I cannot take credit for that.
    Mr. Edelman: What are the technical and industrial qualifications of the senior civil servant, lately retired, who has become, or is about to become deputy chairman of Rolls-Royce? Should not industrial patronage be exercised at least as fastidiously as political paitronage?
    Mr. Heseltine: The qualifications of Sir William Nield are well known. He was a very distinguished civil servant, and is now Deputy Chairman of Rolls-Royce. His qualifications for helping in the strategic direction of that company, with its wide international ramifications, are self-evident.

    Political Donations
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to make it an offence in the United Kingdom for United Kingdom companies operating abroad, either directly or through sub-sidaries, to make political contributions in this country if they are paying wages in other countries below subsistence levels or below internationally agreed recommendations.
    Sir G. Howe: No, Sir. British companies operating abroad clearly ought to consider on their merits the need to pay their employees adequate wages and their own longer-term interest in earning a reputation as good employers.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is not the Minister aware that many companies, such as Tate and Lyle, and Slater Walker, have been putting into the funds of the Conservative Party money they have been making as a result of paying Africans starvation wages? Will he reconsider his answer? Is he entirely satisfied with having his election expenses paid from such a source?
    Sir G. Howe: The questions cannot be linked in the way in which the hon. Gentleman seeks to link them. The Government have made their position perfectly clear. We wish to encourage British companies with subsidiaries or associates in South Africa to look urgently at the pay and conditions of their employees and to make any necessary improvements.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall giving me a very unsatisfactory reply a few days ago on the matter of political subscriptions to the Tory Party? Has not he thought again whether the law is truly being complied with? Will he tell the House how much money the Tory Party had from operating companies in Africa or elsewhere, and compare that with the

    13
    amount of money the trade union movement gave the Labour Party?
    Sir G. Howe: My hon. Friend raises a number of different questions. It is well known that the trade union movement makes substantial contributions to the Labour Party. The statutory position on disclosure by companies in this country is laid down in Section 19 of the Companies Act, which makes specific provision for identifying the source of payments if they exceed £50. So far as I know, publication is taking place as required by the statute. If my hon. Friend has any evidence to suggest that it is not, I shall be glad to examine it.
    Mr. Benn: As the Government now have the power, under the Counter-Inflation Act and other measures, to get the companies to declare information to them, will they use those powers to get the companies to reveal what wages they are paying in other countries?
    Sir G. Howe: The powers of the Counter-Inflation Act extend to ascertaining information on pay and conditions and prices in this country. They certainly do not extend to obtaining information about what is being paid in the Republic of South Africa. But I have made it very clear that the Government will continue to encourage—as they have done by documents already published— companies with subsidiaries or associates in South Africa to consider the pay and conditions they are providing there. There can be no doubt about the Government's position.

    Price Increases (Complaints)
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints he has received from members of the public alleging unjustified price rises since the introduction of value added tax.
    Sir G. Howe: Such complaints are handled by weights and measures inspectors. Returns in my Department up to 12th April indicate that during the week following the introduction of VAT the inspectors have received approximately 11,000 complaints about incorrect adjustments of prices and charges on non-food goods and services.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that with
    14
    the introduction of such a complex and comprehensive new tax as VAT—despite the co-operation that has been received from the majority of traders and the magnificent job that has been done by inspectors of weights and measures throughout the country—in order to make sure that Section 12 of the Counter-Inflation Act is fully complied with and that housewives get the full benefit of the £120 million tax reduction in the food bill, extra staff for the inspectorate is highly desirable and essential?
    Sir G. Howe: I agree that effective supervision of the changeover is essential. The figures I have given show the extent to which the Weights and Measures Inspectorate is playing its part. If we remember that there are well over 600,000 retail and service outlets it will be seen that the number of complaints received is only an infinitesimal fraction of the number of transactions taking place. I have no reason to believe that additional staffing of the Weights and Measures Department is necessary, bearing in mind the extent to which it is giving priority to this particularly important problem.
    Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that weights and measures inspectors received their instructions from the Government only about 24 hours before the changeover and as a result were quite unable to cope with the problems which confronted them?
    Sir G. Howe: That is not the position. For example, I know at least one case where weights and measures inspectors were having instruction courses. One county issued a Press release about the extent to which its weights and measures inspectors were being briefed and organised well ahead of the introduction of the tax. Admittedly, the final instructions went out only some days before the changeover took place, but there is no reason to believe from the reports I have received that the Weights and Measures Inspectorate feels that it is under-briefed. It has only to refer to my prices unit for further information, if it is needed.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed that whereas purveyors of goods, and particularly of services, set out very accurately

    15
    the increase in prices due to VAT, they are rather more coy about explaining the counterbalancing effect of the abolition of SET? Will he look into this question?
    Sir G. Howe: My hon. and learned Friend is right to draw attention to the balancing effect that ought to be secured from the abolition of SET. It is because of this that I wrote to the significant retailers and undertakings in the service industries—those with turnovers above £5 million—to draw their attention to that point and to invite them to let me know what arrangements they are making to take account of it. The replies I have so far received show that they are doing this.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware, as the public certainly is, that the Government have bungled the utterly unnecessary changeover to this highly inflationary tax? Has he seen the Press reports that weights and measures inspectors have been so busy recording complaints that they have had not time to investigate them? Does he realise that the number of orders which he has made to reduce prices in the critical first two weeks of the tax have been so small as to be nothing but a derisory public display of the Government's impotence? How does he justify protecting firms which have cheated the public by concealing their names? Why does he not reveal the names of the cheats?
    Sir G. Howe: The hon. Member has a remarkable facility for spoiling even a bad case by overstatement. The measure of the inaccuracy of what he has said is to be found in the fact that more than 1,700 price reductions have been made by the Weights and Measures Inspectorate in the area for which my Department is responsible. That is wholly inconsistent with the proposition that the inspectorate has no time to investigate complaints made to it. The figures are a measure of the successful supervision which has taken place.

    Foreign Visitors (Welcoming Service)
    Mr. Selwyn Gummerasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take steps to enable the tourist boards to provide an efficient welcoming service to foreign nationals
    16
    arriving in the United Kingdom before they pass through passport formalities.
    Mr. Chataway: The tourist boards and the authorities concerned have cooperated to provide information services at the major points of entry and the provision of services is planned at others.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the function of immigration officers is to scrutinise people coming to this country and to keep some people out? Since we are advertising for tourists and since tourism is our second largest industry is it not a fact that such officers are unable to welcome tourists in the way that we would like? We need to make tourists feel that they are welcome when they arrive here, but that is not the case at the moment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tourist boards ought to take this on their shoulders, since the immigration department is unable to do so?
    Mr. Chataway: The tourist boards make widespread provision for welcoming and informing tourists at points of entry. The conduct of immigration officers is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

    Gas Supplies (Disconnection)
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will give a general direction to gas boards that, whenever the supply of gas to domestic consumers is cut off for whatever reasons, a compensating reduction in charge shall be made to those consumers
    Mr. Emery: No, Sir. Gas is charged for as metered. Standing charges relate to the provision and maintenance of facilities required for the supply of gas. irrespective of consumption, and any question of their remission is entirely for the British Gas Corporation.
    Mr. Fowler: While thanking my hon. Friend for that answer, may I draw his attention to the situation which prevailed in the Midlands last month, when literally thousands of consumers were deprived of gas and caused hardship and made to incur extra costs through an industrial dispute? Does he not agree that in a situation of that kind there is a moral obligation on the corporation to make some kind of reduction in charges?
    Mr. Emery: I sincerely recognise and regret the inconvenience suffered by the public in the constituency of my hon. Friend and other Midlands constituencies. It would not, however, be right to impose a new wide and general obligation on the corporation as a result of events arising out of an industrial dispute. This is a matter for the corporation to deal with. It might be helpful if I asked the chairman of the corporation to write direct to my hon. Friend.

    BSA
    Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with the board of BSA; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a further statement about BSA.
    Mr. Chataway: As I informed the House on 19th March, proposals for the acquisition of BSA by Manganese Bronze Holdings Ltd. are subject to the agreement of the boards and shareholders of the two companies.—[Vol. 853, c. 33–4.]
    Any support by my Department for the new motor cycle company will be subject to our being satisfied about the arrangements for the acquisition and about the proposed management and operation of the new company. Negotiations between the two companies have not yet be concluded. I will in due course inform the House of the outcome.
    Mr. Lamont: Will my right hon. Friend say what confidence he has that the £4·8 million worth of aid already announced will be sufficient to make the new company into a viable entity? Does he intend subsequently to make extra sums available, which may be less than the £5 million for which the approval of the House is required but would nevertheless bring the total amount of aid to a sum above that figure? In such an event, will that action be subject to the approval of the House?
    Mr. Chataway: We have no proposals for giving any aid above the sum I have already mentioned. If, however, sums were to be made available which brought the total above £5 million, an affirmative order would be required. I
    18
    believe that there is a good chance of the emergence of a company which will be of considerable benefit to Britain's balance of payments.
    Mr. Huckfield: It the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now nearly a month since, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), I brought two deputations of shop stewards from the Triumph works at Meriden to see him? Is he aware that those workers are still being told nothing about the future of their industry or their factory? Will he arrange for Mr. Dennis Poore or someone to tell us something as soon as possible?
    Mr. Chataway: I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing the deputations to see me, and I hope that some information was able to be exchanged on that occasion. I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that a takeover of this kind, involving such financial arrangements, inevitably takes time. I naturally accept the force of the general point he is making.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the introduction and operation of value added tax, with particular reference to the actual movement of prices and service charges compared with what was anticipated.
    Sir G. Howe: Reports received so far in my Department indicate that the changeover to VAT is in general going reasonably well. I am confident that over the country as a whole the great majority of price adjustments, up and down, are being made fairly. There have been fewer problems than we might have expected in view of the scope of the operation. In general, the movements of prices and charges are very close to the estimates made when our publicity campaign was launched in March.
    Mr. Chapman: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend generally, but will he comment on two specific complaints which have been made following the introduction of VAT? The first relates to alleged excessive additions made to bills, particularly in cafeterias and restaurants. Secondly, following the point made by my hon. and learned

    19
    Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), is it not true that a flat 10 per cent. has been added to other service charges without regard to the abolition of selective employment tax?
    Sir G. Howe: I agree that there has been a substantial number of complaints relating to cafes and restaurants, about which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture would answer detailed questions. However, any complaints of that kind are being followed up by the Weights and Measures Inspectorate. Alongside the introduction of VAT there are inevitably seasonal fluctuations in the price of foodstuffs which must be put into the account. Complaints about flat 10 per cent. additions made in the service industries are being investigated, and it is generally found possible to arrive at agreed changes which, although sometimes representing a 10 per cent. increase on one product, do not represent any net addition to the income of the trader when account is taken of the fact that prices for other products are held at a lower level.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does the Minister agree that the consumer is being severely milked on small items costing l0p and less? Will he inform retailers that in spite of the tremendously heavy price increases made in the last couple of years the new halfpenny piece is still a legitimate coin of the realm, and should be used?
    Sir G. Howe: If consumers generally were, as the hon. Member says, being severely milked on small purchases, that would be a matter to be considered very seriously. But, so far from small traders and shopkeepers being dishonest and out to gull the consumer, as the Opposition seem to think, the overwhelming majority are complying effectively with the obligations of the changeover.
    On the question of small items, I underline what the hon. Gentleman has said. The halfpenny coin remains an active and effective coin of the realm and should be used in making price adjustments, up and down, in relation to the introduction of VAT.
    Dame Irene Ward: As my right hon. and learned Friend agrees that anxiety and difficulties have arisen in relation to cafés and restaurants, would it not be a good idea to have a conference on the
    20
    matter with whoever represents cafes and restaurants in total so that we would have a proper statement on the problem and see whether we could deal with the situation?
    Sir G. Howe: There has already been consultation of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers between both my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and myself and the leading trade association, covering almost all the aspects affected by the tax change. Problems arising in small hotels and restaurants concern detailed variations in detailed cases which can be followed up only by investigation on the spot, and they are being followed up in that way. I shall consider my hon. Friend's point that there should be further consultation with the representatives of that trade to see whether further guidance is necessary.

    United Kingdom Companies (EEC Industrial Collaboration)
    Mr. Warrenasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will investigate and report on the extent to which national Governments in the Common Market require their industries to collaborate with a United Kingdom company before giving new industrial projects official support.
    Mr. Chataway: I am not persuaded that a general investigation of the kind suggested would be worth while.
    Mr. Warren: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend makes that reply, bearing in mind that it is the policy of many parts of his Department to require such collaboration in British industry and British companies. Would it not be a good idea if he were to go into this matter more deeply to find out what the other Common Market countries are doing—which, I suggest, is nothing? If British industry is to bear this burden on its competitive capability it would be useful for my right hon. Friend to consider harmonising his views with those of other Common Market countries which allow their industries full competitive rein.
    Mr. Chataway: We favour cross-frontier collaboration, especially in highly technological industries, which, as my hon. Friend will know, is also the view of a number of other European countries. But it would not make sense to launch an investigation of the kind suggested by

    21
    my hon. Friend across the board because the situation plainly differs from industry to industry and project to project.
    Mr. Mason: Is not the Minister aware that there is a serious dearth of aircraft projects in this country? One of the reasons for that is that the Government have changed their policy and are not prepared to give research and development money to any aircraft industry in Britain to produce its own project unless it agrees to collaborate with a European country. Is that true?
    Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping is at present studying Hawker Siddeley's request for launching aid for the HS146, and the European implications of that are among the factors which he will be taking into account. I believe that he hopes to make a statement on the matter fairly shortly.
    Mr. Mason: Will a determining factor be that there should be collaboration in not only aircraft projects but other industrial projects?
    Mr. Chataway: No. That is simply one among a number of factors which must be taken into account when making decisions such as this.

    Nuclear Energy Industry (Disposal of Shares)
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what power of veto he exercises in connection with the disposal of shares, at home or overseas, by the new design and construction company for the nuclear industry.
    Mr. Emery: My right hon. Friend is discussing these matters with the interested parties.
    Mr. EdelmanIt is very important that there should be some veto in cases in which shares in this vitally important industry may be transferred overseas. Is it not the case that the predominant and favoured position of GEC in this and other hybrid firms seems to threaten the principle of an open purchasing policy? What action is the hon. Gentleman taking to prevent abuses in this area?
    Mr. Emery: I accept the need for the Government to be certain about the restrictions which will be placed on the
    22
    transfer of any shares. I repeat that this matter is now under close consideration. The Government reserve the right to have all the necessary information to ensure that an open purchasing policy can and will be carried out by the new company.

    Concorde
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now make a further statement on Concorde.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the present state of the Concorde programme.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: We and the French Government are giving the manufacturers our full support in their sales negotiations. I hope to discuss shortly the position with my colleague in the new French Government.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is it not clear that to an increasing extent we are producing many parts of this aircraft in excess of the firm orders which have been given for it? If that is so, we shall soon be producing Concordes for stock. Is not that very wrong? What is the Minister's latest estimate for development costs, and what proportion of those costs does he expect to recover?
    Mr. Heseltine: We have always been in the position of producing Concordes in advance of firm orders. As I announced to the House in May 1972, the latest estimated cost of development is £970 million. That is the subject of a review, and as soon as I am able to make a further statement to the House I shall do so.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Has my hon. Friend had further discussions with the American aviation agencies about the noise limitations which may be imposed on Concorde's landing at American airports?
    Mr. Heseltine: Not since my return from the United States. My hon. Friend will remember that it is our view that the noise of Concorde, when it enters service, will be of the same level as that of existing conventional jets, and it should therefore pose no new problems when it arrives at American airports.
    Mr. Cronin: There is plainly much in what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has said, but when Concorde is operating for Air France and BOAC is there not a likelihood that competitive pressure will bring an increase in orders from other air companies?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the competitive pressure of this remarkably attractive form of transportation will bring about the situation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
    Mr. McLaren: Will my hon. Friend say how near we are to the day when it will be desirable to authorise a start on the parts for a few more Concordes so as to ensure continuity of production by BAC and its subcontractors?
    Mr. Heseltine: There is no immediate pressure to take that decision.
    Mr. Benn: While welcoming the Minister's reaffirmation that he is supporting the sales campaign for this aircraft, may I ask whether he can give the House the assurance that the assembly line will be retained at Bristol?
    Mr. Heseltine: No proposals have been put to me to change the present disposition of the two assembly lines. Obviously, if the manufacturers put any proposals to me I must consider them, but no such proposals have been put.

    Coal Industry (Safety Standards)
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the consideration that is being given to improving standards of safety in the coalmining industry.
    Mr. Emery: Improved safety standards in the coalmining industry are the subject of continuing joint consultation and action by the Department, the National Coal Board and the mining trades unions and professional institutions, both in this country and through the Mines Safety and Health Commission of the European Communities.
    The House will also wish to know that a public statement will be made today that the inquiry into the tragic accident at the Lofthouse Colliery will
    24
    open at Wakefield on Wednesday 30th May at 10 a.m.
    Mr. Cronin: I appreciate that over the last few years there has been a considerable improvement in coalmining safety, but does not the recent Lofthouse disaster show that there is much to be done to improve the standards of safety? Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that he will give this matter rigorous consideration, and, bearing also in mind the recent evidence of the dangerous and arduous nature of the miners' work, does he not agree that the least this country owes them is a third week's holiday with pay?
    Mr. Emery: Of course, the work of the miner is dangerous and arduous, but the previous accident resulting from an inrush of water from old workings took place 44 years ago. I think the hon. Member did the miners and their institutions less credit than they should have, because in the last 10 years ending in 1971 the fatal accident rate fell from 0·45 to 0·24 and the serious injury rate from 2·7 to 2·2 per 1,000 men employed. This is a record second to none in any mining country in the world.
    Mr. Varley: Does the Minister recall that when the statement about the Lofthouse colliery disaster was made I asked the Secretary of State if he would ask the National Coal Board to undertake an urgent survey of old, uncharted mine workings? Can the Minister now tell us whether anything has been done about that, and if so, what progress has been made?
    Mr. Emery: Yes, the situation was carried further forward from the question raised by the hon. Gentleman. As he will know, from 1872 onwards it became compulsory to deposit with the Secretary of State plans of abandoned mines. Many, however, are deficient and in many ways misleading. Many of the old shafts which have been filled in are now hidden and quite difficult to locate. Although tracing old works is difficult, the safety record in this area is very good, as the figures I gave show, but the bodies looking into this matter are concerned to try to ensure that that matter is kept up to the degree of efficiency which the whole nation would want.

    London Airports (Aircraft Movements and Noise)
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the extent to which the current projections of the number of aircraft movements at London's airports and the noise which they will be expected to cause in 1990 differ from those on which he based his conclusion that Maplin Airport should be constructed.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: The Civil Aviation Authority has projections of aircraft movements under study and I await its report. Any revised noise projections for existing London airports must follow on that study. I would point out, however, that Maplin is needed not only to cope with the growth of air traffic but to bring relief to those already suffering from the noise disturbance of existing London airports.
    Mr. Tebbit: May I take it that my hon. Friend is aware of, even if he chooses to ignore, the fact that the progress towards quieter aircraft is much faster than he ever dreamt of at the time of the Roskill Commission, for example? May I also take it that he is aware that British Airways has announced that over the next five years its fleet of aircraft will expand by only seven? Has he noted that British Airways has now ordered a relatively noisy replacement for its Viscount fleet, which it would not have done but for the fact that he is building Maplin, which will enable still noisier aeroplanes to be operated? Will my hon. Friend publish the figures which the CAA is going to give him?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have not received the figures from the CAA and therefore I am not in a position to give dates on which they might be published, but I imagine that the publication is more likely to be a matter for the CAA than for me. When we had the Second Reading debate about Maplin Airport we went very carefully into the question of the rate at which quieter engines were coming into service. The fact of the matter is that these calculations have been built into our calculations. That does not invalidate the fact that we are faced with a massive growth of traffic around built-up areas of London, and we see methods of alleviating this is by way of Maplin Airport.
    Mr. Freeson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, following that debate, practically every authority concerned with this matter has questioned the rate of growth to which the hon. Gentleman referred on that occasion? Will he give an undertaking that when the figures are available they will be published and presented to the House, because we are the people who make the decision, for better or for worse, in favour of the Government's Bill? Since he has just said that the other factor to be taken into account is that the building of Maplin will result in a reduction of traffic to the existing airports around London, will he please tell us to what figures he expects that airport to reduce the present traffic at London Airport?
    Mr. Heseltine: I cannot accept the hon. Member's suggestion that every authority has commented adversely on the figures produced. The authority to which I draw his attention and that of the House is the British Airports Authority, which made it absolutely clear that it believes that there is need for a third London airport, and that there is need to get it built as soon as possible. The second authority is the CAA, whose figures are not published because they are not ready and it has not commented in any way on the debate we had in the House. The fact of the matter is that we do not anticipate a reduction in existing levels because we are now faced with massive growth from not only British Airways but overseas airlines.
    The objective is to contain this growth as much as we can and to divert a great part of it to the third London airport after 1980.
    Mr. Jessel: Bearing in mind the existing level of noise around airports—a level which many people find intolerable—will my hon. Friend stand absolutely firm by the Government's decision about the airport on the Essex coast?
    Mr. Heseltine: Yes.
    Mr. Mason: Does the Minister deny that the number of movements estimated by 1980 at Heathrow, judged by Roskill —which determined Maplin on movements alone—has already proved inaccurate and, therefore, the need for Maplin within the suggested time scale also?
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that this is in any way the case. The figures continue to expand. The argument is not simply the question of which year we actually reach a given set of figures. We are bound to reach these figures soon after 1980, and we have to do everything in our power to build the third airport as quickly as possible so that the environmental benefits can be made available to the people living around London.

    Canned Foods (Drained Weight)
    Mr. David Walkinsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he now expects to complete his Department's detailed examination of the drained weight problem in relation to foods canned in liquid.
    Mr. Emery: As I have previously informed the hon. Gentleman on more than one occasion, I am going ahead with this examination as a matter of urgency.
    Mr. Watkins: May I inform the Minister of some further evidence for his detailed examination that I have recently had drawn to my attention—evidence of a tin of Woolworth-brand strawberries of 7½ oz. weight, of which no less than 5½ oz. was liquid? Almost 77 per cent. of the total weight was in liquid. Since all the evidence is that the situation continues to get worse rather than better, will the Minister see that speedy action is taken?
    Mr. Emery: I cannot believe that the single instance which the hon. Gentleman gives is general. I think he will realise that, and the complexity of this problem. We want to be able to come to a specific conclusion as quickly as possible, and that is what I am trying to bring about.
    Miss Fookes: Does it not seem strange to my hon. Friend that both South Africa and Russia appear to have solved this problem, which is so baffling to the boffins in his Department?
    Mr. Emery: I am certain that I have only to remind my hon. Friend that neither of those solutions is accepted as meeting the problem to any sufficient degree of efficiency.

    Advance Factory, Denaby Main
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
    28
    what further action he is taking to find a tenant for the advance factory at Denaby Main.
    Mr. Chataway: We are making every effort to find a suitable tenant and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister recollect that three weeks ago a Minister in another Department said that there was a bright future for Yorkshire and Humberside, including the Dearne Valley? We do not mind Ministers misleading the House—we can combat them—but when Ministers mislead the people it is diabolical. That is what is happening. When will the Department find a tenant for this factory? If a tenant cannot be found, will the Minister offer further inducements to tenants, or build a new factory to provide jobs for a few people?
    Mr. Chataway: The improvement in Yorkshire and Humberside is there for all to see. In the Dearne Valley constituency unemployment has fallen by nearly 500—a reduction of almost 20 per cent. We are anxious as soon as possible to provide the further 60 jobs involved in the letting of this factory, and we shall continue to follow up the large number of inquiries which have been made in the last six months.

    STEEL PRICES
    Mr. Biffen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the widespread and reliable Press reports that within 24 hours the British Steel Corporation will announce price increases generally of 10 per cent., which, taken in the context of a switch to the basing point system, could mean an increase for steel users in certain parts of the country of up to 20 per cent., has any Minister of the Department of Trade and Industry intimated his anxiety—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has been a Member of this House long enough to know that that is not a point of order.

    PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
    Mr. Speaker: Last Thursday the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) raised as a point of order the

    29
    question whether the expression "a pack of lies", as applied to what an hon. or right hon. Member has said, is a parliamentary expression.
    As the hon. Member pointed out, and as the House will no doubt recollect, the expression is recorded in HANSARD as having been used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 7th and 8th November 1972, and by the Leader of the Opposition on 10th April of this year.
    In Erskine May, unparliamentary expressions are classified as follows:

    (1)The imputation of false or unavowed motives.

    (2)The misrepresentation of the language of another and the accusation of misrepresentation.

    (3)Charges of deliberate falsehood.

    (4)Abusive and insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder.

    In the light of that classification, I have examined some of the precedents, and considered the expression "a pack of lies".
    Since 1921, the Chair has ordered the following words to be withdrawn: "a lie", "that's a lie", "he is lying", "liar", "deceiving", "lied to the House", "deliberately misleading", "deliberately misled", "a damn lie".
    As to whether the Chair should intervene without a request for a ruling is a matter of judgment. In none of the three cases of the use of the words "a pack of lies" was I asked for a ruling. Indeed, in the first instance, I do not think that I heard the remark. Nevertheless, I have come to the conclusion that I was at fault on the second and third occasions, and should have intervened to rule the expression as unparliamentary, and I certainly intend to do so in the future if I hear it repeated. This will also apply to similar allegations of deliberate untruthfulness.
    30
    Finally, may I remind the House that Erskine May prefaces the passage on the rules governing the content of speeches with the sentence:
    "Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."
    I can only hope that that sentiment will be more consistently remembered by hon. and right hon. Members in all quarters of the House.
    Mr. William Hamilton: May I express qualified thanks for that ruling? I hope you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that anything which further restricts the right of hon. Members to say what they really think in language of their own choosing must be deprecated and guarded against. As far as we can, we want to conduct ourselves with dignity in this House but, speaking for myself, I like to say what I think. I like to call a spade a spade with occasional suitable adjectival embellishments.
    Mr. William Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the increasing number of adjectives which are being ruled out of order—
    Mr. Speaker: Does this matter arise out of what I have just said?
    Mr. Price: Yes. In view of the increasing number of adjectives which are being ruled out of order, would it not help the House if you were to place in the Library a list of words which are acceptable?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That if the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Northern Ireland Assembly [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. John Slradling Thomas.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.35 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The House will recall that in the course of the debate on the Government's White Paper on constitutional proposals for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) that Her Majesty's Government could consider hiving off from the constitutional Bill those parts of it which concerned the election, and so make it possible to hold elections in June. My right hon. Friend said that this would be on the understanding that the House would consider a Bill which dealt with the election, and then as soon as possible thereafter a further Bill dealing with the constitutional proposals.
  The Bill now before the House is the result of my right hon. Friend's undertaking. Its purpose is to establish a Northern Ireland Assembly and to provide for one election to it. It goes no further than the minimum provision for this one election.
  The Bill provides, first that the Assembly shall consist of 78 Members, and that they shall be returned for the Westminster constituencies in Northern Ireland. The revised Westminster boundaries will be used, as they were for the border poll, and Clause 2(3) provides that the election will be on the basis of the single transferable vote. There will consequently be several Members for each constituency, and the number in each case is set out in the schedule.
  I appreciate that there may be different views about the size of the Assembly, or the allocation of seats to constituencies, and it might assist the House if I touched on some of the issues which led us to our present proposals.
  One of these issues is that it is obviously desirable to have an acceptably
  32
  narrow spread in the average number of electors per seat in the various constituencies. This is always a hazard in any constituency system. Even on the revised boundaries there is a spread in the single seat Westminster constituencies for Northern Ireland of between 70,000 and 115,000. For the election under this Bill, the spread is by comparison very much less—between about 11,900 for West Belfast and about 14,400 for South Antrim.
  Moreover, to get the best results from the single transferable vote, the number of seats in any constituency ought to be at least four, to get the benefits of the multiple seat principle, and not more than eight, because a larger number would produce an unmanageable number of candidates on the ballot paper which is before the elector. It is these limits of four to eight which will operate in the local government elections by single transferable vote which are to be held on 30th May.
  As hon. Members will see from the schedule, we have provided a range from five seats in the case of Fermanagh and South Tyrone to eight seats in the case of Antrim, South. All other constituencies will be returning six or seven members.
  Taking everything into consideration, the best result worked out at 78 seats, on the basis shown in the schedule. The numbers in the new Assembly will also equal the total number of seats in the Northern Ireland Parliament and Senate.
  I come now to the proposals for the franchise and for membership of the Assembly. Hon. Members will find that these are dealt with in Clause 2(2) and Clause 3 respectively.
  The Bill provides that the franchise shall be the same as for a general election to the Northern Ireland Parliament—that is, the Stormont franchise, which was used for the border poll. As to qualification for membership, the Bill applies generally the Westminster practice, with the necessary modifications, as, for example, in the list of disqualifying offices or positions, which governed membership of the Northern Ireland Parliament. A change from Westminster practice, which is provided under this Bill, is that a person will not be disqualified simply because he is a peer of Parliament.

  33
  Most hon. Members will be aware that this follows Northern Ireland practice: a peer can sit in Stormont, and vote on the Stormont franchise.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Before the Secretary of State leaves that matter, may I ask a question? I thought that he was about to enlarge on an important point. He said that the electoral list used for the referendum will be the electoral list used for the election of the Assembly. Is he aware that at least 10,000 eligible voters have been dropped from that list? Has he in mind any procedure under which a supplementary register might be published so that those who have been taken off the list because of a fault in the computer system—as has been admitted by his Department—and who should have a vote will in fact obtain the vote to which they are entitled?
  Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) raises an important point but I will not go into it in great detail. I discovered after discussion that, as far as it is possible to judge, there was not a significant difference in the number of people who were left off the register when compared with those who were on the register in the previous election or indeed those on the registers for the Westminster elections in this country. That being so, it did not seem right to have a supplementary register on this occasion. If we were to have the election in June, it would be difficult to have a supplementary register. I accept the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, but I am taking this on the basis that, as we judge the position, the register is not significantly different from the register which was in operation in other elections.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: On the question of postal votes, will the rules be the same as those which have applied heretofore, or will postal votes be available, for example, to people on holiday?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I shall come in my own time to that point in my speech, and I wish to deal with it because it is very important.
  I was dealing with the point about peers being able to sit in Stormont and to vote on the Stormont franchise. Hon. Members will also be aware that the whole question of qualification for mem-
  34
  bership is a most complicated branch of the law. That is one very good reason for not making any changes in arrangements which are already working satisfactorily.
  The Bill empowers me to make orders governing a number of important matters. It is important that the purpose of these orders should be clear. First, there is the date of the election, which is to be determined by order contained in a statutory instrument. This provision was included since I could not—and should not—presume how long Parliament would take to consider the Bill. But I now understand, from representations which I have received from all parts of the House, that Parliament is likely to approve this Bill by 11th May and, on this understanding, I can announce the date of the election as 28th June.
  Having said this, I should make it clear to the House that the main constitutional Bill will certainly be before the House well in advance of the Assembly elections, and I know that my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House, hopes that it will have substantially advanced its passage through this House by that date, 28th June.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: May I impress on the Secretary of State the great importance of going slightly further than that since, in my opinion, it is necessary for the Bill to be through the House before the election campaign gets too far advanced.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend says and I personally agree with him and would very much like that to happen. However, I should fall into great trouble with this House if I were to presume how the House will deal with the Bill and if I were to interfere with the prerogative of the Leader of the House. For this reason I think that the words which I used were the correct words.
  Another matter which is to be determined by order under this Bill, if it is approved, is the date of the first meeting of the Assembly. Hon. Members will find the reference in Clause 1(3). As to this date, the position is that the Northern Ireland Parliament is still in existence, although it stands prorogued, and it would seem wrong that the Assembly should

  35
  meet whilst the Northern Ireland Parliament still exists. The first meeting of the Assembly will therefore take place after the Northern Ireland Parliament has been dissolved, and this, in time, will be consequential upon the passing into law of the main constitutional Bill. The exact date would be determined after consultation with the leaders of parties in the new Assembly.
  The House will note that Clause 1(6) of the Bill provides that a Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament who is elected to the Assembly will have his salary as a Member of that Parliament— namely £1,450 per annum plus £300 per annum expenses, plus up to £500 per annum secretarial allowance—credited towards his salary as a member of the Assembly—£2,500 per annum plus up to £600 per annum to defray secretarial expenses.
  The House will wish to know that a major effort is being made in Northern Ireland to explain the single transferable vote system which is to be used both in district council and the Assembly elections. Every household will receive a copy of a very simple booklet explaining proportional representation. These will be distributed by the Post Office and copies will be made available in the Library of this House tomorrow.
  A more detailed booklet is being prepared and 200,000 will be available on request. We shall be advertising in newspapers and on television and hope to enlist the aid of television and radio for further explanatory effort.
  Instead of indicating one name with a cross, the voter states a choice in order of preference among the candidates— one, two, three, and so on—for as many candidates, or as few, as the voter wishes. Basically, all the voter has to do is to remember that he or she uses numbers instead of a cross when receiving a ballot paper. The count is more complicated. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Stratton Mills: In terms of the ballot paper the constituencies will be very large and will involve a considerable number of people and there will no doubt be large numbers of candidates. Is it possible to have the names of the parties put on the ballot paper?
  Mr. Whitelaw: The answer to that is "yes".
  Mr. Russell Johnston: There was a certain degree of hilarity on both Front Benches a moment ago. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a system which is complicated but fair is better than one which is less complicated but unfair?
  Mr. Whitelaw: Since I find some difficulty in working out the arrangements for the count, I have a certain amount of difficulty in working out the implications of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, in the good-humoured way in which he puts the point, is right.
  Mr. Kenneth McNamara: May I deal with the number of candidates? If there were a five-seat division, will the Secretary of State make absolutely clear that five crosses against the parties would make an invalid electoral form?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I should like to look into that question and have it answered carefully afterwards. I should not like to mislead the House on this matter.
  The count is more complicated. A good deal of training for those whose task it is to carry out the count has already taken place and will be completed in good time for the elections.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: But the right hon. Gentleman must know the answer to the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) put to him. It is fundamental to the system being proposed. If a ballot paper bears crosses, it must be invalid since, under the system proposed, voting is to be done by means of numbers. The right hon. Gentleman must answer the question if he expects the House to give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry. I did not understand the question properly. As usual, I apologise for my complete stupidity. As I have said before, the ballot papers will have to bear numbers instead of crosses. If a ballot paper has crosses on it and not numbers, of course it is invalid. I apologise to the House.
  Mr. McNamara: I am grateful for that reply. However the important point, which perhaps I did not put very clearly, was that members of the public in Northern Ireland should appreciate that just putting one cross on a ballot paper and appearing to plump for one candidate will make that vote completely invalid.
  Mr. Whitelaw: As I have said already, the answer is that ballot papers will have to bear numbers and not crosses. I think that I have made that clear now. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for stressing it again.
  When the hon. Gentleman intervened I was speaking about the count and saying that it is, of course, more complicated. A good deal of training for those whose task it is to carry out the count has taken place already and further training will be completed in good time for the election.
  The Bill itself provides in Clause 2(4) that each candidate shall make a deposit of £150. This deposit would be forfeited under provisions which are comparable with the position in the case of an election to the United Kingdom Parliament, where a deposit is forfeited if the total number of votes polled by the candidate does not exceed one-eighth of the total number of votes polled.
  Under the order which will govern the rules for the election the House will wish to know that the Chief Electoral Officer will be the person responsible for its conduct. The order will be designed to make the minimum number of adaptations to the existing rules for parliamentary elections. There will be extensive postal voting facilities in line with arrangements planned for the local government elections and each candidate will be allowed free postage for one election address in accordance with normal practice. The hours of polling will be from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. as in the border poll and the local government elections.
  The fourth matter to be determined by order, which under Clause 3(4) is subject to the negative resolution procedure, is the making of the usual provisions which have to be made for any election to deal with the consequences of disqualification. Clearly it is essential to specify just what these consequences are. The guidelines
  38
  for the order are already laid down in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957.
  I said earlier in my speech that the Bill goes no further than the minimum provision for the first election to the new Assembly. It does not deal with the term of the Assembly, although hon. Members will be aware from the White Paper that its initial term will be for the period from its first meeting up to 30th March 1974 but that if an Order in Council has been made between those dates for the devolution of legislative powers, it will serve for a period of four years from the date on which the order takes effect. Moreover the Bill does not deal with casual vacancies in the Assembly. This, together with a number of other issues relating to the running of the Assembly, will be dealt with in the main constitutional Bill.
  This Bill is essentially a limited and urgent operation for one election only. During the debate on the White Paper there was a strong demand from all sides of the House for an election in Northern Ireland by the end of June. Indeed, the House could be said to have willed that end. Her Majesty's Government agree with this view and have sought in this Bill to provide the means. I commend it to the House.
  3.54 p.m.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that the procedure which has been adopted, hiving this legislation off the main Bill in order to speed up the election, came as a result of a suggestion from this side of the House. The Opposition are grateful for it. I repeat what I said after the intervention by the Prime Minister on 28th March, that we will cooperate within the necessary full consideration of an important electoral measure. The principle of an early election is clearly accepted. I shall take that as read and turn straight away to the consideration which I mentioned to the Prime Minister and to which I have just referred.
  It is worth raising a number of these points because it is likely that after the election of the new Assembly, when one is considering the steps to be taken for future elections, there may have to be changes in the number of seats and possibly slight variations in the method

  39
  adopted for this election. We should use this occasion to raise a number of those issues so that we are aware of them on polling day and afterwards.
  With regard to the 78 Members of the Assembly, in the schedule the Secretary of State has provided the breakdown for each Westminster constituency, and it would be interesting to know more precisely how this breakdown was arrived at. I notice that Mr. John Taylor has talked about "gerrymandering". That is not unusual. We have had the word bandied about in this House. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has been a little more prosaic. He has not used that word. But he has asked for additional Members for the Belfast area. Therefore, in my view we should be clearer about the way that it has been done.
  In a Press statement the Alliance Party described Mr. John Taylor's attack on the Secretary of State for "anti-Loyalist gerrymandering" as one of the most absurd statements that he had ever made. But in that same handout an issue was raised which is rather more important, and I raise it again now. It said:
  "It is however obvious that the present allocation of seats was done on the basis of 1972 figures rather than 1973 figures, when there has been a considerable movement of population."
  That precise point ought to be considered during the course of the day. According to this Press statement there have been changes in population within the past year.
  There are a number of considerations here for the future. The number of seats in a Parliament is a matter for the Legislature. It is decided normally by an Act of Parliament, and a Boundary Commission then looks at the split-up in the light of the Legislature, of the Government and Parliament as to the number of seats that there should be. As I have said, the allocation ought normally to be up to the Boundary Commission. That cannot be done for this election. However, on 31st July last year the then Minister of State said:
  "Also in 1968 the British practice of having in operation a permanent Parliamentary Boundary Commission for the Northern Ireland parliamentary constituencies was introduced. Such a Commission, on similar lines to the Commissions operating for the Westminster
  40
  parliamentary constituencies, has been established. Now that the local government boundaries in Northern Ireland have been determined and prescribed, this Commission will be in a position to carry out its review and give its consideration of any recommendations necessary for a revision of the existing Stormont parliamentary constituencies."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July 1972; Vol. 842, c. 45.]
  I concede that there would not have been time for the Secretary of State to use this Boundary Commission. But if there are to be changes in the future it is as well to establish that there is still in existence in Northern Ireland—I presume—a Boundary Commission which could look at the number of seats to be arranged for the 12 Westminster constituencies.
  Whatever the form of the Assembly in the future, as long as the election is based on the Westminster constituencies it will be based on redistribution here. The next redistribution for the Westminster Parliament cannot take place until after 1979 in accordance with the Act in the mid-1950s which said that there would have to be a 10 to 15 year delay between redistributions.
  There cannot be an increase in the 12 constituencies without the Government coming to the House and putting forward a major case. Therefore, because there are 12 constituencies and because the Government also have to take into account the 26 local government district councils which the Secretary of State has set up, those two things, the 12 and the 26, have to be taken into account when the Government are looking with greater care at the allocation of seats after the election. The number of seats per constituency should be looked at again after the Assembly is elected.
  Regarding proportional representation, I note that the words in the Bill are the same as in the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and the local government order last year. I first looked at this point many years ago and I recall the late Professor Laski telling us that there were about 900 forms of proportional representation. Although the single transferable vote is not technically a form of proportional representation, I believe that the Government are right to use it. In any event, it is the same system as is in use in the South and was in use in Northern Ireland in the early days.

  41
  I would personally have been happy with the proposed salary until recently. I notice that some of my friends who were elected to the metropolitan counties last Thursday, which are larger than the Northern Ireland will get nothing. Indeed, the members of the GLC, which is responsible for more than 8 million people, with 92 constituencies, will get nothing. Therefore, I point out to hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies that Northern Ireland has surely been marked as different. It is not just a county council.
  The Government have said that the new Assembly is different. When I pointed this out to some of my friends on Thursday night, they said "Yes, it is very different from what we may expect." Many of them will be chairmen of committees working 48 to 50 hours a week for nothing. I point out, not in a deprecatory way, that it was worth indicating to the people of Northern Ireland that the Government have said, and this House has willed, that the Members of their Assembly will receive a substantial payment and, therefore, that the Assembly is not regarded as a county council or even as the GLC but is marked out as something different.
  I notice that the pay that is to be given to Members of the new Assembly in Northern Ireland is exactly the same—1 hope there is no subtle difference—as to a Teachta Dala in the South. I understand that the pay in the South is to go up shortly. As much as I have just eulogised the large sum of money that is to be paid to Members of the new Assembly, when we see what the Assembly does and the sort of time that its Members give to it, it may be worth looking at it again and allowing the Top Salary Review Board to look at it.
  The powers of the Secretary of State in Clause 2(5), on which the right hon. Gentleman spent a fair time, I think represent the core of the Bill. It was no doubt for that reason that the right hon. Gentleman spelt it out in greater detail than we would have known about. I presume that there will be an order similar to that on which the local government procedures were laid down last year. In our view, it ought to be by the affirmative resolution procedure, unless there is a good reason for its not being done in that
  42
  way. The intervals between the stages of the election, the form of declaration, the method of voting, and so on, are extremely important. Therefore, they should come before the House. I do not put this point to the Secretary of State as if he were wearing his former hat, but I remind him that at our request, because the local government order would have provided only one and a half hours even on the affirmative resolution procedure, the Government gave us a day's debate on it. If we are to debate fully what is contained in Clause 2(5) we certainly could not do it in one and a half hours.
  I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that the powers in Clause 2(6)(a),
  "may include any supplemental or incidental provisions, including provisions creating criminal offences ",
  are extraordinarily great. We shall take the opportunity of finding out this afternoon what that is all about. Unless the Secretary of State or his Ministers give us other information, we shall seek to remove that from the Bill.
  May I ask the Minister to make clear, when he winds up, the role of the chief electoral officer regarding these new Assembly elections?
  Regarding the death of a candidate, I seem to recall that when we dealt with local government there was a curious arrangement; namely, that, although people would have been elected by the single transferable vote, if anybody died or gave up his seat there would be a normal straightforward election for the whole constituency, not on the single transferable vote. I recall that we had an interesting discussion whether the man concerned should be allocated to a certain part of the constituency. It matters not whether that is precisely correct. What matters is that it struck us at the time as an odd way of electing people.
  I should also like to know the Government's intentions regarding someone being elected who does not turn up. If people are voting one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, does it mean that the person next on the list moves up? What is the Government's thinking on this point? It will be interesting to know before the time comes.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if a person stood on an abstentionist ticket, did not attend and

  43
  ultimately won on that ticket he should be disqualified? In this House a person may never turn up, but he is not disqualified. It would be unfair to make the rules different.
  Mr. Rees: That is why I raised it. The hon. Gentleman should get this point clear. There is a difference between somebody elected and not coming very often and somebody elected in order not to turn up. In Irish politics standing to abstain has an historical precedent. We should be clear about the Government's view on this matter.
  I understand that a candidate would lose his £150 deposit if he got less than the one-quarter of the quota at any one stage. I note that in the South it is only one-third of the quota at the time of being eliminated, and there the candidate would lose £100. I suppose the difference is that it is easier to stay in the race in the North but the candidate pays more. The £150 deposit is the same as here. I have no strong views on it. Indeed, if people are seeking parity—this is an important aspect—the £150 deposit is the same amount as for our Parliament. There is not much of a grumble.
  Regarding illegal practices, there is one point which I should like to mention that was brought to my notice by one of my hon. Friends. On the day of the Northern Ireland border poll hon. Members from both sides of the House saw more of the polling arrangements than the Secretary of State and myself as we had to stay here in the afternoon to deal with Questions. I had brought to my notice and highlighted what I have noted in the polling booths of Antrim.
  At local and parliamentary elections in this country a candidate can have a polling agent. He gets a duly signed form and is allowed into the polling booths to make sure that all is well. I do not think there is a limit on the number, but I do not know. What surprised my hon. Friends and me was that the polling agent did not sit inside the door and keep a weather eye on what was happening, but sat between the paid staff. I remember on one occasion seeing three people sitting in the polling booth. The Secretary of State might recall that two of them smiled effusively, but I
  44
  thought we received a bit of a frosty look from the one in the middle. It was not until we got outside that I realised that the one in the middle was a partisan politician who did not think much of either the Secretary of State or me. She was sitting between the two other people, and I think that that is something which we should not allow.
  Captain L. P. S. Orr: It would be interesting to know where that happened. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the House, where he came across that situation.
  Mr. Rees: I visited four polling stations, and that happened in them all. I shall tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman after the debate where I came across that procedure, and I think that my hon. Friend could give him a longer list of where that happened.
  Mr. McNamara: Would it help the House if I were to say that that procedure occurred at Augher Clogher and Five-miletown and all the other constituencies which I visited, bar two?
  Mr. Stratton Mills: I accept what the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said, but this is unusual. My experience of elections is that the party official sits on one side.
  Mr. Rees: There is obviously a split view on this. I have told the House what I saw happen. My hon. Friend saw it, and so did the Secretary of State. It may be that we picked the exception to the rule, but the matter should be looked at carefully because, in my view, that approach should not be allowed.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am amazed to hear that that happened, because when my polling agents went into the booth they were told that they were to sit not at the table but some way away from it. I have never, in all my electioneering experience, seen them all sitting together, and I should like to know whether this happened in my constituency.
  Mr. Rees: Rather than alter the procedure so that what I have referred to happens in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, we should get the matter right so that it does not happen anywhere.
  Are the disqualification rules for the new Assembly based on the legislation dealing with disqualification from

  45
  the Westminster Parliament? Are the disqualifications in Clause 3 additional to those in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957? Apparently this has happened before in Stormont, but I am surprised at the arrangements in the Bill for dealing with Peers.
  I recall sitting in this Chamber night after night as a junior Minister debating the White Paper dealing with the reform of the other place. One proposal put forward by the then Government was that both future Peers and existing Peers by succession who choose to renounce membership of the other place should, if elected, be enabled to sit in the House of Commons. The then Opposition saw fit not to support that proposal, and I was surprised to find that things were different in Northern Ireland. Presumably we can allow this provision to go through, but I must say that I was surprised when I saw it.
  Clause 3(3) says:
  "The Secretary of State shall have power by order to make provision—

  (a) for the consequences of a disqualification imposed by this section, and

  (b) for the circumstances in which such a disqualification may be disregarded, and

  (c) for conferring jurisdiction to decide whether a disqualification has been imposed by this section."

  Those are extremely wide powers. If the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 is the basis of that provision, may I ask whether these powers are used in other parts of the United Kingdom, or whether they are meant to apply only in Northern Ireland? In any event, they are so sweeping that this, too, should be a matter to be dealt with by the affirmative procedure.
  During the debate on the White Paper the Opposition's view was that the Government ought to find some means whereby members of Sinn Fein were allowed to stand for election in the same way as they are in the Republic of Ireland. Judging from the correspondence which I have received from different parts of Northern Ireland, approval for that suggestion comes from not only one side of the community. As I understand it, under the Bill members of Sinn Fein and other prescribed organisations may stand for election as long as they are not disqualified under the 1957 Act or by the changes made in the Bill. The problem
  46
  confronting Sinn Fein and other similar organisations arises not under this Bill but under the Bill to be debated tomorrow.
  Mr. McNamara: No.
  Mr. Rees: Perhaps I may be allowed to put my case so that the Government will know what it is and be able to make the position clear.
  If it were not for the Special Powers Act, or because of what is proposed in tomorrow's Bill, there would be nothing to prevent members of Sinn Fein from standing for election. A member of the organisation is not disqualified unless he is caught by one of the disqualification provisions in the Bill. Therefore, the best way in which the House could make it possible for Sinn Fein to stand would be to make alterations to tomorrow's Bill. If a member of Sinn Fein were to stand and be elected, that would be fine, but when he turned up with his nomination papers the security forces would arrest him, not under this Bill but under the Special Powers Act or the relevant schedules of tomorrow's Bill.
  Mr. McNamara: Perhaps my hon. Friend now sees the significance of the matter raised earlier about the designation of political parties on the ballot paper. If a person cannot complete a ballot paper because it means saying that he is a member of a proscribed organisation he is disqualified under the terms of the Bill. It is unlikely that tomorrow's Bill will be on the statute book before the election takes place, but even if it were to be passed it would be wrong to stress that.
  Mr. Rees: Much of what my hon. Friend has said is correct. I am not altogether sure about the ballot paper issue, but I think it would be for the security forces to decide whether to arrest the man or woman concerned.
  On the last point made by my hon. Friend, I think that it would be possible for the Secretary of State to remove a clause from tomorrow's Bill in advance of its becoming law. I ask the Government to make the position clear, because if they do they might save a great deal of time today. We shall want to go through the Bill with a fine-tooth comb, but we do not want to get involved in issues

  47
  which may be better dealt with in some other way.
  Entitlement to vote is based on rules for election to the Northern Ireland Parliament. There is a difference here between the Northern Ireland Parliament and the Parliament at Westminster.
  The matter of postal votes has been raised. The Border Poll Bill allowed for postal votes on a large scale. I concede that there is a problem in Northern Ireland, otherwise we should not be discussing the whole issue, but I think we ought to look carefully at this question of postal votes and the timing and arrangements for them.
  Clause 3 says that candidature is the same as for the United Kingdom Parliament. Would it be true to say, therefore, that a citizen of the Republic, man or woman, living either in the Republic or in this country could stand in the Northern Ireland election because the rules are the Westminster rules?
  This leads me to the next question. I recall the Government telling us—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West and some Unionist Members from the Province have talked about this; many of us were surprised a year or 18 months ago to find that this was the case—that a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies normally resident in this part of the United Kingdom who goes to Northern Ireland may vote. Would the wife of a soldier on a two-year tour, or the man himself if he put his name down on the electoral register, be able to vote? But the bull point is, what about the seven-year rule about foreigners and citizens of the Republic who do not enter Northern Ireland in the way that I have described? Does the existing law still apply in Northern Ireland?
  We wish to expedite this Bill. We want elections in June, and the Secretary of State has given us a date, for which we are grateful. It will help that he has given the date today. It will concentrate people's minds even more. We want to test the opinion of the people of Northern Ireland. We think that all should be able to stand. These elections are the key to the future. They will determine how the Assembly will function, through the split between the
  48
  various parties. Ultimately, the White Paper's success will stem from what we do today. We wish the Bill well and will do all we can to get it through the House today.
  4.22 p.m.
  Captain L. P. S. Orr: I too, like the hon. Member for Leeds South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), wish to expedite the Bill. I hope that my right hon Friend the Secretary of State will not be embarrassed if I say that I can commend him, and commend him very warmly, for having brought forward this section of the White Paper's proposals. As he said it was the general wish of the House that we should get on as soon as possible to elections in Northern Ireland. With that end in view, I commend the Bill.
  There are, of course, a number of matters within the Bill which we shall seek to discuss in Committee, but we have no wish to prolong the affair, because we want to make it possible for the Secretary of State to hold the elections on the date that he has announced We are grateful to him for having announced the date. That will be a great help. It is a pity that he could not go further and announce the date on which the Assembly would meet. I understand the technical difficulty about the existence of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, but, before we finish with the Bill, he should give some idea of his intentions.
  It would be a tragedy if the Assembly were elected and then did not meet, say, until the autumn—if, in other words, it were left in a vacuum all through the summer. All kinds of things might then happen.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I wonder whether I can help my hon. and gallant Friend, because I very much share his view. It will, of course, inevitably depend on the time at which the constitutional Bill gets through Parliament. I am bound by that, because, of course, the constitutional Bill is that which deals with the present Parliament of Northern Ireland. The Assembly could not meet until that Bill was through Parliament.
  Captain Orr: I understand that, and am grateful for what my right hon. Friend said. I gather that, broadly, he and I would have the same sort of view—
  Mr. Whitelaw Mr. Whitelaw indicated assent.
  Captain Orr:—about the timing, if that timing proved to be possible.
  There is a greater opportunity now to undo some of the defects in the White Paper which I pointed out in our debate on it. We are now dealing with the Bill setting up the Assembly. Pretty soon, it is the Government's intention to produce the constitutional Bill, "tomorrow's Bill", as the hon. Member for Leeds, South described it. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should produce that Bill in two parts, what I might call tomorrow's Bill and the day-after tomorrow's Bill.
  Constitutional Bill No. 1 would do certain simple things. It would, for example, embody the constitutional pledge based upon the result of the referendum, it would set down the local government functions of the new Assembly. In other words, it would be the keystone of the Macrory arch. It would go that far and no further, except perhaps to spell out the ultimate position with regard to control of the police. It would not deal with the construction of the executive, the legislative powers of the executive or the powers to be devolved upon the Assembly. It would not, for example, even go as far as the White Paper in specifying the matters which would be permanently reserved to this House.
  Thus, the position in June is that there would be elected an Assembly which could give the Secretary of State a clear indication, as a result of that election and of any alliances in the new Assembly, of the wishes of the great majority of Ulster people over the future of their own constitution.
  Constitutional Bill No. 2 should await the setting up of the Assembly and discussions with the parties in the Assembly, and would thus be clearly seen to rest upon the will of the broad majority of Ulster people. I believe that there is much more chance of a settlement agreeable to all if my right hon. Friend indicates that he will proceed in that way. It would rest, as it should, on consent.
  It would be right for the Secretary of State to leave certain questions open for discussion with the Assembly. One would be its own franchise. There have been references to the constitutional boundaries and the number of Members per con-
  50
  stituency, all the things laid out in the schedule. The Assembly, when elected, should have a say in these matters, even if it be not the final authority. It should have some say in its own franchise, its own size and ultimately the extent of the devolved powers. That would be a more sensible and hopeful way to proceed than the present proposal.
  At present, the intention is to produce all the constitutional proposals in one Bill immediately, giving the impression that they are imposed, that the Assembly will meet within pretty narrow confines. I suggest that it would be better to leave it much more open, so that, ultimately, the system will be seen to rest upon the consent of reasonable people. I happen to believe that the Assembly will be an assembly of pretty reasonable people.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: Surely, the case that my hon. and gallant Friend is making is not for an election of an Assembly but for an election of a conference table.
  Captain Orr: No. With respect, my hon. Friend has not been listening with his usual close attention. What I said was that there would be certain powers immediately. That is why I am dividing it into two stages. Otherwise, I should have rested my case upon saying, "Let us elect the Assembly"—just that—"and let us hold up the constitutional Bill until after the Assembly has met". I am not saying that.
  It should be done in two stages. Certain powers have to be developed straight away upon the Assembly, but all the other things should be left open for discussion with the Assembly. In other words, it should be part local government authority and part constituent Assembly.
  The advice that I have had from the Table is that, if the Bill were given a Second Reading, it would be out of order to move that the Assembly should be turned into a constituent Assembly. I understand that. But I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should treat it in that kind of hybrid way.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: With respect, my hon. and gallant Friend has entirely confirmed my original diagnosis, that, admittedly, while the local government matters would be dealt with in the first Bill, in practice, it would be a mobile conference table that he is suggesting.
  Captain Orr: No. With great respect to my hon. Friend, who is usually acute in these matters—although his acuity seems to have deserted him at present— it would not be a mobile conference table. It would be a method of determining the broad will of the Ulster people with regard to their future constitution.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend agree with me that in the proposals as put forward there is the suggestion that there should be a conference between this Assembly and the Secretary of State on how power should be devolved on the Assembly? In the character of the Assembly there is the very thing that my hon. and gallant Friend is suggesting, that is, the power to confer.
  Captain Orr: Yes, indeed. I am most most grateful to my hon. Friend, who is perfectly right. In the suggestions in the White Paper there is already a good deal of what one might call conference table stuff, but left out of the subject matter for conference are a great many things which have been permanently reserved to this House of Commons. I am suggesting that they should not be so. There were certain matters which were within the power of the old Parliament of Stormont —power over its own franchise and over the method of election. There would have been power to decide whether it wanted the election by proportional representation with the single transferable vote. At present, this is something imposed upon the Ulster people without their consent, that is, consent through any kind of representative assembly. These questions should still be left open, and left open until after the Assembly is elected.
  I concede that everything could not be left open. That is why I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this should be done in two stages. If one can produce constitutional proposals at the end of the day—however one does it—which do not appear to have been imposed in the way proposed by the White Paper, without consultation, one has a better chance of a peaceful settlement ultimately in Ulster, because in the end one must rest it upon the broad consent of the majority of people in Ulster.
  Ulster people are not—although the Press might suggest that they are—unusually bloody-minded. The majority
  52
  of Ulster people are reasonable people. I believe that the Assembly will be an assembly of reasonable people. But they will not arrive in the Assembly in a wholly reasonable mood unless there is some indication that to a considerable extent they have a reasonable say in their future destiny
  My right hon. Friend is unlikely to agree with that view. I discussed it with him a long time ago—last July, I think Since then, he has come to the conclusions which he set out in the White Paper. But I should still like it on record, if nothing else, that this would have been the wiser way to proceed.
  There is a great number of other matters, raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South. I profoundly hope that there will be a possibility of dealing with those in Committee I shall leave what I have to say about those matters until the Committee stage.
  4.35 p.m.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I shall touch briefly on what the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said. It may be that, like his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), I did not catch precisely what the hon. and gallant Gentleman was saying. But it appeared to me at the end that he was suggesting that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had produced a White Paper which he was imposing without adequate consultation. As far as I can see, the Secretary of State has been doing nothing but consult since he became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. If ever there was a man who consulted more, I cannot remember who he was.
  Captain Orr: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I was not complaining that there was a lack of consultation. What I was saying was that there was no Parliament, no consultative body. Would not it be better to wait until we had an Assembly elected under the rules laid down by this House? One would then know with whom one was consulting, and one would know who represented whom.
  Mr. Johnston: That may be. But surely it is generally recognised in this House that the situation in Northern Ireland is such as to require quite extraordinary measures to be undertaken, extrordinary in terms of any other part of the United

  53
  Kingdom, under the bipartisan procedure adopted so far by the Government I do not see the validity of the kind of criticism made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  I say that by way of introduction. I do not intend to speak at great length. As the Secretary of State would expect, I welcome the Bill and the fact that free elections are to take place. I congratulate him on the considerable efforts he has made personally, which have led ultimately to this moment.
  I should like to make three basic points about the Bill. There was some reference earlier to proportional representation, as the Secretary of State will recollect. A certain amount of joviality permeated the scene when it was explained that complicated instruction programmes were to be embarked upon, and many leaflets and pamphlets, et al, were to be distributed to one and all, so that there should be no difficulty about understanding the whole business.
  I should like, first, to do something which has possibly been done previously, that is, to quote from paragraph 39 of the White Paper, which deals with the way in which the election is to be undertaken. This paragraph in the White Paper is the genesis of the proposals in the Bill. It reads:
  "Under the simple majority vote system using single-member constituencies, the drawing of demonstrably fair electoral boundaries is of such crucial importance that it could only be done by an impartial Boundary Commission procedure, with provision for representations, hearings, etc. This would rule out any elections this year."
  That is a straightforward and practical matter. The White Paper continues:
  "These are technical difficulties. But there are arguments against this system at present even if it could be introduced in time. If the Assembly is to play a significant part in working out new structures and procedures, it is of particular importance that its membership should reflect …".
  This is a point which bears on what the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South said. He was talking about a procedure which reflected what people said. Paragraph 39 continues:
  "… the wishes of the community as accurately as possible. It has been decided that there shall be an Assembly of about 80 members … "—
  54
  in fact, we have 78—
  "… and that the system of election best suited to this occasion is the single transferable vote (STV) method of proportional representations … ".
  That is of considerable significance in general, quite apart from the particular of Northern Ireland. The Unionists got rid of proportional representation in the 1920's basically because of fear. The border was then, as it has continued to be, the basic issue. I suppose that in a way it has been maintained as the basic issue by the form of electoral procedure which existed. The removal in the past by the Unionists of proportional representation meant that other issues were not allowed to intrude upon the political scene. With single-member constituencies the only issue which in the end was fairly being put to the electors at General Elections was the border issue.
  The Bill accepts the differences between the two parts of the United Kingdom and legislates for those differences. We must remember that proportional representation was put into the Northern Ireland Act by Lloyd George to protect minorities. It is easy to see that the wheel is going full circle. We have come back again to the same position and the same way of trying to do things.
  Captain Orr: It makes no difference.
  Mr. Johnston: It makes a profound difference. I shall allow myself to be deflected by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South. The sad thing is that the lack of difference is not in the lack of opportunity that is now being presented but in the lack of any new attitude permeating people like the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South. He is not prepared to try to work to seek a more sensitive means of reflecting opinion. I find that very sad.
  Captain Orr Captain Orr rose…
  Mr. Johnston: I also find it sad that there should be such a lack of attitude in people like Mr. Craig.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: As I understand it, Australia is trying to get rid of proportional representation.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Alternative votes.
  Mr. Kilfedder: There is a system in Australia which is not the system that we have in this country. Would the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) not agree that the system of proportional representation in the Free State has not thrown up any Liberals or many representatives of minority interests? In fact, there was only a minority representative who represented South Donegal and Leitrim, an independent Protestant and Fianna Fail member, who gerrymandered the constituency and lost his seat.
  Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) demonstrates a certain amount of lack of knowledge of the situation. He began with Australia, which has what is known as the alternative vote—in other words, a 1–2 system. That is not proportional representation, neither is it a multi-member system. It is not comparable to STV.
  The hon. Gentleman might care to go somewhere rather closer than Australia— namely, to France. He will find a considerable discussion going on now in French political circles about the desirability of changing the French system to accord more closely with the German system. People in all walks of political life recognise that the French system does not reflect adequately and fairly what people feel and want. That is what the Secretary of State is trying to do.
  Mr. Kilfedder: How is it operated in the Free State?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: All this began with a sedentary observation, and I hope that it will end with one now.
  Mr. Johnston: I shall bring this part of my speech to an end.
  A basic point which we must record is that we are not introducing into Northern Ireland a system of Government only because of a situation in Northern Ireland. We are, in the United Kingdom, introducing a new kind ot Assembly into a part of the European Community. The new kind of Assembly which we have chosen to introduce is one based on a single transferable vote. In so doing we are basically recognising the fallibility of the system which we operate. If the system which we operate was not fallible and was not subject to weak-
  56
  nesses we would not be making such a change.
  The question of those who are able to stand and to take part in elections has been referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). I agreed with what the hon. Gentleman said. I have looked at Clause 3 and the end of Clause 2 and I confess that it is unclear how people will be prevented from standing. I take the point which emerged as a result of the intervention of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), that action will probably take place at the point of nomination and the declaration of the association.
  It would be a good thing to allow members of the Sinn Fein to take part in elections, in the same way as members of the UDA should take part. It is a good thing that every individual, however extreme or moderate his opinion may be, should feel the freedom to take part in a free election. As democrats we have nothing to be afraid of in doing that. If that freedom is denied there will be the opportunity to say "It is all fixed. We were not allowed to take part. If we had been able to put up a candidate we would have done marvellously well." That would defeat the object of the exercise.
  The Secretary of State will know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has already written to him about the issue of freedom. My right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman have exchanged correspondence. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter further thought. I know, as he has already said, that it is possible for persons with extreme political views to stand at elections if they separate themselves from the organisations with which they have previously been associated. That is not enough. It is a good thing to get the matter in the open and to have people of extreme views able to stand in freedom. That would be of benefit to all.
  I support the hon. Member for Leeds, South about the width of power which the Secretary of State is taking and the limited degree to which the House will be able to debate orders which are made in pursuance of the Bill—namely, an hour and a half.

  57
  The explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill states:
  "It is not anticipated that the Bill will require any increase in the permanent staff of the public service."
  That may be so, but it depends on how the public service operates. It is of great importance, for example, that the committees which are to be a fundamental part of the Assembly should be given adequate support assistance to enable them to do their job effectively. I hope that there will be no question of financial stringency in that direction.
  Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman will have to await the constitutional Bill for all these matters which appertain to what happens once the Assembly is elected. This Bill is to do with the election.
  Mr. Johnston: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says.
  I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman announced the date of the election today. I hope that there will be the fullest participation in it. The Bill gives not only the chance for the return of peace in Northern Ireland but the opportunity—this is basic— for the building of a fairer, more sensitive and more tolerant democracy in Northern Ireland than has previously existed.
  4.51 p.m.
  Rev. Ian Paisley:: I believe that the people of Northern Ireland will be grateful to the Secretary of State for announcing today the date on which the election to the Assembly will take place. This is a very important matter, and in view of his announcement, the local government elections become more and more irrelevant. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland will now set themselves towards taking the opportunities of 28th June.
  As the Bill deals with the election to the Assembly and is limited to that election, I am sure that it is the opinion of every Member of the House that the election should be fair and just and that it should be seen to be fair and just. I want briefly to develop this thesis. I do not see how the House can say that the election will be fair and just unless as far as possible everyone who wants to place his views before the electorate has the opportunity so to do. This is a very
  58
  thorny problem and the Secretary of State should apply himself to it. It is far better for people to go to the electorate, no matter what their views may be, to stand upon them to campaign upon them and to have them tested by the ballot box. When a barrier is put in the way of a person doing that, he will seek other means for the expression of his political thoughts.
  If a person is wanted for subversive activities, if he is doing something illegal, then it is the duty of the authorities to deal with him. But if a person who is not engaged in subversive activity, albeit he believes in the goals of subversives, then he should be able to go to the electorate and say, "I am not engaged in subversion and I want to put forward certain views ". Those views may be repugnant to many sections of the community, they may be thoroughly intolerable to certain sections of the community, but in this House we should look intently on the matter and seek a way whereby persons not engaged in subversive activities, who are not wanted by the authorities but yet have extreme Republican views, or even extreme UDI views—people who feel that by force of arms Northern Ireland should leave the United Kingdom—are able to come forward and put those views to the test of the ballot box. That is the final test.
  I cross my sword metaphorically with the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston). Of course the Secretary of State has consulted. But the trouble in Northern Ireland is that everyone claims to speak for everybody. I have never met a politician there yet who will admit that his standing in the country may have gone down. They all say that their standing is stronger than ever. But 28th June will tell this House and the world who speaks for Northern Ireland. I am content to let the electorate speak and I trust that this House, if it has any wisdom, will listen to what the electorate says.
  This House may have strong views on its sovereignty. As a Member, I have always accepted and emphasised that this is the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. But it would be stupid of the House if it rejected the overwhelming wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland expressed in the ballot box. It will

  59
  have to listen to those views in the end. Let us hear on 28 th June what the ordinary man in the street has to say. Let us hear his decision and what future he wants.
  I want to make my position absolutely clear because I might be misrepresented. My political opponents and many people in certain camps would like to say "Paisley is advocating that the IRA should be able to campaign." I repeat, therefore, my view that if a person is not engaged in subversive activities then, whatever his views may be, he should be able to get his name on the ballot paper and test those views. This is of vital importance to the future of Northern Ireland. I should like to see the people of Northern Ireland engaging in their greatest political campaign ever. Let them seek votes. Let them seek to test their views before the people of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Is the hon. Gentleman recommending to those who vote for him and his party that they do so in the clear knowledge that it is the constitutional proposals of the White Paper or nothing? Or is he making it clear to the electors of Northern Ireland that some candidates reject the proposals of the White Paper and seek through the Assembly some other form of constitutional arrangement?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: My views are perfectly clear. I reject not all the White Paper but certain things about it. For example, I think that it is ridiculous for hon. Members to say that they want to put the border completely out of politics. Her Majesty's Government are saying, in effect, to the people of Northern Ireland "You have had a referendum to decide the issue but in the White Paper we propose that the first item on the agenda shall be a tripartite meeting so as to subvert the declared wishes of the people of Northern Ireland on their constitutional status." That is something I shall be opposing before the electorate.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will also be telling his people the things in the White Paper which he does not accept and which his party is rejecting. Only one party, the Alliance Party, has accepted the White Paper in
  60
  full. It did so with cheers in the Ulster Hall, and it gave the White Paper a standing ovation.
  It would be churlish of me not to give due credit to the Secretary of State. There was a time in Northern Ireland when few people had any good to say about him. I never engaged in "bashing" him, as he knows. The Alliance Party has given him a standing ovation. Let it go to the country with its views. Let the country say what it wants, and let this House heed what the country says. I am sorry that I have enlarged on this aspect perhaps a little longer than I had intended, but this is a very important matter.
  As nearly as is possible, every person in Northern Ireland who is eligible should have a vote at the election. I fear that the Secretary of State does not understand the seriousness of what has happened over the last electoral lists that were prepared in Northern Ireland. People tell me "Those who are not on the lists should have put their names in to be on the revised list." But hundreds of them did that, and then when they saw the final list found that their representations had not been heeded. What is more, some people who have checked that they were on the original list found that they had been taken off the final list. People who have had a vote in every election in Northern Ireland since 1920 find that they will have no vote at this important election.
  I know that there are difficulties, but it is the duty of the House to see that there is a supplementary list containing at least 10,000 of those missing from the present lists. That number represents a large proportion of the electorate.
  Representations have been made to the Secretary of State, and one of his Ministers of State has admitted that there are serious mistakes on the electoral list. If the computer is wrong, the information that was fed into it must have been wrong. It is no use saying that what has happened results from a computer mistake. When a person is told at the polling station that he does not have a vote, he will ask his Member of Parliament "Why haven't I got a vote? Why am I forbidden the right to express my wishes at this election?"
  I ask the Secretary of State to have a careful look at the matter. The 28th

  61
  June is a considerable time away, and I think that it would be possible to hear the representations of those whose names are mistakenly missing from the lists and to see that a supplementary list is supplied for the various constituencies.
  As far as possible, the same number of electors should be able to return the same number of Members. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) was hardly fair to the people of Northern Ireland who have raised certain objections to the number of seats in constituencies. I represent in the House, under the new boundary changes, over 100,000 voters. It is proposed that there should be seven seats in North Antrim, yet the county of Armagh, which has only 89,000 voters, also has seven seats. There is a great disparity.
  I am not saying this because it suits me. It would suit me far better to have seven seats in North Antrim, because Bally Castle and the Glens in my constituency is a strong Republican area, one of the most historic Republican areas in the county. By refusing to give eight seats to North Antrim, the House is telling against not only the Loyalist community but the Republican community. It should be concerned about that.
  There have been arguments about gerrymandering. I was never in the Government in Northern Ireland—thank God for that! —so that guilt cannot be applied to me. In Fermanagh and South Tyrone the seats will average out at about one for every 13,000 voters, yet their ratio to the electors is 5·3 per cent. In West Belfast the percentage is also 5·3, but the Government are giving that constituency six seats and Fermanagh only five.
  I do not agree with Mr. John Taylor and everything he stands for. Many a fight have we had in Stormont across the Floor of the House. But when he asks "Why not give Fermanagh and South Tyrone the same as West Belfast?", he is arguing on the figures. We in the House should not be sidetracked by red herrings. We should say that as far as possible the numbers that return a Member should be the same in every constituency.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Do not the figures also show that there is a general unfairness towards, and under-representation of, those parts of the Province west of the Bann?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall stick to my figures on this. Londonderry, with an electorate of over 90,000, has seven seats. Yet in Antrim, which is not to the west of the Bann but is to the east of the Bann, over 100,000 electors are needed to obtain seven seats. I think that the only place that is under-represented on the ratio is Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which has five seats. Probably in an election the extra seat to which I believe it is entitled would go to a supporter of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) or someone of his political opinions. Therefore, I am arguing against my own case, but I do so because the House should be absolutely fair in this matter.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, West smiles, because, with a small electorate, he needs only 11,000 votes to be home and dry. In North Antrim nearly 15,000 would be needed to win.
  The House should consider the matter objectively and say "As far as possible, we shall do what is right, irrespective of what happens." The majority in Northern Ireland feel that the Loyalists always go to the wall and that the Republic elements have the benefit; Republicans feel that they go to the wall and that the Loyalists have the benefit. Because of that clash of opinion the House should deal with the matter objectively as far as possible.
  Mr. Frank McManus: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is presenting a liberal face in the House. Does his liberal approach extend so far as to agree that in the upcoming election persons in Northern Ireland who may have resided there for a time but have not met the seven-year residence qualification, residents of the Republic who have not been in the North for seven years, should have a vote, as in Westminster elections?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: People who are not resident in Northern Ireland should not stand. How could they represent an area that they have not lived and not worked in, an area where they did not know the situation? We should have one electoral list, and one list only. If it is for the United Kingdom it should be for the United Kingdom, and if it is for

  63
  Northern Ireland it should be for Northern Ireland. In the Bill we have regulations dealing with the Northern Ireland list and other regulations dealing with the United Kingdom way of running elections.
  It would be far better if the Government made up their mind how many votes are involved. The difference between the two electoral lists is only 7,000. After all, 10,000 people who are eligible to vote have already been dropped. The hon. Gentleman has only 7,000 to worry about, not like the 10,000 dropped by the computer. It must have been a Republican computer.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that the political affiliation of candidates will appear on the ballot paper. It is very important, especially with proportional representation and a large number of candidates, that the party affiliations, or the things that candidates stand for, should be on the ballot paper.
  I shall not now argue the method of voting. The hon. Member for Inverness quoted Lloyd George. But this Parliament need not say to the Parliament of Northern Ireland "You should not have given up proportional representation", because this Parliament decided that the Parliament of Northern Ireland had the right to decide at any time how it should conduct its voting. If the 1920 Act had made it clear that for all time it would have to be by proportional representation we would not have had the turn of the wheel at all and we would still have proportional representation. Do not let anyone think that proportional representation is the panacea for all evils in Northern Ireland. The people are just the same. The majority of the people will return a majority to the Assembly, whether this House likes it or not. There will be a realignment of opinion. There could be great changes in the realignment of political associations in the Assembly, changes that may surprise even this House. It must not be thought that all will be well because we are to have proportional representation.
  I do not often admire Mr. Lynch but I admire his honesty in that he says he wants to get rid of proportional representation.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: Too late.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: He is too late, yes. He did not succeed this time but he might succeed in the future. After all, Conservatives held the Greater London Council for a number of years. They do not hold it today. Things change. Even Mr. Lynch could come back into power.
  It is no argument to say that proportional representation will cure all ills. It will be very difficult for the people of Northern Ireland to operate this system for the first time. Even the Secretary of State, who is engineering this, could not answer a straight question from the hon. Member for Leeds, South about putting an X on the ballot paper. The hon. Member wanted to know whether that would invalidate the vote. May I ask whether, if a person uses one vote, that will invalidate the vote?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): There are so many things to clear up that perhaps it would be a good thing to clear this point up now. If a person puts one vote that is all right.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am grateful for that reply.
  I am rather amazed by what the hon. Member for Leeds, South told us about this unique placing of polling agents. I have attended many elections in Northern Ireland. It has always been the rule that the presiding officer and his clerk sit at the box together and the polling agents sit at the end of the table or, if it is not large enough, on seats adjacent to the table. I am surprised that in the recent election they actually sat in between the presiding officer and the polling clerk. How did the hon. Gentleman know who was the polling clerk and who was the presiding officer? If he asked him, well and good. If this happened I would deplore it. I have never seen it taking place. If it occurred at Augher Clogher and Fivemiletown, although it is not a constituency represented by my party, it should be cleared up.
  Hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench need to be able to say what the duties of polling agents are, where they are permitted to sit and whether they are permitted to mark off the numbers of

  65
  the people who have voted. The whole objective of having polling agents was to guard against intimidation. In Irish elections that is evidently the time when the dead rise from the grave and come from various places of everlasting pain to record their votes for certain candidates. We need to know what the polling agents are permitted to do, what their duties are and where they are to sit.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: I find myself in almost total agreement with what has been said by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Like most other representatives from Northern Ireland, he will be prepared to accept the verdict of the electorate when the elections take place on 28th June. I reinforce the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman and by all political representatives in Northern Ireland, from the extreme right wing of the Unionist Party through the whole political spectrum to the extreme Republican wing, that the Secretary of State should remove any obstacles or impediments in the way of political organisations so that they will all have the opportunity to go before the Northern Ireland electorate with their policies, programmes and philosophies.
  Only by allowing every political party and organisation this opportunity in a democratic election can we ever be sure of what the Northern Ireland electorate believes in. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) that if restrictions remain there will be people—perhaps not only on the Republican side, but more than likely—who will say that had they been given the opportunity their qualities would have been overwhelmingly supported by the electorate. They will be able to say that they represent a substantial section of the electorate but because of the ban placed upon their activities by this House they were unable to contest the elections and engage in the democratic process.
  They will then be able to say that if they are not allowed to field candidates and seek the support of the electorate they must continue to resort to violence. We have seen so much violence in Northern Ireland in the past three or four years that the House should in no
  66
  way lend itself, even unwittingly, to a continuation of that violence. In Committee we will seek to persuade the Government to remove any such limitations or restrictions.
  I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) in seeking to persuade the Secretary of State to agree to certain changes. He appeared to be very reasonable. Yet only three or four weeks ago he, the hon. Member for Antrim, North, Mr. William Craig, a former Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, and Mr. John Taylor, a former Deputy Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, formed an unholy alliance and engaged in a conspiracy. That is what they were doing.
  They said that they did not accept the terms of the White Paper and would contest the elections with the intention of wrecking the Assembly. It is on record that they said they would field candidates with that specific intention. If that is their intention, can it be any worse to accept Sinn Fein candidates? We cannot tell how many such candidates would be elected, but I do not think they would be in a position to wreck the Assembly. This is one section of the community specifically telling the Secretary of State that it does not agree with the White Paper and will field candidates to wreck the constitutional proposals. Yet it is allowed to take part in the elections, while other people, such as members of Sinn Fein, who do not believe in violence, have never resorted to violence and would not contemplate it, but who have an unswerving allegiance to the ideal of a reunited Ireland, are to be prevented because they hold that ideal, from engaging in the political process. I do not see how the Secretary of State can justify the ban which it appears he wishes to maintain on Sinn Fein.
  I have heard rumours that the Secretary of State may consider easing the ban, if not lifting it. But the proscriptions are not mentioned in this Bill The matter will be dealt with in greater detail in tomorrow's Bill, but there is no guarantee that that Bill will be passed through the House before the elections to the Assembly take place. The date mentioned by the Secretary of State was 28th June. Normally, nomination day

  67
  would be 14th June, and, in the circumstances advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), it would be on that day that the nomination papers would be refused by the returning officer.
  In view of the representations made repeatedly to the Secretary of State in the past few months by all the political parties and spokesmen in Northern Ireland—people who are desperately seeking a way to bring politics to the forefront, to stop the gunmen and take violence out of the situation, and who form the overwhelming majority of people in the Six Counties—why does the right hon. Gentleman maintain his intransigent attitude and continue to bar from the elections those who seek to create a republic by peaceful and non-violent means? The Secretary of State will contribute greatly to easing the tension in Northern Ireland if he agrees to the honest and reasonable demands made by every political spokesman in Northern Ireland.
  We as a political party advocate that the proportional representation voting system should be used. I do not believe that it is a foolproof system, but it will throw up a better type of candidate and eliminate the more extreme type. That is why it is so necessary in this election.
  The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), in an intervention, said that he did not agree with the proportional representation system because it had been used by Fianna Fail to gerrymander a Protestant out of a seat in Donegal. That is completely untrue. It is well known that I have never been a wholehearted supporter of Fianna Fail, but it was not the electoral system which defeated that candidate. If that were so, it would be very strange that the same political party should be nominating a Protestant—Erskine Childers—for the highest office in Ireland, namely, President of the Republic. We must therefore treat the remarks of the hon. Gentleman with great reserve.
  In the border poll recently, many people availed themselves of the opportunity of the postal vote. We requested our supporters not to desist from taking part in the poll but to use their postal votes to make sure that no one else voted in their names. In the forthcoming election it is just as important that similar
  68
  postal voting facilities should be granted, and even extended People will not be voting on the silly issue of the border this time, but in what are known as the hostile areas in Northern Ireland people might be intimidated from voting. Therefore, every facility should be granted to people so that they may avail themselves of the postal vote.
  Reference has been made to the activities of certain agents during the border poll. I understand that many of them took advantage of the fact that none of their political opponents participated in the election. We did not have agents or observers in the schools at that time, but I gather that certain people, such as members of the Unionist Party, took advantage of the absence of our candidates. I give notice that during the elections for the Assembly the same degree of arrogance will not be shown by those acting as agents on behalf of the Unionist Party.
  On the question of seats, I know that the Secretary of State must have experienced extreme difficulty in trying to arrive at an equitable number of electors for each constituency. The hon. Member for Down, North referred to the smaller number of electors in the Belfast, West constituency. The register on which the forthcoming elections will be carried out is a 1972 register. There is a massive redevelopment scheme in the Belfast, West constituency, and that is why there have been fewer electors in that area. But in the next year or so the area will be rebuilt and there will be an adequate number of electors to justify the number of seats.
  There will be tremendous pressure, possibly by way of amendment in Committee, to increase the number of seats in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which, on the present proposals, is to have five seats. There are three Unionists in that constituency—Mr. West, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Brooke. One of them would lose his seat under the proportional representation system. That is why such a furore has been created throughout Northern Ireland by spokesmen for that constituency. I do not think that the Secretary of State should unduly concern himself with the personalities involved or the amount of support which they would seem to have for their arguments, because there will be three extreme Unionists fighting for two extreme Unionist seats.

  69
  The Bill has been advocated by all the political parties in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we must accept it. We support it in its present form but we hope that in Committee we shall have an undertaking from the Secretary of State that the ban on Sinn Fein and all other organisations will be lifted. The situation is farcical, because the ban has been lifted from Republican clubs. Official Sinn Fein and Republican clubs are exactly the same. If the ban is taken off Republican clubs it must be taken off official Sinn Fein, otherwise a candidate may say that he is a member of a Republican club and also a member of Sinn Fein. The Government would not wish to be embarrassed by dual membership of two organisations because it would create confusion and chaos on nomination day.
  I appeal to the Secretary of State to listen to the voice of reason in Northern Ireland. All reasonable people in Northern Ireland want the elections to take place. They want to discover what the feeling of Northern Ireland people is. There is only one way in which to do that and that is by letting anyone who thinks that he has a policy or programme put himself forward as a candidate. He should then abide by the decision of the people of Northern Ireland.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Belfast West (Mr. Fitt) made a general complaint against persons taking part in the border poll, but I could not help thinking that he might have had less cause for complaint if his friends had taken part in that poll and if we had been enabled to hear the voice of the entire people of Northern Ireland. However, I am very glad to hear from him of the eagerness of Republicans in Northern Ireland to take part in the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  Those of us who resisted the suspension of Stormont and recognise that Northern Ireland's special and historic identity entitles her to her own regional institutions must applaud the intention of Her Majesty's Government to restore a measure of legislative autonomy. I therefore welcome the Bill, so far as it goes, but it is, in a sense, a skeleton. The flesh and life are to be added. It is a
  70
  Bill to provide for elections on the basis of STV to a legislative chamber whose shape is not yet fully delineated.
  If I concede that the House should enable the Government to have their Bill with all speed, it is not because there is not a great deal to be said upon it but because it is time, and more than time, that Ulster's politics—which, under direct rule, have been dragged down into the streets and even into the gutters— should be redirected into democratic channels. The political party and not the private army is the basis of democracy as it is known in the British Isles. The Government are therefore to be congratulated on the urgency they are showing in the preparation of the elections and, like hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from both sides of the House today, I thank the Secretary of State for announcing the date of 28th June.
  Without quibbling over nomenclature, I hold, as I have consistently held, that Ulster must have a proper Parliament and parliamentary government again. Ministers should not be tempted to downgrade Northern Ireland's institutions in fact or in title just because the panoply and paraphernalia of Stormont were unpopular with Republicans.
  If the North and the South are to grow together and work together, and if the Council of Ireland is to mean something, Northern Ireland must be endowed with executive and legislative organs of such competence and dignity as will enable the representatives and the leaders of the North to talk and to work with those of the Republic on level terms. Of course, the White Paper gives important powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly, but the taxing power will be here.
  This again raises the question of the underrepresentation of the Province in this House. I do not want to revert to the matters which were debated when we discussed the White Paper, but I remember that when I asked the Front Bench about the important question of what happened if Members were returned to the Assembly and then refused to take part, I received no answer. Also, when I intervened in the speech by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn

  71
  Rees) I got no reply. I am glad that, speaking for the Opposition today, he took up this point. It is a point which was raised by Mr. Garret FitzGerald, who is now Minister of Foreign Affairs in Dublin, in his book, "Towards a New Ireland". It is an important point. I simply suggest that if a Member is returned and does not discharge his duties he should be replaced by the next candidate on the list.
  The White Paper proposals have been described as Ulster's last chance. They are not, in my view, but they are certainly a new chance for this Government and Parliament to redeem the error of just over a year ago—a new chance for my co-religionists in Northern Ireland. Despite the injunctions of the SDLP and other sections of anti-unionist opinion, a substantial number of my fellow Catholics in the North felt able to vote in the border poll. Here is a second opportunity for both the minority and the majority in the community to declare by the ballot against the bullet and the bomb, and to expose the outrageous pretentions of those who terrorise, because they cannot peacefully persuade, their fellow countrymen.
  I share the dislike of my Ulster Unionist colleagues for the concept of compulsory power sharing. It is alien to our tradition and constitution. It might be said that it will institutionalise sectarianism, but fortunately—I speak as a Conservative and Unionist Member—the White Paper does not say there can be no executive in Northern Ireland composed by the Unionist Party. It says it cannot be composed from a sectarian party.
  I hope, therefore, that in the election campaign and the election literature of the Unionist Party—and even in the choice of candidates—Mr. Brian Faulkner and other Unionist spokesmen will declare and make manifest that they mean to make the Unionist Party a broadly-based and non-sectarian party.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is an Imperial Grand Master. I think that that must be one of the few imperial things that we have left. Some years ago he invited me to speak in an Orange Hall at Banbridge. He knows I am not eligible to be an Orangeman, but I did not
  72
  speak against the Orange Order. What I did was to say, both in that Orange Hall and in other places in Northern Ireland, that it was high time for the severing of the formal links between the Orange Order and the Unionist Party. They are as obsolete as the formal links which used to exist between the Primrose League and the Conservative Party. Their part is played.
  So there is a new chance for Ulster— here is a chance for the people of Ulster to break out of the political and ethnic ghetto and the psychological state of siege.
  5.37 p.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: In an intervention when my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) was speaking I mentioned the polling stations at Augher, Clogher and Fivemiletown. I let them come trippingly off my tongue, lest I did a discourtesy to the Unionist representatives here of those particular places, where the Unionist agent was specifically sitting at the polling station next to the polling clerks and the presiding officers was at Clogher and Augher. At Aughna-cloy it was more in the nature of having a conducted tour of the polling stations by the Unionist representative, who seemed to have control of the situation far better than the presiding officer. I say that to make the matter completely accurate. I am not being discourteous. I give way to the hon. Member who accompanied me on that tour.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would the hon. Member not agree that the last case he has mentioned was exceptional on our tour? My impression was that the gentleman in question had lunched extremely well, perhaps not wholly on solids; but I thought that, in general, on the tour on which I had the pleasure of accompanying the hon. Gentleman there was nothing really to complain of in the conduct of the poll.
  Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect to the hon. Member, I did not draw the conclusion about the Unionist observer at Aughnacloy he did. Perhaps I was being a little more charitable. After all, he was a political opponent—that is, one of the hon. Gentleman's supporters. Nevertheless, I had a feeling, which I had throughout the election, because of the

  73
  proximity and the Unionist agent. Was he there for impersonation or what have you? He was so close to the presiding officer and the polling clerk that one could have reason to suspect he was one of the official trinity in each room. One had reason to suspect that he could be so close to the ballot paper and ballot box that he could have an unfortunate influence upon a person who was capable of being intimidated.
  At Grove Primary School in North Queen's Street many agents were tramping around during the last half-hour of the poll. Some were sitting at the desks and some seemed to have a roving commission. Above it all were crossed flags —the Bloody Hand of Ulster and the Union flag—very much symbols adopted by those of a particular political persuasion.
  I am sure that the Secretary of State would not have approved of their being present in the room, and I hope that in the Assembly election similar events will not occur. The election will take place before we have the benefit of the report of the survey done by the professor from Queen's University, and I should like to know when we shall see that report.
  Captain Orr: The allegation was that polling agents were placed between the two official officers. Surely it is not improper for polling agents or observers of either party to be fairly close to the presiding officer, because they have to see that he operates within the law.
  Mr. McNamara: No one has suggested that the presiding officers were seeking to influence the way in which people cast their votes. If hon. Gentlemen are making that supposition—I see that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) nods—they should sustantiate that statement. If that statement is correct, the whole basis of Northern Ireland elections and the honesty and impartiality of the officials is at stake.
  Mr. McMaster: Surely the whole essence of the hon. Gentleman's complaint is that the SDLP and other Republican parties did not take part in the election. Had they taken part they would have had their agents there, and there would have been a fair balance and no complaint.
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong. He seemed to be nodding agreement to what the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said, and I thought he was rising to substantiate that. Over the years we have been led to believe by Unionist Members that Northern Ireland is just as much part of the United Kingdom as is Kingston upon Hull, North. But in my constituency last week there were no representatives of political parties in any room in which people were casting their votes.
  Captain Orr: There should have been.
  Mr. McNamara: There was no need for them to be. There were people outside—mostly Tories, in a last forlorn hope—and no one objected to that. What we object to is the practice of people being permanently stationed at the same table as the presiding officer and polling clerk. That is quite wrong.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: There seemed to be great hilarity when it was suggested that a polling agent had a right to see that the presiding officer was carrying out his duties. But surely that is another reason for the polling agent being there. Our polling agents were always told that they had the right to search the ballot box before it was closed, and that they did. I have made it my business in Northern Ireland elections to see that my agents put their own seal on the box at the end of the day. We should know clearly exactly what a polling agent has the right to do.
  Mr. McNamara: In my own constituency the ballot box is sealed when it arrives. Let us make sure that a proper rubric is drawn up by the Northern Ireland Office about what is right and what is not right for polling agents to do. When I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South, I did not say that in the polling stations in which I was present the polling agent was sitting between the presiding officer and the clerk. My hon. Friend was merely pointing out that that did happen in one case.
  I regret that we are taking all the stages of the Bill in one day without the opportunity to look properly at the manuscript amendments that will be put forward from both sides of the House. I understand the reasons for the haste and I

  75
  appreciate that the election is being held earlier, but could we not have abandoned the debate on the Diplock Report tomorrow, to allow two days on the Bill and a proper opportunity to consider the amendments?
  What will happen about the report of the professor from Queen's University, particularly in relation to the important developments which took place in the border poll, on the siting of polling booths and the extension of the postal vote? Will the same polling stations be used for this election as were used in the border poll, or are we to go back to those which were used in earlier elections? Will there be restricted postal voting or the extended postal voting that was so successful in the border poll? The arguments that led to the siting of polling stations and the extension of the postal vote in the border poll apply also in this election and will possibly apply in the local elections.
  I should like to see the Secretary of State's powers under the Bill subject not to the negative but to the affirmative procedure, so that we may have proper discussion in the House.
  I hope that in Committee there will be an opportunity to examine the Secretary of State's arguments for not lifting the ban on all the proscribed organisations. If my amendment is selected, I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to say more about the difficulties he has had. I echo what has been said within Northern Ireland and the Republic, that it is far better that these extremists be shown up and soundly defeated at the polls—or, if they have support, that we should be able to see the support they have and know the men with whom we are dealing.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Rafton Pounder: Although the Bill is clearly not without some blemishes, I believe that there will be a complete welcome in principle for the concept of an early election in Northern Ireland and for the clear acknowledgement by the Government that this is the will of this House and also of the people of Northern Ireland. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has been able to announce the actual polling day, although I am bound to say that it was
  76
  a date which many people had ringed in their diaries as a likely possibility. After the four years of agony through which we in Northern Ireland have passed, it is right that elections for the new Assembly should be held as soon as possible.
  One other matter arises out of an understanding of the problems in Northern Ireland. Often during the past four years ideas and plans have been promulgated, and yet between the plan and its implementation things have gone wrong. On this occasion the opportunity for action has been taken as quickly as possible. The classic example on the other side of the coin was the border poll, which was excellent in principle and conception but, unfortunately came out about six months later than the ideal date, which would have been last autumn.
  Although the Ulster people are undoubtedly weary of violence and destruction and are anxious to have an Assembly in operation giving voice to local sentiments, it would be an error of major proportions for anybody on either side of the House to assume that they will be prepared to accept anything.
  Whether we are discussing this Bill or the major constitutional Bill which will come later, there is one yardstick which can fairly be applied to judge both measures. Is it fair, is it realistic, or is it contrived and artificial? Great emphasis has been placed on the importance of the new Assembly operating as fairly and humanly as possible. This is what we would all wish to see, but, unfortunately, there is a fine line between what is manifestly fair and what looks to be contrived and artificial. I do not say this in any threatening or argumentative sense, but I believe that if a political solution in Northern Ireland is thought to be contrived and artificial, by the nature of the political facts of life in the Province it would be doomed to failure—which is the one thing that nobody on either side of the House wishes to see.
  The number of Members envisaged for the Assembly and the system of franchise are the two main points in the Bill. I was surprised to see the figure of Members set at 78. Following all the calculations I had made, my sum did not come out at that total. It is to be a mere amalgamation of the two old houses of Stormont, 52 in the Lower House and 26

  77
  in the Senate. For this reason I hope that it is not too late for the matter to be reconsidered. One of the main arguments used for an early restoration of a Northern Ireland local assembly was that the Macrory recommendations would substantially downgrade local government powers and functions and that to replace them an assembly of some kind would have to be set up as quickly as possible. I was totally and utterly opposed to Macrory, and I remain so, but since those recommendations are now the law of the land we must accept them as such. With the downgrading of local government, there seems an opportunity to give an increased local government slant to the representation in the new Assembly, bringing the total to about 90.
  There is another point which I believe should be considered. I realise that this is a hobby horse of mine, which I have ridden both inside and outside the House on other occasions, but with the passage of time I believe that it has remained valid. Having achieved a brand-new structure on which to build, and bearing in mind that the Assembly will be unicameral, this would have been an ideal opportunity to provide for the nomination by the Secretary of State of certain persons who do not have constituencies or constituency responsibilities but who might be members of the Assembly by virtue of the public office which they hold in the community.
  I am thinking of people like the Vice-Chancellors of the two universities, the President of the Chamber of Commerce, the President of the Tourist Board, the Secretary of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the President of the Ulster Farmers Union—people who, in a parliamentary structure such as we have at Westminster, would be fitted into the second Chamber. In Ulster we shall not have a second Chamber, and yet I am convinced that people of that sort in Ulster would have a valuable contribution to make in the new Assembly. I do not know how many such Members there should be—it might be only 10 Members—but that is the sort of principle which I believe could be accepted in some form. I also ask my right hon. Friend to seek to disqualify as few people as is humanly possible.
  78
  I remember in two elections fighting candidates from Sinn Fein, among others, and it came as a slight surprise to think that they would not be allowed to stand for the new Assembly. Even though a person might be decisely defeated if he were allowed to stand at an election, the fact that he is refused a chance to stand will give him ground to say "I have been robbed—cheated of the seat. I would have topped the poll if only I had been allowed to stand." We must not put people in this ridiculous and spurious position. Let them stand and let them be dealt with by the electorate in the normal democratic fashion.
  I am not entirely happy with the single transferable vote franchise. I have never been a devotee of proportional representation as being an efficient and effective voting system, but that is by the way. Since we desire an early election we want to see as little red tape as possible, but as soon as the election is held I hope that an independent Boundary Commission will be set up to redraw the boundaries of Northern Ireland, based on whatever is the final decided figure for the Assembly, and by the time of the next election we can have the ordinary single-Member constituencies.
  With multi-Member seats those who are victorious at the end of the day take the entire territorial area of the constituency and say "I will do that bit of it, and also that bit", moving round six or seven points of the circle. That is highly unsatisfactory and undesirable from the point of view of the constituents in those areas. The constituents should decide who are to be their Members. It should not be decided by some artificial drawing of mythical areas in the constituency to suit the convenience or whim of successful candidates.
  I should like also to ask about the electoral register. Many people have made representations to their local electoral office, telling the officials "I am not on the register. What can be done about it?" If ever there was an important register in Northern Ireland it is the one that we are using this year. I know that many of my constituents have sent in notes to the local electoral offices and have received an answer. The answer is that there were mistakes on the register, and rank carelessness. I disagree with

  79
  the figure put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I think that the number of people left off the register is much greater than the figure my hon. Friend put forward. Why cannot those who had submitted their names at the time of the border poll, up to the 1st May, be included in a supplemental list?
  I appreciate that it would be impossible to redefine an entire register, and nobody is saying that that should be done. But it is extraordinary that in a densely populated part of my constituency two half-streets were left off completely. Those are not the kinds of mistake which are normally made in the compilation of a register. One cannot make excuses about clerical errors. It was rank inefficiency, and the electorate should not have to suffer.
  Likewise, I trust that we shall have a full use of the postal vote system. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made the point about the validity and usefulness of the postal vote structure at the time of the border poll. I very much want to see this again—with one minor alteration because of the confusion which arose on the question of what constituted a welfare worker in the employment of a local authority. I am not saying that they should be ruled out as witnesses of voting applications. But there was an element of uncertainty in the interpretation of the grades that qualified out of that broad description, and that should be clarified. Let as many people as possible be allowed to vote, and let the postal vote net be drawn as widely as possible.
  I was confused earlier by the discussion about the use of figures as opposed to crosses. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State pointed firmly to use of figures he caused me confusion in one regard. I know that this was not the question that he was asked, but if a voter wishes to vote only for one person he writes the figure "1" in the appropriate square. However, people have been accustomed to putting a single cross in a square. If there is no other mark on the ballot paper to indicate a clumsiness of voting intention, although I know what the rules say on this matter, cannot something be done provided that the voting intention is clear? We all know how
  80
  people become confused in polling booths, and we want to minimise that confusion to the best of our ability.
  When we come to the poll, I hope that there will be a massive turnout of everyone in Northern Ireland to express their wishes. There has been a feeling that we are now facing a voting structure designed to weaken the democratically expressed wish and voice of the majority. That is obviously an unforunate view. It is one of the corner stones of democracy that the will of the majority, clearly expressed, should prevail. I hope that people will turn out and vote in massive strength, so that we really know the feelings of the electors of Northern Ireland.
  Arising from that, I hope devoutly that the House will give due weight to the feelings expressed by the electors of Northern Ireland. This is the chance that we have waited four years to have. I hope that people will take it and that neither side will say at the end of the day "We do not much like the result". That result really is binding.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I shall be brief because I approve entirely of what is being done here. Facing the situations which we confront in Northern Ireland, I agree that we must make this constitutional change as quickly as possible and, in the circumstances, that means in one day.
  What I had intended to say was shot out of my mind by the unusual generosity of the Secretary of State in first admitting in response to a question that he could be wrong—the first time that I have heard such an admission from the Treasury Bench since coming to this House—and, secondly, by his very early announcement of the date of the election. These were two rather important matters—the character of the Secretary of State, in view of the enormous powers that he will acquire as a consequence of the Bill becoming an Act, and the tremendous importance of having this election as early as possible.
  We must not place a heavier burden on the Bill than it is constructed to carry. I do not believe that the simple process of having an election to whatever kind of Assembly will bring peace automatically to Northern Ireland. I do not believe that the introduction or the re-introduction of a system of proportional

  81
  representation will alter the political map of Northern Ireland to any great extent. Elected assemblies merely mirror the society which elects them. One does not change a society by changing the mirror.
  In recent weeks, however, we have seen evidence that the political structure in Northern Ireland is beginning to change, and the pace of change may be much more rapid than some of us in this House have expected. It is very significant that on the Unionist side of these terribly ideological barricades working class people are moving into the political arena, not in ways of which I approve and not making the kinds of speeches which I like to hear, but nevertheless intervening strongly and changing the character of Unionism in Northern Ireland.
  The fact that Mr. Billy Hull now plays a very prominent part in the political life of the Province is a political fact of tremendous significance, and it encourages those of us in this House, including the Secretary of State himself, who want political struggles in Northern Ireland to begin to conform to the pattern which I arrogantly regard as normal. To me the normal pattern is that which we have in the rest of the United Kingdom where political parties may start out as interest groups, begin to acquire other political baggage as they develop but forget at their peril that they are interest groups.
  Class politics is normally denigrated in our institutions of higher education. It is frowned upon. In my view class politics is the only kind of politics that we can have. The sooner that people in Northern Ireland begin to think in terms of interests instead of which side they might have fought on in a long forgotten battle—long forgotten in the rest of Europe—which took place in 1690, the better for all concerned. The question is whether the election which will follow the passage of the Bill will help in the process of almost self-restructuring Northern Ireland politics. I believe that it will.
  I do not like any form of proportional representation anywhere in the United Kingdom. The object of a political system is to produce Governments which can govern and alternative Governments which can take over if the first Government fall down on the job. It is not to create political assemblies in which every
  82
  fine distinction of political thought can be represented in some way. Even a country which applies a more proportional system by using the list system of voting, the Federal Republic of Germany, has thought it wise to impose the 5 per cent. barrier so that crackpot organisations cannot find representation in the Bundestag.
  I am congenitally opposed to proportional representation even in this limited and rather old-fashioned form of the single transferable vote. But I am prepared to accept it in these circumstances because holding an election by this method gives some kind of guarantee to the religious minority. We are talking here of a religious minority, and we shall be in a much more civilised situation when we can blot out these adjectival qualifications from political utterances about Northern Ireland. But the religious minority is being given a guarantee that, whilst it cannot outvote the candidates who belong to the religious majority, at least in its political representation it will be able to take a constructive part in the political activity that will go on in the elected Assembly. If that guarantee is successfully conveyed and produces a high poll in the Catholic areas, it will be a step towards the reconstruction of the Northern Ireland political system, and I accept it, although in Committee I may support efforts to change it.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument and am seized of the point that in his opinion proportional representation is not acceptable and, indeed, is not necessary here. I agree with him to the extent that it may not have been necessary prior to 1970. However, does he agree that in present circumstances it will be difficult for anyone who voted at the 1970 election for a Conservative policy because he still has a Socialist policy? How can provision be made for people who may in future want a Conservative policy to exercise a continuing influence here? Is it not a case for proportional representation?
  Mr. Fletcher: I do not see how, if I went along that side road and constructed in my mind a system of proportional representation for the United Kingdom, such a system could guarantee the kind of result in the United Kingdom as a

  83
  whole that the hon. Gentleman obviously wants. Governments of all political colours rarely do what their supporters want them to do. They do what is considered necessary. That is why we get anguish on the back benches on the Government side, whatever Government are elected.
  It is necessary to pass one final sentence, as it were, from the walls of this House to the people of Northern Ireland. They are not receiving in the Bill a kind of parish council that will be called an Assembly because it is necessary for the Secretary of State to have an accurate political map of Northern Ireland. We, in this House, when we pass the Bill, as I know we will, are giving the people of Northern Ireland something unique in the United Kingdom—something considerably more than the metropolitan county councils in this country. In future, by our committee system we shall give powers to ordinary Members of that Assembly which are not enjoyed by back-bench Members of this House—powers comparable with those enjoyed by continental parliamentarians. This may be desirable; it may be undesirable. However, it is something different and quite considerable.
  This House in its wisdom has decided that the people of Northern Ireland shall have a special status. In my book that means a slightly superior status in electoral terms. I can only hope that they will seize all the opportunities that are now being offered to them and will use this Assembly for the basic job of restructuring politics in Northern Ireland and bringing peace back to that tormented and unhappy Province.
  6.14 p.m.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: The announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today of 28th June as polling day will certainly enable the great political debate in Northern Ireland to go forward. On that basis, I welcome it very much indeed.
  Since we debated the White Paper some weeks ago there has been an increasing momentum of political activity in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) was
  84
  absolutely right when he said that we are seeing a process of considerable political change in Ulster. We are seeing new regroupings going on, and this creates many problems of conscience for many of us who have been involved in these matters.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in suggesting that Ulster moves on to class politics. I had hoped that, for various reasons of history, we had avoided that. If we can move on to a new political era I hope that we shall not take the backward step of merely having divisions on the basis of class. There is much to be said for having them on wider issues.
  I come to my main point on the constitutional Bill. I hope that every effort will be made by the House as a whole to aim at getting the Bill through before, say, the middle of June when the main part of the election campaign will be getting to its final stage. It will surely be seen as totally undesirable for elections to be taking place in Northern Ireland and to have wide open many of the issues which will be dealt with in the Bill, because the people will be being asked to vote on issues which would appear to be not finally determined. I hope that the House will see the strength of that argument.
  This brings me to the speech by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who put forward the view that there should be two constitutional Bills, the local government parts being firm and the rest being left loose for a later Bill—open and vague for the Assembly to negotiate. He kindly suggested that perhaps I had not entirely heard his argument, perhaps because of increasing old age, or had perhaps not understood it. I think he was being unduly anxious. The point was that I was seeing right through his argument.
  I come back to the basic point: is it to be an Assembly to do a job of work, or is it to be a conference and negotiating table?
  Captain Orr: Both.
  Mr. Mills: My hon. and gallant Friend says "Both". Perhaps I may be allowed to make two points on that argument. I voted basically in support of the White Paper. There were parts in it with which

  85
  I disagreed. However, there had been a mass of consultation on it. It is by no means the first choice of everyone in Northern Ireland, but it is, in my view, a reasonable basis of compromise. My view is that it should be firm on the outline to create a structure on which we can proceed.
  My second point is that it is not desirable to have an election fought on the basis of each party putting forward its own negotiating position, once more going through that process, having a further round of negotiations after that, and, at the end of the day, expecting something magic to appear. It is much better to go firm now on the outline. I should have preferred the White Paper to be firmer on the details, so that the political parties would then have the job of fighting the election on issues and policies for the good of the people of Northern Ireland.
  My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the principle of consent. I recognise, not with hindsight, that it is vital to operate on the principle of broad consent. However, I put it another way. Indeed, I put this jointly in a letter to The Times in January, but I recognise that this is now a lost cause. It is water under the bridge. But there was much wisdom in saying that, having had first a referendum on the border, we should have moved to a second referendum by putting the White Paper's proposals as a whole to the people of Northern Ireland and giving them a chance to vote "yea" or "nay" because on their endorsement of such a structure we would have had a more satisfactory basis for going forward.
  Broadly, I welcome the proposal for proportional representation, but I differ slightly in tone from the hon. Member for Ilkeston in that, while there is much merit in seeing two clear-cut divisions in a national Parliament, this is not to be a Parliament in that sense but is a form of regional assembly, and there is, therefore, merit in having a broad reflection of the various political movements in Northern Ireland represented in it.
  It is important to draw public attention to the method of operating proportional representation. It is said that it is immensely complicated, but I believe that if people can operate a football pool system —which is beyond me—they can under-
  86
  stand these things if they are properly and clearly presented to them. I ask that consideration be given to encouraging the media, particularly television, to put out programmes on the working of proportional representation. If that is done, people will quickly get accustomed to the system and adapt to it.
  My right hon. Friend announced this afternoon that the names of the political parties are to be put on the ballot paper. This is fundamental, because in many constituencies there will be 15, 20 or possibly even 25 candidates going forward for election. People will be confused unless the names are printed on the ballot paper.
  The question arises whether Sinn Fein should be allowed to stand at the elections. It is not often that I agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but I thought that on this issue he was right and that he put the matter very well.
  At the 1959 elections in my constituency there were some 5,000 votes for Sinn Fein out of a total of more than 70,000. At the next election, in 1964, Sinn Fein received fewer than 2,500 votes, yet my constituency contains such areas as the Ardoyne, Old Park Road and Marrow Bone. The terrorists do not win at the ballot box, but in the kind of situation which exists now the terrorist, by exerting his influence and by his activities, can create an appearance of momentum.
  The House knows of my detestation of everything for which Sinn Fein and the IRA stand—I need not emphasise that— but I want to see the widest range of candidates standing at the elections. I know the devastation which the IRA has caused, but I want to see what votes it gets at the end of the day. I believe that it will be totally and utterly rejected, but I do not want it to have an excuse to create a myth about the support it enjoys. I want to see the myth exploded, as it can be by the secrecy of the ballot box and seeing what support the IRA gets.
  The great political debate has begun in Northern Ireland. Let us carry forward the momentum to election day.
  6.24 p.m.
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I welcome the Bill because it is brief and yet seemingly adequate, and also because it holds out the promise of

  87
  a most welcome response. But how far it will achieve that response will depend on how wide and how genuine is the participation of all sections of the community, not only at representative but at voting level.
  I want to draw the attention of the Minister to three items in the hope that he will look at them, and if he thinks they will achieve the response which I know he is seeking, will act upon them if he is able to do so.
  The first concerns the pay and working conditions of Assembly men. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) dealt with this. The Assembly men will be varied in background and in resources Some will be poor, and these are the people about whose response we cannot be certain. Where it is possible to provide an incentive by giving a better salary and secretarial allowance I hope that that will be done. I hope, too, that their working conditions will receive careful consideration. The Devlin Report recommended an increase in salary for Dublin Members of Parliament. I hope the Minister will ensure that there is not an initial differential here to the disadvantage of Members in the North. There is a case for helping poorer candidates in order to meet the wishes of those who are anxious to see class politics ushered into the North as early as possible.
  I echo what has been said about the need to permit Sinn Fein candidates to take part in the elections in order to achieve the broadest possible basis of participation, but I want the maximum participation by the electors, too.
  I want the Minister to bear in mind what has been said in this debate. I shall not go over the ground again. He will recall what was said by the hon and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), whose experience of the border poll was the same as mine. Although I was more distressed than my hon. Friend was at seeing Unionist practices, I do not suggest that this reflects badly upon them because apparently they are the normal procedures. But the hon. Member for Antrim, North must know that they are
  88
  questionable when compared with standards in this country. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether these practices should be allowed to be continued, because when I was there last month I thought that they might act as a deterrent. It was difficult not to get the impression that the Unionists had taken over some polling stations.
  Captain Orr: Is it not difficult to avoid that impression if there are no agents of the opponents of the Unionist Party present at the polling booth? That is what happened because of the boycott of the referendum. At a normal election the agents of both parties would be present.
  Mr. Duffy: That point was made earlier by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). The practice would be deplorable from whatever quarter it came. I should have objected to it had I seen the SDLP engaging in such a practice.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: It should be made clear for the record that those present included not only members of the hon. Gentleman's party but agents of the Democratic Unionist Party, of the Northern Ireland Labour Party and of the Alliance Party.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I did not see them.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not present where I was operating. Had he been he would have seen the representatives of all the parties.
  Mr. Duffy: I understand that that was so, though I did not see them, nor did my hon. Friend. I do not doubt what the hon. Gentleman says, but where that practice occurs it is to be deplored. I ask hon. Members to consider how far it is likely to make for participation.
  The other point is about standards of operation. Reference has been made to polling agents from the Unionist Party sitting between polling clerks and being indistinguishable from them. That practice must be questionable, especially where they are looked to for information, as I saw happen in Calkill Primary School in County Tyrone where the polling agent and not the presiding officer was the recipient of questions by electors.

  89
  This practice is unthinkable in English terms. The difference is one of standards, and I hope that the Minister will look into this matter. I came away from Northern Ireland feeling that what I witnessed must act as a deterrent to those whom the Minister and every one else wants to bring into these elections, especially the first one.
  I want the widest possible involvement by parties. We saw it on Thursday, and we see it at every election in this country. I was active last Thursday, as were hon. Members of all parties. But those in this country who correspond to the people we saw working in Northern Ireland do their work openly and outside the polling stations. They are just as effective, but they do not interfere with the work of the presiding officer, nor lend themselves to practices which strike us as questionable.
  Mr. Neil Marten: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, especially since I have not taken part in the debate. I happen to have come into the Chamber just when he is referring to the experience we both shared of being in Northern Ireland at the time of the referendum. As I read it, the agents were inside the polling stations with the presiding officers to help prevent personation. If representatives of all the other parties had been there too, they would have increased the chances of avoiding personation, and that would be a good thing. I agree that this situation differs from our system, but if that is the object, there is nothing wrong with it.
  Mr. Duffy: In the light of what I have so far argued, I cannot agree with the hon. Member. I believe that there is much wrong with it. As for the need to deter personation, that can be done by agents of parties who are not on the premises but outside, as they are in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I must proceed—
  Captain Orr: We should be very interested in this. The difference between an English election and one in Ulster is that in England one does not suffer from a party setting out to do widespread impersonation. With us, this does happen. If the hon. Member can tell me of a way of operating without having agents
  90
  inside the polling stations, I should be delighted to hear it.
  Mr. Duffy: As I said, I believe that this function by party representatives is necessary, but I also believe that it can be done otherwise. It can be done, as it is in this country, by agents off the premises. Once party representatives are admitted into the polling stations, what some of us witnessed last month inevitably follows. They then sit at the table and are indistinguishable from the polling clerks. They even, as we also saw, take over from the presiding officer. They may even wish, I take it from the argument of the hon. Member for Antrim, North, to seal the ballot boxes or to search them. All this is incomprehensible to us in this country, accustomed to 6ur standards as well as our practices. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South will agree that, given practices in Northern Ireland that he deplores and wishes to see ended, one way in which that can happen is to proceed as quickly as possible to standards which are widely accepted in this country.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I may be able to help the hon. Member. He refers to standardisation. What better way to standardise than on the basis of the Representation of the People Act? Presumably he will accept that without any reservations, since it is the Act which governs this Parliament. Perhaps I might quote from page 188 of the "Parker's Election Agent and Returning Officer":
  "The ballot box shall be sealed up so as to prevent the introduction of additional ballot papers … and the presiding officer, as soon as practicable after the close of the poll, shall, in the presence of such polling agents as are in attendance make up … separate packets, sealed with his own seal and the seal of such polling agents as desire to affix their seals.…"
  Mr. Duffy: Yes, of course, but that is the responsibility of the presiding officer. He may admit witnesses, but that does not mean that he has to have those witnesses around him all day, much less joining him and his staff at their table.
  Mr. McManns: All these protestations from the Unionist Members present must be very familiar, certainly to some hon. Members of this House. They protest now that nothing was wrong with the border poll, that everything was in order.

  91
  For years and years they have been saying the same about Stormont—that Stormont was a grand place and did a good job and that nothing should happen to it. Eventually this House had to admit that it was not such a grand place, and it had to be prorogued. Surely the House will look with at least some suspicion on the protestations now coming from the same quarter along the same lines. Of course everything that the hon. Member has said about the border poll is true, Anyone who lives in Northern Ireland knows that these things happen every day. That is why it is very difficult to have what is called a free election in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Duffy: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I am taking the arguments as they have come along and have tried to treat them seriously, hoping that other hon. Members will pay me the same compliment, and believing that, like me, they are concerned to achieve the widest possible participation by electors. I therefore hope that they will see that one way in which this can be brought about is by removing any deterrents to some sectors of the community, such as the proprietorial attitude towards election practices and polling stations by Unionist agents.
  I am reminded by my hon. Friend that at one polling station, when I asked the Unionist Party representative whether he knew every elector who was eligible to use the polling station he said that he did. That bears out my earlier contention, that the practice of scrutinising electors with a view to deterring impersonators could be done just as well outside the premises, in the school yard, as it is in this country.
  But I wish to come to my last point, which again concerns participation. I am anxious to remove any possible deterrents to that participation, especially in the first election. We want that first election to get off to the best possible start and to be highly successful for every party so far as getting out the vote goes.
  I was very impressed with the returning officer in County Tyrone. He told me, among other things, that he was also concerned to get the greatest possible response that day, and that he had, therefore, asked the Army, who he agreed had to maintain a presence, to do it dis-
  92
  creetly. He was delighted, therefore, when a presiding officer rang him early that day to complain about the lack of an Army presence. The returning officer checked with the Army and was assured that soldiers were there already. He was very pleased that the Army was doing what he had asked, doing its job but with the greatest discretion.
  I was therefore all the more concerned when I visited the Dungannon court house to see fusiliers with guns cocked at windows opposite the polling station, and had to push my way through the door past two more fusiliers with guns cocked into the room where polling was taking place, only to see yet another fusilier, also with his rifle cocked, stationed between the ballot boxes.
  What I am saying in no way reflects upon those lads or upon the Army. I merely ask the Minister to bear in mind what the returning officer for County Tyrone said to me. Would the Minister, like that returning officer, ask the Army to do its job—of course—but also to bear in mind on polling day the need to measure the advantage of maintaining an open presence against its possible deterrent value and the need to ensure that it really cannot be discreet when it has to maintain soldiers in the vicinity of an election station—as I saw in Dungannon. I ask this simply for this further reason of participation and the widest possible response from all the electors.
  6.38 pm.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: I agree that there is a need for the elections to the Assembly to be held as soon as possible, and I am delighted that the Secretary of State has announced an early date. But it is also vitally important that the Assembly should meet before the passage of the constitution Bill.
  Like it or not, the Members of this Assembly will be elected because of their attitude to the basic proposals in the White Paper. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), even at this early stage those proposals are clearly understood by the people of Northern Ireland, who have already formed their opinions about them. Therefore, the Assembly will very accurately reflect the opinions of the mass of the people throughout Northern Ireland, and the balance will be struck

  93
  accordingly. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I fear that the advocates of the PR system will be surprised.
  When the will of the electorate has been clearly expressed, how can this House of Commons set aside or defy the views of an Assembly which has recently been elected on rules devised by the Westminster Parliament?
  When it comes to the orders which will govern the mechanics of the election, it is important that the Secretary of State should do his best to lay before the House in draft form roughly what he proposes to do, so that there may be scope for discussion and, if necessary, changes before the orders are brought before the House to be debated and voted upon. If the Secretary of State says that is not possible, or if there is a technical reason why it would not be possible, I ask him seriously to consider the possibility of consulting the leaders and the representatives of the parties from Northern Ireland in the House. By so doing he would find that he would be able to iron out a great many of the difficulties which arose, for example, in the later stages of the border poll operation. It was only with great difficulty that many of those problems were overcome in time to get the poll going.
  I refer particularly to two difficulties which are related. The first concerns the hours of the poll, from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. I suggest that this period is not long enough. If it is felt that an extension would, perhaps, place too great a strain on the staffs and the security forces, some thought should be given to allowing a generous overlap at either end to avoid the difficulty encountered by people travelling quite a distance from their place of employment and not having an opportunity to make use of the half hour in the morning. If they were to have an additional period at the end, it would avoid the rush which we would undoubtedly have at practically all polling stations in the final hour. I have known some people who had to be excluded because they were in a queue which had to be cut off when the polling station closed at the appointed hour.
  To a great extent, this matter is related to the problem of the position of the polling stations. If the polling stations are to be restricted, as they were on the
  94
  occasion of the border poll, obviously the congestion at the polling stations, again in the vital final hour, will be very much greater. Our experience did not show that the wider postal voting facilities did very much to lessen that difficulty. There was the unexpected problem of five or six polling districts suddenly finding that they had to make use of the facilities of a relatively cramped polling station.
  When my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are drawing up the scheme of polling stations, I ask that they give rather more thought to accessibility. I hope that they will bear in mind that in many cases the towns in Northern Ireland, for security reasons, are closed to traffic. There were many examples of polling stations situated in a cul-de-sac. One can imagine the traffic situation, with drivers endeavouring to get in and out through a very narrow bottlenect in the evening. Those points should be examined carefully.
  I conclude with my views on the vexed question on the polling agents. I cannot understand what all the fuss is about. I could understand it if elections in Northern Ireland were conducted on rules devised by the Unionist Party.
  It has been my duty to act as election agent at two elections for the Parliament at Westminster. Therefore, I can claim to know at least a little about this subject. I take the liberty of reading to the House the instructions to polling agents. These are contained in "Parker's election guide" on page 19. They are set out very closely in parliamentary election rule No. 33.
  "(a) To prevent any person, other than the real person on the register, or the real proxy from applying for a ballot paper or voting, and any person from voting by himself or by proxy, a second time.
  (b) To prevent any person from applying for a ballot paper or voting as proxy for a dead or fictitious person or from voting as proxy when his appointment as such is no longer in force.
  (c) To keep, upon his copy of the register, a correct record of the voters who have polled.
  (d)To take an exact note of any irregularity, or of anything unusual occurring in the station.
  (e) To be present at the marking by the presiding officer of the votes of blind, physically incapable, Jewish, and illiterate voters."
  There are many other points with which I shall not weary the House. I have mentioned the point about the sealing of

  95
  the ballot box when polling is completed. I have seen this done on many occasions. This is provided for in an Act of Parliament—of this Parliament at Westminster. It is not an invention of the Stormont Parliament, far less of the Ulster Unionist Party.
  On the point about whether polling agents should have a right to inspect the empty ballot box, one hon. Member of the Opposition said that, as he understood it, the ballot box arrived already sealed. That is absolute nonsense. It is clearly stated on page 173 of Parker's guide, that
  "Just before the commencement of the poll, the presiding officer shall show the ballot box empty to such persons, if any, as may be present in the station, so that they may see that it is empty, and shall then lock it up and place his seal upon it in such a manner as to prevent its being opened without breaking the seal, and shall place it in his view for the receipt of ballot papers, and keep it so locked and sealed."
  That reference is in Parliamentary Election Rule No. 35. All this makes one feel very uneasy as to how elections for this Parliament have been carried out in the past.
  The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) seemed to want it both ways. He seemed to say that it was utterly wrong for the polling agents to be seated anywhere near the table. He also said that he had disapproved of the practice where the polling agents were standing somewhere near the door to the polling station and not seated—the practice about which he complained. He suggested that they should not even be in the room. However, in view of the rules that I have read to the House how could polling agents be expected to observe and carry out their duties if they were not in the room in which balloting was taking place and if they were not situated convenient to the ballot box for which they were responsible and to which they had been allocated?
  Some hon. Members have regarded with mock horror the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) that in some cases polling agents felt it necessary to assist and advise the presiding officer. When I called on one of the polling stations in my constituency during the border poll, I was informed reliably that
  96
  it was one of the political agents who caused the presiding officer to stop the improper practice of marking on the face of the ballot paper the voter's electoral number, which could have had serious consequences, and which, I understand, would have caused those ballot papers to be rejected as spoiled papers when it came to the count. I have no knowledge of how that matter was dealt with, but I understand that the rules were very tightly applied in those cases. This again proves that the polling agents act responsibly and in accordance with the laws laid down by this Westminster Parliament; and that they take their duties seriously.
  I have been absolutely appalled by the amount of ignorance of the basic electoral laws that has been displayed in this debate. I must warn the House that I will seek an early opportunity, if it is not too late, to call for an inquiry into the practices followed here in Great Britain in the 19'70 election. Whatever might be the result of such an inquiry, and whatever might be its effect on the fortunes of hon Members, the one thing certain is that the abysmal ignorance of their own electoral law displayed here by hon. Members will cause many people in Northern Ireland to question the right of such people to impose on those in Northern Ireland electoral structures which they do not particularly want.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. Frank McManus: I am sure that when various hon. Members representing English constituencies and their various election workers become aware that their electior practices are to be investigated by a member of the Ulster Unionist Party they will quake with fear, because they know that he will attend such an inquiry with clean hands and without blemish or stain in respect of the history of his party.
  Representation in Fermanagh and South Tyrone has been mentioned by a number of speakers, including the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), and it appears from the figures that there is a case for another seat there. I speak a little with tongue in cheek because it is certain that were another seat to be added it would go to a Unionist and I could then be accused by people who might otherwise support me of campaigning to get the Unionist Party

  97
  another seat. Nevertheless, a breakdown of the figures indicates under-representation and I ask the Secretary of State to see whether he cannot bring Fermanagh and South Tyrone into line with the rest of the constituencies.
  I urge on the right hon. Gentleman the need to maintain the postal vote with the same arrangements, if possible, as obtained for the border poll. The postal vote is vitally important. Everyone in the House who has the slightest knowledge of Northern Ireland must know that much depends on the district from which a voter comes. For instance, East Belfast is an area in which most of the anti-Unionists—or Catholics, to put it bluntly —have been intimated. On polling day those opposing them will assume that 999 per cent. of them will vote for an anti-Unionist type of candidate and think it a good idea not to let them approach the polling station.
  There are two ways of ensuring that that does not happen. The first is to allow those who are in that situation, or anyone else who wishes to do so, to use the postal vote. They will not then be placing themselves in real or imaginary danger by approaching a polling station.
  The other vitally important method is the siting of polling stations. We know that the number of these stations was greatly reduced for the border poll, but on this next occasion we should return at least to the system as it was at the last Westminster election. The coming election will be confusing enough for people. They will have to travel longer distances either way, and spend a longer time inside the station. It will all take a little longer. As one hon. Member pointed out, this time it will be less easy for a voter to personate. Instead of a voter slipping into the station, putting his cross on the paper and slipping out again, as hitherto, he will have to spend more time in choosing from a panel of several candidates. During that time the polling agent will be able to note the colour of the man's shoes or suit, so that if he comes back to vote a second time the chances of his being recognised will be greater than they were under the previous system.
  Mr. McMaster: The hon. Member mentioned my constituency but he is
  98
  wrong in what he says. At the border poll the number of polling stations was exactly the same as at all ordinary elections. One of these polling stations was in the New Lodge Road, where the majority of the minority—the Republicans—were supposed to vote. I can tell the hon. Member that if no minority votes were cast in the New Lodge Road polling station it was certainly not the result of the location of that station.
  Mr. McManus: That may be true but I was not speaking of areas like the New Lodge Road.
  I view a little sceptically the figure mentioned by the hon. Member for Antrim, North of those people who are disqualified. This election will be fought on the basis of a Stormont election as opposed to a Westminster election. That means that persons from the Republic of Ireland who have not lived in Northern Ireland for seven years cannot vote. They may have lived there for six-and-half years, but they still cannot vote. There are about 7,000 of them. People in the minority will see members of the Armed Forces who may have been in Northern Ireland for one, two or three years and will greatly resent their presence because they will be entitled to vote in the election while those who have not attained the seven-year residential qualification will be excluded. I ask the Secretary of State to change the regulations in that respect so that the maximum number of people are given the opportunity to vote.
  Another vexed question is entitlement to stand for election. At the moment, Sinn Fein and various other organisations are banned. Many people have argued that these restrictions should be lifted, and with that argument I totally agree. Some have advanced the argument for ignoble and ulterior motives, thinking that if these people stand for election they will be decimated, or slaughtered— that all sorts of dreadful things will happen to them. That might suit the purpose of some in this House, but the better approach is that of a free election.
  For the first time in four or five years the people will have freedom to record their votes, but how can it be described as a really free election if certain people are specifically excluded from standing? I urge that these restrictions be removed in order that we can have really free

  99
  elections in Northern Ireland, at which people can freely present themselves to the electorate and at which the electorate can vote freely.
  The Government view is that these people are to be excluded because on one day they want to be involved in politics and on others in violence. If that is the Government's view—and it is not necessarily mine—what is the situation of the Ulster Defence Association, which the Government freely admit has been involved in violence against the security forces? There is no suggestion—nor am I saying that there should be any suggestion—that they should be excluded from the election. I am saying that the rules do not appear to be the same in both cases. For example, Mr. Craig is on record as saying on many occasions that if the British Government do not do what he wants, or what his supporters want, he and his supporters will take up guns and fight. That is a clear declaration of intent.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North has said that if there is an attempt by this House to put Northern Ireland into a united Ireland he will fight.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Hear, hear.
  Mr. McManus: The hon. Gentleman has said that he will defend Ulster to the last drop of his considerable amount of blood. That is a clear declaration of intent to use violence if the ballot box fails. What is the difference? Can the Government point out the difference?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I made it clear in this House that if, against the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, this House attempted to put the North of Ireland into the South of Ireland I and many thousands more like me would fight. When the majority ceases to be the majority I shall abide by the democratic process.
  Mr. McManus: That depends entirely on what is meant by the democratic process.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The majority.
  Mr. McManus: That is a direct challenge which has been unequivocally and publicly stated to the Government that are supposed to be the overall authority
  100
  in the United Kingdom. It is said, "If you do that sort of thing we will fight."
  On the other hand, the Government say that people cannot use the ballot box one day and the gun the next. But the argument is not carried through to its logical conclusion. If that is the Government's position, all people who have been involved in violence or who have threatened violence should be treated equally. I am not suggesting for one moment that Mr. Craig, the UDA or anybody else should be prevented from taking part in elections. I am saying that in the eyes of the minority this is another example when there appears to be one law for one side and another law for the other.
  Further, quite apart from the question of who stands or whose name is allowed to go on the ballot paper, there are other things that will interfere with the freedom of the elections. I refer to the activities of the security forces. The other night a relatively small incident took place in my area which indicates to people of Republican persuasion that even if they were allowed to contest elections they would be likely to get a hostile receptian from the security forces.
  A number of people in my area attempted to hold a meeting to arrange for a commemoration service on Easter Sunday. Everybody in the House will be aware of what Easter Sunday means in Ireland. All the persons going to the meeting were arrested by the security forces and put into a public house. Most of them, or many of them, were keeping Lent. That was a further infliction of torture upon them. They had taken a pledge against alcoholic spirits during Lent.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Are you sure about that?
  Mr. McManus: They were placed by the Army in a public house and they were:not allowed to have a meeting. Those people have said to me, "It is said that restrictions should be lifted on the Sinn Fein and other organisations. Even if they are, how will we be able to take part in an election campaign or have any reasonable chance of putting forward our point of view when we cannot go to a meeting to plan a simple commemoration without being arrested? "
  Mr. Whitelaw: If the hon. Gentleman will give me the exact details of the case to which he has referred I shall be pleased to look into the matter. I must have details of when the incident happened, what the proposals were, what the people who attended wanted to do, and who they were. When I am given those details I shall certainly investigate the case.
  Mr. McManus: I shall be pleased to furnish full details.
  Another situation which mitigates entirely against any sort of election is that which has arisen and which continues to exist in South Armagh due to the excesses of the paratroopers. The Secretary of State is well aware of the position. The minority community in the South Armagh area have got together— including the SDLP and the extreme aspects of Republicanism—and agreed that in the present circumstances, and unless and until the paratroopers are instructed to behave themselves a little better or are removed from the area altogether, they cannot see any point in elections.
  If it is the Government's intention that there should be elections, and if they intend to get politics going again in Northern Ireland, the Army is going the right way to ensure that there will be no participation in any elections.
  What has happened in South Armagh might very well tomorrow happen in other areas. It is clear that there is a danger of such a thing happening in the Ardoyne and parts of the Falls. The anti-Unionist community is being forced to have another look at the prospect of participating in elections. It is said "We have a White Paper and there are certain things in the White Paper which we like, but the Secretary of State, in giving it to us, has said ' There you are, there is your political chance.'" They feel that the Secretary of State has a big stick behind his back and is ready to hit over the head anyone who does not welcome the White Paper.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Would it not be right to say that in Belfast there was the commemoration of the shooting by the security forces of an officer of the Irish Republican Army—Joe McCann—and that yesterday over 1,000 people attended a commemoration service without let or hindrance? Is it not also true that
  102
  another officer of the IRA who was shot had a large funeral in the city of Armagh? Is it not true that people paraded in IRA uniforms and fired volleys over the coffin of that funeral without let or hindrance and without being molested? Those matters should be borne in mind. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there will be a boycott of the elections?
  Mr. McManus: I am suggesting no such thing. I am trying to inform the House of what I believe to be a growing feeling within the minority community. I am trying to indicate the way in which that community sees matters developing. They see the White Paper presented in this way—"The White Paper has been published in such terms as to make any reasonable person wish to agree with it. Therefore, anyone who does not agree with it is unreasonable and an extremist. We have an army to deal with such people."
  One man from Armagh said to me, "The Republican clubs are now off the banned list, but how many Republican club members will be left alive by the time the elections come?" Two men were shot in Armagh. I was told that they were two prospective local government candidates. There are not all that many prospective candidates, and two have gone already. Who knows, by the time the elections come there will not be many more.
  Hon. Members may shake their heads, tut-tut, and say that this is dreadful talk, but it is happening. Unless the Secretary of State instructs the leaders of the Army to tell their men to behave themselves and to stop harassing the minority areas, there is every possibility that politics will not get off the ground. If those steps are not taken, there is every possibility that the minority will be forced to the conclusion that there is no point in going to the ballot box when there are soldiers breathing down their necks every minute of every day.
  7.9 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) makes me wonder how my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in a broadcast on 28th March could say that he felt that the holding of the plebiscite had taken the

  103
  border completely out of politics in Northern Ireland. Anyone who has listened to speeches advocating that members of the Sinn Fein should be entitled to fight the elections as a political party will realise that the border is far from out of politics in Northern Ireland. I venture to suggest that it is much more firmly entrenched in Northern Ireland's politics than it has been at any time for the last 50 years. I say that with great regret.
  I welcome the Bill, as I have previously made clear. However, there are a number of points in it which I should like my right hon. Friend to clarify.
  There is one point in particular which I want to refer to. I have had correspondence with my right hon. Friend about it, so he knows my views. This concerns the lifetime of the Assembly. If my right hon. Friend expects the Assembly to be more democratic than the Stormont Parliament, in the sense that parties will split up and there will perhaps be regular changes of Government, I do not think that the four-year period proposed is the right length. Very few Parliaments last their full term, and the life of the Assembly is, therefore, more likely to be two or three years, which is too short a period for a Parliament to be efficient. I should like my right hon. Friend to look at this point again and consider whether the period should not be five years, as at Westminster. I think that this would be more appropriate.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has my hon. Friend considered whether it might not be worth while having no definite fixed period within a five-year limit?
  Mr. McMaster: I do not want to go too far down side waters. I know that the Bill applies only to the first Assembly, but the example it sets is likely to be followed thereafter. I believe that it is right to fix the period. Indeed, I think that Parliament at Westminster might benefit from an extended term—say, six or seven years. But certainly five years is the minimum for any Parliament in order to give coherent and stable government with the Government working on policies and being able to put them into effect.
  Another aspect is the number of constituencies. Like others, I am surprised
  104
  at the number 78 which has been pulled out of the hat. I believe that it would have been more sensible to adopt another idea which has been canvassed in Northern Ireland. This was that there should be one Member per 10,000 electors. This would have given the Assembly about 100 seats. One wonders whether proportional representation would have been necessary under that system.
  I presume that proportional representation has been introduced in order to give the minority a better show. I say that I presume it has because, although it is one of the fundamental recommendations of the White Paper, I have heard little argument as to exactly why proportional representation has been adopted as opposed to the system of single-seat constituencies. As I say, presumably it is in order to give the minority a greater show, but the disadvantages have also been canvassed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) referred to the merits of proportional representation. But it has one substantial deficiency. This is that, in such large constituencies, with five, six or seven Members, the personal connection between the Members and their constituents is broken. That is a considerable disadvantage. It is a powerful argument in favour of having an increased number of single-Member constituencies, thereby getting round the obstacle of ensuring representation of all shades of opinion.
  My hon. Friend also called for a poll on the White Paper. I am not too happy about that suggestion, and have not been since I first saw it in The Times. I feel that it would place people who object to the recommendations of the White Paper in a very difficult position. If they were to vote in a plebiscite against the White Paper and lost, what would they do? Is it not more likely that they would become polarised and go forward perhaps with a chip on their shoulder, either not prepared to participate or—if they were extremist—wishing to destroy the Assembly and the framework of government set up?
  Mr. Stratton Mills: I accept that this was a novel proposal and that it is now water under the bridge. But it was an

  105
  attempt to ensure that whatever proposals were in the White Paper should be underwritten by a broad cross-section of the people. Of course I see the problems, but I think that in retrospect one may feel as things develop that it was a wise suggestion.
  Mr. McMaster: I accept that. It is really a matter of choice between the advantage of having the opinion of the people of Northern Ireland voiced in this fashion and the disadvantages of polarising opinion.
  I turn now to the role of the Secretary of State. I realise that this topic will perhaps come better on the constitutional Bill, but we are now considering a Bill to set up the new Assembly, and, therefore, I feel it germane to consider fundamental matters such as the role that the Secretary of State will have. Clause 2 (5) and Clause 3 (3) contain wide provisions in relation not only to the mechanics of the election but to the powers of the Secretary of State. These provisions are rather too wide, and I would rather not see them left in the hands of the Secretary of State. If the Assembly is to become a true Parliament of Northern Ireland, giving sufficient cause to Her Majesty's Government to hold down the number of Northern Ireland Members at Westminster, surely the Secretary of State should not have so much power. He cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that the Secretary of State is seeking to have it both ways. In this Bill he is seeking to deal with this one election. What happens in the future, and his powers in the future, is a different matter.
  Mr. McMaster: I was perhaps arguing from the particular to the general. I was arguing that, as the Secretary of State is taking wide powers in the Bill in connection with the holding of the election, he might well argue in future that he should exercise wide powers of control over the new Executive in Northern Ireland. I hope that this does not turn out to be the case. I would welcome reassurance on this point tonight from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
  I now move to some of the matters on which I would like clarification. We have to consider rapidly what amend-
  106
  ments we propose to put down to the Bill. Unless these matters are cleared up. therefore, our decision on the amendments to be framed will not be easy to formulate.
  First, I would like my hon. Friend to say something in his reply about the relationship he expects between the Assembly and the Executive to be set up. Secondly, can he clarify further the degree of financial independence which is to be exercised by the Assembly? Thirdly, there is the question of the control over internal security—another matter which I know the Secretary of State is concerned about and which is of very great importance in Northern Ireland. Can my hon. Friend go further than has been done so far and explain what the Secretary of State's intention is in connection with the control of internal security— that is, the police?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend yet again, but he has raised three points and I would not wish anyone to feel that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is being discourteous if he does not deal with them when he replies. All these matters are the concern of the main constitutional Bill, and the points put by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) will certainly be given consideration in the drafting of that Bill. They are not matters for this Bill, which is concerned specifically with the election. I do not want to stop my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East from making these points, but I emphasise that one cannot expect my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State to refer to them in his reply tonight.
  Mr. McMaster: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State. But you will probably see what I am worried about, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are putting the cart before the horse; we are being asked to vote for the setting up of an Assembly when we do not know what it will do or what its powers will be. We are being invited to give the Government a blank cheque. That is why I deal now with these general matters rather than with more detailed matters which can be dealt with by way of amendments. I accept my right hon. Friend's statement with that qualification.
  What will be the system of postal votes? Will people on holiday within the United

  107
  Kingdom or in Northern Ireland be entitled to them? There has been a change in the law recently. Will it apply in Northern Ireland?
  I turn to a question which has been debated widely by hon. Members on both sides, and particularly the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy)— whether the Sinn Fein movement should be entitled to fight the election. I strongly disagree with some of the arguments advanced on both sides.
  With reference to the militant role of the Ulster Defence Association compared with the IRA, I invite hon. Members to consider the history of the past three years. There have been more than 750 deaths in Northern Ireland. More than 150 soldiers have been shot. The IRA has claimed responsibility for each death, not only of soldiers but of police, reserve police and members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, men who were serving their country and trying to protect their homes. Each was assassinated, often brutally and callously, by the IRA.
  The Sinn Fein is the political wing of the IRA. Can we allow members of a body declaring itself to be the political wing of another organisation, which employs force for a seditious end, to fight an election? That is totally unacceptable in Northern Ireland. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that point very seriously.
  7.23 p.m.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: A number of hon. Members have referred to the disparity between the numbers of electors per Member of the new Assembly. I suppose that I am one of the few Members who have been subjected in another capacity to the rigours of an election under the single transferable vote. I am a member of the Political Purposes Committee of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, which has well over 500,000 members, and which uses that system. It is a most complex system of voting, requiring considerable care in explanation to the electorate, at least on the first occasion when it is used. Therefore, I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that he will publish two documents, a short version and a more detailed version of how the system works.
  108
  It is important in a single transferable vote system that emphasis is put on equality, as near as possible, in the numbers of electors, because it is the percentage of votes cast, divided according to a formula, that determines the quota on which a man is elected without the necessity of other votes being transferred. If there are wide discrepancies in the numbers of electors for a seat, there can be a wide disparity between constituency and constituency.
  However, I had really wanted to deal with other matters raised by the Bill. First, although the Secretary of State has announced 28th June as election day, I regret that he did not see fit to postpone the local government elections and that they are still to take precedence over that far more important occasion. The right hon. Gentleman always finds a reason to reject the Opposition's proposals on these matters, despite the apparent co-operation that the Opposition are giving him in the passage of the Bill.
  Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman may recall that the House, and the Opposition in particular, requested that the election should be in June, and that is exactly what the Bill provides. I find the hon. Gentleman's argument slightly surprising.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: My argument is not based on the date of 28th June. The Opposition asked for June, and the right hon. Gentleman has just squeezed the election in by a couple of days. My argument is based upon the Opposition's legitimate request that he should postpone the local government elections. The case was made by the Opposition side, and by some on the Conservative side, that the local government elections would cause confusion, that they would be exposed to being fought on the issues of the White Paper rather than on local government issues.
  The Secretary of State tried to get round the point with the red herring of the date of 28th June, which my hon. Friends also support. He tried to get away from the charge I am making that on questions such as the postponement of the local government elections, and, I have no doubt, on many other points in the passage of this and future Bills, he will still steadfastly refuse to accept

  109
  the crucial points made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. There is no doubt that the postponement of the local government elections was such a crucial point.
  Some hon. Members seem to think that the Bill should be rushed through the House. I urge that we take a little time. The Bill gives the Secretary of State wide powers. Although he told the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) that it was only for one election to the Assembly, it still gives him tremendous powers. It will be taken as a precedent when we come to decide the long-term position. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt say then "You accepted this for the first election to the Assembly. I exercised those powers all right then. You cannot deny them to me now that I am asking for them again."
  Mr. Whitelaw Mr. Whitelaw ndicated dissent.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: The right hon. Gentleman may well say that.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) gave us a detailed lecture on United Kingdom electoral law as it affects the Westminster Parliament, and expressed surprise that one or two hon. Members had apparently not fully studied and understood their own electoral system.
  The difference between the rest of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland is that we have reached a stage when it is no longer the custom and practice, because it is no longer necessary, to appoint polling agents to protect us against impersonation in our elections for the Westminster Parliament. Impersonation is a very minor matter in this country, though it does happen. I recall someone in my constituency being sentenced to six months in prison a few years ago for impersonating a voter. I think that it was in one of the elections during the 1950s.
  We do not appoint polling agents. On a purely non-statutory basis we appoint tellers to stand outside the polling stations to ask electors voluntarily to give them their electoral numbers, so that we may request those of our declared supporters who have not yet recorded their vote to do so as soon as possible.
  That is the difference between the practice in Northern Ireland and Great
  110
  Britain. We do not have the same problem and, therefore, have not operated what to us are obscure and unnecessary provisions in the electoral law. That does not mean that Labour Party election agents do not know about the law. They do, and if necessary all electoral regulations could be put into effect. It is not because of ignorance that they are not operated; it is because there is no necessity.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The point which was troubling some Conservative hon. Members was the assertion that these were irregularities. The suggestion was made that it was wrong for a polling agent to be viewing the voting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) pointed out, these people were acting within the law. There was a bit of hilarity even from the Front Bench about the point that a polling agent had no right even to watch the presiding agent doing his duty. It was on the legal point that we felt the House should be informed.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I have made my point and explained why we are not all absolutely familiar with these provisions. In my view, it is undesirable that polling agents should sit within the polling station. I believe it would be better if they were outside. It should be done on a voluntary basis, near the polling station, not inside.
  Mr. McMaster: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not have any experience of a poll in the middle of winter in Northern Ireland when it can be very cold and wet. How does he expect the polling agent, operating from outside, to be able to check and watch in poor weather and bad light? If he is inside he will also be able to observe the way in which the poll is conducted.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I have no reason to believe that those who are politically interested in Northern Ireland are any less hardy than the politically interested in England, Scotland or Wales. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, and I can here only speak for my own English constituency, that we are sufficiently hardy to stand outside polling stations in cold weather. If it is any consolation to him I can tell him that I was elected to this House in November 1965 on a

  111
  day when the heavens opened and the rain cascaded down for almost the whole of the time that the polling stations were open. Despite that, every polling station was manned by tellers of my party, and, as far as I am aware, there was no impersonation. We had a very good turn-out, as a result of which I am here. I am sure that the same thing could be done in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. A. W. Stallard: I would like to complete my hon. Friend's education on this point.I do not think that he ought to go away with the impression that we do not have tellers in Northern Ireland. We do. In the recent election there were some tellers outside. They each had a register that had been marked up with postal votes and everything else. This is how they voluntarily get the information, standing outside the station. This is in addition to the other practices which have been described.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I agree that it is highly desirable that this should be done outside the polling station.
  The point I wanted to raise was in connection with the wide powers which the Secretary of State is taking in Clauses 2 and 3. These give him the power to create criminal offences and to alter the circumstances in which disqualification can be imposed. We ought not to pass such a Bill dealing with electoral law in Northern Ireland which gives the Secretary of State such wide powers. Many examples have been quoted of what some consider to be unusual practices. I put it no higher than that. Everything which the Secretary of State does in connection with this Bill should be subject to an affirmative order in this House. I hope that my hon. Friends will not accept any smooth answers from the Secretary of State as to why certain things are not expedient for these elec tions. It is absolute vital that we as a House have the right to confirm any regulations which the Secretary of State may wish to make.
  I do not take the view that because the Secretary of State is a fairly affable chap he is in some way different from the rest of Government Ministers. He is a Conservative Minister and should receive from Labour Members exactly
  112
  the same sort of scrutiny as any other Conservative Minister. I am somewhat perturbed at the close affinity which appears to be building up in all sections of the House with the right hon. Gentleman. I do not take the view that, although we can call this the most reactionary Tory Government of the century in an industrial relations context, when it comes to Northern Ireland we can all be buddies together and push legislation through the House.
  In any case, the Secretary of State of today may not be the Secretary of State of tomorrow. My hon. and right hon. Friends may be giving powers in this measure which would be exercised by someone whom they do not hold in quite such high esteem as they appear to hold the present Secretary of State. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give an unqualified undertaking that the Government will accept a manuscript amendment saying that the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to this measure shall be subject to an affirmative vote by this Parliament. If that cannot be given I hope that some of my hon. Friends at least will join me in saying "No" to the Bill.
  7.38 p.m.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: I welcome the early opportunity being given to the people of Northern Ireland to express their views through the ballot box. It is a long time since there has been an election to what was the Stormont Parliament. Some people in Northern Ireland feel that some of the present Stormont Members do not necessarily reflect their opinions. The law-abiding majority have been waiting patiently to reply to the enemies of Ulster who have had it so good for so long. I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon fixing the election for 28th June. That will give pleasure to all in Northern Ireland except, perhaps, the extreme Republicans who are not interested in the democratic processes. They are the people who largely cause the trouble in Northern Ireland.
  I do not like the idea of proportional representation, when it is not applicable to Great Britain. Perhaps there will now be greater support for its application throughout the United Kingdom. It is

  113
  good to see the hon. Membed for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) present representing the Liberal Party. No doubt his party's numbers would be increased considerably if proportional representation were introduced in Great Britain. The loyal people of Northern Ireland will respond to the challenge that this election gives them and will not leave this House in any doubt about the strong feeling of the majority in that beleagured and hard-pressed Province.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) emphasised that the election must be seen to be fair and just. That is most important. But the Secretary of State misleads himself if he discounts the complaints about the present electoral register. I challenge my right hon. Friend to state the number of complaints about the register which have been made on previous occasions and the number which the chief electoral officer has received about the present electoral roll. If the computer was at fault, the electors should not be disenfranchised. It is imperative that a corrected register should be produced, otherwise the grave dissatisfaction which has been felt will colour people's approach to the vital election on 28th June. Many of the complaints about the register have been made by people who are not normally politically active, and by professional people, who have suddenly found their names removed from the register, through no fault of theirs, and who have therefore been deprived of the opportunity to expressed their opinions through the ballot box.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) launched a bitter attack—perhaps less bitter than normal—on the members of the security forces which I do not think many people in the House appreciated. I had nothing but the greatest sympathy for the security forces during the border poll, and their job in the coming election will be four time more difficult because there will be election meetings throughout the Province. They will have a grave and difficult task in providing protection for the candidates and, on election day, for people going to the polling stations. We should always praise the soldiers, who have a thankless task.
  114
  However, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone at least agreed that there was under-representation for his area. That is borne out by the figures which my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North gave. In West Belfast one needs only 11,865 votes for a candidate to be elected on the first count, but in what I would describe as a Unionist or anti-Republican constituency, such as South Antrim, one needs 14,394 votes to be elected on the first count. In Fermanagh and South Tyrone, to the west of the Bann, one needs 13,917 votes. The Government emphasise how meticulously fair they have been to everyone in Northern Ireland, but those figures do not bear out their statement. There should be another Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. There are discrepancies in other constituencies.
  Another question to which I wish to refer relates to polling stations. Their number was reduced for the border poll. That must not be repeated in the election to the Assembly. It created great hardship in my constituency, and I am sure that that hardship was reflected in other agricultural constituencies throughout Northern Ireland. Some old people, and young mothers with children, had to travel considerable distances to polling stations. They did not have cars—or cars were not provided for them. The political parties in Northern Ireland do not have the sums of money behind them which the Labour Party and Tory Party have in England, and they cannot provide travel facilities. The situation is not fair or democratic. The Government must promise to provide the same number of polling stations for the election on 28th June as operated in all the previous Stormont elections.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the polling stations would remain open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. There was a valid reason for limiting the time that they were open during the border poll, although it was regrettable. I visited polling stations on the west side of my constituency, at Hillsborough, and people were still coming to vote at 8 o'clock at night. I could understand why the stations were closed at that hour because it was dark at that time of year, but on 28th June it will remain light until very late. The polling stations should

  115
  be kept open until the time to which we have become accustomed.
  Not only are people in Northern Ireland accustomed to voting in the evening, as is the case in the rest of the United Kingdom; we shall have a completely foreign system of voting—proportional representation—which will cause difficulties for the electors. At the polling stations people will be presented with long lists of candidates, and it will take time for them to go through the lists and understand what they have to do. They will have to gather their thoughts and then spend time in working out the order in which they vote for some or all of the candidates.
  It will be grossly unfair if the polling stations are closed at 8 p.m. I appreciate the heavy burden placed on the security forces, but it is essential that everyone in Northern Ireland, irrespective of politics, should be able to vote—and most people vote in the evenings.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: It would even be all right for the Secretary of State to say that the polling stations should not open until 9 a.m. but should stay open until 9 p.m. The extra hour in the evening is far more important in allowing people to get to the polls. If it is a question of strain on the security forces, it is better to lose an hour in the morning rather than in the evening.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I agree, save that in Belfast, for instance, many people prefer to vote as they go to work in the morning. However, if it is a question of hardship on the security forces, the period during which the polling stations are open should be extended to 9 p.m. It is essential in this election, above all, to have the maximum period to enable people to cast their votes, and the Government should ensure that the polls are kept open for the ordinary period.
  The Bill before the House today, in terms of its consequences, may outstrip even the Act of Union of 1801. When that Bill was being debated in this House no one could have foreseen the profound effects which the union of the two Kingdoms of England and Ireland would have on the British constitution or the responsibilities of the British Government. We should have to be blessed with political foresight of a very high order to see the
  116
  consequences of setting up this new Northern Ireland Assembly. We could be setting in train in this country a process of political change which would have far-reaching consequences on the unitary system of government. No doubt, the Scots and the Welsh will be awaiting the result of the Crowther—or as it is now called, the Kilbrandon—Report. I do not know why there is such great delay in producing that report. But no doubt the Scots and the Welsh will have an interest in the system which is being established in Northern Ireland today, because it might be repeated in their parts of the United Kingdom in time to come.
  By the Act of Union, 500 years of Irish parliamentary life was extinguished. Fifty years of Northern Irish parliamentary life is for ever extinguished by this Bill. Lord Castlereagh's measure cost the English Treasury £1¼ million in compensation. "Bloody Castlereagh", as he was called by the Dublin mob, placed a value on every man; he bought out he said, "the fee simple of Irish corruption."My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is getting his way at a bargain price —£250,000 for the salaries and allowances of the 78 Members of the new Assembly and another £250,000 for alimony for the Members of the old Stormont.
  It is interesting in this context to remember that one of the Members of Stormont, a friend of the hon. Member for Antrim, North, Mr. John McQuaid, resigned his seat and his salary and went back to the only job he had as a docker when Stormont was suspended.
  An hon. Member: He did it voluntarily.
  Mr. Kilfedder: He did it voluntarily but—I am open to correction—he did not wish to take part in the farce which the suspension of Stormont created.
  Irish historians are always making comparisons between the Union of Scotland and England and of Ireland and England, but as least in the former case the plans were agreed by parliamentary commissions of both Parliaments, and Scotland retained much of her own identity. But in 1801 Ireland was completely submerged in the larger Kingdom.
  No parliamentary commission preceded the present Bill. Stormont was wound up

  117
  and it was cleared out of the way and replaced by a kind of dictatorship or, virtually, government by decree. All and sundry were invited to put forward their ideas for a new kind of government in Northern Ireland. The unelected, who represented no one but themselves, were given equal status with the elected representatives of the people, and took part in the Darlington talks, which were a marvellous piece of showmanship by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Between the date of the election—28th June—and March 1974, the Ulster Assembly will concentrate on the machinery for devolving powers in Northern Ireland. The actual powers to be devolved will presumably be the subject of the second Bill. I go along with what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) had to say in respect of the main Bill.
  However, we have here a real Irish situation. An Assembly is to be elected and yet it has no powers, no revenues, no legislative functions. It has not even got the right to decide when it will first meet, or the place of meeting, or the time of meeting. All the important questions are to be "as the Secretary of State may direct".
  I cannot understand why this Bill cannot provide for the new assembly to meet at Stormont, or why the power must be given to my right hon. Friend to decide where it should meet—unless it is to meet in the Portadown Parliament, or Dungiven Castle, where the Republicans held one of their parliamentary gatherings.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: They would like us to meet in the Dail.
  Mr. Kilfedder: Not in the Dail, nor Dungiven Castle.
  I want to take up a point made by the leader of the Liberal Party during the debate on the White Paper. It was not referred to by the Liberal Party spokesman today, and I can understand why, since it was fully explored by the leader of the Liberal Party during the debate on the White Paper. He wondered whether there might be a case for the presence of hon. Members from Northern Ireland in an ex-officio capacity in the new Ulster Assembly. He thought their presence might be a useful form of cross-fertilisation between the Assembly and
  118
  this House. There are substantial reasons for dual membership, and I would go along with this idea, because, according to the White Paper, the Secretary of State will retain the power to intervene in the acts of the Assembly. He can withhold his consent to its demands, and veto its actions. The Secretary of State will no doubt inform this House from time to time, when he has to take action of this sort. The Ulster Members must be able to ventilate their views in the only real Parliament in existence in the United Kingdom. In the old Stormont, the Government of Ireland Act and the conventions which grew up out of it prevented this House from questioning the actions of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
  As I understand it, the position in relation to the new Northern Ireland Assembly will be different. While the limits of its responsibilities will be clear and unambiguous, ultimate responsibility will rest at Westminster, even for the devolved powers. Hon. Members from Northern Ireland, as ex-officio members of the Assembly, could provide a direct channel between the members of the Assembly and this House, thus complementing the official position of the Secretary of State.
  That is all I wish to say. I do not wish to detain the House any longer, except to say that I share in the criticism expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the powers taken in this Bill by the Secretary of State. He is creating a strange Assembly. It is really more like a consultative assembly. Nevertheless, he is paying its members well—and the members of the old Stormont—perhaps in the hope of keeping them quiet. Here we have a wonderful rural picture of farmyard domesticity. It conjures up a picture of the Secretary of State, like a clucking hen, surrounded by a brood of newly hatched chicks—I am saying this for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is agricultural Minister in Northern Ireland—
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Symbolism.
  Mr. Kilfedder: —and who has all these little chicks running round him. He will have to decide whether to give them free range or keep them in a battery.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) may have thought his last remark was a witty contribution, but I found it extremely pessimistic.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I am pessimistic.
  Mr. Orme: I know. There is a saying in politics that if one waits long enough for a point of view to come from the other side it will arrive, but I never thought to see the day when a Unionist politician would criticise the proposed electoral procedure in Northern Ireland and the distribution of seats by proportional representation.
  I understand the anxiety that has been expressed about the allocation of seats. On one side Mr. Austin Currie complains and on the other side Mr. John Taylor complains. It might be said that those complaints cancel each other out and that there have been no serious complaints made in the debate. The allocation based on the 12 constituencies is an expedient to ensure that the elections are held as soon as possible, and on that basis we support it, but we do not support it for all time. Although alterations could be made in Committee, it would not be possible to add one seat to West Belfast and two to Fermanagh and South Tyrone without upsetting the whole balance. There would, therefore, have to be a radical alteration.
  Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman has always been anxious that the people of Northern Ireland should be properly and fully represented in a new Assembly at Stormont. He should, therefore, back me up in wishing to see fair representation throughout Northern Ireland. He says that the complaints of Mr. Austin Currie and Mr. John Taylor cancel each other out, but he should remember that the Alliance Party has also said that there is misrepresentation.
  Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) also commented on that. But, although the Alliance Party has criticisms, it accepts the general basis. We want to see fair play. No one has accused the Secretary of State of gerrymandering. The Opposition are saying that the allocation of seats could be improved. When the new boundaries are drawn, between
  120
  now and 1980, the electoral system will be re-examined in the light of what happens in the Assembly elections. I see no impediment to going ahead with the proposals.
  Hon. Members have shown a great deal of interest in what has been said about polling agents. On many occasions I have seen polling agents in the polling stations, and what concerns me is that frequently only one party is represented.
  I was in one polling station in a Unionist stronghold in which the repre-sentatives of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) were present. The two young ladies told me that when they had gone to the polling station in the morning they rather expected to be thrown out, but to their surprise they were accepted, and they managed to get on reasonably well with the official Unionist polling agents. I am concerned that in the forthcoming election there will be representatives not only of the party of the hon. Member for Antrim, North and the official Unionist party but of other parties, including the minority groups such as the SDLP, the NILP, and the outright Republicans. Difficulties could arise from this if there were no proper supervision.
  No doubt polling agents could attend polling stations in a parliamentary election in Great Britain, but that has not happened for many years because there has been very little impersonation and the returning officers and officials have the confidence of the people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Atter-cliffe (Mr. Duffy) said, we are not casting doubt upon the impartiality of the returning officers in the border poll. They did an excellent job, and the fact that they did so should alleviate some of the worries that have been expressed. Polling agents of whatever party should not be allowed to sit with the polling clerks. They should be separated from them, and the representation should be kept to the minimum.
  In one polling station in Londonderry the agents wore Union Jacks in their lapels. I protested about that because I thought it wrong that party favours should be displayed. But in another polling station it was difficult to see who were agents and who were polling clerks. I came to the conclusion, therefore, that

  121
  it might be better for the agents to wear favours.
  With the historical background, it is incumbent upon all parties and all organisations to do all they can to ensure the smooth running of the election. I hope there will not be friction in certain areas, because that could lead to trouble.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that, equally, there are areas in Northern Ireland to which members of my party, the Unionist Party and other loyalist parties would be afraid to go. In recent days no Unionist member has ventured into Toome. I put in my agents at the election, but the police had to get them out. What is true on one side is equally true on the other.
  Mr. Orme: There will be areas in which it will not be possible for polling agents of all parties to be present. It will, therefore, be incumbent upon the agents who are present to act properly and impartially. Perhaps the Secretary of State will consider the desirability of repeating in the June election the parliamentary observation which took place during the border poll.
  Mr. Molyneaux: It is desirable that any parliamentary deputation from this House should study the rules under which the elections are to be held, and, particularly, the basis of the representation of the people.
  Mr. Orme: We know the rules, and the hon. Gentleman referred to them previously. Perhaps he will offer to give that delegation a briefing before it goes to Northern Ireland.
  It may be necessary for people to spend a long time in the polling station. I know the security problems, but the hours during which voting will take place will be daylight hours. Perhaps the Secretary of State would consider lengthening the period of time from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. or even from 7 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. During the evening of the border poll I saw polling stations packed to the doors. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider this point.
  We welcome a continuation of the postal vote. It has been represented to me that in a postal vote it should not be necessary to have to apply twice
  122
  —once for the local government elections and again for the Assembly elections. Would not one application be satisfactory for both elections? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point, too.
  The Opposition feel very strongly about the question of affirmative motions. We do not feel it right for the Government to take powers without parliamentary approval. The right hon. Gentleman-knows that there has been much argument about affirmative and negative resolutions and the lack of time for debate. I hope, therefore, that we may have an explanation from the Secretary of State on this matter. We shall be pressing the point strongly a little later in Committee.
  Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be dealing with this matter, but I am prepared to meet the argument in the Committee stage. As an ex-Leader of the House, may I say that there would be nobody less inclined than I am to take powers without reference to the House. I do not wish to take powers without parliamentary approval, and I shall be explaining my full reasons when I come to the amendments.
  Mr. Orme: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation.
  I should like to turn to another matter which has occupied a good deal of attention in this debate. I refer to the question of the Sinn Fein being allowed to stand in the election. With the exception of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), it must be said that most hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Antrim, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)— have urged the right hon. Gentleman to look again at this issue. We realise that the right hon. Gentleman has a problem in terms of allowing the man with the gun to stand for election. We are, as is well known, completely opposed to people who use guns, but at the same time we believe that if there are people who represent a political wing in such an organisation, a ballot box test may be a more effective way of defusing that gun than are the precarious methods used by the security forces. The right hon. Gentleman has already gone a considerable way along the road in his attitude to Republican clubs, and we would ask him to

  123
  consider whether he believes that it would be politically advantageous to allow all parties and organisations to stand in the election. We all appreciate that if people stand for election and are wanted by the security forces, in any event, they will come under the normal law. We want to see all people participating, because, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North said, the ballot box will decide the issue.
  I have tried to emphasise some of the central points in this debate, and I have been brief because we are anxious to come to the Committee stage, in which there are still important points that remain to be examined.
  I was interested in the editorial in the Irish Times on 11th April and in its attitude to the Bill. The hon. Member for Antrim, North, who is not present at the moment, may be interested to hear that the editorial took the view that people with fancy religions would be eligible to stand. I do not know what view the hon. Gentleman would take if the established church were allowed to stand, or if the Roman Catholic clergy were to stand in this election.
  Mr. Peter Mills: No.
  Mr. Orme: I may be wrong, but that is what it says in the editorial to which I have referred. It says that Catholic priests may stand for election.
  Mr. Michael English: In this House.
  Mr. Orme: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is not possible in the elections with which we are dealing?
  Mr. Mills: Yes.
  Mr. Orme: I must stress that the Opposition are not making this point. I am referring to the Irish Times editorial. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will deal with that point in his reply. I am not making a major issue of it. Enough people appear to be willing to stand without having to go round looking for alternatives.
  The editorial stresses that the election has already started and concludes by saying:
  "The show is on the road."
  I agree. I believe that the election show is on the road. We welcome that fact,
  124
  and this Bill seeks to bring about this aim. There are improvements which we believe can be made, and we can deal with them in Committee. Therefore, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  8.18 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): This has been an interesting and a quite long debate, and I am sure the Government are grateful for the constructive nature of the contributions which have been made.
  I must begin by stressing what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in opening; namely, that we are considering an urgent operation to enable elections to be held for the new Assembly before the end of June. My right hon. Friend has now named 28th June as election day. It was the general wish of the House that this should be done and the people of Northern Ireland will look to the House to see that nothing is allowed to hinder progress.
  May I begin by addressing myself to the speech of the hon. Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme)? I deal first with his point about the polling booths. In Northern Ireland, as in Great Britain, polling agents are allowed inside polling places. These persons must not be confused with checkers, who are employed unofficially by the parties and who stand outside. The recognised work on electoral procedure states:
  "Poll clerks can be seated on either side of the presiding officer and the candidates' polling agents next beyond the poll clerks."
  I think that that makes the position clear. However, in view of the matters which have been raised, certainly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will discuss them with the Chief Electoral Officer and, of course, the leaders of the parties. My right hon. Friend will consider carefully all that has been said today.
  I now deal with the list of postal votes for the elections. It is true that one has to make only one application for a vote.
  Mr. John E. Maginnis: Is not there a difficulty here, since, if we do not know the list of candidates for the Assembly election, it will not be possible to send ballot papers by post?
  Mr. Mills: With respect, applications can be made for postal votes. That is what I was seeking to explain.

  125
  I turn now to the speech of the hon Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). I thank him for his co-operation and for the views that he has expressed He asked a number of questions, and I shall do my best to answer them.
  The Boundary Commission certainly is in operation in Northern Ireland. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is useful to discuss many of these matters now because later on they can be considered and possibly dealt with when we come to the constitutional Bill. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that it was useful to discuss these matters now.
  The hon. Gentleman and a number of other hon. Members have asked about the register. I understand that the one to be used is the 1973 one, which is the latest one. We recognise that there are changes in the population. We shall be considering a number of amendments on this point in Committee. But, to be frank, there would be no time to bring in a supplementary register. It would be difficult. However, as I say, we shall go into this matter in more detail later.
  Then I come to the powers of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State especially those set out in Clause 2(5)(a) to (f). These powers are necessary to conduct the election. They do no more than deal with changes required for STV, postal votes, and matters like that.
  I come then to the point about affirmative orders or the negative procedure. Again, we shall go into this in much more detail in Committee. However, the timetable envisaged does not permit the affirmative procedure. It is intended to publish the election rules very soon after the Bill becomes law, and it will be necessary to start implementing them at once. That could not happen if we had to wait for an affirmative resolution. There would then be no hope for elections before the Summer Recess. The timetable is already very tight. We can return to this point in Committee. I am assured that under the negative procedure proper time will be found to discuss all these matters.
  Mr. Orme: If it is not possible to have this affirmative order now, since we are to have further legislation before us on the second part of this Bill is the Minister
  126
  prepared to see that the affirmative resolution is written into future legislation?
  Mr. Mills: Certainly we shall consider that.
  Turning to the question of the Chief Electoral Officer, his duties will include registration as returning officer. This is normal.
  I was asked about casual vacancies and whether they would mean reverting to the normal voting system. There is no provision for this in the Bill. Obviously, that would be a matter for the constitutional Bill. One hon. Member asked what would happen if the gentleman concerned did not turn up. Again, there is no provision. But there is no need, even in this House, for the Member to turn up.
  I come then to disqualifications for the new Assembly. Again, this is a difficult one. But these are powers which are required for dealing with this problem and with the new Assembly.
  Next I deal with Sinn Fein. I understand that there is nothing in the electoral law or in the Bill to stop a member of Sinn Fein standing and putting "Sinn Fein" as his party on the ballot paper. But he will do so at his own risk. It would be quite inappropriate to use electoral law as a means of regulating which organisations are illegal in Northern Ireland. To seek special provision in the Bill is to seek to give immunity under the law to some organisations whose members are engaged in criminal activities. It is right that electoral law should not prevent anyone from standing. Equally, it is not right to give people engaged in crime an immunity which they do not enjoy at present.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I do not quite follow that. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that an individual could stand as a candidate and put "Sinn Fein" on the ballot paper after his name? For the sake of argument, let us suppose that the security forces knew nothing against him. Would he be prosecuted as a consequence? Even at the end of the hon. Gentleman's explanation I am not clear what the practical effects will be.
  Mr. Mills: I do not think that I can answer that question because it is a hypothetical one anyway. But, as I say, there

  127
  is nothing to stop such a person standing. That is the important point.
  Mr. Orme: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but this is rather important. He says that there is nothing to stop such a person standing. Why, then, is the organisation proscribed in another Bill with which we shall be dealing later?
  Mr. Mills: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State assures me that he will deal with that matter in that Bill.
  Mr. McManus: If that is to remain the position, for the benefit of all hon. Members will the Under-Secretary now give us his definition of what a free election is if certain persons are specifically excluded?
  Mr. Mills: I cannot go further than what I have said, which clarifies the position as it is.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I think that we are in a somewhat unsatisfactory situation now. We on this side of the House, supported by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), feel that we should attempt to get all shades of opinion standing in these elections as the only way to prevent political martyrs. Is it the fact, as the hon. Gentleman has argued this evening with somewhat greater clarity than I used in my opening speech because of my lack of knowledge on the matter, that, according to the electoral law, there is nothing to prevent anybody standing for Parliament, but that in Northern Ireland, because of proscription under the Special Powers Act, and as the Bill that is to come before us tomorrow is not yet the law of the land, anybody who is a member of a proscribed organisation would have to consider his position carefully? Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that if we have this view we should press it strongly tomorrow in another context rather than today in the context of electoral law?
  Mr. Mills: It is as I have already put it. This is the electoral law. My right hon. Friend says that he will look at it in another context tomorrow.
  Mr. McMaster: May I ask my hon. Friend to consider carefully what he is saying? What is the effect of a body being proscribed? Is he saying that a
  128
  candidate can add on the ballot paper either "Sinn Fein" or "Irish Republican Army"? If so, it is absolutely outrageous for the relatives of those who have been killed by the IRA in Northern Ireland, and it will cause chaos.
  Mr. Mills: This is the electoral law. My right hon. Friend clearly said that he will look at the matter tomorrow.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: As reference has been made to me, may I ask the Minister to give way? It would be unfair to anybody in Northern Ireland to go with what has been said tonight. It is not very clear. I should think that if a man admitted on a ballot paper that he was a member of a proscribed organisation it would surely be held in evidence against him. I should like to emphasise that I was careful not to mention any organisations. I suggested that a person who believed in the political objectives of any political organisation and who is not wanted by the security forces should be entitled to stand. A Unionist or a Democratic Unionist Member could be a member of an illegal organisation, but if the police did not know that he was engaged in subversion he could still stand at the election. However, if he was a law breaker, even a Front Bench Member— I do not suggest that a Front Bencher would be engaged in anything so wrong-he should not be entitled to stand. I am sure that the Minister does not wish the impression to go out from this House that if a man says that he is a member of a proscribed organisation nothing will be done about it.
  Mr. Mills: With respect, I said nothing of the kind. I was trying to be factual. I am no lawyer. I am merely stating the electoral law. My right hon. Friend has given an assurance that he will deal with this point tomorrow. I do not think that we can be fairer or clearer than that
  A question was asked about citizens of the Republic standing for election to the Assembly. That is possible, subject to the normal disqualifications. I hope that I have managed to clear many of the points which have been made.
  Mr. Fitt: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I understand that under the electoral law members of the British Army in Northern Ireland will be entitled

  129
  to vote for election to the Assembly. Perhaps that point could be clarified. My understanding is that at the moment members of the British Army in Northern Ireland were entitled to vote in the border poll. I can understand that, because they were subjects of the United Kingdom. Will they be permitted to vote for election to the Assembly?
  Mr. Mills: I am not too sure on that point. They must be British subjects and have been there for three months preceding the qualifying date and be on the register.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I think we ought to get this point clear. Speaking with knowledge of former days at the Home Office, I understand that if members of the British Army who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies are living in married quarters near Lisburn with their families on the day that the register is compiled they will be able to vote in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Mills: Yes. The point is that they must be on the register.
  Mr. McManus Mr. McManus rose—
  Mr. Mills: There has been a tremendous number of interruptions and I am finding it difficult enough to try to answer all the questions that have been asked without giving way yet again. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue for a little longer before the next interruption.
  I noted carefully the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). Obviously, he will raise many of them in Committee.
  I was grateful to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) for his support of the Bill.
  I noted with interest the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). He feels very strongly that people's opinions should be put to the test. That is what this is all about. That is what the election is for. We want to get the Bill through so that people in Northern Ireland can test the water, test the candidates, and so on. To that extent my hon. Friend and I are in agreement.
  My hon. Friend was concerned about the supplementary list on a register. This,
  130
  too, will come up later, but my hon. Friend has heard my views on it. The allocation of seats will be coming up for consideration in Committee, and I think that that is the best way of dealing with the matter.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) talked about taking politics off the streets and into the Assembly for debate, thus reiterating the point that has been made once or twice. I am sure that that is the way to do it.
  There will, I hope, be wide use of postal votes, and this will be the same as for the border poll and for the local elections.
  I was glad of the welcome given to the Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). He is right in saying that speed is of importance in this matter.
  I have tried to answer several of the points raised by the hon. Member for Kingston - upon - Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
  Mr. McNamara: Will the siting of the polling stations be the same as for the border poll?
  Mr. Mills: I shall look into that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) welcomed the Bill in principle and thought that the timing was right. I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct, because we want to keep the political initiative going.
  I was glad of the welcome given to the Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), and I appreciate the interesting points which he raised.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) raised the question of salaries. I think that this matter is dealt with in the Bill, which, in my view, provides a reasonable salary and expenses.
  I have dealt with the questions that were asked about polling booths.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) mentioned several details about hours of the poll, and I think that I have dealt with that. My right hon. Friend will look carefully into this matter. I think that there will be more hours of daylight at the time of the elections.

  131
  My hon. Friend also raised the question of accessibility. This is the sort of thing that we shall take note of and look into very carefully.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) raised the issue of postal votes and that of the placing of polling stations. I have already dealt with both matters.
  Interesting points have been raised by several hon. Members, and what they have said will be looked into. It has been said that different arrangements could have been made. It would be remarkable if hon. Members could not propose amendments to any of the details in the Bill. The main guidelines were spelled out in the White Paper, on which there was a full debate. The Bill follows those guidelines as closely as possible for the limited operation which is envisaged.
  This is a Bill to set up an Assembly and provide for one election to it. More detailed proposals, including some of the topics which have been the subject of criticism today, will be dealt with in the main constitutional Bill. I believe that the Bill fulfils a pledge given by the Government with the support of all parties, and I would ask the House to support the Government tonight in honouring their commitments.
  Question put, That the Bill be read a Second time: —
  The House proceeded to a Division:—
  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and Mr. John Stradling Thomas were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. James Wellbeloved was appointed a Teller for the Noes, but no Member being willing to act as a second Teller for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared the Ayes had it.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]
  Further proceedings stood postponed, pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

  NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a Northern Ireland Assembly and to provide for election to that Assembly, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of

  (i) a salary for each member at a rate not exceeding £2,500 a year, and

  (ii) allowances to meet expenses incurred on secretarial assistance, subject to a limit for each member of £600 for the 12 months beginning with the date on which the member is returned,

  (b) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any costs incurred by a government department in connection with the election under that Act,

  (c) any payment into the Consolidated Fund—[Mr. Peter Mills.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY BILL
  Considered in Committee pursuant to the Order of the House this day.
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
  8.45 p.m.
  The Chairman: It would be for the convenience of the Committee, I think, in these rather unusual proceedings if I were to make a short statement. As the Committee will know, it is not possible to give formal notice of amendments before a Bill has had its Second Reading. We therefore have to proceed upon the basis of manuscript amendments.
  Following the usual practice, however, I think that most hon. Members who wish to move manuscript amendments have already given the Public Bill Office an advance sight of the text of the manuscript amendments which they would like to move. These have been typed in a marshalled form in the order in which they will be taken when the clauses are considered, and copies are available now in the Vote Office.
  I have also made available a provisional selection list of those manuscript amendments of which notice has so far been given, and copies have been placed in the "No" Lobby. These exclude

  133
  three amendments in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and two in the name of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), which will be circulated as soon as they have been typed and on which I shall announce my selection in due course. I therefore call the first amendment, No. 3 on the circulated paper.

  NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY BILL

    Clause 1
    THE NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY
    Captain Orr: I beg to move manuscript Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 6, leave out "78" and insert "100".
    The Chairman: With this amendment we are to take manuscript Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 6, leave out "78" and insert "81", and manuscript Amendment No. 29, in the schedule, page 5, after 'Fermanagh and South Tyrone', leave out "5" and insert "6".
    Captain Orr: The object of Amendment No. 3 and the others is to determine in the first instance the thinking of the Secretary of State about the size of the Assembly. I do not wish to say very much at this stage, as we want to expedite the Committee proceedings. I should like simply to ask my right hon. Friend why he has chosen to select the number 78. It appears on the surface, and in the light of the arguments which we may have upon the schedule, to have been arbitrarily selected. It appears to have carried with it the result of making a certain inequitable division between the various constituencies.
    The Unionist Party, which I represent, put forward in its suggestions at Darlington the number 100 as a reasonable size for the Assembly. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us why he did not consider 100 to be the right size and why he thinks that 78 is right.
    In the light of what my right hon. Friend may say later, perhaps we can return to this subject a little later on.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I have tabled Amendment No. 4, to leave out "78" and insert "81". I feel that the Committee should give serious consideration to the Government's plans for the breakup of these 12 constituencies. It was
    134
    evident on Second Reading that hon. Members are not aware of the way that these constituencies were broken up. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), the Opposition spokesman, said it would be too radical at this late stage to try to have the same number of voters for the return of the same number of Members to the Assembly. In view of the facts of the situation, that is not so.
    By a simple consideration of the constituencies, one will find that there should be three alterations in the number of seats given in the Assembly for each of these constituencies. It is proposed that each constituency shall have six Members. One of these constituencies, West Belfast, has an electorate of 71,192. That means that in that constituency the number of electors per seat would be the lowest in the whole of Northern Ireland —11,865—and the average ratio would be 5·3. In other Northern Ireland constituencies, when the allocation of seats comes below the halfway mark—when it is 5·4 or 5·3—usually only five seats are allocated, but in the case I have mentioned there are to be six seats.
    In Fermanagh and South Tyrone—I am sorry, that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) is not now present with us— the ratio is the same, 5·3, but only five seats are allocated. I therefore propose that one seat should be added to Fermanagh and South Tyrone. As it is, 11,865 voters can return a Member in West Belfast, whereas it takes 13,917 in Fermanagh. That is clearly not fair. No radical change is needed. I am keeping to the plan that the Government themselves have devised. If the Government are to be consistent, let them be consistent, and keep to the results of their own homework.
    In Antrim, North and Antrim, South there are 100,032 voters, which gives a ratio of 7·6, but, strange to relate, instead of making that an eight-seat constituency, it has been reduced to seven. The whole of Antrim is always looked upon as strong Unionist territory, and it seems that where there is strong Unionist territory the number of seats is reduced. In my constituency this is actually not true. In others ways of voting, Antrim, North always return Unionist candidates. Here I use the word "Unionist" in the broadest possible sense. I do not just mean

    135
    official Unionists, because there have been other brands of Unionist and other phrases of Unionsim there. Antrim has a most interesting electoral history which repays study. Nevertheless, there is a considerable Republican element, as, for instance, in Ballycastle. I do not say that all the people in Ballycastle are Republican—many would say they are Nationalists. There is also the whole of the Glens area.
    If the House were consistent it would say "Irrespective of who may be returned, we will be absolutely fair, and we are prepared to relate the number of seats as near as possible to the allocation of Members." My constituency should be an eight-member constituency. It is quite possible that this tells against my own political thinking, but that consideration should not come into the situation tonight.
    We should be absolutely fair, because Westminster is saying to Northern Ireland" We do not think that Stormont was fair. We think that there was something suspicious about it." That assertion could be made and could be rebutted, but if this Parliament is reading an ethical lecture it should have its hands absolutely clean. On this issue, those hands are not absolutely clean. The Northern Ireland people know that North Antrim, a large constituency, should on the Government's own figures have more representation, and I contend that a second seat should be added, bringing the total up to eight.
    Antrim South, with an electorate of 115,152 is the largest constituency in Northern Ireland, and probably the largest in the whole of the United Kingdom. There is a ratio of 8·7. But what happens? It is made an eight-seat constituency, whereas there should be nine seats. West Belfast is a Republican area and returns a Republican to this House. Only 11,865 votes are needed to return that candidate, but if a person happens to live in the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), 14,394 votes are needed. By adding three seats justice can be seen to be done in the allocation of these seats. I know that the hon. and gallant mber for Down, South (Captain Orr) argue that there should be 100 seats, am not arguing that case tonight.
    136
    We are in Committee, but I have a feeling that no amendments will be accepted. I do not know whether that is true, and I hope that it is not. Perhaps some of the more able Members of the Committee can tell me how a Bill can be taken and finished without a Report stage. I appreciate that it is only possible to have a Report stage if there are amendments in Committee. I hope that we are not carrying out a charade.
    I make a plea on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland that are under-represented and are not properly represented. We are not arguing about gerrymandering. On one occasion I sat in the gallery of this House when boundaries were being discussed. One side said that the other side was gerrymandering. That allegation was denied. I listened to the election results in Southern Ireland. I was glad to hear them at each other's throats, each side alleging gerrymandering.
    I am not saying that the seats to which I referred have been gerrymandered. I am saying that in all fairness to the electorate three seats should be added. That is my simple proposition.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: I shall confine my remarks to Amendment No. 29, concerning the representation proportions for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The hour is not late, and the House responded to the Government's appeal to act with dispatch during Second Reading. Therefore, it is the more surprising that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus), who is supposed to represent Fermanagh and South Tyrone in this House, although he made a speech during the Second Reading debate has disappeared when his constituency comes under review in Committee.
    It is not necessary for me to say much, because the matter was ventilated during the Second Reading debate. The Committee has heard some cogent words from my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I understand that the Secretary of State has received a communication from Fermanagh County Council, which held a meeting on 13th April and requested that the representation of Fermanagh and South Tyrone in the proposed Assembly should be increased from five representatives.

    137
    The county council in its representation said:
    "Note the great number of local government functions being transferred to centralised administration, the reduction in control by elected representatives at local government level and the resultant need for more elected representatives in the Assembly."
    It referred to what it termed:
    "the unfair proportion of five elected representatives for such a large geographical area and the unfair population ratio of electorate for each representative."
    The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) was right, in the Second Reading debate, to say that if we are to make an adjustment in favour of Fermanagh and South Tyrone it will involve other adjustments.
    Although it is true that 13,518 electors in Fermanagh and South Tyrone will account for one seat in the Assembly, there are three constituencies in worse plight—Antrim, North, Antrim, South, and Belfast, East. It is also the case, as I suggested in an intervention in the Second Reading debate, that there is a general under-representation west of the Bann, where there is one-third of the population of the Province but less than one-third of the representation. I freely admit that Fermanagh and South Tyrone is not the only hard case, but there is justification for adjustment of the representation proposed, and I ask my right hon. Friend to take this into account.
    Mr. McMaster: Although Belfast, East has an electorate of almost 81,000, we have been allocated six seats—the same number as Belfast, West, which has an electorate of 71,000. This means that 10,000 more electors in Belfast, East are not represented. So that no charge of gerrymandering can lie against the Government, they should consider whether their magic figure of 78 seats is correct.
    Other areas have been mentioned, particularly Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where the number of electors is exactly the same as that in Belfast, West. Yet the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone is to have one fewer representative than Belfast, West. That is an outrageous example. Apparently without logical reason, the same applies to Antrim, North. Other constituencies are in much the same plight, in that constituencies with the same number of voters have different numbers of representatives in the Assembly. I therefore support the amend-
    138
    ment and ask the Government to look again at the number of representatives.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I wish to raise only one point. In doing so, I must say that I do not believe that the Secretary of State could have got the right figure for an Assembly such as this without the aid of a Boundary Commission and much more deep-seated thought than has been possible. I could not be a party to any argument for there being 79, 81 or 100 seats. On the other hand, as the right hon. Gentleman well understands, neither could I be a party to saying—he himself is not—that the figure of 78 is absolutely right. There is no real criterion by which it could be measured.
    In my view, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to substantiate his figure on a much more objective basis after the election if there is a Boundary Commission, which would take a long time to consider and report and would inquire into population figures and movements in depth.
    Earlier, I referred to a question put to me today by the Alliance Party. It asked why the Secretary of State used the 1972 figures rather than the 1973 figures—although I must admit that I do not know whether it would be possible to use 1973 figures in the middle of 1973. There has been a considerable movement of population, and some of the argument used in this discussion has been based on population. It is only on that one point that I wish to intervene.
    Mr. Molyneaux: My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has made an unanswerable case for an increase in the two County Antrim constituencies. I agree that both should have an extra seat on the new Assembly. Both have rapidly expanding populations, and it is evident that in a short time the already large quota per Member will be increased, to such an extent that the representation pattern will become completely distorted.
    I also strongly support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and others that an extra seat should be given to Fermanagh and South Tyrone. My hon. Friend made a convincing case with which I heartily agree.
    I support the amendment.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I will deal first with the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) because it is somewhat different from the others. He asked "Why 78?". The White Paper said that the figure for the new Assembly should be about 80, and we set about fixing the figures on the basis of what the White Paper said.
    The number chosen is not immutable. It may be thought right, with the benefit of experience, to change the size of the Assembly. Although the size is fixed for the first Assembly, there is no reason why a decision should not be made later that there is a better figure.
    We set about trying to find the best and fairest balance between the areas on the basis of the figure of about 80 stated in the White Paper. We followed that by doing what we said we would do, which was to base the numbers on the Westminster constituencies. We thought that that was the fairest basis. We in no way claim that what we are doing is comparable to the efficient job that would be undertaken by a Boundary Commission in normal circumstances. Such a claim would be absurd. A Boundary Commission, taking its time, would look at all the figures, consider the whole basis, and make recommendations.
    To have elections quickly we have inevitably to do a much more rough and ready job than would be done by a Boundary Commission. We set out, on the basis of the Westminster constituencies and on the principle of about 80 for the Assembly, to devise the fairest basis we could, consistent with another factor, which I mentioned in my speech on Second Reading. That factor was that on the proportional representation single transferable vote system we believed it right not to go above a maximum of eight members for any one constituency, because of the size of the ballot paper that that might produce, nor to go below a minimum of four, because we believed that that would reduce the value of the proportional representation system.
    We cannot claim that we did anything like the job that could be done by a Boundary Commission taking a considerable time over it. Here I should make ear to the hon. Member for Leeds, (Mr. Merlyn Rees) that we used
    140
    the 1973 register. That register reflects 1972 figures, but it was the only register available to us.
    I come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who asked why we proceeded on those figures. We examined all the possible permutations around the 80 mark. I looked into them myself with the greatest possible care to ensure that as far as possible we achieved the fairest balance consistent with having not more than eight Members in any one seat or fewer than four.
    No one can suggest, whatever they may think about my election interests in other parts of the United Kingdom, that I could conceivably have been anything other than totally impartial in looking at the position in Northern Ireland. Having looked at these figures with the utmost care, I have come to the conclusion that this is the fairest basis we could manage.
    On a straight figure basis there would be an argument—if we went to 81—for the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) has argued. That would offend the principle, which we believe to be right, of not having more than eight Members for any constituency. Equally on that basis it would be quite possible for North Antrim to go to eight. It would not necessarily mean that Fermanagh and South Tyrone would go above five. Then we come to the question of the East Belfast seats. We looked at the figures as best we could and we believed that on balance it was fairest that the Belfast constituency should have the same number of seats. This was on the basis of trying to be as fair to everyone as we could, recognising all the difficulties involved in the numbers in the schedule.
    No doubt a Boundary Commission would have taken longer and would have come out with a different answer. I hope that I have said enough to convince the Committee that we have tried to the best of our ability. I personally have taken great care with this task of seeking to devise the fairest possible basis, consistent with the figures. With that in mind, I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will feel satisfied and will not press the amendment. We do not rule out the

    141
    possibility that the number of seats in the Assembly can be changed.
    Captain Orr: I wonder, Sir Stephen, whether you would be kind enough to let me know whether you intend to call Amendment No. 4 for a Division if Amendment No. 3 is withdrawn.
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Stephen McAdden): Amendment No. 4 is not selected for a Division.
    Captain Orr: In that case, to establish the principle—and in spite of what my right hon. Friend has said—we shall have to press this amendment. I must tell the Committee that I would prefer the amendment of the hon. Member for Antrim. North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
    The Temporary Chairman: If there is a preference in this matter the Chair would not seek to obstruct the hon. and gallant Gentleman's intention. If he wishes to divide on Amendment No. 4 instead of No. 3 and Amendment No. 3 is withdrawn, a vote on Amendment No. 4 is perfectly permissible.
    Captain Orr: I am grateful, Sir Stephen, because in the light of the argument that is what we would prefer to do. I concede that the Secretary of State had a difficult job, having set himself two principles. I do not see how, within those principles, he could have produced anything different. However, I do not concede the two principles. I do not concede the principle of limiting the Assembly to 80 Members. I accept the fact that the House of Commons approved the White Paper and therefore he was faced with that figure.
    Mr. Whitelaw: As my hon. and gallant Friend is now arguing on Amendment No. 4 I do not think that he or anyone else will imagine that striking a fair balance would be any easier with 100 Members rather than 78.
    Captain Orr: I certainly concede that. The other principle which my right hon. Friend has enunciated is that of not having more than eight members in a con-
    142
    stituency because of the difficulties which this would produce in the proportional representation system.
    Mr. Michael English: The Secretary of State has got himself into these difficulties by adopting a very archaic electoral system. A truly proportional representation system would not have these constituencies; it would be the whole of Northern Ireland.
    9.15 p.m.
    Captain Orr: I understand that. The hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment on which we can discuss that matter.
    My point is that the limit of eight pet constituency is arbitrary and is based on the assumption that we in this Committee shall not make any amendment to the proposal to introduce election by STV. I should hope that we would make changes in that respect.
    The arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) about Fermanagh and South Tyrone and by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) are persuasive. Despite what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, I prefer to withdraw my amendment and hope that the hon. Member for Antrim, North will press his amendment to a Division.
    Rev. Ian Paisley Rev. Ian Paisley rose——
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. I should explain that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has expressed his desire to seek leave to withdraw his amendment in order that we may have a vote on Amendment No. 4. If the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) insists on speaking, he will prevent the amendment of the hon. and gallant Member from being withdrawn. It makes the matter a little complicated. Is it your pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed: No. 4, in page 1, line 6, leave out "78" and insert "81".—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made: —
    Question accordingly negatived.
    Mr. English: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
    The Temporary Chairman: With this amendment it will be convenient to take the following:
    Amendment No. 10, in Clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
    '(3) Voting in the poll shall be by proportional representation on a list system, that is to say—

    (a)each elector may vote for one political party and that party's candidates shall be elected in proportion to the votes it receives;

    (b)each elector may also vote for one person on the list of candidates of a political party for which he has voted in that poll;

    (c)to such extent as a party is entitled under paragraph (a) of this subsection to have its candidate elected, the candidates of that party shall be elected in order according to the votes cast for them personally, beginning with the candidate with the highest number of such votes'.

    Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 12, leave out subsection (3).
    The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 88.

    Division No. 107.]

    AYES

    [9.20 p.m.

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Maginnis, John E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Kilfedder, James

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Mr. James Molyneaux and

    McMaster, Stanley

    Rev Ian Paisley.

    NOES

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Batsford, Brian

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Benyon, W

    James, David

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Biffen, John

    Johnston Russell (Inverness)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Boscawen, Hn. Robert

    Jopling, Michael

    Scott, Nicholas

    Bray, Ronald

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b gh & Whitby)

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Kinsey, J R.

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Kirk, Peter

    Shersby, Michael

    Chapman, Sydney

    Knox, David

    Simeons, Charles

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Soref, Harold

    Clegg, Walter

    MacArthur, Ian

    Speed, Keith

    Cockeram, Eric

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Spence, John

    Corrnack, Patrick

    Maddan, Martin

    Stainton, Keith

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Marten, Neil

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

    Mawby, Ray

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Dykes, Hugh

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Moate, Roger

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Fietcher-Cooke, Charles

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Monro, Hector

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Fortescue, Tim

    Murton, Oscar

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Fowler, Norman

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    ward Dame Irene

    Goodhew, Victor

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Gower, Raymond

    Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow. C.)

    Peel, Sir John

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Green, Alan

    Percival, Ian

    Grylls, Michael

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

    Mr.Marcus Fox and

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Mr. Hamish Gray

    Hawkins, Paul

    Raison, Timothy

    Amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 27, leave out from 'votes' to end of subsection (4) and insert:
    'cast for him personally exceeds one quartet of the votes cast for the candidate elected by the fewest personal votes'.
    Amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 34, leave out paragraph (a).
    Amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 38, leave out 'and transferring'.
    Amendment No. 30, in page 5, leave out the Schedule.
    Mr. English: The effect of Amendment No. 5 would be to solve all the problems we have just been discussing, because it knocks out all the constituencies in Northern Ireland with the object of making the whole of Northern Ireland a single constituency. It is consequential upon Amendment No. 10, as are all the other amendments in this group.
    Like most hon. Members, I am wholly in favour of the system of election we

    145
    have in the United Kingdom for the United Kingdom because it creates a two-party system in which the electorate has a right that it does not have under proportional representation. It can choose which Government it likes. It can choose to re-elect the party in power or it can choose the Opposition. For the United Kingdom that works well, but I have never thought that it worked well in individual areas, because individual areas may be one-party areas. In Northern Ireland, for historic reasons, that has come to pass.
    To change the British system of election for the single transferable vote system seems to be going from the frying pan into the fire. In some senses, STV is a little more proportional than is the British electoral system, but let us for a moment consider its history. It was invented in the 1850s by two Liberals who were not even radicals in their day, a Dane and an Englishman.
    9.30 p.m.
    When I refer to the 1850s, I am talking of a period when democracy in Europe did not exist; it did not even exist in this country. We had just experienced the 1832 Reform Act, under which the electorate went up from about 4 per cent. of the population to 6 per cent., if my memory serves me aright. There was yet to be enacted the Reform Acts of the 1860s which were the cause of the foundation of political parties. There were no political parties in our modern sense. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Conservative and Unionist Association was founded after the 1867 extension of the franchise. Even that extension of the franchise in England, Scotland and Ireland did not bring democracy. If we define "democracy" merely as a majority of the male population being able to vote, we did not get that in the United Kingdom until the middle of the 1880s.
    We are talking about an electoral system that was invented at a time when nobody in Europe had any experience of democracy at all. That is why it was invented. Democracy existed in one part of the world, namely, the United States. In the 1850s the United States was not regarded as we now regard it. It was thought of as a vulgar, conformist, rather ignorant society by Europeans—a country
    146
    in which there seemed to be a strange domination by those strange, unEuropean things called political parties.
    That is the system which we are introducing into Northern Ireland today—a system which was deliberately invented to reduce the power of political parties. It was invented in a period and by people with no experience of democracy. I regard the situation as a little sad, because it is one of the least popular systems of elections in the world. It is used in Ireland, but in no other sovereign State of which I am aware is it solely used. In Australia it is used for one House—the Upper House, not the one on which the Government depends. It has been used in Tasmania and in some other odd places like that, but it is the least popular electoral system in the world that we are proposing to introduce. There has to be good reason for that.
    Let us consider the alternative which I am seeking to put forward in its place —the alternative of a far from unpopular electoral system. In fact, it is the commonest in Europe, in one form or another. It was adopted in Belgium in 1899, a half century after this extraordinary single transferable vote system. It is interesting to consider the circumstances in which it was introduced in Belgium. Belgium at the time had a communal problem, with a deep division between the Catholic Party and a Liberal Party which, like most European Liberal Parties, was to some extent anti-clerical. In this case one party was based on the Walloons and the other on the Flemings. This system was introduced to be totally fair. It is used in countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, where there is a division of religious opinion just as there is in Northern Ireland. Its object it to be totally fair, by party, to the political views of the electors.
    In the variation which I have used I have given the electors the right to choose the candidates of their party who, to them, are the most preferable. In its basis it is just the opposite to the STV system, which is deliberately designed to encourage individual personalities at the expense of political parties.
    A person has every chance of being elected under the STV system if he is an Independent Unionist, an Independent Paisleyite, an Independent Devlinite or

    147
    anything else. It is designed to encourage the destruction of political parties, which is no doubt precisely why in Southern Ireland one Government proposed to abolish it and why in Southern Ireland it has been intentionally restricted, in a way that I shall describe in a moment, to produce a three-party system as far as possible.
    Once a true proportional representation system on a list system was introduced in Belgium in 1899, it spread over most of Europe. It spread to Scandinavia. After the First World War it spread to most of the countries of Central Europe. It is one of the most popular electoral systems in the world and, in that respect, quite unlike STV.
    I have described the difference in the abstract between the two systems. I want briefly to repeat what I said of the results of an STV system in Southern Ireland. I can only presume that the Secretary of State has adopted this archaic, undemocratic system, which is basically what it was intended to be, because it is the system which exists in the Republic of Ireland. I cannot think of any other reason for anyone doing it.
    Let us just consider what I said in the debate on the White Paper. What happened in the 1969 election, as distinct from the last election in the Republic? In terms of the first preference of the electors the Fianna Fail vote went up between 1969 and this year, yet the party lost and ceased to be the Government. In 1969, combining the first preference votes of Fine Gael and Labour, they had more than 50 per cent., yet they lost. This time they had less than 50 per cent., but they won, formed the Government and have an absolute majority in the Dail.
    That can happen under the British system of election. It happened in Britain in 1951 when the Labour vote was slightly ahead of the Conservative vote and Labour still lost the election. I am prepared to tolerate that under the British system of election because it has other advantages which proportional representational systems do not have. No electoral system is perfect, and one mistaken result can be tolerated in a system like the British one which does not pretend to be a proportional representation system.
    148
    If it is intended to go all over Ireland saying "We are introducing proportional representation into Northern Ireland" and any result flows like that which flowed in the South of Ireland, we shall increase what is called the credibility gap between politicians and the electorate. In the present circumstances in Northern Ireland surely it is important above all to produce as exact a reflection as possible of the views of the electorate.
    I am sure that the Secretary of State will say that there is a modest but effective difference between the STV as it is used in the South of Ireland and the way in which he proposes to use it. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on not introducing it exactly in the form in which it is in the South of Ireland. In the South of Ireland the bulk of constituencies have either three or four Members, and the fewer the Members the more distorted and the less proportional the system becomes. In most constituencies in the Republic, barring two, a candidate needs between 16 and 20 per cent. of the votes to get elected.
    By increasing the number of Members per constituency the Secretary of State has made the system better in Northern Ireland but far from perfect. In the majority of constituencies candidates will have to get between 12½ and 14 per cent. of the votes in order to get elected. In South Antrim 11 per cent. would get a candidate elected, but that is balanced out by Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where 16 per cent. of the votes would be needed to get a candidate elected.
    Let us take the general case. Between 12½ per cent. and 14 per cent. of the votes will be needed for candidates to be elected in most constituencies in Northern Ireland. I sometimes wonder whether this is what the argument over Sinn Fein is all about. It is possible that even in Catholic areas it may not get a percentage anything like that. Therefore, it may be to the advantage of extremist minorities to say, "I am not standing, because under this Act or the Emergency Powers Act, or for some other reason, I cannot stand", whereas the truth is that they do not want to stand and be shown up for having the small support they have when there is no possibility of being elected even if they have substantial support.

    149
    With a list system and, say, 80 seats— it could be 100 or any other number— anybody who got slightly more than one-eighty-first—in other words, about 1 per cent. of the vote—would be likely to get elected. The small minorities could be represented, if that was wished. Apart from the extremists on one side or the other, there are small minorities in Northern Ireland, some of which deserve to be represented. For example, there are Catholic Unionists, and we know from recent events that there are Protestant as well as Catholic IRA men. Small fractional groups could be represented with a proportional representation system, but they would never be represented under an STV system.
    I should like to put two points to the Secretary of State. Earlier today, in a Select Committee upstairs, I was cross-questioning the Head of the Civil Service. I asked him whether he felt that the Civil Service was often very good at dealing with conventional wisdom but less good at producing new ideas for unconventional situations. His answer, which was given in public, will surprise hon. Members because it was not a rebuttal of the statement in the question.
    I wonder whether what has happened here is that everybody has looked at the nearest available place, the South of Ireland, and said, "Let us have that", and not thought about the possible results. Because of those possible results I should like to put another point to the Secretary of State. I hope that some result which we can all build upon will flow from the elections. I will not press the right hon. Gentleman too hard on this amendment because he has agreed that these elections should be held early and has produced the Bill separately. Like most hon. Members on this side of the House, I am grateful for that. If he had not done so, I should have pressed him much harder on the amendment, because he would have had more time to change the system. In the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman is probably bound to say that he cannot change the system that he has adopted, even if he had been totally converted to the idea that it was bad. But if, as I fear rather than hope, it turns out to produce the kind of mess that this system can produce, I hope that for any subsequent election he will give me the assurance not merely that it can
    150
    be changed—we know that is true; this Bill is for one election—but that he will start somebody in his office on the job of considering what would happen under a proportional representation list system and how that could be introduced if the STV system turned out to be bad and messy, and needed to be changed.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Kilfedder: I am sorry that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends and myself has not been selected separately so that the Committee would have a chance of dividing upon it. I realise the futility of trying to persuade the Government to abandon the system of proportional representation as set out in the Bill, but I feel that we Unionist Members from Northern Ireland, and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) ought to put on record our views about it and our deep desire to maintain the British electoral system in Northern Ireland. I want to see all the British laws, except one— and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is not present —established in Northern Ireland. The one exception is the Industrial Relations Act in its present form.
    The Government of Ireland Act 1920 stipulated that proportional representation might be dropped after three years, and such a move did not have to be approved by this Parliament. That was written into the legislation which went through the House. Proportional representation was abandoned in time for the local elections of 1924 and for the General Election of 1929.
    It is worth recalling what was said during the Report stage of the Government of Ireland Bill. There was a short reference to proportional representation, and it was obvious that several Members —Liberals as well as Conservatives— were not all that anxious about its establishment in Northern Ireland. Sir L. Worthington-Evans proposed an amendment that proportional representation in Northern Ireland ought to be extended for from three years to six years, and said:
    "I frankly say I shall take the view of the House upon the question, and if the House think three years ought to remain, or if they prefer six, I shall be guided by their wish."

    151
    Captain Craig, who later became Lord Craigavon and whose name was given to a new town in County Armagh said:
    "This proportional representation system was forced upon Ireland against the wishes of every representative of Ireland,"—
    and he was not challenged on that—
    "I think, with the exception of two, and originally it ought never to have been passed. First of all, it was against the wishes of all the Irish representatives here, and, in the second place, we Irish strongly object to have all these wretched experiments in legislation perpetrated on us. If you think so highly of proportional representation you should begin by imposing it on yourselves."
    Those words were spoken by Captain Craig in 1920, and 53 years later I can utter them to my right hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) because I know that the Liberal Party is anxious now, and has been, for some time now, to see proportional representation introduced here, but it will never find any comfort for that idea from the spokesmen of the two major parties in the House. The reason is clear. It is that they do not want a third party. They do not want a stronger Liberal voice in the House.
    I listened, as I always do, with great respect to the Secretary of State, but he talked about the need to compromise, the need, even if we do not like their views, to have every element represented in Parliament. But in that case surely my right hon. Friend should push in Cabinet the views which the Liberal Party has been urging without much success, for many years. More than two of its candidates in the GLC elections would have been successful if there had been proportional representation. Captain Craig said in 1920 what we, the representatives here of the majority in Northern Ireland, say today.
    It is worth referring to another former Member, perhaps as distinguished as the Front Bench Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland, a namesake of his, Sir J. D. Rees. He said:
    "I should also like to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to leave it at three instead of six, for the reason that the insertion of six will condemn these Irish Parliaments to the system of proportional representation for six years. They are sincerely to be commiserated with on having to put up with it for even three years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1920; Vol. 134, c. 1242, 1243.]
    152
    When we hear appeals about proportional representation, we should remember what was said then, and that Members refused to extend the system to six years. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) does not heed the words uttered in 1920 by Sir J. D. Rees.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: What is the point of quoting these words, which are purely assertions and lack any substance of argument?
    Mr. Kilfedder: I have often heard the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House quoting ancient documents, if I may call them that. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is like that."] Yes, he is like that. We are being castigated today because we abolished proportional representation in Northern Ireland, but it was this House that gave us the power to abolish it.
    I am trying to emphasise that, even in 1920, when proportional representation was introduced for Northern Ireland, against the wishes, apparently, of all but two of the Irish representatives from the whole of Ireland, this House would not extend its operation from three years to six. That is a valid point to remember when discussing this proposal.
    I listened with respect to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). I do not wish to take up his interesting remarks, for which there is a great deal to be said. He said, I believe —I may have noted his remarks incorrectly—that the Government introduced proportional representation because it was the system employed in Eire.
    Mr. English: I do not think that I said that that was the reason. I said that I could not think of any other. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what the reason was.
    Mr. Kilfedder: I share the view, in any event, that proportional representation has been brought into Northern Ireland to remove a dissimilarity between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, one stepping stone to please the Republican element which has been fighting against the majority, against law and order, and against the establishment. I look upon it as a step towards a united Ireland. For that reason, I find it repugnant. I think that my hon. Friends share that view.

    153
    Mr. Lynch tried to get rid of proportional representation in Southern Ireland. He found it most unsatisfactory. I should not like to say too much about Mr. Lynch in this Chamber. One has to remember, however, that the Fianna Fail Party gerrymandered constituencies in the South of Ireland—for instance, South Donegal and Leitrim, which I mentioned in an earlier speech today. The only Unionist there was a Major Sheldon. The Fianna Fail Government deliberately reduced the number of Members for that constituency by one, so that the Protestant people were prevented from having a candidate for the Dail.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: I am happy to hear from the hon. Gentleman, in his criticisms of the actions of Fianna Fail, that clearly no gerrymandering was ever undertaken by any Unionist organisation in the North. Jack Lynch tried to get rid of it twice, and twice failed in referenda.
    Mr. Kilfedder: I appreciate that Mr. Lynch failed to get rid of PR. I take up two points in the intervention of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston). First, with regard to Northern Ireland and the allegation of gerrymandering, if that had been so it would have been possible to challenge it in the courts, right up to the highest court of the land. That was not done. As there are astute lawyers among the Nationalists or the Republicans, I can only take the failure to take legal proceedings as evidence that they had nothing on which to base such a case.
    With regard to the Irish Republic—
    The Chairman: Order. We really cannot go into the Irish Republic. We have quite enough to do in dealing with Ulster.
    Mr. Kilfedder: I do not want to go into the Irish Republic, Sir Robert. That is why I am making these remarks. I follow what you say, Sir Robert.
    One should look at any country which has proportional representation. That is why I draw the Committee's attention to the Dublin Dail. There the majority is mainly reactionary, although one has exceptions such as Dr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Conor Cruise O'Brien. But I have another valid objection to proportional representation. It presents grave difficulties for
    154
    the Members who will represent the constituencies set out in the Bill. We shall have six or seven Members, or eight in one case, representing a separate Westminster constituency in the new Assembly. Under our system of elections, Members are personally identified with their constituencies. I assume that hon. Members on both sides of the House of Commons take pride in their constituency. Our whole basis of democracy is founded upon and dependent upon the relationship of the Member of Parliament and his constituency. Once one gets rid of that personal relationship and introduces six or seven Members representing one constituency, one delivers a serious blow to democratic traditions.
    Proportional representation will not produce the marvellous results for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is hoping. It will, I trust, on 28th June produce a clear answer from the people of Northern Ireland that they still support the link with Britain; that they still support—
    Mr. McManus: Careful, now.
    Mr. Kilfedder: I am speaking here of the Democratic Unionist Party as well as the Unionist Party—
    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 Proceedings in Committee on, on Consideration and on Third Reading of the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr Fox.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  The Chairman: Before I call upon the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) to resume his speech, I

  155
  wish to keep the Committee up to date about what is going on. I have to inform the Committee that further amendment sheets containing Amendments Nos. 32 to 36 and new Clause 2 have been made available in the Vote Office. Amendment No. 32 is selected for debate. Amendment No. 33 will be discussed with Amendment No. 15 and other amendments. New Clause 2 is not selected. Amendment No. 34 is selected for debate. Amendment No. 35 will be discussed with Amendment No. 25 and
  156
  other amendments. Amendment No. 36 will be discussed with Amendment No. 15 and other amendments. Mr. Kilfedder.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I was just concluding my remarks, Sir Robert. I know that it is almost futile to appeal to the Government to have second thoughts; none the less we from Northern Ireland wish to put our views on record, and we trust that this system of proportional representation will not be repeated in the next election after that held on 28th June.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I will not delay the Committee for too long, but I cannot allow speeches of the kind we have heard from the hon. Members for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) to pass without comment. The Committee will have noted their attack on proportional representation—
  Mr. English: I must make it plain that I started my speech by saying that I was not attacking proportional representation in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) was doing so, but I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) will not mix us all in one bag, because there is some distinction between myself and the hon. Member for Down, North.
  Mr. Johnston: Considering, with all respect, that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West referred to it as an archaic and undemocratic system, I do not think that this can be represented as some sort of encouragement—
  Mr. English: STV, not PR.
  Mr. Johnston: I want basically to deal with two points. The first is the whole question of whether it is better to have some kind of proportional system rather than no kind of proportional system. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West indicated that he preferred the list system. I shall not engage in argument with him on that issue except to say that, as he well knows, the list system obviates altogether—we have an example in Holland—the possibility of constituency representation. With that system one has a whole area represented, and there is as far as possible a relatively accurate mirror reflection of the party affiliations of the candidates. These are reflected in the returns to Parliament.
  I think that the constituency representative system has advantages. I suspect that is primarily the reason for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland choosing STV rather than the list system, allied to the fact that he was trying to act in a relatively short time. I should not try to argue that the list system is to be disparaged, but the experience of Germany indicates that there is a pos-
  158
  sibility of combining the two systems in an effective way.
  What I seek to rebut is the whole approach of the hon. Member for Down, North, who seemed to regard any attempt to have a proportional system of elections as wrong. The hon. Gentleman describes himself as a democrat, but I tend to suspect that he is simply anxious that the kind of electoral system which will ensure the continuance of power of his political party is sustained. Unfortunately, he was fairly short of argument and fairly strong on assertion. I failed to understand the basis of his argument.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I believe that proportional representation—and I thought I said this—will make little difference to the political representation in Northern Ireland. I was arguing that I did not want to see an alien system introduced to Northern Ireland when it is repudiated and rejected in the rest of the country. If such a system is introduced in Great Britain I shall welcome it in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Johnston: If the hon. Gentleman's approach is simply based on what may or may not happen in this country, that is hardly a matter of principle. It seems, from what the hon. Gentleman has said, that if it is not done in this country he accepts it, and if it is not done in this country he also accepts it. Surely the hon. Gentleman has an attitude of his own about whether per se it is the right thing.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the countries which operate proportional representation are mainly reactionary. That is absolute and utter rubbish. Are the Scandinavian countries—Denmark, Norway and Sweden—reactionary? Is the Netherlands reactionary? Is Belgium reactionary? Is the Federal Republic of Germany reactionary? The hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the introduction of STV would be a great blow to democracy. On what does he base that assertion? He alone knows because he alone has access to the mystical wisdom on which he appears to base that view. I saw no evidence to justify that assertion in anything that he said. If the hon.

  159
  Gentleman wishes to interrupt, and it looks as if he might wish to do so, I shall give way.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I am not certain whether I am conscious of the limitations of this debate, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been to the Free State and has had some contact with their politicians. No doubt he was not impressed by the back benchers on the Fianna Fail side of the House. It will be found that PR has thrown up reactionary representatives in many other countries which have the system. I do not mean that the whole membership of the Eire Government is reactionary. When France had proportional representation there was grave instability—
  The First Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. We cannot digress to this extent.
  Mr. Johnston: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Chairman, but it is hardly necessary.
  I will conclude with two points. First, I believe that the Government are right to try to introduce into Northern Ireland a system which gives the minorities a better chance of representation in the Assembly and of participation in the working of the future Government than they have previously had. That, after all, is what in essence the Bill is about. I would not spend time arguing with the hon. Member for Nottingham, West about the pros and cons of proportional representation systems, but it seems to me extremely important in this context that the Government have consciously reached a conclusion that, in dealing with what is essentially a community under stress, it is better to try to introduce some kind of proportional system than to adhere to the "first past the post" system which we have operated in this country for so long. We are probably the only country in Europe purely to operate that system. France has the double mandate system.
  Mr. English: Turkey.
  Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is a fund of knowledge.
  What was wrong—and this is fundamental and important—with the 1920s experiment in Northern Ireland with
  160
  proportional representation was that it was not given sufficient time.
  Mr. Orme: It was working too well.
  Mr. Johnston: If I remember the figures correctly, in the second election, in 1925, the Unionists lost seven or eight seats not to Nationalists or Republicans but to other, more moderate Unionists. There was clear evidence that the system was working.
  Secondly, I hope that the new system will not be a once and for all system for this election but will be given genuinely enough time. I do not think that proportional representation is a panacea any more than anyone else does. Generally, in countries which have operated it for a long time in Europe it is a reflection of the stability of their societies and the way they have got into the custom of operating political compromises—coalitions and so on, things we are not used to in this country. But one cannot expect a system simply to solve overnight stress conditions like those in Northern Ireland. We must give it time, and I hope that the Government will do so.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to make a few remarks at this stage about the system of single transferrable vote.
  It seems that the Government, as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) said, have concluded that for the people or Northern Ireland, in order to hear the viewpoints of minorities which hitherto evidently have not been heard in the Northern Ireland Parliament, a system of proportional representation is necessary. They have concluded that this is the way to give the minorities their chance to be heard. If the Government and the Opposition in this House are acting honourably in this matter, they should also extend proportional representation to the election of Members of this House from Northern Ireland. It is just as important to have proper representation from Northern Ireland in this House because in this House many powers which are of the utmost importance to the people of Northern Ireland will be undertaken. This House cannot have it both ways.
  Members from Northern Ireland are saying to the Government and the Opposition that if they have concluded that STV is the only way to get proper representation for minorities in the Northern Ireland

  161
  Assembly, they should go the second mile and say that the 12 Members of this House from Northern Ireland will be elected on the same system. It is an argument from which they cannot get away. But both major parties in this House are on the hook. The larger parties do not want STV in this country. They say "We're not having it." If 12 Members were elected by STV there would eventually be agitation that all Members should be elected under the same system. That would be repugnant to the parties concerned.
  10.15 p.m.
  We heard from the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) an able exposition of another system. I noticed that the hon. Member for Inverness was not prepared to take him up on it. He said that he would not enter into a debate with the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Salford, West, had pointed out that, although the majority of votes were cast for Fine Gael, that party is not now in government in the South of Ireland. That is a system in which a party can obtain the majority of votes but not be the Government.
  There can be arguments on all such systems, but I solemnly warn the Government that the STV system will not make any difference. The old arguments will still be raised, the old fights will still be fought, and on a broad basis there will be the same representation.
  When the Northern Ireland Parliament began there was proportional representation. The Nationalists abstained, and, therefore, the Members of that Parliament had to look after the interests of all their constituents. If there were two Unionists from a particular area and the Nationalist abstained from attending, the two Unionists had to do all the work. To force upon the Nationalist people the fact that they must have some representative to whom they could go, there was a return to the British system, and for a long time proportional representation was not mooted in Northern Ireland. It is only in recent years that there has been the agitation for the system.
  Mr. Orme: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's not realising that it is not just the minority that will benefit by STV. His own party, for example, will
  162
  benefit, because under the single transferable vote system minorities within the majority will be able to obtain adequate representation. Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes. I certainly accept that there may be some benefit, but if we are arguing only for our own ends, if we favour the system only for our own selfish interest, wanting to get more people in to our parties, I can only say that that is not the way to look at the matter. We should consider what is better for the people of the whole of Northern Ireland. Whether there is the STV system or the British system as it is exercised in the single-seat constituency, the overall picture will remain the same.
  The Committee is attempting to alter what is wanted by the majority in Northern Ireland. The majority wish to remain within the United Kingdom. Every step that has been taken has been an attempt to divide that interest or weaken it. Time will tell. I am not a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet. The hon. Member for Inverness said that there was no change in the basic political philosophies after proportional representation was done away with in the early 1920s. There was still the same number of Unionists, though they may not have been the same brand of Unionists. There was the same number of Republicans or Nationalists, though they may not have been the same brand or have belonged to the same party. But the overall picture was not changed.
  Mr. Orme: Does the hon. Gentleman want an assembly dominated by Mr. Faulkner and his party, as in the past, or does he want to see democratic expression? That is what the Opposition are concerned to see—representation, whether on the majority side or on the minority side, of the community as a whole. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating on 28th June. The hon. Gentleman is making many qualifications about what might come out of 28th June. We are saying that it cannot be worse than what went before.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: If the only argument that can be put forward by the Opposition Front Bench is that things cannot be worse than they were before,

  163
  we are wasting our time. We should be looking for something better.
  Mr. Orme: It will be better.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman said that it cannot be any worse.
  Mr. Orme: No, it will be better.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: That is different but it is not what the hon. Gentleman said. I cannot comment upon what he thought he said or what he meant to say. I can only comment upon what he said, and that is exactly what he said. I do not want to cross swords with the hon. Gentleman. He said that it cannot be any worse. We should be trying to make things better. We shall not change the overall picture in Northern Ireland. It is all right for people to say with great sincerity, "Well, the Government have consciously come to a decision that the way to get the minority represented in the law-making machinery is by STV."
  Mr. Orme: In both communities.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, I agree. I am not arguing that point. It is then fair that people should add that it is equally important that this minority, which evidently has not been heard properly, should have an opportunity to be heard in this House. Why not introduce STV for Northern Ireland representatives here? It is a logical step.
  Mr. Whitelaw Mr. Whitelaw rose—
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I was giving way to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Things seem to have become a little confused. To whom was the hon. Gentleman giving way?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I was giving way to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West.
  Mr. English: I changed my mind about intervening.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The people of Northern Ireland who are looking on at this point are saying exactly what Captain Craig said. He has been quoted already tonight. It is all right for hon. Members to say that that is in the past. We were
  164
  hearing about Lloyd George earlier from the Liberal benches. That was quite acceptable. It seems that we are imposing on Northern Ireland a system which we do not want in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am simply saying that if we are to be sincere and logical we must go the rest of the way—I leave out the Liberal Party here—and have proportional representation for the 12 seats in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I will begin by dealing with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) because it is leading the discussion. He argued from his considerable knowledge of these matters in favour of the list system and against STV. He asked me how it came about that STV had been chosen. The answer is that this was the system which many of the parties and organisations in Northern Ireland which spoke to me about this matter and submitted papers on it put forward as being the one they thought best.
  We had someone in my office working on the list system. A great deal of work was carried out in considering the list system on the one hand and the STV system on the other. I must admit that at one time I was convinced that the list system was the better of the two. After careful consideration of both systems and listening to the arguments one way and the other—they are narrowly balanced—I came to the conclusion, with my colleagues, that it was right to go for STV, which was the system favoured by those who had spoken to me. Therefore, I can give the assurance that the work has been done and that there is no reason for not changing if at a suitable time it is thought right that such a change should be made.
  The question why proportional representation has been chosen was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Provision for proportional representation was made in the 1920 Act and was abandoned. Proportional representation as a method of election in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland has been advocated by several of the parties and by many of the organisations and bodies which have made representations to me in the past year. It is fair to point out that

  165
  when it was in government the Ulster Unionist Party said that it would consider the system on its merits, although it was not committed to it. Nevertheless, the STV system had been used in Northern Ireland. It was used for election to the Senate at Stormont. Therefore, there were arguments in its favour.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North—my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North made a similar point— said that this system had been introduced because it was the system in the South and that it was a step to a united Ireland or that it had been introduced to please the Government of the Republic. I repudiate that suggestion, for the simple reason that I genuinely believe it to be extremely unfair to Her Majesty's Government. It would be unfair to suggest that this could have been in our minds. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North said that every step taken—
  Rev. Ian Paisley Rev. Ian Paisley rose—
  Mr. Whitelaw: If I may be allowed to continue, I shall give way in a moment. My hon. Friend said that every step taken had been a step towards a united Ireland. I must repudiate that. There were many critics in this Chamber of the border poll, but no one could say that the border poll was a step towards a united Ireland. When my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North says that every step taken has been a step towards a united Ireland, I hope he will concede that a Government taking such a step would not have had the border poll.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State would not want deliberately to misconstrue what I said or put into my mouth words which I did not speak. I never mentioned Southern Ireland tonight or said that the Southern Ireland people had forced this step on the Government. Perhaps the Secretary of State will read HANSARD. Other speakers said that. Nor did I say that every step taken had been a step towards a united Ireland. Those words were used by my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). I should like the Secretary of State to get this matter absolutely clear. I shall defend what I have said, but I shall not try to defend things which I have not said.
  Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct, and if I have in any way misrepresented what he said I unreservedly withdraw and apologise. But I must ask him to read HANSARD in the morning. I am often mistaken, and I should not be surprised if I was mistaken again, but I took down the words that "every step taken by the Government had been a step towards a united Ireland". I thought that they were his words, If I am wrong, I am wrong.
  However, if I am repudiating the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North, I am entitled to do so. It is not fair to Her Majesty's Government to impute motives which clearly we do not possess and which arouse unfair and unnecessary fears in people's minds. It is unreasonable and wrong to do so.
  Like others, I do not know whether the system we propose will produce better answers. No one can be certain until the system is tried. But I believe from the representations made to me that it is worth trying and that the many people who think it will help in the circumstances of Northern Ireland may well be right. At least we should see whether they are.
  The arguments of the hon. Member for Antrim, North go far wider than the Bill, which is concerned only with the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. He will have other opportunities to put forward his arguments about elections to this House should he wish to do so.
  I hope that, on the assurances I have given about consideration of the list system as opposed to STV, the hon. Member for Nottingham, West will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. English: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It seems that he adopted proportional representation not because the Southern Irish had it but because representations were made to him that the Southern Irish had it. This will not be the first time that an archaic piece of history has been imported into the contemporary Irish scene.
  I, like the right hon. Gentleman, hope that the system will work, although I fear the worst from it. In these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  10.30 p.m.
  Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 13, leave out from 'on' to the end of line 15, and insert—
  "on July 2nd 1973 at Parliament Buildings, Stormont".
  I had to draft this amendment before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the date of the election. My purpose is not to be arbitrary about when the Assembly should meet, but I do not think it right to leave the decision on when and where the Assembly should meet solely to the arbitrary judgment of the Secretary of State. Hypothetically, we might hold elections to the Assembly and the Secretary of State might decide that the Assembly should not meet at all or that it should be downgraded by meeting in some extraordinary place. The purpose of the amendment is not to bind the Secretary of State but to discover his intentions. In an exchange on Second Reading, he said that in Committee he might tell us something about it. Perhaps he may find the amendment a useful peg on which to hang his remarks.
  Mr. Orme: Knowing the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) as I do, I am sure that he is not being mischievous with this amendment. The Opposition think it would be unfortunate if Stormont were connected with the new Assembly. That is not a criticism of what has happened in the past. A fresh start is being made with this election, and the Assembly will not be a Parliament but an Assembly with power-sharing and many other functions. It will perhaps be more powerful than was Stormont.
  Captain Orr: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the new Assembly should not meet in the Parliament buildings at Stormont?
  Mr. Orme: I did not say that. This is a serious question, and I am not sure whether or not it should meet there. We do not want to impose on the new system the attitudes of the past. We look forward to the future of the people of Northern Ireland whom this new Assembly will represent. We do not want any commitment in this respect, but I would ask the Secretary of State to take into account the historical situation and
  168
  also to look to the future. Whatever the new building may be called, we hope it will not be called Stormont, because as a consequence it will carry with it connotations of the past that we want to be rid of. This is not put forward in any sense of wishing to be against the majority or the minority, but it affects the future of this new elected Assembly. I think that should be said from the Opposition Front Bench tonight.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am surprised that in Committee on this Bill the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) should make such a reactionary statement. I would remind him that Stormont is a district of Belfast. From the way the hon. Gentleman spoke, one would think that Stormont was the holy of holies of the Unionist Party. It is a district of Belfast in which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who never agreed with the Government, have spent many days working for and helping their constituents— and still do.
  Members of the Northern Ireland Labour Party are closely identified with the Labour Party represented tonight by the hon. Member for Salford, West. Vivian Simpson, a hard-working member of the old Stormont, has an office in Stormont and carries out his constituency work from that office. If we are to send out from this Committee the message that if the Assembly meets in the old Parliament buildings that will cause a reaction among certain elements of the people, that would be pandering to the lowest wishes of a section of the community.
  It is like saying that the Secretary of State should not run his business from Stormont Castle, or that he should not operate from the same Cabinet room as did a former Prime Minister because that former Prime Minister is repugnant to a large section of the community, and that the Secretary of State should set up an establishment somewhere else. That would be an absolutely ridiculous suggestion. To say that never for all time will a policy-making body operate from that building in Northern Ireland is a reactionary and foolish attitude. If we are to get over the past we need to take the past by the horns and say that we should meet in that building and that it will be a different type of Assembly.

  169
  I remind the Committee that originally the castle was known as Stormont Castle, and from that castle came the name "Stormont". It was this House of Commons that built the Parliament building and that gifted it to the people of Northern Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Gifted it?"] Yes, gifted it to them. No better Parliament could decide that the new Assembly should use that gift, given by this House, to the people of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. McNamara: We should bear in mind the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), which was not quite in the strain of argument that was picked up by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). The Stormont Parliament is a very beautiful building. It is stately, it sits on top of a hill, and it is approached by a most beautiful processional drive. It is in lovely grounds. It stands there looking majestic, apart, separate, and away from the people.
  That, in fact, is my main criticism of the situation of the Stormont building. There are no pubs just across the road from it. There are no dining rooms. There are no Government offices. There are no places where ordinary people come and go to and from to make it part and parcel of and central to a thriving city, town or community.
  That is my criticism of the use of Stormont Castle. It is on a hill, separate and remote.
  Mr. Pounder: I think the spirit of the amendment is abundantly obvious. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) does not want a long period to elapse after the new Assembly election before the new Assembly meets and gets down to the work that will face it. His reference to "a suitable place" for such meetings struck me as being non-controversial and entirely feasible. We have a Parliament building. For goodness sake let us use it. It is the right size and shape. It has the right offices.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) was being fairly light-hearted in his intervention. However, from a sedentary position and with no sense of humour, the hon. Mem-
  170
  ber for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) injected a serious note into the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  We have spent the past hours trying to build up a spirit and message of hope for democratic institutions for the people of Northern Ireland. Now we appear to have got ourselves bogged down discussing a trivial matter like where the Assembly should meet. This is probably the most dispiriting and discouraging five minutes that we have experienced all day. I am appalled and horrified that the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South should evoke the feeling that has been expressed from the Opposition benches. It is a grim token for the future if that is the spirit which prevails.
  Mr. McMaster: Stormont is in my constituency. I resent very much the remarks of the hon. Members for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The implication is that they have swallowed hook, line and sinker all the Republican propaganda which has been poured out in Northern Ireland. They say that they want to dissociate themselves from the past. To say that is to imply that there was something wrong with Stormont. How they can do that when a bomb exploded today in High Street in the centre of Belfast and when the IRA goes on bombing, I cannot understand. They imply that our present troubles were caused by some fault in Stormont when, clearly, there is a group of Republican killers at work in Northern Ireland who are encouraged by speeches like those of the hon. Members into thinking that their propaganda is being accepted by this House. It is totally wrong. I resent all the remarks and implications from the Opposition benches. The sooner we in this House face reality, the better it will be for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Fitt: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) about the geographical location of Stormont. I have listened attentively to what has been said by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). But the hon. Member for Antrim, North and anyone else who represents a Nor-

  171
  them Ireland constituency in this House must recognise that Stormont is more than a geographical location. It may be that it is situated at the top of Newtownards Road. It may be that it has all the trimmings referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull (Mr. McNamara). But in political terms we are talking about the death of the old Stormont, about the death of one-party government in Northern Ireland and about the death of the arrogant Unionism that we knew in Northern Ireland from 1920 until the imposition of direct rule. It is more than a geographical location.
  10.45 p.m.
  There are many facets on which I would agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North. The real politics of what should be happening in Northern Ireland, the battles between Right and Left, between capitalism and Socialism, have never been allowed to take place under the old system of Unionism as we have known it.
  Stormont is more than a geographical location. The hon. Member for Antrim, North knows it even better than I do. It was a system which operated just as much against him as against myself. The people in control of Stormont were the hierarchy of the Unionist Party. They did everything they could, within the confines of the geographical location of a particular parliamentary building, to prevent both the hon. Gentleman and myself from being elected to such an Assembly.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North recognises that it is more than a house on the top of a hill at the end of the Newtownards Road. He must know that to the minority in Northern Ireland Stormont was a symbol of oppression. Stormont was the House of Commons in Northern Ireland which promulgated the Special Powers Acts, the Public Order Acts, and all the oppressive and regressive legislation against the minority in Northern Ireland.
  This debate is concerned with trying to bring into Northern Ireland politics not one-party government, but some form of community government in which the whole community in Northern Ireland can participate.
  172
  It was not only the minority population, the Catholic, the Republican population, which was oppressed by the Unionist Government at Stormont. The hon. Member for Antrim, North suffered the rigours of imprisonment because he did not fall into line with the edicts which were being promulgated by the Unionist Government.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman one question. Tomorrow there will be a Bill before the House which in many ways is a re-enactment of the Bill—
  The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not in order.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I will put the question another way. Because the House of Commons has passed Acts repugnant to the people the hon. Gentleman represents, may I ask whether he suggests that we should no longer meet in this place?
  Mr. Fitt: I understand and sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Should we allow ourselves to fall into the position whether we agree with the traditions of the House of Commons or of Stormont? After all, we are living in a different age; we are living in a changing society. The result is that Members are elected by their constituents to demand or to request change.
  I am not over-enamoured of the geographical location of this building or its architectural merit. I am here to represent West Belfast, and I do not give two damns whether there are statues surrounding the House. I am here to voice the sentiments of my constituents. The hon. Member for Antrim, North is here to do that, and he does it eloquently. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is not concerned about the geographical location of this House. All that he wants to do is to echo the sentiments of his constituents, just as I am trying to put forward the views of those whom I represent.
  As was said on Second Reading, Stormont has serious connotations. I am now 47 years old, but I remember that when I was 16 or 17 Stormont was a place to which people like myself did not go, There was thought to be a bogyman at the place. Anyone who was a member of the minority group was scared out

  173
  of his bed on hearing the word "Stormont". I eventually went to Stormont to try to change it, and I was not the only one to make that attempt. The hon. Member for Antrim, North, in his representation of Bannside, also tried to change it. I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West. The word "Stormont" has serious connotations for the Republican Catholic minority in Northern Ireland.
  I am not speaking for the men of violence, for the gunmen and for the people who cause explosions. My record in the House takes me away from that type of representation. That must be clear to everyone. But I should not let anyone on either the Government or the Opposition benches try to cast aspersions on the sentiments which have been put forward by my hon. Friend.
  There is the serious problem of where the new Parliament is to be situated. We regard this Chamber as having two sides to it—the Government and the Opposition. At the moment we are operating under a capitalist system with which I am in complete disagreement. We have a Socialist Opposition. I have sat on both sides of the House, and I hope very soon to be sitting on the benches opposite when the Labour Government are back in power, and, according to some, it will not be long before that happens.
  But what will happen when the new Assembly is created on 28th June? I understand that if all the Members of the House of Commons were present at any given time there would not be enough room on the benches in the Chamber for them and they would have to sit in the Galleries. A similar problem exists in Stormont, though on a smaller scale. What type of Assembly are we to have? I pose the question to the House and particularly to the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
  I believe that the hon. Gentleman shares many of my sentiments. He wants to represent his constituents. He is not particularly looking for office or for personal aggrandisement. Stormont has a single Chamber, as we have here, but if the election of 28th June proves to be what the Secretary of State wants it to be, who will sit where?
  174
  We can never have normal politics in Northern Ireland or in any other country, particularly in Europe, unless we have a viable Opposition, an alternative Government. We shall see the results of what the Secretary of State is proposing on 28th June. What type of Chamber shall we have. Where will those opposed to the Executive sit? Shall we have normal politics, as we have in this part of the United Kingdom? Will there be a Labour Opposition to a Conservative Government, or Conservatives opposed to the coalition parties in Northern Ireland?
  All the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Antrim, North fall to the ground because we are now seeking an election on 28th June to determine the attitude of the people of Northern Ireland.
  That will not be the end of the Secretary of State's problems. It will be only the beginning.
  Mr. Whitelaw: The last remark of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was no doubt the understatement of the year. He will appreciate that. I have no illusions about the period after 28th June. I do not think that anyone else has, either.
  Perhaps I should address myself to what I think was the main point of the amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). That was the seeking of clarification about the position after 28th June. I sought to answer him during my speech on Second Reading when I said that it would obviously be wrong that the new Assembly should meet so long as the present Northern Ireland Parliament was in existence although prorogued. That Parliament remains in existence and prorogued until the constitutional Bill has passed through all its stages in Parliament, not only through the House of Commons but through Parliament, and has become an Act. Therefore, I do not believe that it would be possible for the new Assembly to meet until the constitutional Bill becomes an Act.
  Thereafter, it would be right for the Secretary of State to have close consultations with the leaders of all the parties, as soon as the constitutional Bill had become an Act, as to what would be the most appropriate time for the Assembly

  175
  to meet, I do not think that there will be any difficulty about this. I see no difficulty in the timing. Bearing in mind the time of the year, it is important that as soon as practicable after the constitutional Bill becomes an Act the Assembly should meet. That is the important point. I accept what my hon. and gallant Friend says.
  Captain Orr: Would it be my right hon. Friend's wish—to go no further— that the constitutional Bill should become law before the Summer Recess?
  Mr. Whitelaw: It would certainly be not only my wish but my most earnest desire. But in that I am in the hands of the House of Commons and of another place. That is for them to decide and not for me. But I earnestly desire that that should be so. It would be most desirable.
  As to the other part of my hon. and gallant Friend's amendment, I hope that it will be possible for us not to get involved in great mystical discussions about buildings in Northern Ireland. We have to be absolutely pragmatic about the whole position. We have to realise that the facts on the ground and all the considerations which have to come into effect as to where a Parliament is likely to meet, where it could meet if it did not meet there and all sorts of implications, could not possibly be put into an Act of Parliament.
  Perhaps I should say to the hon. Member for Belfast, West, that, after the election, if the Assembly, in its wisdom, wanted to change around its chamber so that it had a circular chamber, or in any other way, it would be possible for the Assembly to decide that it wished to do so. There would be no difficulty in doing that if that were the wish of the Assembly.
  We made it perfectly clear in the White Paper that it would be for the Assembly, as far as possible, to work out its own system and method of working. Surely that is the sensible way of proceeding.
  Apart from that, the main assurance that I want to give to my hon. and gallant Friend is that the new Assembly should meet as soon as is practicable after the constitutional Bill becomes an Act. I would wish to have consultations with the leaders of parties as to when this point should be.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that, in consultation with him, the leaders of the parties will make recommendations to him as to where the new Assembly may meet, and that he will take into consideration their recommendations? In other words, is there nothing fixed about where the new Assembly will meet?
  Mr. Whitelaw: Practical considerations inevitably arise. It is incumbent upon those who suggest that the Assembly should meet anywhere else than where it meets at present to produce somewhere where it can conceivably meet. As for its name, hon. Members will know from their experience of life that once something is given a name, whatever else it may be thought fit to call it and whatever may be the reasons for doing so, it will always be called the same thing.
  Captain Orr: In the light of what my right hon. Friend has said—I concede that he has largely met what I wanted about the date and about the building in which the Assembly might meet—I think he has met the purpose of the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 1, leave out lines 19 to 21.
  I have found some difficulty in getting an amendment on the Order Paper which meets precisely what I want to do about the financial provisions. I wanted to draft an amendment to provide that the Members of the new Assembly should be paid an expenses allowance based upon attendance. Apparently, it is out of order to do that as it comes within the bounds of the financial resolution which we passed on Second Reading. Therefore, I have had to produce this amendment, which deletes the requirement for a salary.
  The Assembly is a body without power. It will have power only as a result of devolution, and the devolution principles may or may not be embodied in the constitutional Bill. It seems wrong that we should pay large salaries to the Members of the new Assembly when we do not yet know what will be the extent of its powers. It would be proper to leave the

  177
  consideration of salaries to a time when the powers devolved upon the new Assembly have been made clear.
  There are great dangers in paying high salaries to an assembly which is elected before its powers are known. To do that is to build in an incentive to remain sitting. To put the matter crudely, it is a form of corruption to which we should not be a party. When the Members of the new Assembly do a proper job that requires a lot of time and entails a great deal of responsibility, they should be paid.
  In the meantime, I would like my hon. Friend to tell us what is in the Government's mind. Why has this proposed scale of salary been chosen and set before the powers have been determined? On what basis was the amount fixed? How long is it intended that this salary shall be paid? What, if any, provision is to be made for review of the salary? Will the Assembly eventually have power over the salaries of its members as the old Stormont did? There are many things we would like to know. Meanwhile, my view is that the Members of the Assembly should be paid simply their expenses and should not get any more until some decision has been taken about the extent of their powers.
  Mr. Molyneaux: It has been alleged that the Assembly will be like a glorified county council. As a member of Antrim County Council, which I regard as the best in Northern Ireland, if not in the United Kingdom, I remind the House that a county council has the right and privilege to elect its own chairman and vice-chairman, and that its committees have the right and the privilege to elect their own chairmen and vice-chairmen. That right and privilege is being denied to the Members of the Assembly. Members of county councils are entrusted with this power and scope but receive no payment. Bearing that in mind, it is illogical to suggest that the Members of the Assembly should be paid what is a relatively high salary in comparison with that paid to Members of this House considering the amount of work they will be asked to do.
  It is certainly wrong that Members of the Assembly should be paid a salary in the initial stages before they and others have decided exactly what their rôle and
  178
  functions are to be. To put it in the refined and polite terms used by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), it is undesirable to offer this kind of incentive. I think that it will hamper and inhibit the Members of the Assembly in the decisions they will be called upon to make concerning their structure and functions. A reasonably generous expense allowance would be sufficient until such time as we saw what the structure was to be.
  Mr. Peter Mills: I find this an interesting debate because I am a little concerned about the way my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has criticised what we are trying to do. If the amendment were carried, there would be no salary at all, which would be unfortunate. By the very nature of the Assembly, surely a salary is appropriate. Surely my hon. and gallant Friend agrees that if there is to be an Assembly its Members should be paid an appropriate salary. The Government feel very strongly that they should be.
  The comparison ought really to be between the Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament and not with local government. One cannot have it both ways. If one wants this to be an important and responsible Assembly, one has to give its Members a fair salary. My hon. and gallant Friend suggests expenses only. That, again, would hardly be fair. I believe that it is right in all the circumstances to ensure that suitable people are not prevented from standing by lack of reasonable payment.
  This is an important point, and I hope that on reflection my hon. and gallant Friend will seek to withdraw the amendment. We believe that it is important that the Members have a salary appropriate to their important job in the new Assembly.
  Captain Orr: I find my hon. Friend's argument very unconvincing. He has rested his case upon the statement that the Assembly will have considerable responsibility. He likened it more to this House than to local government. But to begin with, in my view, it will not have the kind of powers devolved upon it that are envisaged in the White Paper. I do not believe that it will ever have

  179
  those powers. It will never be more than a local government. Therefore, the comparison with local government is appropriate.
  I should like to help my hon. Friend by withdrawing the amendment, but I do not think I should. We should mark our concern about the future and our lack of confidence in the kind of job that will be done, and I must advise my hon. Friends to divide on the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made: —
  The Committee proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN declared that the Noes had it.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY BILL

    Clause 2
    THE ELECTION
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. Pounder: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 10, after 'who' insert:
    "under the current electoral register as revised".
    I hope that as co-signatory to the amendment I am in order in standing in to move it.
    The amendment is as simple as its phraseology. It reverts to a point raised on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and others, including myself. It arises out of a series of acknowledged omissions from the electoral register which became operative on 15th February and was used for the first time in the border poll a fortnight or so later. It is fully accepted by the Government, and, I think, by the electors in Northern Ireland, that there were some grotesque omissions. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned the figure of 10,000. I would put it higher.
    I know that the argument is advanced that there are always mistakes with the register and that it cannot be 100 per cent. perfect and that this is no more
    180
    than usual. With respect, I am bound to express disagreement. I well recall that in the 1966 elections for this House there were some appalling errors on the register. Certain undertakings were given by my hon. and right, hon. Friends that procedures would be introduced to ensure that such a series of omissions and errors could not occur again. They have recurred. I will not cite a catalogue of examples but there were many people who had been on the register for years, had voted in every election for years, and had lived in the same house for years who suddenly found themselves off the register.
    I know that it can be argued that the register is on display in the middle of December in every police station and post office. Let us be realistic about this. How many people go to the post office or police station to see whether they are on the register? It is easy to say that they should do so, but if a person has been on the register for years he assumes that he has remained on it. Because of the importance of the elections for the district councils and the new Assembly, surely something can be done, in the light of the number of people who have gone to the electoral registration officer and pointed out that they had been omitted. We are reasonable and responsible people, desirous of the maximum turn-out. Can we not say that those who applied since or immediately prior to the border poll—setting a limit of, say, 1st May—should be placed on a supplementary list, which may not be greater than 10,000 to 20,000 names? We are talking about a constituency's worth of bona fide voters who have been deleted from the register. This amendment is simply a last attempt to persuade my hon. and right hon. Friends that this election is so important that some device should be found to cope with those who have been wrongly disfranchised.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: It is important that people of Northern Ireland who are entitled to a vote and have been eliminated from the register through no fault of their own should have the opportunity of voting. Their names were deleted as a result of a computer error. The Committee should not think that this is as a result of a change of population or that these people are not entitled to be on

    181
    the list. These are people who are eligible and went through the motions to get on the register but discovered when the final list was published that their names had been deleted.
    Streets of houses have been deleted from the register. People who have been on the list since 1920, when the first lists were made, have been dropped. A lady living in my constituency has been on every electoral list since Northern Ireland came into existence but she has been deleted from the present list. If that were the only case the matter would perhaps not be important to this Committee, but I can give example after example. A professional gentleman called at my home the other evening to say that his family had been deleted from the list and yet his name remained on the list. Another gentleman found that his wife and he had been taken off the list while the rest of his family were left on.
    The Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State know that we are not carping about a few cases. The names of at least 10,000 people have been removed from the list because of incompetence in the electoral office. If the right information had been fed into the computer, the computer would have come up with the right results. Let there be no nonsense about this matter. These people resent the fact that they have been taken off the list when they have been on other lists. I wonder whether there is some conspiracy abroad to have people taken off the lists. This is a serious matter to which this Committee needs to pay careful attention. It cannot be wiped out with a stroke of the hand It cannot be said "It is too bad; we all make mistakes". If 1 million voters cannot be listed without 10,000 being dropped, there is something wrong with the system.
    I am making a plea for people eligible to vote. The Secretary of State's office and the Under-Secretary know that I sent a telegram to the Prime Minister in the midst of the referendum because of the pressures put on me and other public representatives. I had a promise in writing from the Secretary of State that he would look into this matter and that he would ensure, if possible, that a supplementary list was published. We hoped
    182
    that such a list would be published. We understand that it cannot be published in time for the local government elections. I have taken it upon myself to make inquiries at the local office of the people who compile the list, and I have been told that there is nothing to prevent a supplementary list from being compiled in time. That comes from one of the electoral officers responsible for drawing up the electoral lists in a certain area. I do not want to give his name; I shall impart it to the Under-Secretary if he wants it.
    I therefore speak with some authority on this issue. It is terrible that 10,000 people—there might be even more—find themselves, through no fault of their own, not on the list. There is something wrong with the compilation of the list, and the matter should be looked into. When the election comes these people will feel very sore and sad, especially those who have been on the list for every other election.
    I can anticipate the Under-Secretary's reply. He will say that there is no time to do anything about the matter and that that is the end of it. But one whole constituency has been disfranchised. It is not a question of our not bringing the matter immediately to the attention of the Secretary of State. Whenever a new list is compiled the political agents ensure that those whose names are not on the list fill in the necessary forms and go through the mechanics to get their names on the list. Names were put on the revised lists, but when the final lists were printed those names were not on them.
    This is a very serious matter. It is not as though we were bringing it to the attention of the Secretary of State at the last minute; we brought it up at the time of the referendum. It should have been looked into, and something should have been done to change the situation. We now find ourselves approaching an election for the Assembly with the register not as it should be. If the House is to have any credence in Northern Ireland—and many complaints have been made about electoral lists in the past; the new electoral officer was appointed to deal with this special subject—surely the first list for an Assembly election should be made as watertight as possible.

    183
    I beg the Minister seriously to consider the implications of the matter.
    Mr. Molyneaux: I support the request made by my hon. Friends. We agree that in the time scale available it would be difficult to go through all the motions of making claims, proving them in the election courts and going through the somewhat lengthy procedure which is normally involved in compiling a register. But there is the special category of case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley); namely, where claims have been made in the usual way and substantiated in the electoral revision courts, and where records exist showing that those claims were granted, and yet where names have been omitted because of some computer error.
    As the records exist, there should be no difficulty about establishing claims or about producing a supplementary list. If it can be done at short notice—as it was done—in the case of the register of postal votes, there could be no administrative difficulty in producing a supplementary list of names which were accidentally omitted from the register.
    Mr. W. F. Deedes: I want to say a word from a rather different standpoint in support of the amendment. During the border poll it was my impression that a considerable number of people, for one reason or another, had been omitted from the register. I have respect for the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), but I did not connect these omissions with the errors of a computer, still less with any conspiracy. The reason which appeared to me most likely—and it is the most natural reason—is that there had been a large number of removals—far more than one would expect in this country, in a corresponding period between the compilation of one register and that of another.
    I should not dream of challenging the figure of 10,000 advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—it may be more or less—but I must in honesty point out that the impression I got at the time of the border poll was that a number of people felt a grievance on this point—
    184
    and, if they felt a grievance then, they will feel a grievance at the coming election.
    But I doubt whether we can have it both ways. Some of those who have been pressing for the election at this date and for this Bill must bear in mind the remarks of my hon. Friend that we cannot have both an election at this date and a revised register. But if there is a way of looking into what could constitute a minor, but an important minor, grievance in the minds of some people, the remarks made ought not to be too readily dismissed. If some kind of compromise were available that did not delay the poll it would be worth searching for it.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Obviously my hon. Friends have spoken to the amendment with a fair amount of force. Certainly they may be unhappy with my reply, but I can assure them that it was not without careful thought and a detailed examination of the matter that we decided that at present it was not possible to do what they want.
    First and foremost, it is a question of time. We cannot have it both ways. We all want an election quickly. We want to get this political initiative going. We also want the Assembly. I have been assured that it is not possible for the supplementary register to be prepared in time.
    Captain Orr: In the various things that my hon. Friend has examined, has he examined the possibility put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), which seems to be a compromise?
    11.30 p.m.
    Mr. Mills: It is purely a question of the work load upon those who are carrying out these tasks. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the Chief Electoral Officer to look into this, and he has reported back to me. He states that the number of errors is not abnormal, and, therefore, in view of the time and the number of errors, which my right hon. Friend does consider abnormal either, my right hon. Friend has decided that there can be no change in the register at the present.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: How long does it take to produce a supplementary list? If

    185
    it is a question of work load, does this mean it could be done if extra staff were drafted in?
    Mr. Mills: We have to accept what the Chief Electoral Officer has reported. He said that there simply is not the time to prepare a supplementary list before the elections in June. It is important for my hon. Friends to realise what is at stake here. We do not want to delay anything. We want the elections. The staff concerned and my right hon. Friend have looked at it very carefully and feel that they cannot accede to the requests of my hon. Friends at the moment.
    Therefore, while I can appreciate the concern felt on this matter, I hope that hon. Members will see the other side of the argument. The register will be put right next year but that is too late for the forthcoming vote. I ask my hon. Friends to consider their position carefully, and I hope that they will not press the amendment.
    Mr. Molyneaux: I think that we would all agree to the request by my hon. Friend the Minister if we could have an assurance on the narrow issue of whether claims had been established beyond all possible doubt where the records of the revision courts exist, and see whether it was not possible simple to compile a list of those claims, because there is no question of having to go through lengthy procedures, nor should there be any great burden on staff.
    Mr. Mills: Much as I should like to help, I cannot give any promise about this, because of the practical position we are in. We must remember that there are two lots of elections—the local elections are coming along as well. I would ask my hon. Friends to consider once again what is at stake and what we are trying to do. I hope that they will withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: I understood that the elections under the Bill were to be on 28th June. I do not know whether I misunderstood the position. Is my hon. Friend the Minister saying that a supplementary register cannot be compiled when the names and addresses are already known? Is he saying that a limited supplementary register like that cannot be produced in two-and-a-half months? That may just
    186
    conceivably be true, but it is so extraordinary that my hon. Friend in answering the debate should explain by what extraordinary combination of circumstances it is not possible.
    I should have thought that two-and-a-half weeks would be ample. It is a mere printing job—some collation and then printing. How is it conceivably possible that this cannot be done for a polling day two-and-a-half months away? The House of Commons should not be asked to accept the ipse dixit of the Electoral Registration Officer. He is entitled to his view, but may we know the precise mechanics of the whole position? The Chief Electoral Officer may be wrong, and it is up to us to decide whether he is and to vote accordingly. Will my hon. Friend the Minister say what produced this extraordinary phenomenon of two-and-a-half months? If there were a war on we could get it done in two-and-a-half days, so what is the problem?
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I hesitate to intervene. If necessary, perhaps the Minister will put me right. Surely under subsection (2) persons entitled to vote would be those entitled to vote at polls held on that date for a General Election to the Parliament of Northern Ireland. We are, therefore, following the Stormont rules as opposed to the Westminster rules.
    If we were following the Westminster rules, there would be no question of asking the Chief Electoral Officer whether he could do it. The law of the land says that there shall be one register a year. It is in the law of the land. It cannot be done any other way. This was carefully considered during the passage of the Representation of the People Act, I think it was, in 1969. There was a body of opinion which thought that there should be two registers a year. It would not be sufficient just to deal with those who, by some administrative accident, were off the register in order to carry out the law. It would be necessary—I am saying this for the United Kingdom Parliament —to go to every constituency in the country and not simply pick one part of it.
    Is it the case that, because of Clause 2(2), the register for these elections is on the Stormont rules? Is there a law in Northern Ireland dealing with the collection of names for the register which is

    187
    substantially different from the one I have just stated for the Westminster Parliament?
    Mr. Ronald Bell: I was under the impression that we were in the Committee stage of a Bill. If we do this by statute, it can be done. What have the preexisting rules to do with it?
    Mr. Rees: I was simply asking whether we were amending a Stormont rule or law or amending the Westminster rules.
    Mr. Peter Mills: I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) forgets that there are two reasons. One was that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the Chief Electoral Officer to look into this and the Chief Electoral Officer has reported and says that the number of errors is not abnormal. Therefore, my right hon. Friend, considering that very carefully, has decided that there is not a sufficient case for a supplementary register. My hon. and learned Friend may say that the interval seems to be a long time, but it is not, particularly when one realises that the Chief Electoral Officer has two elections to deal with.
    Therefore, I simply ask my hon. Friends to consider the matter again, because we want to get the election under way and my right hon. Friend cannot at the moment see his way clear to agree to their suggestion.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: This is a very serious matter and I certainly would not let it be dismissed by a newly-appointed electoral officer informing this House of Commons that it is impossible to have on a supplementary roll people who were deleted from the roll.
    I am standing in this House of Commons for the rights of these people. If hon. Members here believe in the rights of the individual, they should take a stand tonight and say that, no matter what the cost, the people who through no fault of their own are not on the roll should be included on it.
    188
    The Minister cannot say that these people did not go through the mechanics, that they did not attempt to get on the list, did not fill in the forms, did not enter their protest and did not attend the courts of revision. These people did everything the law says they should do. Some of these people were even on the preliminary list but when the final list was printed, after the law had taken its course, they were cut off. Even a street of houses was completely deleted from the list.
    When representations were made six weeks ago, we were told by the electoral officer through the Minister that the computer had made a mistake. I have to go back and say to these people "I am very sorry; the computer made a mistake and you cannot have a vote". These people are entitled to vote.
    I can appreciate the Minister's difficulty because the person in charge of this in Northern Ireland is adamant. He has said "No"; that is his answer. This Parliament should say to him—after all, he is a servant of this House of Commons, or he ought to be—that people whose names were deleted from the list should be on the list. Something must be done to see that they are able to vote in the election. This is a very important matter.
    Mr. Pounder: I should like, if possible, to follow the spirit of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, but this matter arose not today but at the time of the border poll six or seven weeks ago. It is not good enough to say that there is too little time between now and the end of May to produce a supplementary list. Double that time has elapsed since this first became a serious issue.
    Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee said that we are seeking a fair result at the end of the day. I am not saying that rules have been broken all down the line—they have not—but they have been stretched. I cannot accede to my hon. Friend's request to withdraw the amendment. I must test it by a vote.
    Question put, That the amendment be made: —

    Division No. 108.]

    AYES

    [11.43 p.m.

    Bell, Ronald

    McMaster, Stanley

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Molyneaux, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Rev. Ian Paisley and

    Kilfedder, James

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Mr. Rafton Pounder.

    McManus, Frank

    Simeons, Charles

    NOES

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Benyon, W.

    Hunt, John

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Biffen, John

    James, David

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Boscawen, Hn. Robert

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Bray, Ronald

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Scott, Nicholas

    Carlisle, Mark

    Kitson, Timothy

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

    Chapman, Sydney

    Knox, David

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Lamont, Norman

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Clegg, Walter

    La Marchant, Spencer

    Soref, Harold

    Dixon, Piers

    MacArthur, Ian

    Speed, Keith

    Drayson, G. B

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Spence, John

    Eyre, Reginald

    Marten, Neil

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Mather, Carol

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Fookes Miss Janet

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Tebbit, Norman

    Fowler' Norman

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Fox, Marcus

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Goodhew, Victor

    Moate, Roger

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Gower, Raymond

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Waddington, David

    Grant Anthony (Harrow. C.)

    Monro, Hector

    Warren, Kenneth

    Gray, Hamish

    More, Jasper

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Murton, Oscar

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Green, Alan

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Grylls, Michael

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Gurden, Harold

    Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Mr. Tim Fortescue and

    Hawkins, Paul

    Raison, Timothy

    Mr. Michael Joplin.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Amendment proposed: No. 11, in page 2, line 12, leave out subsection (3).— [Captain Orr.]
    The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 81.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 92.

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Raison, Timothy

    Shersby, Michael

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Simeons, Charles

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Waddington, David

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Speed, Keith

    Warren, Kenneth

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Spence, John

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Steel, David

    Rowlands, Ted

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Scott, Nicholas

    Tebbit, Norman

    Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

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

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Mr. Oscar Murton.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 2, leave out lines 35 to 37.
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Stephen McAdden): With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 22, in page 3, line 10, at end add:
    (7) Every Candidate at the election under this Act shall take an oath or make an affirmation of allegiance.
    No. 23, in Clause 3, page 3, line 21, at end insert:
    (c) if he has not been continuously resident in the United Kingdom for a period of 12 months prior to the date of the election.
    (d) if having been elected he declares his intention not to take his seat or fails to attend for a consecutive period of six months.
    No. 33, in page 3, line 21, at end insert:
    (c) if he has not been continuously resident in the United Kingdom for a period of 12 months prior to the date of the election.
    No. 36, in page 3, line 21, after "Act)" insert:
    "(c) if he is a member of a proscribed organisation".
    12 midnight
    Captain Orr: Under the Bill as it stands the Secretary of State has power to make many provisions relating to the election, including the form of declaration to be made by a candidate, the contents of nomination papers and the taking of the poll. I accept that the wording of the amendments as they stand is defective, but I should like my right hon. Friend to deal with the suggestions made in Amendments Nos. 22 and 23.
    Amendment No. 22 suggests that "every candidate at the election under this Act shall take an oath or make an affirmation of allegiance", and Amendment No. 23 says that a person shall be disqualified "if he has not been continuously resident in the United Kingdom for a period of 12 months prior to the date of the election". I prefer the new
    192
    clause that I have put down to the group of amendments that we are debating, but as that has not been selected I shall address myself to the broad general argument.
    The first point is the narrow one of whether someone who has not been resident in the United Kingdom for 12 months prior to the election should be able to be a candidate. The purpose of the amendment is to see whether my right hon. Friend has any ideas about whether the candidature should be left wide open; in other words, whether someone who has not been resident in the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland for 12 months should be able to stand for election to this Assembly.
    This is a very particular Assembly. It is to deal very much with matters within the United Kingdom. I concede that if this were an election for Stormont instead of for this new Assembly which is being set up non-residence would not disqualify someone from being a candidate, but it ought to be a disqualification in this instance. I shall not make heavy weather of it because I should like to hear my right hon. Friend's views on the matter.
    The other matter is more important and relates to the oath of allegiance. I should have preferred my new clause which makes the taking of the oath of allegiance obligatory before taking a seat, just as the oath or affirmation is obligatory before taking a seat in this House. The amendment as drafted would require the oath of affirmation of allegiance to be taken before someone stands as a candidate. I should be prepared to concede that that would not be necessary provided it was understood that the oath or affirmation of allegiance had to be taken before a person took his seat in the Assembly.
    I imagine that the latter proposition would be acceptable to the House. I hope that nobody will argue that Members of an assembly such as this within the United Kingdom should not be

    193
    required, as a condition of taking their seats, to take the oath or affirmation of allegiance to the Crown.
    On that basis I am prepared to leave the matter there. I should like to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say about it.
    Mr. McMaster: I should like to add to the argument which I have already advanced, but in relation to Amendment No. 36.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered the point I raised previously, which was that a member of a proscribed organisation should not be allowed to stand for election or to have his name and the name of his organisation added to the ballot paper. It is illogical that an organisation which has been declared illegal should be entitled to put up members as candidates for election. That is so particularly in the circumstances in which this election will be fought. It is not only the fact that the member's name—perhaps that of a well-known terrorist—may be added to the ballot paper, but also the name of the organisation which has been waging war on the community in Northern Ireland over the past three years.
    If proscribing an organisation is to have any meaning, surely one of the penalties of its being a proscribed organisation is that it is not allowed to contest elections. That is perfectly consistent and straightforward as a proposition. To suggest otherwise offends against good sense and good reason in the community. Not only is it illogical but, from a purely practical point of view, one can imagine people entering a voting booth and seeing the name of a candidate with "Sinn Fein" added to it being so disgusted that they destroy their ballot paper.
    We must remember that a large number of people in Northern Ireland are related closely to those who have suffered as a result of the violent campaign of the past three and a half years. Nearly 800 people have lost their lives in Northern Ireland. Ten thousand have been seriously injured. Many have been mutilated for life, including women and children. Ordinary people going about their ordinary jobs have been the victims of bombing and shooting in Northern
    194
    Ireland. It has been calculated that one person in every 200 has suffered from the present campaign of violence.
    For these people to be faced with the names of those responsible for this campaign and for the organisations to which they belong to be featured on the ballot paper is not only provocative but offensive.
    The terrorists have made no secret of their aim, which is by seditious means to further their end that a minority in the community should prevail over the will of the majority. Not only have their actions resulted in many casualties but many homes of ordinary people have been destroyed. Businesses built up over years have been ruined. Thousands of jobs have been lost.
    While this violent campaign continues —it is continuing at this moment—it is totally wrong that these people be permitted to fight the election and to fight it under the banner of the proscribed organisations to which they belong.
    Mr. Kilfedder: I should like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider introducing an amendment on Report which would require it to be necessary for a Member of the new Assembly to take an oath of allegiance or to make an affirmation, as the old Stormont Parliament required of its Members and as the House of Commons requires. I see no objection to that reasonable request. If this requirement has been deliberately omitted—and I do not think it has—it would suggest that the Government are in reality treating the new Stormont Assembly as a glorified county council. I am sure that that is not their intention.
    People in Northern Ireland will be gravely concerned if an oath of allegiance is not required of the newly elected Members of the Assembly. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree with what I regard as a reasonable request, and will put forward on Report an amendment which requires Members of the Assembly to take an oath of allegiance.
    Mr. Whitelaw: To make the change that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) suggests would be contrary to the practice of Westminster and Stormont. It would also, if carried, have some rather

    195
    curious effects. It might well disbar a person who, although otherwise eligible, had spent any period outside the United Kingdom during the 12 months preceding the election. It might be a considerable difficulty if that were the case. It would, incidentally, disbar someone who had business interests or who had worked in Northern Ireland—for example, in Londonderry—and who happened at some time to live, for example, in Donegal. That might have an unfortunate result.
    I do not think that on those two bases my hon. and gallant Friend would wish to press the matter. Of course, people who might for some reason have been out of the United Kingdom for a period in the last 12 months would be gravely upset if they were not allowed to stand on that basis.
    It was made clear at the time of the debate on the White Paper that it was not the Government's intention to suggest that oaths should be taken by members of the Assembly. Equally, it was made clear that we believed it right that those who became members of the Executive should take an oath or affirmation. We made that differentiation. The Government's position has been made clear, and we are carrying out in the Bill what was said at the time of the debate on the White Paper.
    The problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) raises is a fair one. I believe that all hon. Members wish that all those who desire to further their causes by constitutional means should have the opportunity to stand at elections. Equally, those who are bent on violence alone cannot expect to be able to do so. Nor can those who might be said to be violent one moment and constitutional the next.
    I am convinced that it would be wrong to deal with this matter in the context of electoral law. I appreciate that there are strong feelings about the matter, but I do not believe that electoral law is the right basis on which to deal with it. Of course, there are criminal offences arising from membership of prescribed or illegal organisations.
    Mr. McManus: I made the point which I am about to make to another member of the Government Front Bench and
    196
    received no comment. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is the Government's intention not to allow people to use the ballot box one day and the gun on another. If that is the Government's position, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that they do not take an across-the-board attitude? It is well known that the UDA, for instance, has been involved in violence, but there is no intention to prevent the UDA from taking part in elections.
    Another example is equally clear. Mr. Craig and others have said categorically, unequivocally and in the clearest possible terms that if the ballot box does not succeed in achieving what they want they will use violence. They have said that they will take up guns and fight. That appears to me to be a further case where the stated intention is clear: "If the ballot box does not work with us, we intend to become men of violence". If the Government's position as stated by the Secretary of State is that this should not be allowed to happen, why should they not apply that principle to all concerned rather than restrict it to a small section?
    12.15 a.m.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I do not want to get further into the argument about proscription because this is not a matter for electoral law as such. I note what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) said. I do not necessarily accept some of his arguments. We have to take into account the whole position of those who have conducted violence and what they are doing, but it is clearly right to deal with the matter in another context rather than in this Bill.
    I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South will not press his amendment.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am not wholly happy with what my right hon. Friend has said about taking the oath or affirmation of allegiance. People in Northern Ireland will wonder why the Government have set their face against an oath or affirmation. We do not want the new Assembly to be closed to people of Republican views. There are people with Republican views in this House, and one such hon. Gentleman intervened in my right hon. Friend's speech. As no difficulty is presented in taking an oath or

    197
    affirmation in this House to people of Republican views sitting here, it would be unfortunate if a precedent were set for the Northern Ireland Assembly as a departure from previous legislative assembly.
    Mr. Whitelaw: This was made clear at the time of the White Paper debate, and no exception has been taken to the proposition. This Bill is carrying on what was said at that time.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: I abstained on the White Paper.
    Captain Orr: Those of us who voted against the White Paper took exception to that, among other things, at the time. I very much regret the absence of the requirement for an oath of allegiance or affirmation on election to the Assembly, but I recognise that if we were to press this amendment to a Division we would create nonsense and would not gain what we wanted.
    Therefore, on the understanding that I still believe an oath of allegiance should be taken, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 3, leave out lines 2 and 3.
    I shall not detain the Committee long, for I deployed this argument during Second Reading. Paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (5) are most important provisions. Those provisions range from setting the intervals between the stages of the election to dealing with corrupt and illegal practices. In subsection (6) we see
    "An order made under subsection (5) above—
    (a) may include any supplemental or incidental provisions, including provisions creating criminal offences."
    We are not quite sure what that means. Quite a big section of the Border Poll Bill contained such words, and the Secretary of State removed them during its passage. That makes us wonder whether the words here are necessary. It is the creation of criminal offences that concerns us.
    I hope that the Secretary of State can justify the provision or remove it.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman is very reasonable and correct. We have no desire to take any further powers or to create any offences if we can avoid it. We believe that it is necessary to have the provision, particularly in relation to corrupt practices. We shall seek to use it in the most limited way possible. Certainly we are most anxious not to create more than the very few offences in the order. There will be a chance to discuss this on another matter, but I can say that we shall do everything we can to keep the powers to the minimum. The provision is merely against corrupt practices, which it is normal to guard against in all elections, and which we are bound to guard against on this occasion.
    Mr. McNamara: When dealing with the matter later, will the Secretary of State say what extra powers he might need over and above those that already exist in electoral law in this country? Obviously, we want to prevent corrupt practices, but what limits will there be on the punishments imposed? As we are talking about disqualification of a person in any part of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State seems already to have the powers in subsection (5)(f).
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am most sensitive to the views of hon. Members on the matter. I hope that when the order comes forward the House will see me to have been as good as my word. There must be safeguards, but I realise the great importance of the views expressed when we are talking about criminal offences, penalties and all the rest.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: I should like to say something about the new clause in my name which is being taken in this group—
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Carol Johnson): Order. We are simply discussing Amendment No. 20.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: The new clause is not being taken with it?
    The Temporary Chairman: No.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: I beg your pardon, Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: In view of the assurances given by the Secretary of State,

    199
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 3, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert:
    "approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament".
    The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment we may discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in page 3, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert:
    "approval by resolution of the Commons House of Parliament".
    No. 21, in page 3, leave out lines 9 and 10 and add:
    "an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament".
    Mr. Rees: Subsection (5) is the core of the Bill. Then subsection (6)(c) says that an order made under subsection (5)
    "shall be contained in a statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
    We seek to use the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, thus giving greater control to the House of Commons.
    This is a most important part of the Bill. Those of us that have been involved with Irish legislation have had experience this year of the problems of Governments in bringing orders before the House. That was under last year's Temporary Provisions Act. Important orders of this nature should be debated, and the Government should have to bring them to the House for debate.
    That is the crux of the argument, and anything else I said would be superfluous.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I accept the importance of these amendments and in normal circumstances would very much like to meet the point of them. I want to explain why I cannot do so. I believe, however, that I can help the Committee considerably, although I cannot, for reasons which I will give and which I hope the Committee will think reasonable, accede to the amendment.
    To hold the elections on 28th June we are working to an extremely tight timetable. It is necessary, as soon as the Bill becomes an Act, and before these elections, to issue the instructions to pre-
    200
    siding officers, order election stationery, receive the postal vote applications, finalise the polling station scheme and print the poll cards. The authority for all these steps will be the regulations.
    If we change to the affirmative resolution procedure, inevitably the time taken before we can start doing all these things will be considerably increased. This is because we cannot start taking any steps under the affirmative resolution procedure until that resolution has passed through the House. Before it does that it has to go to the Statutory Instruments Committee. That in itself takes a considerable time.
    The result of all this would inevitably be that if we went under the affirmative resolution procedure we could not start doing any of these things closely connected with the election until the resolution had been passed. Under the negative resolution procedure, as soon as the regulation is put down all these preparations can begin. I have examined the facts carefully. I am not just taking the word of those who are working the election. I have been into it most carefully. I am quite clear that if we proceeded by way of affirmative resolution it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to meet the 28th June deadline. I could not guarantee that the elections would take place on 28th June. I am not saying that it would be utterly impossible but there would be a risk that we would have to take and that is something we should not do. I hope that the Committee will agree that the negative resolution procedure on this occasion would be reasonable.
    I have discussed this matter with my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, and he and I are perfectly clear that the House must have proper time to debate the matter under the negative resolution procedure. I will discuss this question with the Leader of the House. I give the undertaking that reasonable and proper time will be allowed to debate this issue as soon as it can reasonably be fitted in. I hope that on that basis the Committee will agree, in view of the urgency and the need to have the elections on 28th June, that I have put forward a reasonable proposition.
    Captain Orr: My right hon. Friend has approached this in a most reasonable

    201
    way. I agree with the case made by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). Indeed, my amendment is drafted in terms almost identical to his. This concerns the "guts" of the matter, as he said. It concerns the important provisions.
    My right hon. Friend has said that he does not want to jeopardise the date of 28th June, and I agree about that. Will he do one other thing for us? If the regulations are simply published and then subject to the negative procedure, the debate takes place after the event in a sense, after everything has been put in motion. There is then no question of amendment; we simply have to negative the whole thing or accept it. Will he, before he produces a resolution, undertake to discuss some of the problems with those of us representing Northern Ireland on the details he is presenting? We have a great deal of expertise to put at his disposal about running the elections. If he could indicate that it would be possible to have a discussion with us before he produced his draft, it would go a long way to enabling me to withdraw the amendment.
    12.30 a.m.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I see no reason why I should not seek to meet my hon. and gallant Friend's proposition. I shall do everything in my power, consistent with the time factor, to have the discussion my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. Perhaps I can safeguard myself by saying that I hope that he would think it reasonable if, in certain circumstances, such a discussion took place with one of the Ministers of State and not with me if it were difficult for me to fit it in. I should like to say "Yes" to a discussion. I see no reason why it should not take place.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I thank the Secretary of State for the spirit of his reply and for the method he has suggested for meeting our point. Does his assurance apply to the orders arising from subsequent clauses? If so, I could withdraw certain of our later propositions.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I see no reason why not.
    Captain Orr: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. McMaster: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 3, line 10, at end add:
    (7) The life of the Assembly shall be not more than five calendar years.
    I should like to hear from the Minister whether the life of the Assembly can be extended to five calendar years in order that the Assembly may have the same life as the Parliament in the rest of the United Kingdom. To allow for a period of only four years might well mean that the Assembly would run for two or three years, which would be insufficient for any Executive in Northern Ireland to plan properly.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but I should think that it would be much more important to provide that the Assembly could be dissolved before the period of years proposed. That would be a healthy discipline for the Assembly.
    Mr. Whitelaw: These are matters which must arise on the main constitutional Bill and not on this Bill, which deals with the question of the election for the Assembly.
    Mr McMaster: In view of my right hon. Friend's reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3
    DISQUALIFICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP OF ASSEMBLY
    Mr. McNamara: I beg to move Amendment No. 24 in page 3, line 24, at end insert:
    (3) A person shall not be disqualified from being a member of the Assembly by reason only that he is a member or is alleged to be a member of any organisation proscribed by Regulation 24A under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 and seeks to describe himself as being a member of such a proscribed organisation upon the ballot paper.
    We have already had some discussion of this issue in the Second Reading debate and in Committee today. Therefore, the speech that I had prepared which would have taken roughly two-and-a-half hours to deliver, if I read it out quickly, I

    203
    have cast to the winds, but I want to take up some points arising out of the statements made by the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State today.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that he felt that the matter of proscribed organisations should be dealt with in the legislation that we are to discuss tomorrow. I take issue with him on that point, bearing in mind what was said by his hon. Friend earlier, namely, that it would be possible for the returning officer to accept nomination papers of a member of a proscribed organisation where the description of his party stated that he was a member of a proscribed organisation. I put it to the hon. Member that that would not be the case, and that the returning officer—who, admittedly, has a discretion in the matter—would not have a discretion to accept positively the nomination of a person who avowedly declared that he was a member of an illegal or proscribed organisation. Within my constituency we had a great deal of argument before the name of the "Get Stuffed" party was allowed to appear on the ballot papers. It was only at the discretion of the returning officer that the name was allowed to appear.
    My amendment therefore seeks not to lift the proscription on these organisations but to say that a person's nomination may not be ruled out of order merely by virtue of the fact that he declares that he is a member of an organisation which has been proscribed by virtue of Regulation 24A of the Special Powers Act.
    Cameron simply says that this regulation
    "Makes it an offence to become or remain a member of or to do any act calculated to promote the objects of any unlawful association or seditious conspiracy."
    There is a great deal of difference between a person who, under the name of the Provisional IRA, for example, plants a bomb, kills people, destroys property and fires upon soldiers, and a person who advocates a political programme that is associated with the Provisional IRA, namely, the devolution of government in the island of Ireland to form strong provincial governments with a weaker central Government. The person advocating that as a course of action would be advocating the policies of the Provisional Sinn Fein.
    204
    Further confusion has been caused by the steps recently taken by the Secretary of State. When I raised the matter in the House on 5th April I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that if he could not get his Diplock legislation through, lifting the ban on Republican clubs, he could do it by revoking the order made under Regulation 24A. The Secretary of State did so, and only last Wednesday or Thursday the ban on Republican clubs was lifted. I suggested to him that if he felt is necessary, because of the situation, to maintain a proscription against a body which was indulging in violence, killing, vicious murders and attacks, it would be proper for him to do so under the Special Powers Act by drawing a distinction between the Provisional IRA and the Provisional Sinn Fein, and lifting the general ban on Sinn Fein, either in the proposed legislation we shall be discussing tomorrow or in the list of proscribed organisations as existing at the moment under Regulation 24A.
    It is important, as has been said earlier, not only to extend the parameters sufficiently to enable anybody who has a legitimate point of view to put it across, but also to deprive people who indulge in violence of the excuse that if only they had been given a democratic opportunity they would have forsworn the gun but that they had been pushed into using the gun because the masters of the State had provided insufficient democratic opportunity. We all know that for many people engaged in violence in Northern Ireland that is not a tenable argument, but it is one that they would seek to advance.
    It may be, if rumours that are going around the House tonight are correct, that the Provisional IRA is to hold a meeting tomorrow at which it will say that it will not contest the elections anyway. If that is the case, so much for that. It must make its own decision. But we should never be left in the position where it can be said that because of us there were people with legitimate political aims and points of view which they were unable to put forward because they went by a particular name that was not permitted on a ballot paper. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but with political parties a rose must be known as a rose and Sinn Fein must be known as Sinn Fein.

    205
    Because of the difficulties of the situation the Secretary of State should be stretching his mind about how to cause a division in the opposition and ensure that none of the possible arguments, flimsy though they may be, can be advanced in support of the contention that persons of particular political views were excluded from the election. It is in that spirit that I move the amendment.
    Mr. Fitt: I wish to support the amendment. No one in the House can speak on the amendment with more authority than myself. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has asked that any proscription, impediment or obstacle placed in the way of Sinn Fein should be removed to enable the organisation to participate in the elections. In other words, he is seeking a mandate for the campaign which they are conducting.
    I hope that people in Britain understand the necessity to allow everyone in Northern Ireland to cast their votes for or against any particular political issue. The Secretary of State, in excusing the vote on the border poll, repeatedly said in this House—and he was supported by many of his hon. Friends—that he wanted to know how the people of Northern Ireland felt about the link with Britain, and about the claim by certain so-called Republicans for a united Ireland to be set up overnight, by this time next week, or by this time next month.
    It is evident from the votes cast in the Republic that the people there want the political reunification of the country. They do not want this to be brought about by violence or coercion. They want it to be brought about by consent.
    12.45 a.m.
    After all the turmoil, tragedy and distress that we have had in Northern Ireland, how much more important it is that the people in Northern Ireland should have the opportunity to express either their support for or their rejection of Republican candidates. I cannot say— I certainly do not have a crystal ball-how much support there would be for Republic candidates, either Provisional or Official, but I do say at least that this is one way in which the Secretary of State would know what the people in Northern Ireland feel.
    206
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has spoken about what must be done after many years—50 years—of Unionist domination of Stormont, and particularly over the past four years, which has brought with it so much tragedy. I can understand that hon. Members on the Government side, and indeed many on my side, do not realise just what this tragedy has meant to Northern Ireland.
    I readily accept that the Secretary of State has tried to do all within his power to understand what has happened in Northern Ireland. He more than anyone else on the Government side, other than Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, will recognise that all reasonable people in Northern Ireland are attempting to take the gun out of politics and to give the people who have hitherto been using the gun and violence an opportunity to involve themselves in politics.
    My hon. Friend has said that we hear rumours that the ban is to be lifted. We hear that tomorrow the Provision Sinn Fein or some other of the Sinn Fein organisations will issue a statement and say that they do not want to participate in elections. What I say from the Floor of this House of Commons, and I say it without any fear—most people in Northern Ireland live in fear of their lives and the lives of their wives and children, but I have no hesitation in saying it because I have been in this House of Commons and I have lived through this —is that Sinn Fein are looking for an opportunity to say, "We were debarred from engaging in the democratic process. You would not allow us to put our philosophies and our programmes before the electorate. Therefore we had to resort to violence." That is what they will say.
    Take that armoury—it is only one string to their bow—away from them and let Sinn Fein fight the elections. I speak as the leader of the SDLP. We are prepared to take them on. We are prepared to accept their challenge, to see what they can put before the electorate in opposition to the policies and programmes which the SDLP has.
    I cannot understand why the Conservative Government here are so reluctant to take away this proscription. The

    207
    Secretary of State must know in his heart that the lifting of the ban on the Sinn Fein would not mean that Sinn Fein would be fighting East Belfast or South Belfast. Perhaps there might be one in North Belfast. Sinn Fein will not fight any areas where there is a Unionist majority. Sinn Fein will fight West Belfast. They will fight any constituency in which an SDLP candidate is standing. It is my colleagues and I who will have to accept and defy the challenge that is thrown up by Sinn Fein. I cannot see why any objection should be raised by any other hon. Member who represents the Unionist cause in Northern Ireland.
    I ask the Secretary of State to give to the SDLP—the people who have abhorred violence and consistently fought against it, the people who know the society from which these men have emerged—the opportunity to fight them in the election. We are the people who will fight the men of violence in our constituencies. I cannot guarantee success. If members of the Sinn Fein were no longer proscribed they might win seats. I do not think that many people in Northern Ireland support violence, but if they do we shall know exactly who they are.
    The people in Britain—whether they be on the Government or the Labour side of the House—do not understand. Private Curtis, the first British soldier to die in Northern Ireland, was shot dead in front of my home just over two years ago. I saw his blood staining the street. Since then on many occasions I have seen the blood of innocent people, including members of the British Army. No one in this House wishes to see an end to violence in Northern Ireland more than I do.
    The Unionist Party has nothing to fear from the lifting of the ban on members of the Sinn Fein, be they Provisional or Official. I do not know whether they will win or lose. As a candidate for the Assembly I might be beaten by a Sinn Fein candidate, but that is the democratic process. I will accept the verdict of the electorate.
    I end as I began with the philosophy put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. If restrictions are kept on members of the
    208
    Sinn Fein they will acquire a persecution complex. They will say, "We have been prevented from seeking votes; therefore we must continue with or resort to violence."
    The people who want a Republic come hell or high water should be prepared to put their philosophy before the electorate. I believe that the Secretary of State cannot withstand the requests that have been made by moderate people in Northern Ireland who want to see an end to the violence and the engagement of politicians in the democratic process. That is why I support the amendment.
    Captain Orr: I cannot understand how the arguments of the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) arise on the Bill. The amendment is unnecessary. There is no such disqualification in the Bill. The Bill provides for a free election. It contains no disqualification for anyone who belongs to any organisation, illegal or otherwise. In the light of that, I do not see what we are asked to vote about.
    Mr. McNamara: The amendment is a technical one. The sidenote to Clause 3 is:
    "Disqualification for membership of Assembly."
    Subsection (2) provides that a person shall not be disqualified from being a member of the Assembly by reason that he is a peer. I am saying that a person shall not be disqualified by virtue of the provisions of my amendment. I am sure that the Chairmah of Ways and Means would not have allowed the amendment to go forward had it not been in order. The point the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) makes is—why today and not tomorrow? Today we are dealing with the elections and tomorrow we are dealing with the criminal law.
    Captain Orr: We are dealing with the election and in the Bill there is no disqualification whatever in the case of anyone standing for Sinn Fein. The situation is not comparable with subsection (2).
    Mr. Fitt: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, the Bill contains no disqualifications. But in the constitution Bill which we are to debate tomorrow

    209
    there is a list of proscribed organisations, and it includes Sinn Fein. There is no guarantee that the constitutional Bill will pass through all its stages before nomination day on 14th June, so the Special Powers Act will still apply on that day. If a person who says he is a member of Sinn Fein, is completely opposed to violence but believes in the long-term idealistic aim of a united Ireland, puts in nomination papers on 14th June, there is no guarantee that his nomination will be accepted.
    Captain Orr: That was a long intervention and I completely understood it, but it does not convince me. What the hon. Gentleman said is correct, but that still does not alter the fact that the amendment is unnecessary on this Bill.
    Mr. Fitt: Nit-picking.
    Captain Orr: No—it is a statement of the obvious. The Bill does not debar any candidate who belongs to Sinn Fein or the IRA or the Kray Brothers or any other organisation. It does not prevent anyone from standing. That is why the amendment is unnecessary and I cannot understand why we are taking up time with it now.
    Mr. McManus: The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) made a gallant effort to draw a red herring across the thread of the argument but in fact the amendment is very relevant.
    I regret some of the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I find it inexpressibly sad that he, as leader of his party, should be applying to the Government for some sort of agency in words such as, "Give us the chance and we will beat Sinn Fein completely."
    Mr. Fitt: I did not do that.
    Mr. McManus: My hon. Friend did do it. I was listening. That chicken will come home to roost.
    What do the Government want this election to be? Have they a preconceived notion of what they would like to see in the Assembly, or do they want to discover what the electorate think? If they want a contrived result, they will continue with these proscriptions and
    210
    place impediments in the way of various people by making it impossible for them to be elected. But that will not accurately represent the views of the electorate.
    1.0 a.m.
    If Her Majesty's Government want to discover what is going on in Northern Ireland and what the people there think, they will have a free election and not one which has any ulterior motive to catch out or lay a trap here or there for anyone. They must say simply, honestly and squarely to the people of Northern Ireland, "There is now an election. Anyone who wishes to put himself forward as a candidate is entitled to do so, and everyone is entitled to vote in the order of his preference." In that way, the Government will discover what the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland think. If they go about it in any other way, they will not.
    Suppose that the restriction on Sinn Fein remains and that quite a number of people would have voted for Sinn Fein candidates had they stood. What is to happen to their votes? First, they may not bother to vote. Secondly, they may decide that they have to give their vote to someone. They may vote for me if I am standing, which is unlikely. They may vote for my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West. It is inconceivable that they will vote for a Unionist candidate. They will cast their votes somewhere. But the Government will receive inaccurate information and, if they intend to base any further strategy on information gleaned in that way, they will fail because it will be based on false, incomplete and inaccurate information.
    If restrictions are to be removed, let it be done in the name of free elections and not for some ignoble or ulterior motive to flush people out into the open. I ask the Minister to take note of that and to give us his opinion. If these restrictions are to remain, will he explain what the Government mean when they say that there will be a free election for the new Assembly on 28th June? What does free election" mean in the definition of the British Government?
    Mr. McMaster: In so far as it is relevant, I wish to say a word in contradiction of the arguments put forward by

    211
    Opposition Members. The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) put forward a plausible argument in support of the proposition that a person shall not be disqualified from being a Member of the Assembly by reason of his membership or alleged membership of a proscribed organisation.
    I ask the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North to think carefully about what he said. He suggested that these people will not be able to stand because they are proscribed and, therefore, disqualified. As a result, he says, they will have a grievance because they will not be able to vent their cause in a legitimate fashion. But there are many ways in which they can stand, without standing as Sinn Fein candidates. They can put forward their cause.
    We must remember that Sinn Fein is a body which has always been associated with and which supports the Irish Republican Army. The IRA exists for one reason only and it makes no secret of it. It is subversive and treasonable. It wishes to overthrow the Government of the country by the use of force.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is a lawyer and knows the definition of treason. I ask him to cast his mind back to wartime conditions in this country. Is it sensible or reasonable to allow a person to be a Member of the Assembly who is not just a villain but is guilty of treason and belongs to a body which exists for the purpose of overthrowing the ordinary legitimate organs of government by force—and who has shown it in a tangible fashion in the last three years in Northern Ireland and is still showing it in the streets today? I suggest that to allow such a person to be a Member not only offends against reason, but is an insult to the ordinary public in Northern Ireland who have had to put up with the terrorism described so vividly by the hon. Member for Belfast, West—for example, the shooting of Gunner Curtis. The hon. Gentleman and I have been at the bedside of a young boy who was shot and later died. We do not want to see it happen again.
    Unfortunately, since the concessions which were asked for—the disarming of the police and the disbanding of the
    212
    B-Specials—the terrorism has escalated. It has even escalated in the past year since Stormont was disbanded. Every concession claimed by and granted to the IRA, instead of bringing an end to the violence, seems to be a signal of the Government's weakness and leads to increasing violence. It leads the violent minority to believe that they are winning and that if they give the door a further push they will get their will.
    Mr. Orme: No.
    Mr. McMaster: I ask the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) to consider the history of the matter.
    Mr. Orme: I have.
    Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Labour Government set up the Hunt Committee to look into the police. That Committee recommended that the police should be disarmed and that the B-Specials should be disbanded. Why? Because it was supposed to be a partisan force. Instead, the UDR took its place. Why does the membership of the UDR contain only 5 per cent. of the minority—less than the RUC had? Why, when concessions like that are granted, do the minority not come forward and show their good will by joining these bodies? The trouble, as I have said before and repeat, is that there is this militant minority who will not accept any reasonable concession that is made. To give them concessions only prolongs and escalates the violence.
    Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman has put forward a valid point. The whole implication of his argument is that the Catholics, the minority population, have not joined the UDR. They have not joined the UDR because they have been intimidated. The whole purpose of my argument has been that those whom the hon. Gentleman believes to have been guilty of intimidation should be forced into the political arena to see whether they have the support of the population in Northern Ireland in any given contingency.
    A subversive organisation cannot exist without the support of people living in the urban or rural ghettos. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that an urban guerrilla force cannot exist or intimidate unless it has the support of a substantial section of the population in

    213
    a particular area. That is why I suggest we should see whether these people have that support. If so, we shall know what the circumstances are. However, I confidently believe that they do not have the support of any significant section of the Northern Ireland people.
    Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman was not following my remarks. It may be that intimidation is one reason why members of the minority, the Republican group, have not joined the UDR, but there is more in it than that, as the hon. Gentleman knows. They have not come forward because the hard core of Republicans have always practised non-co-operation. It is part of their policy. They do not volunteer or put themselves forward for community work, and then they come to the House and complain that they are being discriminated against. It is a cunning policy on their part. I have discovered that in my constituency it is difficult to get volunteers from the Republican minority to play a full part in the life of the community. I suggest that the minority do not wish to play a full part in this new Assembly. This is the root of the trouble in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McManus: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the minority not coming forward to play its part in the community. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many members of the community have been forced during the last 12 months to leave the constituency which he represents? How many Catholic families have been forced out of East Belfast by members of the UDA who, in many cases, are also members of the UDR?
    Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman should not speak about East Belfast. He should confine himself to Fermanagh and Tyrone. In my constituency there is hardly a Unionist family left in the Dock area. It has been taken over by the Republicans. The same is true of Hillman Street and Meadow Street. If one goes across the river one finds that in the Victoria area and in Pottinger the minority is taking over more and more houses. So far from being pushed out, the boot is on the other foot. Many Protestant families have been pushed out by the expansion of the Catholic minority.
    214
    I was diverted from what I wanted to say. I referred to the UDR to establish the point that I am trying to make, which is that further concessions of that kind claimed in the amendment would not improve the situation. It would be an affront to the people of Northern Ireland to accept the amendment.
    Mr. Orme: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) is behaving like an ostrich on this issue. He has almost completely isolated himself on this matter. It is a credit to democracy that we should spend so much time discussing an organisation such as Sinn Fein. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) wants to see the amendment carried. I am not sure whether the members of Sinn Fein want to see it accepted.
    Mr. McManus: Would you attempt to explain how you draw that conclusion from anything that I have said.
    The Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I shall not explain anything.
    Mr. McManus: I beg your pardon, Sir Robert.
    Mr. Orme: I draw the conclusion from the fact that my hon. Friend has objected to the suggestion that we should flush out the members of Sinn Fein by putting the matter to a democratic test. One cannot believe rumours about Northern Ireland, but if it is true that even before this or any other Bill has gone through Parliament Sinn Fein has decided not to contest the election, it shows that it does not want any basic alterations to the present situation. That ought to prove to the Government that the change for which we are asking is in the interests of democracy.
    The hon. Member for Belfast, East asked about representatives of the IRA. The Republican clubs have an association with a wing of the IRA. I have not heard the hon. Member for Belfast, East object to the fact that they have been removed from proscription and will be able to fight the election as a political party.
    1.15 a.m.
    We want to see elections where people representing political parties can stand— with or without the question of people

    215
    being flushed out—and where the electorate can decide whether they support them.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said, if Sinn Fein stand it will not be in North Antrim or South Down. Sinn Fein will test its strength in the areas of which my hon. Friends have been talking. My hon. Friends will have to fight the political battle against these organisations. My hon. Friends are opposed to violence and opposed politically to Sinn Fein and all that it stands for.
    We have advocated this course to the Government so as not to leave an excuse that certain organisations can say that they have been singled out or proscribed in the sense that they cannot operate politically. What has happened in the Republic is an indication that these people ought to be allowed to stand freely, without handicaps, without encumbrance, and as organisations, to test their strength at the ballot box. They may defeat my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West; they may not. If these organisations are defeated at the ballot box, it will be a bigger defeat than they will suffer at the hands of the security forces. It will be a much more telling and lasting defeat.
    There is indication that people in Northern Ireland are turning to political action. Among all sections of the community one can sense a feeling that the new Assembly must be given a chance and that elections are imperative and should be held as soon as possible.
    Mr. McManus: Are the hon. Gentleman and I talking about the same thing? We both say that these restrictions should be removed. I say that they should be removed so that free elections can ensue. This business stands or falls on free elections. The Republican clubs have been removed from the list of prescribed organisations. But since that has happened two of their members have been shot in Armagh. I have it on authority— I know not whether good or bad authority —that they were two prospective local government candidates. The saying is "How many members will be left alive by the time the election comes?"
    What organisation can contemplate an election in such an atmosphere? It has
    216
    been said that there will be an excuse in that there will be a persecution complex. But the facts of the matter speak for themselves. How many members of any other organisation, apart from the two wings of Sinn Fein, are in Long Kesh, or on trial or in gaol? These are the two organisations which have been hit hardest, and constantly hit. It is grotesque to suggest that if the restrictions are not removed there will be an excuse to say, "We have been persecuted." They have been persecuted every day of the week, pros ption or no proscription
    Mr. Orme; The hon. Gentleman immediately widens the argument and brings in other aspects which are not germane to this argument. We are saying that the political wings of the organisations should be allowed to fight the election. If people are in violation of the security forces they must take the consequences. Nobody is defending the action of the violators. We are talking about the freedom for people with a political philosophy to stand for election. That is a freedom which they have within the Republic and elsewhere. I do not accept that the other arguments that are being used are germane to the central argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) put forward this point during the debate on the White Paper. It was supported by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and by other hon. Members on the Government benches.
    There is involved in this matter an important political and philosophical argument of some magnitude. I and many of my hon. Friends believe that the freedom to stand as a political party will probably do more good politically than much of the security activity that has taken place over recent months. We would say that if members of the UDA want to stand, if there is a political wing of the UDA, they should be allowed to do so.
    Mr. McNamara: I think that my hon. Friend means the UVF.
    Mr. Orme: Yes, the UVF. Such people should be allowed to stand not because they are members of an extreme Protestant militant organisation but if they are members of an organisation that has a political wing and a political philosophy.

    217
    This is an important issue and that is why we have pressed the Government. There is nothing that precludes, as has been pointed out, a candidate standing and putting "Sinn Fein" on the ballot paper. Tomorrow we come to another Bill that proscribes a particular organisation. The amendment talks of a person not being disqualified from being a member of the Assembly, and so on. That is a different matter from allowing a person's name to go on a ballot paper. In other words, it carries the matter logically right through to the Assembly.
    That brings in its wake the question whether such a person, if elected to the Assembly, might be an abstentionist and might not attend. We say that that should be tested. I do not accept that the amendment is a threat to the situation in Northern Ireland. It is, in a democratic sense, a show of strength. It shows a readiness to allow all organisations to test their point of view at the ballot box. I have confidence that my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, who abhorrs violence, will succeed, and that in succeeding they will do much more than just winning a victory at the ballot box. Such a victory could be an important psychological factor in Northern Ireland.
    It is on that basis that we support the type of proposals contained in the amendment. It is on that basis that we know that the Government have seriously considered the issue and will consider it further when we debate the issue tomorrow. For some of the reasons that I have deployed, this is a matter of some importance.
    Mr. Fitt: A few moments ago, during the course of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) interjected and said that he had heard of restrictions being placed on the Sinn Fein and that two members of the Sinn Fein movement had been shot and killed by the British Army in Armagh. I am not sure whether that is true. I do not know the men who were shot. I have the greatest sympathy with those who lost their lives. I condemn those who were responsible for their killing if the victims were innocent. However, if the people to whom my hon.
    218
    Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone refers were engaged in subversive activity, he was not in a position to answer for them.
    In Northern Ireland this could be taken completely out of context. It could be taken as saying that those people may have been engaged in some type of subversive activity. I am certain that my hon. Friend did not intend to convey that impression by implication or otherwise. I do not believe that the British Army is going around Northern Ireland shooting down potential Sinn Fein candidates, be they official or provisional. I do not agree with what the British Army has been doing in my constituency in the past 42 or 72 hours—
    The Chairman: Order. I am a little worried about what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is trying to do. I know that in Committee hon. Members can make as many speeches as they like, but the hon. Gentleman was seeking to make his remarks by way of intervention. I hope that he will observe the rules and make his intervention short and to the point.
    Mr. Orme: I have taken my hon. Friend's point, and this is a serious issue. I was not seeking to pass judgment on any particular issue in Armagh. I am not conversant with that matter and I do not know the facts. What I was trying to do, as a general principle, was to say that this had nothing to do with the Bill or the principle about which we are talking in terms of allowing political candidates to stand for election.
    Mr. Peter Mills: We have had an interesting and powerful debate and I understand what hon. Members are getting at. There have been counter-arguments on a variety of subjects. Indeed it might be said, without wishing to be disrespectful to the Chair, that we have diversified slightly, and we have even had mention of ostriches.
    To return to the amendment, may I make it clear at the outset that I believe the amendment to be a little misconceived. We want to get it right. There is no question of a member of a proscribed organisation being disqualified by virtue of his being a member. This is the electoral law, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South

    219
    (Captain Orr) is right. Whether such a person can fight an election as a member of a proscribed organisation and become elected will depend on the attitude of the local authorities who are responsible for prosecutions, but under the electoral law he cannot be disqualified.
    The point which I make to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is that electoral law is not the place for this provision. Proscription is a matter for the Bill arising from Diplock, with which we shall be dealing tomorrow. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. McNamara: I should like to make one or two comments on the speeches which have been made on the amendment. I say to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) that what is or is not in order is a matter for the Chair and not for him. It does not behove the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say what is in order in terms of any amendment that is tabled.
    Captain Orr Captain Orr rose—
    Mr. McNamara: I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South will resume his seat because we have only a short time. I want to get on. I hope that I shall be allowed to make my remarks in my own way.
    The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) has the sympathy of all hon. Members when he talks of the destruction and distress in his constituency or elsewhere in Northern Ireland as a result of the present difficulties. But he does not advance his case by drawing sweeping conclusions about the causes of the present unrest and distress.
    We are seeking to show the Minister the strength of feeling about our case. I do not think that the amendment is misconceived, because it deals with membership of the Assembly and matters that may or may not disqualify a person. The Bill deals with just that point.
    Whatever happens, it is important that no chance is given at any time to any group of people to make the excuse that they were prevented from voicing their opinions. It is because we think that
    220
    the psychological victory should be in the polls, to whomsoever it is. that the matter is important.
    But in view of what the Minister said and what the Secretary of State said earlier this evening, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    1.30 a.m.
    Mr. Orme: I beg to move Amendment No. 25 in page 3, line 30, leave out from 'disregarded' to end of line 32.
    The Chairman: Hon. Members have said that with this amendment they would not like to include for discussion Amendment No. 26. Therefore with Amendment No. 25 we shall be discussing New Clause 1—"Consequence of Disqualification":
    'In the event of a disqualification under section 3(2)(d) the candidate who at the election received the next largest number of votes to that received by the person disqualified shall be declared the member in his place'.
    We shall also discuss Amendment No. 35, page 3, line 25, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
    Mr. Orme: The amendment deals with subsection (3), which states:
    "The Secretary of State shall have power by order to make provision—
    …
    (c) for conferring jurisdiction to decide whether a disqualification has been imposed by this section."
    It is a probing amendment. We should like to know exactly what power is involved. How wide is it? Exactly what does it entail?
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: New Clause I deals with disqualification in the event of abstentionism.
    In case any hon. Member is surprised because he cannot find a Section 3(2)(d)), I should point out that my new clause is dependent on Amendment No. 23 in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr).
    I referred to the problem of abstentionism, which is an old Irish custom, in the debate on the White Paper, and hon. Members on both sides have referred to it today. My hon. Friend the Undersecretary brushed it aside rather cursorily to attend this House although he has when he said that no one is compelled

    221
    been elected. Of course, Northern Ireland is not exactly the same as England.
    I also referred in my Second Reading speech to what was said by the present Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic in his book "Towards a New Ireland". Many hon. Members will have read that book. In chapter 8 "Towards a New Regime in the North" we find these words:
    "One danger, however, would be that any such scheme of government"—
    this is the sort of scheme upon which the Government are trying to embark—
    "could be sabotaged by extreme elements refusing to work the system. What would happen, it may well be asked, if Vanguard Supporters and Provisional alike decided, while accepting election to Parliament, to abstain from the assembly? How then could a government be formed on a basis proportionately representative of the parties? Alternatively would there not be a danger that in such a situation even some moderate elements in one community might feel constrained also to abstain from government?
    This possibility must be faced. But the proportional representation system using the single transferable vote has hidden resources, possibly not suspected by those who have not had experience of its remarkable flexibility. It would be entirely possible to provide that if the members of any group or groups failed to take their place in parliament, or even if they did so but refused to participate in the supreme legislative function of choosing an executive, they would be disqualified, and the count of votes that had elected them would be resumed, eliminating them as if they had failed to secure enough votes for election, and passing their preferences on to the next preferred candidate of each voter."
    This is a serious point raised by a distinguished statesman in the South of Ireland. It is with this possibility in mind that I tabled the new clause, and I commend it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. McMaster: May I refer briefly to Amendment No. 35? I am concerned with the wide powers provided in the Bill. I understand the urgency of getting the Bill through the House and I support the idea of holding elections on 28th June. But I wonder whether it is in the best interests of the House and its reputation that we should be considering at this late hour, when we are tired, so many detailed points in a Bill of such a fundamental nature, concerning vital constitutional provisions. Should the Bill be going through all its stages in one day?
    222
    I am concerned about the provisions of Clause 3(3) and in particular (3)(b). This provides that the Secretary of State
    "shall have power by order to make provision—

    (a) for the consequences of a disqualification imposed by this section, and

    (b) for the circumstances in which such a dis qualification may be disregarded."

    The disqualifications referred to are those laid down in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 and amendments thereto. These are the provisions under which a person may be disqualified from serving in this House. I wonder whether this job of a quasi-judicial nature ought to be left in the hands of the Secretary of State. In the eyes of some Labour Members—who spoke at such length and have now left— the Secretary of State may be an interested party. Is it right that the Secretary of State should have such wide powers? I feel that this clause should be looked at much more carefully and critically.
    Captain Orr: I might be able to help my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). There are a number of questions arising under this power of the Secretary of State to make provisions about disqualification. Such provisions would be contained in an order. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can give us the same kind of undertaking he gave earlier, namely, that when issues are raised which have been debated here, particularly the fears which my hon. Friend has raised, he will consult us about them?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The main intention of subsection (3) is to apply, with minimum modification, Sections 6 and 7 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957, which provides that claims regarding disqualification come within the jurisdiction of the Privy Council. We must have some arrangement for deciding the claims judicially.
    Turning to the new clause which my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) discussed, we have agreed that this is a Bill to deal with election to the Assembly. We would wish to discuss the matter of filling vacancies when we consider the main constitutional Bill. I take my hon. Friend's point, but that is the right place in which to deal with it.

    223
    On the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), I accept that these are wide powers, but I have no intention of using them in any other way than the way in which the House of Commons would wish to see them used. The law on disqualification is, as I have discovered, an absolute minefield. It is one of the most difficult and complicated sections of the law.
    I readily give the assurance for which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) asked. We shall be only too ready to discuss the problems of disqualification with hon. Members on both sides. If they have as much difficulty in understanding the provisions as I had, the discussions will be difficult. We want to have the same sort of provisions as we have in present circumstances for the House of Commons and as we had for the Stormont Parliament. That is all we seek to do, and it seems reasonable.
    Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman earlier referred to the Privy Council. That body has been abolished in Northern Ireland. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman meant the Privy Council in the United Kingdom and that any cases which arose would be referred to that body.
    Mr. Whitelaw: That is the purpose.
    On the basis of my assurances on an extremely complicated part of the law, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the amendment. We shall seek to meet the points which have been raised and will do nothing which would impair what the Committee would wish to see happen.
    Mr. Orme: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, without amendment; read the Third time and passed.
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray.]

  OVERSEAS TRAVELLERS (ACCIDENTS)
  1.45 a.m.
  Mrs. Connie Monks: I welcome this opportunity on the Adjournment to raise issues arising from fatal accidents to three constituents of mine on holiday in Europe. I am asking the Government to instigate an inquiry into ways of helping British citizens who are victims of accidents in Europe, and also their families who grieve at home in Britain.
  I do not intend to speak in a critical way because I know that, on the whole, the present arrangements work reasonably well. Nor do I pretend to know all the answers to the problems that I shall pose. The problems, however, are increasing, for growing numbers of inexperienced travellers go across the Channel to holiday upon the Continent. I am asking the Government to reinterpret the instruction inside the cover of our passports, which reads:
  "To afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary ".
  That assistance needs to be given in the light of modern life and travel. It also needs to be extended to the families of passport holders. We need to find a way to protect particularly the young who travel about Europe with a confidence engendered by the Welfare State at home —a Welfare State that does not yet exist in Europe. This means that there must be an insistence on adequate insurance— and I repeat, "adequate".
  I can illustrate my point by referring to a case that arose in my constituency. A daughter of one of my constituents was killed in a car accident when holidaying in France with her fiancé on 16th July 1972. Her father had—as he thought-seen to it that his daughter was fully covered by insurance before she went, but he had to pay £450 before a move could be made to bring his daughter's body home to England. I had a letter from him on 25th August to the effect that he was not making any headway with the insurance company, and his solicitor had been trying for over a month. The company was insisting on an official death certificate, stating the cause of death, even though the daughter had been killed outright in a car accident and the father had

  225
  been assured that these certificates were not issued in France.
  I quote from my constituent's letter:
  "All the money in the world will never replace our daughter, only time will help towards healing our terrible loss, and until we have a complete settlement from both the insurance company and the French police I am afraid we cannot make a fresh start in life, which is what my wife and I will have to do."
  He said, in conclusion:
  "I feel there is a case for some higher authority (Ministry level) to sort out this type of plight—which may be of benefit to others in years to come."
  As a result of my constituent's letter I wrote to the insurance company and the money was paid on 12th October, prior to the court action, which took place on 20th December. If the father had attended the court in France he would have had to pay his own expenses.
  My next case is that of Mr. and Mrs. Gasside, of Leyland, who came to see me on 17th March of this year. It was because of their visit that I decided to ask for this Adjournment debate.
  Their son Gary, aged 17 had been drowned in Austria on 1st August 1972. They were still waiting seven months later for the final autopsy to learn whether he died from normal drowning or whether he drowned because he had a lung defect as a result of asthma when he was a young child. Certain organs had been removed from the body for the post mortem before cremation, and the ashes were dispatched by air mail parcel post on 11th August addressed to the local undertaker in Preston. However, the parcel did not arrive and it is possible to imagine the parents' concern. As a result, the consular department of the Foreign Office approached the Customs at Manchester airport and the inward parcels section at Canning Town, London. A search was made and the parcel was found on 23rd August, nine days after being dispatched. Even then the Customs officer at Canning Town informed the consular department that a death certificate was required before the parcel could be released and forwarded by post. He had already written to the undertaker in Preston to obtain one. In spite of the plea from the Foreign Office the customs officer would not waive the Home Office regulations governing the importation of human remains. I have never
  226
  known anything so tragically silly. It was this which caused me to request the debate tonight.
  My last example illustrates the language difficulty. Mr. and Mrs. Peters, constituents of mine, went to Spain for a holiday. Mr. Peters was taken ill and died there from natural causes on 1st February 1972. He was buried in Alicante cemetery. Mrs. Peters reimbursed the travel firm for burial expenses at a later date because she had not enough money with her in Spain to meet all her requirements. However, Mrs. Peters did not understand the language and no one explained things to her. She discovered some time later that she had only rented the grave for five years. She was unable to discover what would happen to her husband's body afterwards. She was unable to obtain any information but she believed that it would be put into a communal grave.
  Mrs. Peters came to see me and I intervened on her behalf. She paid several hundred pounds more and bought the grave, which is now covered by a flat stone. Mrs. Peters feels that the couriers in charge of these holiday trips should be more conversant with the rules and regulations of the different countries.
  All the communications received by Mrs. Peters have been in Spanish. She has had them translated with the help of the local police. The death certificate is in Spanish. Gary Gasside's was in German and the young lady's was in French. Surely it is possible for people dying from accidents like this to have their deaths recorded in this country just as some foreign and Commonwealth probates and letters of administration are recorded here. A British death certificate in the English language could then be issued.
  I must also urge that all insurance policies should provide fully comprehensive cover. I know that this is perhaps not a matter for the Government, but a great deal of publicity is needed to make sure that this happens. It is necessary to use words that everybody understands, because so much is often concealed by what is said in the small print.
  Insurance really must be compulsory. It is more and more necessary that those who sell "happy holidays" should also include adequate insurance in the price ticket to cover all eventualities in case of tragedy. Customers should look with

  227
  as much interest on full cover as on sunny beaches advertised in brochures.
  There is a need for some kind of special report centre which could liaise with the Departments responsible, such as the Foreign Office, the Home Office and Social Security, so that help and information can be quickly given and where people's inquiries can be made and language problems solved. If we can have a "hot line" to explain price increases, surely we can have something comparable to cope with accidents such as these and to help the people who are very distressed at such times.
  Reports on death and all certificates and documents need to be translated into English. I wonder whether this could best be done in the British Embassy in the country where an accident happened, or perhaps at a report centre such as I have suggested. We must have improved communication between the scene of the accident and the family at home. It is not enough for a policeman to call to give the message and then to have several days' silence. Verbal contact must be arranged between those at the scene of the accident and those at home so that questions can be asked and answered.
  I cannot expect that all the points I have made will be answered at this late hour by my hon. Friend the Undersecretary but I hope that some of them will be carefully considered.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mrs. Monks) for raising these important matters which, as she has said, concern more and more people these days because of the extent of travel, which is growing every year. I very much hope that the debate initiated by my hon. Friend tonight will call attention yet again to the desirability of insurance and to the difficulties which people can encounter if they go abroad without proper preparation.
  I shall have a word or two to say about the existing practice, but I should like to refer first to the three cases raised by my hon. Friend from her constituency. As regards Miss Yates, who was so unfortunately killed in a motor crash, it is
  228
  the case that death certificates in France do not show the cause of death. This, however, is not unique to France but applies in a great many countries. But a hospital or doctor's certificate does, of course, show the cause of death, and if there is any difficulty about obtaining this certificate the consular officers of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are always at the disposal of people to enable them to obtain it. There should have been no difficulty in getting a death certificate specifying the cause of death of Miss Yates. Had we been asked, we should have been able to get this certificate without any trouble, and so have obviated the difficulty in which the insurance company found itself. I congratulate my hon. Friend on her persistence and good advice which resulted in getting from the insurance company the payment for which it was liable.
  In the case of Mr. Gasside, there were delays, but they were explicable. Mr. Gasside's elder brother was with him on holiday and he instructed the German undertaker. But the undertaker was reluctant to release the urn containing the ashes because his account had not been settled. Our Consul in Stuttgart went to see him, and he was persuaded to dispatch the urn on 14th August. It was found to be in the General Post Office in Canning Town on 21st August.
  The subsequent delay, over which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had no control, was due to the legal necessity for the Customs and Excise officer to be satisfied that there was some documentation before he could release the urn. The Home Office has laid down that such ashes or remains cannot be released without a death or cremation certificate. This certificate was in the possession of the undertaker in the place where the family resided. The explanation for the long delay must be that he did not send it promptly.
  I am concerned to learn today that the final autopsy report which was asked for by the family has not yet reached them. The history is that on 30th November 1972 a German doctor, Professor Klein, informed our Consul in Stuttgart that he had completed his examination and would send his report direct to Mr. Gasside. The Consular Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  229
  heard nothing further, and we had no reason to doubt that Professor Klein had been as good as his word. In the light of what my hon. Friend said, I shall take up the non-arrival of the report with the German authorities and try to get it as soon as possible. I understand the anxiety of the bereaved parents that they still do not know the exact cause of their son's death.
  As my hon. Friend said, the distress caused to Mrs. Peters about the cemetery in Alicante is really a matter of language. I cannot understand how she came to believe that her husband's grave could be used only for five years, after which he would have to be removed to a common grave, and that she could not erect a memorial slab. As soon as our Consul in Alicante knew about this he confirmed to her that the gravestone was in place and that the grave could be purchased in perpetuity.
  I do not know what can be done to overcome the language difficulty. The different languages spoken in Europe and all over the world must be a barrier to easy communication for travellers, but I do not see how we can ensure that no language difficulties arise.
  In cases of accidents to British citizens travelling to Europe and elsewhere our consular offices and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London are always ready to advise and assist in any way they can, provided that they are told, either by relatives or friends or by local police, that an accident has occurred.
  Our consuls are available, and when they hear of an accident in which British people are involved they make sure that the next of kin are advised. But there are certain limits to what can be done. We have not the staff to do the things which relatives may want in these circumstances. These responsibilities properly fall upon the relatives or the tour operators, and they must assume them. Consular officers, for example, are not empowered to advance public funds to conduct searches, perhaps in mountains, or, in the case of drowning, in the sea, to meet hospital expenses or to repatriate human remains. Only in cases of proved destitution can minimal funeral expenses be met.
  We try to advise travellers, in the essential information booklet issued with every passport, through the mass media
  230
  and by all reputable tour operators and travel agents, what the dangers are. We encourage and warn travellers, for example, to take out adequate insurance against illness, injury or death. Of course, sometimes the insurance taken out is quite inadequate for the purpose.
  For example, a large number of people I have come across insure themselves for £200 when they are going to the United States. That is ludicrous. It lasts about three days in hospital in the United States or Canada. If someone has a heart attack, for example, and has to stay six weeks in hospital, although the hospitals there try to make arrangements for gradual payment, they are not authorised to give free treatment, because those countries do not have the health services that we have, and it is therefore a heavy burden on people who may be old and not well off, wondering how they are to pay these great bills. It is absolutely necessary for people travelling to countries where there is no reciprocal arrangement with this country to be adequately advised by the tour operators, and, as far as we can do it, by the Foreign Office, to take out adequate insurance.
  We realise that in moments of distress relatives may wish things to be done which are beyond our powers. What we can do is to keep available information on costs of local burial, the costs of hiring a lawyer, and the estimated costs, if people want to know in advance, of hos-pitalisation. All this information is at our disposal and we can give it when asked. But we cannot provide against all eventualities and I agree that the need for insurance should be brought very much to the notice of people who wish to travel abroad.
  My hon. Friend raised the question of certificates in the English language. It has been possible for many years for deaths of British subjects to be registered on request at British consulates, and thereafter British-style certificates are available on demand. The procedure is laid down by the Registration of Births and Deaths (Consular Officers) Regulations 1948, which provide for British consulates abroad to maintain registers of this nature. Consular death certificates in the English language can then be supplied by the consul, and such registration also ensures that the death is later recorded at the General Register Office in London,

  231
  or in Edinburgh or in Belfast, as the case may be. These offices will supply copies when required.
  Before entering a death in the consular register, the consular officer must be satisfied as to the citizenship of the deceased and must inspect the death certificate issued by the local authorities of the country where the death occurred. There are occasions when, because of the nature of the country, or perhaps lack of administrative expertise, no certificate can be obtained, or it can only be obtained after a long delay. In such cases, the consul is empowered to issue a death certificate after satisfying himself about the facts. But that is an exceptional procedure.
  I take the opportunity which my hon. Friend gives me to mention the air crash at Hochwald, in Switzerland, where a large number of people were involved in the type of difficulty to which she has alluded in her three constituency cases. I thank the Swiss people and authorities for their unstinted help and sympathy in the recent disaster. The local villagers, the cantonal and local authorities, the police and rescue teams, the medical and ecclesiastical authorities, and Basle radio station which provided communications during much of the time, laboured magnificently not only at the difficult site of the accident but afterwards in home and hospital to bring help and comfort to the survivors. We are greatly touched that the President of Switzerland will attend a second memorial service at Hochwald today, 17th April.
  232
  I wish also to draw the attention of the House to the conduct of our own consular staff in Basle, reinforced from Berne and Zurich, who worked unceasingly and with exemplary efficiency.
  I am sorry that distress was caused by some confusion about the names of those who had been injured or killed. Passenger lists are the responsibility of airlines, and no doubt this matter will be considered by the official inquiry which our own officials from the Department of Trade and Industry will attend.
  I should like again to thank my hon. Friend for bringing to the attention of the public this important subject at this time of the year before the worst holiday rush starts in the summer. I hope that they will take note of what she said about insurance.
  I assure my hon. Friend that all our officers are able to do what she wants done in the way of information, in the way of obtaining certificates, and so on. All they need to know is what is wanted. There are some difficulties which cannot be overcome. They cannot help if someone cannot understand the language. But they can help in many other ways. The public can be assured that if they can get to a consulate—and they should have the appropriate addresses with them— they ought to be able to obtain the help which, as my hon. Friend says, is their entitlement.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Two o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  Engineers (Registration)
  Engineers (Registration)
  Clothing Industry
  Clothing Industry
  Regional Development Fund
  Regional Development Fund
  Development Area Companies
  Development Area Companies
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Prices
  Prices
  Aircraft Noise (Heathrow)
  Aircraft Noise (Heathrow)
  Vacant Factory (Tannochside)
  Vacant Factory (Tannochside)
  EEC Trade Ministers (Meeting)
  EEC Trade Ministers (Meeting)
  South Africa (British Firms)
  South Africa (British Firms)
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Coal Industry (Pay)
  Coal Industry (Pay)
  Aerospace Projects
  Aerospace Projects
  Consumer Protection
  Consumer Protection
  Motor Cars (Safety Seats)
  Motor Cars (Safety Seats)
  Industry Act
  Industry Act
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Incentive Grants
  Incentive Grants
  Medical Products (Price)
  Medical Products (Price)
  Industrial Development (Scotland)
  Industrial Development (Scotland)
  Mortgage Interest and Fees
  Mortgage Interest and Fees
  Development Areas (EEC Companies)
  Development Areas (EEC Companies)
  Civil Servants (Employment)
  Civil Servants (Employment)
  Industrial Development (Ayrshire)
  Industrial Development (Ayrshire)
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  Political Donations
  Political Donations
  Consumer Credit
  Consumer Credit
  Aircraft Pilots (Training)
  Aircraft Pilots (Training)
  Swiss Airports (Landing Charges)
  Swiss Airports (Landing Charges)
  London Airports (International Traffic)
  London Airports (International Traffic)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Leek)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Leek)
  Macro-Economic Data
  Macro-Economic Data
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Broadcasting (Inquiry)
  Broadcasting (Inquiry)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Exports (Movement Certificate Forms)
  Exports (Movement Certificate Forms)
  European Currency Market
  European Currency Market
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Overseas Investment
  Overseas Investment
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  House Purchase (Mortgage Relief)
  House Purchase (Mortgage Relief)
  £ Sterling/Escudo (Value)
  £ Sterling/Escudo (Value)
  Child Allowances
  Child Allowances
ENVIRONMENT
  Derelict Land (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Derelict Land (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Commercial Vehicles (Hire)
  Commercial Vehicles (Hire)
  Housing Costs
  Housing Costs
  A259 (South Coast)
  A259 (South Coast)
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Ordnance Survey Maps
  Ordnance Survey Maps
  Civil Servants (Employment)
  Civil Servants (Employment)
  Home Ownership
  Home Ownership
  Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Counties
  Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Counties
  New Housing (Certification)
  New Housing (Certification)
  Urban Motorways Committee (Report)
  Urban Motorways Committee (Report)
  South Yorkshire Navigation Canal
  South Yorkshire Navigation Canal
  Council Housing
  Council Housing
  Humberside and Severnside Feasibility Studies
  Humberside and Severnside Feasibility Studies
  Housing Corporation and National Building Agency (Chairman)
  Housing Corporation and National Building Agency (Chairman)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Beam Trawling (South Coast)
  Beam Trawling (South Coast)
  Veal (Additives)
  Veal (Additives)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  Horses and Ponies (Export)
  Horses and Ponies (Export)
  Synthetic Meat
  Synthetic Meat
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Cheese (Import Levies)
  Cheese (Import Levies)
  New Zealand Dairy Products
  New Zealand Dairy Products
  Dog Licences
  Dog Licences
  Chemical Castration
  Chemical Castration
  Food Stocks (EEC)
  Food Stocks (EEC)
  Onions (Price)
  Onions (Price)
  Milk and Milk Products
  Milk and Milk Products
  Agricultural Markets (International Supervision)
  Agricultural Markets (International Supervision)
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Appointments (Cost)
  Government Appointments (Cost)
DEFENCE
  Western Isles
  Western Isles
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Polytechnics
  Polytechnics
  Medical Historical Items (Transfer)
  Medical Historical Items (Transfer)
  Excluded Pupils
  Excluded Pupils
  Secondary Pupils
  Secondary Pupils
  Teaching Profession
  Teaching Profession
EMPLOYMENT
  Engineering Industry (School Leavers' Training Scheme)
  Engineering Industry (School Leavers' Training Scheme)
  Fringe Benefits
  Fringe Benefits
  West Bromwich
  West Bromwich
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  National Industrial Relations Court (Access)
  National Industrial Relations Court (Access)
  Industrial Relations Act (Registration)
  Industrial Relations Act (Registration)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  IRA Arms Shipment
  IRA Arms Shipment
  Mr. Peter Niesewand
  Mr. Peter Niesewand
  Israel
  Israel
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Officers (False Evidence)
  Police Officers (False Evidence)
  Violence against the Person (Convictions)
  Violence against the Person (Convictions)
  Police Officers (Convictions)
  Police Officers (Convictions)
  Traffic Police
  Traffic Police
  Motoring Offences
  Motoring Offences
  Police Recruitment
  Police Recruitment
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Maintenance Enforcement (Convention)
  Maintenance Enforcement (Convention)
  Adoption of Children
  Adoption of Children
  Firearms
  Firearms
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Electoral Register
  Electoral Register
  Home Ownership
  Home Ownership
  Rented Accommodation
  Rented Accommodation
  Belfast Water Order
  Belfast Water Order
  Forensic Science Laboratory, Belfast
  Forensic Science Laboratory, Belfast
  Assembly Elections
  Assembly Elections
  Detainees
  Detainees
  Detention Appeals
  Detention Appeals
  Detention of Terrorists Order
  Detention of Terrorists Order
  Death Penalty
  Death Penalty
  County Court Judges
  County Court Judges
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Finger and Palm Prints (Destruction)
  Finger and Palm Prints (Destruction)
  Proscribed Publications
  Proscribed Publications
  Damage (Compensation)
  Damage (Compensation)
  Bail
  Bail
SCOTLAND
  Traffic Wardens
  Traffic Wardens
  Police Recruitment
  Police Recruitment
  Family Planning
  Family Planning
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Widowed Mothers
  Widowed Mothers
  Retirement Pensioners (Optical Services)
  Retirement Pensioners (Optical Services)
  Family Planning
  Family Planning
  Part III Accommodation
  Part III Accommodation
  Pensions Reciprocity (Australia)
  Pensions Reciprocity (Australia)
  Retirement Pension (Value)
  Retirement Pension (Value)
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Venereal Disease
  Venereal Disease

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ely):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE POLICE
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 whether they will consider appointing local independent panels to consider complaints against the police, when made through recognised bodies such as community associations.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, the Police Act 1964 provides that where a chief officer of police receives a complaint against the police from a member of the public he shall cause it to be investigated, and, unless satisfied from the report of the investigation that no criminal offence has been committed, send the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary does not intend to propose changes on the lines suggested by the noble Lord in the arrangements for investigating complaints but, as he announced on February 23, he is consulting the police service and police authorities with a view to working out and introducing arrangements with an independent element for ex post facto reviews of the handling of complaints against the police.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Viscount, particularly for the last part of his remarks, may I ask him this? Would it not be better if there were an independent inquiry, as he has possibly indicated, into these complaints? Is he aware, for example, that a London community association doing very good work under difficult circumstances has made 40 complaints in six months? It has not received one reply
892
from the High Commissioner, and it has never received a reply recognising any foundation for complaint. This particular association vets all complaints before it forwards them to the police.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the most profitable thing to do is to continue with the discussions that my right honourable friend initiated as a result of the speech that he made in February. There are various problems about this matter. There is the pure volume of complaints there is the degree of expertise which is involved inside the discipline of the service which has to be taken into account. I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise this. As for the community associations, I would welcome details of unrequited requests, but so far as I know a complaint from a community organisation, or any other organisation, would ordinarily be investigated in the normal way, subject to the complaint's being confirmed by the individual concerned. That may be the sticking point. If the noble Lord would like to tell me details I should be glad to know them.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that, while there will always be individual lapses in a large body of men, we have the best police force in the world and the British public have every confidence in the police force?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the police force is not something I deal with day to day, but I have seen a number of the reports that they have prepared as a result of complaints of this nature. I am immensely impressed and I am glad to have the noble Lord's confirmation that this is more widespread than my own experience.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, would it not be some protection to the police, and remove a lot of suspicion, if all inquiries were made by an independent body? Does the noble Viscount remember that an Amendment along these lines was moved in another place during the passage of the Police Bill?—in fact, I think I moved it. Is it not time that we caught up with this?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this whole matter was fully discussed in another place on the Second

893
Reading of a Private Member's Bill on February 23. It would repay noble Lords to study the debate, in the course of which my right honourable friend made the announcement to which I have already referred. It is not quite as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Royle, suggested, but the exploration that I mentioned is now going ahead.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Viscount spoke of consultations between his right honourable friend and the two organisations within the police force. Could the noble Viscount say whether it is the Home Secretary's intention to discuss these matters with other recognised bodies in this field? Although one takes the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King (and I am certain all of us would approve of what he said), if there is any question of doubt it should be examined by an impartial body. Would the noble Viscount consider with his right honourable friend whether the degree of discussions could be widened beyond that within the police force?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think I shall bring down coals of fire on my head if I say that representations on this subject would be very welcome. Whether it would go to the extent of full involvement at every detail of the discussions I cannot promise, but those discussions are going on with the Police Service and the police authorities. If others wish to make representations on this without saying what the detailed involvement would later be I am sure this would be welcome.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Viscount has said, that he would welcome representations, could he make that more widely known than just within your Lordships' House so that if an organisation desire to make representations they know they will be welcome?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, my Lords, I will consider how this can be done. I will see how this ought to be properly handled. I cannot believe in principle that there is anything wrong in what I have said. I will see what I can do about the noble Lord's suggestion.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, in the consideration given to this matter will note be taken of the fact that within the Police Service a terrific amount of time is spent on investigation of these complaints, some of which are serious, but some of which are entirely frivolous? As as an example, on one occasion a complaint was made because a policeman dropped a toffee paper while walking over Westminster Bridge. Would the noble Viscount take into account the time that is being spent in the Police Service in investigating such matters?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, my Lords, this was part of the volume, and, indeed, I now add the triviality of some of the complaints, all of which engage both police and theoretically any other body that might be set up.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, did I correctly understand the noble Viscount to say that after inquiries into an alleged complaint against the police the matter is automatically passed on for examination by the public prosecutor? If such is the case, I take it that the Law Officers of the Crown—the Attorney General, for example—would have had some reason for examination before the matter went to the public prosecutor.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: No, my Lords. What I said—and I do not blame the noble Lord, Lord Slater, for not having followed the whole of my Answer—was that, unless the result of the police investigation was that no criminal offence had been committed, the report was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is not sent to either of my right honourable friends the Law Officers it goes to the D.P.P.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I appreciate the general tenor of the noble Viscount's reply, and is be aware that I did not wish to imply any general criticism of the police? Nor did I wish that this matter should be related only to the non-white population. Is he aware that within the police force there is a considerable desire that there shall be independent inquiries which would justify the attitude that they have taken?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am grateful for the points that the noble Lord has made. I am

895
aware of all of them and it is on the last point particularly that we should wish to have the views of the police forces who take a great deal of trouble on the immigrant side and on the general public relations side. They are also anxious to see that all their procedures are beyond suspicion in every respect.

B.O.A.C. TERMINAL CHECK-IN FACILITIES
2.38 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 whether it is correct that B.O.A.C. intend to withdraw check-in facilities at their air terminal in Buckingham Palace Road.
EARL FERRERS: No, my Lords. But I understand that B.O.A.C. are considering adjusting the times during which these facilities are available at the Victoria terminal to take account of current demand for them.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that at least I am glad that the answer is still "No"? May I ask him whether notice will be given of these different timing requirements in the near future, and whether the facilities will be allowed to run on through the summer, which is usually the busy time?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, no particular date has been announced for these changes. I can assure the noble Baroness that care will be taken of the particular matter she has in mind.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, in view of the fact that both Air Corporations are merging within the next year, will my noble friend say why B.O.A.C. is keeping its London terminal open while B.E.A. is closing its terminal? Surely there should be rationalisation between the two Corporations?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the requirements for travellers with B.E.A. and for travellers with B.O.A.0 are different, in so far as one is a short-haul airline carrying a lot of people and the
896
other is a long-haul airline where the quantities of luggage, and so forth, are very much greater.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, the noble Earl is getting himself in a tangle. Is he not aware that some of the B.E.A. flights are very long—they go to Beirut and the Far East? May I ask whether he recalls the point made by my noble friend Lady LlewelynDavies the other day, which was to the effect that Pam Am advertised check-in facilities as being an additional draw for customers? Why is it that B.E.A. thinks there is no need to service customers in this particular way?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the original Question was about B.O.A.C., and I can assure the noble Baroness that B.O.A.C. also take great pride in the fact that they have check-in facilities at the Victoria Air Terminal. That is the reason why they are hoping to continue them.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that I cannot possibly afford to have two different sets of luggage, one for B.O.A.C. and the other for B.E.A.?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think my noble friend would find it rather difficult to be travelling on two different aircraft at the same time.

RUSSIAN WAGE RATES AND OVERSEAS COMPARISONS
2.42 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 with regard to the Trade Promotion Mission to Soviet Russia, with which country our balance of trade is so adverse, and in view of the commendable zeal for research on wages rates elsewhere in foreign countries, any arrangements have been made to inquire into rates of wages currently paid to workers in Russia and its occupied countries.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWELDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): No, my Lords, wages paid to

897
workers in the Soviet Union or other countries would not be a suitable subject for discussion by the Anglo-Soviet Joint Commission for Trade and Technology, to which I assume the noble Lord refers.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the reply is disappointing and an'opportunity is lost. But in regard to this question of wages paid in foreign countries would the Minister not agree that wages paid to white people in the oppressed and subjugated areas of the Russian Communist empire should attract priority over those in countries in Asia or Africa? Further, would she not agree that pressure to improve wages, and therefore buying power, in Soviet Russia might well increase the demand for British goods?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is very important to increase the trade between the Soviet Union and ourselves. The investigation into wage rates for African workers in South Africa is not of course being made by the Government. My noble friend will recall that it is being carried out by a Parliamentary Committee—the Trade and Industry Sub-committee of the Select Committee on Expenditure.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is carrying out researches into comparative wages in this country and the Soviet Union will she bear in mind that in the Soviet Union they are able to buy butter at 8p per lb.?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I have observed that fact. But the fact remains, of course, that there is no parallel with South Africa, where the criticism was about the low level of wages paid to certain African workers by South African subsidiaries of British companies. I understand that in the Soviet Union the majority of workers are paid by the State.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that in order to get some perspective on the pay given to African workers in South Africa it is important to consider what is paid to other African workers in the same Continent? Would she not agree that there are 42 other countries, most of
898
them far less democratic than South Africa, where people do not vote and where Governments are changed by military putsch or by changeover? Perhaps one should see, before passing judgment, what are the wages in other comparable countries.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, at no time have the Government said that they would undertake any investigation of this kind in any country, because of course the conditions of employment are primarily a matter for individual firms; it is not for the Government to intervene in their commercial decisions.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I sought to get the guidance of the noble Baroness as to whether it might not put Members of the House of Commons, and particularly the Trade and Industry Sub-committee, in disregard in the eyes of the country if they got figures and statistics which were totally irrelevant.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sure the Parliamentary sub-committee will decide which of the statistics it collects are relevant and which not relevant.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, with regard to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that there are attracted into South Africa some 900,000 people from countries North of South Africa where presumably the wage rates are so much lower than in South Africa, because otherwise they would not go there?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it was my understanding that this Question was primarily about the Soviet Union; but of course any British company operating overseas will, we hope, recognise that it is in their own interests to earn a good reputation as employers.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness qualify her statement regarding intervention about wages in other countries by acknowledging that I.L.O. conventions do apply to territories which have signed its recommendation?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, that may well be so, but the Question on the Order Paper referred to the Anglo-Soviet Joint Commission for Trade and Technology.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that as a result of my investigations into the wages paid in the Soviet Union I found no indication that the auxiliary workers in the hospitals there were exploited as are ours in this country to-day?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, that is a very interesting comment.

PEERS AND THE PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE
2.47 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: 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 to state when and why it was decided to exclude Peers from voting at Parliamentary Elections.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, this is a matter of common law. In 1802 a Resolution was passed in another place to this effect and the courts have held this to be declaratory of the law of the land. The ground for disqualification has been said to be that the Peerage is a separate estate of the Realm, distinct from the Commons estate, and a member of the first has no right to influence the composition of the second.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I am grateful for the information? Now that it is available, would he care to consider—and I ask him to do no more than consider—approaching his right honourable friend the Prime Minister and directing his attention to the anomaly that Members of this House who are Life Peers would not come within the ambit of the decision in 1802, which was concerned with hereditary Peers, who have special privileges and who are in a rather diffierent position from, say, young people of 18 years of age who have the vote, or Members of the other place who are entitled to the vote, and other people on the Regis-
900
ter? Is it not time that this anachronism disappeared and the anomaly was removed?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I was of course not closely involved with the decision in 1802 and therefore do not quite know what was in the minds of our elected legislators at that time, but I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that I agree with him: this is an anachronism and I, personally, would be far from unsympathetic to its removal. Probably the right time and place for that might be one day in the context of the reform of your Lordships' House.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl will recall that the reform which was so strongly supported in the first instance in both Houses, and the Bill that in fact was debated in another place, provided for votes for Peers. Would the noble Earl care to consider whether the time is not right, both for the minor reforms and the major reforms in this area, including the provision of adequate expenses to some Peers who are finding it very difficult to attend your Lordships' House?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that, like himself, I was not in this place in 1802 and therefore had no say in the matter? I can give him my assurance that had I been present I would have registered a strong protest. But is the noble Earl aware that only the other day I was permitted the privilege of going to the polling booth and voting in the council elections, and if I am permitted to do that why is there this anomaly, this anachronism, which prevents my voting in a Parliamentary election? On the matter of House of Lords reform, I agree that some day this House may be reformed. I have views about that which perhaps are much less liberal than some others, now that I am accustomed to the place; but is the noble Earl aware that the best way to introduce reform is to start with something that is pragmatic, and that would be to permit Members of the House of Lords to vote at Parliamentary elections?
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, being unlike both the noble Earl and my noble friend, in my case it is quite unnecessary to declare that I was not here in 1802.
LORD SHINWELL: I thought you were.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: One of my predecessors sounds as though he were and the other one looks as though he were. They may like to work that out. Is there not something wrong with the Minister's Answer, because the noble Earl said that when the Resolution was passed it was to stop the former influencing the composition of the latter? Surely 1802 was thirty years before Lord John Russell's first Reform Bill and in those days almost every borough was a rotten borough; those that were not rotten were pocket boroughs; and those that were not one or the other were both. In those days the House of Lords completely controlled the composition of the Lower House.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not want to go too far back into history, but the ghost of Wilkes would be turning in his grave to hear the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, about non-election to another place. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, that this matter was in the proposals for Lords reform, both in the White Paper and in the abortive Bill. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that it seems odd that he has the right to vote in a local government election but cannot cast his vote in the Conservative cause in a Parliamentary election.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, before the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, dwells too much on that anomaly, he must face up to the logic of it. My noble friend Lord Shinwell could have stood in the local government elections and that is why he can vote in them. Is it now suggested that Members of this House should be able to stand for the House of Commons? If so, would that not be a far-reaching remedy to our Constitution? Would it not be a salutary rule if before becoming a Member of this House a Member of the House of Lords, hereditary or otherwise, had to run the risk of the hustings?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is going a little beyond the terms of the original Question and my original reply and, with due respect, I think I had better leave it there for the time being.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl what is the relationship between a candidate standing and somebody voting? Is it not a fact that an 18-year old can vote but cannot stand?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, there is another smaller anomaly wrapped up within the larger anomaly and that is that if a Peer succeeds to his title before the age of 18 or between 18 and 21, while, under our Standing Orders, he is not able to take his seat in your Lordships' House, neither is he able to vote in a Parliamentary election.

COUNTER-INFLATION (PRICE AND PAY CODE) ORDER 1973
2.55 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that the Counter-Inflation (Price and Pay Code) Order 1973, which was laid before Parliament on April 2 be approved. Your Lordships are neither unfamiliar with the purport of this Order nor unaware of its importance. It is in effect the book of rules which all who fix prices and charges and all who negotiate pay settlements are expected to observe and which the Agencies set up under the Counter-Infiatiorl Act are to see are observed during this and the coming months. It is the means by which the objective of curbing inflation (to which I believe we would all subscribe) is to be implemented; for we all recognise that we must achieve that objective if our real living standards are to continue to rise and if we are to avoid serious hardship for large sectors of the community.
The making of the Order brought into operation from April 1 Part II of the Counter-Inflation Act. That is the Part of the Act which gives powers to the Price Commission and the Pay Board to restrict increases in prices and pay. It fitted in with the ending of the general standstill on pay, though the standstill on prices is continuing until April 29, so as to enable the effect on prices of the abolition of S.E.T. and purchase tax and the introduction of V.A.T. to be more effectively monitored.
There has been the widest possible opportunity for consultation on the proposals for Stage 2 of the counter-inflation

903
policy. On January 17, the Government published their White Paper containing their broad proposals on Stage 2 of the counter-inflation policy. The aim was to put a ceiling on pay increases and at the same time to control price increases through a system of allowable costs and to secure price reductions where appropriate while safeguarding investment on which future growth depends. These proposals were debated in this House on February 5. That debate and the debate in another place formed part of the consultation process. Since then there has been a Green Paper and another White Paper. At every stage there has been the widest opportunity for consultation and pay including the debates in the course of the passage of the Counter-Inflation Act.
My Lords, I have given this background to make clear the almost unprecedented steps that the Government have taken to ensure that everyone affected—employees, employers, consumers and legislators—should have a chance to express their views and that the implementation of the policy should be as equitable and as generally acceptable as possible. Before I take stock of the differences between the original proposals outlined in the January White Paper and the provisions in the Code, I should like to say something of the fourth aim of the policy. The first aim was the resumption of wage negotiations subject to a fixed ceiling; the second the control of prices through allowable costs—which itself should stimulate competition; the third the safeguarding of investment; and the fourth is improving the position of the low paid.
Throughout the tripartite talks last year and again during the consultations on the Price and Pay Code, the Government have consistently stressed the importance of this fourth aim. It is a fundamental aim of our policy. The combination of cash and flat rate elements in the pay limit is specifically designed to help the low paid and should provide a better deal than a single percentage limit. How the sum available within the pay limit formula is to be distributed is a matter to be decided by negotiators. But let me stress once again—the Government expect negotiators to
904
weight increases in favour of the low paid wherever possible.
There are other aspects of the policy which are intended particularly to benefit the low paid. As a move towards equal pay the differentials that existed between men's and women's rates at the end of 1972 can be reduced by up to one-third, outside the pay limit, during Stage 2. Improvements in hours down to 40 per week, net of meal breaks, and in holidays up to three weeks a year may be negotiated outside the pay limit. These are likely to benefit the lower paid in particular.
We are now considering the proposals—first made during the tripartite talks last Autumn—for establishing machinery to study ways in which the efficiency of low paid industries could be improved. We shall also be looking at the question of threshold agreements, which can be particularly important in protecting the living standards of low-paid workers. All this, of course, marches side by side with the help that the Government have been providing for those with low incomes, by way of family income supplement, which has just been increased and is to be increased further in October, by way of rent rebates and allowances, increases in national insurance benefits and the holding down of national insurance contributions of the low paid.
I turn now to the evolution of the Code itself. Let us consider first the prices side of the question, for restraint on pay is acceptable only if it accompanied by parallel controls on prices to ensure equity and effectiveness. The main principle laid down was that prices may be increased only to the extent that allowable costs increase, and that they should be reduced if allowable costs fall. Allowable costs were strictly defined—I am talking of the original proposals—and moreover part of any increase in allowable labour costs was to be absorbed to ensure that consumers benefit from increased productivity. In addition there was an overriding limit: namely, that profit margins should not exceed the average of the best two of the previous five years, and there was a requirement for abatements in allowable costs or for price reductions where the profit margin limit was likely to be exceeded. In operating the price controls, the gross percentage margins of distributors (that is, wholesalers and retailers) were to be held

905
at their recent level, and again this was to be backed up by limitations on profit margins. If we look at the Code, we can see that these provisions remain as the central elements of price control, with minor alterations in the periods with which comparison is to be made in order to remove obvious unfairness; for example, in the case of distributors' profits.
The main developments in the policy as set out in the Code Order, compared with the original policy statement in January, are designed to ensure that the price controls do not hinder investment, and to recognise the high proportion of labour costs in some industries, particularly services. On the latter point it was proposed in the Green Paper that enterprises should absorb 50 per cent. of allowable labour cost increases. After discussion with those concerned, it was agreed that where, as in the service industries, labour costs exceed 35 per cent. of total costs, a reduced productivity offset would apply to ensure that those industries are not treated more harshly than those whose labour costs are a lower proportion of total costs.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, will feel that we have gone a considerable way to meet the criticisms which he made of the productivity deduction provision in the Green Paper, when he spoke on the Second Reading of the Counter-Inflation Act. He will have seen in the Appendix to the March White Paper a table showing that, while an enterprise whose labour costs amount to 35 per cent. or less of total costs will still have to restrict to 50 per cent. the proportion of permissible pay increases that they may pass on in the form of increased prices, the productivity deduction that enterprises whose labour costs exceed 35 per cent. will have to make will be reduced on a sliding scale, so that those whose labour costs represent 78 per cent. or more of total costs will have to deduct only 22 per cent.
In developing other aspects of price policy, the Government have sought to balance various needs: the need to ensure continued expansion of output, the need to avoid commercial distortions, and the need to make the policy easy to understand (so that enterprises can be self-policing as far as possible), against the overriding need to reduce the rate of
906
increase in prices. So, for example, there are now special provisions both for loss-making enterprises to raise prices to cover their costs and for enterprises in a low profit situation to earn some return on capital so that output and employment are not threatened.
My Lords, the C.B.I. represented to us strongly that the base date for calculation of allowable cost increases, initially proposed as November 6, 1972, should be modified to take account of cost increases absorbed by industry during the C.B.I. price restraint programme. The Government are the first to acknowledge how valuable the price restraint programme was last year. But we considered, and we still consider, that to give a general concession to industry on this point could undermine the effectiveness of Stage 2 as a whole, just as special case treatment on the pay side would also threaten the success of the Stage 2 policy. So while the base date has been advanced in the Code by a few weeks to September 30, 1972, we felt that there could be no further concession on the date. However, the Price Commission's discretion to override the limits on prices and profits, if their application would deny an enterprise funds necessary for investment or reduce them to an unacceptably low level, has been extended to cases where the company absorbed cost increases to an exceptional degree in the twelve months up to September 30, 1972, in implementing voluntary restraint.
Nationalised industries have also, with full Government approval, held down prices, for nearly two years, at a heavy cost to the taxpayer. The Code allows prices to be raised in future by amounts sufficient to prevent deficits increasing, but not by the greater amount needed to eliminate losses, though a comparable private sector enterprise could do so. However, even in these circumstances the responsible Minister can prevent price increases designed to hold the deficit if he considers that these would have an unacceptable effect on the general price level. The burden of holding down prices in this way has inevitably to be carried by taxpayers. It is a burden which cannot be increased too far without serious effects for the economy.
There are a number of other detailed provisions also designed to make the price

907
policy more effective, but I will confine myself to only one more before I turn to pay. A new provision has been included in the Code to help to moderate the rate of increase in prices during Stage 2 by ensuring that enterprises will not be penalised if they delay price increases. The recovery of allowable cost increases incurred after April 30, 1973, by delayed price increases is permitted as long as this is spread over a twelve-month period. Thus there will be less pressure to increase prices the moment that allowable costs rise, or the moment that Stage 2 begins. Further allowable costs that are already known may also be taken into account.
There were six new articles in the March White Paper dealing with banks and finance houses and the like. These now appear as Articles 83 to 88 in the Code. The principle adopted in this case is that in those activities where the allowable cost and limitation on net profit margin régime applicable to other enterprises is appropriate, it should also apply to banks and finance houses; for example, in regard to commissions, fees and similar charges. But a different régime is required for interest charges, which are not within their control, and the Code therefore includes a special definition of net profit margin for banks' interest business. The reason for that, of course, is that interest rates are a key instrument of monetary policy. It will therefore be important to ensure corrective action to reduce the level of bank profits from interest earning business consistent with the Government's monetary policy. The concept of turnover on sales cannot sensibly be applied to business involved in the lending of money. The profit margin control on banks' interest business is, therefore, to be based on average resources employed and not on turnover. Net profit margin is defined as net interest income expressed as a proportion of resources employed, which in this particular sector has been agreed to be a suitable and workable proxy for turnover.
My Lords, there is one thing, of course, that we have to face squarely, and that is the rise in food prices. During the three months November 14 to February 20, food prices rose by 5·4 per cent. Much of this was due to seasonal factors. In the same three months of both 1968–69
908
and 1969–70 the increase in the price of seasonal foods rose by 11 per cent. In 1972–73 it rose 12·4 per cent. But seasonal foods represent only one-tenth of consumer expenditure as reflected in the Retail Price Index. All foods taken together represent about a quarter. To show how the standstill affected the prices of manufactured foods, which account for over half domestic expenditure on food and drink, food manufacturers' costs for raw materials and fuel rose by 16 per cent. in those three months, but their selling prices rose by only 2 per cent. It is true that some increases in price have been allowed since February 20 though some applications, for example for an increase in the price of bread, have been refused. The increases allowed reflect only part of the higher costs of raw materials, particularly meat and cereals. Your Lordships are well aware that there is a world shortage of beef and a serious shortage of cereals in many countries.
We all recognise the importance of keeping prices down during Stage 2, and of course although first-hand sales of fresh and imported foods are not subject to the price control, the Code makes clear that,
"enterprises which resell these products, whether home-produced or imported, at any subsequent stage"
are subject to the control on their gross and net margins. This applies to fresh foods, semi-processed foods and manufactured products alike. Moreover, a special panel of the Price Commission has been set up to deal with prices of food and drink.
I am not going to dilate on the effects of our entry into the European Economic Community. Noble Lords are well aware that we welcomed the agreement reached at the Summit Meeting in October on fighting inflation. I shall simply remind your Lordships of the estimate that over the six years following accession food prices would increase on average by 2 pence in the pound—that is, an increase in the cost of living of ½ pence in the pound. This estimate could not include a forecast of future price movements in the Community. Obviously this estimate will have to be reviewed when the Community's farm prices for 1973–74 have been settled. But it is important to bear

909
in mind that, even if we had not entered the Community, we could not have isolated ourselves from the rise in world prices. Meantime purchase tax and S.E.T. have been abolished and all food is zero-rated for value added tax. The Weights and Measures inspectors are investigating complaints made about consequent adjustments. In the first week over a third of complaints investigated were found to be justifiable and in nearly 90 per cent. of these cases appropriate adjustments were made by the traders concerned by voluntary action.
To those who believe that food prices should be held down by subsidies, I would only say that this would be a very expensive exercise, and as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, pointed out, nobody could predict where it would lead. It has been estimated that if we had tried to hold food prices at the levels prevailing in June, 1970, the cost to the Exchequer would now be running at a rate of £2,000 million a year. To hold down prices of particular foods while allowing others to rise with market prices would have little effect on public attitudes or consumer expenditure. It would simply involve some artificial stimulation and some distortion of demand. For example, it would cost £130 million a year to reduce the price of milk by 1p a pint, and over £50 million to reduce the price of bread by 1p a loaf. A subsidy of 1p per 1b. on meat would cost about £90 million a year—and it would be extremely difficult to ensure that the consumer benefited by the reduction, as those concerned with these affairs during the war will remember.
I turn now to the pay side. With the formal appointment by the Secretary of State for Employment on March 30, 1973, of the Chairman (Sir Frank Figgures), two Deputy Chairmen and 3 part-time members, the Pay Board became established as an independent agency under the Counter-Inflation Act 1973. The Board have both an advisory and an executive function. In their advisory role they have been asked to consider the question of the treatment of relativities and anomalies during Stage 3 of the counter-inflation programme. In their executive role their function is to ensure, if necessary by using their powers to restrict pay, that the provisions of the Code which concern remuneration are
910
implemented. For this purpose the responsibility for interpreting the Code will be the Board's and not the Government's.
Two Orders were made by the Secretary of State for Employment on April 1 setting out the requirements for notifications to the Pay Board and the keeping of records. The first requires all pay increases affecting 1,000 or more employees to be notified and for the Board's approval to be given before implementation. The second requires all other increases implemented after November 6, 1972, and affecting 100 employees or more to be notified to the Board by April 15 and thereafter within seven days of implementation. This Order prescribes the detailed information to accompany notifications under both Orders and also requires employers to keep pay records and to retain them for 12 months.
The White Paper published in January contained much more detail on the operation of the pay policy than it did on the prices side. There was an immediate need then for fairly full guidance so that collective bargaining could begin again, as indeed it did. There have already been nine major settlements reached within the Stage 2 pay limit. It may be helpful if I pick out briefly the key points on the pay side. The £1 plus 4 per cent. limit for groups, and the £250 a year maximum limit for individuals remain. Nor is there any change in the method by which it should be applied. But we hope that the way this is now presented will be more helpful to those concerned with negotiations. Paragraphs 117–118 explain how the pay limit should be calculated. Where this method of calculation cannot be followed precisely, examples of alternative methods are set out. If none of these is appropriate in the particular case, the Code makes it clear that negotiators should adopt the best method available. The Pay Board will need to be satisfied that in fact it is the best method available and will be ready to advise negotiators in difficult cases.
Great care has been taken in framing the details of the Code to ensure that the pay control applies equitably. Let me give a few examples. An article has been added to the Code to prevent settlements

911
made after April 1 from being made retrospective to a date during the standstill period. That would clearly be most unfair to those who have had pay increases which would otherwise have come into operation during the standstill deferred until the end of the standstill. Secondly, it would be grossly unfair to those who are only in a position to bargain at one level—be it at national or at plant level—if others could exceed the limits by winning increases at more than one level during Phase 2. The Code sets out in detail the method recommended for ensuring that where settlements for a particular group are concluded at more than one level, the total increase for the group for the 12 month period is kept within the limit.
Thirdly, it is reasonable that where the normal time of the year for a particular group to reach settlement has been affected by the standstill, they should be allowed to return to the normal time by reaching an agreement within the weekly or monthly limit for less than 12 months. Fourthly, no options may be granted under share option schemes or shares issued under share incentive schemes except where shares are purchased at market value or a right to acquire on predetermined terms already existed. Fifthly, productivity agreements which had already been brought into operation before the standstill, at least in part, will not count against the pay limit, but any increases in pay resulting from productivity or restructuring schemes introduced after November 6 will. It is notoriously difficult to identify genuine productivity agreements; this is something which is best left for discussion during Phase 2. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, agrees with that.
Next, the provisions as to payment by results schemes have been clarified. The principle is that increases in pay under such schemes are not to count against the limit if, and only if, they arise from direct and measurable contributions by the employees concerned to increased output. The same applies to commission as to other remuneration. Nothing can be fairer than that. Lastly, a word about personal increments. It became clear during our consultations that the proposals for increments set out in the Green Paper were too wide and could have led to abuse. The Code now says that incre
912
ments must be within a pre-determined range or scale and must conform to defined principles and practice if they are not to count against the pay limit or the limit of £250 a year for the individual. Any improvements in the ranges or scales will count against the pay limit. These provisions are designed to secure fairness between white collar workers in different types of employment. It has to be remembered that those who benefit from incremental systems do not usually have the same opportunities as manual workers to increase their earnings through overtime or payment by results.
My Lords, if I may sum up the Government's approach in framing the Order I can do no better than refer back to the January White Paper. The attack on the domestic causes of rising prices is being pressed home. The Stage 2 figure for pay rises—providing for increases of 7 to 8 per cent. on average—is the maximum which is consistent, taken together with the tough régime on prices, with a reduction in the inflationary impact of pay on prices.
In conclusion, let me say this. The success of any policy depends on acceptance by the majority. What has been considered so far is that the majority now understand that inflationary expectations are self-defeating, and in so far as they are realised by some do positive harm to the rest of us. Already over 80 agreements covering over 2 million workers and intended to be within the Stage 2 limits have been concluded, subject to the approval of the Pay Board. That is all to the good. But it does not mean that we are in calm waters. The waters are rough and are likely to stay rough. The Stage 2 period will test our national willpower and our coherence as a nation. It will test our ability to take the rough with the smooth and to keep going towards our common objective of a faster rate of maintainable growth.
The Code represents the rules to be observed if we are to achieve success. People will start by obeying the rules, and they will go on obeying them if they see other reputable people obeying them. Under the pre-notification system for Category I enterprises, the Agencies will be able to ensure that prices and wage settlements of the manufacturing and mining industries, and the transport and postal services, covering some 70 per

913
cent. of the national output conform with the Code. The Category II employers will also be controlled through the reporting system applicable to them. With these leaders setting an example of conformity, it is reasonable to expect the vast majority of the remainder to keep in line voluntarily, especially bearing in mind the obligation to keep records and the possibility of spot checks. It is reasonable to expect that in this country we shall comply with the rules. If so, we shall emerge from Phase 2 more competitive and more realistic in our attitudes than we have been for a very long time, and so better able to deal with the problems that will face us in Stage 3 and thereafter. It is for these reasons that I ask your Lordships to approve the Order.
Moved, That the Counter-Inflation (Price and Pay Code) Order 1973, be approved.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
3.25 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for explaining so clearly the small print of the counter-inflation proposals of this Government. As he said, we are discussing an important part of our economic affairs, and because we are discussing an important part of our economic affairs it is not uninteresting that only one Peer out of the huge flock of Back-Bench support that the Government enjoy thought it worth while, or was brave enough, to return to this subject this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was at pains to emphasise the scope of the debates which we had on this subject prior to this Order, and it is certainly true that some changes have been made in the Order. But the point that we shall make, the point that we have made—which is so obvious—is that, really, the Government still fail to get to grips with the central core of this problem. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was optimistic about the outlook, and it is true that with the coming of spring the fever of industrial disputes has abated considerably. The vote of the miners, the clever exploitation of a Phase 1 loophole in the case of the gas workers, have given us the appearance of industrial peace. It seems that the Government's skill in clobbering the weakest is as successful with the health workers as it was with the postmen.
914
But it will be unwise, as well as untrue, if the Government interpret this lull as proof that their economic and social policies are well-founded. When the Prime Minister boasts, as he did at the Periodical Publishers' Dinner, that recent agreements were a "victory for common sense", he was being not only complacent but pointlessly provocative. In New York, a fortnight ago, I was asked at one meeting whether Britain was slipping into real industrial trouble, and I said that the British people, almost all of them, preferred social stability and we should certainly find a way forward without serious upset. But the Government will be mistaken if they take advantage of this inherent stability of the British people. A stable society is one thing, but a determination to build a fairer society has been a dominant characteristic of the British people throughout the centuries. In their own interests, Her Majesty's Government should never underestimate this determination to work through to something that is fairer than we have so far known. It is against that background that we have to look at this Code.
As I have said, the Code itself is, if anything, an improvement on the draft. On prices, the Government have taken into account criticisms that have been made. The criticism which some of us made about the merit-pay provisions has, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has just told us, been met. The possibility of improvements in working hours is also there, although it places obvious additional responsibilities on management to ensure that a reduction in standard working hours is not simply used as a device to spread work and to boost uneconomic overtime earnings. But even less predictable is the way the productivity agreements will work out. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that they were notoriously difficult to monitor. He said that they had to be measurably productive. I ask the noble Earl who is to reply: measurable by whom; measurable against what standards: and to what extent will the Pay Board monitor these productivity agreements? So much for the actual wording of the Code.
Then we come to its implementation, and we read to-day about the letter which

915
the noble Earl the Leader of the House has apparently sent to the Civil Service unions. It is curious to some extent, that it is so irregularly reported in the morning's Press. The language of the letter according to the Guardian—unkindly, and I have no doubt, incorrectly—is extremely verbose and inexplicit. No one who knows the noble Earl would even suggest that he was inexplicit in what he said. I ask noble Lords opposite whether this letter is meant to mean anything: is there to be back-dating? if there is to be back-dating, in this particular case, how do the Government reconcile that with what the noble Lord has just said about the impossibility of retrospective treatment? if there is to be back-dating in the case of the civil servants, is it also possible in the case of the National Health Service workers? Also—and this is important—is it to be expected that in future the Government will override, across the board, whatever the Pay Board might decide to do? Will the Government commit the Pay Board in advance to a certain line of action? Would it not be helpful if the noble Lord were to give an undertaking to lay this letter before us so that we may see whether it was verbose and inexplicit or whether it really meant something and whether that meaning was in accordance with what we have been told so far about the workings of the Pay and Price Code?
This is dealing virtually with the nuts and bolts of the matter, although the way in which these nuts and bolts are manipulated is not unimportant. I have hopes that the two agencies will acquire such expertise that a future Government, with genuinely progressive social objectives, will have at its disposal an effective instrument for economic planning. The Government were mistaken in not accepting our advice and persisting with two separate agencies rather than one combined prices and pay body, but the possibilities of growth are there. Much, as I have said, will depend upon the way in which the machinery is worked. But of overriding importance will be the spirit in which it is worked and the economic and social climate in which it is expected to work.
If the Prime Minister insists on talking about victories—as apparently he has done in the case both of the gas worker
916
sand of the hospital workers—then he is lost. If he says again, as he did in a personal attack on my right honourable friend, Mr. Wilson, that those who have doubts about the Government's prices and incomes policy represent "the most negative and backward elements in our national life", then he will never create the necessary constructive spirit. But he will have to do more than refrain from provocative speeches. He will need to make a positive advance towards a fairer society. One criticism that we make of this Code and of the Bill is that there is no underlying positive policy written into it at all. The failure to spell out the full purpose is in itself a mistake. But the action that is taken will set the tone and create the atmosphere.
So far, there have been more steps backwards than forwards. The Government have stubbornly resisted proposals to subsidise key food prices, although we have seen this acquiescence in subsidising butter for the Russians. If we turn to the T.U.C. account of the Chequers talks we find that the T.U.C. were virtually asking for a gesture; they asked that action should be taken to hold down the price of potatoes and milk. What a modest proposal ! Our contribution to this £110 million cost of the butter subsidy to the Russians would have gone a long way to meet the cost of the T.U.C.'s request. Even now, if we are to see Phase 2 leading to a constructive Phase 3, something must be done to include proposals which will help to peg fresh food prices.
I return again, without any excuse, to the question of land. Condemnation of the profits made from land speculation has come from all sides of the House. Even the Government spokesmen have not ventured to iustify this manifestation of unfairness. What they said when we discussed this Counter-Inflation Bill and when we debated the Draft Code is that the problem would be tackled by means other than the Prices Code. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, once told me, "Wait for it". We waited, and we now see what we have. All we need say about the so-called hoarding tax is that spokesmen for property interests and the big builders have said that they have nothing to worry about, and I have noticed that the share prices are beginning to rise again. Multi-million pound

917
fortunes will continue to be made by land and property dealers, and steadily in manufacturing and distributive costs the effect of these increased land prices will be felt. Steadily, too, increasing purchasing power and economic influence will flow into the hands of people who do not produce or contribute towards the production of any real wealth at all.
I know that there are those who say that this infuriating rise in the price of land and property is only an effect of inflation and not a cause, but effect and cause can be complementary. It is sometimes called a vicious circle, and a vicious circle has to be broken. If nothing more is done about it than the imposition of this so-called hoarding tax and the filching of a few acres from the Green Belt, then even the most sophisticated pay and prices agency will not work. Private ownership of land as at present known is incompatible with a truly civilised society. What a sobering and a frightening commentary on contemporary achievement, that if we had not been bequeathed by our poorer forefathers such things as the Green Park or Lords Cricket Ground, we should not now be able to afford them ! There is much speculation about the outcome of the next General Election. I am prepared to assert that the Party which shows that it can and will deal with land will sweep to power.
Then there is the cost of money. I cannot accept what the noble Lord said about interest charges and that the only way to control the volume of money is by increasing its cost. It is possible in a sophisticated society to control both the volume of credit and the direction in which it flows. We are not justified in asking for wage restraint unless we are prepared to do something about interest restraint as well. Is there not a whiff of decadence when in a great industrial society like our own we have big industrial companies making a profit, not by manufacturing the goods that they are supposed to make but by borrowing from one financial institution and lending to another—as the Financial Times delicately phrased it,
"taking advantage of the high rates available in the money markets to make a turn on funds borrowed on overdraft"?
It seems in fact that the increase in industrial borrowing, on which claims of
918
impending prosperity are based, is due, in part certainly to this so-called "arbitrage" borrowing by certain firms.
Pegging the wages of hospital workers will not help cut the cost of money. What would be much more effective would be a Government decision to stop printing the stuff. Their deficit budgeting to enable them to claim that they have cut taxation for their supporters is both politically wrong and economically stupid, if they really wish to curb inflation. If we wish to consider one example of what high interest rates and inflated land prices can do—without any help whatsoever from increased wages—I turn, not to the Morning Star, but to the Economist. They given an example of a young couple at Orpington. That young couple bought a maisonette in 1969 for £4,500. At 8½ per cent. the mortgage repayments were £6·57 a week gross. Under the £1 plus 4 per cent. provisions of this Code, that couple can expect a £2·50 pay increase. A quarter of that pay increase will be taken by the increased mortgage repayments and after the extra tax they are left with a £1·50 increase in wages under the Code that we are now considering. As the Economist puts it, a sizeable hole will be made in that increase by inflation, let alone the Government's own version of inflation, which we call V.A.T.
This arithmetic alone makes a mockery of the Government's talk of a 7 per cent. increase in the standard of living. But that is only part of the story. That is the interest part: we have yet to turn to the other part. The Economist tells us that the Orpington maisonette, if bought to-day, would be bought at three times its 1969 price. I am open to correction, but my rough calculation suggests that the repayment of a loan to buy that same maisonette to-day, at 9½ per cent., which is the subsidised interest rate of the mortgage, allowing for a down payment, would conic to something over £20 a week, from a similar young man's gross earnings of £35—aild this in a country which is supposed to be richer than it was in 1969! My Lords, no wonder the Young Conservatives say they are dissatisfied with the Government's housing policy! And those repayments, spread over twenty-five years, for extremely modest housing accommodation, are actually greater than the

919
wage that some four million workers are getting to-day.
That brings me to another anomaly—the difference between the lower-paid and the higher-paid workers. My Lords, one of the brave things which the late Les Cannon said before he died was that the inequality and lack of justice in the totality of wage distribution was due, as he put it in an article in the Sunday Times, to the absence of an incomes policy based on the ethics of trade unionism. My Lords, the key word there was "ethics '—ethics rather than the crude economic strength of some of the trade unions. But we cannot restrict ethics to one sector, and that a relatively narrow sector of the economic scene. Furthermore, there is another anomaly which must be removed—an anomaly which engulfs that unfair disparity between lower and higher paid jobs. It is the anomaly of the ownership of our total national wealth. The T.U.C. claimed in their Chequers' talks, as they report them, that it was highly relevant to those discussions that 10 per cent. of the population own 75 per cent. of the nation's wealth. I noticed that last week the Daily Mirror considered it worth while turning from their sick competition with the Sun's permissiveness to headline their own calculation that 7 per cent. of our taxpayers own 84 per cent. of Britain's wealth. Whatever is the precise figure, that is the order of it.
My Lords, nothing in this Phase 2 will, or is intended to, deal with that overriding fact of our national life. On the contrary, the Chancellor's fiscal policy has consolidated, and is designed to consolidate, this concentration of wealth ownership. Unless the Government do something to deal with this social distortion, Phase 3 will fail here as it is failing in the United States of America. The Government have so far relied far too much on the American example. I referred in our last debate to the much more useful Austrian experience in their pay and price policy. I have since had brought to my attention the nature of the dialogue in the Netherlands. There, the Dutch trade unions have insisted that the foundation of an effective voluntary prices and incomes policy must mean a broad social contract, and within that contract
920
they want to have listed such items as housing, pensions, smaller classrooms in infant and junior schools, reforms in the National Health Scheme and improved training facilities for younger workers. These are the stuff of what goes to make the quality of life and the standard of living. These things and the redistribution of wealth, especially unearned wealth, must be part of any kind of social contract that is going to work in this country. Given a contract of that kind, I believe the organised workers of this country would help give a lead to solving a problem which is baffling the Western World. But it also means that we have a Government which genuinely believe in a social contract of this kind.
3.46 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I proposed to address my remarks almost exclusively to the pay section of the Code, but I should like to say just two things about the price section. First, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for having led us through the maze of regulations and sophisticated twistings and turnings which are implied in the first part of this Code. I found them almost impossible to disentangle, and I am inclined to think that the Government would have done better if they had abandoned this enterprise altogether and had attempted to control inflation by suitably defined fiscal methods which would attack profits and pay in the same way. But that is an elaborate argument which I do not propose to pursue further at this stage. The other thing I would say as a result of my experience with trying to disentangle the price Code is this. I had an uneasy feeling after my efforts, and after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that possibly the late King Canute had had a hand in drafting this part of the Code.
My Lords, I turn to the pay Code. As the noble Lord has said, the Pay Board has both advisory and executive functions. Its executive functions, I think we ought to recognise, at least as I read the Act, are purely negative. It does not itself draft proposals for rates of wages and salaries; it does not itself impose decisions. It is precluded from doing that by one of the four general principles, which I shall come to in a moment. What it does is to say to the people who

921
normally settle these matters, "Get on with it, chaps. Bring it to us, and if it conforms to the Code we will O.K. it; if it does not, we will veto it and you will have to go away and think again". This seems to me a rather elaborate and restrictive form of activity. If the Board had had more constructive guiding principles, as I shall come to in a moment, then I should have thought it would have been much better that it should itself have wider powers to arrive at decisions. Of course, it can give advice on anything, and as we have been told it has already been asked to give advice about anomalies. At some stage, therefore, it will have to decide what an anomaly is and when an anomaly is not an anomaly. I shall come to that, too, in a moment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before the noble Baroness continues, may I just say that the Board can of course also give advice on the way in which a proposal put up to it can be brought within the terms of the Code.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Yes, my Lords, but then it may have to go back and a fresh agreement made on those lines, if acceptable.
My Lords, in this respect it is much less well served than its late lamented predecessor the Prices and Incomes Board. The Prices and Incomes Board also had a fixed "norm", as it was then called, to which it had to conform; but it was given power to make a number of exceptions. These exceptions were clearly defined and quite far-reaching. It was allowed to make exceptions for productivity bargains, very strictly construed. It was allowed to make exceptions if it was necessary to raise wages so as to improve distribution of labour and if this was likely to be an effective measure. It was allowed to make an exception if the wages were too low for a reasonable standard of living; and, finally, if they were out of line with pay for similar work—not with relativities generally. The Prices and Incomes Board was instructed at the beginning that it must pay very little attention to many of the traditional factors determining wage decisions. It was told to be quite highhanded about the distribution of labour, about the demand and supply of labour, about the cost of living and about relativities. Reference to the cost of living is very sur-
922
prising in view of the popularity to-day of threshold agreements. In fact the Board was very tough—both about the cost of living and about relativities. It tried not to be influenced by comparisons with other occupations and so to avoid the leapfrogging with which we are all familiar.
The Pay Board is in a different position. It has to see, first, that bargains made or proposed conform to the Code and fall within the limit which is set. Therefore, a great part of the Code is purely technical, saying what comes within the limit and what does not—things like holidays, pensions and promotion. This is all very necessary but it is small print. It is necessary because I think Mr. Clive Jenkins has been reported as saying that he alone knows at least twenty ways in which you can wriggle out of the provisions of the Code. Clearly the Board will be fully occupied in dealing with Mr. Clive Jenkins and his friends. Secondly, it must see, within the limits, that pay is fairly distributed—and I shall come back to the" fairly "—and thirdly, ensure that there is relative improvement for the lower paid. That should be reasonably clear so long as you know where low "ends and where" middle "begins; for it is not defined. Finally, it has not to do the job itself but to look at it as it is done by people who normally decide wage bargains.
What underlies all this is a myth. It is this myth that I want to attack. It is shared not only by the present Government but by a very wide range of those concerned with wage determination. It is the myth that what are frequently referred to as independent and impartial persons can make just decisions about wages in the absence of any specific principles merely by the introduction of that little word "fairly" in to the general principle of the Code. It is this myth which leads us sometimes to ask members of the Judiciary to try to settle wage disputes or to preside over tribunals concerned with the settlement of wage disputes, because learned Judges are by profession absolutely, impeccably impartial. There is another, quite irrelevant, reason for the employment of learned Judges in this capacity. That is, that they are mostly very clever men. Therefore, as witness the outstanding example of the work of the noble and learned Lord,

923
Lord Wilberforce, in settling the electricity supply dispute two years ago, they are sometimes clever enough to produce a solution which persuades everybody that he has won. But that is not relevant to producing a solution in accordance with fairness or with social justice.
The essential difference is—and I intend no disrespect, I need hardly say, to the impartiality of Her Majesty's Judges—that in a court of law they are applying the law. When a Judge finds two disputants and he has to decide between them whether one had done an injury to the other, he hears the evidence and considers whether what has been done is, in fact, an injury within the terms of the law. When hearing a criminal case, he instructs the jury what the law is, what is the, nature of the offence with which the accused has been charged and then he tries to guide them as to how the evidence bears on the question whether this offence was committed or not. He is applying a known law.
Where there is no known law an arbitrator or a pay board is asked to make decisions in a vacuum. You cannot be impartial in a vacuum. I know for I have tried it. I was for some years a member of the Civil Service Arbitration Board and in that capacity I never knew how to make a just decision because I did not know what the principles of justice were. I knew what I thought they were; but I did not know objectively what they were, or what principles I was supposed to uphold. What this means is that at the end where no positive guidance is given—and this is much of the substance of what my noble friend Lord Beswick was saying—it is unavoidable that the decision arrived at is a decision within the framework of what is the present structure, of what can be made acceptable or, to put it bluntly, of what the person making the decision thinks he can get away with—splitting the difference between the two sides, or trying to get something which will not create too much of a row.
This is not enough. Principles are what we lack and what we shall have to have if there is to be any eventual social policy about the distribution of pay. I ought to say here that I differ from some of my noble friends in that I take the view that it is quite right that
924
there should be some kind of control of the bargains that are arrived at between employers and employed, a control which must follow and implement the principles of social justice, which are clearly discussed and which are virtually part of our political faith. I find it a little surprising when a Party which has at least a Socialist heritage does not always find this acceptable. I have no doubt that we shall come to it in the end. But I would welcome the idea that the period of what I like to call "smash and grab" is over, and over for ever. It is necessary, I believe, to have some kind of statutory enforcement of this principle. It is not enough to say simply, "Go ahead and be fair"—in a vacuum.
What makes this more serious is that there is a very widespread belief among the population of this country that our existing structure is unfair. Recently National Opinion Polls have done a survey for an organisation known as the "Working Together Campaign" to find out what are the views of the British public about the fairness or the unfairness of the wage structure. This survey did not relate to the whole range of pay but virtually only to manual work occupations. It might have produced even more startling results if it had gone all the way up to the higher-paid occupations. This survey showed that 46 per cent. of the British public think that our wage structure is unfair and an additional 22 per cent. think it is very unfair. So you have two-thirds of those interviewed taking the view that the whole structure is unfair. As an illustration of this, when they were presented with particular occupations and asked to arrange them in order, they nearly all put the miners at the top—which is not the position that the miners occupy. Against this, only 17 per cent. thought that our structure was fair and only 2 per cent. thought it very fair. The missing margin of 13 per cent. were those who could not express an opinion.
This seems to me to make it absolutely imperative that, first, we have an effective incomes policy, an effective pay policy; secondly, that we have a pay policy based on principles that have been discussed, publicised, and, whether particular individuals agree with them or not, made the basis of our whole policy. At present an arbitrator may think in his

925
heart that the whole grade structure is grossly unfair, because on the whole, people who do the nice and interesting work get the high pay and the people who do the dirty or the dangerous work get the low pay. It is always upside down from what they used to say in the economic textbooks—but never mind that. Or equally, the arbitrator may think in his heart that it is unfair because creative work, whether in industry or the professions, is unrewarding. But those are subjective principles, and he cannot impose those principles. Members of the Pay Board may hold those views tucked away in their hearts, but they cannot impose them because it is not their business to impose their private opinions. But what is it their business to impose?
My Lords, what will happen will be that the Pay Board will be an entirely "small print" Board, and I think that a great deal hangs on it being a "large print" Board and having large principles. I was delighted when the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in a letter that he wrote to me after our debate on Report stage, agreed with me that the broad structure of our distribution is in fact a political question. I think we ought to have our political Party views clearly expressed as to the direction in which we want it to move, so that two-thirds of the people will no longer, as we hope, think that it is unfair. Indeed, I think that there is a great deal more at stake than questions of pay and policy. We all know from experience that ruthless capitalism can be made to work; it delivers the goods. Many of us think that frequently it delivers them to the wrong address, but nevertheless it has worked for quite a long time, in a sense. We do not yet know whether civilised capitalism can be made to work, and I think that in the next half-century we have to show that civilised capitalism can work, or we are going to see an alternative system, under which already about one-third of the world's population lives, win overall. So I would say that the degree of success with which we can show that we can control the excesses of our present system, that we can make it socially just and effective, is the degree that will determine the survival of the kind of economic system that we know. That is why this is something very much more important than pay policy or short-term anti-inflation. And, my
926
Lords, I would say that in this decision time is not on our side.
4.3 p.m.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, on April 5, when the Leader of the House came to us and read his Statement on mortgage payments, I asked that there should be an opportunity to debate the economic policies which the Government were pursuing. The reply given to me was that there could be discussions between what are euphemistically called "the usual channels" for such a debate to take place. My noble friend Lord Beswick intervened to say that the occasion when we debated the Statutory Instrument which is before us to-day would provide an opportunity for such a debate. I was not very satisfied with that, but when I recollected how wide the debate may range, I realised that there was nothing to prevent me from saying what I wanted to say, for which I thank your Lordships. I would enter just a word of protest. It seems to me that the arrangement for debates in this House, which rests exclusively with the usual channels, is the antithesis of democracy. It denies the right of each individual Member of this House—and here we are all equal—to play his equal part; in other words, some are more equal than others. I have been here only a short time and the customs of your Lordships' House go back way down the centuries. But if I were a House of Lords reformer, one of the things that I should look at is the relationship that exists between the two Front Benches. I say that not only in a general sense but also for a particular reason.
My Lords, I listened to-day to my noble friend Lord Shinwell ask his Question about the exercise of the suffrage by your Lordships, and last week I had an experience which I hope was shared by many in your Lordships' House. I took a very active part in the local government elections, with—if I may say so from the point of view of the part I played—wholly satisfactory results. I did not vote once last Thursday; I voted twice, as I am entitled to do. I have a local government vote in three places, because of my home in Stoke and because on the appropriate dates I happened to have two homes in London. I mention that only to emphasise the fact that I did vote. What I value so much is the experience

927
I had when going round talking to people. From all sides I heard the comment, "There is no difference between them"—meaning no difference between either political Party. Of course, the electors were not in your Lordships' Chamber on April 5—I was. I heard the Statement which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, made from the Government Front Bench and there was no difference between that Statement and statements which have been made from the Opposition Front Bench. With perhaps a change of a word here and there, and a little change of emphasis in places it could equally well have been made from the Opposition Front Bench. Indeed, my Lords, I would say that in the Answer which he gave to my noble friend Lord Shinwell to-day, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was more "anti" the nonsense that he had to talk, and which had been put in the brief which he had in his hand, than the spokesman from the Opposition Bench.
The basic fact is that this political truth has penetrated into the thinking of the electorate of this country. They have decided that "There ain't all that difference" between the two Parties. There is, in fact, a feeling that if the Labour Party were now the Labour Government, and if they were faced with this situation, they would produce something like these measures. I believe they would. Of course, there is the difference that the Labour. Party's policy which preceded the situation would have been different, and maybe the necessity for such measures would not have arisen, but basically the difference between the two Parties is perhaps the difference between nineteen and eleven pence three-farthings and one pound—it is not much greater than that. As to the great difference that does divide them, on the question of food subsidies, let me say frankly that while, for reasons which I will explain in a moment, I do not accept some of the statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, it is the fact that, given the rest of the Government's policy, to start to subsidise food on the grand scale would be a load of nonsense. On the other hand, my Lords, if you reject the Government's strategy as I reject it in toto—and here of course is the difference between me and so many of those whose
928
political philosophy I share; they accept the strategy and I do not—
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as it happened, I had the privilege of speaking for my Party to-day. Is my noble friend Lord Wigg really saying that there was no difference between the strategy that I tried to indicate and that of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who spoke before me?
LORD WIGG: My Lords, it must be either that I do not make myself plain or that my noble friend does not understand, because I was very careful to point out that I was not talking about the statements made to-day but the statements which were made on April 5.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, when the noble Lord spoke he pointed his finger at me.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I am sorry. In fact I was pointing at an invisible man—the person who was sitting on the Opposition Front Bench on April 5 but who is not there to-clay. I am not going to say to my noble friend, "if the cap fits, wear it" or enter into a dialogue. I was talking about the attitude taken on April 5. Now, my Lords, I will take a jump forward and ask what was the weakness of the Government's case on April 5, a weakness which was not driven home and which it was the bounden duty of the spokesman from the Opposition Front Bench to drive home. The Government's policy is based upon the fact that there will be no special cases so far as any of the trade unions in dispute are concerned; certainly no special case so far as the hospital workers are concerned. But just as soon as it became necessary, for wholly political reasons—that is, because of the thought that it might influence the local government elections—what happened? The Government made a special case of the mortgage-holders. It is driving a hole right through our democratic beliefs and it is against this that I protest. I am not afraid of the situation to-day. What I am afraid of is the situation as it is going to develop. For I think that every time the noble Lord who spoke to-day speaks, he gives an indication that he is on a slippery slope; he is a long way from the bottom and he has not realised the rapidity with which he is approaching it.

929
My Lords, I should now like to come to the central point of what I want to say and the reason why I am on my feet. First of all, the Government are the prisoners of their own strategy; and they cannot help it. They are shackled to the policy of going into the Common Market. The consequences which flow from that decision are shared by noble Lords on this side of the House as well as noble Lords on the other side; right across the board there is responsibility for that. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be unfair to wrap round the Government's neck the consequences of rising prices, in so far as those prices are beyond their control, although, let me say in passing—and I shall go on saying it—that such a noble thought never penetrated their minds at the time of Korea, nor at any time from Korea down to the present day. A Labour Government could plead in aid that there was a world rise in prices; a Labour Government could quite fairly claim that the terms of trade had turned against them. But say that in the House of Commons, or say it to a Conservative audience, and the laughter will come back at you in waves.
It is said over and over again, and it is true, that there are forces at work in the world to-day over which the Government have no control. They had no control yesterday; they have no control to-day; and they will have no control tomorrow. Yet this Government, at this moment, in the face of that knowledge—and by making the statements the Minister makes he is telling the whole world that he is conscious of the truth of what I am saying—chose to abandon this country's historic policy of a true cheap food policy. One of the critics of it was my noble friend Lord Rhodes. He has pointed out time and time again that the country has yet to meet the consequences of a deliberate reversal of policy at the worst possible moment of time from the point of view of this country.
My position here is quite simple. I was never opposed to the Common Market in principle: that is to say, any wider unity which would cut down the bounds of disagreement and make men live in harmony has my wholehearted support. I supported our going into Korea for just that reason; I supported the League of Nations before the last
930
war for just that reason; and I support the Common Market, in principle, for just that reason. But in addition to being a Socialist, I am a democrat, and to drive this country into the Common Market, corn pletely disregarding the consequences which would inevitably follow, is a negation of democracy itself. This is the most dangerous factor, and the basic factor, which is moving against the Governments policy, and no Prime Minister for the next fifty years (and none has in the last one hundred years) will get anywhere with any policy he tries to push through unless he can feel that he has behind him the wholehearted support of the majority of his fellow countrymen.
This Government were divisive from the day they were elected. They are divisive to-day. My noble friend Lord Beswick quite rightly talked about land prices. He says that at the next Election it is land prices that will matter. I agree with him. But it can be put right just like that: just withdraw the concession of 40 per cent. estate duty on agricultural land. That will make a considerable difference in the terms of the price of land. The next thing is that, whenever planning permission is given in regard to agricultural land, the Government should take the difference. Why in the name of heaven should land priced at £500 an acre suddenly, by a stroke of the pen, become worth £50,000 an acre, and the £45,000 go into the hands of a private individual? If the Government really want to put it right (of course, there would not be any Tory Party left if they tried to do this) they can do it.
My Lords, the one thing that is going to strangle us on this financial issue—and it comes from all Parties—is this lip service to growth. "Growth" is the magic word. By the time we get to the third phase, in the autumn, we are all going to live happily ever after, because we are going to get growth. The T.U.C. want growth, and every speculator in the City of London wants growth. But the truth here is that man has come up against the will of God. The possibility of growth to infinity is absolute nonsense. What is wrong in the United States in the present climate? Although President Nixon received 6⅔ per cent. of the vote, he is up against the physical factor that there is a shortage of water

931
and a shortage of fuel in the United States; there is also a shortage of N.C.O.s and warrant officers in industry: and there is nothing that he can do about it. The United States cannot expand any more. So what is to happen to that vast accumulation of wealth, which is not distributed in the poverty stricken areas of the United States? They cannot consume it, because it will choke them. It will bring Wall Street down flat on its back. So what are they trying to do? They are trying to export it. The great battle about the dollar, and the reason why there can be no settlement on the floating of currency, is because Mr. Nixon, the President of the most powerful economic nation on earth, has determined, at whatever cost, that they are going to export for investment purposes the surplus wealth of the United States.
So, whether we like it or not, we are serfs, unless the British people are brought face to face with the realities of the situation and revert to their historic policies until something better emerges; and at the same time recognise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, said, that common sense demands that we should have a wages policy. Of course we ought to have a wages policy. But what is a wages policy? It is one that suits the economic policy of the Government, and is imposed upon those who otherwise would not accept it but would have recourse to the use of the strike weapon.
Noble Lords have a very good example of what a wages policy is like in the Armed Forces. By common agreement, no one ever discusses the pay increases and rates of pay in the Armed Forces. There is how it works. It is imposed by an arbitrary decision, taken outside, presumably by Law Lords or by gentlemen whose integrity and intelligence are as great as that of the Law Lords. So, of our Defence bill, 76 per cent. goes on pay. So much is given for pay that we cannot afford to buy weapons with which to arm the troops.
This is a wages policy applied in a free society by men of the highest degree of intelligence. The truth is that the question of a wage policy is not a question for Law Lords or for economists. The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, is again right: it is a purely political question, in a society which is partly weighted—51 per cent.
932
weighted, if you like—to the pricing system. Mr. Enoch Powell is right. You are either going to have a pricing system or you are not: and if you are going to have a pricing system, then you have to go in for economic planning. In other words—and probably this is what the Left in the Labour Party have to learn—there is no half-way house between a pricing system and a planning system, one has to be the top dog. The longer I live the more convinced I become, examining in my spare time the thinkings and writings of the late Aneurin Bevan—and it is sometimes a difficult task—that that man, now long departed, had the truth in him. In a free society in which democracy and socialism are dominant, first because it is the right of free men and, secondly, because those free men want to live as full a life as possible, that society must command what Aneurin Bevan called the commanding heights of the economy. Unless that is done we shall land ourselves in the nonsense which is enshrined in this Paper. There is no alternative to it.
The Minister need spend no time in replying to me; his task is merely to say, "There is the Paper; that is the best we can do in all the circumstances. We are where we are; we did not mean to get here" If ever a Government were elected on the negation of that idea it is the present Administration. They say, "Events have been too strong. We did not want to interfere with wages, we did not want to control prices; but events have proved so strong that we have had to produce this." This is not the last document of this kind that is going to be produced; this is merely the April instalment. I conclude with the same words as I used on April 5: it would have been appropriate in all the circumstances if this document had been produced on April 1.
4.22 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I could not hear everything that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, said because when he was lecturing his Front Bench on economics his voice was directed away from the microphones. I apologise if I cannot follow him in great detail. I do not disagree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Beswiek, said, but I should like to take up one or two points he made. First of all, it is not very profitable for those of us who live in glass houses to throw

933
stones about the respective support of our Back Benches from time to time. I have often noticed that not a single one of the 100 Labour Back-Benchers opposite has supported their Front Bench. Secondly, I know that my right honourable Leader in the Commons, the Prime Minister, makes rather provocative speeches at times. I do not think anybody can call him to task when they consider that the speeches were generally made at the expense of a master of invective. The Leader of the Opposition has been a master of invective for years and years. When somebody retaliates in his own kind I do not think one should object.
I thought that the old canard about the small proportion of people owning the vast proportion of wealth would come out in this debate. That figure I believe to be entirely and utterly false. It takes no account whatsoever of the immense wealth owned by the policy holders in the life funds in this country; the immense wealth owned by the pension funds, the property of the would-be pensioners, and it never makes any allowance for the fact that the National Insurance pensioners, in the expectation of a pension rising over the years and with their normal expectation of life, own many thousands of millions of pounds worth of capital.
I think the figures given were probably worked out from the tables of the Inland Revenue which ignore most of those factors. I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has said. I do not think anybody can be happy with Stages 1, 2 and 3, but they are inevitable after the events of the past few years when the power of the unions to enforce wage and salary settlements far beyond what would be financed by internal economies is exercised to the full. This has made free collective bargaining a one-sided affair. The miners' strike in particular, with its mass picketing of power stations by large numbers of miners, supported by Left Wing hooligan students from the universities, was a signal that enough was enough—the kissing had to stop, before we drifted into what seemed inevitable at one time, a dictatorship of the Right and Left. Many people at home and abroad thought that that was inevitably our fate. We have avoided that, but at a price. We have surrendered quite a bit of our liberty.
934
In return, the Government have undertaken to do their utmost to hold down those prices over which they have influence, to moderate those where they have not, and by putting a legal limit on pay rises for the moment to stop wages, salaries and dividends and costs rising too fast in this country.
Meanwhile, the pound has been devalued and its value has fallen compared with the currency of many countries in which we spend money. This is going to provide nasty shocks to people who take their holidays abroad. They may find that package holidays will not have gone up very much; but you may be sure that the tour operators have screwed the hotel people down so hard that people will find that the extras have become prohibitive. One can only hope that when the strikers, particularly in the car industry—and I am sure they will all be on the Costa Brava during the course of the year—who have done so much to depreciate the pound reach their destinations abroad they will begin to absorb some of the facts of life.
The details of Phase 2 are rather unsatisfactory for everyone, whether employers or employed. But in this enormously difficult field it is impossible to do more than try to get some form of rough justice. Personally, I believe that has happened. Any business with which I am connected looks at it with rather a wry face and says, "I suppose we can work this", and that is about the best that you can hope.
It is unfortunate that the ceiling on earnings should come at a time when world factors are making our food and many of our raw materials so much more expensive. The partial failure of the Russian harvest and severe droughts in other parts of the world have altered the food situation in the world drastically and suddenly. There is no doubt that the new outlook in Japan is having a great effect on raw material prices. Food for the moment has ceased to be plentiful and British people, spoilt by generations of living on other people's dumped surpluses, are having a nasty shock. For the first time for a century we are paying the cost price of producing the food under European conditions instead of living off food at a price capable of being produced only by the best farmers and land. Surely in the long run this is a good thing. People—particularly Left Wing

935
people—talk a lot about the hungry world, under-developed countries, the Third World and so on. But why should Britain and Europe, the rich countries, hog all the cheap food? That is what we have been doing. The present policy is producing more food in Europe than has ever been produced before—by "Europe" I include this country. Anybody who studies the German situation during the last war realises that in spite of the loss of East Germany to the Iron Curtain countries there is more food being produced in the confines of Europe and Britain than ever before. Surely, that is for the good of the world in general if indeed there is a hungry world.
Japan is producing high-class goods at lower prices than European and is paying near-European wages. Our markets here and abroad are being eroded. This has happened before. My wife always tells me that when I first met her, on July 13, 1934–13 is my lucky number, incidentally—my sole topic of conversation was the menace of Japan, and now in 1973 I revert to precisely the same topic. The Japanese have suddenly changed their whole attitude. They have acquired immense overseas balances through successful trading and have suddenly decided to spend this money on buying up the raw materials of the world and improving the standard of living of their people. That means that not only are we losing our markets to their products but we are being outbid for our raw materials. Thank goodness we are in the European Community so that we have got people who can stand together with us to face up to this new menace!
We must remember that, though to-day Japan may be the trading menace, the whole of East Asia is coming up. It may be other countries to-morrow. The whole of that part of the world is increasing in industrialisation and in skill and capital is being accumulated at a fast pace and sooner or later there will be the demand for a higher standard of living and that will cut into our raw material supplies. Phase 3 will be difficult. A cynic said to me the other day, "Phases 1 and 2 generally work after a fashion, but with Phase 3 the exercise collapses". Let us hope that this will not happen, but if the unions try to wreck it with wholesale pay rises it will put up export
936
prices and we shall be back at square one.
So it is very important to secure the co-operation of the unions, based on their full comprehension of the urgency and the necessities of the present situation. When people invoke the co-operation of the unions the word "fair" always comes in. The word "fair" is only in the eyes of the speaker, or the beholder. Everybody thinks what he does is fair, but we do not always think that whatever anybody else does is fair. It is quite impossible if a near Communist union leader is expecting something which he can call "fair" from a capitalist Government. The thing just will not work; there must be "give". In return I would be prepared to make certain concessions. One or two have been mentioned in this debate already. Personally I would put a price control on certain foodstuffs where I had a fairly good idea that I could control the price. I believe that could be done on bacon, potatoes, milk and possibly on imported lamb, and cheese. I should tell the British people, "You wanted your prices controlled and I have done it. If the stuff disappears out of the shops because nobody sends it here, that is too bad".
I also agree that the problem of land has become a running sore and a scandal. I do not know how many millionaires have been created within three or four miles of me within the last six months. I believe the best way for a Conservative Government to tackle this is, first, to limit the amount of interest which may be charged against tax, and then what I think they technically call the "roll over" is thoroughly unjustified where a farmer sells perhaps 30 acres for £1 million and if he buys a thousand or so acres of much better farming country somewhere else he need not pay any capital gains tax if he does it within a year. That is recognised in the trade as being an anomaly which should go. The other one is the death-bed purchase of agricultural land. That of course is one of the most ridiculous things and it should not be supported by any serious Conservative. I could tell a very good story about that but I will not do so. I agree that a gesture is required and I think the gesture is worth making. At any rate, the things which I have listed

937
here in my opinion would not affront any broadminded Conservative.
4.37 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, despite the clear exposition given by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, of the Price and Pay Code, for which I was grateful to him, it is difficult for a non-economist like myself to work out the details of the percentage figures of price increases in pence and pounds. While the noble Lord was speaking I was trying to work out the percentage increase in the price of the modest honey that I have for breakfast, which in the last three weeks has risen from 25p per lb. to 17p per ½ lb. Perhaps someone would tell me the percentage increase.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, it would help us more if we knew where it came from. Is it Mexican, Nicaraguan, New Zealand, Australian or English?
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I had better not advertise it; I do not think that would be allowed in this House. It was an English firm; I think that covers it.
During the last decade the word "inflation" has been repeated throughout Britain and the affluent countries like a drum beat. Following some of the high-powered speeches that have already been made to-day, and noting some of the names on the list, and especially the expert and high-powered speech of my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, I am afraid my comments will not add up to more than a resounding tinkle. The experience of the past 25 years has convinced most people that some form of national incomes policy to regulate our economy in a fair and just way is inescapable. Paternalistic management, as in the 19th century, becomes less and less effective as organisations become larger and larger and more complex. Under the last Labour Government Mr. George Brown (as he then was) showed brilliant foresight in setting up the Prices and Incomes Board under the leadership of Mr. Aubrey Jones, thus making it a non-partisan body. It was not powerful enough, but it was a beginning and a foundation from which any Government could learn about the problems and difficulties of the elusive growing inflation. The Prime Minister, Mr. Heath, on taking office chose to scuttle it. Now
938
this Government have been forced to resort to a Price Commission and Pay Board, preferring the American name—I do not quite know why—as though the Labour Government's Prices and Incomes Board was an untouchable name.
There is, of course, little gratitude in politics, and neither the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, nor those of Mr. Aubrey Jones have been properly acknowledged. It was Mr. Reginald Maudling in a piece in The Times newspaper who pointed out Mr. Aubrey Jones' unique experience of the practical work of a prices and incomes policy. His book The New Inflation was published only last Friday and I feel that the Government could have profited very much from it if it had been published, say, a year ago. I have not had time to read it entirely or to digest it, but the clear prose reflects clear thinking and the wisdom that comes from practical experience.
I wonder why the Government think that a rule must have no exceptions when they make one, as in the case of the ancillary hospital workers. I doubt whether the whole edifice of the Government's counter-inflation proposals would have been endangered if the Government had made an exception of this case. I believe that public sympathy would have endorsed this move, and if other trade unions had taken the exception of such low-paid workers as a chance to press their own claims they would have been condemned by the public. I am afraid that the hard line taken on the very low-paid workers will sow the seeds of much bitterness in the future and will not help labour relations. Nor do I think that to subsidise a few essential foods—not foodstuffs—would be impossible for a Government who are adept, as we all know, at switching their policies when circumstances warrant. This Government, after all, are nothing if not versatile and they could have done something about the E.E.C. butter mountain. Or do the Government think that advertising has brainwashed the British public and that now they cannot tell Stork from butter? If I have any lingering anxieties and wavering confidence in the Government's Price and Pay Code it is because the Conservative Government's philosophy has large remnants of authoritarianism, inflexibility and paternalism, as shown

939
by their monster of an Industrial Relations Act, and they are still allergic to the quest for fairness and equality that is, after all, uppermost and prevalent throughout the world to-day.
4.43 p.m.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for his clear exposition and the charming way in which he put over the arguments in support of the Code and the Act. Having said that, I wonder how much care the Government really have for the lower paid man? Those of your Lordships who will remember the debate on the Bill will remember that I suggested that the lower paid men—say up to £20 a week—should not have their wages frozen but should have a threshold agreement applied to them so that they would not suffer from increasing prices to the extent that they have suffered. The Government paid no attention to that, and if they are going to have the regard for the lower paid men which they say they have, then that is one of the things they could have done, and done comfortably, without it costing a lot; and it would have been something that would have given a sense of justice to the Bill itself.
There is another way, which some countries have adopted, of dealing with lower paid men; that is, to have a minimum wage operating in all industries. Will somebody tell me why there should not be a minimum wage on which a man is expected to live, something on which you base all your calculations? If you are going to put that at such a low level that a man cannot live—as some countries have done—you give away the principle that you are working for. I hope that if the Government are going to insist that they are concerned for the lower paid man to the extent that they aver, they will do something practical about it instead of asking the trade unions to do so.
I was interested in the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. He said that on some issues there was no difference between the two sides of the House. I never had the advantage, or disadvantage, of sitting in the other place, and always when I listen to debates in Parliament about industrial relations I am aghast at the fact that the Opposition
940
must oppose. The first man I heard declare that as a fact was Winston Churchill. I wonder whether we will get industrial peace if the Opposition oppose? If they do not oppose how can Parliamentary procedure carry on? That is one of the problems I am trying to solve in my mind, and for this reason: I refused to go into the political field as a young man and kept in the industrial field. That does not mean that I was not concerned with politics. I sat on the Executive Committee of my own Party but I would not go into Parliament; I put in most of my time in the industrial field. If the trade unions and the employers had pursued a policy of opposition during my lifetime then our industry would be in a very parlous state to-day. It is no good making demands for high wages if the well from which you want to draw the water runs dry. You have to see that there is water in the well before you start to share it out. I spent, many hours thinking about how to solve this particular problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, mentioned Japan. Japan has had an increase in productivity of something like 30 per cent. a year for six years.
LORD RHODES: No!
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: Oh yes! My noble friend doubts that figure. In the Financial Times—I think of to-day—the figures are published, that in six years they have had 200 per cent. growth in productivity. That paper is not usually very wrong on these things.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, the noble Lord is getting mixed up. He is quoting yearly figures whereas the Financial Times is quoting exponential figures. It is a fact, is it not, that if you get interest at 10 per cent. you can double your capital in seven years? That is a different proposition from saying that it is 30 per cent. a year.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: In six years it is 210 per cent. Shall we leave the mathematics to one side?
LORD RHODES: All right.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: The noble Lord says that it is compound. So it is; but you can work the figures out and argue quite sensibly that it is 30 per cent.—as a matter of fact it is 35 per cent. if you work it out on the basis on which I wanted to work it out.

941
In any case, it is extremely high. It also said that in Japan—and I know something about this because we organised the unions in Japan when I was with the International Metalworkers Federation—they have rights of seniority, inherent right up to the directors' board and even to the chairman; and, what some of us would perhaps think quite a good thing, men do not get sacked from the directors' board because they get old, they are kept on in those positions. It is so arranged that the young men do the work. The old men still get their money and the young men do some of the work for the money. But they all get quite a good sum of money.
I am not raising this point to be jocular; I am raising it to show what can be done if there is absolute collaboration between the worker in the workshop and the directors, management and all concerned. One can achieve an astronomical growth, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, said about the problems of growth in America. It is quite true that one could argue that they are not applying the growth properly, that they do not have regard to environmental and other problems. But the growth can be got in industry given a particular atmosphere, though I am not saying that it is the right one. I am looking at what is going to happen when we come to the third phase. In March the price of basic materials went up by 3 per cent., and in six months the price of basic industrial wholesale materials went up by 20 per cent. There is no sign that these imported raw materials are going to decrease in price over the next six or twelve months. If these basic raw material prices are going to rise—and we have to import them—I am wondering how the Government are going to get through Phase 3, when it comes to that, and achieve what they say they want to achieve, control of inflation and the necessary growth. Nothing has been said about how that particular problem is going to be dealt with.
If it is going to be dealt with, I am quite sure there will have to be a good deal more co-operation between the unions and the employers and the Government. In a previous debate, and indeed when this particular subject was being discussed, I asked that this subject should be referred to the National Econ
942
omic Development Council, because that was the only body this Government had left which could discuss matters of this character. Instead of that they set up the Pay Board and the Price Commission and transferred some of the personnel. I cannot see how these particular problems are going to be debated and solved between the three parties who matter, the Government, industry and the trade unions, in time to do anything about Phase 3. Where you go from there is very difficult to know. To take investment alone, the extra cost of a 1 per cent. increase in the bank rate means, on £100 million of investment, £1 million extra to be paid in interest charges. That £1 million extra represents 33,000 jobs at £30 a week. When you are talking to workers about wage control they are going to say, "How do we fit in here, when interest rates have gone up in the way they have?" They have gone up 5 per cent. in these last few years, which is the equivalent of 150.000 jobs cost-wise. These are questions that are going to be asked by the trade unions, and no opportunity has really been given for them to be asked.
There is a difference between this country and, say, America or Germany or countries of that character, where they have industrial trade unionism. Where there is one union attached to one industry, then there is a sense of responsibility inculcated in that union, because, whether it likes it or not, the whole of its sustenance comes from that particular industry. Where there is multi-unionism in one industry, as we have in this country, that sense of responsibility is not nearly so acute. A small number of men can go on strike in one industry and stop the whole industry, without any particular cost to the union and without any great responsibility for the industry concerned.
We must examine this pretty closely, because one of the leaders of one of our biggest trade unions in this country said on Saturday that 95 per cent. of the people in this country do not strike. If that is true, it means that 5 per cent. are responsible for all the days lost by strikes in this country. If 5 per cent. of our people are having this effect on the 95 per cent.. it is really a problem for the T.U.C. rather than a problem for the Government, but it is something that I think

943
should be examined. I often wonder why a Communist can get elected a trade union delegate fairly frequently and can never get elected to a local authority or the national Parliament. It is one of the things we have to examine. The reason is fairly simple. In a branch room you get a handful of members attending, you get a technique of debate which wearies those who want to discuss things sensibly, and very often at the end of the day you get a Marxist, a man who wants to destroy the system, elected. That happens all too often. It can be argued, of course, that we have a lot of good shop stewards in the country. We have 95 per cent. apparently. But 5 per cent. can cause this particular trouble.
When the miners had their trouble quite recently, they were sensible enough to refer it to a ballot—and, incidentally, they are an industrial union, just as the unions in America are, and they have a sense of responsibility to the industry they represent. The miners took a ballot and decided not to strike. I am not concerned with the merits, for or against; the miners themselves decided that. The point I am trying to make is that 80 per cent. of the miners made the decision as to what they wanted to do for that particular industry. I am convinced that we must have some other method of election of trade union officials in this country, and of negotiations. I think employers can help a great deal. It may be a long-term programme, but I think it can be made short-term.
You cannot get members to branch meetings to-day because most of them live miles away from the place in which they work and they get on the bus or the train and go home—and nobody can blame them for that. You cannot get them together for branch meetings. I suggest that employers have a contribution to make here. They could provide facilities for the trade unions to have their branch meetings on the job; they could even give time off to the men to have these branch meetings. I have not thought it out completely, but if they had the meeting half an hour before one shift went off, and other shift coming on started work half an hour later, this would be practicable, and the opportunity could be given for men to get together to understand what the argument was
944
about. If you give them an opportunity to understand what the argument is about, you give them an opportunity to make a decision as to what the result should be. The result will probably be, as my noble friend Lord Beswick has said, that in regard to this incomes policy there is so much inconsistency that the Government will have to change it. Maybe that will come about at the end of the day, because when you come to Phase 3 I can see that you will be running into great difficulties.
Another factor which exists at the present time is related to housing prolems. This is the "lump" system in the building industry. The "lump" system means that the man is self-employed; he is not responsible to anybody but himself. He employs no apprentices. He moves around the job. The consequence of not employing apprentices is that there is a shortage of that particular class of craftsman in that particular industry, and as the shortage of craftsmen grows so does the inhibition on building grow with it. Unless craftsmen are trained to follow the craftsmen dying out, there will be no industry left so far as building is concerned. Moreover, these men are moving about from one site to another, completely at will, without any responsibility.
I am not the person who is making these complaints; it is the builders' trade union, U.B.A.T., which is making the complaints about this. So bad has it become that a Private Member's Bill is being put to the other place and is going to be discussed to make this lumping illegal and to say that contractors must be registered and when they are registered they must conduct the business in a civilised manner. Here there are, from our side, trade unions asking for a civilised approach to their particular problems. As I have said in debates in this House before, unless there is complete organisation inside a trade union there cannot be discipline inside that trade union. It must be self-imposed discipline. You must have the membership in the union, and the union, answerable for the people in that industry, if they are to talk to anybody. There is such a state of anarchy now in that industry that a Private Member's Bill, coming from this side of the House, is asking the Government to deal with this matter. This is a

945
unique opportunity for the Government to get behind that Private Member's Bill and see to it that it does not suffer the fate of so many other Private Member's Bills.
I have not read the Bill. It may need amendment, but the intention is to have discipline inside the industry, because the union has lost control, and when the union has lost control the employers have lost control. There is a grand opportunity here for the Government and the Opposition to get behind the Bill and say, "We are supporting this Bill and we are going to have discipline in that industry". From that small seed I think we can have a growth of sensible trade unionism in this country where the Government accept the need for trade unions to be well organised, if they are to be answerable for the arguments they have put up, and the unions themselves accept the responsibility which is imperative if this country is to get the growth that we need to overcome the problems that will arise in Phase 3. My Lords, I should like to say a lot more, but there is a long Order Paper to-day. I therefore want to end on a point that needs thinking about. We now have trade unions asking, through a Private Member's Bill, for discipline to be established inside their industry. We are asking for the support of everybody concerned, and I think we are making a bigger step towards getting a successful approach to Phase 3 than we could in any other way.
5.2 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the fact that I am speaking on this side of the House to follow my noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland shows the complete spectrum which is represented inside our Party. I found it fascinating to listen to him—I am sure everyone did—because my noble friend is one whose understanding of the trade union movement is very deep and profound. I cannot say that I would always agree with him, but he would not expect me to. Nevertheless, in this matter of how we deal with prices and incomes and with the whole range of relationships involved, we must pay attention to the way in which people react, because it is people that matter in all this. We are concerned with trying to get an economic system to work effectively. I personally do not
946
believe that the present economic system can or will work. Nevertheless, I want to try to see whether it is possible to make the present economic system work. I am quite sure that it cannot work at all unless there is some attempt at justice, at fairness. Unless we have that, there is no possibility of the economic system working. It will not be because there are certain ill-disposed people who are trying to upset it; it will be because people as a whole react against it and are not prepared to tolerate injustice.
I believe that any Government must face the fact that in any policy they put forward they are seeking national ends, people's ends and not the ends of a small section. We have to remember, my Lords, when we talk about incomes, about pay, that more than 90 per cent. of the people of this country are employees—only about 5 per cent. are in the position of being employers. In other words, by far the greater majority of us are paid people, paid in order to do jobs, and therefore the question of our pay and of our conditions of work determines the way in which we, the people, are able to conduct our lives. It is no good any Government imagining that they can impose on 90 per cent. of the people a way of life that the people do not want. So we have to pay attention to the way in which people want to live; the way they expect their relationships to be conducted.
This Order, the Counter-Inflation (Price and Pay Code) Order, is one by which the Government are attempting to deal with an inflationary situation. The Government have realised that their early idea that a prices and incomes policy was not necessary is not true; they now begin to realise that something has to be done. The idea that such a policy was not needed goes back a long time. I looked up the debate on the Queen's Speech in your Lordships' House in November, 1965, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who was then the Leader on the Government side, quoted from the Economist of the day. The Economist wrote:
"Certainly Labour now looks a better bet as the Party which might some day bring an incomes policy to fruition than the Conservatives, because the Conservatives are at present in the unfortunate process of running away from any determination to implement an incomes policy at all."
That was in 1965. They have continued to run away from the idea of operating

947
a policy. They scrapped the Prices and Incomes Board; they ran away from a policy until they found that economics caught up with them. They found that inflation became so serious that they had to do something about it. And so we have this Order which is before us. I do not think anyone on this side of the House will oppose this Order—we may oppose it in detail but not the general idea that there should be such an Order.
But, my Lords, when we look at this Order we still find, as my noble friend Lord Bcswick said, that there is no positive policy in the Code at all. In fact right at the start, on page 2, we see:
"1. The Code has a dual function. First, the Price Commission and Pay Board are required to exercise their powers so as to ensure that it is implemented. Secondly, all those concerned with the determination of prices and pay should have regard to it."
That is exactly the sort of instruction that is issued to a referee before he goes to referee a football game, and it is the same sort of instruction that is given to the players. In other words, the Price Commission and Pay Board are to be decent, fair referees and the players are told, "Behave decently and play the game". As has already been pointed out by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, fairness is not really so easily decided and fairness in vacuo is impossible.
Speaking of referees, there is a story of a Welsh referee in charge of a game in South Wales between two teams who knew one another only too well. There was a good deal of rough play going on and the referee saw a particularly vicious blow swung at a forward who was laid flat on his back. He went up to the forward and he said, "Dai Evans, if I see you knocked down again I will send you off the field". My Lords, that is the fairness of the man who understands the game and who knew exactly what had happened beforehand, but it is fairness that can be exercised only if you are actually involved. You cannot exercise that fairness if you are miles away or you have never played the game before and you do not understand the way in which people play it. So that this Code is, at best, something which is interim. It is of course stated to be interim, although we find that whereas the initiation date is put down the close of play is not indicated.
948
But although it is interim it sets a pattern, and either this Government intend to go on with the idea of a prices and incomes policy or they do not. If they intend to go on with it. then I suggest that they ought to start in the correct way. They may have to modify it, but they ought to start with the idea that they will do something which will improve relationships within industry in this country; in other words, they ought to be setting the foundations of something that is to be carried on. I have a nasty suspicion that if only they can stop inflation they will forget all about a prices and incomes policy. If they do it will be disastrous, because inflation is not something which arises now and again when we happen to have a particularly unfortunate economic situation. It is part of the whole warp and weft of our life; it is part of the way in which we are living. Unless we can come to some sensible agreement, we shall not have a happy society; and it is the happiness of our society which, basically, matters to us all. Without that, all our tricks, every devious expedient that we take, will be of no value to us at all.
I have been looking at this little book, The Earnings Conflict, which my noble friend Lord Brown recently brought out. It is a very interesting and fascinating book. How far one agrees altogether with it is another matter, because he puts forward all sorts of suggestions, many of them quite controversial. But he makes one or two points which we should bear in mind. He gives a quotation from Professor Roberts of the London School of Economics:
"The only condition under which unrestrained collective bargaining can flourish without causing damaging conflict and inflation is massive unemployment."
That, I believe, is now true. That does not mean that collective bargaining is dead. What he says is "unrestrained collective bargaining". But we must have collective bargaining which works within certain guiding principles, and it must be understood that it is for the benefit both of the people inside an industry and of the country as a whole. Another point which he makes is:
"We live in circumstances to-day where the material standards of living are rising, while the psychological and sociological standards are falling."

949
That is surely the recipe for collapse in a country, and we must be prepared to take it in hand, stop it and work properly.
The Government can rest assured—and I speak as someone who is rather far on the Left—that if they want to do this job in a clear, honest and decent way which, first of all, realiy guarantees that what my noble friend Lord Douglass referred to as the poverty part of our community is wiped out, and that we have a lower limit below which people cannot fall; and which, secondly, guarantees that the rest are able to find hope for themselves and steady progress, they will get a great deal of welcome and support. I should like to believe that they may rise to the occasion. I have not yet seen evidence of it.
5.15 p.m.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, by accident, I happen to be the last speaker on this side of the House, because my noble friend Lord Peddie cannot come. I make no claim to wind up or anything like that, but I should like to make some comments on what has been said on both sides of the House, despite the fact that so little has been said on the other side. Perhaps I take a different view from some, because I believe that this question of prices, the acquisition of raw materials and the development of the so-called growth throughout the world has sparked-off something which will never stop. It will keep going on and on until there is a change in the social system. Whether it is revolution against pollution, against the difference between rich and poor, or whatever it is, something has been started off and it is up to everybody to guide it along the right lines. It seems to me that the actions of the Government over the last few years have been anticipating a return to a kind of status quo, in which a lot of people have enjoyed great privileges. I do not think it is possible to go back to a status quo of that description. It may be that we cannot create an egalitarian society, but in their social legislation Governments of to-day should appear to be working towards it. In saying that, I compare what the Government have done in this pay Code and the circumstances leading up to it.
950
My noble friend Lord Beswick made an absolutely first-class speech. He got over exceptionally well his interpretation of the new radical thinking, and the new radical urge and desire there is throughout this country and the world. I was interested, too, in what my noble friend Lady Wootton said, and I would say to my noble friend Lord Douglass that it was only just before Christmas that I was selling her book on this very subject, on which she has been an expert for, at least—dare I say it?—36 years. Her book on this subject is still a classic, and I was delighted to introduce it to the Japanese.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, the correct interpretation is 18 years ago.
LORD RHODES: When was it? Was it 1956?
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: 1955.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I stand corrected. Nevertheless, that does not take any of the interest away from the fact that, at the present moment in Japan, they are studying what my noble friend Lady Wootton wrote in her book.
With regard to what Lord Douglass said about Japanese peace in industry, of course the whole structure is different and I do not want to start a long talk about what I found there on my four visits. However, if we are to take Japanese peace in industry as an example, we must add to what Lord Douglass said. We may have to imitate their financial structure at some time in the future. It should be realised that the Japanese financial structure is quite different from ours. They have four parts loan to one part equity, whereas we have one part loan to four parts equity. They pay very small dividends on their equity but they make enormous profits on it, putting it out to loan, and the workers are shown painstakingly how the money that they have earned is invested for their benefit in new enterprises and plants. That is a type of education this country will have to take up sooner or later.
There are certain points I should like to bring to the notice of the Government, because I do not think that this Code is going to work very well. We are now in Phase 2 and we have this

951
Code. There are various opinions about it; the trades unions have said that there is not enough flexibility for the lower-paid worker, as Lord Douglass expressed it this afternoon. In its representations on the Code the Confederation of British Industry has definite views about how the productivity clauses affect industry generally. But the introduction of this Code is historic. For the first time we are waiting to see what will happen when pay and prices are controlled, whereas at the same time the money supply is inflated. I do not think that it has been done anywhere in the world before. I have my doubts whether it will work. There is hardly any control over the money supply at a time when interest rates are the highest on record and the annual increases in cash and credit are a record, too.
The Government think that the huge flow of extra money which cannot go into pay, prices or profits will go to stimulate growth of the right sort. I do not believe that it will; I do not think that by pumping all this money in the economy is going to make the heavy industries any busier or is going to spark off true growth and restraint. We know in the past that exceptional increases in money supply in Great Britain have been linked with high inflation and a high balance-of-payments deficit and we want to look out for that in 1974. What is certain is that in the next two months if wages and prices are controlled, with little or no control in the money supply, there will be further increases in the price of land, housing and precious metals and prices will go through the roof. Above all, big differences will be exaggerated between the rich and the poor. When I think about the rich and the poor, I think of the story George Tomlinson used to tell about the two boys in a family, when they had meat for their Sunday dinner. The little boy went home and said to his mother, "How is it that you give our John more meat than me?" and his mother said, "He's a bigger lad than thee." "Aye", said the little lad, "and he always will be if he has more meat"; that applies to the rich and the poor.
I should like to say something about what happened last Saturday afternoon. I went and stood at an estate agent's
952
window. There was a whole row of houses for sale but not a single house to rent; the lowest price of any house advertised was £10.000. A young couple standing outside the window were looking at this list and they were nearly weeping. They said, "How on earth are we going to start, Lord Rhodes?" I said, "I do not know; you had better ask the Tory Government." The Government could do something about it. They have told us often—and have had it disproved so often, too—that the old-fashioned conception of a market has some validity. Let they try it with housing Take the figures. In the next three years the situation will be worse. During the present year in the private sector there will be a start on 220,000 houses and approximately 110,000 will be started within the public sector. I believe it is essential that there should be 500,000 houses built in this country every year. We know that acres of old houses have been bulldozed down in our provincial towns and in London. They are busy shifting the population from one place to another and fitting them into new communities, but there is a lack of drive on the part of the Government to put up enough new houses to come. It has been left to the market. They have said, "The land is dear"; then they will use it and put up the houses". Put up houses to rent.
There are all sorts of suggestions being made about what to do to remedy the situation. "Tax land values", somebody says, "and get more land into use"; others say, "Take off the controls that restrict the land available for housing". Some say, "You will have to end inflation before you can do this, that or the other". Some say, "Get the rate of interest down"; and the Labour Party says, "Nationalise all building land at once". You will have to do something about this—and quick—or you will have a lot of trouble on your hands. So build. You now see companies using company funds to invest in land and in property. It is a national scandal. But nobody does anything about it. This is the sort of thing that people are revolting about. They are revolting about property companies like Trafalgar House, which goes out of its way to buy a bankrupt company like Cunard at a small figure and then relieves itself of paying taxation on £5 million, and gets its taxation bill reduced to practically nothing at all. Are we to

953
endure this for ever? Come on! If you want to weld a community, if you want a united country, you have got to love them, you have got to care for them. So get 500,000 houses built every year.
Now Phase 3. They have got it in America. What is happening? You read your papers. I will tell you what was happening last week in America—and I shall not be long. The leader of the A.F.L.C.I.O. told the House Banking Committee that substantive changes were needed in the Act—because the Americans are now bringing forward an Act to perpetuate the controls for another 12 months. What they suggested was that they should include direct price controls of raw farm products, a roll-back of interest rates, the imposition of rent control and the enactment of an excess profits tax. Now this is what the House Banking Committee have done. They voted a week last Tuesday that all food prices should go back to the levels prevailing at May 1, 1972. If we are following the American pattern, we must understand what we are letting ourselves in for. The Committee also voted a rollback of rents to the level of January 11, 1973; and so on. I do not want to labour that. But watch the American scene at the moment for what you can expect here when Phase 3 comes.
My next point is this. You are trying to do two things at once in paragraphs 19 to 25. How on earth do you expect industries which have had a lean time over the last three years to be able to recoup and put anything back into their industries, and so get the growth you want? Take the chemical industry as an instance—and I declare an interest. The profits in the chemical industry have been very low. They have not been more than about 7 or 8 per cent. over the last three years. The exact figures actually are that in 1973 the profit is expected to be 9 per cent. It was 8 per cent. in 1972 and 5·9 per cent. in 1971. Actually they need 15 per cent. When a chemical company is also caught up with a cyclical industry like the textile industry, the code must be flexible so that they can recoup, or else the competitive advantage goes to our foreign competitors. There are people in this House who, if they had the chance, would be able to tell you the kind of advantage that accrues now to British manufacturers in exporting over-
954
seas rather than selling into the home market at lower prices. I ask the Government really to consider the implications of this.
There has been talk about Japan and investments. In this country we have always understood that the Stock Exchange had a role to play in the refurbishing of companies with new money. But in recent years the Government have done more refurbishing and more by way of putting new money into companies than the Stock Exchange. It might be a good thing to have a study as to whether the Stock Exchange is living up to what it was originally intended to do, by providing new money for industry. I must say at this juncture that I think the Minister, Lord Drumalbyn, has been one of the most courteous and helpful Ministers it has been my experience to deal with for a large number of years. He has gone to considerable pains over this Code to try to accommodate people who have ideas upon it, and I thank him for what he has already done for those industries which have a high labour content. He has done splendidly; but I would ask him to have another look at this question of the capital-intensive industries which are subject to cyclical trade. If he does that, there will be at any rate one person in this House who will be grateful.
I think it is time we had a real drive on this question of understanding where we are going. Even this afternoon, in this debate, on one side we have had people talking about the myth of growth, and about what growth means. Lord Douglass, in a magnificent speech which should be reported on every factory floor in the country, talked about growth in Japan. He expressed the opinion that the growth in Japan was an example to us here. Many people in this country are sheltering behind the excuse that growth is a bad thing. I think that too much growth in one particular part of the world is a bad thing, but spread over the world, including the underdeveloped countries, it is a fine thing. I hope to goodness we can have a fresh approach after the present (shall I say?) crisis has somewhat subsided—but the basic problem, I am afraid, will remain and a radical change of policy will be needed to deal with it.
5.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only two or three minutes. I always find it a great temptation to follow the noble Lord when I can because, although he is a hardheaded Yorkshireman and I an easygoing Devonian, we often find ourselves coming roughly to the same conclusion. I think the explanation is that we were both textile manufacturers. I should like to say that I agree with what he said about land prices and with what he said about the money supply and, wholeheartedly, with what he said about my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. I have been lured to my feet because of the taunts of the noble Lords, Lord Beswick and Lord Rhodes, that some of us on this side have not been as garrulous as usual this afternoon. So far as I am concerned it is because, rightly or wrongly, I had thought that this debate was linked particularly with the mechanism required for Phase 2 and that, as far as Phase 2 is concerned, I think we have debated a great deal and we are now involved in action—and we need to get on with the action.
The mechanism for Phases 1 and 2 inevitably is not, nor does it attempt to be, a panacea for our social and economic difficulties. It is a rough and ready action which has become necessary to tackle one particular problem, that of price and cost inflation which had become something of an emergency. I think myself that Phase 2 is launched, and well launched; and I hope that the Government (I am sure they will) must now begin to draw attention to the consideration of Phase 3 which is a more important phase and one which I believe will last much longer. But these are short-term remedies. I should like to say in passing that I agree with the three points made by my noble friend Lord Hawke, of the things that he would like to see dealt with as quickly as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, raised the question of whether the prices and incomes policy was regarded by the present Government as likely to be permanent or short-term. I have no right to speak for the present Government, but I will only say, as one Back-Bencher on this side, that I should be surprised and disappointed if this does not become a
956
permanent part of our policy. I believe that we are in an era when we require something of this kind.
My Lords, that brings me to my last point. In passing may I say that I was unfortunate enough to miss the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Douglass. I shall read it with great interest, as I always do when I have the misfortune to miss a speech that he has made. I should like to pay tribute to the extremely able and wise speech, I thought, of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, on the longer term. I told her afterwards that I was trying to find an opportunity to leap up and intervene, illegitimately, to phrase a question to which I did not want an answer but really to say how much I enjoyed the speech. We both agreed that this would have been a terrible thing to have done. I think the two points that she made are very true in the long term. We require—I do not know how to describe it—a new judicial arbitration system as a permanent part of our national institutions. It will be very difficult to create. I thought the noble Baroness was right in emphasising that the prerequisite to that is that certain principles have to be laid down as guidelines for the judges who will have to administer that system. But this is very long-term planning. I believe that, as she said, time is not on our side and that the sooner we get down to consider what this system will be, the better. I do not think it has any relation to Phases 1 and 2 or even to Phase 3, but it is something which I believe once built up—and there is no reason why we in this country, with our long experience in building up such institutions, should not build it—will be a model for the world.
My Lords, Phase 2 has got off to a great start. I hope that we may learn a little something from Phases 1 and 2 and that what we learn will help the Government to devise something appropriate for Phase 3. Far more important is that once we have gained time by overcoming the worst of this inflation trouble, we must settle down to some very hard, long-term thinking and be prepared to face some quite dramatic changes in the methods by which we try to find a solution to these important questions.
5.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I

957
begin by confessing myself puzzled that debates on economic affairs in your Lordships' House are consistently among the worst attended, certainly in the early part of the afternoon, yet they seem to be consistently among the best both in concision and usefulness. The contributions to this afternoon's debate have shown clearly and positively that the fight against inflation is a continuing process. Even where noble Lords were critical of tactics, they have applauded the strategy; and the Government are grateful. The Motion this afternoon is for an Affirmative Resolution. I cannot say that this afternoon's debate can be considered as part of the consultative process; but because the Government door is open to discussion of any problems arising within the overall pay and price limits during Phase 2, and because the welcome mat is firmly extended where any later stage is concerned, noble Lords will not, I hope, find their words wasted. If I may modify the words of that great Conservative thinker, Mr. P. G. Wodehouse, I have learned this afternoon that while many of your Lordships are far from being "gruntled" you are not actually disgruntled with the general conduct of this war. Even the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I think, found the Code an improvement on the draft.
I hope that I may echo my noble friend who opened the debate and draw your Lordships' attention to the great improvements in the real living standards of our people to which this Government were originally committed and which this Government have attained and achieved. This afternoon's measure, I believe, will be applied, if it receives your Lordships' Affirmative Resolution, in a more favourable general economic climate than we have enjoyed for many years. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will tell that to his friends in New York. Is it not a positive policy to fight against inflation against a background of increased economic growth? I am not suggesting that everything in the garden is rosy, but simply that a few shoots are making themselves felt this spring.
To return to earth, the principal themes of to-day's debate have been food, land, people's expectations, the human and humane side of economic discussion and their connection with the Government's measures against inflation. The
958
debate also dealt with the practical effects of such themes on the Code Order which we are discussing. First, I want to deal with something specific. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked a specific question about Civil Service pay, and particularly he referred to a letter to the National Staff Side from my noble friend the Leader of the House. The letter did no more than refer to the terms of reference of the Pay Board and to point out that these did not prevent the Board from taking anything at all into account. My noble friend's letter, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was kind enough to opine, was quite clear and explicit. It does not add to the policy already set out by the Government on the Pay Board's terms of reference on the Anomaly Study. There is no question of the Government overriding the Pay Board at this stage. If noble Lords feel that sight of the letter sent by the Lord Privy Seal will be helpful, then, subject to the agreement of the recipients, the National Staff Side, it will be possible to make this available to noble Lords.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Earl is finished on that point, may I ask—after what he has said, which was also quite explicit and in line with what was said by the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, although I think the civil servants, like myself, are still unable to understand what is meant—whether, as some people have concluded from the wording that has become known, a pay award to civil servants can be backdated to a date in Phase 2?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I can say that there is no question of any additional payment over and above the pay limit in Phase 2, but I should not have thought that there was any need to think about such things as retrospective terms as yet, because the issue has not arisen, as the Pay Board has not recommended it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I asked a specific question. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said there can be no question of back-dating, of retrospective payment. The wording of this letter indicates—certainly some of the Press have taken it to indicate—that an award to the civil servants can be back-dated. Are we correct in so thinking?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, of course anomalies can be taken into account, but I repeat to the noble Lord, there is no question of this as the Pay Board has not recommended it. Certainly there is no question of any additional payment being made.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I must press the noble Earl because really he is being rather evasive. Certainly I agree that the matter has not arisen, as yet. I am asking as a matter of principle, can an award be back-dated or not?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, no particular back-dated case can be made. I can give the noble Lord that assurance, and I will see that he sees the letter of my noble friend the Leader of the House which I hope will be helpful to him in this context.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in giving grudging support to the Code Order, concentrated his fire on the land issue; and other noble Lords—in particular the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, in a notable speech—have done so as well. The Government are sure that the land hoarding charge will lead to a great deal more land with planning permission becoming available for development in the full sense of the word, and we are basing much of our policy on this. My noble friend Lord Hawke made some interesting suggestions of which we will take full note. But I would say to him that the answer to higher house prices, surely, is to build more houses, and this I am pleased to say is happening. In 1972, 227,000 private houses were started, instead of 165,000 as in 1970; and even so, during 1972 in the South-East alone—that is, outside Greater London—29,000 new building society mortgages went to borrowers under 25 as opposed to 24,000 in 1970. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, will take some encouragement from that and be able to pass the information on to his two young friends. The measures outlined in the White Paper—
LORD WIGG: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves the question of houses, may I say that I am sure that he does not wish to mislead anyone, least of all himself. But just to give crude figures of the number of houses built, and then completely to ignore the policy followed
960
by rich supporters of the Conservative Party of acquiring property and leaving it vacant, is surely to ignore the basis of the problem. If, when the House has risen, the noble Earl would care to come with me, I could show him where, within a mile of this House, he could find hundreds of fiats which are vacant and which have remained vacant for months.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, earlier the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, complained that proceedings in this House —I think he said between the "usual channels"—were not democratic. I think we are a democratic House, but we are not quite that elastic. I recognise the importance of land policies in the war against inflation. I must remind the noble Lord that in fact we are debating a Pay and Prices Code Order. I was simply giving words, which I thought were of some comfort and cheer, on the subject of the housing problem and on the way that the Government were proposing to tackle it in the context of the fight against inflation.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, is it not a fact that in 1974 there are going to be 10,000 fewer starts in the public sector than there were in 1973? Why is it that the public sector has been so reduced? Even in Aneurin Bevan's time they started with 300,000 and you are not going to get much more than 300,000 in 1974.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, puts down a Motion on that subject and we shall all gladly take part in the debate? But it is a little wide of this particular matter.
THE EARL or GOWRIE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hawke for "bailing me out" on this issue. I repeat my earlier assurances. I was anxious to try to deal with the housing question, as it had been raised, but I think it would be unfair to get into a technical debate about that problem at a time when it looks very likely that we may shortly be debating it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Earl really saying, are the Government really saying, are the Government Back Bench supporters really saying, that one can consider a Pay and Prices Code

961
without considering the impact of housing costs?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: No, my Lords I am not saying that, and that is exactly why I raised the question myself. I did not decide to deal with the question of housing only because noble Lords had brought it up; I had decided to tackle it What I am saying is that questions such as that posed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, are somewhat outside the framework of this debate, as I think the noble Lord will acknowledge. On the same subject, I think that the noble Lord recognised the problems connected with housing policy on questions to do with money supply. That was raised earlier. We recognise that the money supply grew very rapidly over the three months to mid-February, but we feel that the increase was exaggerated by the structure of money market rates which encouraged bank customers to draw on their overdrafts to invest in high-yielding bank liabilities. It is intended to finance the public sector borrowing requirements, so far as possible, in ways which will not increase the money supply. Bank lending to the private sector has been expanding rapidly. In part, this reflects the on-lending process to which I have already referred. The encouraging feature is that there seems to have been an underlying increase in lending to the manufacturing sector; and I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and to others who have been nervous about growth, that of course we must encourage lending to the manufacturing sector so far as possible.
Before I leave housing, and as there is obviously a feeling in the House about it, may I say that the question of a stabilisation fund for mortgage rates was not, I think, directly raised in the debate, but it has certainly been in the air in another place and it looks like becoming a plank in the Labour Party's electoral programme. Certainly e Government would be happy to take on the Opposition on housing, land, prices and anything else. As to the stabilisation fund directly, the Government are not opposed to the idea—indeed, we believe that many vital interests coincide over it—but a stabilisation fund programme would, I think, take some time to work out. All I can say at the moment is that the
962
Government are already talking to the societies about it.
My Lords, may I move on to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. I am sorry that she cast me in the role of King Canute in this debate—I hope that he is not an honorary Member of your Lordships' House. I can say that those who drafted the Code had the benefit of seeing Mr. Jenkins's 24 loopholes and the Government are grateful for his help. We consider that the final version effectively blocks them. My other answer to the noble Baroness was made in effect by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. I agree with him that one sees the members of the Pay Board rather in terms of referees, and not, as the noble Baroness seemed to imply, as arbitrators. If one may extend the analogy a little, one could say that the Code provides the rules of the game, the members of the Board are the referees and Government and Parliament—and perhaps the court of public opinion generally—compose the "Football Association".
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does the noble Earl imply by that that the Government regard the whole of this matter as a game?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: No, my Lords, I was, I hope courteously, taking up the noble Lord's own analogy.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I argued that the Government were taking it as a game, and now the noble Earl accepts my view.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is a little sophistic, but I recognise that this may be inevitable as he is a professor. I welcome what the noble Baroness said in terms of wide discussion. If I have any criticism of her speech, which I enjoyed, it would be that she ignored the fact that Stage 2 is something of a holding operation and it seemed to me that her debating points were really about Stage 3.
BARONESS WOOTTON 0F ABINGER: My Lords, certainly some of what I said related to Stage 3, but the noble Earl will realise that the Pay Board is expected to live in Stage 3, and perhaps Stages 4 and 5, and is already being asked

963
to consider applications from people like the gas workers and the hospital workers for consideration of their most anamolous case which can be raised only in Stage 3. Therefore I think it is highly relevant.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, so, indeed, do I. The fact that the Pay Board is an executive body and runs around the field with the players, so to speak, does not preclude the fact that it can also act as an advisory body: and we imagine that it will build up a very big bank of experience which will be most useful for later stages. I do not mean to imply that it is in some way unfair for the noble Baroness to look forward to Stage 3. That is surely the value of this debate.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me to interrupt once more, my whole point was that it will need some guiding principles when we get to Stage 3—indeed, it needs some even in Stage 2—because it has to see that the present 4 per cent. and £1 limit is fairly applied, and it does not know what is fair.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords. I can only say that the experience which the Board will achieve through Stage 2 will provide valuable guidelines for Stage 3. But again I fear that this discussion is perhaps a little metaphysical, as we are debating the Code Order and not Stage 3, as such. I was just anxious to point out that what is said in this debate on the Code Order is of course valuable for Stage 3.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that even though a Whip is summing up, I was engaged in no "usual channels" plotting with the noble Lords opposite. I think that if any noble Lord is able to put a bomb under consensus politics—or perhaps I should say to "noble" consensus politics—it would be the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, though I was very entertained by the spectrum of Colonel Wigg and Brigadier Powell in cahoots over pricing mechanism. He asked about the difference between the two Parties, echoing what he felt was a lot of public feeling on this point. I have said that the difference between the two Parties is that between 1964 and 1970 the United King
964
dom growth rate achieved only 2¼ per cent. compared with 5 per cent. of our main competitors overseas and the same 5 per cent. that the Government have achieved to-day. There has been talk about lip service to growth. We are not talking about infinite growth, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, suggested; we are talking about the relatively modest 5 per cent. which we can achieve, and are achieving.
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hawke suggested that a pay and prices policy was inevitable. I was very entertained also in watching the face of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, during the one Conservative contribution until my noble friend Lord Amory came in. Very radical suggestions were burning the back of my ears during my noble friend's speech. I agree with him that free collective bargaining depends to a considerable degree on social consensus, agreement to ends if not means, and that this degree of consensus did prove unattainable, though the Government have never concealed their regret that it did. To come to a specific point raised by my noble friend Lord Hawke as to controlling the prices of certain foods—potatoes, bacon, milk and cheese, I think he mentioned—the retail prices of liquid milk are already controlled. The price of cheese is related to the E.E.C. intervention price of butter. If cheese prices were kept down, milk would be converted into butter which would be sold to the Intervention Board. Potato prices depend primarily on the size of the crop, but this year pressure on prices has been eased by banning exports and prices are less than ½p per lb. higher than last year although the crop is smaller.
While we are on the subject of food, I must come to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. She tempted me into verse. I must answer:
"Is there honey still for tea?
Not, alas!, until Stage 3."
The problem here is that honey is predominantly an imported foodstuff—the amount of honey produced in this country is not particularly great. I am glad that her reluctance to advertise honey did not extend to performing the same service for Mr. Aubrey Jones's book, which I have read and have enjoyed. She talked on a more serious topic about the question of an exception for hospital workers. I would remind the noble Baroness that

965
Stage 2 is not a freeze; that the hospital workers were not sent away empty handed and that the stage, which is limited as to time, is concerned with pay limits and not with a pay standstill. She mentioned—and other noble Lords have made reference to it—the butter mountain, and I was dreading this morning finding myself on the slopes of that particular edifice. But I can say that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has urged upon his colleagues in the Council of Ministers the importance of curbing inflation, and has strenuously opposed certain proposals to increase product prices. My Lords, my right honourable friend is in there, fighting.
I come now to the notable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, and I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, in his tribute to it and his hope that it will be read on every factory floor. In the White Paper, programme for controlling inflation, the Government stated that the resolution of problems of relativities and anomalies, which the noble Lord raised, both within and between groups of employees, must occupy an important place in any policy to deal with inflation in the longer term if it is to be effective and if it is to be seen to be fair. As an integral part of the consultations on the policy of controlling inflation the Government would seek the help of the Pay Board and its advisory council on these problems. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, that the ex-Director General of the N.E.D.C. is now the Chairman of the Pay Board, and I hope he will draw some comfort from that.
My Lords, the Government intend to make progress during Stage 3 towards resolving anomalies arising during the standstill within the total amount available for pay increases during this stage. The Pay Board, of course, will provide the basis for consultation on this issue on both sides of industry, and, as I have said, we are most anxious for such consultations. The Government would welcome a further report by the end of the year on any problems on pay relativities which may arise both within and between groups of employees. The Government would intend to pursue further consultations on the basis of such a report, and
966
indeed upon the basis of the noble Lord's many useful remarks in this debate, including proposals first made during the tripartite talks last year for a national minimum wage.
I come to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, with whom I have already had exchanges. He said that material standards are rising while psychological standards are falling. I agree with him that this would be a recipe for disaster. But does the noble Lord really think that the "sick man of Europe" where growth is concerned should become psychologically fitter and happier? I should like to debate that point with him, privately, perhaps, and at more leisure. I agree with my noble friend Lord Amory, reacting to Lord Wynne-Jones's observation, that growth is not a panacea for all ills. Nor is an incomes policy a panacea for all ills. But it is a reaction to a dangerous situation which was threatening the very real achievements of the country and, I would of course say, of the Government as well.
My Lords, I must come to an end. The Code which we have been discussing will, as my noble friend the Minister Without Portfolio said, play a central role in the Government's counter-inflation strategy. We are now broadly on the growth target which we set ourselves, and there has been a remarkable degree of consensus on this point. We have taken steps to encourage a higher level of investment. We are continuing the fight against inflation. The measures we have taken are complementary. The policies contained in the Code, which are necessary steps if we are to bring inflation under control, are in no way incompatible with the achievement of higher growth and investment. The Code in its final form includes significant provisions to ensure that investment is not impeded by the restraints on prices. And of course the knowledge that inflation is being brought under control will itself provide the confidence in the longer term which is necessary for investment.
Confidence and consent are of course sought by any Government. We very much welcome and acknowledge the broad acceptance of Stage 2 by the trade unions. Where the working of this Stage, and where of course the future is concerned, the Government's door is, as I said at the beginning, wide open to any

967
discussion with the movement and, indeed, with all sides of industry. We have always proceeded through consultation and discussion and have never sought to dwell in what Mr. Scanlon has eloquently and usefully called the "coward's castle" of a complete ban on talks. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, speaking for the Opposition, stressed the importance of the spirit in fighting inflation. That surely is our spirit. The Government's policies are not, as some critics have suggested, the symbol of a change of course; rather, the objective and course have remained the same, but the mode of transport has changed. The Code is the most suitable vehicle for Stage 2 of the battle against inflation. For that reason I therefore commend it warmly to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSING (PAYMENTS FOR WELL MAINTAINED HOUSES) ORDER 1973
6.10 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, bearing in mind the amount of business which your Lordships have before you, unless your Lordships wish for any longer explanation, I will merely beg to move that the Housing (Payments for Well Maintained Houses) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on March 19, 1973, be approved.
Moved—That the Housing (Payments for Well Maintained Houses) Order 1973, be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, we had a brief discussion on November 23 last year when the Housing (Payments for Well Maintained Houses) Order 1972 was before the House. I have no wish to repeat what I said on that occasion, but there are a few comments I wish to make. It may be that the noble Lord opposite will have in his possession information that he lacked on the earlier occasion. The present Order adjusts the multiplier used in calculating by reference to the rateable value of the house the amount of payment for a well maintained house. The 1972 Order provided a figure of 8 and, having regard to the 1973 revaluation, this Order reduces it
968
to 3⅛. On average, that appears to be about right. We ought to take note of the fact that in different parts of the country there are differences in the percentage increases of rateable values of domestic properties. The reduction of the multiplier ensures that grants will be contained within the limits set out in the 1972 Order.
In November I asked the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, to state the extent to which tenants have availed themselves of the compensation payments available. I also asked him what percentage of compensation payments have been given to tenants as distinct from landlords. It was doubtful then whether tenants were taking advantage of the scheme as they should. He then stated in reply that, despite his anxiety to have been prepared with the information, he had not been able to secure it. I also inquired on that occasion about publicity, particularly for tenants. This debate is an opportunity to secure further publicity for the Order and an opportunity to get the answers written into the Record. I am unable to quote the information that I requested in November last. We shall not oppose the Order, but information in reply to the questions I have put would be welcomed. I hope that the time interval has been sufficient to allow the appropriate Department to prepare the information.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I hate to say this, but I am still totally unaware of the facts to which the noble Lord referred. I still do not have the information. I can only suppose that we do not have the information as such. These things are not easily come by. Housing facts and applications for funds have to go through a "sieve", as the noble Lord is well aware. It is not with any intention of hiding the facts that I am standing here saying that I do not know. If I knew the facts I would tell the noble Lord.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords. I am quite sure that the noble Lord has no intention of doing anything like that. I want to draw attention to the fact that information was requested when the matter was before the Upper House last year, and it will be interesting to know whether some attempt has been made to collect it.

969
My Lords, attempts are being made to collect this information. I can only repeat that the information at the moment is not available. I apologise to the noble Lord; I should like to see that information. I told the noble Lord last November that I should like to see it, and I should still like to do so, but it is not available.
The noble Lord said there was a reduction from 8 to 3⅛ and that this was about right. We accept that there may be anomalies in various parts of the country but, taking the country by and large, this is what we consider right. The local district authorities also agree. My Lords, I do not think it is worth while going into a great deal of detail about this point. There are so many small areas in the country where one can find exceptions that we could go on until this time tomorrow night discussing them. It is pointless to do so. By and large, this figure is about right, and I think that we should accept it.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I hope the noble Lord is under no illusion; I was not wanting a great deal more detail. I hope I have indicated that we shall not oppose the Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES (CONTROLS AND REGULATIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1, and to be printed.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

CEREALS (GUARANTEE PAYMENTS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1973
6.16 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before your Lordships on March 28, he approved. I suggest it may be for your Lordships' convenience if we were to deal with the Order amending the Protection of Guarantees as well.
970
These Orders are of a somewhat routine and technical nature. By them we have terminated the target indicator prices for wheat and barley; we have re-defined the cereals year to run from August I instead of July 1 so as to correspond with European practice and avoid confusion when making statistical comparisons and the like; we have changed from cwts. to tons as the units for guaranteed market prices in accordance with the present practice in the cereals trade. References to rye (on which there have been no deficiency payments since the mid-1960s) have been deleted. The obsolete provisions relating to record-keeping and consequential arrangements about services and notices have been removed from the Protection of Guarantees Order. With that explanation, I trust your Lordships will agree these Orders. I beg to move the first Order.
Moved, That the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1973, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, I intervene for one reason: the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that these Orders are "routine and technical". They are nothing of the kind. They may well be technical, but they are not routine. Indeed, they now have an application to the Common Market, and I did not know that that was a routine expedient that we had been adopting for a long time. This is quite new. The noble Earl says some parts of this Order change cwts. to tons in the making of assessments. He did not seek to explain why we were being asked to do this. He simply explained that that was what the Order said. The reason appeared to be non-existent.
If I may take Order No. 501, in the Explanatory Note which does not bear the usual clarity of the Ministry of Agriculture which I knew—but, then, one never knows how it goes after you have left the place—it says:
"The changes effected by the Order abolish the target indicator price arrangements for wheat and barley".
That is a considerable change; it is not a routine change. Then it goes on to say:
"redefine the cereals year to commence, in 1974 and thereafter, on 1st August and provide for the determination of guaranteed prices by reference to a ton instead of a cwt."
Obviously the price has to change because one is only part of the other, but the reason does not appear to be very

971
plain in this part of the Explanatory Note.
Moving to Order No. 502 and looking at the Explanatory Note to that Order, I see that for the first time, as the noble Earl said, rye is coming out. It says
"This Order amends the Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1971, made in support of the guarantee payments for cereals, by deleting the requirements to retain for two years certain records, and to furnish information, relating to periods ending on or before 30th June 1971 and revoking other unnecessary provisions."
I do not know what the other unnecessary provisions are so I merely enter the statement that I am perfectly willing to take the noble Earl's word for granted but, if they are going to revoke certain unnecessary provisions, at least the Department ought to do the House the courtesy of saying what these unnecessary provisions are.
So while I do not raise too many objections to it, all I wish to say to the noble Earl—and I say it very kindly indeed—is that when orders of this kind come forward the Department should not use the word "routine"; and secondly, we should like to know whether there is (as there may well be) a good reason for differentiating between tons and cwts. They are certainly not the same weight—that I am prepared to admit—but is it bringing it into line with some other agreements inside the Common Market in arrangement with our fellow members of the E.E.C.?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, will acquit me of giving the impression and saying that something was routine if in fact it was not. It is of course routine that we should have an Order permitting guaranteed prices to be paid; it is equally routine that we should have an Order protecting the guarantees, and it was in that respect that I referred to them as being routine. There are of course changes to which the noble Lord has rightly referred; he was particularly concerned as to why we should move from cwts. to tons and he said that I gave no reason for it, but in fact I did because I said it was done in accordance with present practices in the trade. It is usual nowadays in the trade to deal in terms of tons rather than cwts., and therefore it was considered that it would be more
972
appropriate to have the guarantees done this year in the form of tons and not in the form of cwts. as was done previously. That is the sole reason for it.
With regard to the removal of the target indicator prices, because of intervention buying arrangements, setting a floor to the market, the target indicator prices are no longer needed to protect the Exchequer from the effects of very low market prices. As the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, will remember, target indicator prices were put in to protect the Exchequer from a severe drop in prices. Now, of course, there are the intervention arrangements. These will in fact put the floor in the market and therefore the target indicator prices will no longer be required.
LORD HOY: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation but one thing I wish to refer to is the Statutory Instrument No. 501 in which paragraph 2(c)3 says:
"In respect of each year the Minister shall—(a) determine a guaranteed price per ton".
Is the noble Earl saying that in fact we are getting rid of the old custom and now the Minister himself will come in and will determine the guaranteed price? If the noble Earl will look at the wording here he will see that it says:
"the Minister shall—(a) determine a guaranteed price per ton for wheat, barley and oats respectively".
Is that a substitution for the old arrangement?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am not quite certain of the intricacy to which the noble Lord refers. By the annual determination of prices the Minister takes a guaranteed price for wheat and barley and oats. This has been done and this Order confirms it.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am not making it very complicated; I am reading out the exact words of the Order which the Minister is presenting to the House, from which it appears that the decision will be that of the Minister.
EARL FERRERS: Yes, my Lords, that is correct as regards the guaranteed prices.
LORD HOY: That is all I am asking.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY): My Lords, the

973
Question is, That the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order, the Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order, and the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order, be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". The Contents have it.
LORD HOY: My Lords, there were three Orders about agriculture, two of which affected cereals and the third affected eggs. We agreed to take the two cereals Orders together but have we now had the eggs put in with the cereals?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it was certainly not my intention to put the eggs with the cereals. I originally intended to speak to the three Orders together but as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, had indicated to me that he might wish to make separate observations upon them I thought I made it clear in my opening remarks that I would speak only to the two cereals Orders, and although I had spoken to those two Orders together I thought they would be moved separately whereas in fact they were moved together.
LORD HOY: My Lords, they cannot be moved together.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, they had better now be moved separately.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, will the noble Earl move them separately.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that The Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1973 be approved.
Moved, That the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1973 be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CEREALS (PROTECTION OF GUARANTEES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1973
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order 1973 be approved.
Moved, That the Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order 1973 be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EGGS (PROTECTION OF GUARANTEES) ORDER 1973
6.28 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS rose to move, That the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1973, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I fear we are getting in a bit of a scramble. This Order sets out the requirements that egg packers must observe for the purposes of the Eggs Guarantee arrangements. It supersedes the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1972 which was very similar, but a new Order is necessary to include changes which are made necessary by our membership of the European Economic Community. These are not very substantial. I shall be perfectly happy to explain the changes in detail if the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, wishes and I should not like him to think that I was failing to do so if I just moved them formally. If the noble Lord wishes to make any observation on the Order I shall be glad to try to answer him. I beg to move the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1973.
Moved, That the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1973 be approved—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, I do not want to make any objection to this Order although I am bound to say that the conditions of it, requiring egg producers to provide certain information, remind me of the days when I was responsible for these Orders. The only difference was that when I was responsible at least we gave a guarantee and some money to the egg producers. On this occasion the Government are asking them for all this information without any guarantee at all.
All I wanted to do was to take advantage of the occasion to ask the noble Earl, as I asked him a week or two ago, about the position of the egg-producing industry, because undoubtedly they will be in great difficulty. As he already knows, I was a great supporter of the Egg Marketing Board and I am very sorry that it has gone—the fault being that of the industry and not the Government or anybody else. When he was moving this Order to bring them into line with the Common Market, I wondered whether the Government had given any further thought to what the

975
future of the British egg industry is going to be?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, of course the Government are very concerned with what the future of the egg industry is going to be. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, will know, the Reorganisation Commission suggested some years ago that there should be a free market in eggs; that the egg industry was a highly developed industry; it is a highly intensive industry, and that it would be capable of doing its own marketing. Indeed, in its Report it was influenced by the views of a number of egg producers themselves who at that time were against the Egg Marketing Board. It was the Agriculture Act of the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, that disposed of the Egg Marketing Board and set up the Eggs Authority. There have been fluctuations, of course, over the last couple of years in the egg industry. 1971 was a fairly steady year whereas in 1972 there was an expansion with the result that there was a glut with low prices. That resulted in some contraction this year with correspondingly high prices. We believe that the egg industry is capable of managing its own affairs and looking after itself in a comprehensive way and also in a competitive manner. Certainly the Government will be watching the future of the egg industry with great care, but we have no reason to believe that they will not be capable of operating in a free market.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTOR VEHICLES (VARIATION OF SPEED LIMITS) REGULATIONS 1973
6.32 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON rose to move, That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) Regulations 1973, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House and with your Lordships' permission, may I take together the two sets of Regulations standing on the Order Paper in my name? I beg to move that the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) Regulations 1973 and the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973, both dated March 28,
976
1973, copies of which were laid before this House on March 29 of this year, be approved.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Are the Government again trying to move two Orders simultaneously? The noble Lord may speak to the second Order by agreement with the House, but having seen the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—I confess, aided by the Chair—getting it wrong, would it not be better if the noble Lord merely moves the first Order and indicates that he is speaking to the second Order, also? There are certain arrangements by which Orders can be taken en bloc, but there is a procedure that has to be gone through.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, with very great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the Leader of the Opposition, we are not now, as in the last two Orders, discussing two Orders of cereals and one of eggs; we are discussing the trailing of vehicles behind other vehicles on motorways.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I fully appreciate that, but the House cannot have two Motions before it simultaneously. I am quite sure that the Chair will confirm that, the Clerk will confirm that and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will confirm that. Will the noble Lord confine himself to moving one Order?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am sure that Lord Tom Noddy and all will confirm that, too. I am perfectly willing to move the Regulations separately if I may speak to them together.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Yes.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I thank noble Lords. I have already said what I am doing. As these are very simple points, may I briefly inform your Lordships that for a number of years there have been various pressures for higher speed limits for caravans and other trailers towed behind cars and similar light vehicles, on the grounds that existing limits of 30 m.p.h. or 40 m.p.h. are unnecessarily restrictive having regard to continuing improvements in the performance and stability of the vehicles concerned. It has rightly been agreed

977
that unnecessarily slow vehicles, particularly bulky ones like caravans, are a source of obstruction and frustration to other drivers. Safeguards are nevertheless essential at higher speeds and earlier attempts to frame accompanying safeguards prescribed in the Regulations before the House have attracted a wide measure of support from organisations and the police. The basic justification for the Regulations, therefore, is that the increased speed limits will help to ease the congestion often caused by caravans and trailers, thus leading to increased road safety. The conditions imposed in the Regulations will ensure that the vehicles themselves are safe at the higher speed limits allowed. My Lords, I beg to move the first of the Orders standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) Regulations 1973. be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, as we are discussing the two Motions together, I am bound to say that I think the Minister has given us the explanation that we require in this connection. I notice that the noble Lord, and certainly the Minister in the other place, said that increasing the speed of some of these vehicles from 40 m.p.h. to 50 m.p.h. would lessen the frustration of following vehicle drivers. It does not seem to me that that would be uniformly applicable, for on most roads I find it very much easier to pass a vehicle travelling at 40 m.p.h. than to pass one travelling at 50 m.p.h. The clear length of road required to enable one to pass the slower vehicle is much shorter than that required to pass the faster vehicle. That is a fact which explains why, when one is driving behind a lorry, one is glad to come to a hill when the lorry slows down and one can pass it comparatively easily. That is perhaps a point to be considered when the Minister is again considering the possibility of doing something about the speed limits of these vehicles with trailers.
There is another point of difficulty about these vehicles that are towing trailers and that is bunching. I am not too sure that bunching ought not to be prohibited but I suppose the difficulty would be that of enforcement. Anyone who has found themselves, especially during the holiday season, trailing behind
978
two or three of these vehicles between which there has not been sufficient room to enable one to regain the correct side of the road between them, will know what I am getting at. That is very common. This sometimes happens with lorries, although not very often because lorry drivers are sensitive to this point and normally leave sufficient room to enable one to sandwich between them if the necessity arises when trying to pass.
The further point I want to make is that we are not told when the Regulations are to become operative. I notice that my honourable friend in another place, when these Instruments were discussed, deplored the fact that they would not come into effect until after the Easter holiday. Is that really the case? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, will be able to tell us. Even if he tells us that they will be brought into operation before the holiday, it is surely a piece of bad timing to lay an Instrument on March 29, leaving blank the day of coming into operation. That sort of timing leaves the motoring and caravan Press no time at all to advise motorists of the alteration between today and next Friday. This is a point which ought to be considered in the Department when they are considering these Regulations and the laying of them, particularly as we are so near to a holiday period. However, despite some doubts about the Regulations, we certainly do not intend to oppose them.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to confirm everything that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has said. It is possible, of course, for a powerful car to overtake a lorry travelling at 50 m.p.h. although not without exceeding the 70 m.p.h. limit; and if it happens to be one of those vehicles we see only too often bearing the words "Long vehicle" on the back it takes a considerable time to pass it. The question of bunching is really a matter of driver behaviour and driver education, which, of course, will take place, although, I am afraid, only very gradually. Apart from that, my one objection to the first set of Regulations is the extremely complicated Schedule. If I were the owner of a commercial vehicle, I honestly would be at a complete loss to know which class my vehicle came into. May I ask the noble Lord Id-to is to be responsible for deciding

979
which class a vehicle comes into, and therefore what the speed limit is?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I should like to say a few words about these Regulations. We are still on the first one, but we are talking about both. With regard to the ability to overtake at 50 m.p.h. rather than 40 m.p.h., I would merely say that, like many noble Lords in this House, and many other people in the country, we know that there are many columns that twist round our country roads, such as Chesterton and Belloc used to describe, which, if they go ten miles an hour faster, make our journey ten miles an hour faster. I do not think we necessarily have to overtake them. Let them go ten miles an hour faster and we are that amount of time better off.
With regard to the military discipline of bunching, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I have a certain amount of personal sympathy with him. It is a point that I have often raised with officials in the Department of the Environment and it is a point which seems to have a certain amount of common sense. But when we get down to the facts of the matter it is impracticable to legislate on it, as I think the noble Lord would agree. What noble Lord is going to say what sort of vehicle cannot overtake another vehicle? To legislate on such a matter is almost impossible.
I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that although it would have been desirable to get this matter through and legislated before Easter it is not possible. He is probably aware that the Regulation will not take effect until fifteen days after this Motion has been approved.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, asked me about the complicated Schedule. The various speed limits will be advertised. I think people who have vehicles and are in business, or are travelling for pleasure in vehicles, will not find the Schedule hard to understand. The Press Office will publicise them. The matter will be duly publicised in time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMITS ON MOTORWAYS) REGULATIONS 1973
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973, be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GUARDIANSHIP BILL [H.L.]
6.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, before I call the first Amendment may I acquaint the House with the fact, that if the first Amendment is agreed to the second Amendment cannot be called.
Clause 1 [Equality of parental rights]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 1. leave out from ("agreement") to ("be") in line 7, and insert ("for a man or woman to give up in whole or in part, in relation to any child of his or hers, the rights and authority referred to in subsection (1) above shall be unenforceable, except that an agreement made between husband and wife which is to operate only during their separation while married may, in relation to a child of theirs. provide for either of them to do so; but no such agreement between husband and wife shall").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I understood that it was for the convenience of noble Lords who have been so kind as to take a great interest in this Bill that its driver should trail behind a collection of bunched Orders for Affirmative Resolution.
I have now the added complication that I have put down on the Marshalled List two sets of Amendments, one for England and Wales and the other for Scotland, in the alternative, because on the knotty subject of Clause 1(2) and

981
Clause 10(2) of the Bill, where we propose the same solution in either case, there has been a very great deal of thought devoted to the problem by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon. I think that the explanations that I have given to them, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, about this, both in previous speeches and in private correspondence, will have enabled them to distinguish between the two sets of Amendments I have put down.
For myself I prefer Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, and I believe that these go furthest to meet the points that have been raised on both the Committee and Report stages of this Bill. They get rid of any specific, and indeed I think any implied, reference to ante-nuptial agreements, which was the main bone of contention. They do not, it is true, go so far as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, would like, by way of leaving out Clause 1(2) altogether; but then, we had a compact between us that we would not try to do that in this House but rather attempt to perfect the wording and leave in some statutory provision to guide the courts. What may happen in another place remains to be seen. I hope that I have fulfilled my side of the compact and have provided the House with two alternative versions by way of improving subsection (2). I would hope that the House will agree to the first of them, but I am, of course, entirely open to listen to what any noble Lord would like to say. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
LORD SIMON OF GLAISDALE: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, very kindly said that I might intervene at this stage. I owe the noble Viscount an apology. He wrote to me setting out the two alternatives and asked which I preferred. I did in fact reply to him on April 4, and I sent a copy to the noble Baroness. For some reason she got the copy, but the noble Viscount did not get the letter I sent to him. I very much prefer the first of these two Amendments. In the first place, it does explicitly what the second only does implicitly. In the second place, I still dislike this subsection, for reasons which I hope to be allowed quite shortly to lay before your Lordships. I dislike
982
it in so far as it renders either unenforceable or invalid certain perfectly innocuous and in some cases beneficial sorts of agreement. The No. 1 Amendment merely makes them unenforceable. Number 2 actually makes them invalid, and that seems to me to be an additional reason for preferring Nos. 1 and 3 to Nos. 2 and 4.
The noble Viscount was quite right. He has performed completely what he said he would do. The main objection to this subsection was the reference to ante-nuptial agreement, and every Member of your Lordships' House who addressed the House on the matter found it objectionable that ante-nuptial agreements could be made derogating from the right that was properly given by Clause 1(1). Since I do not propose to address your Lordships on Third Reading, may I say that I welcome very much that provision in Clause 1(1), which is the main provision of the Bill, and which seems to me to be conferring no more than justice on mothers. The noble Viscount has now met the principal objection to Clause 1 in both of the Amendments that he has tabled to Clause 1, although, as I said, I prefer the first rather than the second.
My Lords, I know that there is important business still to come, but since I undertook to be content at this stage with half a loaf only on the understanding that I hoped I might get the whole bakery when the Bill went to another place, may I indicate quite shortly why I think that subsection (2) is still wrong? In the first place it is unnecessary. It largely reenacts Section 2 of the Custody of Infants Act 1873. That provision was necessary then; it is no longer necessary to-day. It was necessary then because by the middle of last century the courts had come round to acknowledging the validity of separation agreements, but the common law still said that a father had exclusive custody of his infant children and that it was therefore contrary to public policy for him to agree to give up those rights; so that any agreement, even in a separation deed, to give up his rights to custody was void as contrary to public policy.
Since it was desirable that if people were to make separation agreements they could make provision as to the custody of their infant children, it was necessary in 1873 specifically to validate such agreements, and that is what the 1873

983
Act did. It did not, however, invalidate any other similar agreement. It did not invalidate agreement as to custody contained in any other sort of agreement than a separation agreement; it did not do that because that was unnecessary, as such agreements were invalid in any event. But this subsection says either that such other agreements are invalid or else that they are unenforceable, both of which seem to me to be objectionable.
As to the last limb of the subsection, the words—
"shall not be enforced by any court if the court is of opinion that it will not be for the benefit of the child to give effect to it".
that is an agreement as to custody. That, it seems to me, is unnecessary to-day. It was necessary in 1873 because of what the common law said about such agreements. It is unnecessary to-day because Section 1 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925 so far as Scotland is concerned, and Section 1 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 so far as England is concerned, say precisely in effect what is said by the words that I read at the end of subsection (2). Those two provisions say that the court in making any order for custody, any order in relation to a child indeed, shall take as its first and paramount consideration the welfare of the child. It follows from that that the court will not in any event enforce any stipulation if it is of opinion that it will not be for the benefit of the child to give effect to it. The result is that the beginning of subsection (2) is no longer required at all because subsection (1) says, in effect, that custody can be perfectly validly given up to the mother, whereas it could not in 1873; and the last limb is unnecessary because there are two statutory provisions which go even further than that last limb, which was necessary in 1873.
My Lords, may I give some examples of agreements that are invalidated or unenforceable by this provision. When the Bill was originally drafted, referring to ante-nuptial agreements I surmised that what the Government had in mind was the sort of agreement that might be made as to the religious upbringing of the child or the name that a child should bear or where and how a child should be educated. The noble Viscount was good enough to indicate that that surmise was
984
correct. The objection, though, was as to agreement in those matters being made ante-nuptially; but the noble Viscount has now gone to the opposite extreme and the clause as it will be amended will provide that all agreements as to the sort of matters I have referred to—religious upbringing, education, the name of the child and so on—shall be invalid, or alternatively unenforceable unless they are only to take effect while the parties are separated while married.
My Lords, I could give many examples of the sort of agreement that is perfectly innocuous and therefore ought not to be made invalid or unenforceable, but may I give one where it would be positively mischievous to make it unenforceable or invalid, and that is an agreement made in contemplation of divorce. All those of your Lordships who have been concerned with questions of the custody of infants will know that by far the best thing for the child is for the parents to agree as to custody. A solution imposed by a court may be necessary, but nobody who has adjudicated in these matters will have any doubt that it is the second best solution. Far better it is for the child if the parents can agree. But under subsection (2), as amended, an agreement made in contemplation of divorce will either be invalid under Amendment No. 2 or unenforceable under Amendment No. 1. That will be so because it is in contemplation and to be enforced—if it is enforceable at all—not while the parties are separated while married, but when they cease to be married through divorce. So I would ask the noble Viscount, before the matter goes to another place, whether he will consider, specifically, that point and, generally, whether this subsection could not far better be dropped altogether.
There is one final minor point to which I should like to refer. Under the 1873 Act, agreements as to custody to take effect on separation were validated if contained in a deed of separation. That, at least, had the advantage that neither parent would give up the right to custody unless under legal advice. That point was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in Committee. As the clause stands at the moment, the merest oral agreement is equally effective; and I ask the noble Viscount to consider that point, too, before the Bill goes through

985
another place. But having said all that, it is only right to acknowledge, again, that the noble Viscount has done everything he said he would do and, speaking for myself at least, I am very grateful for that.
7.2 p.m.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, during the Report stage, I complained a little because I said that I had not been consulted after the Committee stage and that I had not received a copy of a letter which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, sent to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. It appears that last week, while I was ill and unable to be in London, I was rather over-consulted, because not only did I have the letters and telephone calls from the noble Viscount's office but I also received a copy of the letter of April 4 sent by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, to the noble Viscount. Seriously, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for the great care and trouble which he has taken to try to meet the wishes of the House and of the Committee.
First of all, he produced last week two alternatives to subsection (2) of Clause 1. I wrote to him and said that, while I preferred one to the other, I did not really like either of them, which I think is exactly what was said in the letter which the noble Viscount did not receive from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, because he then produced a quite different Amendment, Amendment No. 1, which we are now discussing. That meets the points which were made by nearly everybody who spoke on the Committee and Report stages about pre-nuptial agreements. This matter was raised during the Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Gardiner, who thought, as I thought, that the Bill as it stood gave validity to ante-nuptial agreements which they had not had earlier. This Amendment meets the points which were raised on that occasion and, because of that, I am very much in favour of it. I know that it does not go as far as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, would like to go, because he would like to see subsection (2) deleted altogether, since, he thinks that in some ways it is un-
986
necessary. I am not so sure about that, but I must say, listening to him to-day—
LORD SIMON OF GLAISDALE: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt. It is partly that I consider it unnecessary; partly that I consider it positively mischievous. I have two objections.
BARONESS BACON: Yes, my Lords, I understand that. But, listening to him to-day, I can see that he has a point about divorce which I did not realise when I first looked at this Amendment, though it may be that the noble Viscount can give us assurances about that. But I agree that this Amendment is very much preferable to subsection (2) of Clause 1 as it stands in the Bill, and goes a long way to meet the points which were raised by so many Members during the Committee and Report stages. I should like to thank the noble Viscount for that.
7.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am grateful that, even if my communications are still somewhat awry, I have gone some way to meet the points raised. I ought to say a word on the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, not because I wish to give a definitive answer now, but simply to try to put what I believe to be the alternative point of view, of whatever merit may subsequently be judged. I think I agree with the noble Baroness that there is a place for some sort of restatement of this matter in the Bill. It may very well be that the noble and learned Lord is right and that the courts would come to whatever decision it is without any guidance from us in Parliament, but in order to avoid litigation on this subject and to avoid a positive gap being created in the law by the repeal of the 1873 Act, there is something to be said for a restatement of the policy against which that Act was enacted before the law is finally clarified again by the courts. Everybody may then know where they are and some unfortunate test case will not have to be taken at somebody's expense rather a long way up the judicial tree.
But it is only right, notwithstanding the perfectly plain provisions in Section 1 of the 1971 Act for England and Wales

987
and Section 1 of the 1925 Act for Scotland, to the effect that the welfare of the child overrides everything, to remind the courts in this context that this is still so, in exactly the same way as was done in 1873. It may not be strictly necessary. Really good lawyers like the noble and learned Lord would never need to be reminded of that, but a case may get in front of somebody who is not quite so learned and who may need to be reminded that there is still this overriding duty. That is the reason I give for this restatement and I hope it is not unacceptable, because we must want to have this reminder that, in every possible circumstance, the courts should put the children's welfare first.
As for the other agreements being unenforceable, the situation under this Amendment, as I understand it, would indeed be that they were unenforceable as agreements, but that does not mean to say that the courts would never look at them. I am bound to say that I shall never get a compromise between some Members of this House who wish all ante-nuptial agreements to be totally void and invalid, and the noble and learned Lord who, I think, still considers that a court may from time to time wish to look at them to see to what extent, if at all, it wishes to carry out the intentions of those who made the so-called agreement. I shall never resolve this matter if there are these two points of view, and no draftsman will ever do so. In the Bill we are saying that they are not enforceable as agreement, but that does not prevent the courts from looking at them to see whether there is any merit in what the parties have arranged.
LORD SIMON OF GLAISDALE: My Lords, would the noble Viscount say why he draws such a distinction between such agreements when they relate to separation during marriage and when they relate to divorce? Why should the court be allowed to do no more than look at them in one case and not in the other?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think because when it comes to the divorce hearings (I stand subject to correction) the court has complete jurisdiction to decide whether or not it approves any arrangements that are being made, which meets the very valid point made
988
by the noble and learned Lord that it is better to try to resolve the matter beforehand, but subject to the approval of the court. If the court does not agree then in the course of exercising its divorce jurisdiction it can make such arrangements as it thinks fit. I must take this point away; it is a new matter, as it was to the noble Baroness. I hope I am right. but if not I shall tell the noble and learned Lord instantly and try to inform him of the correct situation.
As to deeds and the necessity for writing, this has not been overlooked, but I am advised that it is no longer necessary specifically to provide for this because although in the vast majority of cases these documents could be in writing and would still be subject to being overridden on the grounds of the welfare of the children, there may occasionally be an oral arrangement which would be subject to being overridden for the benfit of the children. If it is oral and has not been worked out very well or drafted and considered by legal advisers it is more likely to be overridden. Since the court has, under the provision which the noble and learned Lord mentioned, this overriding ability we did not think there was any longer any necessity, as there was in 1873. to specify a deed as being the only method of doing it validly. That is why we left it in that form and I hope that, with further consideration, we may now allow this Amendment to go into the Bill with the agreement of both those who have spoken.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Equality of parental rights]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 10, line 5, leave out from ("agreement") to ("be") in line 11, and insert ("for a man or woman to give up in whole or in part, in relation to any child of his or hers, the rights and authority referred to in subsection (1) above shall be unenforceable, except that an agreement made between husband and wife which is to operate only during their separation while married may, in relation to a child of theirs, provide for either of them to do so; but no such agreement between husband and wife shall").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Polwarth, I have had this matter considered by the experts in Scots law. I am advised that there would be no objection

989
to doing the same for this purpose in Scotland as that which we have been discussing for South of the Border. It is identical in purpose and effect.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
An Amendment (Privilege) made.
7.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do new pass. I owe the noble Lord, Lord Hoy (although he is temporarily away from this place) a word about the Scottish situation. I am glad that this Bill has reached this stage and I am immensely grateful to those who have taken the trouble to give it the scrupulous care which it has received. Clauses 1 and 10 stand apart in giving the two spouses equal rights and obligations over the guardianship of their children and I think everybody is agreed that this is overdue; it is the correct thing to do and it has been welcomed. However, in Scotland there has been voiced a certain suspicion, in the Memorandum produced by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, from the Scottish Law Society, that all was not entirely well North of the Border. If there is an objection to the principle of Clause 10, which gives equal rights—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, and I agree that the objection is wrong —I think I should say one word on consultation. I do not think that the Scottish Law Society was consulted specifically on Clause 10. As Lord Hoy has now returned, may I say I was dealing with his point about the Scottish consultation. I do not think that the Scottish Law Society was specifically consulted on Clause 10 although earlier I was saying that the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, and I were entirely in agreement on the merits of Clause 10.
It was asked about Clauses 11 and 12, and it is not true that legal opinion in Scotland has had Clause 10 sprung on it altogether. There were approaches to the Scottish Law Commission to inform the members that we were proposing to legislate in this way and they took a neutral position because they were engaged, and still are engaged, on a much wider study on the guardianship of children in Scotland. They did not seek to put a view one way or the other, but it was disclosed to the Scottish Law Commission what we proposed to do. In my
990
view, among the various shifts in legal position that we have made in this Bill between husband and wife in relation to their children's upbringing and property, we have at least taken this step forward, that it will no longer be the wife alone who has to go to court to challenge what the father chooses to say about the upbringing and property of the child. She will have equal say in the first place and it may be that the father will have to challenge her instead. What the result will be I do not know. The Government do not wish to encourage litigation on this matter; they believe that it would be unusual.
However, when looking at the point about the husband inevitably having to pay for the whole costs, which was another question raised by the Law Society in Scotland, where the wife qualifies financially, the legal aid scheme in Scotland would enable her to be aided in a case of this sort, quite apart from the earnings and financial situation of her husband, so the whole burden will not necessarily be put on to the husband's finances whatever the background situation. It is not quite what I told the House before; it is a little more encouraging.
I think there are overwhelming reasons why we should provide a remedy in the courts in Scotland for the cases that fall to be litigated. I have always been told—although I have never practised in Scotland—first that the Scots only go to law at the very last resort, and secondly that before it comes to that stage they are extremely well advised. I am told by my noble friend Lord Polwarth and his advisers that so far as the Government can see no contingencies are likely to arise out of Clause 10 which it will not ordinarily be possible to resolve by the good sense and advice of the legal profession in Scotland, and that we shall not have spates of litigation with immensely complicated documents requiring signatures; that there is a very simple solution to almost any theoretical question that can arise. Therefore in the end I hope it will be considered to be a beneficial change in Scotland that is not accompanied by any devastating difficulties of a technocal or legal nature. With those words, I commend the Bill to the House for the last time, and once again I extend my thanks to those who have helped it on its way.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, it would be less than courteous of me if I were not to rise to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for all the trouble he has taken with this Bill, certainly with this part affecting Scotland. I apologise for being out of the Chamber for two minutes, but it is four hours since I entered it and I felt I might go out for a short while, but business moved rather rapidly.
I drew this matter to the attention of the Scottish Law Society; they knew that the Second Reading was taking place and that we were discussing it here. Since then I have heard nothing from them. I can only take it that what we have been doing in your Lordships' House must at least have met with their approval because otherwise I am sure I should have heard from that Society. It was quite right to say that I do not dissent from the principle of the Bill, whatever else might flow from it. It is not true to say that the Scots are lax in going to court; they are a little canny with their cash; they will not waste it in the law courts if the matter can be settled out of court. Indeed, if we can follow that practice in this particular Bill then we shall be grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has done to help us in this respect.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ACCOMMODATION FOR THE HOMELESS YOUNG
7.21 p.m.
LORD SOPER LORD SOPER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with what is being done to provide somewhere to live for the homeless young.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on March 21 the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, attracted the attention of your Lordships' House to the problem of homeless families, and there followed what is generally described as a wide-ranging debate in which housing and many other problems were dealt with. Indeed, many of the matters that were then under discussion have suffered or enjoyed something of a sea change since in the light of
992
certain revelations about the number of houses unoccupied in London; in the light of the business of housing associations, and the hand-out by the Government of £15 million: in the light of the White Paper; in the light, most recently, as I noticed in the stop press of this afternoon's Evening News, of the appointment, as far as I could see, of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to oversee the matter of support for voluntary housing associations; and, not least, in the light of the references made in your Lordships' debate earlier to-day as to the way in which this problem of housing and homelessness is one which is almost global. Certainly it is wide-embracing and most comprehensive. It is not to the general matter that I would attract your Lordships' attention to-night, but specifically to one aspect of this problem which I think should be given a special place in a consideration of the welfare, so far as a home is concerned, of young people. It is not that I think youngsters are necessarily more valuable than those who are older, but that in many respects I am quite satisfied that they are more vulnerable and that what happens to adolescents is very often a guide, if not a determinant, of the way in which they are going finally to behave when they become adults.
I believe that behind this Question lies an admission. It is that the Government, and indeed most of us, are not fully aware of the facts of this lamentable condition, which the more I have had to do with the more am I satisfied is a very serious condition. In the light of paragraphs 47 and 48 of the White Paper I am by no means convinced, unless explicit interpretation of the generalities in paragraphs 47 and 48 are given expression, that the Government should be satisfied with what they are doing now; and, once again in the light somewhat of the debate this afternoon, I think that the underlying causes for homelessness among youth being so widespread and endemic need much more carefully and radically to be exposed. If I say that I am quite sure that here is a very serious and increasing problem, a human problem, I shall be expected to give statistics to justify such a claim when there are so many more competitive claims for the attention of your Lordships. I confess that, reading the debate of March 21, it was indeed a lush pasture

993
in terms of moral perturbation and administrative arrangement, but it was much more like a desert statistically. Indeed, it was over and over again stated, alike by those who represented the Government as by those who were asking questions, that there is a widespread lack of any efficient information as to what is the actual condition of homelessness. But I have done some scavenging, and I hope can present at least a few facts which are relevant and which are significant.
I confess that the problem is difficult. It is rather like the problem of how many ghosts there are. If you ask a scientist, he says he has never seen a ghost. Of course it may be that ghosts do not like scientists, and when they see scientists about they get out of their way. Whether or not that is true of ghosts, it is certainly true of a great many of those youngsters who are homeless, for the precise reason that their homelessness is in many respects an opting out of the life of the community, and by the very nature of their condition they are not likely to find their presence in statistical statements about them and about the surrounding circumstances which have promoted their homelessness. But here are a few facts which are, I think, beyond dispute. We are aware that in the Inner London area there are about 11,000 homeless single people, and I should calculate that perhaps 4,000 or 5,000 of those normally would come under the general category of "young people". We know that New Horizon—and I speak with care because I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Longford will give more explicit information in this particular field—have recognised the possibility, if not actually stated the fact, that there are something like 7,000 youngsters who are homeless. Indeed, in one of the editions of the Guardian last October there was evidence that at least 5,000 dispirited, nervous, frustrated and difficult youngsters were likely to be found spending the winter in a condition which is called "living rough".
There are certain more precise pieces of information which particularly come from London. One is from NACRO. It is a pity that my noble friend Lord Donaldson has another engagement which prevents him from being here, because he could give much more expert advice in this particular field, but I am instructed
994
that the Inner London Probation and After-Care Service has on its book at this moment 263 ex-borstal or ex-approved schoolboys who are homeless. Coming nearer home. I have been responsible in the last few months for opening two hostels for such boys, and we could fill them five times over. There is a great need. That need is expressed by the fact that there are about 50,000 men prisoners who are released each year, and 15,000 of those are homeless. These are facts which I believe can build up, and ought to build up, into a statement as to the reality of this problem and indeed as to the severity of it.
What, therefore, is to be done? Generally speaking, it is quite obvious that, with the recent victories of Labour in certain local government affairs, there is a high prospect that there will be an increased accumulation of rented property, and there is the intention, definitely expressed, that compulsory purchase orders will be in effect where such opportunities of finding premises are available. It is certainly true that there is great need for rented accommodation of a modest size and of a modest figure; and I have great sympathy with what was said by my noble friend Lord Fiske and others in the debate on March 21, that the coming together of the housing and the welfare services is a necessary function if both of them are to operate effectively. There is a very good argument, it would seem to me, for taking homelessness out of the housing field altogether; that is to say, putting it entirely within the welfare field. But these are general principles.
What is of much more immediate importance, I would suggest, is a total evaluation of the hostel situation, a situation which is adumbrated very generally in paragraph 48 of the White Paper but which needs a great deal of explicit and careful elucidation in terms of what should be the sort of hostel, where that hostel should be sited, what is to be the general nature of the hostel and how it should be run. In passing, I am sure that the function and opportunity of local authorities is matched by, and in some cases is less obvious and less desirable than that of, the voluntary bodies, not least the Churches, by which this kind of immediate need can be met. To meet it, it is necessary to provide the kind of

995
accommodation which will not immediately suggest to those who are invited to take advantage of it that they are members of a particular group. There is in process of erection at the moment a Catharine Price-Hughes hostel in High-bury. Were I not responsible for it I would mention it; but inasmuch as I am responsible for it, I would only say that it is one of the experiments which I think ought to be made in the family kind of hostel in which there is not only the youngster out of borstal, the youngster out of approved school, the male or female youngster, but others who can create within that general environment an opportunity for rehabilitation.
I am sure that there is a need for a great deal more money to be made available at the stage at which a voluntary organisation considers the possibility of acquiring premises. I am sure it is not enough to say, "You find the money in the first place and we will help you afterwards." There is a profound need for a much larger group of social workers, particularly in the local field. It is a lamentable situation that such social workers to deal with homelessness are in many areas of local government virtually nonexistent. When this particular debate took place the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, adduced six primary reasons for homelessness with which I agree, but had he included a special reference to homeless youngsters, he would have felt obliged to include a seventh. It is a phenomenal fact about homelessness among young people that whereas married couples would not choose it and very old people would not desire it, voluntary vagabondage is an ever-increasing aspect of the youth life of the great cities. This is quite alarming, unmistakable and needs as quickly as possible to be abated. The fact is that there are many youngsters who voluntarily opt out of a society which, as has been already said in this House to-day, is seen to be fundamentally unfair, the kind of society in which they find no resting place and are not satisfied merely with a roof over their heads or a bed to sleep in, but, as my Question suggests, need a place to live—and living is so much more comprehensive than just finding a shelter.
I would give your Lordships one particular illustration of this increasing prob-
996
lem. I have had the opportunity of consulting a number of probation officers, particularly in Stoke-on-Trent. They gave me this piece of advice: unless we can provide a better way of occupying educationally the last year of many youngsters' educational process, it is in that last year that the youngsters will find it increasingly irksome, unproductive and a dead end, and be encouraged to opt out. It is an astonishing fact—perhaps not so astonishing; it is a recognisable fact that as they come to the end product of their educational process they are brought face to face with a kind of world in which they have no point of contact, no permanent sense of belonging. It is one of the operational factors in opting out in this voluntary vagabondage.
But there is an even more serious and, I think, much more enduring and fundamental question. Many youngsters are homeless because there is no sufficient purpose within the framework of the society to which they are exposed which would encourage them to take an active and contributive part in it. If the Government will find out more about the actual facts—and they will know; and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will quickly recognise that I have been giving evidence mainly from London—I am sure that they will immediately feel the need to be much more precise in what they hope to do in paragraph 47 of the White Paper, which indicates that there are questions of morality and of personal and moral and ethical and other conditions which determine or at least condition vagabondage among young people and homelessness in general.
if they find these facts to be as I have at least claimed to suggest them or to put them to your Lordships, they will be in profound need of a greater attempt to create in the society in which we live a sense of belonging, a sense of community; and perhaps the best way of creating that sense of community (apart from great political, economic and social changes) will be in the provision of this kind of hostel life for those who are within these great cities and in these places partly because they have no abiding place in which to live, partly because they are disgruntled, partly because they cannot find a job and partly because they are miscreants and rascals—for it would be stupid to avoid and to

997
ignore that fact. If there is any real, permanent attempt to deal with them, let it begin with a wholesale and much more comprehensive attempt to provide hostels. I offer as a final word the help of the voluntary organisations of which I have some knowledge, and I believe that one of the most healthy things for the Christian Church to-day would be for it to involve itself, among all the other things which very properly it undertakes in the name of its faith, in the reclamation of homeless youth.
7.38 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to add my support to the Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, which we are now discussing. I do not want to follow him in an attempt to give figures for the total number of people homeless in London. For the reasons that he gave, they are extremely difficult to obtain; but such inquiries as I have been able to make confirm the figures that the noble Lord has given us and therefore I do not propose to go into them any more. The people I am interested in from the point of view of this debate are those who may be married but who have come up to London from the country to find a job. It may be that they have succeeded in doing so but that they want somewhere to live while they are working and before the family can come and join them. The increase in homelessness as a result of that situation is one of the sad things that has occurred during the time I have been interested in this particular work. I knew very well the Rowton House which was at Mount Pleasant by the Post Office. People could get a room there for four shillings a night. There were quite a number of young working people there when I knew it. That has now become a hotel which charges, I think, £4·65 a week. I do not lay any blame on the authorities for that. Perhaps they could not run it economically at the price they were charging when it was a hostel. But one becomes a bit suspicious when one finds the same thing occurring at the Elephant and Castle where there used to be a similar Rowton House. That has been replaced by an hotel. Then we remember the big one at Hammersmith, called Butterwick House, which had 750 beds and which
998
is demolished or is in the process of being demolished; and the only substitute which could be found was provided by a voluntary body which could not manage to supply more than 100 beds.
In the same way, the number of common lodging houses is decreasing, following in the wake of the developer. That situation will be made even more serious when the development in Southwark, round about Hay's Wharf, takes place. At present there is quite a lot of cheap rented accommodation in that area, and that will go. The only common lodging houses of which I have real knowledge are in the Borough of Camden. One is Bruce House, with accommodation for 700 men, which is run by the City of Westminster, and there is a corresponding one called Parker House for 345 men, run by the Borough of Camden. Quite a number of people live there permanently. Living in them is very rough and uncomfortable, but they are among the few places that still exist, and that is why I want to end what I have to say by asking a question. It may be considered rather a foolish one. Before the war there were about 300 reception centres in this country which I think were run originally under the Poor Law. I am not going to say that there was anything good about them. They were uncomfortable and rough and ready, but they gave people a roof over their heads if they needed one. They provided beds and a meal and I think also a bath, but I am not quite sure about that. They were, I think, rightly changed, or pulled down. Until recently people said, "Never mind, we have a big reception centre at Camberwell with about 800 beds"—I think that is the number of beds, and it does a good job. But what is the value of a reception centre at Camberwell if someone is in Chertsey, on a cold wet November night? He would not be able to get to the reception centre. Places like that must be provided on a much bigger scale, and this is the question I am going to put: if something was provided before and was a comparatively all-embracing organisation, if not a very satisfactory one, is it right to destroy it and not replace it with something?
I should like to encourage the Government to follow up what the noble Lord,

999
Lord Soper, said. Cannot we get some kind of increase in the hostel accommodation for these people, provided either by the central Government or with a good deal of encouragement from the local authorities, so that we do not have people having to live rough? Some people want to live rough, but some do not and are forced to do so. It seems to me a terrible thing that a certain number of young men and women should be forced to live in this way because there is nowhere for them to go where they could afford to pay. I am not talking about the alcoholics or the drug takers. And so I should like to associate myself with the Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Soper.
7.45 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, has raised this question because the longer I stay in London the more aware I become of its urgency. In order that we may get away from statistics and from the bones of the problem, let us try to put some flesh on it. If you will allow me, my Lords, I will quote one case—I could quote dozens. What do we mean by the homeless young? This is the case of Henry and Mary who came to London from Edinburgh. Obviously I have changed their names Henry is 20 and Mary is 18. Henry had been looking for a job for half a year but had been unsuccessful and thought he would have better luck in London. Mary decided to go with him, much to the indignation of her parents. When the couple left Edinburgh they did not know where they were going to live. They thought that they would find a room in London but they did not. A social worker who happened to meet them found them temporary accommodation; but it could only be temporary, and within three or four days they were on the road again. Henry had no luck finding a job and one day he disappeared, leaving Mary to fend for herself. Mary was desperate, and the only way she could survive was by going on the streets. She was frightened and she had no money. In despair she turned to a priest. He persuaded her parents in Scotland to welcome her back to Edinburgh. She is back there, but what happened to Henry
1000
I just do not know. My Lords, this case history helps us to understand what is meant by the term "homeless young."
I have given your Lordships just one case history. Those who are in a position to advise me say that probably there are no fewer than 7,000. Who are these homeless young? There are the young who come from deprived areas, areas of unemployment. and who seek work in London. There are young boys and girls who have broken with their families and drifted away. I know there must be those present who are parents and grandparents and who know about this problem involving teenagers. No matter what their education or upbringing may have been, or whether they come from what we like to call respectable homes, they belong to a generation that has rebelled against home. They want to go and discover things for themselves, so they leave home and they come to London Then you have the unsupported mothers, girls who, as it is said, have "got themselves into trouble" and feel that they must get away from home and the people who know them. There are the young drug addicts and drop-outs, and there are what one might call the adventurers who are drawn to London. They are like moths around a candle, and almost invariably they get burnt. Those are the case histories and the people who help to make up the case histories.
What are the Government doing? I think that the Government do quite a lot for some categories of the homeless young, chiefly for those who have been in some sort of trouble or who are in need; those who have been before the courts; those who have been certified as being in special need of care or support. It seems to me—this is probably what lies behind what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Soper—that little is being done for the thousands of young people who have never been before the courts and about whom there is nothing particularly odd. They lead quite normal lives but they simply cannot find a place in which to live. These are the people who constitute not only a problem but also a potential risk.
What is the root of the trouble, my Lords? As I see it, and as the noble Lord, Lord Soper, has already indicated, the decrease in hostels or rented

1001
accommodation in the last two years has been quite dramatic. To quote from the journal Residential Care, it says
"It used to be fairly easy to find a vacancy in a hostel run by a voluntary body. Now because of their own rising costs they have increased their prices and only boys in care and on probation have sufficient financial backing from their local authorities to afford them. Instances of price increases from £5 to £20 a week are not uncommon."
Here are some ether figures which speak for themselves. In 1948, 61 per cent. of persons lived in accommodation rented from private landlords: to-day only 18 per cent. do. There are three reasons for this. First, the former small private landlord, letting a room or two in his house, is disappearing. Secondly, the present market price for housing affects not only the individual family but the voluntary bodies who might provide hostel or flat accommodaton for single or young people. Thirdly, there is the mortgage situation. There is of course the additional reason that many local authorities now forbid tenants in council houses to let rooms.
I do not want any of your Lordships to think from what I have said that I am not appreciative of what is being done by many voluntary bodies. It would be ungracious not to mention this point. There is the Young Women's Christian Association. In 1972, the Y.W.C.A. in London interviewed 2,220 young applicants for accommodation. This is merely one body of dozens. Hundreds of the applicants were under the age of 25, and hundreds were only 15. Supposing they had been our own daughters, aged 15, with nowhere to live. Centrepoint (not the Centre Point that is known to some people, but another one) began as an experiment in Soho, in 1969, in a disused basement, by an Anglican priest. It provides emergency accommodation, completely free, every night of the year. I wonder if your Lordships could guess how many have been there since it opened in 1969 until the end of last year. I was asked that question, and I thought 500 or 600. No, my Lords: 15,000. Every night there are 15 or 20 young people there at Centrepoint. Surely that gives an illustration of the need which exists. The largest single group at Centrepoint are the 18-year olds, and 80 per cent. of them are single. I am proud to say from these Benches
1002
that Centrepoint has been financially aided by the Church of England. But so have the other Churches made their contributions, and I could give a long list. Surely it should not be dependent upon private charities to cope with this very large problem.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is deeply sympathetic, and I am sure he will do everything in his power to cope with this problem; I am well aware that he needs no persuasion, that he understands and sympathises. Nevertheless, in conclusion, I would ask him these questions. What is to happen to the numbers of these young people who are leading normal lives, working, sonic married and some single, who simply cannot find a place in which to live and who therefore constitute a potential "at risk" group. Perhaps it can be said that the concept of a property-owning democracy has been a considerable benefit, and I know the importance which this Government attach to it. But I am sure the noble Lord will realise that there are many young married couples who simply do not earn enough to get the capital to obtain a mortgage, or to rent whatever accommodation may be going. Secondly, what is to happen to the development of land. The South Bank has been mentioned, and of course it comes within my diocese. I am deeply aware of the needs of the people between Blackfriars and Bermondsey. What is to happen there? What lead will the Government give to see that the priority there is the housing of people who need, which includes accommodation for these young people who come to this city?
I would also ask the noble Lord what is to happen to the unoccupied buildings. I know that things have been said about certain of these large buildings which remain unoccupied. Sometimes it may be thought that some of us who live in London are rather harsh and severe upon people like Mr. Hyams. But if your Lordships were to come with me as I go occasionally on midnight visits along the riverside in my diocese, as I did the other night, you would see the police hurrying on people who are seeking refuge in some warm or in some tumbledown building, or in some old bombed out place. Please do not think this is a criticism of the police force, for which I have the greatest regard, but I went

1003
the other night in a collar and tie, and I said that this was my diocese, I was the Bishop and I wanted to see what actually happened to some of these young people who were sleeping rough out on the riverside and in disused and battered buildings. The police got in their car and hurried away and refused to allow me to be with them; they were afraid. I think, of what I might have seen. But I saw too much. I saw them hurrying these youngsters on between midnight and three o'clock in the morning. I have seen all this. I am prepared to take any of your Lordships with me on an anonymous tour of South London at night to see for yourselves what happens. I put this question to your Lordships: if these were your own youngsters, would your Lordships sleep comfortably in your beds at night?
7.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate on any subject, and particularly on this one where he feels so strongly and is so well informed to speak. I must begin by apologising to the Minister, in particular, and to the House for having to rush away after my speech—although the debate has started a good deal later than was supposed. I only venture to say a few words because I am connected with this problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Soper, was kind enough to indicate, and I wish to say something in support of the noble Lord and other speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, has put the main points so clearly and effectively that there is little more in general terms that needs to be added, though there is a great deal more to be done. I should like to say a few words front the angle of the New Horizon Youth Centre, which I and others started about four years ago. I do not want to compare our efforts with those of Centre Point, to whom all credit. We do not provide accommodation in that way; we try to help young people with their problems.
One of the problems is a shortage of accommodation. We do all we can to help them obtain accommodation; we also have a small hostel of our own. In the past year we have helped about 2,000 young people. We now employ about 13 social workers all, roughly speaking, the same age as the young people we are
1004
trying to help. That is a rather unusual feature of our efforts. Take the 2,000 we tried to help last year; without saying they are all homeless, they are remarkably short of tolerable housing. We take spot checks of one kind or another quite often. In the last case we asked about 25 young people about their accommodation. Only three out of the 25 had accommodation which they expected to last over six weeks—one in a flat and two in a hostel. There were 15 who had some accommodation and seven who had none. The 15 who had some accommodation were accommodated as follows: five in a hostel, which was not expected to be able to accommodate them for long; two in a "crash pad" (someone putting them up for the moment); and eight in a communal "squat" in empty premises. There were seven who had no accommodation at all. Out of the 25 only three were accommodated in any ordinary sense. Without saying that all our young people are homeless, they are near that point in most cases.
If you look into the problems of these young people, as the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said, and as other speakers are well aware, the problem goes much wider and deeper than homelessness. Only 15 per cent. of our young people were born in the Greater London area; nearly 40 per cent. come from Scotland, mainly the Glasgow conurbation. Obviously their whole position in life, their way of life, their homelessness, is primarily due to the circumstances prevailing in those areas from which they have come to London. It may be that some people will say, "Why do they come to London?" If the conditions were ideal a lot would stay in their home towns. But things being as they are it does not seem to me that one should criticise them for coming to London. In a large number of cases they will be the most enterprising ones, the ones who do not want to stay and vegetate or rot and want to try and make something of their lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Soper, touched on the special problems of those who have been in penal or mental institutions, or troubles of that sort. With great respect to the right reverend Prelate he was perhaps a little too kind to the Government in that connection. He implied that where people had been in mental homes, prisons or borstals, the Govern-

1005
ment did something positive. I have not found that to be altogether true. A lot of those people are the people who need help most because their temperament does not fit them very well for the struggle of life, and they are not getting the help from the Government, local authorities or anybody else in a large number of cases. Here we have the problem and we are all well aware of the way it must present itself to anybody who has a heart, as other speakers have shown, or anybody who tries to work it out in economic terms.
There is no doubt that the problem is getting worse for reasons which have been clearly explained. The young person may feel very often it is not just a question of the absence of physical accommodation, but there is no accommodation at the price he can pay. That is certainly a striking feature of the scene. Behind that there is a positive shortage of accommodation. The question that concerns us to-night and agitates the Minister, who is full of concern in these matters, is what can reasonably be done about it? How much can be done by the Government? How much can be done by the voluntary associations? How much can be done by the local authorities? I do not want to try to redistribute the functions or the burden beyond what has been said already by the noble Lord, Lord Soper. We in the voluntary bodies recognise that we ought to be doing more; we should like more help. Whether we get more help or not we certainly ought to be doing more. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is taking over some function—at the moment mysterious—in this field. There is nobody who will exercise more influence in whatever quarter is most appropriate than the noble Lord. We know his benevolence; let us hope his efforts bear fruit.
Whatever we may say about individuals, there is a heartbreaking problem and the question is: What can be done? Are hostels to be provided by Government, local authorities or voluntary bodies, or voluntary bodies assisted by local authorities or the Government? What sort of hostels should they be? Here one must be careful because a lot of hostels are provided by excellent people, some high-minded bodies, and young people will not look at them twice. This is not entirely the fault of those
1006
who provide the accommodation. Some young people are undoubtedly difficult to please. We must explain the reasons for this. They have been through shattering experiences and are under great strain in many cases. In many cases they have temperaments where special help is necessary. So it is not sufficient for people to say, "There are hostels; they do not seem to be using them". We have to find hostels that will be used and that are acceptable to the young.
I do not want to dogmatise too much. We are running a hostel and we have already changed our plans more than once even in the short time we have been running it. One has to keep experimenting: one will never reach a perfect answer. We want to produce hostels which the young feel enhance their dignity instead of, as they sometimes feel to-day, diminish it. We have to give young people the opportunity to expand their personalities—they often have very shaky personalities—rather than impose on them conditions where they feel restricted. We have to provide the opportunity for communal life in a way that enhances the individual dignity of the young. Those are general words which anybody close to the problem knows. In a sense that defines the criteria that have to be satisfied. Some hostels will be short-term stay, some medium-stay and some long-stay. One must look beyond that one must not assume most of these young people want to stay or ought to be expected to stay in one hostel indefinitely. Where do they go after that? The whole question of bed-sitters, possibly with some kind of help from local authorities or voluntary bodies, must be looked into.
These are issues which I am mentioning because they are so much alive in the minds of those working among these young people. The central point is the one made by all the preceding speakers: here are conditions under which young people are living, conditions which are unworthy of this country and which represent a desperate situation. It would be deplorable if we said that it was up to the Government to deal with it. That is not how I see the situation. It is up to all of us to do something—the voluntary bodies, the individuals who support the voluntary bodies; it is up to the local authorities. The final responsibility for homelessness in this country

1007
rests fairly and squarely on those who have at the time the honour and the obligation to be Hex Majesty's Government. So while we all have our responsibilities, their responsibility is the clearest of all, and I feel sure that the noble Lord will wish to give effect to it.
8.9 p.m.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Soper, for asking this vital Question. It is a matter that should at least concern every Christian. There is no doubt in my mind that some young people coming from the Provinces still think that London's pavements are lined with gold. Young people coming from Scotland are just as naÏve about such cities as Bradford. These people, seeking their fortune or fleeing from parental argument, are at so much risk; and loneliness can be one of the most overwhelming problems.
As I was driving up the A.1 on a very wet evening I saw a young man standing forlornly waiting for a lift. I picked him up, soaked to the skin. His only possessions were the clothes he stood up in. He told me that he had come down from Scotland with a mate, looking for work. He had lived rough and become separated from his companion. Even though he had found employment he had not found anywhere to live. "I am heading back North, otherwise I shall be in trouble", he told me. So many young people do not heed the amber light but forge ahead through the red lights. We know too well what can follow.
There is a desperate need for more reasonable hostel accommodation. Young people in care or on probation are at an advantage in getting hostel accommodation, and it seems a great pity that all young people in need of accommodation cannot have the chance of getting themselves successfully established. This was much better said by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Southwark, but I thought it was worth stressing again. Do the Government not think that more hostels, subsidised by central or local government, would be a worth while long-term proposition? The greatest inadequacy seems to be in the age group of 16 to 22.
1008
Over the years I have known many completely homeless borstal boys who have had to try to face up to society after living a protected institutional life. Unless these inadequate victims of society have the support they need they will be dragged into the twilight existence of the underworld. One night, after attending a cinema in the heart of Leeds, out of the shadows of the station there came a young man I had known in borstal as a homeless lad. He seemed pleased to see me, but he pushed back into the darkness behind him his companion—but not before I had seen him. He was much older, and a sinister looking man. It was not long before this young person was back in borstal, having been involved with drugs.
I congratulate NACRO on making many people aware of the existing needs in this field. Such a group as Patchwork has materialised. This is a community of young people who find empty houses which are awaiting demolition and use them for homeless young people of all types and of both sexes, and even for children. Project Spark is another group giving homeless boys a place to live and work in Leeds, renovating a house and then moving on.
Finally, there is one small and specialised group I should like to mention to-night. These are homeless young people who have been drifting about, living a sort of "hippy" existence in pads, cut off from all home contacts. They have had serious injuries and by breaking their necks have become tetraplegics. They are paralysed from the neck down. There are other similarly afflicted people who are homeless for different reasons. There is only one hostel in Britain catering for tetraplegics, and this cannot cope with the young people who are involved in drugs. They are having to remain in hospital, blocking the beds for other urgent cases of the acutely ill. Hospital is not a place for young people to live in who could live elsewhere if there was a place for them, and economically it does not make sense.
The most difficult problems always seem to be left to the last. In a recent letter I received from the Department of Health and Social Security, in answer to correspondence I had over the death of a young handicapped girl, I was told

1009
"Nationally there is a very acute shortage of residential accommodation for the young multiple handicapped. There is no easy or quick answer to this lack of residential accommodation, but we are very conscious of the problem and more accommodation is gradually becoming available."
When I receive notes, as I do sometimes, from young homeless people in unsuitable institutions, saying
"If you don't get me out of here I'll die"
I cannot help realising that more places must be made available, not only catering for the physical needs but also to satisfy the intellect of young people who still have a life to lead. The numbers of these homeless young tetraplegics are small, but the need for a home with specialised care is great. For them, time does not stand still.
8.16 p.m.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, forty homeless boys come out of Hindley borstal institution every year. An attempt has been made in the North-West to cope with that type of person. The North-West Trust was set up and it has a hostel in Ashton under Lyne, one in Denton and another in Preston. Selcare was set up for a rather different reason but Selcare has hostels in Chadderton, Gadsworth, and Bolton. I find that this work takes a very serious toll of people who are associated with it. The hostel at Heathfields is manned by Franciscan monks. The average number of boys going back into borstal after a fortnight at large was five out of seven, but in the last two years the figures have been reversed—five out of seven have stayed out. One cannot measure that in terms of money. A cheque from the Home Office for an odd thousand pounds is a fleabite to what people have accomplished in just the salvation of an odd few persons. I do not think there is any doubt but that there is enough good will and enough caring in places like the North-West to furnish and establish small hostels of this description, provided that at the crucial time in each case—and I am associated with both endeavours—the Home Office will say, "Yes", and, when asked to reply by return, that they will give assistance.
The Home Office has been very understanding. It is in a difficult situation because so many of the "do-gooders" in some way or another think that their
1010
organisation should not be tainted by the Establishment but that they should work out their own little salvations in their own way. But in my opinion, somehow or other these organisations have got to acquire a sense of stability by being associated with the Establishment. That is why Selcare is now such a powerful force, with Judge Greer, as the chairman, and two of the top ranking probation officers as its principal officers. I know that in many cases we could get many more volunteers if we could be just a little more certain about the initial start. All I ask is, that when we appeal from the North-West, the Home Office will say, "Yes" straight away.
8.20 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, we have had a fairly full afternoon and I suppose there would be some excuse if we began to think we had had enough of it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, in the very powerful speech he made, brought home to us one fact that we shall take away with us: that whereas we are going to a comfortable home and a warm bed, those of whom we speak will be in distress. Therefore, those who have taken part in this debate are under no obligation to feel that the time of the House has been unduly prolonged.
The problem of homelessness presses on our consciences and we are indeed most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soper, for giving us this opportunity for further examination. As recently as March 21 we spent a little over two hours discussing the rehousing of homeless families, and there was general agreement that the problem, as the Minister then said, is not getting better but worse. He stated that it is a most intractable problem. That could not have been stated more clearly, neither could the issue have been put in a more challenging way. We must not delude ourselves that because certain moves are made in certain directions and certain good work is taking place in certain quarters, we are beginning to approach the end of this problem, because the Minister said that it is not getting better but it is getting worse. If there is any feeling in any quarter that we can look at this problem with any feeling of complacency, then we are not only justified in debating the issue again but we

1011
shall be justified in raising it again and again until we can begin to see the end of the road.
The Question before the House tonight asks Her Majesty's Government
"whether they are satisfied with what is being done to provide somewhere to live for the homeless young."
And the answer inevitably will be: "No, but we are making starts in this and that direction." My Lords, this question of accommodation for the homeless young is but another aspect of homelessness. It is mainly a London problem, but not—as indeed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, made clear—confined to the capital city. The debate we have had on this Unstarred Question has been an extremely useful one in that everybody who has spoken so far has deliberately involved himself or herself in consideration of the problem and in trying to help to find the answer.
There was a debate in the other place on March 2, initiated by my honourable friend Mr. Michael Meacher, the Member for Oldham, West. Indeed, there have been a series of discussions, so this debate is but an episode in a continuing review. I thought that my honourable friend Mr. Meacher on that occasion asked a number of very pertinent questions. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, said that in the last debate we had on homelessness we did not give all the statistical background. The fact of the matter is that nobody knows the size of the problem. Most of it is guesswork. We are indeed grateful to the noble Lord for using the figure of 11,000, but it would be foolish to imagine that nationwide that was the limit of the problem. In the discussion in the other place last year a much higher figure was used for the country as a whole, nor, I believe, was it seriously challenged. On that occasion Mr. Meacher asked a number of very pertinent questions, some of which were answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, and those I shall not seek to repeat; but it may be that one or two of the others might, with advantage, be put this evening.
My noble friend Lord Soper has dealt with the problem in his own inimitable way. There is no need for me or anybody else to cross the t's and dot the i's in
1012
regard to what he had to say. I would say only that we are most appreciative of his interest, helpfulness and advocacy concerning this matter, as well as the practical supportive help that he gives in directions which we all know.
During the past week, we have received the White Paper entitled Widening the Choice: The Next Steps in Housing. Paragraph 48 tells us what this debate is all about. It states:
"Single persons, as well as families, are victims of homelessness and shortages of suitable accommodation."
That is undoubtedly due in large measure to the fact that office blocks and commercial properties are far more profitable investments than houses and hostels. The paragraph continues:
"The Housing Finance Act has not sufficiently increased the financial support available to those local authorities and voluntary organisations who stand ready to provide hostels and similar accommodation for many classes of single person, particularly young and migrant workers and those with low or intermittent earnings."
I ask the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, whether when he replies to-night he can give us any specific information as to the progress made in response to the Circular issued to local authorities last September, suggesting ways in which support and rehabilitation might be provided for adults with personality disorders who constitute a sizeable proportion of those about whom we are talking? It is not until we have some statistical information in regard to matters like this that we can begin to be able to say we are really at a point where we can anticipate a breakthrough. To what extent can the noble Lord say that local authorities are providing whatever housing is needed, including lodging houses and hostels, as they are empowered to do under the Housing Act of 1967? I do not want to re-cover the ground that was covered in the other place when this matter was debated there, but the noble Lord will be aware of the attention that was drawn to what happened at Hammersmith when, I think it was Butterwick House could no longer be used and where the local authority made provision for something like only 20 per cent. of the accommodation that Butterwick House had provided.
It would be extremely interesting, and not only interesting because it is urgent

1013
and important. that we should know that local authorities are facing up in a realistic way in the sense of planning and getting on with the job commensurate with the size of the problem. I should like to ask whether the discussions between the Secretary of State for Social Services, the Minister for Housing and Construction, the London Boroughs' Association and the G.L.C. reached any conclusions. If it is helpful may I say that I refer to what is set out at column 1954, House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT, for March 2. Again that kind of information would indicate whether we can expect a real approach to a breakthrough.
As to the need to deal with this problem, that is admitted in general terms in the next sentence of paragraph 48. It says:
"More and better accommodation of this kind is badly needed to deal with increasing homelessness among single people."
We are then told that we may expect early legislation to give additional help to organisations which provide accommodation for these of our people. I doubt that the Minister can give us overmuch information. I doubt that it would be fair to expect him to give us too much. But it would be helpful if he could give us some indication as to when we may anticipate that that legislation will be coming before Parliament.
So much of what we say is concerned with finding an answer to an existing and admittedly growing problem, so may I briefly touch on the preventive aspect of the problem. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, a part of the problem arises because London is seen by many people as the Mecca for employment opportunities. This is against a background of regional unemployment, and, what I think is often equally responsible, very restricted employment opportunities. The position would clearly be eased if the regional employment situation could be dynamically improved, not only in the sense of the number of jobs available but the range of opportunities. In the meantime, I think perhaps more publicity could be given, in these areas of unemployment, advising young persons that the streets of London are not paved with gold and that finding somewhere to live is both
1014
difficult and very expensive. Many of these young people, as my noble friend Lord Longford said, are young people possessed of drive and initiative, but they are unaware of the accommodation problems that exist in London, unaware of the fact that they are not only great but growing as the commercial replacement of housing areas extends almost week by week.
I am informed that part of the problem in dealing with young people is that some of them, as has been indicated by one or two other speakers, are at loggerheads with their parents or with their local authority children's department. They come to London, and they tend to drift into sleeping rough and getting into bad company, and all that too easily gets worse. Again, all too quickly and all too easily, they fall into a "dossing" way of life and it is very difficult to get them out of it. Because they are liable, if they are found out, to be sent back to whence they came, they seek to avoid recognition. It has been put to me by some people who are intimately involved in this problem that there ought to be a look at this aspect to see whether some flexibility might be helpful, not too rigid an adherence to existing procedures, because this unwillingness of these young people to be sent back home or sent back whence they came makes it very difficult to establish contacts that could ensure for them supportive help.
May I touch on the matter of student accommodation. The very fact that students compete for the very limited accommodation available in the private sector exacerbates the situation of those who need somewhere to live. It is bad enough that the Department of the Environment has now told local authorities, as I understand, that both single persons and married couples without children under the age of thirty are excluded from eligibility for rent allowances. This leaves them to face rents of a very high order. If I have been incorrectly informed, I shall be very pleased if the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will put the matter right because in col. 461 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of our debate on February 26, when we were dealing with the Rent Allowances Bill. I hope I get him correctly when I read that he said:

1015
"We shall take good note of the Committee's advice and of any views which are expressed in Parliament. But subject to such views, the groups of people we have in mind to prescribe in the regulations are"—
and he included
"single tenants and couples with no dependent children or pensioners living with them".
It is important that we should have a correct understanding of the position, and perhaps we can be told, if the information I have been given is correct, why it is the decision has been made.
Additional to the fact that students coming to London, and indeed going to other cities with universities, increase very considerably the competition with other people seeking accommodation, they tend to help force up the price of the available accommodation. The consequence is that the level of rents for furnished accommodation, which can be seen in the columns of the Press almost any evening of the week, ranges from £20 to £50 per week. That is supposed to be on the basis of anything from four to six persons sharing. Students can get together in that kind of way, but the very fact that they can, and that they are probably the best organised group of people looking for accommodation, does not help the problem of homelessness for other people. But I would say this on that matter, that the standards of accommodation that students are often asked to accept, and in fact do accept, are too low in terms of study facilities, poor lighting, low sanitation facilities, all too frequently.
I spent some little time discussing this problem of the homeless with John Randall, who is the President elect of the National Union of Students. May I say that I have been tremendously impressed by the attitude of the National Union of Students in this matter of homeless families. As they see it, they regard student housing as being a part of the overall housing problem. They are very concerned at the lack of accommodation available. I think something like 50 per cent. of students are in halls of residence or hostels of one kind or another. But that leaves 50 per cent. to fend for themselves. The National Union of Students, in the document I have before me, make it clear that they are not satisfied at the prospects that lie ahead,
1016
that they cannot see enough accommodation being made available for the students who will be going to universities and polytechnics.
May I say that the standard of accommodation provided under the umbrella of the Department of Education and Science is much lower for the polytechnics than for the universities, much lower indeed. As I understand it, the Department of Education and Science are responsible for student housing. I wonder whether the time has not come when we ought to be taking the same view as the students—that this is part of the overall housing problem. I should like to ask the Minister whether the liaison between the Department of Housing and Construction, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Education and Science is anything like as close as it may be, because at what point does accommodation of students become an educational matter as distinct from a housing matter?
It may be that in reply the Minister can give us some of the statistics the noble Lord, Lord Soper requested. But I think I am right in saying that at Government level there has been no survey since that undertaken in 1965. That is why we are so woefully ignorant as to the full size of the problem. I can only say that in regard to the facilities that are available in hostels of one kind and another—that is to say, those provided by the public and the private sector—insufficient publicity is available to acquaint the homeless of points of contact where they can get understanding and sympathetic supportive help.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, referred to the reduction in the number of establishments that have been run by local authorities. In 1948 I think the figure was something like 250 reception centres in Britain. Now I think there are only 17 or 18 and it would seem that statutory bodies have shown more than a tendency to withdraw from this work because the work itself is very untidy, often extremely demanding and the customer, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has said, is often ungrateful and even violent. Those considerations increase the urgency of the need in approaching this problem. And I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sand-

1017
ford, has the sympathy of the whole House in the extent to which he shares responsibility for meeting these problems.
8.41 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soper, for introducing this debate and I must say how much I admire and envy his grasp of the subject and his fluency. The debate certainly does complement that introduced by my noble friend, Lord Hylton, less than a month ago. We are grateful, too, to the noble Lord for his statistics and for the figures that other noble Lords introduced, but I have to say that, with the knowledge available even to central Government, it is not possible to make any very accurate assessment of the size of the problem. The young are mixed up with their elders in most of the surveys and studies that have been taken of the problem of the homeless single people. I do not think there is any doubt at all, though, that we are talking about a problem which is increasing rather than decreasing. One piece of evidence which I believe would prove that is the statistics provided to me by the National Association of Voluntary Hostels. The number of placements that they have made into hostels of people coming to them or being referred to them has gone up by 20 per cent., comparing 1972 with 1971, so in that respect there is a firm set of statistics to confirm what many noble Lords have said.
However, a new survey of hostels and lodging houses was undertaken last December by the Office of Populacion Censuses and Surveys on behalf of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, and this document, when the results are available in some months' time, will give much fuller information on the size of the problem. There are one or two facts which I will refer to when I come to them and which have already been obtained from the survey. But, my Lords, I think it is true to say that more important than the arithmetic and the statistics here is the nature of the problem. It is more important that we should get a clear idea of that than be excited about figures, because it is only by being clear about the multiple nature of the problem that
1018
we shall be able to respond to it. It is quite clear from this debate, if it was not clear already, that we are not dealing with a single problem of the homeless young but with a number of problems which call for a variety of responses, and we need to see that we are capable of making all the responses that are required.
On one level there is the problem of the lack of enough suitable places in which young people who are away from home can live at a price that they can manage. This is particularly the problem in London where the shortage is great and the price levels are high. Traditionally many young people who are away from home have found accommodation as lodgers in private homes or in hostels; but that source is drying up, and one of the facts which has emerged from the survey to which I have referred is that the supply of such accommodation in hostels and lodging houses has reduced by 17 per cent. as compared with the figure in 1965. So we are facing an increased demand by young people and others for this sort of accommodation and a reduction in the amount available.
That is one of the most straightforward problems. It is not simple or easy, but it is straightforward. What is more complicated is the correct analysis of the whole complex of problems in the homelessness of the single young person; and here again I can draw on a table provided for me by the National Association of Voluntary Hostels which, at the risk of taking a little time, I should like to lay before your Lordships because it does help to illustrate how multiple the problem is and roughly what the balance is. Among the people referred by this Association for placement, a total of 8,400 in 1972 of which more than a third were young people, we have the following figures: Alcoholics 334, drug addicts 118, mentally disturbed 1,600, epileptic 133, physically handicapped 577, probationers 473, under supervision orders 58, suspended sentences 14, after-care 166, on remand 776, from detention centres or borstals 91, ex-prisoners 438, unsupported mothers 546, children in care 772. Finally, homeless with no other apparent disorder—the group to which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, particularly referred—2,292, the largest single group and much the largest increase as compared with the previous year.

1019
All those figures added together show an increase of 20 per cent. compared with the year before. Some of this of course is a reflection of the efficiency and the extent to which the service is being used by social work departments, but some is undoubtedly due to a real increase in need. But whereas the overall increase is one of 20 per cent., the increase in the last figure is 50 per cent. That is significant and bears out what the noble Lord, Lord Soper, was saying. There, my Lords, we see, I think, a fairly accurate analysis of the multiple and complex nature which goes to make up the problem of homeless single persons. I am sure your Lordships would agree that it would be wrong, even in this debate, to over-emphasise the scale of these problems or to distort our priority as set out in the recent White Paper. Indeed this White Paper acknowledges the need to do more for the single, including the young. That I will come to in a moment.
There is a danger in a debate on this subject that we should be tempted to go too far because of the particular personal knowledge we have. Certainly a number of local authorities and voluntary bodies make the point, and I would suggest rightly, that the homeless young do not always come high on their list of priorities. One obvious reason is that the young have youth and resilience on their side whereas the physically handicapped and the elderly do not. What is encouraging, despite that, is the extent to which these housing authorities now recognise this particular problem, together with other special problems, as part of their overall responsibilities and the fact that they are taking special steps to meet it.
I should now like to turn to the varying kinds of response. Local authorities bear the main responsibility both for assessing the housing needs of their areas—and meeting them to the extent that they judge right from the public sector—and for providing temporary accommodation for those in urgent need, without a roof over their heads. The two functions are at present exercised separately by housing and social services authorities respectively, and thus outside the London boroughs and the new metropolitan districts at different levels. Joint working parties, set up by the Secre-
1020
tary of State for Social Services with central and local government representatives, have been considering the reports on homelessness in London by Professor Greve, and in the South-West by Mr. Glastonbury. We referred to these in our earlier debate. They propose organisational changes aimed at overcoming the disadvantages of the division of responsibilities.
While I want to give your Lordships an overall impression of the present response, I do not want to take up the time of the House in trying to make it absolutely exhaustive. For instance, if I may I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, about the problem of student accommodation because that is a big subject and there is a lot to be said. Apart from the noble Lord's own remarks, I do not think the subject entered into this debate, and if I went into it it would take up a good deal of time. But dealing with some of the topics which have been covered by those noble Lords who have spoken, there are the standard schemes operated by the Department of Employment to help people seeking to move away from home; the training allowance scheme and the employment transfer scheme. For those young people leaving hospital there are already arrangements through the social work organisation, to make sure that discharged patients have somewhere to live. Difficulties are more likely to arise with older people than with the young, but the Secretary of State for Social Services encourages hospitals and local authoriities to see that their arrangements are adequate for the accommodation and after-care of all patients on discharge.
I turn to another group. The Criminal Justice Act 1972 gave added powers to probation and after-care committees to establish hostels and similar accommodation for the rehabitation of offenders, and this will be particularly important for young offenders who are homeless. A Home Office Working Party, with representatives from the Probation and Aftercare Service and other outside interests concerned, is expected to report shortly on ways in which these powers can be developed. Here I ought to mention a phenomenon which is causing a little anxiety; namely, that in exercising their powers under the Children and Young

1021
Persons Act local authorities are placing young people in accommodation and paying for it. This is tending to supplant those people who would like to be in that accommodation, who have not been in trouble with the law and have committed no offences, but who do not have the same financial backing as the local authority which is sponsoring the other clients. Here is a dilemma to which we must address ourselves. Some other young people are in need of care and support because of personality disorders. Another circular, issued last year, suggested to local authorities that they should consider what need existed in their area, and should develop appropriate schemes of rehabilitation.
Some young people misuse drugs and there are special clinics—25 altogether in England; 14 in London—for treatment, but there is a great need for bodies to provide accommodation for people in this plight. Reception centres provide short-term accommodation and support for people who are homeless, destitute and unsettled, but, although they have previously catered mainly for the older age groups, there is now a reception centre in Soho, which opened last year, to cater for a large number of young people in that area. It is clear, from what I have said, how much the implementing of the policies of central Government and the supplementing of the work of local authorities owes to the voluntary bodies. I have reason to know this from personal experience because before I was in the Government I was Chairman of the Church Army, so I know how much that organisation was able to do in collaboration with voluntary bodies and with the Home Office. There are many others in a similar position. A recent publication by the Methodist Youth Department called Community Concern, deals with community involvement. I could mention many other instances.
I should now like to turn to the new initiatives by central Government, represented by the White Paper to which several noble Lords have referred, and to the lead which we are now seeking to give by means of the fresh policies set out there. Perhaps I may mention the role of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in this matter: Paragraph 40 of the White Paper reads:
"As a first step, a single new Chairman for both the Housing Corporation and the
1022
National Building Agency is being appointed"—
and it then goes on to say what he will do. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has been appointed so I hope that that ends the mystery As I said in the debate on March 21, there are hopeful prospects for achieving a general balance between the supply and demand for housing accommodation in several parts of the country in the foreseeable future, but until that is done there is bound to be somebody who is homeless. In 1969 a Central Housing Advisory Committee Report drew the attention of authorities to the housing needs of single people and, more recently, the joint Government and local authority Working Party on homelessness in London recommended that local authorities should provide adequate housing for single people. So this subject has very recently been put before them.
However, priorities remain a necessity in any housing programme, and there are housing authorities which, rightly, will have to give priority to people such as the elderly. But it will become increasingly possible for more and more authorities to begin to think beyond the needs of families and the old, to smaller special groups such as single young people and students who, I agree, are a problem not only for the Department of Education and Science but also for the local housing authority as well. Another way in which local authorities can help, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said, is by allowing lodgers in council houses which will otherwise be under-occupied. There have been many recommendations that local authorities should allow such lodgers and this is now becoming a much more common practice. I am sure that those authorities who are not doing this should follow suit. But we agree with my noble friend Lady Masham that new hostels are required.
I come now to the major new proposal of the Government, which is designed to help single people who need accommodation in hostels. Here we are faced with a reduction in supply and an increase in demand, so it is urgent that we should get on with solving this problem. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, rightly drew attention to paragraph 48 of the White Paper. We have in mind a single simple,

1023
flexible scheme through which a local authority or voluntary organisation can be given help towards deficits on capital account and exceptionally on current account. The details of the scheme, the methods of calculation and its operating mechanics remain to be worked out, because we think they should be worked out with those whom we want to provide accommodation with the help of this grant, and with the benefit of their views. We intend to do this in consultation with local authorities, voluntary organisations, churches and local authorities and any others who may wish to help. I shall be glad to receive any suggestions for the scheme which noble Lords who have taken part in this debate may wish to put to me on their own account or on behalf of bodies with which they are associated.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us whether the kind of help is likely to be confined to contributions towards the deficits arising from schemes for new building? This raises a very important question for those who have not the capital sums with which to initiate them.
LORD SANDFORD: I have noted the point which the noble Lord made and that is the kind of point that can be discussed. I am also anxious that we should not fail through ignorance to consult organisations which have a constructive contribution to make but which we may have overlooked, so any response to this invitation which your Lordships can make will be welcomed.
I hope that your Lordships will welcome this new initiative by the Government. In the Housing Finance Act we extended financial help to and concentrated it on those in unfurnished accommodation. This help has recently been extended, through the new Furnished Lettings (Rent Allowances) Act, to qualified tenants, normally those over 30, because we think married people with dependants ought to take precedence, in furnished accommodation. Now, for the first time, in addition we shall be able to help single people of all ages in hostel types of dwellings. There is a wide range of such people who lie between those sufficiently well off to afford the full costs of accommodation and those at the other
1024
end of the scale who cannot do so and who need full-time care in hospitals and similar places.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, is that help going to be limited to hostel accommodation? A single person appears to be omitted from the consideration that is going to be given to other groups of persons for housing.
LORD SANDFORD: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I mentioned that we had confined the operation of the Furnished Letting (Rent Allowances) Act broadly speaking to people over the age of 30 as far as furnished letting was concerned.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, do I understand that it is a direction that has gone out from the Department?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, but what I am referring to now is the additional help we shall be able to give to single people in hostel types of dwellings under the operation of the grant which is introduced by paragraph 48 of the White Paper. At this moment we are not thinking of confining that to any particular group but rather of using this grant to provide a wide range, a complete network of hostels meeting all of the multiple needs to which I have referred. But of course there will be priorities in each part of the country.
As I have said, there is a wide range of people, some of whom can afford the accommodation which is not available to them and others who cannot. There are others who need a great deal of social support. With that variety, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is not easy to devise a method of help, both financially flexible and responsive yet avoiding administrative complexity. Now, however we believe that we can tackle this and we intend to start quickly, so that we shall have a scheme ready to put into effect as soon as this is legislatively possible. I cannot say any more about the timing of the legislation. The initial reaction to such a scheme seems to be that if it can be worked to provide the range of hostel accommodation re-required it will prove very valuable, even to the extent that it provides more places for young people whose need is basically for accommodation.

1025
It will help in two ways, first by providing that accommodation and secondly by helping to prevent many young people from becoming problems of a more complex kind. There will remain groups whose need goes beyond a roof over their head; I have mentioned those categories and they call for a range of support in the widest sense to match their needs. In that field particularly on one can be satisfied yet. Undoubtedly there is a need for more effective and constructive relationships between the Departments of central Government and between the
1026
local authorities of different levels, both county and district, between statutory and voluntary bodies and above all across the urban centres such as London and the new metropolitan councils. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and all of the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for the stimulus and guidance which they have given to us to get on with this particular task.
House adjourned at six minutes past nine o'clock.